Protected Workers In Full Body Suits

Protected workers in full body suits, including gas masks and respirators, removing asbestos from an exposed site within a refinery / manufacturing facility in Cushing, OK. Asbestos subcontractors began asbestos abatement activities after inspection by the DOL on January 10, 2003. Approximately 9,950 ft2 of vessel insulation and 10,397 ft2 of pipe insulation has been abated to date. Asbestos is double bagged prior to shipment to the landfill. Thirteen (13) 30 cy3 , roll-off boxes containing asbestos debris has been transported to the landfill to date.

Mesothelioma Survivors: Jane Doe, Age 58

The day started out like any other day. I was planning on going out to lunch with two of my long-time friends and then spending the afternoon with my daughter and my three beautiful grandchildren.

I noticed what a beautiful sunny day it was as I drove to my primary care doctor to discuss a reoccurring cough that I had had for the past few months. Previous doctor’s visits had not resulted in any diagnosis; but when my doctor’s office called the previous day, they said I should go in to the office to discuss the next step.

When I left the office only 45 minutes later, I realized my life was changed forever. I had been given the devastating news that I had mesothelioma, a deadly form of cancer that is currently untreatable.

Looking back on that day, I was in shock. I don’t remember driving home, or how my friends knew enough to come over.

How could this be happening to me?

I have always been a healthy, active woman. Other than losing my husband to lung cancer 4 years ago, I have always had a pretty blessed life. Telling my kids was the hardest part. Knowing that I wouldn’t be around to watch my precious grandchildren grow up, or to see my youngest son get married, was unbearable.

I was about to begin the last chapter of my life... A chapter that no one could ever be prepared to face.

After living in a state of shock, anger, and then followed by severe depression for a few weeks, I began to ‘come out of the fog’. I realized that yes, my life was going to be much shorter than I had anticipated, but I was still alive. I began to seek out support groups for people with terminal illness. This was a tremendous help for me.

It didn’t make having mesothelioma any easier. That part still felt as if I was living a nightmare. What the support group did do was to help me feel like I am not the only person to go through such a horrible experience.

By sharing our stories and our sources of comfort and hope, I felt a sense of being more at peace with things.

One question that I can’t get out of my head is how?

I have always been healthy, active, never smoked…
Where did this horrible disease come from?

It has been concluded that the cause of my disease was 25 years of my husband working as a carpenter and coming home with dust-filled clothes. I always assumed it was drywall dust; in-fact, it was asbestos…

Being the home-maker I was, I routinely did laundry for the family several times a week. Apparently this simple, mundane task that seemed so harmless for all those years, was like breathing in deadly air in the mistaken ‘safety’ of my own home.

The hardest part of this whole illness isn’t all of the pain and suffering that quickly comes along, nor is it the endless doctors appointments, and losing your sense of independence. The worst part of mesothelioma is how quickly the disease progresses and how little time that leaves you with family and loved ones.

I just can’t imagine not being here with them on holidays, and for all of the daily nuances of life. I still struggle with this each and every day, and try to be thankful for every minute I am on this earth with the people I love.

I have some comfort in knowing that when my time comes, I will be able to be with my husband once again, hopefully watching over my family like a guardian angel, to make sure they are never working in an environment that years later could kill them or their own family.

Asbestos Exposure: Who Is At Risk?

Asbestos refers to a group of six naturally occurring fibrous minerals. Three of the six types of asbestos were once widely used in the United States for the strength and durability of their fibers. The federal government began strictly regulating asbestos in the mid-1970s after discovering that the mineral caused serious health problems, including asbestosis and mesothelioma .

Asbestos becomes dangerous when the fibers are released into the air and inhaled or ingested in high concentrations over a prolonged period of time. Individuals face the risk of inhaling or ingesting airborne fibers when asbestos-containing products are worn down, disturbed, or damaged.

Millions of American workers have been exposed to asbestos since the 1940s when its use peaked in the United States. While certain occupations are known to increase the risk for asbestos exposure, there are also a number of non-occupational asbestos exposure risks.

Occupational Asbestos Exposure Risk

Many people are exposed to asbestos at work. The following are some of the occupational environments that may increase an individual's asbestos exposure risk:

• Construction sites
• Asbestos product manufacturing sites
• Oil refineries
• Mines
• Shipyards
• Steel mills
• Power plants
• Automotive manufacturing facilities
• Offshore rust removal sites
• Railroads
• Maritime operation sites
• Demolition sites

Non-Occupational Asbestos Exposure Risk

Not all asbestos exposure occurs in the workplace. The following are a few non-occupational asbestos exposure risks:

• Asbestos-contaminated drinking water
• Asbestos products including talc and various older appliances
• Vermiculite-containing garden products such as certain fertilizers and pesticides
• 
  

Another asbestos exposure risk is called paraoccupational exposure and occurs when an individual is exposed to asbestos through a family member who works around the dangerous fibers. Workers heavily exposed to asbestos may bring the hazardous fibers into the home on their shoes, clothing, skin, and hair. Family members or others who live in the same home face an increased asbestos exposure risk.

