Mesothelioma lawyers have noted that the way in which asbestos litigation has unfolded in the past couple of decades has created certain distortions in the way the legal system should work. These distortions do not, generally, play out in favor of mesothelioma victims, who are the most severely injured of those unfortunate enough to have been exposed to asbestos.
Remember, those individuals who have uncontested diagnoses of mesothelioma have highly meritorious cases: in addition to the severity of the disease process, the fact is that the only known cause of mesothelioma is asbestos exposure (smoking, for example, has nothing whatsoever to do with it). The level of exposure required is quite low, especially compared to the level of exposure required for a disease like asbestosis.
In the vast majority of the early, pioneering cases in the asbestos litigation, however, the plaintiffs were claiming non-malignant diseases (as is the case today). The two categories were:
1. Scarring of the internal tissue of the lung (asbestosis)
2. Scarring of the lining of the chest cavity (pleural scarring, also referred to as pleural thickening, pleural plaques or pleural mesothelioma encasement, depending on the manifestation of the scarring).
The plaintiffs in these early cases (up to 1982) were asbestos insulation workers (also commonly called "pipe coverers" or "insulators") who worked at construction sites such as power stations, chemical plants and refineries; and workers who performed the same sorts of tasks in shipyards (commonly called "laggers"). It soon developed that steam fitters and other trades also had very high rates of disease, and those unions were accordingly screened as well, resulting in further influxes of claims into various state and federal court systems throughout the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment