• Tough choice looms for people suing over 9/11 health claims: to apply for gov’t aid or not (December 25, 2011): More than 1,600 people who filed lawsuits claiming that their health was ruined by dust and smoke from the collapsed World Trade Center must decide by Jan. 2 whether to keep fighting in court, or drop the litigation and apply for benefits from a government compensation fund. Although the fund would cover ailments such as asthma, scarred lungs and other respiratory system problems, patients who develop mesothelioma or other forms of cancer are not eligible for compensation.
• Asbestos victim awarded $2M in mesothelioma lawsuit (December 21, 2011): A New York man who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2010 was awarded $2 million in a mesothelioma lawsuit filed against his former employer. Gerald Failing received the verdict after a jury found a materials company for responsible for exposing him to cancerous asbestos fibers.
• Settlement reached in Missouri mesothelioma lawsuit (December 15, 2011): A mesothelioma lawsuit filed against U.S. Engineering Co. in Missouri has been settled for $10 million. Nancy Lopez filed the lawsuit alleging that the company failed to follow proper procedures in removing asbestos from the courthouse where she worked.

• Colorado man files mesothelioma lawsuit (October 25, 2011): A Colorado man has filed a mesothelioma lawsuit against companies he alleges are responsible for asbestos exposure that occurred during his work as a laborer and electrician.
• Colorado landlord on trial for exposing workers to asbestos (October 18, 2011): A Colorado landlord is on trial for allegedly exposing workers to asbestos on the job without their knowledge.
• British company pledges free asbestos awareness training (October 13, 2011): British company Expedient Training Services has pledged to provide free training to educate employers about the dangers of occupational asbestos exposure.
• Inhalants may ease mesothelioma cancer treatment (October 12, 2011): Scottish researches have found that administering cancer drugs via inhalants to treat mesothelioma and other forms of the disease may reduce harmful side effects of treatment. 
• Concerns rise over cancer-causing mineral (October 7, 2011): A fibrous mineral, known as erionite, that is prevalent in western states such as North Dakota, Wyoming, Nevada, Oregon, Arizona and California has been linked to cases of mesothelioma.

According to a study conducted by scientists at Rutgers University (PDF), the dust that was spread after 9/11 contained a number of hazardous substances, including asbestos, gypsum, glass fibers, lead and other metal particles. Exposure to asbestos can cause mesothelioma—a deadly cancer of the chest or abdomen—and many other cancers or respiratory diseases. Gypsum—which is found in drywall—has been linked to respiratory problems, while lead and other metals can be toxic to the brain.

Studies to examine the health of workers who were at Ground Zero in the wake of the 9/11 attacks have found increased risks of a number of respiratory and other diseases. According to a 2009 study conducted at Mount Sinai, 9/11 workers are twice as likely to suffer from asthma as the general population. Residents of lower Manhattan—where the World Trade Center was located—have also reported an increased asthma risk.

Health experts say that 9/11 responders have also been diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and the “World Trade Center cough” due to the redness, irritation and swelling caused by the dust from the Twin Towers. Over time, these symptoms can worsen, leading to scar tissue or chronic lung diseases.

A study of firefighters who worked at the World Trade Center site following the 9/11 attacks found that they were 19% more likely to have been diagnosed with cancer than firefighters who were not present at Ground Zero. However, because mesothelioma and other cancers are not covered under the bill, individuals develop these diseases as a result of exposure to the toxic dust from the World Trade Centers will not be able to receive financial aide for their illnesses.

Although the recent bill to cover 9/11 workers (PDF) will provide much needed health care and financial compensation to these individuals, the lack of coverage for victims of mesothelioma, lung cancer and other cancers caused by exposure at Ground Zero neglects thousands of individuals who answered the call for America in its greatest hour of need.

Join the free online screening and live discussion of "Breathtaking" by Kathleen Mullen on September 26 at 6:30 pm EST or watch the trailer for the film below.

Although some have reported that the number of new cases of malignant mesothelioma have fallen in recent years, projections by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Center for Health Statistics show the number of deaths from mesothelioma and asbestosis continuing to rise through at least 2016.

As a result of the rising number of mesothelioma lawsuits, many insurers and other companies who could be held liable for causing mesothelioma or other asbestos diseases have increased their financial reserves. Recently, American International Group announced that it was adding $1 billion to its reserves over its potential asbestos liability.

