Featured, Product Liability - Written by Jere Beasley on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:15 - 0 Comments
Mesothelioma cases present unique challenges
Because of the long latency period (the period of time from exposure to manifestation of symptoms) involved in mesothelioma cases – 20 to 50 years – mesothelioma cases present unique challenges. For example, because it is necessary to properly identify the asbestos-containing products the client was exposed to, it is necessary to develop and maintain an ever-expanding library of product identification materials.
The product identification library consists of labels, photographs of asbestos products, advertising materials and the like from products used in specific industrial settings 50 or more years ago. Product identification meetings are lengthy and are the heart of a mesothelioma case.
In addition, developments in case law have placed greater emphasis on identifying former co-workers who can both identify the products at issue as well as provide testimony regarding durations and frequency of exposure as well as physical proximity to the product and any information regarding ventilation and personal protective breathing masks.
Further, many of the long-thought-of primary defendants in asbestos litigation are in bankruptcy and many claimants are left with no further recourse than to seek payment through a bankruptcy trust. As a result, development of secondary and tertiary defendants has become more important and premises liability claims are often included in current mesothelioma lawsuits. Indeed, many of the current viable mesothelioma claims proceed against little known companies responsible for manufacturing and selling asbestos gaskets, packing materials, industrial insulation used in boilers, power plants, ship yards, pumps and air compressors.
Finally, although there is a long latency period, mesothelioma cases are typically associated with a short duration of illness resulting in death. The latency period from time of exposure to time of diagnosis is 20 to 50 years; however, from diagnosis to death is typically 12 to 18 months. During this very short period of time while the client is still living, it is vitally important to secure product identification, file the lawsuit and make the client available for deposition to memorialize the exposure testimony. Additionally, recent studies pointing to carbon fiber nanotubes as potentially mimicking asbestos fibers in causing mesothelioma are a double-edged sword: on the one hand they could herald in the next wave of defendants responsible for further mesothelioma deaths, and on the other hand they may provide asbestos defense experts with fodder to argue that nanotubes are to blame rather than asbestos products for causing mesothelioma.
Because of the long history of asbestos use in the United States and elsewhere, projections indicate that asbestos litigation is likely to continue into the foreseeable future. Further, because asbestos continues to appear in the most unlikely consumer products – in late 2007 the CPSC announced that a version of the CSI Crime Scene Investigation kit for children included a fingerprint powder consisting largely of asbestos dust – exposure to asbestos continues today, albeit at a lower rate than prior to the mid-1970’s when the establishment of OSHA significantly reduced industrial asbestos exposure. Finally, carbon fiber nanotubes represent an as yet unknown risk of mesothelioma by mimicking the carcinogenic effects of asbestos fibers. In short, mesothelioma litigation will continue to change and evolve as old defendants seek bankruptcy protection, new defendants are identified and technology advances. As a result, it is critically important to associate a law firm with resources and experience to tackle these difficult and challenging cases. Mike Andrews is handling mesothelioma cases for our firm and has several cases set for trial in the coming months. If you would like more information on this subject, you can contact Mike at 800-898-2034 or by email at Michael.Andrews@beasleyallen.com.
- Favorite Bible verses
- Medical Device Legislation Introduced in Congress
- Pursuing a humble heart
- Favorite Bible verses
- A report on the medical devices legislation
- President Obama calls for new consumer protections
- Joan Claybrook honored in Washington
- Complaint filed against Arkansas nursing home
- Lawsuit filed in Geo Tracker rollover death case
- Richard Scrushy is held to be responsible for Health South fraud
- Exxon ordered to pay $507.5 million for 1989 Alaska oil spill
- Court upholds settlement in asbestos lawsuits
- Supreme Court rules against Massey Unit in judicial bias case
- Recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court
- GOP lawmakers warned by ALFA
- Thank you for the beautiful and encouraging Bible verses. Think I will share th...
- This is a very nice article,may the good Lord continue to bless you. Pls I would...
- It was such a pleasure to come across your web site while searching for informat...
- I just want to thank you for all the hard work your firm has done. I'm am so hap...
- As a delegate to the State-wide Mock Constitutional Convention and a member of t...
- Why is no one looking at the actual cost to build the property ? Comparing it to...
- Thank you for your testimony, in an adversarial world. I always enjoy receiving...
- I don't Know about the other cases, but I know that the women who sued Mcdonalds...
- Beasley Allen
- Extreme Montgomery
- Jere Beasley Report
- Coal Ash Spill
- Leaking Storage Tank
- Personal Injury Lawyer
- Yamaha Rhino Lawyer
- Mesothelioma Blog
- Mesothelioma Lawyer
- Nursing Home Abuse
- Unum Provident Denied Disability
- Morgan Keegan Investment Fraud
- Employee Rights
- Heparin Recall
- Trasylol Recall
- HRT and Breast Cancer
- Gadolinium and NSF
- Fosamax and ONJ
- Steven Johnson Syndrome (SJS)
- Chantix Recall
- Medtronic Heart Lead Recall
- Ortho Evra and Blood Clots
- Paxil and Pregnancy
- Kugel Hernia Patch Recall
- Reglan Lawyer
- Pain Pumps
- Avandia and Heart Attacks
- Vytorin Cancer
- Fleet Attorney
- Digitek Recall
Recent Settlements - Jul 1, 2009 7:20 - 0 Comments
Serious eye injury case settled in Pike County
More In Recent Settlements
- Greg Allen settles case with Ford Motor Company
- Settlement of roof crush case
- Settlement of Ford Explorer and Firestone tire case
- Insurance Fraud Settlement Involving Liberty Life Insurance Co.
- ALFA Found Guilty Of Insurance Fraud
Product Liability - Jul 1, 2009 7:19 - 0 Comments
The single vehicle accident: a series highlighting often overlooked product claims
More In Product Liability
- Illinois jury returns $2 million asbestos injury verdict
- Three teens killed and six hurt in SUV rollover
- Our clients are examples of the hardest hit victims of the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies
- IIHS research on child seats is revealing
- NHTSA releases new roof crush standard
Leave a Reply