Employer Liability in Pennsylvania after Herold v. University of Pittsburgh (Podcast)

/in /by

In this episode, John Maher talks with attorney Paul Kelley of Satterley & Kelley about the landmark Harold v. University of Pittsburgh case and its impact on employer liability in Pennsylvania. The decision builds on the earlier Tooey case, confirming that workers diagnosed with diseases like mesothelioma outside the Occupational Disease Act’s four-year limit can still pursue negligence claims against employers. Kelley explains how the court’s ruling ensures workers aren’t left without a remedy, outlines the differences between tort and workers’ compensation claims, and emphasizes the urgency of seeking legal help after a diagnosis due to strict time limits for filing. The episode highlights the legal complexities and critical steps workers should take when faced with long-latency occupational illnesses.

John Maher: Hi, I’m John Maher and I’m here today with Paul Kelley. Paul is a partner with the Kentucky personal injury law firm, Satterley & Kelley, which has over 45 years of collective experience in litigating mesothelioma and asbestos claims. Today we’re talking about employer liability in Pennsylvania after Harold versus University of Pittsburgh. Welcome, Paul.

Paul Kelley: Hey, John. How are you doing today?

Maher: I’m doing well, thanks. How are you?

Kelley: Doing great, thank you.

How Does Harold v. University of Pittsburgh Clarify the Law?

Maher: So, Paul, how does the Harold versus University of Pittsburgh case clarify the scope of Pennsylvania’s Occupational Disease Act or ODA, particularly regarding when a employer’s exclusive remedy protection no longer applies?

Kelley: Sure, John. It’s a little complicated in how they got there, so we’ll try to keep it as simple as possible. Pennsylvania has really two statutes that apply to occupational diseases. We deal a lot with mesothelioma. There are lots of occupational diseases that have been certainly caused within the workplace, but we talk a lot about mesothelioma, which is an asbestos-related disease.

And so, Pennsylvania has the Workers’ Compensation Act and it has the Occupational Disease Act. And to be perfectly honest, I don’t know why there’s both, but they both apply to people who are injured in the workplace and they provide an ability for those people to obtain compensation for a work-related injury, a work-related disease.

And that’s to distinguish between somebody’s hand that’s smashed in a machine or breaks a leg. This is someone who suffers a usually life-threatening disease that was caused by workplace exposure and now they have an ability to get compensation for that.

The Herold case is actually kind of built up from a case called Tooey back in 2015, I believe, which addressed the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Herold case addresses the Occupational Disease Act. And without getting too far in the weeds, in the Tooey case, the issue in Tooey was under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. The employee had to file a case, a workers’ compensation claim against their employer, and they had to do that within 300 weeks of their last exposure to asbestos. If you do the math, that’s like six years, six years or so. And typically speaking, asbestos diseases take a lot longer than six years to manifest. In most instances, it’s going to be 35, 40, 50 years. Certainly the reported literature says no less than 10 and usually no less than 20.

And so, the big concern was in the Tooey case years ago is what happens to those people who are diagnosed with this disease 10, 12, 20, 30 years after their last exposure? Can they file a workers’ compensation claim? And the answer was no. They can’t file a workers’ compensation claim.

So, what do they do? And the Tooey decision said for those people who can no longer file a workers’ compensation claim and get compensated within that system, they can now pursue a lawsuit, a tort claim, a negligence claim against their employer. And that’s been the law in Pennsylvania for over 10 years now.

Maher: Okay.

Kelley: Well, fast-forward to the Herold case. And the Herold case, again was brought in part pursuant to the Occupational Disease Act. The Occupational Disease Act has a little bit shorter period of time for which it applies. And instead of the 300 weeks, it was four years. And so that means four years from the last exposure. And if the disease manifests greater than that four years, then people would not be able to pursue, again, a claim within the workers’ compensation scheme. And that’s where Occupational Disease Act claims had to be pursued.

And so, that was obviously a significant limitation. So, ultimately the plaintiffs in that case challenged and they certainly wanted the same logic as the Tooey decision to apply. If the four-year limitation occurs and it excludes a case under the Occupational Disease Act, can we pursue a tort claim? And in this instance, University of Pittsburgh was the defendant, not to single out University of Pittsburgh, there were certainly a lot of employers out there that challenged this and didn’t want the same Tooey logic or rationale to apply in this context, but that’s who the defendant was in this case.

