Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

On behalf of the Berniard Law Firm, we'd like to wish all of our clients and employees a Happy and Safe Holidays and New Years.

The blog will resume postings in 2012!

As part of our Constitutional right to due process, an individual is allowed to bring grievances before a court. However, certain judicial policies may be enacted to deny plaintiffs from bringing suits that have already been litigated, are being brought with the intent to harass, or are frivolous. The purpose behind such policies is to make courts as efficient as possible by deterring such actions. A recent case out of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal shines a light on several of these deterrents.

In Mendonca v. Tidewater, Inc., the plaintiff sought to nullify several final judgments made by the district court. Mendonca's list of suits stretched over four years, with multiple appeals and pleas for annulment. However, none of Mendonca's nullity claims or his appeals were successful. In his final appeal for anulment, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down three restrictions that laid Mendonca's long line of cases to rest.

The first of these restrictions was the court's upholding of the defendent's plea of res judicata and failure to state a claim. When res judicata is enacted, the court declares one of two denials. First, that the claim has been subject to a final judgment and thus no longer qualifies for an appeal, or second, that the litigant cannot bring a claim against the same party in a second claim because all claims should have been brought against that party in the initial suit. The policy considerations supporting res judicata is to preserve court resources and protect defendants from being subject to litigation multiple times, with the possibility of having to pay damages more than once. A defendant's plea that a plaintiff has failed to state a claim goes hand-in-hand with res judicata. If res judicata is applicable, then all duplicitous claims cancelled. In Mendonca's case, this means that there were no new claims. Since there were no such claims, the court held that Mendonca's nu
llity actions were a failure to state a new claim.

A second deterrent to brining frivolous, harassing, or duplicitous suits is the possibility of monetary sanctions. Rules of civil procedure require that an attorney make objective inquiries into the facts of a case and the law that pertains to it. These inquiries are held to a high standard as they are seen as an attorney's duty. This means that one's subjective good faith inquiry is not sufficient. When an attorney files a claim, it is important that case history is analyzed to ensure that res judicata does not apply. A failure to inquire about previous claims is a failure to impose the applicable law and is essentially poor lawyering. This was the case in Mendonca's appeal. Any attorney who objectively analyzed the situation would have known that the claim was precluded through res judicata. Yet, Mendonca proceeded. The court interpreted this as an abuse of the judicial system and an attempt to harass the defendant. This abuse justifies the imposition of sanctions.

Sanctions are typically defined as an order to pay to the other party the amount of reasonable expenses through the employment of an attorney. Yet, "reasonable" is not confined to the actual expense accrued by the attorney. Instead, "reasonable" has been interpreted to mean additional costs that act to deter, punish, and compensate. When sanctions are imposed by a trial judge they are unlikely to be appealed. Appellate judges tend to give deference to the trial judge's intimate knowledge of the case, litigants, and attorneys. For these reasons, Mendonca was sanctioned in the amount of $10,000, all of which were upheld on appeal.

A third way that a court can punish an individual as a deterrent is to issue a sanction revoking in forma pauperis status. In forma pauperis is a legal termed used by a judge to allow a poor individual to file a legal case and/or represent oneself at trial. Allowing one to claim this status is to essentially cut most court associated costs for the needy individual in order to ensure due process. Mendonca qualified and was granted this status. However, courts have held that in forma pauperis status is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, any abuse of this status will result in revocation. The most common reason why in forma pauperis status is revoked is because one brings frivolous suits. Mendonca did this in his case and was punished accordingly.

Res judicata, sanctions, and other rules of civil procedure are complicated, requiring a full analysis of the facts and the law. Such situations should only be approached by a licensed practicing attorney.

Continue reading "Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal Punishes For Duplicitous Suits " »

In 2008, Debra Goulas worked as a bookkeeper for Sunbelt Air Conditioning Supply in Baton Rouge. Jessie Touchet, owner of Sunbelt, and Diane Jones, Goulas's manager, accused her of stealing over $500 from the company during February and April that year. Goulas was tried for felony theft and acquitted. Following the criminal trial, she filed suit against Touchet and Jones in July, 2010 alleging defamation. Specifically, Goulas argued that Touchet and Jones "intentionally and negligently inflicted emotional distress" upon her, and that their accusations were "founded in malice to damage her person and reputation." The complaint sought damages for medical expenses, physical and mental pain and suffering, and loss of wages. The defendants filed an exception of prescription. The basis of the exception was that Goulas's claims were based on the defendants' actions that allegedly occurred during February and April of 2008. By the time Goulas filed suit in 2010, more than one year had passed, thereby prescribing the claims. In October, 2010, the trial judge granted the defendants' exception of prescription and dismissed Goulas's claims with prejudice.

Goulas appealed, alleging error on the trial court's ruling that her defamation claim was prescribed. Goulas reasoned that she could not initiate her defamation action until her criminal trial was concluded in March, 2010; accordingly, she argued that prescription did not begin to run until Frederick Jones publicly accused her of theft when testifying at her trial. The First Circuit noted that Louisiana recognizes a qualified privilege that protects parties from charges of defamation related to statements they make during a trial. "It necessarily follows that, during this time, the one-year period that applies to the filing of a defamation action is suspended." However, the court explained, the suspension of prescription applies "only to allegedly defamatory statements made by parties to a lawsuit." In this situation, Frederick and Jones were not parties to Goulas's criminal prosecution, so the prescription suspension did not apply. The court concluded that "since there has been no suspension of the 2008 alleged defamatory statements," the trial court properly granted the defendants' exception of prescription.

This result was no doubt a painful lesson to the Goulas that prescriptive periods and other rules of Louisiana civil procedure can be complex and confusing. At worst, such as here, missing a deadline can prove fatal to a plaintiff's case. Accordingly, it is critical that victims who think they may have a claim should consult a knowledgeable attorney immediately. Time may very well be of the essence in order to secure a day in court.

Continue reading "Baton Rouge Plaintiff Loses Defamation Claim Due to Prescription " »

A well-written contract can not only solve most problems, it can prevent most problems from becoming problems in the first place. For a contract to have its maximum problem eliminating effect, however, all parties to the contract must agree as to what it mean. Contract law is filled with cases that could have been avoided if the entities involved had simply expressed their terms more clearly or asked the right questions before, during and after the drafting of the contract. While this ambiguity may be intentional by one side or both in the event they think a benefit can be attained, the truth is the best contract is often the one where both parties are simply looking to achieve the main goal fairly. Those instances where ambiguity dominates, however, cause problems. The case of Mendoza v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., discussed in an earlier post, is one such case.

The Mendoza case was two-fold. It involved questions as to whether and when one company assumed liability for another company. Several contract law principles were implicated in this dispute from which this opinion resulted. Contracts get drafted under the assumption that the parties have reached an agreement. This alleged agreement is nowhere to be found when there is a dispute over the meaning of a contract. When adverse parties give contradictory interpretations of the same contract language a suit often ensues. It is because of the relative frequency of this occurrence that the courts have come up with various rules for interpreting contracts when the parties themselves cannot.

The Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit of Louisiana applied Texas contract law in this case. This was due to an agreement between the parties which was most likely part of the contract itself; there was no dispute over this portion of the contract. For guidance, Texas law contains several well-established principles for evaluating disputed contracts:

First and foremost when interpreting the true meaning of a contract comes the intent of the parties. The parties to the contract presumably know best about what the contract was intended to accomplish and how. This cannot be the only factor in the analysis because when there is a dispute about the meaning of the contract, the parties likely had different intentions in entering into said contract.

The language of the contract is also important. Words can have a myriad of meanings in various different contexts. Courts seek to give the words in a contract one meaning that best suits the occasion. Texas courts seek to "harmonize and effectuate" all of the provisions of a contract. This aim towards harmony is shared in many jurisdictions. Disjointed and unwieldy interpretations of contracts serve none well and only exacerbate disagreements between contracting parties. Courts must seek to interpret the contract as a cohesive document in order to best achieve the ends of the parties. The signatories signed the entire contract so it follows that no portion of the contract was meant to be meaningless.

Theoretically, and in common practice, a court should not edit a contract under Texas law but must seek to enforce the contract as it is written. If a court was free to delete or add provisions to a contract it would be exponentially easier for that court to come to a conclusion as to what the contract was supposed to mean. Despite this added ease, the parties to that contract would be robbed of the contract that they intended. They agreed to the words on the pages of the contract, regardless of their current dispute, at one time. A court must come to a conclusion based on the language that was actually included within a contract, not the language that a court thinks, feels or believes should be included.

It might seem like it would not have to be expressed that a court should seek to avoid a construction for a contract that is "unreasonable, oppressive, inequitable or absurd" but the Texas Court of Appeals made it official. The law of contracts is, at its core, a law of fairness and equity. All language in a contract is supposed to be given its normal grammatical meaning unless otherwise stated in the contract. This too may seem like a meaningless pleasantry that should not bear expressing but in a world where jargon and technical terms are becoming increasingly common, words do not always mean the same thing. One particularly amusing contract dispute once arose out of the meaning of the word "chicken" for purposes of a contract for the sale of certain poultry products.

Our next entry will conclude coverage on this Mendoza principle as well as fleshing out the need for close review of contract provisions and stipulations.

Continue reading "Texas Contract Law Informs Second Circuit Decision" »

Timing is everything in civil litigation. The difference of a day or two can determine whether a suit is timely or not timely, meaning if the court will even hear the case being filed. As such, the difference between a suit that is timely and one that is not timely can make the difference between a plaintiff receiving full compensation for their claims and a plaintiff (or his or her surviving family members) receiving nothing.

Mr. Jerry Bozeman dedicated his life to protecting others from fire-related disasters. Sadly, while carrying out his duties he was exposed to asbestos due to improperly built and maintained facilities. As a result of the City of Shreveport failing to protect their employees, including Mr. Bozeman, from the hazardous material in the fire station where he spent a great deal of time, the loyal fireman suffered from asbestos,-related mesothelioma. Mr. Bozeman's two children, Corey Bozeman and Matthew Bozeman, brought suit under theories of negligence and strict liability under a claim of wrongful death in addition to survival benefits.

The primary issue before the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit State of Louisiana on appeal was whether the case was actually able to be appealed to the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana. There was some contention as to whether the plaintiff could appeal the trial court's granting of the City's exception of no cause of action as to the plaintiffs' wrongful death claims and non-intentional torts. The City was denied motion for summary judgment and its request for another exception to intentional tort claims and executive officer liability; the plaintiffs did not want to appeal these parts of the trial court's judgment.

