Asbestos News Roundup: 4.12.12 (Spotlight: Boiler, Furnace Workers Asbestos)

April 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.

Boiler and Furnace Technicians Asbestos Disease Risk

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, insulation blankets (the outside covering or shell), door gaskets, duct insulation, and tape at duct connections of furnaces and boilers can all contain asbestos. Technicians who worked on repairing boilers and furnaces in the past would have been at risk for asbestos exposure.

Asbestos was used between 1930 and 1972 as high-temperature insulation for oil, coal, or wood furnaces, generally found in older homes. Steam and hot water pipes were insulated with asbestos-containing material, particularly at elbows, tees, and valves. Pipes may also be wrapped in an asbestos “blanket”, or asbestos paper (which looks very much like corrugated cardboard). Asbestos-containing insulation has also been used on and inside round and rectangular furnace ducts. Sometimes the duct itself may be made of asbestos-containing materials.

Anthony Lamano worked for years as a boiler technician. He recently died from asbestos-related lung disease, but his family was successful in their pursuit of damages against the companies that manufactured the asbestos-containing materials. You can read about his asbestos settlement below.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Charleston, WV: Gay and Barbara Williams have filed an asbestos lawsuit following Gay’s recent diagnosis of asbestos-related lung cancer. Diagnosed with the potentially fatal disease on January 25, Mr. Williams alleges he was exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products during his employment as a laborer from 1966 until 2005. The couple is suing 58 companies they claim are responsible for a lung cancer diagnosis.

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

The 58 companies named as defendants are: A.W. Chesterton Company; Air & Liquid Systems Corporation; Beazer East, Inc.; Bechtel Corporation; Catalytic Construction Company; Cleaver-Brooks Company, Inc.; Copes-Vulcan, Inc.; Crane Company; Dravo Corporation; Eaton Electrical, Inc.; Flowserve US, Inc. f/k/a Durco International, Inc.; Flowserve US, Inc. f/k/a Flowserve FSD Corporation; FMC Corporation; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; General Electric Company; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; Grinnell, LLC; Hercules, Inc.; Howden North America, Inc; IMO Industries, Inc.; Inductotherm Industries, Inc.; Industrial Holdings Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand Company; ITT Corporation; Hammel Dahl Valves; Joy Technologies, Inc.; McJunkin Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Morgan Engineering Systems, Inc.; Nagle Pumps, Inc.; Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Ohio Valley Insulating Company, Inc.; P&H Mining Equipment, Inc.; Reading Crane and Engineering Company; Riley Power, Inc.; Rust Constructors, Inc.; Rust Engineering & Construction, Inc.; Rust International, Inc.; Schneider Electric USA, Inc.; State Electric Supply Company; Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC; Sunbeam Corporation; Superior Combustion Industries, Inc.; Surface Combustion, Inc.; Swindell Dressier International Corporation; Tasco Insulations, Inc.; The Alliance Machine Company; The Gage Company; UB West Virginia, Inc.; United Engineers & Constructors and Washington Group International; Viacom, Inc.; Electric Corporation; Viking Pump, Inc.; Vimasco Corporation; West Virginia Electric Supply Company; Yarway Corporation; and Zurn Industries, Inc. (westvirginiarecord.com)

Asbestos Settlements

New York, NY: Three asbestos lawsuits were successfully settled this week against major asbestos and manufacturing corporations.

The lawsuits all allege that the plaintiffs—long-time workers in industries that exposed them to toxic asbestos insulation—ultimately developed asbestos-related cancers that led to their deaths. The settlements will pass to the families of the deceased. 

One of the three plaintiffs, Anthony Lamano, served in the Navy from 1955-57, then worked for years as a boiler technician in Long Island before developing lung cancer. His lawsuit was filed and reached the jury selection phase before the defendants named in the complaint agreed to settle.

Two other clients’ cases were filed alongside Mr. Lamano’s. Lawrence Johnson worked for major power houses and construction sites as an insulator, later developing mesothelioma, a cancer for which the only known cause is asbestos. And, William Barthold worked as a pipefitter after serving in the Navy from 1942-46. He also died of lung cancer.

Asbestos Hot Spots

Marshalltown, IA : City officials in Marshalltown are urgently working to remove asbestos-laden debris, currently cluttering 135 E. Main St. And, the City Council has approved the filing of an asbestos lawsuit against building owners F&H Properties Corp. to mandate the cleanup.