If you have a heightened asbestos exposure risk, you may wish to consult with a physician experienced in the evaluation and management of asbestos-related diseases.

You may also wish to speak with a qualified asbestos attorney if you have developed mesothelioma or similar asbestos-related disease.

Asbestos Bill

Throughout the past few years, increasing controversy and debate has surrounded an asbestos bill that would reform the current asbestos litigation system. Currently those who have suffered from mesothelioma or other serious conditions resulting from asbestos exposure can file an asbestos lawsuit to seek compensation for their losses.

Under the new asbestos bill, victims would no longer be eligible to file individual lawsuits. Instead, a $140 billion private trust fund, financed by insurance companies and defendants involved in asbestos litigation, would be created to compensate those who have suffered serious illnesses and conditions from asbestos exposure. The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act could prevent you and your loved ones from exercising your legal rights.

The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2006 (The "FAIR Act")

The asbestos bill, which was introduced on the Senate floor three years ago, has been through a number of amendments to address various issues and concerns surrounding the proposed legislation. While proponents of the asbestos bill claim that the new trust fund would ensure prompt recovery for injured claimants, it could potentially deny many people the full compensation they deserve.

The FAIR Act asbestos bill, if passed, will require claimants to meet stronger medical criteria in order to receive compensation. In addition, the asbestos bill would prevent asbestos manufacturers and other defendants from being punished for their wrongdoing. For example, companies that would be ordered to pay billions of dollars in asbestos lawsuits under today's laws would only be required to pay millions for the asbestos bill trust fund, thus largely skirting liability for their reckless negligence in allowing people to be exposed to asbestos.

The FAIR Act would ultimately prove to be unfair for thousands of people who have suffered from mesothelioma or other serious illnesses due to asbestos exposure.

To learn more information about the recent asbestos bill, please contact us today to speak to a qualified and experienced attorney who will protect your legal rights and maximize your options. If you or a loved one has developed mesothelioma or another serious asbestos-related injury, financial assistance may be available, our attorneys are available to evaluate your case to determine the best way to protect your interests.

Groundbreaking Mesothelioma Lawyers and Defendants

With dedicated attorneys and staff, lawyers have worked hard to ensure that clients receive high quality representation. The following are profiles of some well known mesothelioma lawyers that were instrumental in shaping mesothelioma litigation.

Fred Baron
Fred Baron, represented his first toxic tort client in the early 1970s. Then, he has built one of the largest toxic tort firms in the United States. Widely recognized as a trailblazer in the area of toxic tort law, one reporter noted,"[i]f the field of toxic torts were the frontier of the American West, Baron would have been driving the first wagon onto the plains." G. Taylor, "Outspoken Texan, Baron Establishes Toxic Tort Domain," Legal Times, Vol. VI, No. 25, at p. 10 (Nov. 21, 1983).

As a result of his work to protect the rights of victims of toxic substances, The National Law Journal has listed Fred as one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers in the U.S." (The National Law Journal, June 8, 2000). He has been honored as a lawyer who helped shape Texas law during the 20th century in "Legal Legends: A Century of Texas Law and Lawyering" (Texas Lawyer commemorative publication, June 2000) and has been named one of Dallas' top lawyers by D Magazine (May 2001 and May 2005). The University of Texas School of Law has honored him by establishing the Frederick M. Baron Chair in Law, which is held by a senior professor of the law school engaged in original research on lawyering and the civil justice system.

A life-long advocate of the environment, the consumer, and working people, Fred Baron has served as lead attorney in complex tort cases involving MTBE and TCE water contamination, radiation contamination, community lead contamination, toxic waste, and pesticide exposure.

Fred Baron has also been credited for his efforts in defeating class action settlements whereby defendant corporations attempted to settle mass tort claims for a fraction of what individuals would otherwise be entitled to recover through the legal system. Fred has twice led successful battles to convince the United States Supreme Court to de-certify nationwide class action settlements involving the "future claims" of asbestos-related injuries, or claims that might someday be brought by people who develop asbestos-related illnesses in the future. As a result of the United States Supreme Court's opinions in Amchem Products v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) and Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 119 S.Ct. 2295, 144 L.Ed.2d 715 (1999), future victims of toxic injuries can no longer have their rights compromised by class action settlements in which they have no voice.

Lisa Blue, Ph.D.