Under Louisiana law, an appeal cannot be taken from a partial final judgment until it has been designated as a final judgment. This means that a court must designate a partial final judgment in order for an appeal on that ruling to be made. The appellants, the plaintiffs at trial, urged the appellate court to consider their appeal timely. The appeal came less than two weeks after the partial final judgment was certified by a court as a final judgment. This was well within the time that a plaintiff has to appeal a final judgment and, as such, the appellants won their appeal.

Since the appellants were successful in arguing that they in fact had the right to appeal the decision because it was final, the appellate court also had to weigh their case on the merits. The appellate court determined that the trial court has erred in not revising the grant of an exception of no cause of action to the City of Shreveport. Specifically, the appeals court ruled that the lower court failed to match a superseding Supreme Court decision that directly impacted the case.

While the trial court made its initial decision in 2007 based on a 2005 holding by the Supreme Court, this higher court ruling was specifically abrogated. As such, the appellate court in this case determined that holding that decision not to apply retroactively would be unfair to the appellants and ruled in their favor.

Mesothelioma and asbestos litigation is a constantly evolving area of the law. The trial court's decision was not incorrect at the time it was initially rendered due to the fact the Supreme Court is considered to be the overarching law of the land. However, due to the fact that the law changed during the time that the partial final judgment was not an entirely final judgment, a change in ruling took place. When this decision was replaced with a newer one, the lower court's decision both could and should have been changed to comply with the most recent Supreme Court ruling. Because the trial court failed to change its ruling when appropriate, it was found to be in error. You can read more about the case here.

If you or a loved one is suffering from mesothelioma or a loved one has died from mesothelioma, you may be entitled to benefits and awards. Contacting an attorney is crucial to preserve your legal rights before the timing no longer allows it.

Continue reading "Fireman's Survivors File in Time in Shreveport" »

The ABA (American Bar Association) has called upon lawyers and non-lawyers alike to submit blogs from across the internet as exceptional examples of legal advice and content. With content about the law ranging widely across the internet, the ABA recognizes the value of those blogs that wish to educate the public about a wide range of issues as examples of how attorneys can help bring an understanding of public policy to the masses.

Through a form, located here, ABA members and/or the public can nominate the efforts of attorneys whose work helps explain the complexities that the law has to offer. While the competition prevents bloggers from nominating themselves, the ABA has requested that the work of their peers be showcased. Due by September 9th, blog suggestions can cover any topic of the law, whether maritime, personal injury, civil or criminal in nature. This possibility of diversity makes the Top 100 list all the more interesting because of the wide variety of content the selected are sure to cover.

If you know of a blog that wishes to discuss legal issues of interest to lawyers (and perhaps those outside of the field), click here to fill out the ABA's form. Limited to 500 words, nominations should explain why the blog, obviously, deserves to be included in the list as well as its value as a whole. Nominated sites should avoid the regurgitation of content from other sites (copy and pasted quotes of news items, etc.), showing that the main focus of the content is original discussion of those issues of law that affect professionals as well as the public.

We will undoubtedly be checking out this list as it is sure to contain content that is of interest not only to residents of Louisiana but across the country. For a directory of 'blawgs,' as categorized by the American Bar Association, you can click here to tour the spectrum of content available by state or topic.

This blog was started as an effort to not only showcase the knowledge of our law firm but to also provide people, whether residents of New Orleans, Louisiana, the Gulf Coast, or throughout the country, a resource that explains how the law is important to their everyday lives. Blogging is a powerful tool not only in the legal profession but as a medium of empowering people who may not realize that an instance of tragedy or harm comes with it legal recourse. We hope that the content we have provided over time has helped people find an answer to legal issues or simply gain a little bit of knowledge about how this country's system of law works. This is said not to shill for a nomination to the aforementioned contest but, instead, to note that this ABA-sponsored contest highlights something we feel strongly about, that being the power of legal blogs.

We hope you continue to enjoy your weekend and will have new content available Monday.

If a company manufactures a defective product, and an individual is injured by that product, the manufacturer may be liable for the damages suffered by the product-user. The product, be it a cleaning supply or an automobile part, or any number of different items found in everyday life, bears an element of responsibility of reliability and worthiness when it is delivered by a manufacturer. When that responsibility is breeched, legal remedy is available.

As the Fifth Circuit described in the seminal case of Matthews v. Remington Arms Co., in order for an injured party to win an action against a product manufacturer, that party must prove: (1) that the party, or another "person or entity" was using the product in a manner reasonably anticipated by the manufacturer; (2) that an aspect of the product directly caused the damage(s) claimed; "(3) the product was 'unreasonably dangerous' either in construction, design, or warning; and (4) the characteristic rendering the product unreasonably dangerous either 'exist[ed] at the time the product left the control of its manufacturer or result[ed] from a reasonably anticipated alteration or modification of the product.'”

If a party can show that a product, used in a way reasonably anticipated, could harm a product-user, the manufacturer may have a legal duty to design its product in a manner which would avoid such harm. As explained by the Fifth Circuit, a reasonably anticipated use is a "use or handling of a product that the product’s manufacturer should reasonably expect of an ordinary person in the same or similar circumstances.” If it can be shown that a product was misused and that misuse resulted in the damages claimed by the product-user, then that user cannot collect against the manufacturer for his or her damages.

In the Matthews case, the plaintiff had borrowed a Model 710 rifle from another individual. The manufacturer designed the rifle to be fired with a bolt-assembly pin in place. Warnings were included in the rifle manual stating that the rifle should not be fired without the required pin. According to the Fifth Circuit, the defendant rifle manufacturer had not received any reports, prior to this lawsuit being filed, of its Model 710 rifle being fired without the required bolt-assembly pin. The Fifth Circuit found that someone had removed the bolt-assembly pin, and when the bolt-assembly pin was removed from the rifle in question and was not reinstalled, the rifle's bolt head did not lock with the rifle's barrel when later used by the plaintiff. This resulted in an uncontained explosion which caused the plaintiff's injuries.

In the proceedings below, the trial court had found that the plaintiff's injuries were not caused because the pin was defective, but rather because it had been removed from the rifle. The trial court also determined that the pin had been manufactured according to the applicable specifications. Therefore, the main issue before the Fifth Circuit in Matthews was whether or not it was fair of the trial court to find that the plaintiff had fired the rifle after the bolt-assembly pin had been removed and not reinstalled, as opposed to the plaintiff simply firing the rifle. The Fifth Circuit focused on whether or not the plaintiff had used the rifle in a manner reasonably anticipated by the rifle manufacturer to determine if the rifle manufacturer had a duty to the injured plaintiff, in this case, to design its rifle in such a way as to prevent the harm caused. After reviewing the case, and determining that the pin was missing at the time the plaintiff fired the rifle, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the trial court's finding that the defendant rifle manufacturer should not have expected that someone would fire its Model 710 rifle after its bolt-assembly pin had been removed and not reinstalled. The Fifth Circuit found that the pin could have been removed by the plaintiff or another individual.

As this case demonstrates, cases involving defective products hinge on the facts. Although the court found that the user in this case was the ultimate cause of the damages he suffered, there are many instances where products malfunction through no error on the part of the user.

Continue reading "Fifth Circuit Finds Rifle Manufacturer "Not Liable" for Injuries Sustained After Rifle Firing Resulted in Uncontained Explosion" »

The use of asbestos in products such as concrete, bricks, pipes, and other building materials has made way for a large amount of litigation on asbestos-related diseases and deaths. This litigation can help victims of the chemical and their families find some sort of meaning and relief from the toxic material. Litigation on asbestos, however, is very difficult both because the asbestos-related damages did not result from a single, identifiable act, and because it is not only the companies that produced the asbestos which are guilty- it is also those that used and marketed it.

A recent case contains both of these difficulties. Phillip Graf was exposed to asbestos for a period of 30 years while working in several jobs including metal works and drywall. Such extended exposure to such toxic material places one at risk of contracting mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer. Graf suffered from mesothelioma and later died from the disease. His family, Beatrice, Doryk, and Paulette Graf are suing in response to his death. They have named 29 defendants in the case, including Benjamin Moore & Co. and Metropolitan Life. The Graf family claims that the defendants are not only guilty of designing, manufacturing, packaging, transporting, and selling asbestos products, but also aiding and abetting the marketing of asbestos products.

In a traditional personal injury case, the damage results from a single act, but in asbestos cases such as Phillip Graf’s, the damages occurred over periods as long as 30 years or longer. What is worse, typically problems that result from asbestos exposure take years to show. Mesothelioma itself is impossible to detect early on and its symptoms are similar to other diseases, so patients are frequently misdiagnosed. All of this makes it very difficult for plaintiffs to prove that their health problems resulted from asbestos exposure and then link that asbestos exposure to the actions of the defendants. In the Graf case, the Graf family will have to show that the suffering and death Phillip Graf endured from his mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure, and that the named defendants caused that exposure.

In one case of asbestos exposure a large amount of defendants may be guilty based upon their involvement in the asbestos use. Unfortunately, an employee cannot typically sue and employer for asbestos exposure because of the Louisiana Workers Compensation Act which requires that such injuries be addressed through workers compensation, not tort suits. As a result, it is important to find other theories of liability on which a victim can sue.

The easiest potential defendant is the building owners, if they are different from the employer. In Phillip Graf’s case, this would be the person or corporation which owned the building in which he was exposed to asbestos. Building owners are strictly liable for damages caused by asbestos on their property.

In the past, most litigation on asbestos focused on the companies that produced asbestos products. However, because of asbestos-related suits, many of these companies have since gone bankrupt. Some plaintiffs have attempted to draw even further chains of causality, suing manufacturers of products used in conjunction with other manufacturers’ asbestos products, such as the manufacturers of pumps and valves. Whether these companies can be liable for failure to warn of asbestos-related hazards in products made by others is still in contention. No matter the theory of liability, as we have illustrated before, to be liable the defendant’s conduct must be a substantial factor in the harm. Thus, for example, for Metropolitan Life, the Graf family will have to show that the company’s aiding and abetting of the marketing and negligence related to asbestos products was a substantial factor in Phillip Graf’s contraction of mesothelioma.

As cases such as Graf’s show, with the many liability strategies and the problems that arise over the timing of exposure and the development of the disease, litigation in asbestos cases can become extremely complicated. In order to fully protect and preserve your rights in an asbestos case, you need to be sure to retain an attorney who is familiar with the many complexities of asbestos cases.

