Mesothelioma Court Rulings and Legislation

New York Court Allows Plaintiff’s Talcum Powder Cancer Lawsuit to Proceed

September 20, 2020 | by Throneberry Law Group

A New York court recently denied an attempt by the defendant in a talcum powder mesothelioma cancer lawsuit to have the case dismissed, which paves the way for the plaintiffs to have their day in court and seek justice for the harm caused by the defendant’s alleged negligence. In its ruling, the court denied defendant Whittaker Clark and Daniels’ motion for summary judgement to dismiss the claim, as well as denying the company’s bid to have claims of potential punitive damages thrown out.

According to the plaintiff’s mesothelioma cancer lawsuit, filed in New York County Supreme Court, the victim developed mesothelioma for exposure to asbestos fibers in talcum powder products manufactured by defendant Whittaker Clark and Daniels. The plaintiff claimed that during his time working as a barber in New York City from 1961 until he retired in 2016, he frequently breathed in talcum powder dust from the Clubman talc he applied to clients, which he alleges the defendant knowingly manufactured with asbestos fibers.

In its motion to dismiss the case, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff’s mesothelioma diagnosis was not caused by exposure to talc in Whittaker Clark and Daniels’ Clubman talcum powder, but instead by exposure to asbestos in the victim’s native Italy where he lived until he was 25 years old until he immigrated to the United States. Specifically, the defendants claimed that the victim was exposed to asbestos in quarries found in Sicily, Italy. Countering that argument, the plaintiff’s lawyers contended that the victim lived almost 15 miles from the sites in question.

Minnesota Appeals Court Denies Asbestos Manufacturer’s Bid to Dismiss Mesothelioma Cancer Lawsuit

September 5, 2020 | by Throneberry Law Group

A Minnesota appeals court recently denied a motion by the defendant-asbestos manufacturer in a mesothelioma cancer lawsuit to dismiss the case on the grounds that the company had long since left the state. In its ruling, the Court of Appeals of Minnesota upheld the lower trial court’s decision not to throw out the case, determining that personal jurisdiction exists over the company and that the case may proceed and eventually be heard by a jury, if the matter is not resolved sooner.

According to the mesothelioma cancer lawsuit, filed in Ramsey County District Court, the plaintiff developed mesothelioma cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers from the Conwed Corporation’s asbestos ceiling tile mill located in Cloquet, Minnesota. The plaintiff claims that his father, who worked at the mill from 1939 until 1975, would return home covered in asbestos dust. The plaintiff claims that he would see bags of asbestos fiber in the mill when he visited his father at work.

The plaintiff’s mesothelioma cancer lawsuit goes on to claim that the victim himself went to work at the same Conwed Corporation mill in 1963. The plaintiff claimed that as a result of second-hand asbestos exposure and from his own time at the mill, he developed mesothelioma cancer. The lawsuit alleges that a corporate memo from Conwed in the late 1950s identified the health risks of asbestos exposure but provided no warnings to the mill’s employees in order for the workers to decide if it was safe for them to work at the site.

Montana State Supreme Court Rules Insurance Company May be Party to Class Action Asbestos Cancer Lawsuit

June 14, 2020 | by Throneberry Law Group

The Montana state supreme court recently handed down an important ruling in a class action asbestos lawsuit against the insurer of a long-time operator of a vermiculite mine and processing facility in the state, alleged to have caused the debilitating health conditions of local residents. The Court’s unanimous ruling will allow the plaintiffs to bring claims against Maryland Casualty Company, to potentially recover damages against the party for causing their asbestos-related conditions.

In her decision, Justice Ingrid Gustafson ruled that Maryland Casualty Company helped participate in W.R. Grace, the operator of the Libby vermiculite mine, conceal “known asbestos risk and worker injuries from workers.” Gustafson went on to write that Maryland Casualty Company “caused increased or prolonged exposure to asbestos, thereby increasing the risk of harm to workers beyond the pre-existing risk created by Grace.”

The case was originally brought by an employee of W.R. Grace in the late 1960s. The plaintiff claimed that he developed an asbestos-related condition while working at the company’s mill and operating equipment at the mine site. With the Montana state supreme court’s ruling, an estimated 800 other former W.R. Grace employees will be able to bring claims against Maryland Casualty Company for its failure to act responsibly.

Philadelphia School System Settles Asbestos Cancer Lawsuit

April 6, 2020 | by Throneberry Law Group

The Philadelphia school system recently agreed to a settlement in an asbestos cancer lawsuit with a long time teacher who claimed she developed a serious form of asbestos-related cancer as a result of working in dangerous conditions in the school system. As part of the settlement, the 30-year special education teacher will receive a total of $850,000 dollars to compensate her for her lost wages, medical bills, and pain and suffering of living with the disease.