And they vehemently argued, you know, look, Tooey shouldn’t apply. This is a different act and there are different standards that are applicable. And at the end of the day, if your case manifests greater than the four years, then we don’t have to pay you within the tort system.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court decided that the language compensability in the Occupational Disease Act was really important. The Occupational Disease Act essentially said, your injury, if it’s not compensable or it’s not compensable, excuse me, your injury is not compensable under the Occupational Disease Act if it manifests greater than four years from that last exposure. And the Supreme Court or the state’s highest court said, well, the problem with that is if it’s not compensable, then people should be able to still pursue a tort case.

And again, there are significant differences between pursuing a case under the ODA and pursuing a case in the tort system. And the tort system, you have to put in fault. And that’s a big deal because these employers, and quite frankly, any asbestos defendant that I’ve ever dealt with, they have never conceded fault ever. They always fight for whatever reason, blame some other exposure or indicate that they didn’t know. So, employees are now kind of put into this situation where they have to prove that fault.

But what it does do is it ensures that there’s no lapse in the ability for the employee to get some remedy from an employer or any responsible party under the ODA for causing their injury. Previously, that could have been a problem. And so, really in my view, Herold just built upon Tooey and made clear that in Pennsylvania, protecting employees is very important. Making sure that employees have the ability to seek compensation and obtain compensation from someone or some entity, their employer who caused an injury, that they still have the ability to be able to do that and that there’s no limitations. There’s no somehow gap where the employee is just left out in the cold.

Impact on People with Diseases with Long Latency Periods

Maher: So, the ruling noted that illnesses with very long latency periods like mesothelioma were effectively excluded from the ODA remedies if they manifested after four years, like you said. How did the court address the possibility that workers who would miss the ODA’s deadline might otherwise have no remedy at all? And what do we mean by that, by no remedy?

Kelley: Yeah, so that was the problem. And the issue was that what Pittsburgh wanted in this example was to say if your disease occurred more than four years after your last exposure, then you’re just out of luck. There’s no remedy under the ODA, there’s no remedy anywhere, and we don’t have to pay anything. You don’t get anything. And the Pennsylvania’s high court had a problem with that and said, we can’t endorse a system that leaves employees without any kind of remedy.

Maher: Especially for a case like that where it’s well known that something like mesothelioma can take decades to manifest itself. And anybody looking at that would say, “That doesn’t sound fair.”

Kelley: Absolutely. I mean, again, as we’ve discussed, I mean these diseases, I mean, they rarely occur within 30 years from the last exposure. As people get older, I mean, we see people 40, 50 years following their last exposure, and there wouldn’t be any ability whatsoever to do anything. And for that subset of people whose disease happens to be diagnosed within that four year period of time, they can get compensation through the ODA.

But if Pittsburgh’s, the employer’s interpretation was correct, then people that were diagnosed five years later would be left with nothing. And the court, the Supreme Court couldn’t come up with a fair ruling that avoided what the purpose of all these legislative enactments were.

The purpose of the ODA and the Workers’ Compensation Act was to make sure that employees get compensation for injuries they suffer as a result of work. And it just made no sense legally or practically to eliminate their ability to get compensation for a work-related injury if we interpreted the statutes in a way that was going to eliminate that simply because of timing, simply because one person got it within, one person got it without.

Same exact people, same exact exposures, and one person’s left with a remedy and one person’s left without. That was patently unfair and it did not give proper recognition and support for the purpose behind the statute.

What Practical Steps Should Someone with These Illnesses Take?

Maher: Right. So what practical steps or considerations would you advise for someone who suspects that they have a latent occupational illness and they’re unsure whether or not it falls under the ODA or whether or not they have a viable negligence claim against a former employer?

Kelley: Sure. Certainly I think the only way that people can truly figure it out is to speak with a lawyer who has experience with these cases and understands the nuances. It can very well be that there are still some people that come within the ODA or the Workers Compensation Act, and their only remedies are to pursue within that system, and there’s going to be other people that will fall outside of it and be able to pursue tort claims.