According to a report in the Times Republican, city attorney, Curt Ward, said the city filed suit claiming that the rubble is a nuisance. The lawsuit would allow the court to seize the amount of money for the cleanup from F&H, owned by Charles Fairall and Ed Hughes, and hand it over to the city. (timesrepublican.com)

McDonald’s Hot Coffee Lawsuit Includes AWOL Sex Charges (Really)

April 12th, 2012. By AbiK

Rare is it, indeed, that you can write such a headline. But yes, there are two new McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuits—which is somehow fitting as we’re now celebrating the 20th anniversary of THE McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit—the one that gave birth to the whole hot coffee lawsuit genre. This time, while one lawsuit involves a distracted grandmother and her 4-year-old granddaughter, the other does, in fact, include an element of sex.

Let’s talk sex first. So how does one file a hot coffee lawsuit and somehow throw sex—specifically a lack of—into it? (I should use ‘loss of consortium’ here but really, who calls it ‘consortium’?)

Well, it appears that Melissa Pettigrew had ordered coffee at a McDonald’s drive-thru back in August, 2010. And the coffee spilled onto her lap—her thighs and abdomen to be specific—leading to a burn injury. According to a quote from her attorney, Ms. Pettigrew is still receiving treatment for her burns.

If you’ve ever had exceedingly hot coffee that you’ve ordered on-the-go, you know it can be pretty painful if it spills on you. You also know, however, that there are 50-50 odds at best that the person serving you the coffee has actually put the lid on properly. So it’s easy to see how Ms. Pettigrew might have wound up filing a personal injury complaint.

It’s her co-plaintiff that gives this hot coffee lawsuit it’s twist—yes, Ms. Pettigrew is not suing solo. Ms. Pettigrew’s husband is alleging that he’s suffered loss of consortium as a result of his wife’s hot coffee burn injuries. You know Mickey D’s in-house counsel said, “now we’ve seen everything” when this lawsuit landed on their desks.

Sadly, though, you can understand this one. We know—hot coffee lawsuit jokes aside—that the 1992 McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit was not actually frivolous—there was not only injury but what most would consider negligence on McDonald’s part (note, the ’92 lawsuit went to trial and ultimately settled). And, if the allegations in the Pettigrews’ lawsuit are true—i.e., that that McDonald’s employees served coffee that was too hot or without securing the lid, or that McDonald’s did not properly train and educate workers on handing hot coffee to customers—then shame on McDonald’s for not effectively institutionalizing processes and procedures to avoid such hot coffee injuries.

The second McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit has two sides to it—it’s not as seemingly straightforward as the one above.

In this one, Mona Abdelal was with her granddaughters, Lynn Abdelal (4 yrs. old) and her 2-year-old sister, at a McDonald’s in Harwood Heights, IL. The grandmother had finished her coffee and instructed little Lynn to throw the cup out. Lynn, not understanding, went up to the McDonald’s counter and ordered a refill for her grandmother. The little girl was told that fresh coffee was brewing, so the girl came back and was given a cup of coffee—allegedly with an unsecured lid and no protective cardboard holder.

According to the complaint, Lynn “could not hold the cup steady in her small hands. A lot of coffee spilled out of the cup onto (the girl’s) chest, causing (her) to sustain severe second-degree burns”.

There is absolutely no question that it is a travesty when a little child—any child—is harmed; and in this instance, the girl’s doctors have said she will have permanent scarring from the coffee burns.

There is also absolutely no question, that if the allegations are true—that a McDonald’s worker gave a 4-year-old hot coffee (beyond irresponsible) that was improperly contained (negligence)—that McDonald’s should at least in part be liable.

However, think of the time elapsed here—a little girl who is supposed to go to a trash bin and come right back instead goes to the restaurant counter, engages in at least some dialog, has to come back for the coffee, and then gingerly walk back to the table to Grandma. Where on earth was the grandmother’s attention all that time? According to reports, it was on the 2-year-old sister. Understandably, but a lack of attention on the 4-year-old as she’s wandering through McDonald’s seems a bit, well irresponsible.

So while this hot coffee lawsuit is seeking close to $4 million in damages, there are some grey areas and we’ll have to see where it all nets out.

How Generic Drugs Discriminate Against the Poorest Patients

April 10th, 2012. By AbiK

No one wants to come right out and say it, but that’s basically what’s going on with generic drugs. Poor patients are effectively discriminated against simply by having no choice other than to buy the cheapest version of whatever pill they’ve been prescribed. Cheaper meds are fine—until you factor in that the more expensive brand name equivalents come with a bit of an extra ‘insurance policy’—no, not the type of insurance you’re thinking of—it’s insurance in the sense of legal recourse should something go wrong as a result of taking the drug.