Lisa Blue, a trial attorney and psychologist, has represented hundreds of victims of asbestos and other toxic substances since 1985. Her accomplishments in trial courts around the country earned her the honor of being named one of the top 50 women litigators in the U.S. by The National Law Journal (2002), and the honor of Trial Lawyer of the Year (1999) by the Texas Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), and recognition as one of Dallas' best lawyers by D Magazine (May 2001, May 2003, and May 2005.) Dallas Business Journal likewise named her one of hte top ten litigators in Dallas. She has also been named by Law & Politics Media as one of the top 100 lawyers in Texas, top 50 women lawyers, and top 100 lawyers in Dallas.

A licensed psychologist, Lisa is certified by the American Board of Forensic Psychology and the American Board of Professional Psychology. Well-known for her work in the area of jury selection, Ms. Blue has published a book and a number of articles on the issue as well as provided over 200 lectures on the topics of jury selection, trial psychology, and witness preparation through organizations such as the State Bar of Texas, Association of Trial Lawyers of America, the Trial Lawyers Associations of various states, and Harvard University.

Lisa Blue is a past president of the Dallas and Texas chapters of the American Board of Trial Advocates and has served on the Board of Directors of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice and Public Citizen. She is currently a member of the Board of Directors for the Dallas Bar Association. She has also served on the Executive Committee and as head of the Amicus Committee for the Texas Trial Lawyers Association; the Judiciary Task Force for the American Bar Association; the Texas Supreme Court Task Force on Judicial Reform; and as the Chair of the Dallas Bar Association CLE Committee. Lisa is a member of numerous other professional organizations, including American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists; American Psychological Association; Dallas Psychological Association; American Bar Association; Texas Psychological Association; and the American Thoracic Association. In addition, Lisa is very involved in supporting the work of Exodus Ministries, a non-profit organization which provides transitional housing and support services to ex-convicts and their families.

Prior to private practice in 1985, Lisa was an Assistant District Attorney in Dallas and prosecuted over 125 criminal cases to verdict. Lisa also maintains a small practice as a counseling and forensic psychologist and assists in selecting juries and preparing witnesses as part of her psychology practice. In her spare time, Lisa enjoys the study of French and Spanish.

Ronald L. Motley

Ronald L. Motley is a lawyer and founding member of Motley Rice, LLC, a Mount Pleasant, South Carolina law firm focusing on plaintiff's litigation involving asbestos, mesothelioma law, plane crashes, securities and consumer fraud.

Ronald Motley graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law, has over his three-decade career recovered significant compensation for his asbestos and mesothelioma clients. Mr. Motley was also involved in the tobacco litigation and was portrayed in the Insider by Bruce McGill in director Michael Mann's 1999 film which starred Russell Crowe.

Mr. Motley now represents over 6,500 survivors and their family members who where survivors of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Mr. Motley is pursuing claims against the financier of the 9/11 terrorists.

Mr. Motley has received the Harry M. Philo Trial Lawyer of the Year by the 50,000-member of the American Association for Justice and received the President’s Award of the National Association of Attorneys General. In 1999, he received the Youth Advocates of the Year awared for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

In addition to trying some of the first asbestos and mesothelioma cases, Mr. Motley has published extensively on asbestos litigation. These include:

How to Handle an Asbestos Case," Chapter 21, A Guide to Toxic Torts, Matthew Bender Publication;

"Medicolegal Aspects of Asbestos-Related Diseases: A Plaintiff's Attorney's Perspective," Chapter 12, Pathology of Asbestos-Associated Diseases, Roggli, et al., eds., Little, Brown and Co., 1992

"Decades of Deception: Secrets of Lead, Asbestos and Tobacco," TRIAL Magazine, October 1999.

He has been dubbed the man who took on Manville. The National Law Journal has ranked Mr. Motley as one of the most influential lawyers in America.

Richard Scruggs

Richard "Dick" Scruggs is a well known lawyer in Mississippi. He has represented individuals diagnosed with asbestos related cancers and mesothelioma since 1980. Due to the Firm's success in representing those with asbestos related injuries, the Attorneys General of the State of Mississippi and Louisiana retained the Firm in connection with cost recovery litigation against the asbestos industry.

Scruggs attended law school at the University of Mississippi with Mike Moore. He practiced law in Jackson, Mississippi and New York before opening his own private practice in Pascagoula, Mississippi..

Scruggs' brother-in-law is Senator Trent Lott, former Majority Leader of the US Senate. Scruggs is currently representing Lott through the Scruggs Katrina Group in a lawsuit against insurance company State Farm because of damage stemming from Hurricane Katrina

Scruggs was also involved in the tobacco industry litigation. The law firm filed the first suit resulted in the first settlement of its kind with the tobacco industry. The Firm's successes and position made it instrumental in negotiating the $248 billion Master Settlement Agreement in 1998.