Continue reading "Asbestos Cases Always Difficult, Involve Negligence and Diverse Defendant Groups" »

Over the past two decades, America's working class has suffered the impact of exposure to asbestos. Before it was known that asbestos could lead to serious illness and death, people worked around the material without hesitation. Problems with exposure arise due to the fact that the fibers of asbestos, once inhaled, can have a very negative impact on your lungs and body. Those who have been exposed to asbestos can contract mesothelioma, a rare kind of cancer that can develop from the protective lining that covers many of the body's internal organs. It is an aggressive and deadly kind of cancer that has very little remedy; usually the best type of treatment is the keep the person as comfortable as possible. Even worse, mesothelioma can have the same symptoms of other diseases, so it can be misdiagnosed very easily and lead to significant delays in treatment. What's more, the symptoms of the disease do not appear right away. Because the impact of exposure may not become obvious for many years after exposure, people have the possibility of being diagnosed with something other than the disease and miss out on sorely needed medical attention. Because the disease manifests itself so late, it can easily go under the radar and get worse before anything can be done to resolve it.

In Louisiana, in the New Orleans Parish Civil District Courthouse, the family members of yet another victim of exposure to asbestos will have their day in court. The deceased, Phillip Graf, was exposed to asbestos for over 30 years and died a long, emotional and painful death. His family members are suing up to 29 different defendants in their lawsuits arising from his untimely and unfortunate death. Among the defendants is Metropolitan Life. In court documents, the claim states that the company is liable because it aided and abetted the negligence and the marketing of unreasonably dangerous asbestos containing products by such manufacturers. The plaintiffs in the case allege that these actions exhibit a specific type of negligence and lack of care that led to Mr. Graf's death. Moreover, Benjamin Moore & Co. is listed as the lead defendant. This is because it was the employer of Mr. Graf. This case helps illustrate that with matters such as this, a variety of companies both directly and indirectly involved in the exposure can be held accountable for the unfortunate circumstances their actions, or lack thereof, caused.

Losing a member of the family due to a disease is a hard process. However, if you or a loved one feel that you are being exposed to dangerous work environments while on the job, do not hesitate to call an attorney.

Continue reading "Thirty Years of Asbestos Exposure Leads to Death" »

For those wishing to be kept abreast of the latest products to receive governmental warnings regarding the safety surrounding their use, feel free to check out SaferProducts.gov. With a list of incident reports from other consumers, this effort by the government hopefully will help enable people to make conscious decisions regarding the products they put in their homes.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently gave the state of Louisiana a grant of $150,000 to help reduce the public's exposure to asbestos in schools and other state buildings. The money will help building owners comply with statutory requirements, monitor their compliance, and be spent on public outreach efforts.

Under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, or AHERA, grants like this one are authorized to protect people who enter public buildings where asbestos may be found. The law requires local education agencies to inspect schools for asbestos and make plans to reduce it where found. The AHERA also created a program to train and accredit individuals who perform asbestos related work. Projects like those authorized and funded through AHERA are so important due to the human risk of asbestos depends on exposure. Contrary to popular belief, removal is not always the best way to reduce exposure. That is where education comes in. Improper removal of asbestos may create danger where none existed before. The EPA only requires removal when it is needed to prevent significant public exposure to asbestos material (example: during building renovation or demolition). If asbestos is discovered, the EPA actually often recommends in-place management, not removal. Management plans can be used to control the release of asbestos fibers when materials are not significantly damaged and not likely to be disturbed.

Beyond providing grants like this one to states to combat asbestos, the EPA plays a broad role in protecting the public from exposure to the toxic fibers. Several EPA Offices deal with asbestos. For example, the Office of Air and Radiation/Office of Air Quality Planning Standards, which has the mission of preserving and improving air quality in the U.S., is responsible for implementing another asbestos law, the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, which sets guidelines for demolition practices and reporting and record keeping requirements for waste disposal. In addition, the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances regulates asbestos in school buildings and certain asbestos products and maintains the Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan which is used by states to train and accredit asbestos professionals. This Office also protects workers in states without Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Safety and Health Plans.

In 2005, the EPA released an "Asbestos Project Plan" to bring together their actions related to asbestos and provide a framework to coordinate their approach to identify, evaluate, and reduce risk to human health from asbestos exposure. The plan set forth three key areas of focus:

1. Improving asbestos science and advancing EPA understanding of asbestos toxicology, asbestos-related exposures, sample collection, and analysis. 2. Identifying and addressing ways people are exposed to asbestos and how to reduce exposure 3. Assessing and reducing risks associated with asbestos cleanup.

For more information about what the EPA is doing in our Region (6-which encompasses Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and 66 Tribal areas) you can visit the EPA's website by clicking here. If you feel your health has been compromised from being exposed to asbestos, contact an attorney immediately to discuss your legal rights. Timing can be of the utmost importance in cases relating to asbestos and taking action quickly is essential.

Asbestos-related illnesses have impacted many families throughout the nation. The impact of asbestos exposure can lead to serious terminal illnesses. Partly as a response to such illnesses, the federal government created the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (LHWCA). The act provides injury and occupational-disease protection for those who work on the navigable waters of the United States.

In the past, the Louisana shoreline was home to many companies that were involved with the direct use of asbestos. Those individuals who were impacted by the use of asbestos in such areas are potentially protected by the LHWCA. The act provides for a set of procedures that must be fulfilled prior to any case reaching a court of law. At first, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reviews the facts of the case and decides whether the LHWCA provides relief for any party. If this decision is appealed, it will go to the Benefits Review Board (BRB), which will have to conclude whether the ALJ's order was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and is in accordance with the law. After this stage, if the decision of the BRB is challenged, the case will find its way into court.

In a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in Louisana Insurance Guaranty Association Baton Rouge Marine Contractors Inc. vs. Director Office of Worker Compensation, the process through which claims under the LHWCA proceed is clearly outlined. Plaintiff in the case worked on the Lousiana shoreline from 1965 to 1977. During the 60's he worked directly with asbestos by unloading bags of asbestos. From 1970 to 1977 plaintiff worked on cranes for the same company. This position did not require direct contact with asbestos. However, he worked in and had to continuously walk through warehouses where asbestos was dealt with and stored. During the plaintiff's employment, the company that he worked for was insured by Employers' National. It provided insurance coverage from 1972 until 1982. However, it was declared insolvent and placed in receivership in 1994. Louisiana Insurance Guarantee Association (LIGA) appeared in its place as a substitute party in this proceeding.

Based on the facts provided, the ALJ granted relief under LHWCA. The BRB, then found the ALJ's decision to be supported by substantial evidence. The insurance company appealed the decision to the fifth circuit. The case is broken down into factual questions and legal questions. The fifth circuits only job was to correct errors of law and make sure that the BRB did not substitute its interpretation of the factual issues for those of the ALJ. The first factual issue in the case was whether LIGA was subject to the LHWCA's last employer rule. LIGA argued that plaintiff could not have been injured by asbestos exposure after 1970 when he moved from working directly with asbestos, to working on the cranes. The Court held that the ALJ had sufficient evidence to determine that plaintiff was indeed exposed to asbestos due to the storage of asbestos in warehouses in which he worked in and walked through. Second, defendants argued that plaintiff was not forced to retire because of any asbestos related injury. Plaintiff testified that he had trouble walking up and down stairs and that the asbestos injuries and sickness are at least in part the cause of his retirement. The Court stated,"the ALJ as sole factfinder is entitled to consider all credibility inferences and [his selection] among inferences is conclusive if supported by evidence and the law." The BRB explained in its review that,"if the claimant's work related injury played a role in causing his retirement, the retirement is involuntary." The Court decided that since both determinations were made within the bounds of law and the evidence provided, the decision made by the ALJ, that plaintiff was involuntarily forced to retire due to asbestos exposure, should stand. Third, plaintiff was granted the status of total disability. Under the LHWCA, to establish a prima facie case claimant must show that he is unable to return to his regular or usual employment. Thus, the question posed is not whether any claimant can work anywhere else or do anything else, the question is whether the claimant can continue to do the same or similar things as he or she did prior to the disease or injury. Since the plaintiff testified that he had a hard time walking up and down stairs, there was sufficient evidence that plaintiff had total disability as defined under the act.

The legal issue in the case was whether LIGA should be held liable for the insurance that was provided by Employers' National, which was declared insolvent. The "last responsible employer" rule was a policy decision on the part of the acts administrators. Eventually, it was judicially adopted by courts. Under the act, insurance liability would fall onto the shoulders of Employers' National. Employers' National insured plaintiff's employer during the last years of his employment. Under Louisiana law, the law responsible employer rule would also subject the last insurer. The rule applies to Employers' National, and in turn to LIGA, as a substitute party in this case. Thus, under the law, and Federal law as applied in Louisiana, LIGA is liable to plaintiff for his injuries and medical expenses.

Although, nothing can take away the pain and anguish associated with a debilitating disease or the loss of a loved one, there are law that were created to protect those who have been impacted by disease associated with asbestos. It is essential that if you or a loved one have been injured due to asbestos exposure, you should contact an attorney who may be able to help. Laws like the LHWCA have been enacted to help people in such difficult and trying time.

Continue reading "Legal Remedy for People With Mesothelioma Due to Asbestos Exposure " »

In late 2010, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, shed some light on how the sale of a company may impact claims made by employees against the successor company in Pichon v. Asbestos Defendants AG. The plaintiffs in the case were the wife and children of the deceased Mr. Pichon. The plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Pichon was exposed to asbestos between 1955 and 2004. Mr. Pichon died in 2006 from Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer, which the plaintiffs argue was as a result of his exposure to asbestos. One of the defendants in the case was Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC). DDC filed for summary judgment stating that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The Court broke its discussion down into two time periods: (1) Pre-1988 exposure by Mr. Pichon, before the creation of DDC, under which plaintiffs argued that DDC is liable under the theory of successor liability and (2) Post-1988, after the creation of DDC, under which plaintiffs argued that Mr. Pichon was exposed to asbestos as a result of DDC manufacturing.

In 1970, GM merged its Diesel Division with its Allision Division to create the Detroit Diesel-Allision Division. This division manufactured marine engines at Halter Marine. In 1988 GM and Penske formed DDC as a joint venture. Subsequently, DDC purchased the assets of most of the division that produced the marine engines. The sales agreement between DDC and GM stated that DDC would not be liable for GM's conduct or for claims relating to products manufactured, distributed, or sold by GM prior to closing. The Court stated that there were three ways in which a successor company could be held liable for the actions of the selling company: (1) When the successor company clearly assumed the liability or obligations (2) When the buying company was merely a continuation of the selling company or (3) Where is it found that the transaction occurred only to avoid liability. The Court stated that it was clear that DDC expressly denied any pre-sale liability for the actions of GM. However, the plaintiffs argued that DDC's liability was as a result of test number two, namely that DDC was a continuation of GM's Diesel-Allision Division.

