Asbestos litigation has been around for a long time. I vaguely remember the start of it way back when, and it continues to go strong and full out even today. Yes, years after asbestos became a dirty word - a killer word. When lawyers saw a way to make a really tidy packet off of those cruel companies. You know, the evil companies that didn't care about people as long as they made a buck??? Well, the litigation is still going strong... or it was.

Bankruptcy Judge Puts Brakes on Asbestos Claims

Law, not being my specialty, what I make of this quickly is that the Johns-Manville company was the first to collapse under asbestos litigation. A trust was set up to pay out claims, but the people (or maybe we should say - their lawyers) decided that the settlement wasn't enough - they wanted to go after the Traveler's Insurance company (the insurance company for Johns-Manville) to get more money. The judge just said "no" to that.

The government has even stepped into this one, trying to get the litigation under some sort of control.

Republican Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah and Bill Frist of Tennessee have spearheaded an effort to create a compensation fund that would end asbestos litigation. Democrats blocked their proposed $124 billion fund as inadequate.

You get that? $124 Billion is INADEQUATE! It makes you wonder, just how many people are making asbestos claims? Well, the following article gives us a fuzzy idea of the numbers we're dealing with.

Review of Asbestos X-Rays Gives a Different Picture

Chest X-rays are at the heart of thousands of asbestos lawsuits. Individuals who claim occupational injury from asbestos must show a certain degree of exposure on chest X-rays to get compensation.

At the very least there seem to be a goodly number of people filing suit. Even if you take the word "thousands" to mean 1000 exactly - that's still a huge number of lawsuits.

But the biggest news to come out of all this

The study, to be published today in the scientific journal Academic Radiology, states that six radiologists and pulmonologists who reinterpreted chest X-rays initially screened by plaintiff lawyers' readers "failed to confirm the conclusions in the majority of the cases."

The study's consultants reread each of 492 reports and found possible exposure to asbestos on a significant level in only 4.5% of the cases. The plaintiffs' physicians found that 95.9% of the chest X-rays were positive for parenchymal abnormalities, a sign of asbestos exposure.

Come again? Oh yes, you read it right. 4.5% to 95.9% ....

Big, evil, money grubbing, non-caring companies? Uh - sure, right, whatever you say...

Posted by: Teresa in Law at 04:03 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 447 words, total size 3 kb.

1 It's crap like that that makes me glad I dropped out of law school.

At least I can sleep at night, now. I don't know HOW the hell asbestos lawyers do it.

Posted by: Harvey at August 18, 2004 05:04 AM (tJfh1)

2 Teresa (not, I hasten to point out, TAY-RAY-ZUH),

I don't practice asbestos law, but I can put some of this in perspective.

These trusts are standard for asbestos-related bankruptcies. After reorganization, all claimants have to go to the trust, if you take a look at US Code Title 11, section 524(g)(1)(B) (the "indirectly collecting" language). What's overlooked is that Travellers is still kicking in 500 million dollars toward the fund, under the settlement agreements.

The Hatch bill was originally S. 1125, now S. 2290. It essentially replaces the current system with a nationwide fund, with money provided by private parties (bankrupt or not) facing asbestos liability and insurers. People claiming asbestos-related injuries will then have to go to the Court of Federal Claims, which will assess the merits of the claims, and pay out accordingly.

To me, the interesting aspect of this bill is that the Court of Federal claims is the _only_ court where you could litigate an asbestos claim. Section 403(d) bars any other state or federal court action relating to asbestos injuries. And the only recovery is from the fund, and not directly from the companies or insurers.

Bottom line - no jury-determined damages awards, no jackpot punitive damages. Also, in all likelihood, people claiming of asbestos injury will have to come up with better proof.

Which explains why the asbestos plaintiffs' lawyers wouldn't like it.

Posted by: Tony at August 18, 2004 06:43 AM (QwFky)

3 WooHoo - thanks Tony!!! I knew I didn't know enough about it *grin*

Posted by: Teresa at August 18, 2004 10:26 AM (nAfYo)

4 Well, that's what I'm here for. Asbestos litigation and -related bankruptcies are pretty much an industry unto themselves.

Forgot a couple links:
11 USC section 524: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/11/524.html
bill tracking (just enter the bill number): http://thomas.loc.gov

Posted by: Tony at August 18, 2004 04:05 PM (QwFky)

Hide Comments | Add Comment