Articles Posted in

A former secretary at the Miami-Dade courthouse recently filed an asbestos cancer lawsuit against the county claiming the hazards she was subjected to over the course of her employment are responsible for her medical conditions. As a result of her daily exposure to asbestos and mold, the plaintiff’s asbestos cancer lawsuit claims she was forced to undergo lung-extraction surgery and continues to undergo chemotherapy.

According to her asbestos exposure lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges that she started working at the now 90-year-old courthouse in 1994 before moving to another county building in Doral in 2005, where she also faced unsafe working conditions. The plaintiff contends that despite never being a smoker or in poor health, she developed her stage-two lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos and mold.

In 2016, the Miami-Dade County commissioner conducted a study on the courthouse and found that the building had not been inspected since 1988 and that recent tests detected the presence of asbestos in the structure. As a result of the report, the county undertook efforts to abate the courthouse of asbestos, but it remains unclear whether the project has been completed.

It is commonly known that asbestos is a dangerous substance that has been the cause of diseases and cancers such as mesothelioma. Due to its fire-retardant properties, the mineral was considered very useful to many industries, such as fireproofing or insulating for construction.

Even after regulations were put in place to severely restrict and in some instances, discontinue its use in the 1970s, people continued to get sick. It can take years for the long-term effects of asbestos exposure to be realized.

If you have a family member who worked in an environment where asbestos was present before regulations were in effect, you may have also been exposed. How did it happen?

A talc supplier for pharmaceutical and cosmetics giant Johnson & Johnson recently agreed to a settlement with 22 plaintiffs in an upcoming talcum powder cancer trial over allegations that the defendants’ talc-based products caused the victims’ cancer diagnosis. As part of the agreement, Imerys Talc SA will pay a total of at least $5 million, according to reports, to the plaintiffs to resolve the company’s liability in the case also involving Johnson & Johnson.

The settlement comes right before the start of a talcum powder cancer trial in U.S. District Court in Missouri pitting ovarian cancer victims who claim their decades of using talcum powder sold by Johnson & Johnson and sourced by Imerys caused their condition. With Imerys’ settlement, Johnson & Johnson remains the only defendant left in these particular, cases but the two parties face several thousand other lawsuits over claims that their talcum powder products caused cancer, including mesothelioma.

An asbestos cancer lawsuit brought by 22 women recently began in a Missouri state court over claims that pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products caused the plaintiffs’ ovarian cancer diagnoses. The claim alleges that the plaintiffs’ years of use of Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based products caused their cancer diagnoses and that the defendant knew for years about the risk of injury but did nothing to warn the public.

According to the asbestos cancer lawsuit, filed in Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, the 22 female plaintiffs and the representatives of their estates claim that their years of using Johnson & Johnson’s products like Baby Powder and Shower to Shower caused their ovarian cancer diagnoses. The lawsuit alleges that the talc used to make these products was contaminated with asbestos during the mining and is therefore the causal link between using Johnson & Johnson’s products and developing the disease.

Talc and asbestos are both naturally occurring minerals often found in deposits adjacent to one another, which can lead to talc contamination if care is not taken to separate the two substances during mining. Although federal law has required talc to be asbestos-free for many decades now, plaintiffs in talcum powder asbestos lawsuits allege that independent testing shows the talc sourced for Johnson & Johnson products still contains asbestos to this day.

Despite state courts not having to deal with asbestos cancer lawsuits for quite some time, the New Hampshire state senate is poised to introduced proposed legislation that could seriously limit the legal rights of mesothelioma cancer victims. If passed, the proposed law would put New Hampshire in a group of over one dozen states that have passed so-called transparency acts aimed at slowing the pace of litigation and forcing plaintiffs to take legal steps they otherwise would not be obliged to.

In studying the issue, the New Hampshire state senate has created a study committee to “review the current compensation system specific to asbestos litigation and study ways to promote transparency, fairness, and timeliness of payment in the asbestos litigation system in New Hampshire.” Specifically, the study committee will look into whether or not mesothelioma cancer victims should be required to explore alternative avenues for compensation for their injuries.

Additionally, many of the asbestos tort reform bills being circulated around states legislatures require plaintiffs to disclose to courts whether or not they have filed claims for compensation from any asbestos administrative trusts in addition to filing a formal lawsuit. Many of the largest asbestos companies were required to create trusts for asbestos cancer victims to file claims as part of the business’ release of liability to file for federal bankruptcy protections.

We know the harmful effects that asbestos can have on people who have been exposed to it, breathing in the airborne fibers, and developing serious and likely fatal health ailments decades down the road.

Construction workers, machinists, firefighters, auto mechanics and power plant workers who often work with asbestos-related products may be more susceptible to asbestos-related illnesses. So can the typical family who may live in a house built before the 1980s as many such structures were made with asbestos-containing materials.

Infants: ‘Not likely to be exposed’

Contact Information