In response to plaintiffs argument concerning the second test for successor liability, the Court cited to a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that successor liability could be found on the basis of the buying company being a mere continuation of the selling corporation where the sale was for all of the company's assets. The issue for the plaintiffs in this case was that DDC clearly did not purchase all of GM's assets. Further, DDC did not even purchase all of GM's assets concerning manufacturing of marine engines. DDC only purchase those assets relating to the Redford Operations. Because the plaintiffs were unable to provide evidence that DDC purchased all of GM's assets, the Court granted DDC's summary judgment on this claim and plaintiffs thus lost on this point.

The Court next turned to the claim that Mr. Pichon was exposed to asbestos after the creation of DDC. DDC provided the Court with evidence that GM had put in place a policy in 1980 that called for the eventual elimination of the use of asbestos. Further, DDC provided the Court with evidence that the use of asbestos by GM was completely eliminated by 1987, prior to the creation of DDC. DDC argued that there was no evidence that there was a continuation of the use of asbestos after the creation of DDC. The plaintiffs put forth evidence showing that there was a gasket specification sheet from 1986 that called for the use of asbestos. The plaintiffs argued that since there was no evidence of a gasket specification sheet subsequent to 1986 that showed that asbestos was not used, that it should be assumed that the use of asbestos continued post-1986 and into the period after DDC was created. The Court held that the indirect evidence provided by the plaintiffs did not negate the direct evidence provided by DDC that showed that there was a policy implementation and eventual phase out of the use of asbestos prior to the creation of DDC. The Court granted DDC's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs lost on this point as well.

The Pichon case is a good example of the precautions that workers should take in the workplace. If you have worked in an environment where asbestos was used, it is imperative that you seek medical and legal advice. If you work in any environment in which you deal with hazardous chemicals or materials you should frequently visit your doctor to make sure that you remain healthy. If the company for which you work is being bought, or is purchasing another company, or its division, you should seek legal advice as to how your rights will be impacted by the sale. Further, if you or a loved one suspects they have been exposed to asbestos, consulting with an attorney about their legal rights is a must.

Mesothelioma, also known as asbestos cancer, is cancer of the mesothelium, and is usually found on or around the lungs an individual has had prolonged exposure to asbestos in their homes or at work. Although the disease has become easier to detect in recent years, asbestos manufacturers have actually been sued by victims who have contracted the disease since as early as the 1920s and there is evidence that people were getting sick as early as the end of the 19th century.

Despite this long history, and high profile cases that have gone as far as the Supreme Court with nearly a billion dollars in compensation paid out, no Federal laws have been passed to delineate the compensation available to victims. The sad reality is that many suffering patients end up not getting the compensation they truly deserve due to the lack of regulation and confusion over what victims are entitled. This would seem to be an obvious case of injustice and is an unfortunate reality as working men and women simply cannot afford to aggressively pursue legal action against corporations, especially those that may have closed decades before.

The link between meso and asbestos was officially proven in the 1960s when scientists confirmed the presence of the disease in over 30 people who had been exposed to asbestos in South Africa. In 1962 mine workers were discovered who had mesothelioma and the condition was proven to cause cancer. Once workers are diagnosed with mesothelioma they can no longer work. This is just one reason why they must be properly compensated by their employers for their lost wages. Employers my be hesitant to pay damages; the reality is they could have provided the proper protective equipment to their workers that would have allowed them to work safely with asbestos and remain disease free. The question then significant to many is how you can tell if a person has contracted mesothelioma?

There are several symptoms that should be seen as a red flag (these symptoms are very similar to those for other conditions, including lung cancer). Keep in mind that these symptoms may not surface for years after asbestos exposure:

1. Shortness of breath - from fluid caught between the lungs and chest wall.
2. Chest pains - also caused by fluid. The pain will be felt under the rib cage and may be accompanied by coughing.
3. Weight loss.
4. Abdominal pain or swelling resulted from fluid building up in the abdomen.
5. Bowel obstruction caused by either fluid or tumors that have formed in the abdominal region.
6. Anemia - due to mesotheliomas affect on the tissue lining the lungs and chest cavity (the pleura).
7. Blood clotting - although this is only seen in severe cases.
8. Trouble swallowing - that occurs if the cancer has metastasized from the mesothelioma to other parts of the body.
9. Swelling in the neck or face - this also occurs if the cancer has spread.

If you are at risk for mesothelioma because you have worked with asbestos in the recent or distant past, and you experience any of these symptoms, it is vital that you contact your doctor right away for treatment. With good legal assistance, those struck with mesothelioma can get the compensation they need and deserve. After all, people who have been injured because of the negligence of their employers deserve some sort of financial support from the legal system. If you are diagnosed you may also benefit from legal assistance. Please feel free to contact us and an attorney experienced in mesothelioma litigation will be happy to talk to you about your case.

This post constitutes part two of an introduction to mesothelioma:

Tissue changes resulting from asbestos exposure cause fluid to become trapped between the lung and the chest wall. This trapped fluid induces three symptoms which are often the initial symptoms a patient notices comprising coughing, chest pain, and shortness of breath. The trapped fluid creates uncomfortable pressure between the chest wall and lungs which the patient describes as chest pain under the rib cage. Coughing may accompany these symptoms which are typically the initial symptoms a patient experiences.

Additional symptoms may begin developing over several decades. For instance, weight loss may occur which is a symptom often seen in conjunction with cancerous tumors. Also, anemia may result when mesothelial cells comprising the pleura (lungs) and pericardium (heart) are involved. Blood clotting abnormalities typically present only in severe mesothelioma cases.

Fluid buildup in the abdominal cavity is also problematic for several reasons. First of all, the mere fact that the fluid buildup occupies space causes the patient to experience pain and swelling. Both this fluid buildup as well as tumor formation interfere with the functioning of the digestive tract and nearby organs. Another unpleasant negative consequence is bowel obstruction and the associated difficulties.

Metastasis occurs when cancer moves from the original body part initially afflicted to another body part and thus creates even more problems. If the mesothelioma metastasizes, it may move to the head and neck area causing swelling in the area and possibly difficulty swallowing.

In addition to mesothelioma (cancer of the mesothelium surrounding an organ), asbestos exposure may cause lung cancer wherein the tissue inside the lung itself is involved. Another distinguishing factor between the two asbestos cancers is the prevalence of lung cancer from other causes. In contrast, the only known cause of mesothelioma in the United States is exposure to asbestos.

While any physician can assist you with questions or diagnoses, it may be helpful to interact with a physician specialist. Pulmonologists specialize in lung diseases and oncologists specialize in cancers with some oncologists even focusing particularly on asbestos cancer.

Continue reading "Mesothelioma and Asbestos: Part II" »

Asbestos was recognized to be a toxic substance as long ago as the 1890's although it was not linked with specific diseases until recently. A multitude of lawsuits have been filed against asbestos manufacturers since 1929 with cases even traveling up to the United States Supreme Court. Nonetheless, no Federal Laws were ever created to address compensation for those suffering as a consequence of asbestos exposure leaving many sufferers without any assistance at all. Compensation is meant to address not only medical costs but also the pain and suffering resulting from the asbestos exposure as well as loss of income.

Although asbestos exposure is often 'on the job' exposure, a spouse simply washing the clothes of a family member subjected to 'on the job' asbestos exposure is likewise subjected to inhalation of asbestos dust and fiber. Even such seemingly minimal asbestos exposure places the spouse at risk for also succumbing to asbestos induced health problems. Residents living near factories or mines utilizing asbestos are also at risk for developing asbestos inhalation health disorders.

Unfortunately, asbestos inhalation may trigger a multitude of health problems. For example, a condition termed asbestosis refers to an inflammatory, chronic and prolonged lung disease that may inflict permanent lung damage. Moreover, asbestos exposure places an individual at risk for developing cancer. Due to the ubiquitous nature of asbestos and the magnitude of the damage it inflicts, compensation for asbestos related injuries lies in the billion dollar range. In general, the symptoms of asbestos related diseases include, but are not limited to, shortness of breath, wheezing, hoarseness, a persistent cough and/or coughing up blood, difficulty swallowing, chest pain, loss of appetite, weight loss, fatigue, or anemia.

One form of asbestos cancer affects mesothelial cells. The associated cancer is termed mesothelioma, or more specifically, malignant mesothelioma. Asbestos was definitively linked as the causal agent of mesothelioma by observing that a group of mine workers were succumbing to mesothelioma after working in an asbestos mine during a specific time period which was the only activity all of them had in common.

Mesothelial cells form a tissue termed the mesothelium which protects organs by producing a lubricating fluid. Location within the body sometimes dictates the name given to the mesothelium. For example, the pleura lines the lungs and internal chest walls, the peritoneum lines the abdominal cavity, and the pericardium surrounds the heart. While the pleura (mesothelium lining lungs and internal chest walls) is the mesothelium most commonly affected by asbestos exposure, the other mesothelial tissues may also succumb to asbestos cancer.

Mesothelioma may have a latency period which is a period of time after the patient is exposed to asbestos but before the cancer is detected and the patient is primarily asymptomatic (without symptoms). In fact, mesothelioma may have an unusually long latency period even ranging from ten to sixty years. Over time, the patient begins developing symptoms with some symptoms taking decades to present.

The Environmental Protection Agency can attempt to phase out chemicals which are "unsafe" under the Toxic Substances Control Act (abbreviated TSCA and pronounced "ToSCA"). TSCA is a complete failure of a statute and hardly regulates anything. Unlike its counterpart in the European Union, TSCA does not require every chemical manufacturer to report on its chemicals before being granted market access. Rather, TSCA blacklists a handful of chemicals and companies have to report anything that is chemically similar. If a company makes something that is tremendously dangerous but not chemically similar to something already on a TSCA blacklist, TSCA does not apply.

TSCA may be supplemented soon with Senator Lautenberg's Safe Chemicals Act. Doing so would no doubt be a great victory for environmentalists as it would replace TSCA with something which might actually work. The Safe Chemicals Act is taking aim at a number of problems that TSCA has been unable to address, foremost above them, asbesdos. The question, however, of what is and is not reasonably "safe" remains.

Historically asbestos was considered to be useful material in its day. Its strength makes it a great cement additive; what's more, its resistance to heat makes it excellent for brake pads, building insulation, and flame retardant.

Unfortunately, asbestos is obviously very hazardous. As scientists and doctors have come to profess, asbestos causes the dangerous illness mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that anyone who watches television knows about. What's more, mesothelioma has led to enough pain and suffering that awareness is essential.

