10 Easy Ways To Figure Out Your Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos Lawsuit History

Since the 1980s, many asbestos-producing employers and companies have gone through bankruptcy and the victims are compensated through trust funds for bankruptcy and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have reported that their cases were the subject of suspicious legal maneuvering.

The Supreme Court of the United States has heard a number of asbestos-related cases. The court has heard cases involving settlements of class actions, which sought to limit liability.

Anna Pirskowski

Anna Pirskowski, a woman who died in the mid-1900s from asbestos-related illnesses was a notable case. Her death was notable because it triggered asbestos lawsuits against several manufacturers and helped spark an increase in claims filed by people who were diagnosed with mesothelioma, cancer of the lung, or other diseases. The lawsuits against these companies led to the creation of trust funds which have been used by bankrupt manufacturers to pay compensation for asbestos-related sufferers. These funds also permit asbestos lawyers victims and their family members to receive compensation for medical expenses and pain.

People who have been exposed to asbestos frequently bring the substance home to their families. In this case, the family members breathe in the asbestos which causes them to suffer from the same ailments similar to those who were exposed. These symptoms include chronic respiratory problems, lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Many asbestos lawyer companies were aware that asbestos was dangerous, but they downplayed the risks, and refused to inform their employees or customers. In reality the Johns Manville Company rebuffed attempts by life insurance companies to put up warning signs on their buildings. Asbestos was identified as carcinogenic in the 1930s according to research conducted by Johns Manville.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was established in 1971, however, it didn't start to regulate asbestos until the 1970s. At this point health professionals and doctors were already trying to alert the public to the dangers of asbestos. These efforts were mostly successful. Lawsuits and news articles raised awareness, however many asbestos firms resisted calls for stricter regulation.

Despite the fact that asbestos is banned in the United States, mesothelioma continues to be a major issue for individuals throughout the country. Asbest is still present in commercial and residential buildings, even those built before the 1970s. This is why it's important for those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, or any other asbestos-related disease to seek legal assistance. An experienced lawyer can assist them in getting the compensation they deserve. They will be able to understand the complex laws that govern this kind of case and ensure that they receive the most favorable result.

Claude Tomplait

Claude Tomplait, diagnosed with asbestosis in the year 1966, filed the first lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers. In his lawsuit, he claimed that the manufacturers had failed warn consumers about the dangers of their insulation products. This important case opened the floodgates for hundreds of thousands of similar lawsuits, which continue to be filed.

The majority of asbestos lawsuits are brought by those who worked in the construction industry and utilized asbestos-containing products. Carpenters, electricians, plumbers and plumbers are among those who have been affected. A few of these workers are now suffering from lung cancer, mesothelioma, and other asbestos-related diseases. Some of these workers are seeking compensation in the event that their loved ones have died.

Millions of dollars can be awarded in damages in a lawsuit brought against a manufacturer of asbestos products. This money can be used to pay for future and past medical expenses, lost wages and suffering and pain. It also pays for travel expenses, funeral and burial costs, as well as loss of companionship.

Asbestos litigation has forced a number of companies into bankruptcy and established asbestos trust funds to compensate victims. It has also placed a strain on federal and state courts. It has also sucked up countless hours of witnesses and attorneys.

The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and costly process that spanned decades. But, it was successful in exposing asbestos-related company executives who hid the asbestos facts for years. They were aware of the dangers and pushed employees to conceal their health issues.

After years of appeals, trial and the court's rulings in Tomplait's favor. The court's decision was based on the 1965 edition of Restatement of Torts, which states that "A manufacturer is liable for injury to the consumer or end-user of its product if it is sold in a defective condition, without adequate warning."

Jacqueline Watson, Tomplait's wife was awarded damages by the court after the verdict. However Ms. Watson died before the court could issue her final award. Kazan Law volunteered to take the case to the California Supreme Court to overturn the Appellate Court's decision.

Clarence Borel

In the latter half of 1950 asbestos insulators such as Borel were starting to complain of breathing problems and a thickening of their fingertip tissue, called "finger clubbing." They filed claims for workers' compensation. But the asbestos industry downplayed the health risks associated with asbestos exposure. The truth would only become well-known in the 1960s, when more research in medicine identified asbestos-related respiratory ailments like mesothelioma and asbestosis.

In 1969, Borel sued manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation materials for not warning of the dangers of their products. He claimed he was diagnosed with mesothelioma and asbestosis as the result working with their insulation for a period of 33 years. The court ruled that the defendants had a duty to warn.

The defendants argue that they did not commit any wrongdoing since they knew about asbestos's dangers well before 1968. Expert testimony suggests that asbestosis can not manifest until 15, 20 or even 25 years after exposure to asbestos. If the experts are right, the defendants may have been liable for the injuries suffered by other workers who may have had asbestosis prior to Borel.

The defendants argue that they aren't accountable for the mesothelioma of Borel since it was his choice to continue working with asbestos-containing products. Kazan Law gathered evidence that proved that defendants' companies were aware of asbestos' risks and hid the risks for many years.

The 1970s saw a rise in asbestos-related lawsuits, in spite of the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos lawsuits flooded the courts and thousands of workers were diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases. In response to the lawsuit asbestos-related companies went under. Trust funds were established to compensate asbestos-related illness victims. As the litigation progressed it became evident that asbestos-related companies were responsible for the damages caused by their harmful products. The asbestos industry was forced into reforming their business practices. Many asbestos-related lawsuits are resolved today for millions of dollars.

Stanley Levy

Stanley Levy is the author of a number articles that have been published in scholarly journals. He has also presented on these topics at a variety of seminars and legal conferences. He is a member the American Bar Association, and has been a member of various committees dealing with asbestos and mesothelioma. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg is a representation firm for more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the nation.

The firm is charged a fee of 33 percent plus costs for compensations it obtains for its clients. It has obtained some of the biggest verdicts in asbestos litigation, including a $22 million settlement for a mesothelioma sufferer who worked at a New York City Steel Plant. The firm also represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard plaintiffs, and it has filed claims for thousands of patients suffering from mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases.

Despite this however, the firm is confronted with criticism for its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused of spreading conspiracy theories, attacking the jury system and skewing the statistics. Additionally, the company has been accused of making fraudulent claims. In response, the firm created a public defense fund and is soliciting donations from corporations as well as individuals.

A second issue is that many defendants are against the consensus of science that asbestos can cause mesothelioma even at low levels. They have used money paid by asbestos companies to hire "experts" to publish articles in journals of academic research that support their arguments.

Attorneys are not only disputing the scientific consensus about asbestos, but also focusing on the other aspects of cases. They are arguing, for example regarding the constructive notification required to make an asbestos claim. They argue that the victim actually been aware of asbestos' dangers in order to be eligible for compensation. They also argue over the compensation ratios of various asbestos-related illnesses.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that there is a substantial public interest in granting damages to compensate people who suffer from mesothelioma or related diseases. They argue that asbestos-producing companies should have been aware of the dangers, and must be held responsible.