Asbestos News Roundup: 7.12.12 – Roofer Asbestos Risk

July 12th, 2012. 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.

Roofers at risk for Asbestos Disease

Recently, a restoration project of a heritage site in Kentucky revealed asbestos roofing tiles under the wooden shingles the roofers were contracted to remove. As a consequence, the project has been put on hold until money can be raised to appropriately remediate the asbestos from the site.

The asbestos was found in asphalt roof shingles, which are a common roofing product. Many men who have worked with these tiles over the past decades may not be aware that the dust and debris generated by these tiles, and floating in the air around them as they work to remove the tiles, contain asbestos fibers. Those fibers can become lodged in their lungs, on their clothes–exposing their loved ones to the same carcinogens, and in the air in the neighborhood–exposing the public. But it’s the roofers who will suffer the worst fate, particularly if they have been working around these types of tiles over a prolonged period of time.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Charleston, WV: A relative of Ralph Gary Brown, who was diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer on July 14, 2011, and subsequently died on August 6, 2011, is suing 45 companies he claims are responsible for Mr. Brown’s illness and death.

Barry S. Brown claims Ralph Brown was exposed to asbestos while he was employed as a millwright at Armco Steel from 1964 until 2005.

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

The companies named as defendants in the suit are A.K. Steel Corporation; A.W. Chesterton Company; Amdura Corporation; Bucyrus International, Inc.; Caterpillar Inc.; Clark Equipment Company; Cleaver-Brooks Company, Inc.; Columbus McKinnon Corporation; Crane Co.; Dravo Corporation; Eaton Corporation; Elliott Company; Flowserve f/k/a the Duriron Company Inc.; Flowserve Corporation; FMC Corporation; Foseco, Inc.; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; General Electric Company; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; Hercules, Inc.; IMO Industries, Inc.; Industrial Holdings Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand Company; Insul Company, Inc.; ITT Corporation; McJunkin Red Man Corporation; Morgan Engineering, Inc.; NACCO Materials Handling Group, Inc.; Nagle Pumps, Inc.; Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.; Oglebay Norton Company; Pettibone/Traverse Lift, LLC; Premier Refractories, Inc.; Riley Power Inc.; Rockwell Automations, Inc.; Schneider Electric USA, Inc.; State Electric Supply Company; Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC; Tasco Insulations, Inc.; The F.D. Lawrence Electric Company; U.B. West Virginia, Inc.; United Engineers & Constructors and Washington Croup International; Vimasco Corporation; West Virginia State Electric Supply; and Yale Materials Handling Corporation. (wvrecord.com)

Asbestos Settlements

Boston, MA: Allegations over violations of Massachusetts air pollution and asbestos regulations have been resolved, according to an announcement by the state’s Attorney General Martha Coakley. The consent judgment was handed down on Friday against Suffolk Construction Company Inc. and Emerson College. Under the terms of the judgment, Suffolk and Emerson will each pay $250,000 in civil penalties to the state.

The lawsuit was filed by Coakley, together with the consent judgment on Friday, alleging that Suffolk and Emerson violated the state’s air pollution prevention statute and asbestos regulations during the 2007-2008 renovation of Emerson’s Colonial Building, according to LegalNewsline.

The 13-story Colonial Building in Boston was bought by Emerson in 2006. It was used for leased offices and student rehearsal space until 2007, when Emerson hired Suffolk to renovate the building and convert it into a student dormitory.

Concern was raised because the demolition allegedly had not utilized proper asbestos containment measures and the contaminated demolition materials removed from the building may consequently have exposed the public to asbestos fibers. Although the potentially contaminated demolition materials should have been sent to a licensed asbestos landfill, approximately 80 percent of the contaminated material may have been sent to recycling facilities. exposing workers in the process.

