Mesothelioma Litigation

As early as the 1970s, mesothelioma lawsuits began emerging against companies who used asbestos despite warnings about the risks posed by the toxic mineral. The legal system began receiving claims from workers and consumers who came in contact with asbestos-laden products that contributed to their development of pleural mesothelioma and other related diseases. By 1990, more than 300,000 asbestos lawsuits had been taken to court.

Manufacturing Companies and Asbestos Use

As more and more claims surfaced, the courts labeled the asbestos situation a “national crisis” and urged Congress to become involved in straightening out the “tangled mess.” Currently, more than 70 companies have gone bankrupt as a result of overwhelming asbestos litigation, and countless others have been named as defendants in mesothelioma lawsuits.

Investigations revealed that hundreds of major corporations ignored the well-publicized implications of asbestos use and continued to include the material in their products. These companies, well aware of the indisputable correlations between asbestos and cancer, concealed their knowledge about the health risks and downplayed their reliance on the mineral as a cheap yet durable insulator. Companies not only covered up the presence of asbestos at the worksite, but many also intentionally mislabeled or failed to label their products. Unfortunately, these negligent profit-driven decisions contributed to many cases of pleural mesothelioma, asbestosis and other serious diseases.

Significant Mesothelioma Legislation and Litigation Dates

In the 1970s, Congress introduced asbestos bills to manage workers’ compensation programs and regulate current asbestos in the workplace.
In 1983, the Occupational Disease Compensation Act was passed, arranging for compensatory payouts to workers who had been exposed to any toxic substance – including asbestos – while on the job. 1984 brought about the Asbestos Workers’ Recovery Act, intended to further arrange for legal recoveries by pleural mesothelioma patients and other individuals who suffered from asbestos-related illnesses developed at a jobsite.
The Committee for Equitable Compensation turned their attention to asbestos litigation in 1988, and in 1991, the Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos Litigation formed to further investigate the prevalent legal issues surrounding the asbestos industry.
The Asbestos Claims Management Act of 1991 (also referred to as the Brickman Proposal) called for the construction of a privately-funded trust to make monthly payments to mesothelioma patients with an asbestos-related illness stemming from proven occupational exposure. The act developed guidelines for determining the amount of compensation based on the severity of the disease and level of patient impairment. Furthermore, the legislation provided for death compensation and survivor benefits.
Rep. Henry Hyde introduced the Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1998 to address the nature of mesothelioma lawsuits.
Based on the previous year’s outline, the Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1999 created a federal procedure for asbestos-related claims. Although tabled until the next session, the legislation sought to authorize the Asbestos Compensation Fund.
In 2003, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act was created to establish a privately-owned trust to pay out asbestos claims. Revision was requested and the bill was re-issued in 2004, 2005 and 2006, yet the bill was eventually shut down.

Concerns About Mesothelioma Litigation

Although almost a dozen attempts to regulate compensation have been presented to the House and the Senate, legal proceedings still pose complexities, both in and out of court.

The number of court cases dealing with mesothelioma litigation brought some frustrations to the legal system. The massive quantities alone were enough to cause complications – one company alone, the Johns-Mansville Corporation, was listed in more than 40,000 suits. As a result, class action lawsuits may be brought against a single defendant by multiple patients suffering from the same exposure, consolidating the number of cases that are tried.

Naturally, with any court case, each party has different interests. In the case of pleural mesothelioma litigation, the plaintiffs (patients) are seeking not only personal compensation and sufficient funding for future victims but also public awareness for the dangers that caused their illness and recognition of responsibility by the asbestos industry and manufacturers. Meanwhile, the defendants (the companies) are seeking to limit the claims they are required to pay by requiring definitive proof of workplace exposure and compensating only malignant mesothelioma patients.

Many defending companies stalled the legal process, knowing that the pleural mesothelioma patients seeking legal action were nearing the end of their lives and hoping the case would not be settled in time for the plaintiff to collect damages. California passed legislation in 2005 to deal with this practice, expediting the lawsuits when end-stage cancer was present.

Sources

http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/asbreg.html
Castleman, Barry. Asbestos Medical and Legal Aspects. Aspen Publishers, Inc : New York, New York. 2005.