But I think it’s important to quickly consult with an attorney, give the attorney all of the facts that you’re aware of, where did you work, all the places you worked, where are your possible last periods of exposure? Because it’s not where you worked last or when you worked last, it’s when your last exposure was. So somebody might have retired five years ago, but their last exposure was 12 years ago, 15 years ago, 30 years ago. That’s going to make a difference as to whether they have to pursue their case within the Workers’ Comp Act or the ODA or whether they have to pursue their case within the tort system.

And again, there’s going to be differences in what you’re entitled to. Potentially there’s going to be differences in how you obtain compensation. The ODA and the Workers Compensation Act are more not fault related. Was there an asbestos exposure and was your disease caused by that asbestos exposure? The question’s limited in a workers comp type situation. And then the damages are typically going to be medical expenses and lost income.

For a tort claim, the injured employee has to prove that the employer did something wrong, not just that there was asbestos there, not just that they suffered an exposure, but they have to prove that in some way the employer was negligent. That negligence could be they forced the employees to work with asbestos, or they forced the employees to work around asbestos, or there was asbestos present that they failed to warn about or failed to eliminate.

There’s lots of different ways that employers can be negligent, but it still falls on the employee to prove that negligence and then they have to prove that they have damage or that that negligence caused their disease. And they have to prove that they suffered damages as a result of the negligence. And in some circumstances they have to prove that other parties either weren’t at fault or maybe that other parties were at fault, but so is your employer.

So, it gets a little bit complicated. It tends to be more time-consuming to pursue a tort case. It’s definitely more expensive to pursue a tort case. Your lawsuit is going to be typically decided by a jury. Your workers’ comp claims, and those kinds of claims are typically going to be decided by an administrative law judge.

So, there are big differences in how those schemes work, but the moral of the story is that given the significance of the disease, mesothelioma is a terminal disease. In most instances people typically have a six month to 18 month life expectancy. Some people more, some people less, but those are the averages. And we don’t know who’s going to fall into which category. And some people may suffer some negative consequences a lot quicker.

So, it’s really important to determine what your rights are early on and try to hit the ground running and hire attorneys that are prepared to do that. We have a lot of experience, there’s a lot of certainly other attorneys that do what we do, but we certainly have a lot of experience and are prepared to ask the right questions and get the information necessary to pursue a claim. But regardless of what you do when you get this disease, you should do it quickly.

What Time Limitations Are There?

Maher: Right. Regardless of whether or not it’s been four years since your last exposure or more than four years, you still have a limited amount of time after you find out that you have this disease to pursue a claim. Right?

Kelley: Absolutely. Absolutely. And a matter of a couple of years and that’s just not enough time in a lot of instances, particularly if every case we had to wait a year, year and a half to file a case, there would be a significant set of our clients that unfortunately would not make it to a deposition, wouldn’t make it to trial. And all of those things matter.

We want you to be able to testify and certainly we want you to be able to tell the jury and the judge and the defendants how you’re exposed, but we really want for you to be able to tell everybody how this has impacted you, because that’s as important as anything. And lots of times our clients find that that’s really what they want. They want to be able to explain to the wrongdoers that this cancer has been devastating and it’s impacted, you know, my life and it’s impacted my family’s life.

So, being able to get our client to that position is really our primary goal. And so being able to move as quickly as possible gives us the best chance to help you and help your family, and hopefully not just get you the compensation that you need, but to be able to explain to the world and tell them what they did to you.

Maher: All right. Well, that’s really great information, Paul. Thanks again for speaking with me today.

Kelley: Thank you, John.

Maher: And for more information about mesothelioma and asbestos exposure, visit the law firm of Satterley & Kelley at satterleylaw.com or call (855) 385-9532.

Mesothelioma Lawsuits

Employer Liability in Illinois After Martin v. Goodrich Corp (Podcast)

/in /by

In this episode, John Maher speaks with attorney Paul Kelley of Satterley and Kelley about a significant legal shift in Illinois following the Martin v. Goodrich Corp case. Historically, workers with asbestos-related diseases were limited to workers’ compensation, which excluded claims filed more than 25 years after exposure—creating a legal gap for many mesothelioma victims. The recent amendment to the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act now permits employees to sue employers directly if the illness arises decades later. Kelley explains how this impacts victims, the legal steps involved, and the importance of prompt legal consultation to preserve rights and seek justice.