Although the asbestos industry continues to blame plaintiffs lawyers for the asbestos lawsuits filed against them, these cases are the result of decades of attempts to hide the truth about the hazards of asbestos exposure by the companies who made these products and their insurers. Insurance companies such as MetLife have been accused for decades of trying to hide information about the link between asbestos and diseases such as mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis.

While insurers and asbestos makers would prefer to blame the victims in these cases, their right to fair compensation is one of the few remaining recourses they have after being permanently harmed by the actions of these corporations.

The Canadian statement of opposition to the UN’s asbestos restrictions came as a consensus was forming among the member nations to place it on the international body’s Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention. Under Annex III, countries that import asbestos would have to be informed about the hazards of exposure, which include mesothelioma and other forms of cancer. Nations which believed that they would be unable to handle the asbestos safely would be able to refuse to accept the exports.

However, after both the Ukraine and India—which had also previously opposed restrictions on asbestos exports—signaled that they would support the measure, the head of the Canadian delegation announced that it would oppose the proposed regulations.

Indian asbestos campaigner Madhu Dutta criticized the Canadian unwillingness to take a position on the UN’s proposed asbestos regulations until it became apparent that there was little international opposition to the measure:

Canada was hiding behind the smokescreen of dissenting voices of smaller exporting countries and a 'non-consensus' excuse, but when it sensed that there might be a consensus and chrysotile will be listed, it broke its sinister silence and said ‘no.’

Canada’s position on the UN’s attempts to regulate the sale of harmful asbestos materials all but derails the international body’s attempt to place limits on chrysotile asbestos exports. Canada is one of the world’s leading exporters of asbestos materials, much of which is shipping to the developing world. Given the immense profits which the nation reaps from its asbestos exports, Canada has a responsibility to ensure that this carcinogenic product is used safely in the developing nations that generate those profits.

• Turkish asbestos ban goes into effect (Feb. 17, 2011): A total ban on the use and manufacturing of asbestos-containing products went into effect in Turkey on New Year's Day.
• One in five mesothelioma cases goes unreported, study finds (Feb. 12, 2011): A new study has found that nearly 40,000 mesothelioma cases may have gone unreported over the last 15 years.
• North Dakota road material may increase mesothelioma cancer risk (Dec. 22, 2011): New evidence suggests that exposure to erionite dust may be linked to an increased risk of developing mesothelioma.
• Quebec health officials criticize Canada’s support of asbestos industry (Dec. 2, 2011): Canadian health officials have criticized the government for supporting the nation's asbestos industry depite evidence of its harmful effects.

Statistics published in Britain by the Employers Code of Practice (PDF) show that only 45% of asbestos inquiries filed during 2009 were successful at gaining compensation for asbestos victims. Although the British government announced new plans to give victims greater access to rightful compensation for their injuries—including forcing employers to retain insurance records for 60 years and setting up a fund of last resort to meet untraceable insurance claims—the number of successful claims has fallen by 4% since 1999.

While the manners in which British and American law handle mesothelioma and asbestos claims differ in significant ways, the problem of determining liability in these cases is one that is shared by victims on both sides of the Atlantic. Just as the American government needs to join other industrial nations in banning asbestos, the British government should take the necessary steps to ensure that its citizens receive fair compensation if they have been injured by exposure to asbestos.

The House resolution calls on the President to “issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States, Federal departments and agencies, States, localities, organizations, and media to annually observe a National Mesothelioma Awareness Day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.”

In announcing the bill’s passage, Rep. McCollum recalled the story of her friend and hoped that the resolution would help to spread awareness of the terrible costs of mesothelioma and asbestos:

In 2000, my friend and predecessor Congressman Bruce Vento was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma. Despite decades of warnings about the dangers of asbestos, too many Americans are still unaware of the devastating nature of this disease.

The passage of the House and Senate resolutions represents an important step in highlighting the debilitating effect that these diseases have had on American workers and their families. Hissey Kientz, LLP would like to join in commending Rep. McCollum and the countless others who have worked to spread awareness of mesothelioma cancer and other asbestos diseases.

