DuBose Law Firm, PLLC

Main navigation

You are here: Home / Archives for Asbestos

Asbestos

Johnson & Johnson Considering Plan to Cap Asbestos Talc Liabilities

By

baby powder may contain asbestos

Reuters reports Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is considering a plan to cap asbestos talc liabilities from widespread Baby Powder and other talc lawsuits.

More than 30,000 plaintiffs alleged J&J’s talc products were unsafe. These women suffered from ovarian cancer, mesothelioma, and other cancers they assert were brought on by asbestos contained in J&J Baby Powder and other talc products. Asbestos exposure is known to be a carcinogen and unsafe at any level.

In 2018 a Missouri jury found in favor of talc victims awarding $4.7 billion damages to the women.  An appellate court reduced the award to $2 billion.  Last month, the US Supreme court denied J&J’s last attempt at an appeal by denying certiorari and leaving in place the Missouri verdict. 

A plan to cap asbestos talc liabilities

With anticipated legal action from tens of thousands additional victims, J&J is contemplating alternative legal remedies. Rueters is reporting the company is considering creating a new business entity. This new business would contain all the J&J talc liabilities, then subsequently file for bankruptcy. This “divisive merger” law is known as the Texas Two-Step and leaves victims unable to bring their claims to a jury. Instead,  their only remedy would be filing claims against the new bankrupt entity. 

While this is one plan to cap asbestos talc liabilities apparently under consideration, the Texas Two-Step is controversial and there remain challenges to its permissibility under US bankruptcy laws.

Did J&J know?

Talc and asbestos are often found in close proximity when mining. This brings about the need for extreme caution when using talc in products. In 2018, Reuters shared findings from their investigation into the possibility of asbestos contamination in J&J talc products. “Facing thousands of lawsuits alleging that its talc caused cancer, J&J insists on the safety and purity of its iconic product. But internal documents examined by Reuters show that the company’s powder was sometimes tainted with carcinogenic asbestos and that J&J kept that information from regulators and the public.”

Through many documents and testimonies, Reuter’s examination showed at “least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over the problem and how to address it while failing to disclose it to regulators or the public.”

J&J removed its Baby Powder from the US and Canadian markets in May 2020.

Will there be justice?

If J&J uses this dubious plan to cap asbestos liabilities, victims who have not settled their cases would find themselves in long and slow bankruptcy proceedings with a significantly reduced chance for compensation and the victims’ pursuit of full and unimpeded justice.

Over 100 Firefighters Possibly Exposed to Asbestos

By

possible asbestos exposure

More than 100 firefighters and civilians were possibly exposed to asbestos in Austin, Texas. The potential exposure came while fighting a 3-alarm fire in a city-owned abandoned warehouse.  Through a survey contracted by the Building Services Department in 2013, asbestos was discovered in three buildings on the property. It was found in drywall, ceilings, flooring and floor adhesive in all three buildings, including the warehouse that burned. Preparation to demolish all these buildings was underway before the fire.

Firefighters were not aware they were possibly exposed to asbestos

Until the third alarm unit arrived on the scene, the firefighters and civilians were unaware of the possibility of asbestos. The incident report stated, “Although best precautions were taken to avoid exposure after notification, the fire was very significant and the smoke produced from the fire swirled throughout the fireground with multiple shifts in the wind while units were on scene. All firefighters and civilians on the fireground could have a possible exposure to asbestos.” 

Dangers of asbestos exposure

Asbestos is a highly carcinogenic mineral. Its microscopic fibers can embed in lungs when inhaled. This can lead to lung cancer, asbestosis, and mesothelioma. All three diseases are harmful, but mesothelioma has no cure at this time and is fatal. It can take many decades after exposure before a victim is diagnosed.

Buildings, commercial and residential, often contained asbestos. It was a common building material until the early 1980s. It was in shingles, insulation, ceiling tiles, tile mastic and many other materials. If asbestos remains undisturbed, the fibers are not released. However, with remodeling or an accident, such as this fire, airborne fibers may lead to a possible exposure to asbestos. Removing asbestos requires abatement professionals. There is no safe level of exposure.

Firefighters deserve respect

Asbestos is not the only danger firefighters’ encounter. From falling structural pieces, to unknown chemicals or other hazardous materials stored inside, to environmental factors such as wind and storms, they remain focused. The president of the Firefighters Cancer Support Network, Bryan Frieders, said “firefighters are in danger and can be exposed to up to 200 cancer causing chemicals when they go into a burning building. Yet we still see firefighters on a daily basis going into these known-dangerous situations to try to save lives.”