John Maher: Hi, I am John Maher, and I’m here today with Paul Kelley. Paul is a partner with the Kentucky personal injury law firm, Satterley and Kelley, which has over 45 years of collective experience in litigating mesothelioma and asbestos claims. Today, we’re talking about employer liability in Illinois after the Martin v. Goodrich Corp case.

Welcome, Paul.

Paul Kelley: Hey, John. How are you doing today?

Have Workers Been Able to Sue Employers Historically?

Maher: I’m doing well, thanks. So Paul, historically, have workers been able to sue their employers for asbestos related diseases in Illinois?

Kelley: No, up until fairly recently, no. Workers have been limited to workers’ compensation claims and they’ve not been able to directly sue their employers for any asbestos-related diseases. They can sue product manufacturers and property owners and other negligent parties. But one of the groups that was excluded from what we call the Illinois tort system, is employers.

And so, folks that might’ve had, to be honest, quite a bit of liability, have been excluded from employees being able to pursue meaningful remedies from them.

Who Would Attorneys Go After in Asbestos Cases?

Maher: So, talk a little bit more about who you would go after and where an employee can get a remedy from if they can’t sue their employer.

Kelley: So, prior to changes in the law, you can always sue product manufacturers. Historically, there have been 3,000 products that have been manufactured with asbestos, beginning of the 1930s and ’40s and continuing into the 2000s.

So, you can always sue product manufacturers. They have a duty to manufacture a safe product, they have duties and so on, so you can always go after entities like them.

There are a whole bunch of parties, certainly, who depending on the circumstances of course, can be sued for negligence. That would include contractors and insulators, and entities that were responsible for construction on a site. In some instances, you can sue property owners for negligently failing to remove asbestos or negligently failing to warn concerning asbestos.

But employers were off limits for the most part, and that’s true in most states. In fact, it’s probably true in every state, that we have a workers’ compensation scheme. And the purpose of the workers’ compensation scheme was to ensure that employees were compensated for work-related injuries and all they had to historically prove was that they were injured at work.

And if there was an injury at work, then the company or the company’s insurance carrier had to pay those people lost wages and medical expenses predominantly, but it was kind of a guaranteed compensation system so that you didn’t have to fight over who’s at fault. If the exposure occurred, if the exposure was caused, then you would get automatic workers’ compensation benefits.

Except there’s one problem, and Illinois is not unique. In Illinois, that right to compensation for asbestos-related injuries within the workers’ compensation scheme cuts off at 25 years from the person’s last exposure. And the problem with that is that in most instances, most people are not diagnosed with this disease until 30 to 50 years after their last exposure to asbestos.

So, the problem was… is that they couldn’t file a tort claim, a lawsuit, because the workers’ compensation statutes were interpreted that you can’t do that because your exclusive remedy, it’s what they call it, is within the state Workers’ Compensation Act and that scheme. But if your disease did not accrue or manifest until more than 25 years after your last exposure, you couldn’t pursue a case under the Workers’ Compensation Act either. So, therefore, people with mesothelioma may be left without a remedy.

And I know I talked a little bit about all the parties that you could sue. Well, sometimes you can’t for factual reasons. Sometimes the manufacturers aren’t viable anymore for a variety of reasons. Sometimes the only exposure occurred at the person’s place of employment.

So, they didn’t go to 35 job sites and were exposed at numerous different job sites. So, it was a real hole in Illinois law, and it left the devastating potential consequences for people to suffer a fatal disease and not have any ability to get compensated for that disease, even though there are clear-cut responsible parties for causing that person’s injury. Frequently, the employer played a role in that.

How Have These Laws Changed?

Maher: Right. So has there been a change now in the law that has impacted Illinois workers being able to sue their employers for asbestos-related diseases?

Kelley: There has, and kind of a precursor to that change in the law was the case from about 2015 that analyzed this precise scenario. The person was injured, they suffered an asbestos-related disease. The disease, the last exposure occurred many years prior, more than 25 years before the diagnosis of the disease.