The scary thing about mesothelioma, and asbestos, is that it is amounts to a death sentence. Forty percent of people who contract this ailment die within a year. Ninety percent of people who contract this sickness within four years. Besides its high fatality rate, the popular fear of asbestos gains strength from the chemical's insidiousness. Up to fifty years could pass between coming in contact with asbestos and developing mesothelioma.

Despite the ubiquity of mesothelioma class action lawsuit ads, the actual disease is fairly rare and the average American has a very low risk of contracting it. In most industrialized Western nations - that is, places where asbestos was, or is, manufactured and used - between seven and forty people per million contract mesothelioma each year. Mesothelioma is practically nonexistent in countries without asbestos.

To really assess the danger of asbestos, one has to distinguish risk from hazard. "Risk" is the chance that something will go wrong. "Hazard" is a measure of the severity what happens if something does go wrong. The hazard for asbestos is very high. The hazard is mesothelioma and death within a few years. The risk is very low. Between seven and forty in one million is almost as low as the proverbial "one in a million."

Tobacco, by comparison, is far more risky than asbestos. Male smokers have about a seventeen percent lifetime risk of developing lung cancer. For women, the risk is about twelve percent. Tobacco is roughly as hazardous as asbestos. Lung cancer's overall five year survival rate is about fourteen percent.

It is difficult to think of a hard and fast rule for distinguishing between safe and unsafe chemicals, but that is precisely what the EPA will likely be doing after the passage of the Safe Chemicals Act. American manufacturing could be on the brink of a very big change. It could be a victory for the environmental movement, but a victory with very unknown consequences and a huge development in law.

If you are facing an issue that that is similar to the one discussed, an attorney can help you with the legal issues surrounding it. Contact our offices today for a free legal consultation on your rights.

The Environmental Protection Agency can attempt to phase out chemicals which are "unsafe" under the Toxic Substances Control Act (abbreviated TSCA and pronounced "ToSCA"). TSCA is a complete failure of a statute and hardly regulates anything. Unlike its counterpart in the European Union, TSCA does not require every chemical manufacturer to report on its chemicals before being granted market access. Rather, TSCA blacklists a handful of chemicals and companies have to report anything that is chemically similar. If a company makes something that is tremendously dangerous but not chemically similar to something already on a TSCA blacklist, TSCA does not apply.

TSCA may be supplemented soon with Senator Lautenberg's Safe Chemicals Act. Doing so would no doubt be a great victory for environmentalists as it would replace TSCA with something which might actually work. The Safe Chemicals Act is taking aim at a number of problems that TSCA has been unable to address, foremost above them, asbesdos. The question, however, of what is and is not reasonably "safe" remains.

Historically asbestos was considered to be useful material in its day. Its strength makes it a great cement additive; what's more, its resistance to heat makes it excellent for brake pads, building insulation, and flame retardant.

Unfortunately, asbestos is obviously very hazardous. As scientists and doctors have come to profess, asbestos causes the dangerous illness mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that anyone who watches television knows about. What's more, mesothelioma has led to enough pain and suffering that awareness is essential.

The scary thing about mesothelioma, and asbestos, is that it is amounts to a death sentence. Forty percent of people who contract this ailment die within a year. Ninety percent of people who contract this sickness within four years. Besides its high fatality rate, the popular fear of asbestos gains strength from the chemical's insidiousness. Up to fifty years could pass between coming in contact with asbestos and developing mesothelioma.

Despite the ubiquity of mesothelioma class action lawsuit ads, the actual disease is fairly rare and the average American has a very low risk of contracting it. In most industrialized Western nations - that is, places where asbestos was, or is, manufactured and used - between seven and forty people per million contract mesothelioma each year. Mesothelioma is practically nonexistent in countries without asbestos.

To really assess the danger of asbestos, one has to distinguish risk from hazard. "Risk" is the chance that something will go wrong. "Hazard" is a measure of the severity what happens if something does go wrong. The hazard for asbestos is very high. The hazard is mesothelioma and death within a few years. The risk is very low. Between seven and forty in one million is almost as low as the proverbial "one in a million."

Tobacco, by comparison, is far more risky than asbestos. Male smokers have about a seventeen percent lifetime risk of developing lung cancer. For women, the risk is about twelve percent. Tobacco is roughly as hazardous as asbestos. Lung cancer's overall five year survival rate is about fourteen percent.

It is difficult to think of a hard and fast rule for distinguishing between safe and unsafe chemicals, but that is precisely what the EPA will likely be doing after the passage of the Safe Chemicals Act. American manufacturing could be on the brink of a very big change. It could be a victory for the environmental movement, but a victory with very unknown consequences and a huge development in law.

If you are facing an issue that that is similar to the one discussed, an attorney can help you with the legal issues surrounding it. Contact our offices today for a free legal consultation on your rights.

The Berniard Law Firm is proud to announce the release of an innovative new iPhone application that can be considered a must-have for individuals in the Gulf Coast. With extensive versatility and options including multiple contact points for our attorneys, as well as consistent site updates that will keep you informed of legal developments as they become available. Released October 26, we recommend everyone download the application in order to stay abreast of a variety of issues that relate to them.

In the works for some time, and with an update already planned, the Berniard Law Firm iPhone app puts law matters that are important to Louisiana residents in the palm of their hands. Constantly refreshing, with updates relating to our website, this application is an effort by our firm to allow our friends and clients quick access and up-to-date information for their daily lives. Whether using the application to send our firm a legal question or to call our offices, we strongly encourage anyone that wants an attorney and a wealth of legal information at your fingertips.

Specifically, the Berniard Law Firm Injury Attorney iPhone App provides users
- Entry page to record important details in the event of an accident
- Minimal size installed (only 3.1 MBs)
- Practice area explanations
- Quick jumps to consistently updated blogs
- Fast contact information to speak with an attorney

One feature that is extremely important and valuable in the Berniard Injury Attorney App is the entry page. Composed of data input fields that target inherently important details of an accident, using this portion of the application can help you make sure you record all of the necessary information at a time in which it maybe be difficult to remember. Providing an easy, step-by-step accident guide, this application can even include a picture with the information report with a simple tap.

For more information on how to download this application, or to discuss your legal rights regarding an issue that you are facing currently, contact our offices today. The Berniard Law Firm would happily discuss with you what opportunities you may have within the realm of the law, as well as give you a free consultation in regards to how we can best get you the justice you deserve.

To download the application, click here.

Asbestos was once used to make many common products including insulation, roofing materials, automobile brake pads, and other household and commercial goods. Beginning in the mid-1960s, asbestos was also regularly used as an additive for drilling mud in well-drilling operations by the petroleum industry. Drilling mud is used while drilling oil and gas wells to help clear debris out of the well and to help cool the drill bit. Various substances are often added to the drilling mud to adjust its thickness and fire retardant properties. Many of these, including lead, arsenic, and chromium, are toxic. Asbestos provided superior fire resistance and helped to improve the mud's consistency. Unfortunately, we now know that asbestos is linked to several types of cancer and other health problems.

The use of asbestos in drilling mud has been eliminated today; however, when it was first prohibited by the U.S. government, some petroleum companies apparently took the position that the federal ban did not apply to their offshore oil rigs or inland drilling barges. Thus, asbestos products may have been used in these environments even as late as the mid-1980s. Many drilling workers can recall working with a flaky, white additive that was packaged in 50-pound bags and mixed into the drilling mud in the mud shack. No proper breathing protection was provided to the workers who handled the mud additives, so many of these workers routinely inhaled pure asbestos fibers while mixing in the additives. Other oilfield workers such as roughnecks, mud engineers, and shaker hands also were likely exposed to asbestos on a regular basis during this timeframe. Even spouses and children of drilling workers were at risk of exposure if the workers came home with asbestos fibers clinging to their clothing.

Asbestos fibers are known to cause or increase the risk of many forms of cancer. The danger is highest among smokers, who face a substantially increased incidence of lung cancer. Studies have also shown a connection between asbestos exposure and gastrointestinal cancer, colorectal cancer, and a heightened risk for cancers of the throat, kidneys, esophagus, and other organs. Exposure is also linked to inflammation of the lungs, known as asbestosis, as well as pleural disease, which is inflammation of the tissue layers that line the lungs.

It is common for workers who have been exposed to asbestos to go for years before symptoms start to appear. Usually, early signs of exposure include shortness of breath and chest pain. A doctor can test for asbestos-related damage by using a stethoscope to listen for the characteristic sounds of the disease in the lungs. Xñrays or even more accurate CT scans can provide visual confirmation of exposure and the resulting damage.

Although a drilling worker's exposure may have happened years ago, the chemical companies that manufactured the asbestos and the oil companies who exposed their workers to the asbestos may still face liability today. Workers who were exposed to asbestos while working with gas or oil on an oil rig, oil platform, or other structure may qualify for compensation under maritime law. If you worked in a drilling operation in the 60s, 70s, or 80s and believe you may have been exposed to asbestos, you should contact an attorney who can inform you of your rights without delay.

Continue reading "Oil Rig Drilling Mud a Source of Asbestos Exposure for Workers in the Petroleum Industry" »

When you file a claim alleging asbestos exposure, what do you need to prove? This is an important question that, if not satisfied, may be the end of your lawsuit. Simply being exposed to any asbestos is not sufficient to maintain a claim. You, as the plaintiff, have the burden of showing that you were exposed to the defendants asbestos-containing product, and that particular exposure was a substantial factor in causing the damage. Simply showing that exposure to asbestos occurred will not be sufficient.

A 2008 Jefferson Parish case, Thibodeaux v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd., illustrates the importance of producing adequate evidence to support your asbestos claim. Here, the Thibodeaux's filed suit against Eagle Asbestos and its insurer, OneBeacon, alleging personal injuries as a result of their exposure to asbestos, namely mesothelioma. Mrs. Thibodeaux died from mesothelioma that her family claimed was the result of her exposure to Eagle's asbestos at Charity Hospital, where she worked. The Thibodeauxs would eventually lose this case because the court found that the evidence they provided was insufficient to support the claims they alleged. They did not prove that Mrs. Thibodeaux was exposed to Eagle asbestos. Without that, their argument was simply speculation.

So what do you need to prove exposure to a particular defendants asbestos?

To establish exactly what is sufficient and insufficient evidence, the court uses one particular case as an example, Grant v. American Sugat Refining, to show the type of evidence needed to support an asbestos-exposure claim. There, the victim was able to show employment records that placed him on site when asbestos-containing material was present, and affidavits of co-workers and managers stating that the defendant was the only company scheduled to perform the work involving asbestos-containing materials. In this case, the plaintiffs win because they were able to prove that the victim was exposed to the defendant's asbestos. While this is an example, it effectively shows what you need, as a plaintiff, to prove.

