Mesothelioma or lung cancer usually develop twenty, thirty, or even more years after exposure to asbestos. The long latency period between exposure and the development of asbestos-related diseases (ARDs), means thousands of veterans may be injured by their service, long after their active duty ended.

Asbestos was so commonly used in ship building, that it is estimated that anyone who worked on a ship after 1930 was exposed to asbestos. Some four and a half million men and women were exposed at shipyards during WWII alone. Despite studies throughout the 40s, 50s, and 60s connecting asbestos to lung cancer and mesothelioma, the US Navy continued to use and push asbestos.

Used in shipboard applications such as packings, gaskets, tapes, and caulking, asbestos spray insulation applied to pipes and other surfaces is perhaps the largest culprit of Naval asbestos exposures. Not only are Navy vets who worked with spray insulations at risk, but anyone working in close proximity to those spraying or working with asbestos are also at risk.

The idea that asbestos was closely linked with safety was fostered by the war effort and exploited by industry making a profit off of its use. In 1952, the passenger liner the SS United States made its maiden voyage, setting a new record for fastest Atlantic crossing. Also notable was the widespread use of asbestos on the ship:

[The ship] was full of blue and brown fibre. In addition to bulkhead insulation and Marinite boards, the lounge chairs, cushions, sea chests, curtains, and even bedding blankets on that ship were made from asbestos. (McCulloch & Tweedale, p. 30)

The US military was not wholly ignorant of the risk posed by all this asbestos; in 1943, the US Navy Department issued Minimum Requirements for Safety and Industrial Health in Contract Shipyards. Recommendations for respirators, appropriate ventilation, a separation of dusty work environments, and regular medical exams for workers were made. These minimum requirements, however, were rarely met or not met at all.

Despite an awareness of the risks, as late as 1971, the US Navy was the largest American user of asbestos. Thousands of US veterans who have served their country have developed mesothelioma and lung cancer as a result of their military asbestos exposure.

"While asbestos was used in many branches of the military," asbestos attorney Dave Chervenick notes, "the vast majority of veterans we help served in the Navy. On ship, asbestos was virtually impossible to avoid."

For more than 30 years, GPW has been helping veterans and others injured by asbestos. However, adding insult to injury, there are time limits on filing a claim. If you have developed mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease, do not delay in contacting an asbestos attorney with your questions. Otherwise, your rights may be limited or even lost.

Brave men and women know they risk their lives to serve and protect our country. However, that risk should not extend decades beyond active service. As a result of their asbestos exposure, veterans are losing their lives 40 years or more after their military service ends.

Sources

Brodeur, Paul. Outrageous Misconduct: The Asbestos Industry on Trial. 1 ed. New York: Pantheon, 1985. Print.

Mcculloch, Jock, and Geoffrey Tweedale. Defending the Indefensible: The Global Asbestos Industry and its Fight for Survival. New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2008. Print.

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.

A Will is a legal instrument that lets you tell the world how you want your assets to be distributed at your death. Should you die without a Will, the Commonwealth decides who gets your estate assets, without regard to your wishes or your heirs’ needs.

Wills are not just for the rich! Regardless of how much, or how little, money you have, a Will ensures that your personal belongings and assets will go to family or beneficiaries whom you designate in your Will.

If you have children, a Will is a must to ensure that you choose the Guardian of your children’s care. Without a Will, a court will determine who will care for your young children, and their property, should the other parent also pass away, or be unavailable, or unfit to care for them.

Finally, a Will lets you name the person who will oversee the settling of your affairs after you die, or what is called an Executor or Executrix. Without a Will, the Court will step in and choose the person responsible for wrapping up your affairs. The person the Court chooses might not be the person you would have wanted and sometimes a family conflict develops over who should be appointed by the judge. There are other benefits to having a Will, including tax benefits.

If you already have a Will, you may want to consider drafting a Trust instrument. A Trust is a legal mechanism that lets you put conditions on how your assets are distributed after you die and often lets you minimize gift and estate taxes.

Please feel free to consult with GPW’s staff of qualified attorneys, at no charge to you, to get answers to your estate-related questions and counsel you as to what best fits your needs and accomplishes your desires.

When purchasing auto insurance in Pennsylvania, one may choose either Full Tort Insurance coverage or Limited Tort Insurance coverage. Many people choose the Limited Tort option because it is less expensive. It is important to understand that purchasing a cheaper Limited Tort policy does not mean that you are limiting the rights of a person injured by you to recover for those injuries – you are limiting your own right to be made whole if someone else injures you!

Under either Full Tort or Limited Tort, a person may be entitled to recover economic damages such as lost wages and medical bills. However, as to the actual physical injuries suffered, a person who is covered by Limited Tort insurance may only recover if the injury is classified by the law as a “serious injury.”