Mesothelioma Clinical Trials: Abstracts

In order to try and find an effective treatment and cure for mesothelioma, clinical trials have been a vital part of the treatment process. These trials, carried out at institutions and hospitals all over the country, are extensive tests to determine the efficiency and side effects of any drug which has shown marked improvement when tested under lab conditions and in animal tests.

It is not guaranteed that any clinical trial will prove more successful or even as successful as treatment already being used. The purpose of clinical trials is to determine what sort of effect the new treatment or drug may have, and from there a decision can be made as to whether the treatment should be put forward for approval by the FDA (Food and Drugs Administration).

Clinical trials are based around drugs which have shown signs of responding well to cancerous cells, and the purpose of these trials is to monitor the response and effects on human test subjects. The nature of each trial can differ depending on the state and location in which it is being held.

Some recent and current clinical trials from around the country include:
(Click On Title For More Information)

• Alimta & Gemcitabine
• Neoadjuvant Pemetrexed Disodium and Cisplatin followed by Surgery and Radiation Therapy
• Intra pleural BG00001
• Erlotinib on Patients with Solid Tumours or Liver/Kidney Dysfunction
• PTK787/ZK 222584 for Patients with Unresectable Malignant Mesothelioma
• Alanosine
• SS1 (dsFv) – PE38 Immunotoxin (for advanced cancer patients)
  

The above are a sample of some of the recent and current clinical trials on operation. There are new trials and tests coming to light on a regular basis, many of which will undergo clinical trials. And through this continual testing, it is hoped that a breakthrough in mesothelioma treatment will come to light.

Treatment Options for Mesothelioma Patients

This page is dedicated to available treatment options for patients diagnosed with mesothelioma. Patients of mesothelioma are often overwhelmed with information immediately following a diagnosis. For many patients, they are not able to research the available mesothelioma treatments prior to speaking with an oncologist. Our feeling is that knowledge is power. For patients wanting to empower themselves, please read below.

Over the past several months and years, several new therapies and treatment options have become available to patients diagnosed with mesothelioma.

The treatment options include Alimta,Cisplatin, immunotherapy, gene therapy, photodynamic therapy and other multimodality therapies. Whether these treatment options will be available to a mesothelioma patient will depend on several factors including the age of the patient, the staging of the cancer and the overall health of the mesothelioma victim.

Your doctor will be in the best position to determine whether you or your loved one is a good candidate for any of these procedures. We have provided a brief list and synopsis of these procedures in order that the mesothelioma patient can familiarize themselves with them and be in a position to make the best informed decision on your cancer treatment.

ALIMTA

A mesothelioma patient should request information on Alimta. Alimta is a relatively new type of cancer treatment being developed by Eli Lilly. In the past, a mesothelioma patient had to meet strict criteria in order to qualify to participate in the clinical trials of this treatment. However, the good news for patients and their families is that this procedure has recently been approved by the FDA and is the first treatment proven to significantly increase the length of survival in patients while at the same time alleviating significant symptoms associated with this disease.

CISPLATIN

Cisplatin is a form of chemotherapy used to treat mesothelioma. It is in a class of drugs that are designed to slow or stop the growth of cancer cells and is passed into the body intravenously. Because Cisplatin affects good cells as well as cancer cells, patients taking Cisplatin may experience side effects. As with any medication, patients are smart to report any potential side effects to a doctor immediately.

Cisplatin is often used in combination with Alimta. Patients taking Cisplatin in combination with Alimta have longer average life expectancies than patients taking Cisplatin by itself. Cisplatin must only be administered by a certified healthcare professional or caregiver. Alimta (pemetrexed) in combination with Cisplatin (Platinol®) was recently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of inoperable malignant mesothelioma.

Your treating physician will let you know if you are a candidate for this type of chemotherapy regimen.

IMMUNOTHERAPY

This type therapy requires the removal of a mesothelioma patient’s affected cells, activation of those cells and reintroduction into the infected peritoneum. This procedure is often done in conjunction with other forms of chemotherapy. It is generally thought that a patient in the very early stages of mesothelioma, would benefit the most from this procedure. In fact, initial studies have shown that in some cases the procedure has been successful in “shrinking” the mesothelioma tumor.

GENE THERAPY

The study surrounding this type of therapy has showed tremendous results in animals, but the affects of the treatment in human trials have been much less successful. This type of Therapy is one that your doctor would need to look at very closely in order to determine if you or a loved one would be a viable candidate. Often times this type of therapy is done in combination with other chemotherapy options. Unfortunately, the results have not been consistent.