Let’s face it, outside of those who claim to buy the cheaper equivalent on ‘principle’, for the most part the folks who are buying generics are those who either simply cannot afford the brand-name drug or those who’ll lose prescription coverage benefits unless they opt for the generic shown on the approved formulary from their insurance company. We’re not talking the 1% here, folks.

Sure, it’s great that cheaper generic versions of big-name blockbuster drugs are available—we’d all be broke otherwise. But generics have a hidden cost, too…

Legally speaking, that cost can be tremendous. How so? Well, what if something goes wrong—horribly wrong—upon taking the drug? What if there’s a serious reaction to the drug, like a ruptured tendon from a fluoroquinolone? Or tardive dyskinesia from a ‘good as Reglan’ generic? Sure, the generic drug should in most instances perform like its pricier twin—but there’s a catch: unlike with brand name drugs, if something goes wrong, there’s not much legally at present that can be done (from a strict product liability standpoint—not talking malpractice here).

The issue with generic drugs has to do with liability—being liable when harmful side effects occur. And simply put, generic manufacturers are not held liable.

Currently, it’s the brand name drug manufacturers who are responsible for ensuring their drug has gone through a rigorous FDA-approval process and they’re also responsible for making any label changes should new warnings be applied to a drug they’ve produced.

Generic manufacturers, however, don’t have quite the same responsibility. The Hatch-Waxman Act—officially, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984—made it easier for generics to find their way to market. Generic drugs do not have to go through a lengthy FDA approval process if they’re able to prove that the generic drug is equivalent to the brand name version. And, as such, the generic drug simply picks up the labelling information and package insert information from the brand name drug. When any changes are necessary (e.g., adding a black box warning), the generic is required to duplicate what’s happened with the brand name drug.

The most significant benefit of the Hatch-Waxman Act for blockbuster brand name drug manufacturers is that it allows the big pharma companies a period of exclusivity in the marketplace before the generic drug enters the market.

Now, the difference between a drug liability lawsuit for a generic vs a brand name is most glaring when you look at lawsuit outcomes. One of the most publicized examples showing the difference between a brand name drug lawsuit and a lawsuit with the same, but generic, drug involves phenergan.

In both cases the plaintiffs—both women who were administered the anti-nausea drug in a hospital and then subsequently lost an arm due to gangrene—sued the drug manufacturers. In the brand-name case, it was v. Wyeth; in the other, the generic, it was v. Baxter Healthcare. The upshot was that the plaintiff who had the ‘good fortune’ to have been given the brand name version received a multi-million dollar settlement. The generic patient? Her lawsuit against Baxter was dismissed. She had also filed a malpractice lawsuit, the final terms of which were undisclosed. 

Both women had life-altering injuries; only one received settlement money from the drug manufacturer.

While the phenergan lawsuits began in a hospital setting where the choice of brand name or generic may not have been the patients’ to make, the outcomes of their lawsuits show the stark difference in terms of liability claims. And, for patients who simply cannot afford to choose a brand-name drug, choosing the generic becomes a more or less de facto decision to give up the right to sue the drug company. And in that sense, generic drugs do discriminate against the poorest patients.

Asbestos News Roundup: 4.5.12 – (Spotlight: Asbestos Pipefitter Exposure)

April 6th, 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.

Laborers and Pipefitters at Risk for Asbestos Disease

People who work or worked as laborers and pipefitters are known to be at high risk for asbestos exposure. Why? Asbestos is mainly used as an insulating material—so it’s used in roofing and many construction materials, in electrical fittings and caulking compound for drywall. Because asbestos is a very effective fire retardant, it is also used to insulate boilers, pipes, and fire doors.

It seems that almost every week a new lawsuit is filed by the family of someone whose work involved exposure to asbestos, like the Bookers who just filed a second asbestos lawsuit on behalf of Robert Booker, who worked as a laborer and pipefitter.

 Jefferson County, TX: Oda Booker filed an asbestos suit against 22 companies, on behalf of the late Robert Booker this week, even though the deceased already received a settlement for an asbestos-related disease: this second suit is brought for a different malignant asbestos-related disease. 

Robert Booker worked as a laborer, pipefitter and operator. According to the lawsuit, it was through this work that he was exposed to asbestos products and asbestos fibers and dust, which caused him to suffer from asbestos-related diseases. The plaintiff alleges the defendants acted with malice, and are accused of manufacturing, distributing and using asbestos products without warning workers of the dangers.

