Needless exposure to asbestos: an OSHA citation in 2013

The United States Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration, known by its acroynm OSHA, has fined Ford Motor Company $41,000 for eight serious violations to OSHA's code. The violations appear something out of yesteryear:  Ford exposed employees to asbestos.

One of these alleged violations occurred when a pipe fitter was exposed to insulation containing asbestos, without any respiratory protection. This is a fact that commonly arises in asbestos litigation where the exposure happened decades ago. That this failure to protect workers would happen in 2013 boggles the mind. You can read the OSHA news release here. Attorneys for those unnecessarily exposed to asbestos often hear claims from representatives from defendants that by  x date everyone protected workers and that respiratory equipment was ubiquitous. The OSHA citations demonstrate that if there are companies not protecting workers today, how can anyone be so certain they were protected decades ago?  We know that's not so; countless workers were commonly and needlessly exposed to asbestos prior to and during the 1960s and 1970s. Employers disregarded OSHA regulations then  and if OSHA's citations are accurate there are even violations today. It's a sad commentary.  Meanwhile, we'll keep paying attention to this latest development.

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari: Victory for Victims of Asbesos Exposure

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied a bid for certiorari by Pfizer Inc. Pfizer sought to have the Court hear its argument as to why a bankruptcy injunction barring asbestos personal injury cases against a defunct Pfizer subsidiary should be reinstated. The Supreme Court's refusal to review the ruling of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, means that state court lawsuits filed against Pfizer can proceed.

Background:

In 1968, Pfizer acquired Quigley Co. Inc, a former manufacturer of insulation and other products for the steel industry.  Subsequent to the acquisition some of Quigley's asbestos-containing products began to include Pfizer's name and trademark. Facing 160,000 asbestos lawsuits (for Quigley and Pfizer) in 2004 Quiglely filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and an injunction enjoining most of the asbestos claims.

Enter the Law Offices of Peter Angelos. Having filed asbestoslawsuits against Pfizer in Pennsylvania in 1999, Mr. Angelos moved for summary judgment under a theory the "apparent manufacturer."  Pfizer filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court to enforce the injunction barring lawsuits and the bankruptcy court granted Pfizer's motion. But the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York reversed the ruling and found that"Pfizer's liability arises out of its sponsorship of a defective product, not its corporate affiliation."  In essence, the injunction did not bar claims based on Pfizer's name being on Quigley's asbestos containing products, and thus the Angelos firm has its ticket to pursue its personal injury claims in Pennsylvania State Courts.  This was affirmed by the Second Circuit.

What this means:

Yesterday's denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court is now the end of the line for Pfizer's attempt to halt the litigation. Onward it goes.   In an era of conservatism from the U.S. Supreme Court, this ruling provides a glimmer of hope for victims of asbestos exposure suffering from lung cancer or mesothelioma.  Although the action will be litigated in Pennsylvania, the ruling is good news for allvictims of asbestos exposure and their families, including those from Washington State, Oregon and all of the Pacific Northwest.

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari: Victory for Victims of Asbesos Exposure

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied a bid for certiorari by Pfizer Inc. Pfizer sought to have the Court hear its argument as to why a bankruptcy injunction barring asbestos personal injury cases against a defunct Pfizer subsidiary should be reinstated. The Supreme Court's refusal to review the ruling of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, means that state court lawsuits filed against Pfizer can proceed.

Background:

In 1968, Pfizer acquired Quigley Co. Inc, a former manufacturer of insulation and other products for the steel industry.  Subsequent to the acquisition some of Quigley's asbestos-containing products began to include Pfizer's name and trademark. Facing 160,000 asbestos lawsuits (for Quigley and Pfizer) in 2004 Quiglely filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and an injunction enjoining most of the asbestos claims.

Enter the Law Offices of Peter Angelos. Having filed asbestos  lawsuits against Pfizer in Pennsylvania in 1999, Mr. Angelos moved for summary judgment under a theory the "apparent manufacturer."  Pfizer filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court to enforce the injunction barring lawsuits and the bankruptcy court granted Pfizer's motion. But the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York reversed the ruling and found that  "Pfizer's liability arises out of its sponsorship of a defective product, not its corporate affiliation."  In essence, the injunction did not bar claims based on Pfizer's name being on Quigley's asbestos containing products, and thus the Angelos firm has its ticket to pursue its personal injury claims in Pennsylvania State Courts.  This was affirmed by the Second Circuit.