So, the party argued at all the courts that the Workers’ Compensation Act does not apply, because you can no longer be compensated, pursue it. So, we should be able to pursue a case within the tort system. And the Illinois courts looked at that and said, “Gosh, that sounds really reasonable, but this is a legislative enactment. This is a statute, the Workers’ Compensation Act is a statutory creation, and only the legislature can change that. We can’t do it.”

So, four years later, probably because the legislature learned of this case, the legislature changed the Workers’ Compensation Act to explicitly exclude from the purview of the Workers’ Compensation Act, any diseases. Not just mesothelioma, but all occupational diseases, any disease that occurs more than 25 years after that person’s last exposure. And so, statutorily, the result would be that employees can now sue their employers for negligence.

So, there’s going to be a difference. Under the old scheme for the people who could file a workers’ compensation claim, their exposure fit within the timeline. But the Workers’ Compensation Act, again, they didn’t have to prove fault. All they had to prove is that they were exposed to asbestos and then that injury caused them an asbestos-related disease.

If they’re able to do that, then it was compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act and they received medical expenses and lost income benefits. So, that certainly relieved a bit of a burden from the employee to do.

So, when the Illinois legislature enacted this new change of the statute, they could no longer pursue their case for injuries occurring greater than 25 years. They could no longer pursue their case in the workers’ compensation system. They had to pursue the tort system. The difference is, is now you have to prove fault.

You have to prove that the employer actually did something wrong. They knew or should have known, they intentionally or negligently caused the injury. And then people have to prove their damages and run through the full gauntlet. And that could require a jury verdict, and it could take 2, 3, 4, 5 years to get through that system.

Now, the benefits are that the damages typically are there’s greater damages available in a tort claim than there is in a workers’ compensation claim. And so, lots of times employees can get something called pain and suffering, which you typically cannot get in a workers’ compensation claim. So, that was certainly a major benefit.

But by far the biggest benefit is, you’re not left without any remedy at all, which is what happened under the prior scheme and what the Illinois Supreme Court had interpreted the old Workers’ Compensation Act before the changes and there will just be a category of people that just, there was nothing they could do.

Legislature’s Amendment to the Statutes

Maher: Right. So the courts now have interpreted the Illinois legislature’s amendment to the statute. Can you talk a little bit more about that?

Kelley: Absolutely. So, the case that we alluded to earlier, the Martin v. Goodrich case, that actually was a benzene case, but it’s the same concept. Benzene is a chemical, it causes a disease that may not manifest for many years down the road. And what the Illinois Supreme Court was asked to do is to essentially determine whether the legislature’s change to the law was appropriate. Did it satisfy due process? Did it satisfy constitutional concerns? And ultimately, the Supreme Court held that it did.

And the big concern certainly was the, does this manifest unfairness of employees not being able to seek remedy for injuries that were caused as a result of employment, and for employers to essentially not be forced to pay anything or do anything. And it was a lengthy decision and there’s a lot to it, but essentially, I believe that as we sit here today, the law is completely clear.

That for someone who’s diagnosed with mesothelioma and asbestos related lung cancer, asbestosis or any other disease, if that disease manifests more than 25 years following their last date of exposure, the employee is not left without a remedy. They can pursue their employer in the tort system and potentially get compensated if they prove their case for the injuries they’ve suffered and their families can as well.

So, if the employee were to succumb to the disease, then the spouse or family members can pursue those claims as well, and they’re not limited by the Workers’ Compensation Act. And more importantly, they’re not completely and entirely denied the ability to recover for their injuries.

What Steps Should Someone With This Type Of Disease Take?

Maher: Right, absolutely. So, what key steps should someone with a possible occupational disease take, especially if the symptoms do arise decades after the exposure, to determine whether or not they have a viable negligence claim under these principles that were set forth in Martin v. Goodrich Corp?

Kelley: I mean, easily the best thing to do is to consult with a lawyer immediately. I mean, certainly, I think a lot of people who were diagnosed with that disease, they know how they were exposed. They know that they were occupationally exposed. Maybe they didn’t know at the time, but they learned later on.