PHOTODYNAMIC THERAPY

This type of new therapy involves ingesting a drug that makes the cancerous cells extremely sensitive to particular wave lengths of lights. This requires a surgical procedure, and to date, the procedure has not had any definitive results showing increased survival rates.

MULTIMODALITY THERAPY

Mesothelioma is a very difficult cancer for doctors to treat. The medical community is always seeking to learn of new and more effective ways for treating this condition. Surgery, chemotherapy and radiation are all being studied in order to hopefully find a cure mesothelioma patients. We are proud to join in the fight to help the medical community in this endeavor. If you or a loved one have a specific question as to your best treatment options, we will help you in whatever way we can.

Background

At the turn of the last century, asbestos was considered an ideal material for use in the construction industry. It was known to be an excellent fire retardant, to have high electrical resistivity, and was inexpensive and easy to use.

The problem with asbestos arises when the fibers become airborne and are inhaled. Because of the size of the fibers, the lungs cannot expel them. They are also sharp and penetrate tissues.

Health problems attributed to asbestos include

1. Asbestosis - A lung disease first found in naval shipyard workers, asbestosis is a scarring of the lung tissue from an acid produced by the body's attempt to dissolve the fibers. The scarring may eventually become so severe that the lungs can no longer function. The latency period ( meaning the time it takes for the disease to develop) is often 10-20 years.
2. Mesothelioma - A cancer of the mesothelial lining of the lungs and the chest cavity, the peritoneum (abdominal cavity) or the pericardium (a sac surrounding the heart). Unlike lung cancer, mesothelioma has no association with smoking.The only known cause is from exposure to asbestos or similar fibers. The latency period for mesothelioma may be 20-50 years. The prognosis for mesothelioma is grim, with most patients dying within 12 months of diagnosis.
3. Cancer - Cancer of the lung, gastrointestinal tract, kidney and larynx have been linked to asbestos. The latency period for cancer is often 15-30 years.

Considerable international controversy exists regarding the perceived rights and wrongs associated with litigation on compensation claims related to asbestos exposure and alleged subsequent medical consequences. Some measure of the vast range of views expressed in legal and political circles can perhaps be exemplified by the two quotes below, the first from Prof. Lester Brickman, an American legal ethicist writing in the Pepperdine Law Review, and second, the Honourable Michael Wills, British Member of Parliament, speaking in the House of Commons on July 13th. 2006:

"A review of the scholarly literature indicates a substantial degree of indifference to the causes of this civil justice system failure. Many of the published articles on asbestos litigation focus on transactional costs and ways in which the flow of money from defendants to plaintiffs and their lawyers can be expeditiously and efficiently prioritized and routed. The failure to acknowledge, let along analyze, the overriding reality of specious claiming and meritless claims demonstrates a disconnect between the scholarship and the reality of the litigation that is nearly as wide as the disconnect between rates of disease claiming and actual disease manifestation".

"Many of those who I see in my surgeries have worked in a number of workplaces and they could have been exposed to asbestos in each of them, but medical science is such that no one can identify which of them it is. As a result, there has been a long and complex history of legal discussion on how to apportion liability. The lawyers and the judiciary have wrestled, rightly and valiantly, with complex and difficult law, but it has created despair for the families whom we represent. Many of my constituents’ families have been riven by the consequences of litigation in trying to get some compensation for a disease that has been contracted through no fault of theirs. That is cruel and unacceptable".

Regulation and government action

Regulation and government action

Worldwide, 60 countries (including those in the European Union) have banned the use of asbestos, in whole or in part. Some examples follow.

Australia

A nationwide ban on importing and using all forms of asbestos took effect on 31 December 2003. Reflecting the ban, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC) revised asbestos-related material to promote a consistent approach to controlling exposure to workplace asbestos and to introduce best-practice health and safety measures for asbestos management, control and removal. The ban does not cover asbestos materials or products already in use at the time the ban was implemented.

Although Australia has only a third of the UK's population, its asbestos disease fatalities approximate Britain's of more than 3,000 people per year.

Canada

The only asbestos mines still operating in Canada are in the Province of Quebec. They are owned by the Quebec government who expropriated the Asbestos Corporation Limited in 1981 from its American parent, General Dynamics. Quebec is the second largest producer in the world behind Russia and the world's largest exporter of asbestos. Quebec exports 95 percent of its chrysotileAsian and other poor countries.In 1999 the government of Canada went before the World Trade Organization to challenge, unsuccessfully, the ban on asbestos in France. production, mostly to

France

France banned the use of asbestos in 1997, and the WTO upheld France's right to the ban in 2000. In addition, France has called for a world-wide ban.

United Kingdom

The British Government's Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has promoted rigorous controls on asbestos handling, based on reports linking exposure to asbestos dust or fibres with thousands of annual deaths from mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung cancer.

