Articles Posted in Mesothelioma/Asbestos

by

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

Continue reading

by

Asbestos was once used to make many common products including insulation, roofing materials, automobile brake pads, and other household and commercial goods. In the 1960s asbestos was used in the petroleum industry, where the  the high heat-resistance of asbestos made it a useful additive to drilling mud. 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 could have been used in these environments even as late as the mid-1980s. Many drilling workers can recall working with a white, flaky additive that was in 50-pound packages and added to 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.

Continue reading

by

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?

Continue reading

by

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:

Continue reading

by

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.

Continue reading

by

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 takes 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. Whats more, determining the legal timeframe is critical, as timing can affect both a plaintiffs right to file suit as well as the law that applies to the case.

Continue reading

by

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.

Continue reading

by

The majority of asbestos cases in Louisiana involve corporate defendants: domestic and foreign corporations responsible for the individual’s exposure to the dangerous chemicals. 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. This is a very important concept in civil procedure that can have a tremendous impact on a 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. Also, 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. Many cases can become very complex in arguments over appropriate venue and this doctrine can allow a claimant in Louisiana to litigate in a convenient venue where at least one of the defendants fall in Louisiana.

Continue reading

by

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.

Continue reading

by

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.

Continue reading
Contact Information
1140 St Charles Ave
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 521-6000
Fax: (504) 617-6300

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design