Mesothelioma Court Rulings & Legislation

Wisconsin Jury Orders Company to Pay $26.5 Million to Family of Mesothelioma Victim

December 17, 2021 | Throneberry Law Group

Most juries spend weeks hearing evidence about how a victim developed mesothelioma and debating whether negligence played a part in the victim developing the disease. However, unlike most juries who disagree on evidence and whether negligence was involved, the Wisconsin jury in a recently decided mesothelioma case disagreed on the amount of compensation to be awarded to the victim’s family. While in the end, the jury members agreed that Pabst should pay the victim’s family more than $26 million, two of the jury members disagreed, arguing that the company should be made to pay much more.

The family of the mesothelioma victim, a grandfather who worked at Pabst Blue Ribbon’s Milwaukee Brewery, initiated the lawsuit. During his time at Pabst, the mesothelioma victim was exposed to asbestos. Pabst Blue Ribbon’s Milwaukee Brewery employed the mesothelioma victim in the 1970s. It was during those years that the dangers of asbestos and its role in mesothelioma became well known. But, despite Pabst knowing the dangers of asbestos and its role in mesothelioma, the company did not take any steps to protect its workers. Pabst even let its workers get exposed to asbestos in the lunchroom. Pabst’s lunchroom was equipped with asbestos-contaminated pipes from which asbestos fell.

Initially, the family accused Pabst Blue Ribbon’s Milwaukee Brewery and Wisconsin Electric (another of the victim’s former employers) of failing to provide its workers with a safe working environment. After the original claim was filed, Wisconsin Electric decided to settle the case outside the court. On the other hand, Pabst insisted on going to court. The company argued against its own responsibility, which angered the jury.

ADAO and its Allies Score Big Win as EPA Agrees to Broader Asbestos Risk Evaluation

October 22, 2021 | Throneberry Law Group

Across separate settlements, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commits to accelerate and strengthen asbestos risk reevaluation under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). On October 13, 2021, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), an organization dedicated to preventing asbestos exposure, said that the organization and its allies had reached settlements with EPA regarding the toxic mineral that causes mesothelioma. These settlements come after a heated legal battle over a contentious risk assessment. ADAO and its allies have been pushing for a comprehensive second risk evaluation for asbestos for some time now and are glad they struck these settlements with the EPA. According to the president and co-founder of ADAO, Linda Reinstein, a more robust and comprehensive evaluation will better document the massive harm asbestos continues to cause in America.

As per the deal, the Environmental Protection Agency will finish the second risk assessment by December 1, 2024. The second risk evaluation is expected to address the deficiencies in the first risk evaluation. In an agreement, the EPA agreed to, among other things;

Expand its second risk evaluation to include all six asbestos fiber types instead of only chrysotile asbestos.

Civil and Criminal Regulatory Asbestos Cases: What is the Difference?

August 7, 2021 | Throneberry Law Group

When it comes to asbestos production and use, once an individual or company fails to abide by the set rules, they can either face criminal or civil charges. Different states enforce different rules, but both OSHA and the EPA have the right to enforce the law at the federal level. When it comes to the EPA, the agency takes the enforcement of environmental laws seriously. To the EPA, enforcing these laws ensures that human health and the environment remain protected. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency works hard to ensure people and companies comply with environmental requirements. Whenever warranted, the agency will take either civil or criminal action against people or companies that violate environmental laws.

There is a huge difference between civil and criminal asbestos cases, and the Environmental Protection Agency addresses these differences on its website. According to the website, the two mainly differ in:

Legal standard

Former Mechanic Awarded $8.2 Million in a Lawsuit Against Ford Motor Company

July 19, 2021 | Throneberry Law Group

A New Orleans, Louisiana jury recently awarded an $8.2 million mesothelioma verdict to a former mechanic against Ford. Ford Motor Company is a multinational company that designs, manufactures, markets, and services cars, trucks, utility vehicles, and luxury vehicles. After only 60 minutes of deliberation, the Louisiana jury ordered the manufacturing giant to pay the victim $8,261,874 as compensation for the malignant mesothelioma he blamed on the repeated asbestos exposure he suffered while servicing vehicles manufactured by Ford. The jury’s quick decision came after three weeks of testimony about how the former mechanic was repeatedly exposed to asbestos while servicing clutches and brakes installed on Ford vehicles and buses.

