The diagnosis of lung cancer is an emotional and physical trauma for the patient involved, as well as their families. Unfortunately, in many instances, when one is diagnosed with lung cancer, he or she, as well as their treating physicians, automatically assume that it is due solely to cigarette smoking. However, scientific studies have shown that in many lung cancers, asbestos has played a very strong contributing role as a causative factor, even in individuals who were heavy smokers.

Lung cancer is the most frequent cancer in individuals who are occupationally exposed to asbestos. Exposure to asbestos and cigarette smoking are synergistic factors for the development of lung cancer. Experts estimate that there is a 50 to 100 times increased risk for lung cancer in asbestos workers who smoke, as opposed to asbestos workers who do not smoke.

All too often, when one is diagnosed with lung cancer they fail to realize the role that asbestos played in causing his or her disease. Many treating physicians overlook the role of asbestos, as well, and commonly conclude that smoking is the sole cause. One who has been diagnosed with lung cancer which is caused, in part, by asbestos has significant legal rights against the asbestos companies, who knowingly placed their products in the work place.

In 2009 alone, our attorneys have travelled the country from California to Texas to Florida to Maine to gather evidence and assist our clients. Jason Luckasevic, a Shareholder with our firm, explains that “many clients and their families must relocate because they have no choice but to travel to follow their work and their trades.” Mr. Luckasevic notes that “as long as one was exposed to asbestos in one state, such as Pennsylvania, but that person is now living elsewhere, we can still file a lawsuit for their asbestos disease.”

With six (6) offices, 27 attorneys, and over 100 employees, our firm is committed to competently representing our clients against some of the largest companies in the United States who placed dangerous substances in the workplace. We are backed by a large arsenal of corporate documents, depositions, and medical articles with which to vigorously prosecute our cases. Our combination of size, strength, experience and the accumulation of evidence over the years has led to the culmination of aggressive representation for our clients.

Before 1992, Pennsylvania law required any person injured by asbestos exposure to file one single lawsuit to seek to recover any and all damages related to his asbestos injury, including damages for fear of developing cancer in the future. If the worker did, in fact, develop asbestos-related cancer at a later time, he was not permitted to file a second new action to recover damages for that new injury.

This changed when the Pennsylvania Superior Court decided the case of Marinari v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., 612 A.2d 1021 (Pa. Super. 1992), making Pennsylvania a “two-disease” state. After Marinari, victims of nonmalignant asbestos disease were entitled to file new and separate actions if they were unfortunate enough to develop an asbestos-related cancer. The trade-off was that people making claims for nonmalignant asbestos disease were no longer permitted to recover damages for their “fears” of developing asbestos-related cancers.

The question that remained unanswered was what effect the Marinari decision had on people who had filed lawsuits for asbestosis or pleural thickening before 1992, but then developed asbestos-related cancers after 1992. Attorneys for the asbestos companies argued that an individual did not have the right to recover for his asbestos-related cancer because he had already filed the one case that the prior law allowed and already recovered money for his fear of getting cancer. Attorneys for the injured workers argued that having to live with the “fear” of being at an increased risk of developing cancer is a very different injury from what a person suffers from when they actually have cancer.

In the Abrams case, recently decided on October 21, 2009, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with the counsel for the injured workers. It is now the law throughout Pennsylvania that people who filed a case for a nonmalignant asbestos disease before 1992 now have the right to file a new second claim against different defendants, if they were diagnosed with an asbestos-related cancer after 1992.

If you or your loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, lung cancer, colon cancer, esophageal cancer, or laryngeal cancer, you may be able to file a lawsuit to recover for that injury even though you have already recovered asbestos benefits in the past for your previously existing, non-malignant asbestos disease. Don’t lose out on your ability to recover additional proceeds for your injury.

On Thursday February 28 at 12:30 PM EST, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on Minnesota Democrat Rep. Betty L. McCollum’s "Bruce Vento Ban Asbestos and Prevent Mesothelioma Act" (HR 3339); a piece of companion legislation to Sen. Murray’s. The act is dedicated to late Congressman Bruce Vento, who succumbed to mesothelioma in 2000.

Introduced in August, the bill’s proponents hope to get the President’s signature during this session of Congress.

More information from the Mesothelioma Center archives:

• 2/28/07 – Leading Asbestos-Cancer Group Urges Congress to Partner with Them and Support Funding Provisions in Asbestos Ban Legislation
• 2/12/08 – Tell Congress to Ban Asbestos
• 10/4/07 – Sen. Murray’s Asbestos Ban Passes Senate
• 9/4/07 – Environmental Working Group Applauds Senate Panel’s Passage of Landmark Asbestos Legislation
• 8/3/07 - Research Group Applauds Progress on Ban Asbestos Legislation
• 8/2/07 – “Bruce Vento Ban Asbestos and Prevent Mesothelioma Act” honors former MN Congressman, ends use of deadly substance, invests in health care for victims
• 8/1/07 – ADAO Applauds Unanimous Passage of Senator Patty Murray’s Ban Asbestos in America Act by U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
• 7/18/07 – ADAO Leadership Testified Before U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works as Part of Expert Panel on Effects of Asbestos

A jury has awarded $6 million to a Shaler couple for injuries the husband received after repeated exposure to asbestos.

The Common Pleas Court jury ordered DeZurik Inc. of Sartell, Minn., to pay the money to William and Lois Lisac.

William Lisac, 62, a member of Steamfitters Local 449 for more than 40 years, was exposed to asbestos during the 1960s and 1970s when he worked with valves, gaskets and other products that contained the material at power plants, chemical plants and steel mills. He said DeZurik never warned him that he was working with a dangerous and deadly substance.

“I’d give the money back in a minute if I could have my health back,” he said yesterday.

Read the full text of the article >>