To win, the plaintiff in an asbestos-exposure case must show, affirmatively, that he was exposed to defendants asbestos-containing products, and that those products were a substantial factor in causing the plaintiffs injuries. Put differently, you have to prove, with sufficient evidence, that you were exposed to the defendant's particular product, and that the exposure to the defendants product was a significant cause of your injuries.

This is where the Thibodeauxs failed and the Grants succeeded. The Thibodeauxs knew there was some exposure, but they did not present evidence that showed Mrs. Thibodeaux was specifically exposed to Eagle asbestos. Grant was successful because they were able to show that the victim was specifically exposed to the defendants asbestos.

Keep these important requirements in mind when filing your asbestos claim. Make sure you can identify and prove exposure to the defendants asbestos-containing materials.

As the last couple posts have described, some aspects of asbestos cases do not fit within the traditional mold of other personal injury cases. Because these cases continue to be treated as personal injury matters, some of the rules must be relaxed or modified. The Louisiana Supreme Court dealt with some of these modifications in the case of Cole v. Celotex, 599 So.2d 1058 (1992). We look now to explore what the Court had to say about prescription rules that place time limits on a plaintiff's right to file suit for an injury.

Typically, the rules of prescription give an injured party one year from the date they are injured to file a lawsuit seeking damages against the person(s) responsible for the injury. As we have already noted, the time when an asbestos-related injury actually "occurs" is difficult to determine. Thus, the Court in the Cole case ruled that, for legal purposes, the repeated exposure to hazardous substances give rise to a claim. That is true even if the asbestos-caused disease does not manifest itself until later.

Because the time of the injurious event is difficult to pinpoint, the prescription rules are also hard to apply. Indeed, the Court recognized that a brief one year prescriptive period is incompatible with long latency diseases. An injured party may not even realize that he has suffered any harm for years. Thus, Lousiana courts can apply the "discovery" rule to asbestos cases. Under the discovery rule, the prescriptive period does not begin until "the plaintiff knows or through the exercise of due diligence should have known of the injury." Cole, 599 So.2d at 1084. Even then, the prescriptive period only runs on injuries the plainiff knows about or should know about. In other words, a plaintiff will not miss his chance to seek damages for disease he does not know about:

"Simply because a plaintiff knows or should know that he has a cause of action seeking damages for asbestosis, for example, does not mean that he knows or through due diligence should know all of the consequences that might develop later, including separate and distinct illnesses such as mesothelioma or another form of cancer." Id.

The discovery rule makes sense in light of two underlying principles of the prescription rules. First, the prescriptive rules seek to prevent the loss of evidence. In a typical injury case, the evidence - whether physical evidence or witness testimony - gets fuzzier with time. However, the Supreme Court observed that because of the nature of asbestos injuries, "evidence relating to [such issues] tends to develop, rather than disappear, as time passes."

Secondly, the legal system is concerned with properly compensating an injured party. As much as the law does not want to undercompensate a plaintiff, it also seeks not to overcompensate him at the expense of a defendant. Thus, preserving a plaintiff's right to sue for injuries as the injuries become evident prevents a plaintiff from having to guess about any future injuries or diseases that might arise. This fulfills the aims against both undercompensation and overcompensation. A plaintiff does not miss the chance to sue for a legitimate injury, but neither is a defendant forced to pay for an injury that never actually develops.

The complex and severe nature of the typical prescription rules and the asbestos modifications demonstrate the need to obtain qualified counsel as soon as possible. If a disease or condition begins to manifest itself, both medical and legal aid should be sought right away in order to protect and preserve an injured party's rights.

As research has revealed more about the dangers of asbestos and the mechanics of how it causes certain types of lung disease and cancer, medical and social opinion of asbestos has changed. Likewise, the law of asbestos-related injuries has changed in the last half century. For example, one of our blog posts recently discussed how workplace asbestos cases are now typically addressed through workers compensation proceedings rather than traditional personal injury tort law. A decision issued by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1992 illustrates another change in the law related to asbestos injuries.

Background

The background and procedural history of Cole v. Celotex Corp, 599 So.2d 1058 (1992), is complicated. However, knowing the case is important when trying to understand the significance of asbestos litigation. The plaintiffs in the case suffered asbestos exposure in the course of their work duties and filed suit against twenty individual defendants. The defendants included manufacturers of the asbestos materials the plaintiffs encountered on the job as well as officers of their former employers. Additionally, the plaintiffs added as a defendant Insurance Company of North America ("INA"), the primary liability insurance provider for the officers.

The lawsuit proceeded and moved toward trial. Just before the trial commenced, the plaintiffs and the defendant-manfacturers reached a settlement agreement. As part of the agreement, the manufacturer-defendants admitted legal fault and paid a monetary sum to each plaintiff. Thus, the trial proceeded against the officers and INA, their insurer. At trial, the jury found the officers responsible for the plaintiffs' injuries and awarded each plaintiff monetary damages. As the officers' insurer, INA would be responsible for paying all amounts due as a result of the officers' legal liability.

Multiple Defendants' Liability

Because asbestos cases involve both long-term exposure and a period of latency - or development of the disease - it is not uncommon to see changes in the applicable law during the relevant time period of a case. The Cole case is no different. At issue was a change in how Louisiana law treats multiple defendants' liability for injuries caused.

Prior to 1980, defendants shared financial liability under what is referred to as virile share doctrine. This doctrine divides financial liability equally among all defendants who are found to be at fault. A plaintiff may seek his entire damage payment from any or all defendants. However, any defendant required to pay more than his equal share could seek reimbursement from those who had not paid. In 1980, Louisiana enacted Act 431, which replaced the virile share doctrine with a comparative fault doctrine. Under comparative fault, each defendant is assigned a percentage of fault, and that percentage corresponds to the percentage of the damages each defendant must pay to the plaintiff. (See LSA-C.C. 2323.)

Each scheme has practical consequences for all parties in a lawsuit. For a defendant, comparative fault obviously limits the amount of money he could be forced to pay. If a plaintiff is owed $100,000 from 5 defendants, under virile shares, one defendant may be forced to pay the entire sum and then seek reimbursement from the other defendants. Under comparative fault, if each defendant is assigned 20% fault, the plaintiff may only collect $20,000 from each individual defendant. That is regardless of the plaintiff's ability to collect from the other defendants. (See LSA-C.C. 2324.) This example illustrates a plaintiff's implications as well. He may or may not be able to collect his entire damage award under comparative fault, even if one defendant has the financial ability to pay the entire award.

In the Cole case, a major issue was determining which one of these fault doctrines applied. The Court determined [link to post # 1] that issue based on when the when the exposures to asbestos occurred, legally speaking. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs' injuries occurred before 1980, the year the comparative fault doctrine took effect. Thus, the virile share doctrine applied. For INA, this had a tremendous impact. The jury in the case had found the officers INA insured to be 95% at fault for the plaintiffs' injuries. Once the case was altered to apply virile share, INA's ultimate responsibility was only 9/20ths of the plaintiffs' award. (Of the twenty defendants, INA insured nine of them; hence, INA is responsible for nine of the twenty virile shares.)

The Cole case demonstrates that, even though the timing of the plaintiffs' injuries are difficult to pinpoint, the legal consequences of that timing are significant. The legal framework that applies to a case may increase or limit the amount of damages a plaintiff will actually be able to recover. In order to fully protect and preserve their rights, persons affected by asbestos exposure should be sure to retain an attorney that is familiar with the complexities of asbestos cases.

Because of the nature of asbestos-related diseases and the way victims contract them, injury cases involving asbestos can be complicated. Lengthy exposure to asbestos in Louisiana and the long latency, or development, of asbestos-caused diseases take these cases outside the realm of typical personal injury cases. While this framework is not perfect, it still provides asbestos victims an avenue to seek compensation for their injuries.

In the case of Cole v. Celotex, 599 So.2d 1058 (1992), the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the difficulty of applying pure tort - or personal injury - principles to asbestos cases and handed down several important rules for asbestos injury cases coming after it. By reviewing the Court's analysis of when, legally speaking, an asbestos injury actually occurs, it is our hope that you can better understand the issues involved and how you might be able to receive compensation for any damages you face because of exposure. What's more, determining the legal timeframe is critical, as timing can affect both a plaintiff's right to file suit as well as the law that applies to the case.

The plaintiffs in the Cole case had all been exposed to asbestos during the course of their job duties. They brought suit seeking compensation from several manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. They also sued their former employers, claiming that the employers' negligence and failure to create a safe work environment contributed to the plaintiffs' injuries due to asbestos exposure.

After several appeals, the case landed in the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Court was asked to address several specific issues. Before tackling those, however, the Court had to confront an essential issue of determining the legal timeframe in which an asbestos injury occurs. The Court recognized that this is one aspect of tort law that does not operate well in asbestos cases. In its ruling, the Court stated

"Simply put, the requisites for asserting a [tort] cause of action are 'a wrongful act and resulting damages.' The problem with the suggested approach, however, is that the concepts upon which it is based were designed for handling traditional tort suits, and those concepts are inept for identifying the key 'events' giving rise to a cause of action for long-term exposure to asbestos in the workplace."Cole, 599 So.2d at 1065.

The Court continued, citing some federal court decisions:

"The factual predicate giving rise to potential liability from asbestos exposure is simply different from those that generated most tort doctrines [and] thus such cases differ in legally important aspects from the types of injuries that present tort doctrines were designed to accommodate." Id.

Because of both the "slow development" of asbestos-caused diseases and the "lengthy latency period" typical of most, there is a "temporal separation" between a defendant's injurious conduct and the appearance of a plaintiff's injury. That separation is somewhat unique to asbestos injury cases. In a car accident injury, for example, the injury, the act that causes the injury, and the moment at which those occur are readily evident. In contrast, the characteristics noted by the Court - slow development and latency - make determining the date of an asbestos injury "virtually impossible, medically and legally." Id. at 1066.

Regardless of the difficultly of "pinpointing" the exact time of an asbestos injury, the Court recognized that the timing of the injury affects several aspects of a case. Thus, it concluded:

"The key relevant events giving rise to a claim in long-latency occupational disease cases are the repeated tortious exposures resulting in continuous, on-going damages, although the disease may not be considered contracted or manifested until later." Id.

Thus, instead of trying to identify a single act that led to the injury, the Court was willing to accept the whole range of injurious conduct. While that seems like a straightforward and common-sense approach, it is still important to have the rule state as much.