What you may consider to be a “serious injury” and what the courts consider to be a “serious injury” oftentimes are not the same. For example, soft tissue injuries can be very painful and greatly affect your ability to go about your daily activities, such as caring for your children or even being able to get a decent night’s sleep. With Limited Tort coverage, you would not be entitled to recover anything for this inconvenience and the pain suffered, even though you did absolutely nothing wrong and the other driver was completely at fault. Unless you sustained permanent injury, broken bones, or serious and permanent disfigurement, you will have no right to recover anything except for the amount paid for your medical treatment and the amount of money you lost for missing work.

In short, Limited Tort Insurance limits your ability to be made whole if you are the victim of someone else’s negligence. Giving up your legal rights to be compensated for your injuries is not something you should do without considering the potential risks to you and your family.

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.

Our extensive knowledge and experience over the years in asbestos litigation, as well as the skill of our lawyers has allowed us to achieve these recent results for some of our clients:

• $2.6 million to a living mesothelioma victim who worked at Weirton Steel.
• $2.2 million to the widow of a deceased local #2 insulator who worked in WV.
• $1.3 million to a mesothelioma victim that worked 3 months at an industrial site in WV.
• Over $1.2 million for the widow of a PA man who died from mesothelioma related to his work for United States Steel.
• Over $1 million in settlements for family of deceased OH steelworker who died of mesothelioma.
• $1 million in settlements for widow of deceased OH power plant worker who died of mesothelioma.
• Over $1 million in settlements for self-employed plasterer from OH suffering with mesothelioma.
• Over $900K for the family of a PA mesothelioma victim who worked one summer at a steel mill.
• Over $650K to a WV tradesman who suffers from lung cancer.
• Over $700K to the family of a ME woman who developed mesothelioma as a result of being exposed to asbestos brought home by her husband on his work clothes.
• Over $500K to a Weirton Steel lung cancer victim.

Chantix Timeline

May 2006

Chantix is approved by the FDA as a treatment for those trying to quit smoking. In the FDA’s press release on the approval of Chantix, it cited "the most common adverse effects of Chantix were nausea, headache, vomiting, flatulence (gas), insomnia, abnormal dreams, and dysgeusia (change in taste perception)."

November 2007

The FDA released concerns about the drug after receiving "reports of suicidal thoughts and aggressive and erratic behavior in patients who have taken Chantix." At the time, the FDA cautioned patients and their doctors to closely observe changes in behaviors or mood, to use caution when operating heavy machinery, and to stop taking the drug if behavior side-effects occurred.

January 2008

Pfizer stopped advertising Chantix.

February 2008

The FDA followed up their initial concerns with a public health advisory altering patients and providers to new safety warnings about Chantix. Although not a black box warning, the most serious kind, the warning did require a labeling change from Pfizer.

May 2008

Following the release of a new study by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices and a Public Health Advisory issued by the FDA, the FAA ordered pilots and air traffic controllers to stop taking the drug immediately. The study "found evidence for the occurrence of seizures, loss of consciousness, heart attacks, vision problems, and various psychiatric instabilities in individuals who use Chantix."

September 2008

Pfizer began running new ads for Chantix. The new ads, however, don’t refer to the drug by name, instead the ads direct consumers to a web site. This "unbranded advertising" technique allows drug makers to draw in consumers without having to list the side effects of the drug they’re trying to market.

Injured by Chantix? Pittsburgh Chantix Layer

If you or a loved one has been injured taking the smoking cessation drug Chantix, and would like to speak with a Chantix lawyer, please contact us today for a free, no obligation consultation.

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

Plant A, located in southeastern Minnesota, employs approximately 1,200 workers and processes 18,000 pigs per day. After being notified of the illnesses, MDH investigators initiated active case finding, interviewed workers at plant A, and reviewed the plant’s occupational health and employment records. As of January 28, 2008, a total of 12 workers at plant A had been identified with confirmed (eight workers), probable (two), or possible (two) progressive inflammatory neuropathy (PIN) (Box). Illness onset ranged from November 2006 through November 2007. Median age of the 12 patients was 31 years (range: 21–51 years); six patients were female. All 12 patients reported being healthy before the onset of neurologic symptoms.

Symptoms ranged from acute paralysis to gradually progressive symmetric weakness over periods ranging from 8 to 213 days. Severity ranged from minor weakness and numbness to paralysis predominantly in the lower extremities affecting mobility. Eleven patients had evidence of axonal or demyelinating peripheral neuropathy by electrodiagnostic testing. Cerebrospinal fluid was obtained from seven patients. All seven had elevated protein levels (median: 125 mg/dL; range: 75–231 mg/dL [normal: 14--45 mg/dL]) with no or minimal pleocytosis (median: 1 cell/dL; range: 1–73 cells/dL in a nontraumatic tap); five patients had evidence of inflammation on spinal magnetic resonance imaging (four patients in peripheral nerves or roots and one patient in the anterior spinal cord).