We frequently see a lot of folks who worked in an industry or worked in a plant and they’re the 12th person that was diagnosed with a disease from that plant, and other people hear about it. Frequently, people don’t know how they were exposed, they don’t know where they were exposed, they weren’t told that there was asbestos at the facility.

So, it’s very important to seek the advice of an attorney who can help walk you through all the things necessary because you have to first decide how the exposure occurred. You have to second, determine when it occurred. When was the last exposure? Because that’s important for this kind of exception to the workers exclusivity. If it was 15 years after the person’s last exposure, they’re probably still stuck in the workers’ compensation system. If it’s greater than 25 years, then I think there’s a good chance.

And then you have to start trying to figure out whether the employer really did something wrong. Was there some reason why the employer knew or should have known that asbestos was present on the property, that maybe they used asbestos as a part of their process there? Was the employer aware of the hazards of asbestos during the period of time? All of that kind of changes as time progressed. Asbestos was being used in the 1930s it was still being used in the 2000s. And there are even some limited situations where it might still be used today.

And so, you have to take a look at who the employer is, the employer’s relative sophistication, ability to know and understand. And quite frankly, those are just things that most of the time an injured person who has a lot of things on their mind other than trying to go after their employer, is just not going to know. And we have a history, almost 30 years of working on these cases and understanding who all the players are. And if we’ve not dealt with a particular employer for whatever reason, I’m very confident that we can figure it out quickly. So, investigation is crucial.

There are statute of limitations for pursuing such a claim even against your employer. And I believe under Illinois law, they have two years to pursue a case. So, that time goes by fast, and it would be very important to determine what your rights are ahead of time. And the quicker you do that, the quicker a case can get filed, and that means you can participate in your case.

Unfortunately, by the time this diagnosis comes through and people start figuring out what their legal rights are, their health is a real concern. This fatal disease, mesothelioma, and the life expectancy has gotten better over the years, but it’s still not really good. And we want for people to be able to participate in their case, we want people to be able to testify.

We want people to not only be able to say how they were exposed, but to be able to explain to judge, jury, and the employers how this disease has impacted them and their families. And the only way that you can do that is to act quickly and retain lawyers that will act quickly, and try to proceed through the system because things don’t always move as quickly as we want them to. But that’s just the result of the process and hopefully not the result of delay in getting to us, because can really have a devastating consequence.

Maher: All right. Well, that’s all really great information. Paul, thanks again for speaking with me today.

Kelley: Thanks John, I appreciate it.

Maher: And for more information about mesothelioma and asbestos exposure, you can visit the law firm of Satterley and Kelley at Satterleylaw.com, or call (855) 385-9532.

Asbestos Exposure

Gazans Face Asbestos-Related Diseases After Israeli Invasion

/in /by

Airborne asbestos is the most dangerous because these tiny cancer-causing fibers are easily inhaled or swallowed. Decades later, the fibers may cause cancer. Those living in or passing through Gaza are potentially heavily exposed to asbestos because buildings there have been damaged or destroyed by Israeli military action.

Gaza is a Palestinian territory on Israel’s southwest border. Gaza also borders Egypt and has been home to generations of people for about 4,000 years. Before the area became a war zone, about 2.3 million people lived there.

Attack and Counter-Attack

Last October, the militant Palestinian group that controlled Gaza, Hamas, invaded Israel and killed about 1,400 people and kidnapped about another 250. The Israeli military response has destroyed about 60% of the area’s buildings, according to NPR, which states some areas have seen more destruction than others.

Israel states its goals are to destroy Hamas, find and free those being held hostage. Israel’s efforts have left buildings leveled and in tatters. Many of them contained asbestos before Israel’s invasion. Their sudden, explosive destruction has created an estimated 800,000 tons of asbestos-contaminated debris, reports Al Jazeera.

800,000 Tons of Asbestos Contaminated Debris Out in the Open

This is debris that people live in, walk on, and around. It’s piled up in the open, where anyone passing by, whether they’re international relief workers, Palestinian children, or Israeli soldiers, inhale and swallow asbestos fibers. The fibers sent into the air during the past year could cause the disability and death of those walking Gaza’s streets today decades from now.

