Asbestos News Roundup: 11.24.09

November 24th, 2009. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news, asbestos lawsuits and the latest asbestos hot spots—places where asbestos has been found—and that you should be aware of. 

Asbestos Lawsuits

Jefferson County, TX: Charles Dees and Mary Guidroz have filed an asbestos suit naming over 100 corporate defendants, alleging the companies negligently used asbestos insulation on their premises. According to the suit the plaintiff was a truck driver who was exposed to asbestos at the defendants’ premises. Charles Dees was diagnosed with occupational asbestos exposure then lung cancer, in 2007.(SETexasRecord) 

Jefferson County, TX: The widow of an ex-Gulf Oil/Chevron USA employee has filed an asbestos suit against Chevron, alleging that during her husband’s employment he was exposed to materials containing asbestos and asbestos dust. He developed asbestos mesothelioma and died on February 11, 2009. The lawsuit states that Chevron failed to warn workers adequately and in a timely way, of the danger of asbestos exposure, and “failed to take the necessary engineering, safety, industrial hygiene and other precautions and provide adequate warning and training to ensure that the deceased was not exposed to the asbestos-containing products.” (SETexas Record)

Asbestos Hot Spots

Kootenai National Forest, MT: Tree bark in forests surrounding the vermiculite mine in Libby, Read the rest of this entry »

Ever Wonder what Happens when you File a Complaint?

November 24th, 2009. By janem

At the risk of patting myself—and LawyersAndSettlements.com (LAS)—on the back, I want to share these comments from someone who filed a complaint with LAS. Two years ago I interviewed Blanco Alonzo regarding his unpaid overtime complaint against Maximus corporation. Yesterday I talked with Blanco about a separate issue regarding California labor law violations and he brought me up to speed on the Maximus case…

“You really helped in 2007,” says Blanco. “Right after you interviewed me about my overtime case, about 20 attorneys called, and now I am the lead plaintiff.

“I selected one lawyer based in Texas who had a lead in California. My case is very strong and it is currently being determined whether it will be a class action lawsuit presented at the federal or state level.

“I always think about you because if it wasn’t for you I would never have gotten an attorney in 2007. And now so many cases against Maximus are being pursued after my case became nationally known.

My case number is BC381220 assigned to Judge Jane Johnson in Los Angeles, and it was filed November 26, 2007. We could have already settled but Maximus tried to file bankruptcy. I always read that article you wrote about me and tell people, ‘Jane wrote this case so well’ and I am so happy to communicate with you again. As well, my lawyer said the article was great and they get a lot of clients through LawyersAndSettlements.com.”

Watch what you Click: Black Friday Shopping Scam

November 24th, 2009. By AbiK

Retailers are on to me. And others of my ilk who avoid shopping malls on Black Friday like H1N1. While you used to have to drive bumper-to-bumper and play kamikaze-style musical chairs to snag a parking space—all for the reward of standing in long checkout lines and eating something “a la king” with a side of onion rings—now you can just tap your keyboard and click away (“Shipping address same as billing address?” Why, it sure is!) and still get the same deals as those loonies who actually drive to get them. Completely hassle-free! Or is it?

Unfortunately, some of the more popular sites that folks find themselves on—such as Orbitz, Priceline.com, Buy.com, 1-800 Flowers.com, Continental Airlines, Fandango, and Classmates.com—have had this little pop-up window every now and then that has you thinking you’re that lucky customer today! You (yes YOU!) can reap your reward—a coupon or that special cash-back deal—if you just click and enter your email address right there! 

And it looks so sincere—after all, it appears to be a nice little “thank you for your purchase” from the company’s website you’re on, right? Well, it’s not.

The pop-up ad is actually from a third-party—and most likely from one of 3 companies: Affinion, Read the rest of this entry »

H1N1 Vaccination and Assault and Battery

November 23rd, 2009. By LucyC

When you think of the H1N1 vaccine—do the terms assault and battery also come to mind? Likely not. Well, apparently there are some instances where parents who decided their children should not receive the swine flu vaccine found that their kids had been inoculated by accident. And that constitutes battery, at least according to a New York medical malpractice lawyer. He has issued a press release on the subject, so I would assume this is not an uncommon problem.