All 12 patients reported either working at or having regular contact with an area where swine heads were processed (known as the head table), which was located within a larger processing area in plant A known as the warm room. A case-control study was conducted among plant A workers to identify specific risk factors associated with illness. The 10 patients with confirmed or probable cases were included in the study, along with two stratified control groups: 1) a random selection of 48 healthy warm-room workers and 2) all 65 healthy head-table workers. Statistically significant (p<0.05) differences were calculated by chi-square test. Blood samples and throat swabs were collected from all consenting case-patients and controls. As of January 30, laboratory investigations had not identified any infectious agent from the blood and throat-swab specimens that would explain the occurrence of PIN.

Results of the case-control study indicated that case-patients (seven of 10, 70%) were significantly more likely to have worked at the head table than the warm-room controls (12 of 48, 25%) (odds ratio [OR]: 7.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3–42.2; p = 0.009). Case-patients also were more likely to have removed brains or remaining skeletal muscle from the pig head (a process known as backing heads) (four of 10, 40%) than controls (two of 46, 4%) (OR: 15.3; CI = 1.8–163.4; p = 0.006). Among head-table workers, case-patients were significantly more likely to have removed brains or skeletal muscle from the head (four of seven, 57%) than head-table controls (eight of 65, 12%) (OR: 9.50; CI = 1.40–70.2; p = 0.01). Illness was not determined to be associated with previous travel outside or within the United States; exposure to chemicals, fertilizers, or insecticides; use of medications; or receipt of previous vaccinations.

An environmental assessment of the plant was conducted on November 28, 2007. Standard personal protective equipment (PPE) used by workers at plant A included hard hats, laboratory coats (including some that were short-sleeved), boots, hearing protection, eye protection, and specialized gloves that varied with the particular task of the worker. A compressed air device was used in the plant to harvest brain tissue from pig heads at the head table. The device was placed into the skull of the pig through the foramen magnum, and the force of the air disrupted the brain material into a liquefied form that made it easier to remove (a technique known as "blowing brains"). This technique caused generation of small droplets and splatter, possibly including aerosolized brain material, to which workers operating the device and others nearby might have been exposed. In response to the investigation, plant A voluntarily suspended harvesting of brains and instituted additional mandatory PPE
on November 28, 2007, including face shields and long sleeves, for workers stationed at the head table and other workers who chose to use additional PPE.

Results of Case-Finding Survey

A survey of the 25 federally inspected swine slaughterhouses with >500 employees in the United States indicated that only three plants (plant A in Minnesota and plants in Nebraska and Indiana) reported recent use of compressed air to extract pig brains. To date, no cases of PIN have been identified in association with workers at the Nebraska plant. However, several workers at the Indiana plant have been preliminarily identified with neurologic illnesses and similar histories of exposure to head-processing activities at that slaughterhouse. Further assessments of these patients, and additional measures to identify other workers with illness, are being conducted in Indiana. As a result of this investigation, all three plants have stopped using compressed air to extract brain material.

Reported by: D Lachance, Mayo Clinic, Rochester; S Goyal, PhD, Univ of Minnesota, St. Paul; R Danila, PhD, A DeVries, MD, R Lynfield, MD, Minnesota Dept of Health. J Howell, DVM, J Wyatt, MPH, Indiana State Dept of Health. T Safranek, MD, Nebraska Dept of Health and Human Svcs. E Belay, MD, J McQuiston, DVM, L Schonberger, MD, J Sejvar, MD, Div of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases; S Brueck, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; J Adjemian, PhD, B Buss, DVM, J Gibbins, DVM, S Holzbauer, DVM, EIS officers, CDC.

Editorial Note:

This report summarizes an ongoing investigation of PIN, a syndrome that appears to be associated with swine slaughterhouse workers who process pig heads. Several clinical and laboratory features of this illness and the distinctive epidemiology associated with patients appear unique. Pigs slaughtered at plant A have passed inspection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service, and the investigation has not identified any foodborne risk to the general population.

The investigation in Minnesota indicates that PIN appears associated with having worked at the head table, where a compressed-air device was used to extract pig brains. In the process of blowing compressed air into the pig skull, brain material might have been splattered or even aerosolized, and workers might have been exposed through inhalation or contact with mucous membranes. One hypothesis for development of PIN is that worker exposure to aerosolized pig neural protein might have induced an autoimmune-mediated peripheral neuropathy (1,2). Additional investigation of the characteristics and causes of PIN is under way.

Whether compressed-air devices are being used for pig-brain extraction in other slaughterhouses or processing facilities, in the United States or internationally, is unknown. Clinicians should provide CDC with information regarding swine slaughterhouse workers who might have illnesses similar to PIN, including patients with peripheral neuropathy, myelopathy, or features of both. Clinicians who identify such patients should report the cases to their state health department and contact CDC at 770-488-7100.

References

1. 1. Quattrini A. Inflammatory neuropathies. Neurol Sci 2005;26:S6.
2. 2. Tatsumoto M, Koga M, Gilbert M, et al. Spectrum of neurological diseases associated with antibodies to minor gangliosides GM1b and GalNAc-GD1a. J Neuroimmunol 2006;177:201–8.