Frieder said, “A lot of retirees two, three, four or five years after they retire are being diagnosed [or decades in the case of asbestos]. That’s a significant problem for us. They took an oath to serve the city they are serving. There is an expectation that the city they are serving is going to take care of them — and their families.”

The firefighters exposed in this fire were given chest X-rays as a baseline in case they develop lung problems in the future.

Cause unknown

A film crew had recently vacated the building. Employees of Building Services inspected the building three hours before the fire started. At the time of the fire, officials didn’t know exactly what, if anything, was stored in the building. Currently, the cause of the fire is unknown.

#TRUCKING DANGER: SAY NO TO HB19 & SB17!

By

Republished from Texas Watch www.texaswatch.org

Large truck danger

Year after year, Texas has the highest number of large truck wrecks in the nation. From 2016 to 2019, the number of truck crashes in our state increased by almost 30%. To protect the lives of Texas families, we need more safety measures, not less. Legislation pushed by trucking lobbyists will endanger all of us on the roads.

HB19 and SB17 will harm families devastated by 18-wheeler wrecks. These bills give trucking corporations less incentive to follow safety measures, which means you and your family will be at greater risk on the roads. The bills will make it harder to punish trucking companies through our courts when they violate safety standards. When bad actors do not follow the rules, they need to be held fully accountable by a jury of our peers in order to help protect us all. And when recklessness causes death, serious injuries, or the inability to work, trucking companies must take responsibility.

Please contact your Texas state legislators and let them know you oppose HB19 and SB17!

Global Asbestos Awareness Week

By

Easily inhaled asbestos fibers

The theme of the 2021 Global Asbestos Awareness Week is “One Word. One Week. One World.” Since 2005, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) has hosted a week of education and action to end the use of asbestos. Though the dangers of asbestos have been known for decades, there remains a need to educate the public and those in office who can make a difference in its importation and use. April 1-7 of each year we are reminded that this danger still exists and threatens lives. Since the first Global Asbestos Awareness Week in 2005 until today, it is estimated 600,000 Americans lost their lives to asbestos-caused illnesses.

U.S. Senate passed 16th resolution for “Global Asbestos Awareness Week”

The Senate once again formally recognized the need for public exposure to the dangers of asbestos. Linda Reinstein, mesothelioma widow and ADAO co-founder, congratulated the Senate for the passage of S. Res. 145. Reinstein wrote, “We are grateful to Congress for passing this resolution and once again putting the dangers of asbestos exposure on the national radar, but we must do more.” She further emphasized, “With this continuation of use and an increase in imports, awareness of the dangers of asbestos, and an eventual ban on imports and use, are more important than ever. Unlike the more than 70 countries that have banned asbestos, Americans remain at risk of asbestos exposure every day from a variety of places, including our schools, homes, workplaces, and from unsuspecting products on consumer shelves like toys and cosmetics.”

What are the dangers of asbestos?

Asbestos is a mineral that can be used in the manufacture of many products, including insulation, shingles, brake pads, tile mastic, cosmetics and hundreds of other uses. Though it’s been known for over a century that asbestos exposure can be deadly – no matter the level of exposure ­– there is still no ban in the United States.

Inhalation of asbestos causes a spectrum of diseases including asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. There is currently no cure for mesothelioma – a disease which can be caused by even brief or intermittent asbestos exposures. 

How can Global Asbestos Awareness Week help?

Each year, goals are set to push forward the asbestos banning agenda. This year there are four main points:

            • Banning the mining, manufacturing, and use of asbestos

            • Preventing asbestos exposure

            • Increasing compliance and enforcement of existing laws and regulations

            • Strengthening international partnerships

Reinstein reported, “The United States imported nearly 30 percent more asbestos in 2020 than in the prior year. With this continuation of use and an increase in imports, awareness of the dangers of asbestos, and an eventual ban on imports and use, are more important than ever.”

What can you do to help?

If you suspect asbestos in your home or business built before 1980, have an abatement professional inspect before any remodeling or disturbance of the material. If you’ve been exposed, let your doctors know so they can create a baseline and monitor you for signs of asbestos disease.

During this Global Asbestos Awareness Week, let your congressional and senatorial representatives, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), know your concerns and the need for a ban. This is long past due; let’s make it happen!