Over a year ago, the Louisiana resident was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a rare and fatal cancer. Immediately the former mechanic learned that he had mesothelioma, he filed a negligence and strict liability lawsuit against Ford Motor Company. The former mechanic worked as a gas station mechanic and as a school bus mechanic. It was while working these jobs in the 1960s and 70s that he suffered repeated asbestos exposure. While servicing asbestos-containing clutches and brakes on vehicles manufactured by Ford, the former mechanic was exposed to asbestos dust. When asbestos fibers get stuck in the lining of the lungs after being inhaled, they cause inflammation and scarring to DNA and mesothelial cells. Mesothelioma then develops due to the inflammation, typically decades after initial asbestos exposure.

Ford Motor Company’s failure to warn of the presence of asbestos or related dangers was at the heart of this mesothelioma litigation. The plaintiff’s attorneys and the jury determined that Ford knew about the dangers of asbestos long before the former mechanic’s exposure. They also determined that the manufacturing giant failed to warn the former mechanic about the dangers of asbestos. Due to that, the jury awarded the plaintiff $8.2. million in compensatory damages.

Washington Supreme Court Reinstates an $81.5 Million Verdict in Full in Mesothelioma Case

July 17, 2021 | Throneberry Law Group

According to a July 8, 2021 opinion, Washington Supreme Court reinstated an $81.5 million ruling in full after overturning an appellate court ruling for a wrongful death claim of an auto mechanic. According to the Supreme Court ruling, the Court of Appeals “overstepped the limited role played by appellate courts in the civil justice system and substituted its own subjective judgment for that of the jury and trial courts based on nothing more than the size of the verdict.”

The original claim was brought forward by the family and estate of the deceased mechanic who died in 2015 at the age of 67 of peritoneal mesothelioma. In 2017, after an approximately 12-week trial, a jury unanimously found NAPA Auto Parts and Genuine Parts Corp (GPC) liable in the mechanic’s death and awarded the deceased mechanic’s survivors $81.5 million. In its verdict, the jury found that NAPA and GPC were strictly liable and negligent for their defective asbestos-containing products used by the mechanic. Before his diagnosis and death, the deceased had worked with brake pads containing asbestos, and other parts manufactured by GPC and sold through NAPA for decades.

After the jury awarded the $81.5 million to the deceased’s mechanic’s survivors, GPC and NAPA moved for a new trial or alternatively to have the damages awarded lowered, which the trial court denied. The Court of Appeals then vacated the jury’s $81.5 million verdict and reversed the trial court in part. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court made a mistake when it excluded one of NAPA and GPC’s expert witnesses and applied what was referred to as “subjective determination.” The Court of Appeals also concluded that the jury’s award was excessive and ordered a new trial on damages.

Debunking Some Common Myths About Mesothelioma Legal Claims

July 7, 2021 | Throneberry Law Group

When faced with a personal injury or wrongful death claim situation, it can get confusing and complicated. Things can get especially complicated and confusing for a person dealing with a mesothelioma case. Mesothelioma is a type of cancer caused by asbestos. It is a type of cancer that can be so deadly because of the precise reason that it can go unnoticed for decades. Every year, there are about 3,000 new mesothelioma diagnoses in the United States. Unfortunately, since mesothelioma’s diagnosis rate is not as high as that of other types of cancer, a lot of misinformation surrounds mesothelioma legal claims. Misconceptions about mesothelioma legal claims can cause people to make decisions that may not be in their best interests.

Below are four common myths about mesothelioma legal claims.

Myth #1: An Individual Can Wait as Long as They Want to Begin the Legal Process

North Carolina Firefighters Lobby for Presumptive Coverage of Mesothelioma and Other Cancers

May 28, 2021 | Throneberry Law Group

The fight for presumptive coverage of cancer continues as North Carolina remains the only state in the country that does not extend this right to firefighters who put their lives on the line each time they suit up and are potentially exposed to a whole host of cancer-causing carcinogens. While the state does extend certain benefits to surviving family members of firefighters who pass away from one of four listed cancers, North Carolina does not pay for medical coverage of the affected firefighter during his or her lifetime, which can leave the victim and his or her family with extraordinary medical bills.

Across the state, North Carolina firefighter groups are lobbying state lawmakers to expand workers’ compensation benefits for firefighters who contract certain forms of cancer and for that diagnosis to be presumed to have been caused due to exposure to toxic chemicals while in the line of service. In 2019, the North Carolina house of representatives passed one such bill that would label nine forms of cancer, including mesothelioma, as occupational diseases and would have provided medical coverage to those affected under North Carolina’s existing Workers’ Compensation Act.

However, the state senate ultimately blocked the bill and has maintained that it as a chamber is opposed to expanding workers’ compensation benefits in the state. Despite the changing situational realities that firefighters face when they rush into burning buildings to save those trapped inside, North Carolina legislators continue to put up barriers to benefits that would help ensure that brave first responders have their healthcare needs taken care of when they receive a devastating cancer diagnosis.

