Archive for the ‘asbestos’ Category

According to researchers, carbon nanotubes, which have been called a “wonder material for the 21st century,” could pose similar health risks as asbestos fibers. Asbestos, a wonder material of an earlier age, was used in thousands of products for decades before it became known that asbestos exposure can lead to life-threatening health conditions, such as mesothelioma, asbestosis, and lung caner. 

A study published this year by the journal Nature Nanotechnology revealed that nanotubes, which are needle-like carbon molecules one-50,000th the width of a human hair, caused disease symptoms in mice just like those caused by asbestos fibers. Specifically, when injected into the abdomens of mice, nanotubes caused the mice to develop lesions similar to the lesions that people who inhale asbestos fibers develop on the lining surrounding the lungs.

In the case of asbestos, the lesions on the lining surrounding the lungs eventually become mesothelioma, a deadly form of cancer. The researchers in the nanotube study, however, portrayed their results as good news because people who work with nanotubes can now take steps to prevent future exposure.

“In a sense, we’re forewarned and forearmed now with respect to nanotubes,” said Anthony Seaton, a professor of environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland.

Discovered in the early 1990s, nanotubes are essentially rolled-up sheets of carbon that can be used to produce materials that are far lighter and stronger than steel. Nanotubes are found in a wide range of common consumer products, such as high-tech tennis rackets, electronics, and pharmaceuticals.

The recent nanotube study did not look at how easily nanotubes become airborne or whether they become lodged in the lungs if inhaled. Doctors and scientists believe, however, that the people in greatest danger are those working with loose nanotubes at factories and laboratories. In other words, nanotubes embedded in consumer products, such as golf clubs and bicycle frames, probably do not present any danger. 

Still, there is some concern that nanotubes in products could be released later, just as asbestos in concrete and automobile brake pads was inhaled by construction workers and mechanics. Consequently, more research is needed to determine the extent of the risk posed by nanotubes.

If you or someone you love has developed mesothelioma cancer (or a family member has died from mesothelioma cancer), contact us today for a free and confidential assessment of your case.

On October 29, 2008, a Florida woman received a $100,000 settlement after being fired from her job at York County Pleasant Acres Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. Mary Ann Gruzs says she was wrongfully terminated after she pointed out possible asbestos contamination at work.

While working in the salon at the nursing facility, Gruzs said she noticed that the floor tiles were beginning to crack and become discolored. She said she spoke to a facility maintenance worker and had reason to believe the damaged tiles contained asbestos.

According to her lawsuit, Gruzs pointed out the damaged tiles to her employer and expressed her concern of harmful asbestos exposure. After several requests from Gruzs, the nursing facility eventually replaced the floor tiles. Still, Gruzs claims her former employer never tested for asbestos and took no precautions when replacing the damaged tiles.

After the new tiles were installed, Gruzs says she requested that the air quality of the salon and surrounding areas be tested for toxic levels of asbestos fibers, but the nursing facility managers, once again, refused.

After repeated attempts to get her employer to test for asbestos, Gruzs said she decided to take matters into her own hands. She took the damaged tiles to an independent laboratory and had them tested for asbestos. The results proved her to be correct, revealing that the tiles and the adhesive backing contained toxic levels of asbestos.

Shortly after the results came in, Gruzs was fired from the salon. She filed a lawsuit claiming that she was fired for speaking out about the asbestos contamination her employers were attempting to cover up. On the other hand, the county claims she was fired for missing three consecutive days of work without calling in.

Because the inhalation of asbestos particles and prolonged asbestos exposure can cause serious illnesses, such as mesothelioma, asbestosis, and lung cancer, many asbestos exposure victims are entitled to compensation through asbestos lawsuits. If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness, contact us today to determine if you are eligible for monetary compensation.

The Supreme Court has found that asbestos exposure plaintiffs can recover pain and suffering damages, provided that their fear of developing asbestos-related cancer is genuine and serious.  In CSX Transportation Inc. v. Henley, the Court remanded the case of Thurston Henley, an electrician who contracted asbestosis while working for a railroad company, to determine whether his fear of developing cancer was genuine and serious.

Henley sought pain and suffering damages from CSX under the Federal Employers Liability Act (“FELA”) based on, among other things, his fear of developing asbestos-related cancers in the future.  The Court had previously allowed pain and suffering damages in such cases in Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Ayers, 538 U.S. 135 (2003), but limited pain and suffering damages to cases in which the plaintiff can establish that his fear of developing cancer is “genuine and serious.”  The trial court, however, did not instruct jurors on the legal standard for fear-of-cancer damages, and the jury found for Henley and awarded him $5 million in damages.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, and stated that Ayers did not refer to jury instructions.  The “genuine and serious” mandate for fear-of-cancer damages referred only to the legal standard that judges should apply when deciding whether pain and suffering damages were applicable.

In a per curiam decision, over a dissent by Justice Stevens, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, and stated that jurors must be instructed that an asbestos plaintiff’s fear of developing cancer must be genuine and serious to recover pain and suffering damages.  The Court reasoned that, because of the amount of pending asbestos claims and because of jurors’ strong emotional reaction to cancer claims, jurors need to be instructed that the fear of cancer in FELA cases must satisfy a high standard.  Henley’s case was remanded to the trial court, where he could receive a new trial that uses the “genuine and serious” jury instructions. 

