lawsuits Archive

Asbestos News Roundup: 7.25.13 – Ford Cited for Worker Asbestos Exposure

July 25th, 2013. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.

US Navy Veterans at Risk for Asbestos

US Navy Veterans are at high risk for asbestos-related disease, due to their asbestos exposure while working on navy ships undergoing refits, for example. But because asbestos-related disease can take up to 30 years or more to manifest, it is often detected long after men have left the Navy.

The states with the most US Navy Veterans include California, Florida, New York, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington, Maine, Oregon, Arizona, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Montana, Kansas, North Dakota, Hawaii, Nebraska, and Mississippi.

US Navy Veterans are not the only group of workers at high risk for asbestos exposure. Men and women who worked in power plants, manufacturing factories, chemical plants, oil refineries, mines, smelters, aerospace manufacturing facilities, demolition construction work sites, railroads, automotive manufacturing facilities, or auto brake shops may also have been exposed to high levels of asbestos.

Asbestos Law – Ford Cited for Exposing Workers to Asbestos

Detroit, MI: Ford Motor Co exposes its workers to asbestos, according to a report by The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Earlier this week, the federal agency cited Ford for eight violations covering asbestos exposure at a stamping plant in Buffalo, N.Y.

Ford could face up to $41,800 in fines for failing to protect workers from asbestos-containing material at the plant, according to OSHA.

Among the violations is the exposure of a pipefitter to asbestos-containing material in the insulation of a steam line he was working on. Additionally, none of the workers who were exposed to asbestos-containing materials wore respiratory protection.

OHSA also reported that the workers’ area was not properly organized to limit the amount of employees working in the area, asbestos-contained areas were not properly cordoned off, and airborne levels of the hazardous mineral were not properly monitored.

Violations are defined as “serious” when death or significant injury to workers is likely from a problem that Ford knew or should have known about, according to the agency.

Ford has 15 business days from when it received the citations to comply, meet with local OSHA officials, or contest the citations. The factory employs 537 workers, according to Ford. (autonews.com)

Asbestos Settlements

New York, NY: An 81-year-old Los Angeles man and his wife have been awarded a $1.525 million verdict in his asbestos-cancer lawsuit this July.

In May of 2012, Marty Marteney, a successful architect whose father was an immigrant to the United States from Mexico, was diagnosed with asbestos mesothelioma. After a three week trial, a Los Angeles jury returned a verdict on July 1 in favor of Marteney, giving him a judgment against Union Carbide Corporation and Elementis Chemicals, Inc.

According to the attorneys representing the Marteneys, Mr. Marteney’s disease stemmed from his exposure to workers who used asbestos-containing construction products and automotive parts. Union Carbide was a supplier of asbestos fiber and Elementis was the distributor of Union Carbide’s asbestos on the West Coast.

Marteney’s asbestos exposure goes back to his childhood, when his father took him out of school and made him work in his father’s auto shop, where he handled these toxic materials without any knowledge of their danger.

Without an education and with no knowledge of his asbestos exposure, Marteney enlisted in the armed forces, started a family, and later became an apprentice architect.

Eventually Mr. Marteney returned to school and built a career as a well-respected architect, designing homes for the rich and famous in Beverly Hills. Unknowingly, this hard work exposed him to asbestos-containing construction products that would later cause the cancer that would ruin his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Marteney is currently undergoing treatment for his mesothelioma. Marteney lives in San Marino, California, with his wife. (watchlist.com)

New York, NY: An asbestos verdict of $190 million has been awarded in a lawsuit brought by five men who were exposed to asbestos-tainted products and equipment during their jobs as steamfitters, plumbers, and construction workers.

A panel of New York Supreme Court jurors found the two defendant companies had acted negligently and recklessly, then rendering a verdict worth a total of $190 million, the largest consolidated asbestos verdict in New York history. It is believed that the $60 million individual amounts two of the men received are the largest individual sums awarded in a New York asbestos case.

Daniel Blouin, an attorney with Weitz & Luxenberg, the firm representing the plaintiffs, said he and his team tackled the case by telling the jury a story of five men who worked honest jobs for decades only to be repaid with immense suffering. “We wanted to show the jury the sorrow our clients were and are going through,” Blouin said. “And not just physically but psychologically. Once you are exposed to asbestos and develop mesothelioma, you know your fate. It’s an unbearably heavy burden.”

Lawyers for the plaintiffs told the jury there wasn’t an amount they could give the men that would be unreasonable. The defendants in this case subjected thousands of men and women to a terribly toxic substance. It is likely the companies took a calculated risk in doing so. That isn’t a debt that can be repaid, the attorneys said.

The jury, returning a verdict at 4 p.m. on July 23, found both defendants—boiler companies Cleaver Brooks and Burnham—negligent in having failed to warn about the dangers of the asbestos used in connection with their equipment. The verdict said both companies had acted with reckless disregard for human life.

All five of the plaintiffs were tradesmen from the tri-state area.