Court Allows Mesothelioma Cancer Lawsuit to Proceed Against Retailer

May 9, 2021 | Throneberry Law Group

A New York state court recently issued an important ruling in an asbestos cancer lawsuit preventing one of the defendants from attempting to have itself removed from the case and potentially escape liability for its role in the victim’s cancer diagnosis. With the court’s ruling, defendant retailer Lot Less will remain as a defendant to the case while the plaintiff proceeds with the information gathering phase of the litigation in order to establish exactly what the business knew about the safety of the products it sold to consumers like the victim in this case.

According to the mesothelioma cancer lawsuit, filed in the Supreme Court of New York County in 2018, the now deceased plaintiff developed malignant mesothelioma cancer from years of using Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder, which was contaminated with deadly asbestos fibers. The plaintiff contends that not only Johnson & Johnson should be held liable for manufacturing the carcinogenic talc-based product, but also retailer Lot Less for selling the product to consumers like the victim. Other defendants named in the case included Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, and Whittaker Clark & Daniels.

In its motion for summary judgment, Lot Less argued that the family of the victim, who brought the suit on her behalf, had not yet proven that the Johnson & Johnson product in question actually contained asbestos. Further, the company argued that sellers of defective products generally have an implied right to indemnification, that is that they cannot be held liable for legally selling a product that a manufacturer produced. Fortunately for the plaintiff, the judge hearing the case determined that it would be premature to remove Lot Less from the case since the underlying liability had not yet been established.

Mississippi Talc Labeling Lawsuit Able to Proceed With State’s Supreme Court Refusal to Toss Claim

April 30, 2021 | Throneberry Law Group

A long running lawsuit brought by the state of Mississippi against pharmaceutical and cosmetics giant Johnson & Johnson may proceed, after the state supreme court refused to side with the company in its bid to toss the claim involving allegations that it violated state laws concerning labeling of its talc-based products. Specifically, the lawsuit brought by Mississippi’s attorney general claimed that Johnson & Johnson failed to disclose possible health risks associated with using the company’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower talcum powder products which the company faces an avalanche of litigation in federal and state courts across the country.

According to the lawsuit, filed in Hinds County Chancery Court in 2014, Johnson & Johnson violated Mississippi’s Consumer Protection Act when the company failed to include labels on its talcum powder products displaying a warning of the possible links between using talc-based products and developing ovarian cancer. The state’s attorney general’s lawsuit sought an injunction to force Johnson & Johnson to include warnings on talcum powder product labels and enforce violations with fines up to $10,000.

After the state filed its preliminary lawsuit in county court, Johnson & Johnson asked the court to toss out the lawsuit. After the chancery court refused to do so in December 2018, the company appealed to a state appellate court to do the same, but was met with a similar denial. Johnson & Johnson subsequently went to the state’s highest court for yet another dismissal, arguing that labeling requirements on its cosmetics products are preempted by federal laws and the state therefore had no authority to require the company include the types of warning labels the matter pertained to.

Widow’s Mesothelioma Cancer Lawsuit Goes on against Conwed Lo-Tone Ceiling Tiles & Mineral Boards Despite COVID-19

April 18, 2021 | Throneberry Law Group

The effects of COVID-19 have been felt across nearly every facet of life in America, and the courts have certainly been no exception. With health and safety protocols limiting in-person gatherings, many individuals seeking justice through the courts have had their hearings and trials seemingly inevitably delayed until the United States is able to bring the virus under control in order to resume our way of life. However, some have been fortunate in that their cases have been able to continue with relatively modest delay, as in the case of a Minnesota factory worker whose trial is finally scheduled to take place in May 2021.

According to the asbestos cancer lawsuit, filed in Ramsey County District Court in 2019, the now deceased plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma cancer in December 2018, and caused due to his exposure to carcinogenic asbestos fibers from his years of working the the Conwed Corporation’s mineral board plant in Cloquet, Minn. According to media reports, the city of Cloquet has a mesothelioma cancer death rate that is 36% higher than anywhere else in the state of Minnesota, and the rate of diagnosis is up to 70 times higher than the average. The report goes on to state that lung cancer screenings have shown that at least 30% of Condwed’s former employees surveyed have developed mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma is a rare and deadly form of cancer that usually affects vital organs such as the lungs, heart, and abdominal cavity. Developing the disease is directly associated with exposure to asbestos, a mineral that was once used in a variety of commercial, industrial, and military applications for its heat resistant properties and ability to be molded to fit a variety of uses. Conwed Corporation allegedly used asbestos in the construction of its mineral board products at the Cloquet plant from 1958 until 1974, the time period during which the deceased plaintiff was employed at the facility.