 

The incident of a Brooklyn school girl is cited in the press release. Apparently, her parents didn’t sign her up for the vaccine, but she wound getting it anyways and ended up in a hospital. She has epilepsy and one assumes the vaccine somehow caused a serious adverse reaction.

 

“Any unlawful touching or unauthorized administration of medical care not in an emergency situation is a battery, a legal term for an assault. A school district cannot unilaterally administer vaccinations without parental consent, in writing,” the lawyer explained. “If there is a battery,” he is quoted as saying, (medicine given to a child without an emergency situation, or parental consent), “by law the child is entitled to compensatory damages.”

 

Now I would emphasize that the lawyer is only commenting on situations in New York City elementary schools, to the best of my knowledge. And, as always, there are exceptions to the rules, in that in the event of an emergency—schools would be able to provide medical care to the student since they are acting “in loco parentis”—which means instead of the parent—while a child is in their care.

 

The lawyer also warns that school districts and their municipalities are heavily protected against lawsuits…no surprise there…so filing a lawsuit should be a carefully considered decision, as it should be in any event.

 

And, there is a statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit:

 

          “Vaccinating a child without parental consent is a tort that has a one-year statute of limitations. But because the school is part of the City, a parent only has 90 days from the time of the battery to file a Notice of Claim.” And, 90 days means 90 days, not three months.  

 

 

Landmark Ruling Awards Florida Smoker $300 Million

November 21st, 2009. By Hunter West

Fort Lauderdale, FL: A landmark ruling by a jury in Fort Lauderdale late Thursday could set the stage for additional personal injury lawsuits after a Florida woman was awarded $300 million in a tobacco lawsuit. Provided the verdict survives an assumed appeal by defendant Philip Morris, the award represents the largest single award to an individual suing a tobacco company.

Lucinda Naugle was 20 when she started smoking, a habit she maintained for 25 years before finally quitting at the age of 45. Now 61, Naugle suffers from severe emphysema and requires a lung transplant she can’t afford.

If she lives long enough to see an end to the appeal process, Naugle would have more than enough to fund her surgery. The sister of a former Fort Lauderdale mayor was awarded $56 million in compensatory damages and $244 million in punitive damages. Following three hours of deliberation after a three-week trial, the jury assessed liability to Naugle at 10 percent, whereas Philip Morris was saddled with 90 percent.

Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris based in Virginia, indicated that it would appeal the verdict. A spokesperson called the Florida rules “fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional.”

Lawsuits against tobacco companies are not unique, especially since 1998 when the seven largest tobacco companies agreed to fork over $206 billion in a master settlement agreement with 46 states.

Florida was one of those states. However, what sets Florida apart is a major legal ruling three years ago that makes it easier for individuals to sue tobacco companies, by way of the lowering of the burden of proof.

In 2006 the Florida Supreme Court rejected a class-action verdict and an award totaling $145 billion to plaintiffs, stating that plaintiffs would have to litigate individually. However-and this is the important caveat-the court dictated that plaintiffs would not be required to prove some key elements that had been upheld in the first stage of the class action: namely that nicotine is addictive, that smoking causes diseases and that cigarette companies fraudulently withheld those facts.

“That makes Florida unique,” said Clifford Douglas of the University of Michigan Tobacco Research Network, in comments published yesterday in the New York Times.

Naugle’s legal counsel told the New York Times that 25 additional cases would go to trial in Florida next year. In all, more than 9,000 people from the former class action have filed individual lawsuits in various Florida courts. Approximately 4,000 of those cases were filed in federal court and have been stayed pending a review scheduled for early next year.

A tobacco analyst for Morgan Stanley said that the tobacco industry could afford several hundred million dollars a year in legal losses. “That is a financially manageable issue,” David Adelman said.