The terms of the judgment require Emerson to prepare and put into effect a maintenance and operations plan for the building, so as to avoid future releases of asbestos if the building is renovated or repaired.(legalnewsline.com)

UK Watchdog Slams Special K Calorie Count, Bans Ads

July 10th, 2012. By AbiK

You know that Special K Challenge? That’s the one where you eat a Special K breakfast and lunch, and then have a ‘sensible meal’ for dinner—along with whatever fruits and vegetables you want, and the beverages you ‘normally’ have. And you’re supposed to lose weight…and fit into those jeans you’ve long since busted out of.

A twice-a-day Special K diet may help you shed some pounds, but the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) over in the UK has taken issue with some of Kellogg’s Special K advertising. It seems that some of the Special K advertising has promoted the breakfast cereal as adding only  114 calories per serving to a daily diet—why, that’s a meal with just a few teeny calories over a “100-calorie” snack pack!

Surely, you can’t go wrong on your diet with that.

But, the UK ad watchdog has seen something wrong how the calories are counted in the Special K ads: where’s the milk? And that’s led to a false advertising slap on the wrist.

Seems a number of Brits—and, of course, Americans—eat their cereal with milk. And as such, the UK Special K ads showed women preparing their cereal breakfast by pouring milk into it. Those aforementioned 114 calories don’t account for the milk. And if  you add the milk back into the equation, that can boost the calorie count up to anywhere between 200 and 236 calories.

According to a recent report in the Daily Mail (7/4/12), Kellogg’s responded to a complaint the ASA received by stating that the company left out the milk calories because “many customers eat the cereal dry, or with orange juice or yogurt.”

That response, apparently, did not measure up enough for the ASA. The Special K ads have been banned.

Stryker Announces Rejuvenate Hip Implant Recall…Quietly

July 5th, 2012. By AbiK

The Canadian Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Implant recall was the tip-off.

For patients who’ve undergone hip replacement surgery and have sat and followed the legal news about the alleged DePuy Hip problems (both the DePuy Pinnacle and the DePuy ASR), and the Zimmer Hip problems (the Durom cup)—both utilizing metal-on-metal componentry that’s alleged to be defective—the Stryker hip recall in Canada had to have sparked the question: why if the same hip implant is recalled there hasn’t it been recalled here?

Well, now it has. Only it’s been a rather quiet recall announcement.

Stryker has announced a voluntary recall of the Stryker Rejuvenate Modular and ABG II modular-neck hip stems. The recall by Stryker was voluntary. The reason the recall was initiated is because of potential risks associated with modular-neck stems. The risks, as reported on the Stryker website, include the potential for “fretting and/or corrosion at or about the modular-neck junction, which may result in adverse local tissue reactions manifesting with pain and/or swelling.”

As with the previous metal-on-metal hip implant components, which led to hip implant lawsuits, the alleged issue is an increased risk of metallosis—which can occur as the metal hip components rub against each other, thereby releasing particles of cobalt and chromium into the blood. According to Stryker, if you are experiencing pain or swelling at the joint site, you should speak with your hip surgeon.

While the US Stryker voluntary recall does not specify model numbers, the following information and model numbers were identified in the Health Canada recall notification:

Trade Name

A) Rejuvenate Modular Neck, 0 DEG
B) Rejuvenate Modular Neck, 8 DEG
C) Rejuvenate Modular Neck, 16 DEG
D) Rejuvenate SPT Modular Stem, Straight Press-Fit Texture TMFZ

Recall Posting Date

2012-05-28

Manufacturer

Howmedica Osteonics Corporation

Recall Start Date

2012-04-30

Recall Number

73679

Hazard Classification

Type II

Model or Catalog #

A) NLS-300000B, NLS-340000B, NLS-380000B, NLS-420000B
B) NLV-300800G, NLV-300800Y, NLV-340800G, NLV-340800Y, NLV-380800G, NLV-380800Y, NLV-420800G, NLV-420800Y
C) NLS-301600P, NLS-341600P, NLS-3816000P, NLS-4216000P
D) SPT-070000S, SPT-080000S, SPT-090000S, SPT-100000S, SPT-110000S, SPT-120000S

Lot or Serial #

A) All lots
B) All lots
C) All lots
D) All lots

Reason for Recall

Stryker Orthopedics has updated the instructions for use (IFU) for the Rejuvenate Modular Hip System. This is based on a reported rate of less than one percent for revisions potentially associated with fretting and/or corrosion at or about the modular neck junction.

