Asbestos News Roundup: 10.27.11

October 27th, 2011. 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 Lawsuits

St. Clair County, IL: Donald D. Hongsermeier, a former railroad employee who has developed a non-cancerous disease, has filed a lawsuit claiming that his exposure to asbestos fibers during the course of his career has caused his illness.

For nearly 40 years Hongsermeier worked as a hostler, fireman and engineer for defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company from 1953 until 1991. During his career, Hongsermeier claims in his lawsuit, he was exposed to asbestos dust or fibers. As a result of this exposure, he suffered great pain, extreme nervousness and mental anguish and developed the non-malignant disease, which he does not specify in his lawsuit.

Further, Hongsermeier alleges he incurred medical costs, lost his earnings and his earning capacity, experienced a diminished ability to render services and sustained a shortened life expectancy, the complaint says.

According to the lawsuit, Illinois Central Railroad Company negligently failed to provide Hongsermeier with a safe place to work, failed to provide him with safe tools and equipment, failed to warn him of the hazardous nature of the products with which he was working, failed to drive in a safe manner, failed to provide instructions for the safe use of asbestos products and failed to test products before exposing employees to them.

Hongsermeier claims he now suffers from mental anxiety and a fear of the worsening of his condition, which he is scared will develop into mesothelioma or some other form of cancer.

Hongsermeier is seeking compensatory damages and a judgment of more than $50,000, plus costs and other relief the court deems just. (madisonrecord.com)

St. Clair County, IL: Ray and Bobbie Ruth Lewis have filed an asbestos lawsuit naming 17 defendant companies, which, their suit alleges, caused Ray Lewis to develop lung cancer after his exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career.

In their lawsuit, the Lewises claim that Ray Lewis worked as a laborer in the US Army from 1965 through 1968 and as a motor and assembly line worker, welder, body shop worker and laborer at General Motors from 1968 through 1999, according to the complaint. Mr. Lewis also did auto repair work from the 1960s through the 1970s, the lawsuit states.

The Lewises claim that the defendants should have known of the harmful effects of asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for the plaintiffs’ safety.

As a result of his illness, Ray Lewis is now disabled and disfigured, has incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, the suit states. In addition, he became prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued, the plaintiff claims.

Tge Lewises are seeking a judgment of more than $150,000 and punitive and exemplary damages of more than $50,000.(madisonrecord.com)

Asbestos News

Washington, DC: According to the website Surviving Mesothelioma, some of the nation’s top health and environmental officials have been meeting in Washington to discuss a little-known mineral that could put thousands of Americans at risk for mesothelioma.

Although the mineral, called erionite, had not received much press until this year, it is known to be a human carcinogen and is listed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 1 Carcinogen.

According to the website Fairwarning.com (cited by The New York Times), the meeting in Washington represents the U.S. government’s attempt to take a more proactive approach to protecting the public against erionite than it did in protecting them from asbestos.

Erionite occurs in the soil where volcanic ash and rock have been weathered by alkaline water. Few people had heard of it before scientists began studying the cause of strikingly high mesothelioma rates in several Turkish villages where erionite has been used for decades as a building material. In these villages, deaths from mesothelioma can run as high as 50 percent of the population.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, erionite deposits have been found in a dozen western states and are most concentrated in California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon and Wyoming. Like asbestos, erionite poses no threat until it is disturbed. Unfortunately, hundreds of miles of roadways have been covered with erionite-laden gravel in North Dakota, raising serious concerns about the danger in the dust being constantly stirred up by vehicles.

The meeting at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) brings together representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Heath (NIOSH), the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and the U.S. Geological Survey. They are discussing the mesothelioma danger posed by erionite, as well and the risks associated with other hazardous minerals.

Like asbestos, erionite can lodge in the lungs when inhaled, triggering irritation and inflammation that can eventually lead to mesothelioma. The more concentrated and frequent the exposure, the higher the risk is thought to be. Although there have been no documented cases of erionite-related mesothelioma cases in the U.S., officials are bracing for future cases since mesothelioma can take 20 to 40 years to develop. Approximately 2,500 Americans are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year primarily as a result of asbestos exposure according to the National Institute of Health. (PRWeb.com)

Asbestos Law

Surry, VA: Repairs made to the Surry Nuclear power plant have result in environmental and personal asbestos exposure, according to a report in The Republic.

Roughly 12 contract employees hired to repair the plant have been exposed to the lethal mineral, and, the Republic reports, “State Department of Labor and Industry reports obtained by the Daily Press found that flakes of the cancer-causing substance went airborne in April after contractors cut a pipe. The reports say that a dozen workers and three work trailers had asbestos on them, but it’s unclear how much because plant owner Dominion Power didn’t have air-sampling equipment on site.”

