Asbestos News Roundup: 6.13.13 – Family Asbestos Exposure

June 13th, 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.

Asbestos Disease A Family Affair

The recent case of an 82-year old woman recently diagnosed with asbestos mesothelioma has highlighted how asbestos dust represented a danger not just to those who worked in heavy industry, but also to their wives and children.

Mrs. Grigg was exposed to asbestos in the course of shaking out and washing her husband’s work clothing. Mrs. Grigg’s then husband was an insulator for a company that used Owens-Illinois, Inc. Kaylo brand insulation products from 1950-1958.

Mrs. Griggs’ case, sadly, is not an isolated incident. There are many cases of family members developing asbestos disease as a result of secondary asbestos exposure, for example, by wives beating their husband’s dusty overalls as they hung on a washing line, or shaking them off in a doorway before putting them in a washing machine. Their husbands worked in industries such as mining, ship-building, construction, plumbing and electrical.

Children and even grandchildren have also been put at risk, running up to a returning parent to give them a hug as they return from work, or sitting on their knee as they wear their dusty work clothes. The risk of loved ones being accidentally exposed is unfortunate and just adds to the tragic legacy of asbestos. But as this latest case shows, it is something that family members need to be made aware of.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Pittsburgh, PA: 72-year old Michael A. Hrycko, and is wife Joyce Hrycko have filed an asbestos civil suit against various companies engaged in the manufacture and distribution of products containing the fiber.

In their lawsuit, the Hrycko’s claim that Michael Hrycko was advised by doctors at Grandview Hospital in February 2012 that he has malignant mesothelioma, a type of cancer usually associated with asbestos exposure.

Hrycko worked as a machinist at various companies between 1960 and 2007. According to the lawsuit, it was during this period that Mr. Hrycko was exposed to asbestos-containing materials and asbestos dust and fibers which led to his eventual mesothelioma diagnosis.

The lawsuit states the asbestos mesothelioma is causing the plaintiff to experience “physical symptoms, impairment and disability.”

The defendants named in the asbestos lawsuit are: CBS Corp., Industrial Holdings Corp., Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Plastics Engineering Co., Saint-Gobain Abrasives Inc., and Union Carbide Corp. (pennsylvaniarecord.com)

Asbestos Settlements

Oakland, CA: On June 5, 2013, an Oakland jury completed its award to plaintiffs Rose-Marie and Martin Grigg of a total of $27,342,500 in damages stemming from Mrs. Grigg’s asbestos-caused mesothelioma (Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG12629580). Mrs. Grigg, now 82, was exposed to asbestos in the course of shaking out and washing her husband’s work clothing. Mrs. Grigg’s then husband was an insulator for a company that used Owens-Illinois, Inc. Kaylo brand insulation products from 1950-1958.

Evidence introduced during trial showed that Owens-Illinois, Inc. knew that asbestos exposure could cause death as early as the 1930s and that test results on Kaylo showed that exposure to the asbestos in the product could cause fatal disease.

According to court documents, Owens-Illinois nonetheless advertised Kaylo as “non-toxic” and did not state that the product contained asbestos. Kaylo was packaged in boxes without warning about the health hazards associated with asbestos exposure.

The jury found that Owens-Illinois, Inc. manufactured a defective product, failed to adequately warn Mrs. Grigg, was negligent, and intentionally failed to disclose information about Kaylo-related health hazards to Mrs. Grigg. The jury also found that Owens-Illinois, Inc. acted with malice, oppression or fraud toward Mrs. Grigg.

The jury awarded Mrs. Grigg $12,000,000 in damages for her pain and suffering, Mr. Grigg $4,000,000 in damages for his loss of consortium, and $342,500 in economic damages. The jury also levied an $11,000,000 punitive damages verdict against Owens-Illinois, Inc. (prweb.com)

Asbestos Law

Falls City, NB: Vision 20-20, a Nebraska company, has been fined $25,000 for illegally disposing of asbestos. in an effort to save money. The company pled guilty to the illegal asbestos dumping, claiming it was an effort to save money.

According to a report by the Associated Press, In October 2010 Vision 20-20 hired an asbestos removal firm to work on a building scheduled for demolition. The asbestos abatement company was paid $24,000 for services to the roof, but additional work remained on floor tiles and flooring underneath the tiles. The company returned to the demolition site several months later to continue the work only to find the building had been demolished.

State officials determined Vision 20-20 illegally removed the asbestos and demolished the building in order to save $14,000.(SFGate.com)

 

Asbestos News Roundup: 6.3.13 – Asbestos & Summer Renovations

June 7th, 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.

Summer Renovation and Asbestos Exposure Risk

As summer heats up, many people may be considering a home renovation—large or small— decks, garden sheds, new siding or roofs—even new rooms.