Protecting the Right to Organize Act – PRO Act

By

The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act, is a proposed United States law that would amend previous labor laws such as the National Labor Relations Act, for the purpose of expanding labor protections related to employees’ rights to organize and collectively bargain in the workplace. It would prevent employers from holding mandatory meetings for the purpose of counteracting labor organization, and it would strengthen the legal right of employees to join a labor union. The PRO Act would weaken “right-to-work” laws, which exist in 27 U.S. states. It would allow the National Labor Relations Board to fine employers for violations of labor law and would provide compensation to employees involved in such cases.

Background

The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, also known as the PRO Act, follows a series of past legislation passed by Congress concerning labor rights. A number of landmark bills were passed during the New Deal period, including the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which President Franklin D. Roosevelt considered one of the most important Acts of Congress at the time.

Following the New Deal, a number of bills were passed which restricted the activities of labor unions. Among these was the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act), which among other things prohibited secondary boycotts and closed shops.

In 2009, the Employee Free Choice Act, another bill which would have amended the National Labor Relations Act, failed to pass.

In the State of California, following the passage of California Assembly Bill 5, Proposition 22 was passed in 2020. Proposition 22 was intended to classify so-called gig workers for app-based companies (such as Lyft, Uber, DoorDash and Postmates) as “independent contractors” rather than full employees.

Content of the PRO Act

The PRO Act would amend the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (also known as the Wagner Act), the Taft-Hartley Act, and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (also known as the Landrum–Griffin Act).

According to the summary text of the PRO Act, it revises definitions under labor law, permits labor unions to encourage participation in secondary strikes, and prohibits employers from litigating against unions which conduct such secondary strikes:

Among other things, it (1) revises the definitions of employee, supervisor, and employer to broaden the scope of individuals covered by the fair labor standards; (2) permits labor organizations to encourage participation of union members in strikes initiated by employees represented by a different labor organization (i.e., secondary strikes); and (3) prohibits employers from bringing claims against unions that conduct such secondary strikes.

The PRO Act would prevent employees seeking to join a labor union from being fired. It would also allow unions to override “right-to-work laws”, allowing labor unions to collect dues from all employees in a workplace, regardless of whether or not they are a member of a labor union. Right-to-work laws exist in 27 U.S. states, and the PRO Act would weaken these laws in favor of workers. It would also make illegal company-sponsored mandatory meetings used to counteract and discourage attempts at labor organization. The PRO Act would classify some workers who are classified now as “independent contractors”, instead as “employees”. The bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to define an employee as:

“An individual performing any service shall be considered an employee (except as provided in the previous sentence) and not an independent contractor, unless—

(A) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under the contract for the performance of service and in fact;

(B) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and

(C) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.”

This definitional amendment would allow for certain workers, such as those working in the gig economy, to attain the right to form a labor union or to bargain collectively. This would potentially include those who work for app-based companies such as Uber, DoorDash, or Lyft, and overall could include hundreds of thousands or millions of workers. The bill would allow for workers to sue employers and would make it easier for employees to join a union.

Support for the PRO Act

A letter signed by over 100 labor unions, advocacy organizations, churches, and political groups supported the PRO Act. This included but not limited to the AFL-CIO, EPI, Public Citizen, AFT, Sunrise Movement, CPD, SEIU, PFAW, CWA, FoEI, HRW, USW, IWPR, GBCS, IFPTE, NETWORK, Patriotic Millionaires, and Oxfam. Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO said, “If you really want to correct inequality in this country … passing the PRO Act is absolutely essential to doing that.” The bill has received backing from the Labor Caucus and The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Joe Biden endorsed the PRO Act, and has called labor law reform one of the top priorities of his administration.

Legislative Activity

On February 4, 2021, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA-03) introduced the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 in the House of Representatives. Of the bill’s 213 cosponsors, 3 – Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01), Jeff Van Drew (NJ-02), and Chris Smith (NJ-04) – were Republicans; the other 210 were Democrats.

The bill passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 225 to 206 on March 9, 2021. Five House Republicans (Brian Fitzpatrick, John Katko, Chris Smith, Jeff Van Drew, and Don Young) joined the House Democrats in voting for it, while one Democrat (Henry Cuellar) voted against it. The bill now advances to the U.S. Senate; however, the bill is unlikely to pass as it would require universal Democratic support and 10 Republican crossover votes to pass in case of a filibuster.

Photo by Thibault Penin on Unsplash