One man, from Toms River, NJ, worked in the 50s and 60s as a pipefitter in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. He was exposed to asbestos daily while fitting pipes into the salt-water distilling units aboard aircraft carriers like the USS Constellation and USS Independence.

Another, from Oyster Bay, NY, worked for nearly 30 years as a plumber, handling dozens of different types of products contaminated with asbestos.

A third, of Middle Village, NY, was also exposed to asbestos working as a plumber in Brooklyn, Queens, and Rockland Co.

Another man, from Howard Beach, NY, was exposed to asbestos on the job as a painter and construction worker. He was involved with the removal and demolition of boilers containing asbestos-laden parts.

The final client, from Kent, CT, also worked with boilers and boiler parts in the course of his job as a steamfitter.

All five men developed mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure. Three have died of complications related to the disease.

The trial (Index Nos. 190008/12, 190026/12, 190200/12, 190183/12, 190184/12) was held in New York Supreme Court before Judge Joan Madden. (pr.com/press-release)

Tags: Asbestos, asbestos lawsuit, Asbestos Mesothelioma
Posted in Asbestos Mesothelioma, Emerging Issues, lawsuits, Settlement | No Comments »

Asbestos News Roundup: 7.11.13 – WWII Navy Vet Asbestos Exposure

July 11th, 2013. By LucyC

Asbestos Disease and WWII Veterans

Beginning in the 1930s, nearly all ships built by the US Navy—including submarines—contained insulation or other machine parts containing asbestos. From that time, until the 1970s, when the US Navy stopped using asbestos in shipbuilding, thousands of US Navy Veterans and former Merchant Marines who served during World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and other conflicts were exposed to harmful levels of asbestos, placing them at risk of developing mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis or other asbestos diseases. Shipyard workers, boiler mechanics, electricians and pipefitters who handled asbestos products are also at risk of developing asbestos-related diseases.

Because of the long latency period of the disease, it may take up to 30 years—or more—before Veterans who were exposed to asbestos begin to develop the first symptoms of mesothelioma or other asbestos-related cancers.

Many Veterans who were exposed to asbestos during their time in the military have filed lawsuits against the companies who manufactured asbestos products and the equipment that utilized these products on board US Navy and Merchant Marine ships. In their lawsuits, the Veterans’ alleged they were not warned about the risks of asbestos exposure, even when the companies who manufactured these asbestos products were fully aware of the danger they posed.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Bangkok, Thailand: Johannes Weber, a US veteran based in Thailand, has filed a $5-million lawsuit in federal court against the US Department of Veterans Affairs and the US Navy for his asbestos-related lung disease. Weber alleges he developed the asbestos disease as a result of being exposed to asbestos fibers when he served in a US Navy vessel in 1972 and 1973.

Weber is suing the U.S. Navy for negligence. He alleges he was under orders from his then military superiors to perform work in the engineering spaces of a US Navy vessel which contained asbestos, and he was not supplied with appropriate safety equipment.

In his complaint, Weber has asked that the US Department of Veterans Affairs pay him for his medical costs associated with treatment of a service-related disability. He has also asked that the court award damages to his common-law wife, Khawannuedee Boonjan, who is in Thailand, should he die before the court can rule on the asbestos lawsuit.

According to his lawsuit, Weber’s lung disease has caused him to be 100 percent disabled. He alleges he was discharged under honorable conditions.

Weber further claims that he needs regular aid and can no longer travel on commercial airlines because of the pressure it exerts on his lungs.

He alleged that the Department of Veterans Affairs is not paying for his medical costs in Thailand for his service-related asbestos injury. (saipantribune.com)

Charleston, WV: Richard P. Wade has filed an asbestos lawsuit naming 154 companies he claims are responsible for his asbestos-related lung cancer.

Wade, who was diagnosed with lung cancer in June 2012, claims the 154 defendants exposed him to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products during his employment.

Wade further claims the defendants failed to advise him of the health risks of their asbestos and asbestos-containing products; failed or omitted to provide Wade with the knowledge as to what would be reasonably safe and sufficient wearing apparel and proper protective equipment and appliance; and failed or omitted to place any warnings or sufficient warnings on their containers.

As a direct result of his lung cancer, Wade alleges he suffered severe conscious physical pain and suffering and lost earnings and net accumulations. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment interest.

The 154 defendants in the suit include: 84 Lumber Company; A.O. Smith Corporation; A.R. Wilfley & Sons Inc.; Air & Liquid Systems Corporation; Ajax Magnethermic Corporation; Allied Glove Corporation; American Electric Power Company Inc.; American-Marsh Pumps; American Optical Corporation; and Anderson Greenwood & Co.

Charleston, WV: The widow of the late Arthur William Bautista has filed an asbestos lawsuit naming 49 defendants, which, she alleges are responsible for his asbestos lung injury and resulting death.

According to the asbestos lawsuit, Arthur William Bautista was diagnosed with lung cancer on Aug. 25, 2011, from which he died on November 7, 2011.

Gloria Bautista claims in her lawsuit, that her late husband was exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products during his employment at various work sites in West Virginia from 1971 until 2011.

The defendants are being sued based on theories of negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentation and post-sale duty to warn, according to the suit.

