Articles Posted in Mesothelioma Court Rulings and Legislation

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.

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.

A California jury recently handed down a substantial award to a husband and wife who claim the man’s employer is responsible for his mesothelioma diagnosis developed while working at several of the defendant’s oil refineries over a two-decade period. The mesothelioma cancer lawsuit named Fluor Enterprises Inc., Middle East Fluor, the National Iranian Oil Company, and several other companies as defendants, claiming that the groups exposed the victim to carcinogens by using asbestos-laden products despite knowing of the risks to workers.

According to the asbestos cancer lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the plaintiff developed an especially rare form of testicular mesothelioma as a result of working with asbestos contaminated parts as part of his routine job duties on oil rigs. The plaintiffs claimed the defendants violated their own internal standards for safety in the process of completing those projects, cutting many corners and putting the victim and other workers at risk of asbestos exposure.

The Los Angeles jury ultimately sided with the plaintiffs, handing down a total of $25 million in compensatory damages to the couple. Of that award, $14 million was awarded to the husband for his past and future pain and suffering while the remaining $11 million went to the wife for her damages as a result of her spouse’s mesothelioma diagnosis. In apportioning liability to the defendants, the jury determined the Iranian National Oil Company to be 20% at fault and prescribed the remainder of the blame to the Flour companies.

A grieving Georgia family recently filed an asbestos talcum powder cancer lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson after losing their mother to a battle with mesothelioma in 2017 that they claim was caused by the pharmaceutical and cosmetics giant’s negligence. The family’s lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and its supplier, Imerys Talc USA, comes just shortly after a report by Reuters detailed a review of thousands of internal company documents showing that the defendants knew for decades about asbestos contamination in its talcum powder products.

According to the talcum powder mesothelioma lawsuit, the victim used talc-based products manufactured by Johnson & Johnson and supplied by Imerys Talc USA that were contaminated with deadly asbestos fibers. Despite knowing full well about the presence of asbestos in its talcum powder products and the risks it could pose to consumers, the defendants declined to provide the public with any warnings on the product labels, according to the lawsuit.

The mesothelioma cancer lawsuit is another in an increasingly long list of claims filed against the company by defendants, mostly women, who developed ovarian cancer or mesothelioma as a result of using Johnson & Johnson talcum powder products. Currently, there are an estimated 12,000 other talcum powder cancer lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson pending in state and federal courts, with several slated for trial in 2019.

An Oakland, California jury recently handed down a substantial $29 million verdict in favor of a female plaintiff who claims she developed a serious form of cancer from carcinogens in talc-based products produced by the defendant, Johnson & Johnson. The plaintiff’s verdict is the latest defeat for the pharmaceutical and cosmetics giant, which is still reeling from several other awards handed down by juries last year totaling more than $5 billion in compensatory and punitive damages.

According to the asbestos cancer lawsuit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, the plaintiff developed mesothelioma as a result of years of exposure to asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder, which is made with talc sourced by Italy-based Imerys Talc USA. The talc supplier avoided any liability in the matter due to a recent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing which Imerys claims is the result of the weight of talcum powder cancer lawsuits filed against it.

Although talc does not contain asbestos itself, the two are both naturally occurring minerals found in deposits side by side one another. If talc suppliers and manufacturers do not take reasonable precautions to separate talc from asbestos and conduct necessary testing, innocent consumers may be exposed to life threatening carcinogens.

A California jury recently heard closing arguments in an asbestos cancer lawsuit brought by a plaintiff who claims she developed mesothelioma as a result of years of exposure from carcinogens in talc-based products produced by Johnson & Johnson. The trial is one of the first of many the pharmaceutical and cosmetics giant will face this year by itself after codefendant and minerals supplier Imerys Talc USA was dismissed from many of the cases after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in federal court.

According to the asbestos lawsuit, filed in Oakland court, the plaintiff used Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder since the 1960s, never knowing it may have been contaminated with deadly asbestos fibers. The plaintiff’s lawyers pointed to Johnson & Johnson internal company documents which allegedly show that the company knew for decades about the presence of the carcinogenic mineral but placed no warnings on labels to inform consumers of the risks.

In its defense, Johnson & Johnson’s lawyers attempted to obfuscate blame by asserting the materials could not be reliable since they were decades old and the authors of those reports were not able to come and testify on the matter. Johnson and Johnson faces an estimated 13,000 other talcum powder asbestos cancer lawsuits in state and federal courts across the country brought by victims who claim they suffer from debilitating health conditions as a result of the company knowingly providing a dangerous product.