The situation is comparable to Manhattan after the 9/11 attack in 2001 by terrorists brought down the World Trade Center Towers, pulverizing them and sending toxic dust into the air. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate about 400,000 people were exposed to toxic contaminants and other dangers.

The World Trade Center Health Program states that of the 110,198 survivors and first responders who came to the site during and after the attack, at least 4,343 have died from related illnesses compared to the 2,974 people who were killed during the incident.

In 2009, the United Nations Environment Programme stated that one of the most hazardous asbestos types (blue asbestos or crocidolite) was found in Gaza’s buildings, sheds, sewage pipes, treatment stations, and livestock facilities. Many of them have been destroyed.

Given how easily asbestos fibers blow in the wind and the fact there’s no known, safe level of exposure, those trapped and fighting in Gaza will be the area’s future asbestos victims.

Call Us Today For A Free Consultation

We are your boots on the ground if you or someone in Kentucky suffers from mesothelioma or an asbestos-related illness. Call our Louisville office at at 855-385-9532. You may also complete our contact form for a free initial consultation.

How Does Asbestos Cause Mesothelioma

The Power of the Indemnity Clause: City Says It’s Not Liable

/in /by

Albuquerque, New Mexico, is the defendant in three lawsuits concerning unsafe asbestos abatement at the city’s Gibson Health Hub. They state the contractor doing the work, Consolidated Builders of New Mexico, LLC, is contractually obligated to pay for any claims against them. The city is asking a judge to state they’re not legally responsible for the claims.

Abatement Project Allegedly Endangered Construction and City Workers

KRQE reports that problems with asbestos abatement in the 70-year-old building were exposed last year. The contractor is accused of the following:

  • Avoiding building material inspections while asbestos-containing materials were ripped out
  • Cleaned up and disposed of these materials without workers using proper protective equipment

Since February, the city has been sued three times by workers who stated they were exposed to asbestos and retaliated against for cooperating with state workplace safety investigators.

One lawsuit accused the city government of intentionally and negligently exposing hundreds, if not thousands, of people to asbestos. The city allegedly:

  • Didn’t test the area for asbestos
  • Ignored state agency orders to stop the abatement work until the area was tested
  • Forced employees to work in hazardous conditions without proper protective gear
  • Disposed of asbestos-contaminated materials improperly

Albuquerque States Contractor is Responsible for Paying Damages

The city claims their contract with Consolidated Builders of New Mexico indemnifies them from any claim (they agreed to accept any city liability due to their negligence when working on the project). Albuquerque government states it tried to discuss the matter with the company, but they haven’t responded.

The city seeks a legal order stating that it is not liable for what happened when the company worked on the project and that it should pay the city’s related legal fees.

Need Help With A Lawsuit?

If you have an asbestos-related disease, Satterley & Kelley, PLLC, may help you obtain fair compensation for what you’ve endured. Call us toll-free at 855-385-9532, or contact us online today to schedule a free consultation with one of our attorneys.

Recent Recall of Asbestos-Contaminated Talcum Powder Products

/in /by

Another talcum powder is recalled due to asbestos fiber contamination. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in late September announced the recall of an off-brand line of talcum powder that had sold well on Amazon. The recall expanded the next month.

Dynacare is recalling its baby powder over asbestos concerns. The recall covers more than a thousand cases of the product, which was distributed in 35 states. The powder was manufactured by Dynarex Corporation and mostly sold on Amazon.

The October recall added 373 cases of item 4875, Dynacare Baby Powder, in 14-ounce containers. In September, the recall started with 647 cases of the company’s item number 4874, Dynacare Baby Powder, in four-ounce containers because they may be contaminated with asbestos.

That’s a naturally occurring mineral found near talc in rock formations. Talc can be processed into a powder with many uses, including keeping one’s skin dry. Asbestos can cause a variety of cancers and other health problems. Mining talc sites with asbestos deposits and insufficiently screening out the asbestos can cause contamination.

No asbestos-related illnesses or adverse events related to the Dynarex powder have been reported yet. The recall was due to routine sampling by the FDA. It showed that finished Dynarex talcum powder products contained asbestos. The company has ceased selling its talcum powder products. If you bought one, return it to where you purchased it for a refund.