Lin Chien-hui, the director of the TEPA’s Department of Environmental Sanitation and Toxic Substances Management, states that the country’s asbestos ban will be implemented in two stages. Starting in July 2015, asbestos will not longer be allowed as a sealing material for construction projects. In July 2020, asbestos will be prohibited from use in tiles, linings and cement panels.

In October 2007, the U.S. Senate approved a bill that would have banned most forms of asbestos in this country; however, the bill never moved beyond committee deliberations in the House of Representatives and was never presented to the full House for a vote.

With its decision to ban asbestos, Taiwan joins the members of the European Union and many other nations that have banned asbestos due to its link with mesothelioma and other forms of cancer. Despite overwhelming evidence linking asbestos exposure to mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis and other diseases, the U.S. remains one of the few industrialized nations that still permits the use of asbestos-containing products.

According to the World Health Organization, mesothelioma and other asbestos diseases kill an estimated 10,000 people in the U.S. each year. As the list of nations that have banned asbestos continues to grow, hopefully the U.S. will follow their lead and take action against the threat that asbestos poses to the health of all Americans.

In a recent Associated Press article, Senator Gloria Romero, who proposed the bill, states that having an asbestos-containing substance as the Golden State’s official rock sends a poor public health message due to the link between asbestos and mesothelioma:

This is a question of health and public awareness. We know that California has the highest rates of mesothelioma deaths in the nation and we don’t think it’s appropriate to be celebrating as the state rock something which contains asbestos.

Enthusiasm about asbestos soon began to wane, however, as the public became increasingly aware of the link between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma, as well as other diseases such as lung cancer and asbestosis. Although the commercial use of asbestos declined drastically during the 1970s, because of the long latency period for asbestos diseases, many workers and other individuals who were exposed to asbestos decades ago are only now beginning to show symptoms of mesothelioma or other diseases.

While critics have dismissed the importance of the California bill, it is encouraging to see such close attention paid to the health effects of asbestos in a state where the mineral can be found in over 70% of its 58 counties. For decades, the asbestos industry denied the dangerous health effects of asbestos, leaving millions exposed to the harmful effects of this deadly substance. California’s proposed asbestos law is an important symbolic step in closing the book on the deadly legacy of the state’s asbestos industry.

The case, Collins v. Plant Insulation Co. [PDF], was filed by family members of former Navy shipyard asbestos worker Ulysses Collins, who died in May 2005 from mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure.

Over a period of nearly 35 years, Collins was employed at several jobs that required him to work extensively with asbestos. These included four years as a boilermaker welder at a Standard Oil refinery and more than 30 years at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard and Mare Island Naval Shipyard, where he also worked as a welder.

At the close of evidence, plaintiffs moved for a directed verdict regarding the Navy, arguing fault could not be allocated to the service…. They claimed federal sovereign immunity precluded the Navy from being a ‘tortfeasor.’

Although the appellate court stated that “there is no dispute the Navy is immune from liability for plaintiffs’ asbestos claims,” it ruled that “the trial court erred in excluding the Navy from the list of entities as to which the jury could apportion fault.” The court remanded Collins’ lawsuit for a retrial to apportion fault among the Navy and other defendants already found liable by the jury.

While this ruling may at first seem like a victory for plaintiffs, because the U.S. Navy is entitled to sovereign immunity from prosecution, it cannot be held liable for damages, even if it is found to be portionately at fault for Collins’ injuries. Thus, the appellate court’s ruling—like the Texas Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Borg-Warner v. Flores [PDF]—ultimately will limit the ability of victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos diseases from receiving full and fair compensation for their injuries.

The panel found that despite efforts to reduce exposure to cancer-causing products, these substances continue to jeopardize the health of American workers and consumers:

With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread.

While many are aware of the health risks posed by workplace asbestos exposure, the report notes that one-third of mesothelioma and other asbestos-disease victims have no workplace history of asbestos exposure. Many of these individuals were exposed to asbestos fibers brought home on the hair or clothing of loved ones who worked around asbestos.

Although the World Health Organization and other international groups have called for a global ban on asbestos, federal regulators in this country have been unsuccessful in their attempts to fully shield the public from the health risks of asbestos. This new report is an important step in reducing the risk posed by asbestos and bringing attention to the terrible cost which asbestos has inflicted on millions of lives.