According to the mesothelioma cancer lawsuit, filed in September 2019 in a Pennsylvania court in Philadelphia, the plaintiff worked in two 90-year-old, dilapidated school buildings with damaged asbestos pipe insulation. The plaintiff’s lawsuit recalls an instance where she came in direct contact with crumbling asbestos pieces, which she claims was one of the instances in which she was exposed to the deadly carcinogen which caused her mesothelioma cancer diagnosis. The plaintiff had hoped to continue working for at least another seven years but has been forced into retirement while she contemplates her treatment options moving forward in order to fight the disease.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral and was once commonly used in a variety of industrial, construction, and military applications due to its heat resistant properties and ability to be shaped to fit a variety of needs, particularly in insulation for pipes. However, asbestos is also carcinogenic and is directly linked to developing mesothelioma, a rare and deadly form of cancer which affects thin linings of tissue surrounding vital organs such as the lungs, heart, and abdominal cavity. Mesothelioma is often not diagnosed until decades after exposure, which often leaves patients with diminished treatment options to fight the disease.

Johnson & Johnson Hit With Additional $750 Million Punitive Verdict in Talcum Powder Asbestos Cancer Lawsuit

March 30, 2020 | by Throneberry Law Group

A New Jersey state jury recently handed down a substantial $750 million verdict to plaintiffs during the punitive damages phase of the trial after already handing down a multimillion dollar verdict on the victim’s behalf during the main phase of the trial last year. The four victorious plaintiffs brought their talcum powder asbestos cancer lawsuit against New Jersey-based pharmaceutical and cosmetics giant Johnson & Johnson, claiming the company knowingly sold cosmetics products containing deadly carcinogens.

In September 2109, a Middlesex County jury handed down a $37.3 million verdict on behalf of the plaintiffs after a nearly two-month trial, during which time they were presented with compelling testimony detailing Johnson & Johnson’s decades long knowledge about the possibility of asbestos contamination in its iconic Baby Powder. The cosmetic product is made from talc, one of the softest known minerals, and used in a variety of other products including Johnson & Johnson’s Shower to Shower.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs told jurors how the plaintiffs developed various forms of cancer, including mesothelioma, from years of using Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder. Jurors were presented with internal Johnson & Johnson documents which showed executives knew as far back as the 1970s that its talc-based products were testing positive for deadly asbestos fibers.

Cosmetics Maker Revlon Hit With Talc Asbestos Cancer Lawsuit

March 7, 2020 | by Throneberry Law Group

Multinational cosmetics company Revlon Inc. was recently hit with a talc asbestos cancer lawsuit over allegations that the company used asbestos-contaminated talc in its cosmetics products, which caused the plaintiff’s mesothelioma cancer diagnosis. The lawsuit was brought by a Maryland couple in New York state court and seeks tens of millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages as well as damages for the emotional damages suffered by the victim’s husband.

According to the asbestos talcum powder lawsuit, the plaintiff developed mesothelioma from using Jean Nate Silkening Body Powder and other Revlon products that her father provided for her while she was growing up. The victim claims that those products contained talc, a mineral often used in consumer cosmetics products, which was contaminated with cancer-causing asbestos fibers. The lawsuit alleges that Revlon, along with chemicals distributor Whittaker Clark & Daniels Inc., failed to warn consumers about the risks associated with exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc.

The victim’s asbestos cancer lawsuit seeks $20 million in compensatory damages for medical bills and pain and suffering, $40 million in punitive damages for what she claims is especially negligent conduct on the part of the defendants, and an additional $5 million in damages for her husband for his mental anguish and loss of companionship as a result of his wife’s mesothelioma diagnosis.

State of New Mexico Sues Johnson & Johnson Over Asbestos in Talcum Powder Products

February 2, 2020 | by Throneberry Law Group

On behalf of the state of New Mexico, Attorney General Hector Balderas recently filed suit against pharmaceutical and cosmetics giant Johnson & Johnson over claims that the company knew for decades about the risks posed by using its talc-based products but continued to market the product to consumers. The talcum powder lawsuit further alleges that Johnson & Johnson systematically targeted minority women in its advertising and marketing campaigns of its Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products and misled them and others about the safety of the products.

According to Attorney General Balderas, Johnson & Johnson “concealed and failed to warn consumers about the dangers associated with their talc products,” among which can include such diseases like lung disease, ovarian cancer, and mesothelioma, a rare and deadly cancer which commonly affects the thin lining of tissue surrounding vital organs such as the lungs, heart, and abdomen. The legal action by the state of New Mexico is just the latest in a series of claims brought against Johnson & Johnson, which currently faces an estimated 17,000 talcum powder cancer lawsuits across the country brought by plaintiffs who claim their serious health conditions were caused by decades of talc use.