Because relevant aspects of the law had changed during the time period involved in the Cole case, determining the time the injury occurred was essential to determining which law applied. Also, the Court discussed how the rules of prescription must be relaxed to accommodate long-latency diseases, an aspect dealing with the time a plaintiff has to bring a lawsuit. Make sure to return to this blog in the coming days for more information on this topic or click over to our section dedicated to mesothelioma and asbestos for more information.

Employees injured on the job are usually bared from filing a claim against their employers because they are fully compensated under the Louisiana Workers Compensation Act. However, while the act provides for most injuries, it does not provide for all. Whether or not your injuries are covered by Workers Compensation requires a look at recent Louisiana statutes.

In the case of employee's claiming injuries due to asbestos exposure, Louisiana's Workers Compensation Act can may be tricky to pinpoint. Because asbestos usually manifests itself years after initial exposure, deciding which statute applies, and thus which injuries are covered, may be difficult. The time at which a claim arises is usually measured from the injury producing event, that is in this case, the initial exposure to asbestos. The injury producing event, in addition to providing a timeline for a cause of action, also determines the law controlling the event. Laws are amended and changed over time, so the date of asbestos exposure actually determines which statute will be applied to the injury claim.

In 1996, Royce Thomas filed a claim against his former employer, Anco Insulations ("Anco"). He claims that his job, from 1968 to 1971, exposed him to large quantities of asbestos, and he contracted lung cancer and asbestosis as a result of the exposure. His employer challenged the claim, alleging that the injuries were covered under workers' compensation. This is where the importance of the injury producing event becomes evident. Royce claimed that his lung cancer and asbestosis were related to pre-1975 exposure to asbestos. Under Louisiana law at that time (pre-1975), asbestos was not a substance covered under the Workers' Compensation Act. Therefore, Royce had a valid cause of action because the injury producing event occurred at a time when asbestos, and lung cancer for that matter, were not injuries covered by the state's Workers' Compensation Act.

Determining the injury producing event is very important to a claim, especially one involving asbestos or mesothelioma. Had the asbestos exposure occurred after 1975, Royce Thomas' would have been bared from filing a claim against Anco because the statute was amended to include asbestos, and he therefore would have been entitled to complete relief under Workers' Compensation.

Cases involving asbestos exposure also lend themselves to debate over the root cause of the injury. In the above case, Mr. Thomas claimed that his injuries were caused by asbestos exposure, a substance not covered under the Workers' Compensation Act. The employer, however, argued that Thomas' lung cancer was actually caused by asbestosis, a disease explicitly covered by the Act. [Note: Asbestosis is a chronic inflammatory medical condition that effects the lung tissue]. Determining the injury producing event, whether lung cancer was caused by asbestos exposure or asbestosis, can help a court decide whether the injured party has a right to relief under Workers' Compensation or not.

The majority of asbestos cases in Louisiana involve corporate defendants: domestic and foreign corporations responsible for the individual's exposure. Claims against corporations are subject to the procedural rules of venue. The venue is determined to be the place in which the injured party may bring their case. Under the general rules of venue:

An action against a domestic corporation (Louisiana corporation) shall be brought in the parish where its registered office is located, and an action against a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the state shall be brought in the parish where its designated primary business office is located. An action against a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in Louisiana and without an agent for service shall be brought in the parish of plaintiff's domicile."

With multiple defendant corporations, it may be in the injured party's benefit to show that the defendants are solidary obligors. Solidary Obligors is a term used in Louisiana for parties that share responsibility for a person's injuries. Proving this relationship makes it easier on the injured party to file claims in the proper court (venue) because they need only show that venue is proper as to one of the defendants. This relieves some of the pressure of ensuring jurisdiction over each defendant corporation to their claim.

LSA-C.C.P. art. 41 provides that an action against joint or solidary obligors may be brought in a parish of proper venue, as to any obligor who is made a defendant.

Failing to achieve this party relationship, however, makes the venue selection process more difficult and a reason for courts to dismiss an asbestos case. Nevertheless, figuring out the proper venue for your case is not a one-strike game. Prescription, the "timeframe" by which a party has to file claims for a type of case, is interrupted if the action is commenced in an improper venue. You have the option to refile your case with the correct court without prescription running.

However, keep in mind that the rule mentioned above only applies to parties that have been served. Service involves the process in which a defendant has been made aware of the suit through the correct form of service of process. If you are adding another defendant to your claim, the time limit is not suspended for the new party because they were not properly made aware of the case prior to the case being filed with the improper court.

These issues can be confusing to someone unfamiliar with the Louisiana rules and procedure and are the reason why many asbestos cases have been unsuccessful in court. Consultation and careful planning with a lawyer can prevent these problems from effecting the future of your asbestos claims.

On television, legal cases are almost always decided by a dramatically discovered fact or through emotional testimony. In reality, many cases are decided by court rules or procedural technicalities. This might be true even if the substantive legal arguments would produce a different result. Such a scenario is demonstrated by the case of Pickett v. International Paper Company, a workplace asbestos exposure case involving both Webster and Morehouse Parishes.

Two procedural rules were at issue in the Pickett case. One of these was venue. In legal terminology, venue refers to the location of the proper legal location in which a case should be filed - in other words, the court in the proper parish. Under Louisiana's rules of civil procedure, proper venue is typically determined by where an alleged defendant lives, is located, or conducts business (LSA-C.C.P. art. 41). That rule embodies an aspect of fairness to the party who must defend itself against a claim of wrongdoing. If there are jointly responsible defendants, the venue rule need only be satisfied as to one of them. If a defendant is a business or corporation that does not have an actual place of business in the state, a plaintiff may file suit in the parish where the plaintiff lives (LSA-C.C.P art. 42).

The second rule that helped determine the outcome of the Pickett case was presciption. Under Louisiana law, an injured party has one year from the date the injury was sustained to file a lawsuit. That one-year limit is often called the prescriptive period. If not filed within one year, that particular claim is barred by the passage of time. In certain cases, the prescriptive period may be essentially paused. However, in most cases the one-year limit applies.

The Pickett case was decided at an intersection of the venue and prescription rules. The plaintiffs in the case had filed a lawsuit in Webster Parish against multiple defendants. Most of these defendants were former employers of the plaintiffs who allegedly caused the plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. The particular defendant involved in the venue and prescription issues, Eaton Corporation, was a successor-in-interest to one of those companies. Eaton initially challenged the plaintiffs' claims against it based on improper venue. It asserted, and the plaintiffs actually agreed, that Webster Parish was not the proper place to file suit against Eaton. The parties agreed that proper venue actually lay in Morehouse Parish, and the case was transferred to that parish's court.

Eaton then argued to the Morehouse Parish court that the plaintiffs' case was actually prescribed because Eaton was not sued in proper venue within the one-year prescriptive period. As long as a case is filed in a venue that is proper, the prescriptive period can be paused, even if that venue later becomes improper. For instance, venue may become improper if venue was based on a particular defendant and that defendant becomes no longer involved in the case. Eaton argued that Webster Parish was never proper venue for a suit against it. Therefore, the prescriptive period for the plaintiffs' claims against Eaton was never interrupted, or paused, and Eaton was not served notice of the lawsuit until well after that prescriptive period expired.

The plaintiffs challenged Eaton's prescription argument using two of the alternate venue rules, trying to establish that Webster Parish was a proper venue for the case at the outset. If Webster Parish was initially proper venue, the case against Eaton would have been filed in a timely manner. First, the plaintiffs attempted to assert proper venue based on the fact that venue was proper for another defendant, Asten Group. According to legal precedent, if venue is proper as to one defendant, it is proper as to all "joint or solidary obligors" (Pickett, 924 So.2d at 496). However, the court ruled that the plaintiffs' injuries from Asten arose from different incidents than did the injuries attributable to Eaton. Thus, Eaton and Asten were not "joint and solidary" defendants, and the plaintiffs must establish proper venue for its claims against Eaton on their own account.

Secondly, the plaintiffs asserted that some of their injuries were due to events occurring in Webster Parish. Therefore, venue would have been proper in Webster Parish at the time the suit commenced. However, the court found that Eaton did not have operations in Webster Parish. Thus, the plaintiffs could not establish proper venue as to Eaton based on occurrences in Webster Parish.

Finding that the prescriptive period had indeed lapsed, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against Eaton. This case illustrates that legal claims can be decided based on technical details, regardless of what the actual evidence in the case indicates. The Pickett case provides yet another example of how important a quality, detail-oriented legal team is in protecting the rights of injured persons.

Residents of Louisiana, Florida, Virginia and at least twenty-nine other states have reported problems associated with the use of imported Chinese drywall. Reported problems include the emission of foul odors and physical damage to property. In addition, some homeowners have complained of health problems such as headaches, coughing and general respiratory problems.

Although U.S. government investigations into the Chinese drywall issue are ongoing, a recent U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ('the Commission') study identified a link between Chinese drywall and the corrosion of metal components in homes. As part of its ongoing investigation, the Commission has issued a precautionary fire alert.

Many affected homeowners have taken a proactive approach. In one U.S. District Court case in New Orleans, plaintiffs' attorneys have requested that the court require Chinese drywall manufacturer Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. ('Knauf') to pay to restore an affected house to the condition that it was in before corrosive gases allegedly damaged property. Although Knauf's attorney agreed that Knauf should remove the drywall from the affected home, the company's attorney argued that Knauf should not be held responsible for the restoration of the home, questioning the claim that Chinese drywall corroded fixtures. According to one source, at least 2,100 people in the U.S. have sued in federal courts, claiming damage from Chinese-made drywall.

Moody's Investors Service ('Moody's') estimates that insurers' claims and litigation costs associated with Chinese drywall will be significant. Nonetheless, the extent of these costs remains unclear. Liabilities will ultimately depend upon how courts rule in ongoing cases. Because reported Chinese drywall problems have been concentrated in Louisiana and Florida, concerned Louisiana homeowners should reference this blog in the future for updates. Alternatively, concerned homeowners may contact the Berniard Law Firm for immediate assistance.

Although Moody's predicts that Chinese drywall will not become a major insurance liability like asbestos claims, some commentators have already begun to draw analogies. Asbestos is a fibrous material that was once commonly used in construction. However, as awareness began to spread that exposure to asbestos can lead to potentially life-threatening illnesses, injured plaintiffs began to sue asbestos manufacturers and suppliers. Asbestos litigation soon became the most expensive mass tort in U.S. history, involving the filing of hundreds of thousands of cases in federal courts. Asbestos cases are complicated by the fact that for some people, asbestos-related symptoms do not manifest themselves until years after exposure. Nonetheless, courts have held manufacturers and suppliers liable for asbestos-related injuries under tort theories of negligence and products liability. While Moody's, again, notes that Chinese drywall will likely not reach the threshold and financial liability that asbestos has, the toxic wallboard is still a danger and a problem.