Johnson & Johnson is trying to use bankruptcy protection to limit the compensation it will pay to plaintiffs injured by the asbestos-contaminated talcum powder it sold for decades. Some plaintiffs have successfully sued the company for cancers related to the product.

Take Legal Action Now — Contact Our Firm

If you have developed mesothelioma or other cancers and used talcum powder, you may be entitled to compensation for your lost wages, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. Your family may also obtain compensation for the losses they suffered as a result of your asbestos-related disease. Let us be your boots on the ground, seeking the maximum compensation for you and your family.

Call our Louisville office at 855-385-9532 or complete our contact form for a free initial consultation about your asbestos exposure case.

Lung Cancer and Asbestos

Small But Mighty Dangerous: Asbestos Fibers Cause Cancer

/in /by

We fear big things, whether a commercial truck, a grizzly bear, or a Burmese python. But small can kill, too, and asbestos fibers are an example. They don’t crush human cells with their size. Many of these fibers are like microscopic needles, slicing and stabbing human cells, leaving them mortally wounded, resulting in inflammation and cell mutations in the affected area. After many years, these cellular changes can result in cancer.

Asbestos fibers are microscopic, according to Precision Environmental.  Their size is measured in microns or one-millionth of a meter.  The average human hair is about 50 to 70 microns thick. Asbestos fibers are typically one to 10 microns wide. This makes them about 20,000 times thinner than a strand of hair.

What are the Types of Asbestos?

Asbestos is six fibrous minerals (amosite, chrysotile, crocidolite, tremolite, actinolite, and anthophyllite). They happen naturally in the environment. Chrysotile is classified as a serpentine mineral because it bends and curls. It was the most commercially used asbestos type.

The others are amphibole minerals. They’re considered more hazardous because their fibers are brittle and rod or needle-shaped. This makes it easier for them to stick or cut into human tissue and remain there.

Asbestos has been in thousands of products for centuries and is still used for some purposes. These fibers are light, strong, and resistant to fire, heat, electricity, and corrosion. Asbestos-containing products were largely regulated off the US market in the late 1970s.

How Big Are Asbestos Fibers?

If you laid out five or six hair strands side by side, the same space could be filled by thousands of asbestos fibers lined up next to each other. This microscopic size and weight allow asbestos fibers to float freely through the air and be swallowed or inhaled without a person realizing it.

Asbestos fibers can be suspended in the air for long periods, especially after asbestos-containing materials are installed or later disturbed, removed, worn down during normal wear and tear, or crushed or torn apart during demolition.

How Does Asbestos Fibers’ Size Affect the Danger They Pose?

After entering the body, fibers can become stuck in a person’s windpipe, voice box, lungs, lung, or chest cavity linings. Fibers can become lodged anywhere along the digestive tract if they’re swallowed. They may remain for years or even decades because the body’s immune response can’t destroy them.

Over time, asbestos fibers cause cell damage and mutations, which can cause many kinds of cancers, including lung cancer and mesotheliomas of the lining of the lungs, heart, abdominal organs, chest, and abdominal cavities. Longer, thinner amphibole asbestos fibers are more likely to cause lung cancer and mesothelioma, according to a 2022 medical journal article.

What Should I Do If I’m Diagnosed With an Asbestos-Related Disease?

After your diagnosis and deciding your treatment plan, you should contact Satterley & Kelley, PLLC. You may be entitled to compensation for your pain, suffering, and lost income due to your condition.

Our attorneys have experience representing victims who take legal action against the asbestos industry. Satterley & Kelley lawyers have helped those with mesothelioma for more than 20 years.

We will investigate your case to develop evidence to base a claim. We don’t assume cases will settle, so we don’t take shortcuts. Satterley & Kelley will carefully analyze the evidence in your case and decide upon and execute an effective strategy that can provide you with the most compensation possible.

Call Us Today For A Free Mesothelioma Lawsuit Consultation

If you or a family member are diagnosed with mesothelioma or another asbestos-related condition, Satterley & Kelley lawyers can answer your questions, tell you about your rights to compensation, and discuss the necessary steps to protect them.

Call our Louisville office toll-free at 855-385-9532. You can also complete our contact form to schedule a free initial mesothelioma case consultation.