Thus far, jurors in state courts from California, Missouri, and New Jersey have handed down a over $5 billion in compensation to dozens of plaintiffs who claim they suffered irreparable harm at the hands of Johnson & Johnson. In the wake of these lawsuits, Johnson & Johnson’s long-time talc supplier, Imerys Talc USA filed for bankruptcy under the weight of litigation and its liability for its role in these and other plaintiffs’ talcum powder asbestos cancer diagnosis.

Hawaii Woman Files Asbestos Cancer Lawsuit Against Johnson & Johnson

January 4, 2020 | by Throneberry Law Group

A Hawaii woman recently filed an asbestos cancer lawsuit against pharmaceutical and cosmetics giant Johnson & Johnson and local grocer Foodland Supermarket Ltd. alleging that the defendants are responsible for her mesothelioma cancer diagnosis. The mesothelioma cancer lawsuit claims Johnson & Johnson knowingly produced and marketed talc-based products like Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, which the company knew were contaminated with deadly carcinogens but did not provide any warning to consumers on the label.

According to the asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit, filed in Honolulu Circuit Court, the 64-year-old plaintiff developed malignant mesothelioma after years of using asbestos-contaminated talcum powder products produced by Johnson & Johnson and sold by Foodland Supermarkets. The plaintiff, who is also an equine chiropractor, claims she frequently used Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products in the course of her work caring for horses.

The asbestos talcum powder lawsuit filing comes less than a month after Johnson & Johnson issued a voluntary recall for certain lots of of its Baby Powder product after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that those certain lots of Baby Powder tested positive for cancerous asbestos fibers. While Johnson & Johnson claims subsequent testing showed no positive tests for asbestos, a Wall Street Journal report revealed flaws in the initial testing the company conducted after it appeared to rush those independent tests.

California Jury Awards $3 Million to Pipefitter in Asbestos Cancer Lawsuit

May 23, 2019 | by Throneberry Law Group

A Southern California jury recently awarded a former pipefitter and his wife $3 million in an asbestos cancer lawsuit brought against a contractor whom the plaintiff claims frequently exposed him to asbestos during the course of his employment. The mesothelioma lawsuit claimed that D.W. Nicholson Corp. exposed the plaintiff to asbestos while performing an estimated 100 contracting jobs at the Masonite Corp. in Ukiah, California.

According to the mesothelioma cancer lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, D.W. Nicholson Corp. installed mechanical, electrical, and piping equipment at Masonite more than 100 times while the plaintiff worked at the site. The plaintiff alleged that D.W. Nicholson frequently exposed the victim to asbestos when the company failed to clean up asbestos-containing debris it left behind and provided no warning to Masonite workers about the risks of exposure.

As a result of years of asbestos exposure from 1964 to 1999, the plaintiff claimed he developed mesothelioma, a rare and deadly form of cancer which commonly affects the thin lining of tissue surrounding vital organs like the lungs, heart, and abdominal cavity. Asbestos exposure is directly linked to developing this rare type of cancer, often occurring through industrial exposure in the course of employment or sometimes secondhand when fibers are brought home on work clothing.

Court Allows Construction Worker’s Mesothelioma Lawsuit Against Boiler Company to Continue

May 14, 2019 | by Throneberry Law Group

A New York City judge recently handed down an important ruling in a mesothelioma cancer lawsuit allowing the plaintiff’s claim against a boiler company to continue rebuffing the defendant’s legal maneuvers to have the case dismissed before it could be heard by a jury. Attorneys for defendant Kohler Co. asked the judge to throw out the case on summary judgement, claiming there was a similar case in New York’s asbestos courts, which barred the plaintiffs from suing the company.

The case was brought by a retired clean up crew worker who worked from 1958 to 1966 and was responsible for removing boiler parts manufactured by Kohler Co. after they had been disassembled. The plaintiff eventually developed mesothelioma and filed a lawsuit against Kohler Co., claiming that he frequently came in contact with frayed gaskets that contained asbestos. The plaintiff ultimately passed away after his battle with mesothelioma in 2016, leaving his estate to take up the claim in court.

In their mesothelioma cancer lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that Kohler Co. should have known that maintenance companies would repair and replace boilers with parts manufactured with deadly asbestos fibers. In their motion for summary judgement, attorneys for the defendant pointed out that Kohler Co. did not manufacture the asbestos-laden parts itself and that the removal of parts after dismantling was not a foreseeable use of the product and that therefore the company owed no duty of care to anybody who was carrying parts away.