If you’re experiencing pain or swelling in the area of your hip replacement, regardless of which manufacturer and/or model of hip implant you have, speak to your hip surgeon.

Asbestos News Roundup: 7.5.12 – Oil Rig Workers, 2nd-Hand Asbestos Exposure

July 5th, 2012. 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.

Oil Industry Workers at High Risk for Asbestos Disease

Drilling mud is widely used in the oil industry, both onshore and offshore, to help cool the drill bit and flush debris from the well hole during drilling. Many oilfield workers may have been exposed to toxic asbestos products without knowing its harmful, and often lethal, effects.

Drilling mud composition contained asbestos, which led to mud engineers being

exposed to asbestos drilling mud, and the potential to develop asbestos-related disease such as asbestos mesothelioma.

The two drilling mud brands that were mainly used were Flosal and Visbestos: both products were packaged in 50 lb. bags and were used for sweeping the hole as a viscosifier.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Hyde, TX: Chevron USA is facing a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the widow of Louis Esbry, who recently died from asbestos-related disease.

Camelia Esbry and her children filed the suit June 29, blaming Chevron USA for her husband’s death, alleging the company exposed him to asbestos.

While employed with Chevron, Louis Esbry was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers, the lawsuit states, which resulted in his developing asbestosis. He died on December 18, 2011, the lawsuit states.

According to the lawsuit, Chevron knew for decades that asbestos could cause cancer, yet the company allowed employees and contractors to work around the mineral, exposing them to potentially lethal health effects, without warning them of the dangers.

The plaintiffs are suing to recover exemplary damages. (SETexasrecord.com)

Jefferson County, TX: A second-hand asbestos exposure lawsuit has been filed by Ginger Hall naming suit 11 companies as defendants. In her lawsuit, Mrs. Hall claims she was exposed to asbestos through her husband’s work clothes.

Chevron USA, Citgo, DuPont, ExxonMobil, Huntsman Petrochemical, Mobil Chemical, Mobil Oil, Oxy USA, Texaco, Union Oil and Unocal Corp, are the named defendants in the lawsuit.

Mrs. Hall alleges she was exposed to asbestos through her husband’s employment at several of the defendants’ refineries.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the asbestos dust on Mr. Hall’s work clothes has caused Mrs. Hall to suffer breathing difficulties and develop cancer. The defendants are accused of failing to protect workers and their family members from inhalation of asbestos fibers.

In addition to exemplary damages, Mrs. Hall is suing for her alleged past and future medical expenses, mental anguish, pain, impairment and lost wages, plus all court costs. (SETexasrecord.com)

New Orleans, LA: Jacqueline Carron Lowe and the children of George Lowe have filed an asbestos lawsuit against Marathon Oil Co. and others, claiming the defendants exposed the late Mr. Hall to asbestos and are therefore responsible for his death. Mr. Lowe was diagnosed with mesothelioma in November 2011 and died in December 2011 from complications from the disease.

Mrs. Lowe claims her husband was exposed to dangerously high levels of asbestos during his employment for Marathon Oil from 1957 until 1995 in various positions and at various sites including Detroit, MI, Robinson, IL, and Garyville, LA.

The defendants are accused of exposing George Lowe to asbestos which caused him to develop asbestos mesothelioma.