But before you go smashing through walls and ripping out old insulation, piping and wiring or roofing tiles—do your homework. Dangers may lurk within the walls, ceilings or floors. If your home is older, chances are it contains asbestos.

For example, asbestos siding was commonly used in construction years ago, making older homes a danger zone for asbestos mesothelioma. Like flooring, siding material was covered by asbestos to make it more durable and fire retardant. When these materials are disturbed—ripped off or torn out for example, they release asbestos fibers into the air, which people in immediate proximity then breathe in.

Equally important, when considering renovations, is hiring a reputable contractor who has the appropriate qualifications and licensing to remove asbestos.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Charleston, WV: The Newsomes, a couple from Jackson, OH, have filed an asbestos lawsuit naming 42 companies they claim are responsible for Ronald Newsome’s lung injury diagnosis. On September 10, 2012 Mr. Newsome was diagnosed with asbestosis and pleural plaques, according to his lawsuit.

Ronald Newsome worked as a mixer, laborer and at other various trades from 1958 until 1992. Both he and his wife, Patsy Newsome, allege the defendants exposed him to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products during this period.

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 lawsuit.

Additionally, certain defendants are also being sued as premises owners and as Ronald Newsome’s employers for deliberate intent/intentional tort.

The 42 defendants include 3M Company; A.W. Chesterton Company; Brand Insulations Inc.; CBS Corporation; Certainteed Corporation; Cleaver Brooks Company Inc.; Columbus McKinnon Corporation; Copes-Vulcan Inc.; Crane Company; and Crown, Cork & Seal USA Inc. (wvrecord.com)

Charleston, WV: 67 companies have been named as defendants in an asbestos lawsuit brought by a couple who allege the companies are responsible for a lung injury caused by asbestos exposure. John B. Kenyon was diagnosed with bilateral pleural plaques, on May 11, 2011, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Kenyon and his wife, Peggy E. Kenyon, allege he was exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products during his employment as an estimator, warehouse employee/delivery person and sales person form 1964 until 2002.

The Kenyons are suing the defendants for negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentation and post-sale duty to warn.

Certain defendants are also being sued as premises owners and as Kenyon’s employers for deliberate intent/intentional tort, according to the suit.

The Kenyons are seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues involved. The 67 defendants include 3M Company; 4520 Corporation Inc.; A.W. Chesterton Company; Aurora Pump Company; Bechtel Corporation; Borg-Warner Corporation; Brand Insulations Inc.; Buffalo Pumps Inc.; BW/IP Inc.; and CBS Corporation. (wvrecord.com)

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

June 5th, 2013. By AbiK

Asbestos News Roundup: 5.30.13 – Asbestos in Schools

May 31st, 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.

Asbestos in Schools—Did You Know?

Federal law requires schools to conduct an initial inspection using accredited inspectors to determine if asbestos-containing building material is present and develop a management plan to address the asbestos materials found in the school buildings.

Schools are also required to appoint a designated person who is trained to oversee asbestos activities and ensure compliance with federal regulations. Finally, schools must conduct periodic surveillance and re-inspections of asbestos-containing building material, properly train the maintenance and custodial staff, and maintain records in the management plan.

Local education agencies must keep an updated copy of the asbestos management plan in its administrative office and at the school which must be made available for inspection by parents, teachers, and the general public.

For more information about federal asbestos regulations visit: http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/lawsregs.html

Asbestos Lawsuits

Pittsburgh, PA: Frank Kozlowski and his wife, Marie, of Melbourne Beach, Fl, have filed a short-form complaint in the master asbestos litigation docket in Philadelphia on April 26 against 17 companies that they allege are responsible for exposing Frank to asbestos dust and fibers. This exposure, they plaintiffs claim, is responsible for Frank’s recent lung cancer diagnosis.

According to the lawsuit, Frank Kozlowski was a pack-a-day smoker from 1957 to 2006, and was diagnosed as having lung cancer by his Florida physician on Januray 21, 2013.

Mr. Kozlowski worked as a laborer from 1959 to 1962, at the Portsmouth Naval Yard in New Hampshire from 1963 to 1967, and as an auto worker at Ed Roth & Sons in Glassboro, NJ, in 1968, the complaint states. The suit also states Frank did additional automobile work throughout the 1970s, and spent time working at both the Bremerton Naval Yard and Naval Station Norfolk during the early-to-mid 1960s.

The following defendants are named in the complaint: Air & Liquid Systems Corp., Aurora Pump Co., Borg-Warner Corp., Byron Jackson Pumps, CertainTeed Corp., Dana Companies LLC, Foster Wheeler LLC, General Electric Co., Georgia Pacific LLC, Honeywell International Inc., IMO Industries Inc., Maremont Corp., Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Owens-Illinois Inc., Pneumo Abex LLC, and Warren Pumps LLC.