 The adult children of a man who passed away from mesothelioma recently won a huge court victory when an appeals court upheld a lower court’s ruling allowing the group to proceed with their own wrongful death claims against asbestos companies they say are responsible for their father’s passing. The case is another classic example of asbestos companies and other negligent parties avoiding responsibility for their indifference to public safety and compensating victims and their families for the harm incurred.

The case began years ago when the plaintiff filed his mesothelioma cancer lawsuit in a California Superior Court against several defendants, accusing the group of manufacturing and marketing asbestos contaminated products that caused his mesothelioma cancer diagnosis. The plaintiff was able to settle his asbestos cancer claims with all but two of the defendants, Elementis Chemicals, Inc. and Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), and eventually went to trial to hold the remaining parties accountable.

The jury eventually ruled in favor of the plaintiff, apportioning some of the blame to Elementis Chemicals and UCC, for which the two defendants would receive some credit since other parties already settled cases with the plaintiffs, effectively reducing the amount they owed the plaintiff. During an appeal, the victim passed away from mesothelioma and the plaintiff’s wife was able to settle the claims with Elementis Chemicals.

A California appeals court recently issued a ruling in an asbestos cancer lawsuit allowing the plaintiffs to have their case reheard and pursue additional damages which were improperly excluded from consideration by the trial court. The case is being brought by the seven surviving children of the deceased who passed away after a battle with mesothelioma which the plaintiffs claim was a direct result of exposure to asbestos-laden products sold by Pep Boys auto parts stores.

According to the mesothelioma cancer lawsuit, filed in Francisco City and County Superior Court, the plaintiff was a “do it yourselfer” who frequently performed his own work on his vehicle, including changing brake pads made with asbestos and sold by Pep Boys from the 1960s through the mid-1980s. Throughout the course of repairing and replacing his brakes, which included brushing brake dust from auto wheel drums, grinding or sanding brake shoes, handling core brake parts, and sweeping up brake dust, the victim inhaled friable asbestos dust.

As a result of decades of exposure to and inhaling asbestos fibers, the plaintiff developed mesothelioma and received a diagnosis for such in April 2010 and ultimately succumbed to the illness just three months later at the age of 75. In January 2011, the deceased’s adult children filed a mesothelioma lawsuit on his behalf against Pep Boys, claiming the company knowingly sold a dangerous product and was therefore responsible for the cancer diagnosis.

A California jury recently handed down a substantial verdict in an asbestos cancer case involving a plaintiff who developed mesothelioma as a result of secondhand exposure to asbestos fibers brought home on his father’s work clothes. The jury’s $11.4 million award included $5 million to the plaintiff and his wife for what the panel deemed to be malice on the part of the defendant, Liberty Utilities, now known as Park Water.

Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that commonly affects thin lining of tissue surrounding vital organs like the lungs, heart, and abdomen. The disease is directly linked to exposure to asbestos, a naturally occuring mineral once commonly used in a variety of industrial, commercial, and military applications due to its malleability and heat-resistant properties. Mesothelioma usually takes 20 to 50 years to develop, which can leave patients with limited treatment options by the time a diagnosis is made.

According to the asbestos cancer lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the plaintiff developed his cancer as a result of being exposed to asbestos fibers his father unknowingly brought home from his job at Liberty Utilities (Park Water). The plaintiff’s father worked at Liberty Utilities (Park Water) from 1970 to 1985, where he cut, installed, and repaired asbestos-cement water pipes but was unaware of asbestos exposure and its dangers.

The daughter of an asbestos cancer victim who passed away from his disease recently filed asbestos lung cancer Illinois state court against her father’s employer and several other defendants alleging the companies failed to exercise due care. The asbestos lung cancer lawsuit names Buffalo Air Handing Inc., Cooper Industries LLC, URS Corp. and others as defendants and seeks compensation for the victim’s wrongful death.

According to the asbestos cancer lawsuit, filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court, the victim developed his lung cancer from decades of working with asbestos contaminated products produced and/or distributed by the defendants. The plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges that the defendants knew of the risks associated with products containing asbestos but made a conscious decision not to inform the plaintiff and others of the risks associated.

The victim received his lung cancer diagnosis in December 2017 and passed away soon after in February 2018, at which point the victim’s daughter continued the suit on his behalf to recover compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of his estate. Sadly, many other asbestos cancer victims suffer the same fate as the one in this case where they are given little time left to live and pursue justice against those who caused their irreversible condition.

Contact Information