"Ask Me Anything," 10 Responses To Your Questions About Asbe…

asbestos lawyer Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation defense. The firm's lawyers are frequently invited to speak at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable on the many issues that arise in defending asbestos cases.

Research has shown that asbestos exposure causes lung damage and disease. This includes mesothelioma, other lesser illnesses like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural region.

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute of limitations defines a time frame for the time after an injury or accident, the victim can file an action. In asbestos cases, statutes of limitations vary according to the state. They also differ from other personal injury claims since asbestos-related illnesses may take years to be apparent.

Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma, and other asbestos-related diseases and other asbestos-related illnesses, the statute of limitations begins at the time of diagnosis, or death in wrongful death claims, rather than the date exposure. This discovery rule is the reason that victims and their families should seek out as soon as they can with an experienced New York asbestos lawyer.

When making an asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of things that need to be taken into account. The statute of limitations is among the most crucial. The statute of limitations is the date by which the victim must make a claim. Failure to do so will result the case being barred. The statute of limitation differs from state to state and the laws differ widely. However, the majority allow between one and six year after the date of diagnosis.

In an asbestos case defendants typically employ the statute of limitations as a defense to liability. They could argue for instance that plaintiffs should have been aware or had knowledge of their exposure to asbestos and that they had an obligation to notify their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma cases and it isn't easy for the victim to prove.

Another potential defense in a case involving asbestos is that the defendants did not have the resources or means to warn of the dangers posed by the product. This is a complicated argument and largely depends on the evidence available. For example, it was successfully presented in California that defendants did not have "state-of-the-art" expertise and therefore could not be expected to give adequate warnings.

Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state of the victim's residence. In some cases, it may make sense to bring a lawsuit in a different state from the victim's. It usually has to do with the place of the employer, or the location where the employee was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare metal" defense is a typical strategy used by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. The bare-metal defense claims that because their products left the plant in bare steel, they did not have a duty to inform about the dangers posed by asbestos-containing products later added by other parties, for instance thermal insulating flange seals and flange seals. This defense has been embraced in certain areas, but it is not available under federal law in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has reshaped the law. The Court has ruled against the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule and instead, a new standard under which manufacturers have a responsibility to warn consumers if it is aware that its product will be dangerous for its intended use and has no reason to believe that the end customers will be aware of the risk.

This change in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against equipment manufacturers. However it's not the end of the story. The DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims that are based on strict liability or negligence and not brought under federal maritime law statutes like the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue an expanded interpretation of the defense of bare metal. For example, in the Asbestos MDL in Philadelphia the case has been remanded back to an Illinois federal court to decide whether the state is able to recognize the defense. The plaintiff who died in this instance was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear, turbines, and other asbestos-containing components at an Texaco refinery.

In a similar case, a judge in Tennessee has stated that he is likely to adopt a third view of the bare metal defense. The plaintiff in the case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma following working on equipment that had been repaired or replaced by contractors of third party which included the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case decided that bare metal defenses apply to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will affect the way judges will apply the bare-metal defense in other contexts, such as those involving tort claims under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos lawsuits are complex and require skilled attorneys with a thorough knowledge of legal and medical issues and access to expert witnesses of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, including investigating claims, developing strategies for managing litigation and budgets, as well as identifying and hiring experts, and defending plaintiffs and defendants with expert testimony in depositions and trials.

Typically, asbestos cases will require the testimony from medical professionals like a radioologist or pathologist. They can testify that X-rays and CT scans show the typical lung tissue scarring caused by asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can also testify about symptoms such as breathing difficulties that are similar to symptoms of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide a an extensive history of the work done by the plaintiff, including a review of job, union tax, social security documents.

A forensic engineering or environmental science expert may be necessary to explain the source of the asbestos exposure. These experts can help plaintiffs argue that the asbestos was not exposed at the workplace and instead was ingested on the clothing of workers or from the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many plaintiffs' attorneys will employ economic loss experts to calculate the financial loss suffered by victims. They will be able to calculate the amount of money that a victim suffered due to their illness and its effect on his or her lifestyle. They can also testify on expenses like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that one cannot perform anymore.

It is crucial for defendants to challenge the experts of the plaintiff, particularly when they have been called to testify in dozens or hundreds of asbestos-related claims. If they repeat their testimony, the experts may lose credibility among jurors.

In asbestos lawyers cases, defendants may also seek summary judgement if they can show that the evidence doesn't establish that the plaintiff was injured due to exposure to the products of the defendant. A judge won't issue a summary judgment merely because a defendant identifies weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Trial

The issues of latency in asbestos cases mean that obtaining an accurate diagnosis can be nearly impossible. The time between exposure and the onset of disease can be measured in decades. To establish the facts on which to build an argument it is important to review an individual's work background. This typically involves a thorough review of social security and tax records, union, and financial records as well as interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos victims often develop less serious illnesses like asbestosis before a mesothelioma diagnosis. Due to this the ability of a defendant to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms might be due to a different illness than mesothelioma is valuable in settlement negotiations.

In the past, some attorneys have used this strategy to deny liability and get large awards. As the defense bar grew, courts have generally resisted this method. This is especially true in federal courts, where judges regularly dismiss claims based on lack of evidence.

Because of this, an in-depth analysis of every potential defendant is essential to an effective asbestos defense. This includes assessing the severity and duration of the disease as well as the nature of the exposure. For instance, a woodworker who is diagnosed with mesothelioma is more likely to suffer greater damages than someone who only has asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team defends asbestos-related litigation on behalf of manufacturers, distributors and suppliers, contractors, employers, and property owners. Our lawyers have years of experience as National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel, and are frequently appointed by the courts as liaison counsel to oversee the prosecution of asbestos dockets.

Asbestos litigation can be complicated and costly. We assist our clients in understanding the risks involved in this type of litigation and work with them to formulate internal programs designed to proactively identify potential liability and safety concerns. Contact us today to find out more about how our firm can safeguard your company's interests.