The defendants named in the suit are: A.W. Chesterton, Bechtel Corp., CBS Corp., Certainteed Corp., Crown Cork & Seal, D&F Distributing, Dana Companies, Flour Enterprises, Flour Maintenance, Foster Wheeler Constructors, Foster Wheeler Corp., Foster Wheeler Energy, General Electric, Gould Pumps, Henry Vogt Machine, Ingersoll Rand, Metropolitan Life Insurance, Owens-Illinois, Riley Power, Sepco, Union Carbide and Uniroyal Holdings.

New Study Shows Asbestos Workers ‘face a greater risk of strokes and heart disease’

Results from a new study by British researchers show that men and women who worked around asbestos in their lifetimes are not only at an increased risk for asbestos-related diseases, but also cancer, heart disease and stroke.

The investigators looked into more than 15,000 deaths that occurred among nearly 99,000 workers in the British asbestos industry between 1971 and 2005. They found that nearly 4200 deaths were caused by heart disease and more than 1000 by a stroke, particularly among women.

According to a report in The Australian, “Male asbestos workers were 63% more likely to die of a stroke and 39% more likely to die of heart disease when compared with the general public, even when smoking was taken into account. The corresponding figures for female asbestos workers were 100 per cent and 89 per cent.”

The study, led by Anne-Helen Harding of Britain’s Health and Safety Laboratory, was begun in 1971 to monitor the long-term health of people who work in the asbestos industry. The investigators found that most of the male workers had been employed in removing asbestos, while female workers were generally employed in manufacturing.

There has long been a question about a possible link between asbestos, which, in addition to being a carcinogen is also as an inflammatory agent, and the risk for cardiovascular disease. This study appears to answer that question. The study was published in the latest issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. (theaustralian.com)

Global Asbestos Awareness Week 2012

Dallas, TX: This week is Global Asbestos Awareness Week 2012. Though many people think that asbestos is a thing of the past, the reality is that asbestos remains a current threat to people. According to a report by the Environmental Information Association (EIA), only 25% of countries have banned the use of asbestos worldwide and United States has not banned the use or import of asbestos. Canada still manufacturers and exports asbestos.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), more than 107,000 people die each year from asbestos lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis resulting from workplace exposure to asbestos. In the U.S. alone, approximately 3,000 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year. And according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. asbestos imports are increasing. While much of this asbestos is being used in construction products, such as roofing materials, a portion of it ends up in consumer products. (Marketwatch.com)

Online Dating: A Sex Offender’s Dream Meet and Greet, Till Now

April 3rd, 2012. By AbiK

Dating in the real world is hard—you know, you have to try to look half-decent and then there’s the conversation bit—trying to sound both interesting and intelligent with a dose of humor thrown in. Not easy. Particularly if the chemistry just ain’t there. Enter online dating. It’s just easier, right? Stick a profile out there—write it up when you’re at your wittiest, have some friends edit it, find some pics and photoshop them, and you’re good to go. Be the best date prospect you can be because it’s all, well, massaged—the way an ad campaign is.

But here’s the thing. If you can do it—in essence, perpetrate a bit of ‘online fraud’—guess who else can put their best self forward on online dating sites? Sex offenders. And you thought canceled or inactive subscribers was bad!

That’s hopefully about to change. Thanks to attorney Mark Webb and California state attorney general, Kamala Harris, three of the larger online dating sites have agreed to provide online safety tools for daters including: checking subscribers against the national sex offender registries; providing an abuse reporting system for site members; providing proactive education about safe online dating practices; and providing tips on how to safely meet someone offline–as, after all, that’s the goal of an online meetup.

According to a release from the attorney general’s office, “In 2011, 40 million Americans used an online dating service and spent more than $1 billion on online dating website memberships. Of couples married in the last three years, one in six met through an online dating service and one in five people have dated someone they met through an online dating site.”

Given those numbers, it’s no surprise that online dating sites are a natural lure for those seeking a mate. Apparently, that’s what the woman at the root of these changes thought when she became a rape victim while on a date that began as a Match.com meetup.

The victim, known only as Jane Doe from Los Angeles, was on the Match.com-arranged date when she was raped. She found out later that her date was a convicted serial sex offender. Amazingly, in her subsequent Match.com lawsuit (Jane Doe vs. Match.com, Los Angeles Superior Court Case #BC458927) she only sought for Match.com to screen out sex offenders and she waived her right to compensatory damages. She just wanted to spare others from what she’d been through. 

Of note as well, her attorney, Mark Webb took on her case pro bono.

In addition to Match.com, the online dating sites who agreed to the above terms include eHarmony.com and Spark Networks (which operates online dating sites including JDate and ChristianMingle).