The Kozlowskis are seeking damages as set forth in the master asbestos litigation at Philadelphia’s Common Pleas Court. The case ID number is 130404113. (pennsylvaniarecord.com)

Charleston, WV: 48 companies have been named as defendants by a couple who allege they are responsible for the husband’s diagnoses of lung cancer and asbestosis. On September 12, 2011, Kenneth Joseph Morris was diagnosed with lung cancer and asbestosis on April 30, according to their asbestos lawsuit. The Morrises claim the 48 defendants exposed Kenneth Morris to asbestos-containing products during his employment as an electrician from 1964 until 2001. According to the lawsuit, Morris smoked cigarettes for 30 years, but quit in 2001.

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, and certain defendants are also being sued as premises owners and as Kenneth Morris’ employers for deliberate intent/intentional tort.

The 48 defendants in the suit include: 3M Company; A.W. Chesterton Company; Aurora Pump Company; Brand Insulations Inc.; Buffalo Pumps Inc.; CBS Corporation; Certainteed Corporation; Cleaver Brooks Company Inc.; Columbus McKinnon Corporation; and Copes-Vulcan Inc. Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-924 (wvrecord.com)

SRSLY? ABA Rep Tries to Defend High Caffeine Energy Drinks #EpicFail

May 30th, 2013. By AbiK

Love it when a reader comments on one of our articles and her comment tries to defend something absurd. Like energy drinks with a sh*tload of caffeine in them. That young kids are drinking. And potentially even dying from.

This reader, who left her message with the screen name “MaureenatABA” (note, a quick gander over at the ABA site shows a Maureen Beach as their Director, Communications. Coincidence?) —and for those of you thinking that’s the American Bar Association, no, that would be the American Beverage Association—commented on a recent article we posted, “Monster Energy Drinks Attorney Weighs In“, in which attorney Kevin Goldberg with Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester provided insight on what’s wrong with how energy drinks are classified (or not) by the FDA. It’s a dubious system at best.

Needless to say, as one of the attorneys representing the family of Anais Fournier, the 14-year-old girl who drank two bottles of Monster Energy drinks and went into cardiac arrest and died six days later—Goldberg has some unique insight into energy drinks (and I imagine a hell of a lot of discovery). The Monster drink lawsuit, btw, is a wrongful death one that alleges not only dangerous levels of caffeine in the drink, but inappropriate marketing of the energy drink to children.

I should share MaureenatABA’s comment:

“Most energy drinks contain significantly less caffeine than a similarly-sized cup of coffeehouse coffee.  In fact, many contain about half (http://bit.ly/11FcrFN).  In addition, a Harvard study revealed that there is not enough caffeine in a standard energy drink to trigger an arrhythmia, even in a person with a pre-existing heart condition (http://1.usa.gov/16gzKXN).  Energy drinks have been enjoyed safely by millions of people around the world for more than 25 years and in the U.S. for more than 15.- Maureen at ABA“

Well, Maureen, posting a link to the ABA’s chart depicting caffeine levels in a soft drink, an energy drink, and a cup of coffee is a bit lame. It’s a pretty picture, of course, though the scale of the 16-oz. soft drink icon is a bit off and the blatant green circle on the coffee clearly (and shamelessly, c’mon) targets Starbuck’s—but that’s all it is: a picture. It doesn’t cite independent sources that have tested for caffeine levels, and oddly, it shows a different story than what Consumer Reports reported back in December when it—independently—provided a different chart that listed caffeine levels in specific brand name drinks. If you missed that chart, it’s shown at right.

Oh MaureenatABA—I forgot—you’re probably then saying that there’s that Harvard study you referenced! You are so right. And here’s some interesting things about that:

1. It’s from 1989.

2. The mean age of the study participants was 61 years.

3. The drinks the study participants received had 200 mg caffeine in them.

Forgive me, but what Goldberg is dealing with is…

1. Something that happened recently. Note that you mention that these energy drinks have been in the U.S. for the last 15 years. According to my math, 2013 minus 15 years brings us to 1998—which is almost a DECADE after the Harvard study was done. The authors of the study surely did not have a supply of today’s energy drinks to test.

2. A younger population. Rather than a population reaching retirement, the lawsuit focuses on a 14-year old child (and, as a class, all children).

3. Caffeine levels that go beyond 200 mg “modest dose” administered in the Harvard study.

For those of you who want a less skewed perspective on the Monster Energy Drink lawsuit, I’d suggest reading Jane Mundy’s interview with attorney Kevin Goldberg. And stay tuned.