Investigations undertaken by the state cleared six of the eight companies involved however, Hopewell-based Quality Specialties Inc, has been fined $4,900 for failing to properly label pipes. (therepublic.com)

Oreck Vacuum Class Action, Again (Oreck Air Purifier, too)

October 26th, 2011. By AbiK

 

Third time’s a charm? Seems we’ve been covering the Oreck germ-killing claim filings for a while now—indeed, we were posting about it back in 2007 when a lawsuit was filed claiming that an Oreck air purifier did not alleviate allergy symptoms (that one was thrown out).

Then just last spring we posted about the Oreck class action lawsuit—Ruscitti v. Oreck Corporation 1:11-cv-03121. In that one, plaintiffs allege Oreck made false claims regarding the Oreck Halo vacuum’s ability to kill germs; specifically, to “kill and reduce virtually all bacteria, viruses, germs, mold, and allergens that exist on carpets and floor surfaces”. You can read our interview with the plaintiffs’ attorney on that one, too.

The Oreck Halo apparently claimed to use UV light to knock out those bad germs. Pictures of the vacuum in use conjure up a scene straight out of Close Encounters of the Third Kind—clearly the Halo designer must’ve had a childhood fixation with the flick (see separated at birth image above—seriously).

Aside from whatever the inspiration was for the vacuum, it’s the advertising that’s at issue. As the ad at right depicts, the Oreck Halo was touted with the headline, “When the light is on, the germs are gone” —and there’s that graphic of the sideways bracket under the word “Kills” that just hangs there as if to literally suck all those bad viruses, mites, bacteria…right up off the ad itself. Why, this would be an asthmatics dream, right?

Wrong—and the FTC didn’t think so either…

In the midst of all these lawsuits, the FTC came down on Oreck for false and deceptive health claims, which led to Oreck coughing up a fine of $750k last May. Oreck, as a quick web search confirms, also stopped selling the Halo vacuum. (They do still sell Oreck Halo vacuum bags, though—for those who’d already drank, or bought, the Kool-Aid®).

Ok, so now we’re at number three…

Another Oreck class action lawsuit has been filed—just last Friday—in California seeking over $5 million in damages. What are the damages you ask? Well, again, it’s about false claims regarding the Halo and Oreck’s ProShield air purifier and their ability to kill germs. Rewind that tape…here’s the heart of the matter straight from the lawsuit: “Defendants’ claims are not adequately supported by credible, scientific testing or other substantiation and are not true”.

The plaintiffs in the new Oreck Halo class action are Roxy Edge of Los Angeles, CA and Linda Gonzalez of Broome County, NY.

Asbestos News Roundup: 10.20.11

October 20th, 2011. 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 Illness in Iron Range Workers

Northeastern MN: News reports indicate that the 82 people who worked in the notorious Iron Range have died from a rare form of lung cancer. The number of fatalities has risen from 63 reported by state health officials in 2010. The increase, state officials say, is attributable to death record checks of former Iron Range workers in other states, people who moved away from Minnesota. The statistics were released by the University of Minnesota team leading the long-term Taconite Workers Health Study.

The lead researcher on the study, Dr. Jeffrey Mandel with the university’s School of Public Health, said a “back-of-the-envelope” analysis revealed a considerably higher rate of mesothelioma—higher than it should be. “But we are still doing the analysis to find out how much so,” Mandel said in a telephone news conference. It also remains unclear where the victims were exposed to asbestos.

While earlier reports on the increase in the number of asbestos-related illnesses found in former Iron Range workers were thought to be due to workers earlier exposure to asbestos found in commercial products such as insulation materials for pipes, furnaces and boilers, it now appears that the increase could be due directly to Taconite exposure, however this remains to be confirmed. “We’ve basically concluded our data collection phase,” said John Finnegan, dean of the university’s School of Public Health. “It’s an enormous number of people we have data on now…people who worked in mining back to the 1920s.”

Preliminary analyses show that 1,681 taconite workers, of about 46,000 born since 1920 who worked in the industry, developed some sort of lung cancer. However, the exact cause is unclear, and whether or not the rate of asbestos illness is higher than normal.

The five part study is looking at occupational exposures to determine how and where the asbestos came from; a mortality study that reviews the cause of death for deceased taconite workers; a cancer incidence study to see whether cancer rates are higher on the Iron Range; an environmental study of current airborne particulates to check for asbestos levels; and a respiratory health study of living taconite workers and their spouses. Results from each study will be made public after they are completed, and a final, overall report is expected after that. (Canadianbusiness.com)

Asbestos Law

Vancouver, BC: A demolition contractor from the Metro Vancouver area, who is facing charges of exposing unprotected workers to asbestos, has been found in contempt of court and may be going to jail. Arthur Moore allegedly hired teenagers as young as 14 to demolish asbestos-laden houses without protection, the BC Court of Appeals was told. He hired the students because they needed cash. He also hired recovering addicts from addiction recovery houses in Surrey, BC.