Prevailing plaintiffs have recovered compensatory damages, and in exceptional cases, punitive damages for asbestos related harms. The same will likely be true for those with Chinese drywall installed in their home. While the courts have still not ruled on cases involving the toxic import, it is important for those who believe they have the faulty wallboard in their home to have it checked out. By having a professional come and inspect the drywall used in your home, you can be best prepared for any future litigation that may come of it. Part of that preparation, though, involves getting the best legal representation you can.

For more information on our firm's involvement with Chinese drywall litigation please contact us or check out our blog section dedicated to news and updates on the matter located here.

According to a 2004 decision of the Louisiana Court of Appeals, the survivors of a New Orleans longshoreman will not be able to recover damages from corporate defendants Buck Kreihs and Dixie Machine. The Plaintiff, Mr. Vodanovich, worked as a longshoreman from 1948 to 1986. Part of his job was to load and unload asbestos cargo at several wharves along the Mississippi. It was at this job that he sometimes worked alongside the defendants employees who performed maintenance on the same ships.

Vodanovich was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in 2001. He died in 2002. Prior to his death he brought a lawsuit against Buck Kreihs and Dixie Machine. The defendants were granted summary judgment in 2003 when a trial court found that there was no issue of material fact as to whether or not the defendant’s actions led to the plaintiff's exposure to asbestos and caused his death. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court and affirmed the defendants' summary judgment motion.

Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, answers, admissions, and affidavits on file in a case show no issues of material fact to be decided by a jury. As such the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment effectively dismisses the case of a party that, according to the court, will not be able to prove their burden if the case to go to trial.

In an asbestos case it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to show that it is more likely than not that he was exposed to asbestos from the defendant’s products. If the injury resulted from multiple causes (the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from many different sources) the defendant’s conduct must be a cause in fact of the injury. According to the Louisiana Court of Appeals in Quick v. Murphy Oil Co., this requires that the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in the harm.

In another case, the Louisiana Supreme Court clarified what cause in fact/substantial factor means when they found that negligent conduct would be a substantial factor if the harm would not have occurred without the defendant’s conduct.

If, as in this case, there are multiple defendants, and the plaintiff's injury did not manifest for a long time (e.g. the person is diagnosed years after asbestos exposure), that does not change the fact that the plaintiff must still prove that the defendant’s products contributed to their injury. The bottom line is that the plaintiff must prove he had significant exposure to asbestos that came from the defendant or he will not be successful.

Proving exposure can be very difficult. Here, the court found that the mere fact that the plaintiff loaded and unloaded ships at various wharves in New Orleans, and the defendants employees repaired vessels at various wharves in the same city, was insufficient because the plaintiff could not identify the specific details of the defendant’s activities that related to asbestos exposure. Even in the plaintiff’s testimony he was unable to point to any specific instances where the defendant’s activities caused him to be exposed to asbestos fibers.

If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma and you believe you may have contracted the disease while at work it is important that you and your attorney carefully consider the question of whether to bring a claim and who to bring the claim/s against. If you have been exposed to asbestos from multiple sources you must be able to pinpoint the instances of exposure and how they related to the defendant’s activity in order to satisfy the substantial factor standard outlined above. This may require your attorney to conduct an intense factual investigation, employing one or more expert witnesses as necessary. Representation by a top notch attorney with much mesothelioma/asbestos case experience can mean the difference between a win and a dismissal before the case goes to trial.

Louisiana law governing a victim’s recovery for on-the-job exposure to hazardous substances like asbestos has changed quite a bit in the last half-century. The amount a victim can recover – and the way in which they must do so – can be very different depending upon when the victim was exposed to asbestos. One particular case involving a West Monroe paper mill illustrates how critical the date of exposure to asbestos is to a victim’s ability to recover.

The case of Graves v. Riverwood International Corp., 949 So.2d 576 (La. Ct. App. 2007), starts with a fairly straightforward story. Walter Graves worked at a paper mill in West Monroe from 1943 until 1986. During the term of his employment there, he was frequently exposed to asbestos-containing insulation materials. His employer failed to warn him about asbestos, provide him with protective equipment, or educate him about techniques to minimize his personal danger. When Walter was later diagnosed with mesothelioma, he sued the owners of the mill because of the frequent and excessive exposure to asbestos on the job. Walter died shortly after being diagnosed. His family carried on the lawsuit.

The courts had little trouble determining that Mr. Graves’ employer was liable to Walter and his family for exposing Walter to asbestos. The courts found Walter’s employer was “strictly liable” because asbestos poses an unreasonable risk of harm to others. Furthermore, Walter’s employer had control and ownership of the dangerous materials. Finally, Walter endured “significant exposure” to that asbestos, which resulted in his injury – mesothelioma.

While this may seem to be an open-shut situation, another part of this story took place in the Louisiana legislature. During the time Walter worked at the paper mill, legislators changed the ways in which the law handled “occupational diseases." Before 1952, a person could sue their employer and receive compensation in the form of damages. In 1952, the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act required that injuries caused by exposure to hazardous materials on the job be addressed through workers’ compensation payment, becoming the only way for employees to get compensation in the event of a harm. Employers are now immune from tort suits for such injuries. Thus, the difference in receiving a potentially large damages award or merely workers’ comp payments depends very much on when the exposure to hazardous materials was deemed to occur.

In Walter’s case, the court found that because he dealt with asbestos materials so frequently in his job beginning in 1943, he endured “significant exposure” well before 1952. Walter’s family received a damages award of $3,000,000 in addition to almost $40,000 for medical expenses. While they could have received reimbursement for medical expenses under workers’ compensation, Walter’s family would not have been able to seek such a large judgment against the mill’s owner. The place where Walter’s story intersected the development of the law was incredibly crucial in determining how much and what type of compensation his family could receive.

Continue reading "Case of West Monroe Paper Mill Demonstrates Changes in Mesothelioma Law" »

In 1994, Conoco, Inc. initiated construction on a project that required the demolition of abandoned homes in Westlake, Louisiana. Along with demolition, the project required the evacuation and removal of soil. The soil, which contained asbestos, was distributed to homeowners that spread the soil on the lawns of their homes.

According to La. C.C. art. 2315.2:

“In addition to general and special damages, exemplary damages may be awarded, if it is proved that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the defendant’s wanton or reckless disregard for public safety in the storage, handling, or transportation of hazardous or toxic substances.”

Here, it was not proven that Conoco’s behavior was “wanton and reckless”, nor were their actions deemed highly unreasonable or involving an extreme departure from ordinary care. As an employer/employee involved in the removal or disposal of asbestos containing material, you have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent public exposure. Steps include:

(1) visual surface test
(2) soil contamination test
(3) Option to replace contaminated soil, or sufficiently cover contaminated soil

In addition to punitive damages, the homeowners sought to recover (i) increased risk of developing asbestos related cancer, (ii) damages for mental anguish, and (iii) diminished property values. The requirements to recover under each claim are put forth below.

Increased Risk
In Conoco, homeowners sought damages for "slight" exposure to asbestos, which only "slightly" increased the risk of contracting related cancer. As such, Louisiana does not allow recovery for a "slightly" increased risk of developing cancer. You must show that you are likely to contract cancer from "significant" exposure, the mere possibility is not sufficient. Expert witnesses, i.e. doctors and asbestos specializes, may be necessary to prove exposure levels.

Mental Anguish
Louisiana courts have been more inclined to award damages for mental anguish when it is accompanied by a manifest physical injury. However, to receive damages for mental anguish and emotion distress related to asbestos exposure, you must show, absent any physical injury, that you have a "particular likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress arising from the circumstances." The strict language has been enforced to prevent frivolous suits from litigation.

Diminished Property Value
A property's exposure to asbestos can have a direct and significant impact on the value of the home. In the present case, homeowners introduce what is called the "stigma effect" to show that the value of their property experienced a 10% drop. In short, "when the owners attempt to sell their property, they will have to disclose the fact that the property had once been contaminated with asbestos-containing soil. "Asbestos" certainly carries a negative connotation and will raise a red flag to potential home-buyers. Home owners in Westlake with known asbestos exposure should consider these issues when selling and purchasing homes.

All in all, asbestos is obviously a messy issue that all parties involve was never a problem. In the instance mentioned above, there were a lot of complex legal assertions and claims that all derived from a simple error that was likely a common mistake. While manufacturers or companies may not have intentionally allowed the substance into the air or everyday lives of families across Louisiana, they owe an accountability for the error in their ways. Only through proper legal representation can someone exposed hope to get the settlement or ruling that truly meets their interests and not the company's bottom line.

Asbestos. Mesothelioma. Two terms commonly thrown around in the media, on the news, and even on the internet. But what exactly do they mean, how much of a threat are they to your health, and what can you do about it?

Asbestos are naturally occurring minerals that when inhaled can be very dangerous. These miniscule minerals, commonly referred to as fibers, build up scar-like tissue in the lungs and impede them from healthy functioning. Common sources of asbestos include disturbed or damaged insulation, dry wall, cement, roof shingles, and even floor tiles.

Mesothelioma on the other hand is a form of cancer that affects the lining of the body's internal organs. This lining is referred to as mesothelium. Symptoms of mesothelioma include chest pains, shortness of breath, wheezing, and fatigue. Cancer.gob reports that although mesothelioma is rare, rates have been on the rise over the past few decades.

Just as recently as 2008, TransWorldNews reported that New Orleans parish was in the process of using a special technique to demolish asbestos-laden buildings still left over from Hurricane Katrina. Destruction was monitored by the EPA and is necessary to make sure that citizens of Orleans Parish are safe, especially given that local residents are still battling the disease.

For example, just several months ago, NOLA.com reported that William Simmons, founder of a local chrome-plating business, died of mesothelioma. The source of his exposure was not reported. Although Asbestos.net reports that it takes years for mesothelioma to manifest, safely getting rid of old New Orleans properties that have for example, asbestos laden pipe, is a step in the right direction to eradicating potential present and future exposure that could lead to problems down the road.

In addition,
Asbestos.net reported as of a few weeks ago that at least one mesothelioma case is ongoing in Orleans parish. The case, involving an allegation of second-hand exposure to asbestos at the Avondale Shipyard, was recently delayed due to (of all things!) the New Orleans Saints making the Super Bowl. Whether the judge made the correct decision in delaying an important personal injury case for a football game is a matter for a different blogging day.

Clearly, asbestos and mesothelioma are ongoing issues in New Orleans. Mesothelioma needs to be diagnosed quickly for treatment to be effective.

Continue reading "Recent Deaths in New Orleans Stem from Mesothelioma" »