• "At least 3500 people in Great Britain die each year from mesothelioma and asbestos related lung cancer as a result of past exposure to asbestos. Annual numbers of deaths are predicted to go on rising into the next decade."
• The TUC (UK) report cites a figure of 5000 deaths per year. TUC (UK)

The HSE does not assume that any minimum threshold exists for exposure to asbestos below which a person is at zero risk of developing mesothelioma, since they consider that it cannot currently be quantified for practical purposes; they cite evidence from epidemiological studies of asbestos exposed groups to argue that even if any such threshold for mesothelioma does exist, it must be at a very low level. (There is currently no scientific consensus as to whether there does indeed exist such a specific threshold ).

United States

The American Bar Association states that a growing number of claimants do not, and may never, suffer from asbestos illness. Because of the fear of a running statute of limitations, many people file claims who are not presently ill, but have had X-rays that show changes 'consistent with' asbestos disease. This 'now or never filing' is clogging the courts and delaying seriously ill claimants from having their cases heard. To alleviate this problem, the ABA recommends that (1) a clear standard of impairment be implemented, and (2) the statute of limitations not start ticking until a person actually becomes ill.

In the United States, 10,000 people a year die from asbestos-caused diseases, including one out of every 125 American men who die over the age of 50. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has no general ban on the use of asbestos. However, asbestos was one of the first hazardous air pollutants regulated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act of 1970, and many applications have been forbidden by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). [18]

According to a September 2004 of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, asbestos is still a hazard for 1.3 million US workers in the construction industry and for workers involved in the maintenance of buildings and equipment.

A Senate Subcommittee of the Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee heard testimony on July 31, 2001, regarding the health effects of asbestos. Members of the public, doctors, and scientists called for the United States to join other countries in a ban on the product.

Civil litigation

The first lawsuits against asbestos manufacturers were brought in 1929. Since then, many lawsuits have been filed. As a result of the litigation, manufacturers sold off subsidiaries, diversified, produced asbestos substitutes, and started asbestos removal businesses.In June 1982, a retired boiler-maker, James Cavett, won a record award of $2.3 million compensatory and $1.5 million in punitive damages.

The Manville Corporation, formerly the Johns-Manville Corporation, filed for reorganization and protection under the United States Bankruptcy Code in August 1982. At the time, it was the largest company ever to file bankruptcy, and was one of the richest. Manville was then 181st on the Fortune 500, but was the defendant of 16,500 lawsuits related to the health effects of asbestos.

Johns-Manville was described by Ron Motley, a South Carolina attorney, as "the greatest corporate mass murderer in history." Court documents show that the corporation had a long history of hiding evidence of the ill effects of asbestos from its workers and the public. One of many examples is a memo from Johns-Manville's medical director to corporate headquarters.

The fibrosis of this disease is irreversible and permanent so that eventually compensation will be paid to each of these men. But, as long as the man is not disabled it is felt that he should not be told of his condition so that he can live and work in peace and the company can benefit by his many years of experience.

By the early 1990s, "more than half of the 25 largest asbestos manufacturers in the US, including Amatex, Carey-Canada, Celotex, Eagle-Picher Industries, Forty-Eight Insulations, Manville Corporation, National Gypsum, Standard Insulation, Unarco, and UNR Industries had declared bankruptcy. Filing for bankruptcy protects a company from its creditors."

The future of asbestos civil litigation

Asbestos litigation is the longest, most expensive mass tort in U.S. history, involving more than 6,000 defendants and 600,000 claimants. Current trends indicate that the rate at which people are diagnosed with the disease will likely increase though the next decade. Analysts have estimated that the total costs of asbestos litigation in the USA alone will eventually reach $200 billion. The amounts and method of allocating compensation have been the source of many court cases, and government attempts at resolution of existing and future cases.

The controversy over asbestos-related liability issues is reflected by recent press reports and the position taken by the American Bar Association.

United Kingdom

Guardian Unlimited reported a test-case ruling in 2005, that allowed thousands of workers to be compensated for pleural plaques. Diffuse or localised fibrosis of the pleura, or pleural plaques, is less serious than asbestosis or mesothelioma, but is also considered a disease closely linked to the inhalation of asbestos.However, insurers claimed the plaques are "simply a marker for asbestos exposure rather than an injury." Mr Justice Holland rejected the insurers' arguments, and counsel for workers hailed the decision as a "victory that puts people before profits." . However this decision was reversed on appeal to the Court of Appeal and the issue is now due to be heard by the House of Lords in 2007.