“His conduct grievously endangered workers under his direction,” Justice Ian Donald ruled this week, finding Moore guilty of contempt. “Unless he can in some way mitigate his indifference to the lives and safety of his workers and his open defiance of the injunction, his misconduct requires a severe response.”

According to a news report in BClocalnews.com the B.C. Court of Appeals has ordered that Arthur Moore be arrested for violating an August 2010 court injunction that indefinitely barred him from operating his Surrey-based asbestos and drywall removal business. Moore is to be sentenced in B.C. Supreme Court after his arrest. (BClocalnews.com)

Ruth’s Chris Steak House Faces Discrimination Class Action

October 18th, 2011. By AbiK

Been to a Ruth’s Chris Steak House? Aside from it being a tongue twister (try saying “Ruth’s Chris” fast ten times), once you get inside you’ll notice it looks very…boys’ club.

It’s that solid wood thing going on that’s characteristic of most bigger name steak houses. Like Smith & Wollensky. Or Peter Luger (though Luger’s is missing those white lint-producing tablecloths). Outback, Longhorn’s, Morton’s…same drill. And the handles on those steak knives—if you didn’t know any better you’d think you were handling a Winchester Model 1895.

No, not much feminine going on there. So it seems almost apropos that a sexual discrimination lawsuit would somehow crop up in the midst of all that manliness. And so one has—for Ruth’s Chris Steak House.

A group of current and former female employees has filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against Ruth’s Chris. Their complaint alleges that female employees have been subjected to: lower compensation than their male counterparts; sexist comments; and harsher disciplinary action than that which is doled out to the guys there.

The women are seeking class action status for this one, and if gets certified the class would include all female Ruth’s Chris employees who worked at the restaurants or the company headquarters from September, 2006 to the present.

To quote from the lawsuit (Bush v. Ruth’s Chris Steak House, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 10-01721): “The work environment at RCSH [Ruth’s Chris Steak House] is one that is demeaning to women, reflects a culture of male domination and female subjugation, and is a causative factor in the discrimination against women in compensation, promotion, and termination.”

What’s interesting here is that the “Ruth” in Ruth’s Chris was actually Ruth U. Fertel, who purchased Chris Steak House in New Orleans in 1965 and got the whole thing going. She passed away in 2002. One can only wonder what the successful, entrepreneurial businesswoman who created this businessman’s beefery would think of this…

Does Kim Kardashian have a Case v. Old Navy? You be the Judge

October 17th, 2011. By AbiK

Ok folks. The lookalike lawsuit filed by Kim Kardashian against Old Navy (owned by The Gap, Inc.) has not just faded away like rinse on your fave Old Navy Skinny Mini-Flare jeans—Color: Cottonwood, that is. Nope. Now The Gap is bringing in the big guns by hiring attorney Louis Petrich of Leopold, Petrich & Smith. The firm specializes in entertainment and intellectual property law.

So the big question is not what Kardashian will next be touting after her product line launch at Sears and—hush-hush—that failed Kardashian Kard debit card—but whether Old Navy in their classic tongue-in-cheek (and usually humorous) ads stepped over the line by using an attractive brunette to emulate a rather self-absorbed, high-maintenance, reality tv-type actress. Oh wait—I mean to allegedly channel the very likeness of Kim Kardashian to push their product line.

At least two statements in the complaint do confound me a bit:

1. The Infringing Ads are likely to cause confusion, and have caused actual confusion, in the minds of the consuming public as to an association of Kim Kardashian with Defendants’ products and services.

and

2. Defendants have created a likelihood of confusion in the minds of the consuming public as to the source, sponsorship, endorsement, or association of Kim Kardashian with Defendants, and with their goods, services and performances.

Ok, it’s the bit about “confusion”. I don’t watch Keeping Up with the Kardashians. It’s a painful reminder of Bruce Jenner circa 1976 and leads me to ask the unanswerable question “what happened?” Regardless, I don’t have a razor-sharp recollection of what the heck Kim Kardashian looks like. But, I do know that every tabloid I see when I’m checking out at the grocery store does show her in a much less-complimentary light than what Old Navy could possibly have mustered up with these ads (hello hip measurements anyone?).

Not to be catty—but, ok, I am—I’d be quite happy if someone used model Melissa Molinaro to allegedly represent me. My point though, is that there isn’t anyway, anyhow that I’d have “confused” Melissa with Kim. Are they a similar “look” in general? Yes—but I got that it was a spoof…a mockery. It’s a caricature of our times. And doesn’t the First Amendment provide for such artistic interpretation of very public theater?

While I certainly don’t agree that anyone has a right to use a celebrity without his/her express consent in the capacity of an endorsement or otherwise, Old Navy did not either a) use images of Kim Kardashian herself; or b) have her name splattered across the ads as an official endorsement.

We’ll have to see where this nets out—and feel free to chime in with your comments. The ad is shown in the video above—and by now, I presume you already know what Ms. Kardashian looks like.