What this means:

Yesterday's denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court is now the end of the line for Pfizer's attempt to halt the litigation. Onward it goes.   In an era of conservatism from the U.S. Supreme Court, this ruling provides a glimmer of hope for victims of asbestos exposure suffering from lung cancer or mesothelioma.  Although the action will be litigated in Pennsylvania, the ruling is good news for all  victims of asbestos exposure and their families, including those from Washington State, Oregon and all of the Pacific Northwest.

New York Times Slams Asbestos Bill

A big shout out is in order to the New York Times Editorial Board for criticizing the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act (FACT) of 2013.  This is a bill that House Republicans have attempted to push through the House Judiciary Committee.  The bill would make it more difficult for plaintiffs injured by exposure to asbestos to receive fair compensation they are entitled to under the law.  The New York Times Editorial Board came out blazing with their op-ed piece. It reads as follows:

Republicans rammed a bill through the House Judiciary Committee last month that would make it harder for plaintiffs injured by asbestos to get fair compensation. The bill is supposedly designed to root out fraud and abuse, but there is no persuasive evidence of any significant fraud or abuse. Before plunging ahead with this misguided attempt to protect asbestos companies from lawsuits, Congress ought to commission an objective study of whether there is even a problem that needs fixing.

Millions of workers were injured by asbestos over the years and thousands of suits were filed against asbestos companies, which often were aware of the dangers but concealed the risks from workers and the public. Dozens of companies declared bankruptcy and established trusts, financed with company money, to pay the present and future claims against them. The trusts typically pay only a small percentage of the value of a claim. Plaintiffs are also free to sue companies that have not gone bankrupt.

The Republican bill, known as the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act (FACT) of 2013, would allow asbestos companies to demand information from the trusts for virtually any reason, forcing the trusts to devote limited resources to responding to fishing expeditions that will slow the process of paying claims.

The bill would also increase the burden on claimants to supply information. But it puts virtually no burdens on asbestos companies, like disclosing the settlements they have reached with plaintiffs or requiring them to reveal where their products were used and when, so that workers know which companies or trusts might be liable for their injuries.

Fair-minded members of Congress should ask the Government Accountability Office to determine whether there is significant fraud in asbestos claims before enacting a law that makes it harder to obtain fair compensation.

Editorial Board pieces can sometimes underwhelm; other times they can read as quite pedantic.  Here, they got it right.  Bravo for calling out the ominous legislative attempt here.  Here's hoping the rest of the members of Congress will read this piece and look further into this faulty bill.  It doesn't even deserve an up or down vote: it needs to be pulled.

Their good work has me reading up on who exactly sits on the NY Times Editorial Board.  You can check them out here.

New York Times Slams Asbestos Bill

A big shout out is in order to the New York Times Editorial Board for criticizing the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act (FACT) of 2013.  This is a bill that House Republicans have attempted to push through the House Judiciary Committee.  The bill would make it more difficult for plaintiffs injured by exposure to asbestos to receive fair compensation they are entitled to under the law.  The New York Times Editorial Board came out blazing with their op-ed piece. It reads as follows:

Republicans rammed a bill through the House Judiciary Committee last month that would make it harder for plaintiffs injured by asbestos to get fair compensation. The bill is supposedly designed to root out fraud and abuse, but there is no persuasive evidence of any significant fraud or abuse. Before plunging ahead with this misguided attempt to protect asbestos companies from lawsuits, Congress ought to commission an objective study of whether there is even a problem that needs fixing.

Millions of workers were injured by asbestos over the years and thousands of suits were filed against asbestos companies, which often were aware of the dangers but concealed the risks from workers and the public. Dozens of companies declared bankruptcy and established trusts, financed with company money, to pay the present and future claims against them. The trusts typically pay only a small percentage of the value of a claim. Plaintiffs are also free to sue companies that have not gone bankrupt.

The Republican bill, known as the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act (FACT) of 2013, would allow asbestos companies to demand information from the trusts for virtually any reason, forcing the trusts to devote limited resources to responding to fishing expeditions that will slow the process of paying claims.

The bill would also increase the burden on claimants to supply information. But it puts virtually no burdens on asbestos companies, like disclosing the settlements they have reached with plaintiffs or requiring them to reveal where their products were used and when, so that workers know which companies or trusts might be liable for their injuries.

Fair-minded members of Congress should ask the Government Accountability Office to determine whether there is significant fraud in asbestos claims before enacting a law that makes it harder to obtain fair compensation.

Editorial Board pieces can sometimes underwhelm; other times they can read as quite pedantic.  Here, they got it right.  Bravo for calling out the ominous legislative attempt here.  Here's hoping the rest of the members of Congress will read this piece and look further into this faulty bill.  It doesn't even deserve an up or down vote: it needs to be pulled.

Their good work has me reading up on who exactly sits on the NY Times Editorial Board.  You can check them out here.