Justice Stevens argued that “genuine and serious” jury instructions only need to be given at the trial judges’ discretion.  Justice Stevens believed that the per curiam opinion impractically interfered with trial court procedure, and misapplied the intention of the Court in Ayers.

The effect of the court’s decision is to allow plaintiffs suing under FELA who do not suffer from cancer and were exposed to asbestos obtain pain and suffering damages if they prove that their fear of cancer is “genuine and serious.”  Jurors will be instructed on this standard before deliberating on fear-of-cancer damages.  Read more about asbestos exposure lawsuits.

The U.S. Supreme Court has found that a 1986 ruling by a bankruptcy judge prevents plaintiffs from initiating new claims against insurers of Johns-Manville, once of the largest producers of asbestos in the world. The June 18 holding overturns a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision which found that the bankruptcy judge had exceeded his jurisdiction.

The bankruptcy court’s 1986 ruling prevented future lawsuits against Manville and its insurers for asbestos-related claims, provided that the company sets up a trust to settle such claims. However, a few years later, plaintiffs began filing lawsuits against Travelers for its role as one of Manville’s main insurers, saying that the suits were allowed because they were for Travelers’ violations of consumer protection laws, not Manville’s actions. In 2004, the insurance company reached an agreement that would settle then-existing cases under this new theory for approximately $440 million. In return, the original bankruptcy judge issued a “clarifying statement” saying that such suits were enjoined by the 1986 ruling. The case before the Supreme Court challenged this agreement.

The effect of the Court’s decision is to bar future lawsuits against Travelers for any claims related to exposure to Manville asbestos. However, the majority opinion emphasized that the ruling had a very narrow application, and was not intended to address bankruptcy court jurisdiction in general. Justices Stevens and Ginsburg dissented, saying that the 1986 order should only bar asbestos-related claims for Manville’s actions, not the actions of Manville’s insurance companies. Read more about asbestos exposure.

Last week the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared the first ever public health emergency under the Superfund law, which was passed in 1980 to govern sites that have been contaminated by hazardous materials. The emergency was declared in Libby, a small town in Montana which has been exposed to large amounts of asbestos for decades. The asbestos came from a contaminated vermiculite mine and the waste produced by local vermiculite processing plants. The EPA pledged to spend $125 million on decontamination efforts, in addition to the $250 million promised by the mine’s owner, W.R. Grace & Company.

Many residents of Libby and the surrounding area have suffered serious health problems from asbestos exposure. Hundreds of residents suffer from lung problems and diseases, and asbestos-related illnesses have been blamed for at least 200 deaths since the late 1990s. The town has 40 to 80 times the national average of asbestos-related deaths. Residents were primarily exposed through dust emitted into the air by vermiculite processing plants and mine waste used in construction projects throughout the town, although some individuals were directly exposed when working in the mine or plants. Read more about asbestos work exposure and asbestos-related illness.

Keith Gordon-Smith, a contractor from Rochester, New York, has been indicted by a federal grand jury on 15 counts of violations to the Clean Air Act, submitting false statements, and obstruction of justice.  The Justice Department claims that Gordon-Smith, who owns Gordon-Smith Contracting, conducted illegal asbestos removal on several occasions and hid the removal from several federal agencies.
 The Clean Air Act requires contractors who remove asbestos to follow certain standards to prevent unsafe exposure.  These standards include reporting to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before beginning the removal, and wetting the asbestos during removal to prevent bystanders from inhaling dangerous asbestos particles.  According to the Justice Department, Gordon-Smith allegedly failed to take both of these precautions.
Gordon-Smith allegedly improperly removed asbestos between June 2006 and August 2008 at Genesee Hospital, Roberts Wesleyan College, and Bloomfield Elementary School.  According to Justice Department officials, anyone present at these locations could have suffered asbestos exposure. 
  Once Gordon-Smith is arraigned, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of New York will be providing a public notice in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle to notify potential victims who may have been directly and proximately harmed as a result of the alleged crimes.  If you or someone you love has been exposed to asbestos illegally, you may be entitled to file an asbestos or mesothelioma lawsuit.  For more information on asbestos lawsuits, contact an asbestos lawyer.

A jury in Newport News, Virginia awarded the family of a retired Navy sailor, Gerald Gray, $1.2 million in a lawsuit against a ship parts manufacturer alleging that Mr. Gray died of lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure.  Mr. Gray was age 75 when he died.  Unfortunately, he did not survive long enough to see the jury return the verdict against John Crane, Inc., an Illinois parts manufacturer of gaskets and others parts used on ships in shipyards that shipyard workers like Gray repaired. 

The total jury award was $4 million against five manufacturers.  The jury, however, was instructed to assign blame to each shipyard related asbestos manufacturer and apportioned $1.2 million of liability to John Crane, Inc.  The jury did not know that the remaining four manufacturers already settled out of court for undisclosed amounts and, therefore, the liability findings against them will not become part of the final judgment.   The jury concluded that ship part manufacturer John Crane, which fought the case, was responisible for 30% of the damages in the case.  Read more about asbestos in shipyards.