For many patients, the fight against mesothelioma and other diseases caused by exposure to asbestos occurs not only in the hospital room, but also in the courtroom. Doctors and health professionals are doing everything possible for their patients, but we are left with questions: Why patients should suffer from this preventable disease? What justice can you get for them when their health has been sacrificed because of the negligence and greed of others?
During the past months we have seen several stories in the news that highlight the importance of our mission to continue to take this battle to the courts and halls of government and in some cases, expose the lengths companies will go to avoid being held accountable for their actions. We hope these stories and those like them will expose these injustices and awareness instead of the law and access to courts in the fight against mesothelioma.
Virginia votes to protect a company against asbestos litigation
the first story we encountered comes from the Virginia legislature. In a movement they call "the reform of civil liability," the House of Delegates of Virginia passed a law that protects one company, Crown Cork & Seal, litigation asbestos. While the bill, which was introduced by Republican Delegate Terry Kilgore, does not name the company, he can not ask the firm based in Philadelphia.
Although Crown Cork & Seal has never products containing asbestos, manufactured in 1963, he bought Mundet, a producer of asbestos insulation. Since the purchase, the parent company has been named in more than 300,000 cases of asbestos and paid $ 0 million in spending.
Kilgore called the new measure to protect Crown Cork from asbestos litigation, a "jobs bill," he says will protect the 300 workers employed in the company facilities in Virginia. But the bill was not passed on the "jobs" argument alone. According to The Washington Post , in 08, Crown Cork paid $ 25,095 for four lobbyists to help get the bill passed, and last year it raised the price tag of $ 84,167 for seven lobbyists. The reports of public access project Virginia that the company has donated more than $ 100,000 to Virginia legislators since 07.
And companies such as Crown Cork have much help ensure that legislation goes their way. Crown Cork is a member of American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a pro-business, free-market group that ghostwrites bills that promote the interests of its members. Key lawmakers behind the latter bill are members of ALEC. Since 06, the organization has been promoting this type of asbestos legislation, which was passed in 11 states
We started to wonder :. What can we do to ensure that mesothelioma patients get fair treatment in the courts when companies can finance the adoption of laws that serve their own interests at the expense of those they hurt?
Florida courts consider the retroactive application of asbestos decision
the legal outcome can be a little more hope in Florida where the Supreme Court of the state intervened to discuss a dispute over how to implement the Employment equity Act Silica Compensation Florida asbestos and 05. the law establishes a standard for evidence of physical impairment caused by exposure to asbestos that must be proven when filing a trial.
The controversy arose when Palm Beach Circuit Judge Elizabeth Maass rejected 13 cases for failure to meet the standard, even though these cases were filed before the adoption of the law. As argued Miami attorney Joel Perwin call, "You had a whole group of people who had rights that were viable under the prior law, and the law has been applied retroactively to specifically remove these claims."
The case has also focused attention on the original legislation, which defines a very restrictive set of criteria for those wishing to seek compensation for the dangers they were exposed. Perwin raised this issue himself, calling the law "draconian." As noted, some customers with fatigue and shortness of breath can not even meet the standard for litigation.
We'll keep an eye on this controversy, and we hope that the Florida courts do not decide to retroactively deny patients the right to pursue their cases. When major industries have the ability to keep for patients to be heard, we need to work harder than ever to provide ensure that all those who have suffered from asbestos exposure has the potential to receive the justice they deserve.
