Articles Posted in Mesothelioma Court Rulings & Legislation

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as Ms. M.D.M.

Many years have passed since asbestos fibers that originated from vermiculite mines blew around Libby, Montana. Vermiculite and asbestos form under similar conditions, and therefore, asbestos contaminated Libby’s vermiculite deposit. Decades of mining in the vermiculite mines exposed workers and residents to toxic asbestos. Asbestos is a dangerous substance that can cause aggressive and fatal diseases. One of the most aggressive and fatal illnesses asbestos causes is mesothelioma. Decades after asbestos fibers blew around Libby, Montana, the tragic toll of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses persists. Victims and their families continue to seek justice and compensation against the entities responsible for their illnesses and deaths. In an upcoming court case, the family of a mesothelioma victim who passed away avoided sanctions BNSF Railway, the defendant, was seeking. BNSF was seeking sanctions because the family had cremated their loved one’s remains before they could get additional tissue samples for testing. Below is more on this case.

Among the many ongoing cases in Libby, Montana, is Ms. M.D.M. Ms. M’s case against MNSF Railway was filed two years ago. Initially, the defendant received tissue samples from Ms. M’s lung, but BNSF asked for more samples. The defendant asked the victim’s family to preserve her organ tissues in the event of death. However, the family did not respond to this request until days before Ms. M.D.M.’s death. According to the family, they could not accept the defendant’s request because of religion. Also, the family cited privacy concerns.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as Mrs. S.R., and the victim’s daughter will be referred to as Mrs. H.F.

In a recent case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania rejected the appeal of AII, one of the defendants in the original mesothelioma case, and affirmed a $400,000 compensation award. However, instead of assigning AII half of the verdict, the court distributed liability among AII and two other defendants. Below is more on this case.

In 2019, Mrs. S.R. died of malignant mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a form of cancer that forms in the lining of the chest or abdomen, whose prognosis is often poor. This illness is most commonly associated with asbestos exposure. Asbestos is a mineral that was once widely used in several industries due to its attractive qualities. After Mrs. S.R.’s death, her daughter H.F. filed a legal claim against the entities she blamed for her mother’s illness. Mrs. H.F. blamed her mother’s mesothelioma on the talcum powders she used in her salon between the 60’s and 80’s. According to the lawsuit, the talc in the powders contained asbestos. The lawsuit named several defendants, including the manufacturers of Jean Nate, Jeris, and Clubman and AII, the successor to Clubman.

For purposes of this article, the victims in this case will be referred to as K.L. and P.J.

Mesothelioma is an aggressive form of cancer that takes the lives of many people every year. Surviving loved ones of people who die from mesothelioma are usually left dealing with intense grief and loss. While filing a wrongful death claim cannot undo what has already happened, filing this claim serves several crucial purposes. Filing a wrongful death claim ensures that those who contributed to the asbestos exposure that led to the death are held liable. A wrongful death claim can provide financial support to surviving family members. Additionally, by pursuing a wrongful death claim, surviving family members can contribute to the prevention of future harm.

However, pursuing legal action after a loved one dies from mesothelioma can be a daunting and emotionally draining process. Therefore, the idea of joining mesothelioma claims can be very appealing. Asbestos companies do not like it when people join mesothelioma claims since two claims carry more weight than one. Asbestos companies fight to prevent claimants from joining forces. However, a recent ruling by a New York judge has allowed two mesothelioma cases to be joined, paving the way for mesothelioma victims and their loved ones to consolidate their claims.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that was widely used many years ago due to its strength and ability to resist heat and corrosion in many industries, including construction, automotive, shipbuilding, manufacturing, and textiles. Despite its attractive qualities, asbestos is a dangerous mineral. Asbestos exposure can cause cancer and other serious illnesses. While asbestos exposure can occur anywhere, the most common type of asbestos exposure occurs in occupational settings.

The dangers of asbestos have long been recognized, leading regulatory bodies like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to implement strict measures to keep employees safe from developing asbestos-related diseases, such as mesothelioma. Unfortunately, some employers don’t follow safety guidelines, putting employees at risk. Below, we discuss OSHA’s asbestos standards and regulations for workplaces, workers’ rights, and what recourse is available for affected workers.

OSHA Asbestos Standards and Regulations for Workplaces

Being diagnosed with mesothelioma is traumatic enough. The last thing a claimant in a mesothelioma lawsuit wants is for the judge presiding over their case to declare a mistrial and for things to go back to square one. Unfortunately, while mistrials in mesothelioma lawsuits do not happen a lot, a mistrial can happen. In this article, we discuss what a mistrial is, what can cause a mistrial, and what happens after a mistrial.

What is a Mistrial?

A mistrial arises when a court case is ended before its conclusion. Generally, a mistrial occurs if a lawsuit is not presented properly or the trial is not fair. A mistrial is typically declared by the judge presiding over the case. A judge has the authority to decide to declare a mistrial if the situation warrants a mistrial. A mistrial in a mesothelioma case can cause emotional strain, financial uncertainty, and delays in justice. However, a mistrial in a mesothelioma case does not necessarily mean that justice will not be served. It does not necessarily mean that the claimant will not recover compensation.

For purposes of this article, the deceased victim, in this case, will be referred to as Mr. C.B., and his surviving spouse as Mrs. M.B.

In a recent court decision, a South Carolina jury awarded a mesothelioma widow $1.75 million in compensation. The jury’s decision held the defendant, John Crane, Inc., accountable for negligence in the mesothelioma victim’s untimely death.

The mesothelioma victim’s widow, Mrs. M.B., filed a claim against John Crane, Inc., and accused the company of having irresponsibly exposed her late husband, Mr. C.B., to asbestos-contaminated gaskets when he was working at the Celanese factory in the maintenance department. According to the widow, the gaskets that were used in Celanese’s processes only lasted for a short time before wearing out. After they wore out, the gaskets would be taken to Mr. C.B.’s department, where their residue would be scraped off to allow for the installation of new gaskets. It was during this process that Mr. B would inhale the asbestos dust, which later led to the development of his illness.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as R.M., and the victim’s husband as T.M.

After a person develops mesothelioma, they or their loved ones can file a mesothelioma claim on their behalf and seek justice and financial compensation from the party or parties responsible for the asbestos exposure. One of the first crucial steps before filing a mesothelioma case is identifying all the parties responsible for the asbestos exposure. Often, people are exposed to asbestos from multiple sources. Identifying all defendants is vital to ensuring that victims or their families can recover the maximum compensation. Also, identifying all defendants promotes fairness. It ensures that each party responsible for the asbestos exposure is held accountable. However, after identifying all the parties responsible for the asbestos exposure and filing a claim, it is not uncommon for some defendants to deny liability and request the court to drop them from litigation.

In a recent case, the judge denied a co-defendant’s request to be dropped from litigation. The defendant, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, asked the court to drop them from litigation on the grounds that the company they supplied the asbestos-containing materials to did not need any warning about the dangers of asbestos since it was a “sophisticated user.” The claimant and the other defendant opposed this action, and the judge denied the request.

For purposes of this article, the widow in this case will be referred to as Mrs. M.B.R., and the late husband will be referred to as Mr. R.

In a recent legal battle in the New York Supreme Court between a mesothelioma widow and Arconic, Inc., the judge presiding over the case denied Arconic’s motion to dismiss the claim against them. Arconic, Inc. is just one of the multiple companies named in the personal injury claim. According to Mrs. M.B.R., the defendants are responsible for having exposed her late husband to asbestos.

Mrs. M.B.R.’s late husband used to work at the World Trade Center construction site. According to the mesothelioma widow, during the time her husband worked at the World Trade Center construction site, the Arconic’s fire-proofing spray her husband worked with led to him being exposed to asbestos, which, in turn, led to him developing mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a cancer that occurs in the mesothelium (the thin tissue covering most of your internal organs). Arconic, Inc. did not take these allegations lightly and decided to counter the accusations by filing a motion to dismiss with the court. According to Arconic, they stopped using asbestos-containing products after 1970. The company argued that Mr. R started working at the World Trade Center after the company had stopped using asbestos-contaminated products.

For purposes of this article, the victim in this case will be referred to as Mr. R.D.

In a recent court decision, Justice Adam Silvera of the New York Supreme Court denied two printing press companies’ motions to dismiss the mesothelioma claims filed against them. The two printing press companies tried to escape liability for the deceased victim’s asbestos exposure between the 1960s and 1980s. Justice Adam Silvera ruled that the victim’s testimony was strong enough to allow the case to proceed.

The victim in this case, Mr. R.D., was a printing press operator from the 1960s to the 1980s. It was during this time that R.D. was exposed to asbestos numerous times. Before passing away, the late mesothelioma victim filed lawsuits against two press companies he accused of being responsible for his asbestos exposure. The two companies are L3Harris Technologies Inc. and Heidelberg USA. Inc. printing presses. In his legal claim, Mr. R.D. said that he developed mesothelioma as a result of being exposed to brakes from Airflex, which L3Harris incorporated in their printing presses. As for the other defendant, Mr. R.D. claimed their presses also contained asbestos. According to the mesothelioma victim, the two companies exposed him to asbestos-contaminated parts in their machines without sufficient warnings of the dangers they posed.

For purposes of this article, the victims in this case will be referred to as T.W. and J.W.

Vermiculite, a naturally occurring mineral with heat-resistant properties, and asbestos, also a naturally occurring mineral, form under the same conditions. Asbestos is a dangerous substance that can cause several fatal illnesses, including mesothelioma. In Libby, Montana, asbestos contaminated the city’s vermiculite deposit, so years of mining this mineral in the city exposed workers and residents to asbestos. Thousands of people got sick because of asbestos exposure, and over the years, victims and families of victims have filed countless legal claims. In April 2024, two Libby residents’ stories will be told by their surviving loved ones who filed a lawsuit against the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway.

T.W. ‘s family and J.W. ‘s family filed a mesothelioma wrongful death claim against the railway company and other defendants after their loved ones died of malignant mesothelioma. According to the two families, the companies named in the lawsuit are strictly liable for their loved one’s death. T.W.’s family and J.W.’s family are seeking to recover compensatory and punitive damages for the wrongful deaths of their loved ones.

Contact Information