vuser
3,142
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Saturday June 29, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchDirectory:Lawyer Central/Mesothelioma (view source)
Revision as of 21:45, 14 March 2007
, 21:45, 14 March 2007no edit summary
By 1979 the first writs for negligence related to Wittenoom were issued against CSR and its subsidiary ABA, and the Asbestos Diseases Society was formed to represent the Wittenoom victims.
By 1979 the first writs for negligence related to Wittenoom were issued against CSR and its subsidiary ABA, and the Asbestos Diseases Society was formed to represent the Wittenoom victims.
===Recent Legal Developments===
Asbestos-related cases increased significantly on the U.S. Supreme Court docket after 1980. The Court has dealt with several asbestos-related cases since 1986. Two large class action settlements, designed to limit liability, came before the Court in 1997 and 1999. Both settlements were ultimately rejected by the Court because they would exclude future claimants, or those who later developed asbestos-related illnesses. ''See'' [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-270.ZO.html ''Amchem Products v. Windsor et al''] and [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1704.ZS.html ''Ortiz v. Fireboard Corp.'']These rulings addressed the 20-50 year latency period of serious asbestos-related illnesses.
Congress is still considering legislation from 2005 entitled the "Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005". The Act would establish a $140 billion trust fund to supplant litigation as a means to compensate victims of asbestos and limit liability. On April 26, 2005, Dr. Philip Landrigan, Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and Chairman of the Department of Community and Preventive Medicine at Mount SInai School of Medicine, [http://www.ewg.org/reports_content/lungcancer/pdf/asbestos_testimony.pdf testified] before the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary against this proposed legislation. He testified that many of the bill's provisions are unsupported by medicine and would unfairly exclude a large number of people who have become ill or died from asbestos: "The approach to the diagnosis of disease caused by asbestos that is set forth in this bill is not consistent with the diagnostic criteria established by the American Thoracic Society. If the bill is to deliver on its promise of fairness, these criteria will need to be revised." Also opposing the bill are the American Public Health Association and the Asbestos Workers Union.[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/05/senate-judiciary-committee-wants.php]
On June 14, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee Committee approved an amendment to the Act which would allow victims of mesothelioma $1.1M within 30 days of their claim's approval.[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/05/senate-judiciary-committee-wants.php] This version would also expand eligible claimants to people exposed to asbestos from the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, and to construction debris in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.[http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C06%5C12%5Cstory_12-6-2006_pg6_25]
==References==
==References==
