Articles Posted in Uncategorized

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 sixth talcum powder asbestos cancer lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson is set for trial in a matter of days and will take place in a California state court to determine whether or not the company is liable for the victim’s injuries. The mesothelioma cancer lawsuit also names cosmetics company Chanel and talc supplier Imerys Talc USA as defendants for also producing carcinogenic products the plaintiff claims contributed to her terminal cancer diagnosis.

According to the asbestos cancer lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the plaintiff developed mesothelioma as a result of years of asbestos exposure from using Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, along with Chanel’s No. 5 After Bath Powder. The lawsuit claims both the companies’ products were manufactured with talc supplied from Imerys, which the parties knew to be contaminated with asbestos.

Johnson & Johnson faces thousands of other lawsuit across the country in which plaintiffs allege their serious medical conditions, including mesothelioma and other cancers, were caused by talc-based products produced by the company. The talcum powder cancer lawsuits claim Johnson & Johnson and its supplier were fully aware of the dangers posed by its talcum powder products but did not put any warning labels on packaging to alert consumers to the dangers.

An aircraft mechanic from Texas and his wife recently filed a mesothelioma cancer lawsuit against the husband’s former employer and its parts supplier claiming the defendants are responsible for the victim’s malignant cancer diagnosis. The asbestos cancer lawsuit names Lockheed Martin Corp., 3M Co., and General Dynamics Corp. as parties responsible for the plaintiff’s mesothelioma diagnosis and seeks damages for the victim’s medical bills, pain and suffering, and emotional distress.

According to the mesothelioma cancer lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas, the victim worked for approximately 40 years as an aircraft mechanic for Lockheed Martin Corp. after graduating high school in 1963. During that time, he was frequently exposed to deadly levels of asbestos fibers in products used, manufactured, and sold by the defendants.

The plaintiff claims he was never warned by any of the companies about the dangers of using asbestos-containing products and subsequently developed mesothelioma as a result of his prolonged exposure to the carcinogen. The asbestos cancer lawsuit claims the defendants owed the plaintiff a duty to warn him about the dangers of asbestos, which were known to the companies, but instead chose not to take reasonable safety precautions to prevent foreseeable injury.

The Virginia Supreme Court recently issued an important ruling in an asbestos cancer lawsuit allowing the plaintiffs to continue with their claim on behalf of their decreased mother who passed away due to exposure to toxic asbestos dust. The 4-3 decision affirms long standing tort law in the state, establishing a duty to defendants to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable injuries to persons within the scope of harm.

According to the mesothelioma cancer lawsuit, originally filed in a Virginia circuit court but later moved to a federal District Court, the victim developed her deadly cancer after years of exposure from asbestos fibers brought home on her father’s clothes. The complaint alleged that the victim, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2013 and died three years later, regularly helped launder her father’s clothes, who worked as a at Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock, a business now known as Huntington Ingalls Inc., routinely brought home asbestos dust on his clothing.

Asbestos is a naturally forming mineral once commonly used in a variety of industrial, commercial, and military capabilities, particularly in the shipping industry, because of its heat resistant properties. The substance is directly linked to developing mesothelioma, a rare and deadly form of cancer commonly affecting the thin linings of tissue surrounding the vital organs like the heart, lungs, and abdomen.

 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.

Contact Information