The 49 defendants include: 3M Company; A.W. Chesterton Company; Borg-Warner Corporation; Brand Insulations Inc.; BW/IP Inc.; CBS Corporation; Certainteed Corporation; Cleaver-Brooks Company Inc.; Columbus McKinnon Corporation; and Copes-Vulvan Inc.

Tags: Asbestos, asbestos lawsuit, Asbestos Mesothelioma
Posted in Asbestos Mesothelioma, lawsuits | No Comments »

Law News For You: Energy Drink ER Trips Skyrocket

June 18th, 2013. By AbiK

Tags: Monster Energy Drink, Monster Energy Drink Lawsuit, Personal Injury, Wrongful Death
Posted in Complaints/Comments, Consumer Fraud, Food Illness, lawsuits, Lawyers, Personal Injury | No Comments »

Duh. Watch College Kids React to Monster Energy Death News (Parent Alert!)

June 14th, 2013. By AbiK

Add energy drinks to the list of worries for parents sending kids off to college. Of course, energy drinks seem to pale when compared to sex, drugs, alcohol and all that comes with that trio of vices—from OD’ing, to date rape, to DUI’s. But that’s the thing—energy drinks seem…so…harmless, right? After all, they’re sold in convenience stores and vending machines right next to the bags of chips…

If the above news clip is any indication, energy drinks are quite popular on college campuses—and just as readily available as coffee. So why the fuss?

The fuss is due to a pending lawsuit against Monster Energy Drink that alleges that 14-year old Anais Fournier went into cardiac arrest and died after drinking two 24-ounce cans of Monster in less than 24 hours. (Check out our interview with attorney Kevin Goldberg of Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester–he’s one of the attorneys representing the Fournier’s).

And there’s also the lawsuit filed by San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera which claims the Monster caffeine levels can lead to elevated blood pressure, seizures and cardiac arrest. That’s all bad enough (if true) but the real fuss ought to be that Monster’s being marketed to kids. Your kids.

Let’s back up a moment. There was a time when college exam cram time meant coffee-infused study sessions, splashing your face with cold water and relying on whatever other natural means there were to stay awake and pull an all-nighter. Sure, some kids popped the occasional No-Doz (some still do)—not a good practice, but there’s a bit of a difference: when was the last time you saw No-Doz logos popping up all over black hoodies or on the “sponsor” list of latest batch of rad, gnarly, wicked or badass athletes?

Not remembering?

That would be because No-Doz doesn’t really market itself that way. It knows its place isn’t in the culture of cool. Monster Energy, however, does something different. By selling (allegedly) extreme caffeine in drink form rather than pill form, it’s tried to create a whole lifestyle around ramping things up a notch. Or two. Or three.

Here’s how the ‘guys’ at Monster talk about themselves (straight from their website):

In short, at Monster all our guys walk the walk in action sports, punk rock music, partying, hangin’ with the girls, and living life on the edge. Monster is way more than an energy drink. Led by our athletes, musicians, employees, distributors and fans, Monster is…

A lifestyle in a can

Right. “Lifestyle in a can”. Live life on that edge, dude.

See, somehow when you put it in drink form, wrap the can in cool graphics, and get extreme sports icons to promote it, downing super-charged soda somehow becomes cool. The sexed up version of caffeine pills. And the marketers at Monster know that. They know how impressionable kids, pre-teens, teens and even twenty-somethings can be. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t seen any banner ads for Monster over at AARP. Why? Because your average grown-up over the age of 40 knows a soft drink loaded with caffeine is bullshit.

Monster markets to a gullible crowd—and one that thinks it’s invincible.

Unfortunately, if the allegations surrounding the Anais Fournier case prove true, and if reports on the increase in energy drink-related emergency room visits* are any indication, the very folks Monster is marketing to are not invincible. They’re vulnerable—first mentally for buying into this marketing crap, and possibly physically for drinking it.

As parents, sometimes it’s the more innocent-looking influences—the wolf in sheep’s clothing—that are more insidious than the stuff we’re reminded to be wary about on a daily basis.

*In 2011, the US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) reported a tenfold spike in emergency room visits involving energy drinks. Approximately 70% of cases involving teens from ages 12 to 17 going to ER was due to energy drinks itself – without drugs or alcohol. Most hospitalizations are caused by dehydration, heat exhaustion and heart problems. A January 2013 update from DAWN indicates that from 2007 to 2011 the number of energy drink ER visits doubled, with 20,783 reported emergency room visits due to energy drink consumption in 2011.

Tags: Monster Energy Drink, Monster Energy Drink Lawsuit, Personal Injury, Wrongful Death
Posted in Emerging Issues, lawsuits, Personal Injury | No Comments »

Law News For You: Reality TVM – Mesh Implant Victims Speak Out

June 5th, 2013. By AbiK

Tags: Incontinence, Mesh Implant Lawsuit, POP, SUI, TVM lawsuit, TVT Lawsuit
Posted in Defective Products, Drugs/Medical, Emerging Issues, lawsuits | No Comments »