Lowe’s family is seeking an unspecified amount in damages for physical pain and suffering, loss of income, mental anguish, fear of death, loss of enjoyment of life, medical expenses, loss of personal assistance, loss of support to wife and children, loss of consortium, loss of services and loss of companionship.(louisianarecord.com)

Join me as I Submit my Verizon Cramming Settlement Claim

July 5th, 2012. By AbiK

Here we go. I’m starting to look at and submit my Verizon Cramming class action settlement claim and thought I’d bring you along for the ride. If you recall, I had a few of you join me for the experience of submitting a United Healthcare out-of-network claim (remember that one?)–and we had some good conversation going. Unfortunately, while some class action lawsuits have a pretty straightforward claim submission process, others do not; same goes for claims administrators—the folks who are court-appointed to manage the claims submission process—some seem to make things go easier than others. So here we go.

First off, some ground rules… Your situation may not be exactly like mine, but we’ll try to get through this together; and…DO NOT submit a claim here. You have to go to the claims administrator’s website to submit a claim–that website is www.verizonthirdpartybillingsettlement.com.

First question…

Am I part of the Verizon Cramming Class Action Settlement?

I know I’ve been a Verizon customer. But it takes more than that to be considered part of the “class”. Here’s a description of the class:

“All current and former Verizon landline customers who between April 27, 2005 to February 28, 2012 were billed for third-party charges submitted to Verizon by Billing Concepts Inc. a/k/a Billing Services Group Clearing Solutions or BSG d/b/a USBI and ZPDI, ACI Billing Services Inc. d/b/a OAN, Enhanced Services Billing, Inc. d/b/a ESBI, and HBS Billing Services Company (collectively, “Billing Concepts Inc.”), The Billing Resource d/b/a Integretel, The Billing Resource LLC (collectively, “The Billing Resource”), ILD Teleservices, Inc. (“ILD”), Transaction Clearing, LLC (“Transaction Clearing”); and PaymentOne Corp., d/b/a PaymentOne or Ebillit (“Payment One”).

You are not in the Settlement Class if:

• you were billed for only the following charges: (a) message telephone services (“MTS”) usage charges; (b) charges that relate to a change in the customer’s primary interexchange carrier (“PIC”); (c) charges billed by local telephone companies purchased from Verizon by Frontier Communications Corporation, FairPoint Communications, Inc., and Hawaiian Telcom; or
• you are a judicial officer to whom the Action is assigned; or
• you are the U.S. government or any State government or instrumentality thereof.”

 

Ok, so yes, I’ve been a Verizon landline customer during part of that time—though I can’t remember if I’d paid any third-party charges. And no, I’m not a judicial officer nor the U.S. government or any State government. We’re good—I can proceed.

Was I billed for any Third-Party Charges during the Verizon Cramming Class Period?

Well, sure as shootin’ I don’t remember every charge on every bill I ever paid during that time. Who would?

Now, I’ve read the instructions on the claim form that tell me… “You may submit a Flat Payment Claim for $40 or a Full Payment Claim for 100% of all unauthorized charges you paid.”

So I can either just submit a claim for the $40, or I can see if I’m actually due more according to the terms of the settlement—so long as I have a documentation to prove what third party charges I had.

Luckily, the claims administrator has made it relatively easy (I hope!) to find out what I may have been charged by a third party on my Verizon bills. All I have to do is fill out the form here in order to request “a free summary of all Third-Party Charges that you have been billed during the Class Period”.

Ahh, but of course nothing is that simple.

You need your basic name-address-phone info, but you also need the PIN number you received in the notification of the class action settlement that you should have received.

Given that I treat most mail (email, snail mail) from phone service providers as spam or junk, I probably did not retain the postcard that had the PIN on it. Actually, I KNOW I didn’t retain it. But, that PIN is needed…

So I’ve had to send an email to: , requesting further assistance.

It’s the first roadblock I’ve hit so far—but there seemed to be some help for it. We’ll see.

Back with more once I hear from the claims administrator—so stay tuned.

IMPORTANT: If, like me, you have misplaced or thrown away the Verizon cramming settlement notice, contact the Claims Administrator sooner than later! Claim forms are due on November 15, 2012 and if may take some time if you plan on requesting a free summary of your third party charges.