Insurance companies allege that asbestos litigation has taken too heavy a toll on insurance and industry. A 2002 article in the British Daily Telegraph's Associate quoted Equitas, the reinsurance vehicle which assumed Lloyd's of London's liabilities, which argued that asbestos claims were "greatest single threat to Lloyd's of London's existence." . Of note is that Lloyd's of London had been sued for fraud by its investors, who claimed Lloyd's misrepresented pending losses from asbestos claims.

A recent turning point has recently come about involving the case of a young 45 year old mother from Southsea, Hampshire, who was exposed to asbestos from her grandfather’s work clothes and now suffers from mesothelioma. As a result, Michelle Campbell has received over £140,000 in compensation for her pain and suffering from the Ministry of Defence, highlighting that the legacy of asbestos will continue and is now capable of affecting a third generation of victims – the grandchildren of former dockyard workers and other men who worked with the deadly substance throughout their careers.

Scotland

In May 2006, the House of Lords ruled that compensation for asbestos injuries should be reduced where responsibility could not be attached to a single employer. Critics, including trade unions, asbestos groups and Jim Wallace, former justice minister, have condemned the ruling. They said it overturned the traditional Scottish law to such cases, and was a breach of natural justice. As a result of this outcry, the ruling has been overturned by Section three of the Compensation Act 2006.

United States

Asbestos-related cases increased significantly on the U.S. Supreme Court docket after 1980. The Court has dealt with several asbestos-related cases since 1986. Two large class actionSee Amchem Products v. Windsor et al and Ortiz v. Fireboard Corp.These rulings addressed the 20-50 year latency period of serious asbestos-related illnesses. settlements, designed to limit liability, came before the Court in 1997 and 1999. Both settlements were ultimately rejected by the Court because they would exclude future claimants, or those who later developed asbestos-related illnesses.

Congress is still considering legislation from 2005 entitled the "Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005". The Act would establish a $140 billion trust fund to supplant litigation as a means to compensate victims of asbestos and limit liability. On April 26, 2005, Dr. Philip Landrigan, Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and Chairman of the Department of Community and Preventive Medicine at Mount SInai School of Medicine, testified before the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary against this proposed legislation. He testified that many of the bill's provisions are unsupported by medicine and would unfairly exclude a large number of people who have become ill or died from asbestos: "The approach to the diagnosis of disease caused by asbestos that is set forth in this bill is not consistent with the diagnostic criteria established by the American Thoracic Society. If the bill is to deliver on its promise of fairness, these criteria will need to be revised." Also opposing the bill are the American Public Health Association and the Asbestos Workers Union.

On June 14, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee Committee approved an amendment to the Act which would allow victims of mesothelioma $1.1M within 30 days of their claim's approval.This version would also expand eligible claimants to people exposed to asbestos from the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, and to construction debris in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The online battle

Asbestos and specifically Mesothelioma are responsible for the most expensive AdSense With typical case payouts often in the millions of dollars it has become a battleground for SEO with some law firms spending over $50,000USD/month for their AdSense campaigns alone.

Criminal prosecution

United States

W. R. Grace and Company

According to the US Department of Justice(DOJ), a federal grand jury indicted W. R. Grace and Company and seven top executives on Februarly 5, 2005 for its operations of a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana. The indictment accused Grace of wire fraud, knowing endangerment of residents by concealing air monitoring results, obstruction of justice by interfering with an Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) investigation, violation of the Clean Air Act, providing asbestos materials to schools and local residents, and conspiracy to release asbestos and cover up health problems from asbestos contamination. The DOJ said 1,200 residents have developed asbestos-related diseases and some have died, and there could be many more injuries and deaths.

The conspiracy charges alone could result in a sentence of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release, as well as a $1 million fine per violation by the company.

On June 8, 2006, a federal judge dismissed the conspiracy charge of "knowing endangerment" because some of the defendant officials had left the company before the 5 year statute of limitations had begun to run. The wire fraud charge was dropped by prosecutors in March. However, the company still faces the other charges. The trial is scheduled to start September 11, 2006.

Environmental - Asbestos Removal and Cleanup

W. R. Grace and Company , which filed bankruptcy in 2001, faces fines of up to $280 million dollars, for polluting the town of Libby, Montana. Libby was declared a Superfund disaster area in 2002, and the EPA has spent $54 million dollars in cleanup. Grace was ordered by a court to reimburse the EPA for cleanup costs, but the bankruptcy court must approve any payments.

Asbestos abatement (removal of asbestos) has become a thriving industry in the United States. Strict removal and disposal laws have been enacted to protect the public from airborne asbestos. The Clean Air Act requires that asbestos be wetted during removal and strictly contained, and that workers wear safety gear and masks. Over the last ten years, the federal government has prosecuted dozens of violations of the Act and violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) related to the operations. Often these involve contractors who hire undocumented workers without proper training or protection to illegally remove asbestos. Contractors who ignore safety regulations in removing asbestos commit an environmental crime that exposes countless people to potentially fatal and excruciatingly painful lung diseases.

On January 11, 2006, San Diego Gas & Electric Co., two of its employees and a contractor were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges that they violated safety standards while removing asbestos from pipes in Lemon Grove, California. The defendants were charged with five charges of conspiracy, violating asbestos work practice standards and making false statements. If convicted the workers face five-year prison terms and a $250,000 fine for each violation. San Diego Gas & Electric faces fines of $2.5 million dollars.

On December 12, 2004, New York father and son owners of asbestos abatement companies were sentenced to the longest federal jail sentences for environmental crimes in U.S. history. The crimes related to a 10 year scheme to illegally remove asbestos. They were convicted on all 18 counts of conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act; violations of the Clean Air Act, and RICO. The RICO count included obstruction of justice, money laundering, mail fraud and bid rigging, all related to the asbestos cleanup. The son was sentenced to 25 years in prison, forfeiture of $2 million in illegal proceeds from RICO activities and restitution of $23,039,607 to his victims. His father was sentenced to 17-1/2 years in prison, forfeiture of $1.7 million in illegal proceeds and restitution of $22,875,575 to his victims.

On April 2, 1998, three men were indicted in a conspiracy to use homeless men for illegal asbestos removal from an aging Wisconsin manufacturing plant. Then US Attorney General Janet Reno said, "Knowingly removing asbestos improperly is criminal. Exploiting the homeless to do this work is cruel."

Other similar cases can be found at the DOJ website

Frederick Baron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Frederick Martin Baron (born 1947 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa) is a trial lawyer best known for representing plaintiffs claiming toxic and chemical exposure. He has also been an active figure in politics as a fund-raiser for the Democratic Party

Legal career

Baron is one of America’s most prominent trial lawyers. He is a founder of Baron & Budd, P.C., a Dallas, Texas law firm and a former president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.asbestos exposure. His firm has become one of the largest firms in the country representing victims of toxic and chemical exposure particularly claims of

One academic estimated that Baron & Budd, along with Ness Motley, was one of two firms responsible for half of the hundreds of thousands of asbestos litigation claimants in the country.United States Supreme Court to de-certify nationwide asbestos class action settlements involving future claims of people who are not yet ill, but who may later develop asbestos-related illnesses. The decertification addressed the problem that asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma (a fatal cancer of the lining of the lung), have a latency period of 20-40 years from the date of exposure.^[3] Baron successfully convinced the

Politics

Baron has been an active figure in politics as a prominent fund-raiser for the Democratic Party and fellow trial lawyer, Sen. John Edwards. Baron was the finance chair of Edwards' 2004 presidential campaign before co-chairing the Kerry Victory '04 committee, a joint effort of the Democratic National Committee and the Presidential campaign of John Kerry. Baron gave $1.7 million to the Texas Democratic Trust in the last two years and is also heavily involved in Edwards's 2008 presidential campaign, moving to North Carolina to head up fundraising there.

Baron has joked about the prominence he and other trial lawyers have in the Democratic Party. In a July 2002 speech, he noted a Wall Street Journal editorial that said that "the plaintiffs bar is all but running the Senate." Baron pointed to the editorial and said, "Now I really, strongly disagree with that. Particularly the 'all but.'"

Controversy

Asbestos litigation tactics

Baron & Budd have been criticized by attorneys for both plaintiffs and defendants for their role in asbestos litigation in aggressively seeking payment for plaintiffs who have suffered no injury; as a result, many defendants have been bankrupted and seriously injured plaintiffs have been unable to recover.

The Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy

Main article: Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy

The Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy is an incident in asbestos litigation where it is alleged that Baron & Budd engaged in subornation of perjury and a cover-up. Though (and because) no attorneys were disciplined or sanctioned over the incident, it is frequently cited by United States civil justice reformers and politicians as an example of ethical problems in the plaintiffs' bar and asbestos litigation. Baron and some academics argue that the memo was the act of a single paralegal, and that it was within the bounds of "zealous representation."However, the Dallas Observer conducted an investigation of the memo, and found that "a number of former Baron & Budd employees say that the information and techniques contained in the memo are widely used, even taught to employees" and that the "memo was not truly an aberration, but a written example of how the product-identification staff works at Baron & Budd."

Resignation from Baron & Budd and litigation

In 2002, Baron left Baron & Budd along with his wife, Lisa Blue. The separation from the firm he founded has not been without controversy. Baron sued his former firm for breach of contract; Baron & Budd counterclaimed alleging that Baron and Blue breached contractual, fiduciary and legal obligations to the firm by failing to receive prior consent from Baron & Budd for plans to form a new firm.