On July 19, seventy-five plaintiffs files a mass action in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles for later-life cognitive injury from multiple concussions received during play in the NFL. These concussions, plaintiffs allege, were either improperly treated or not treated at all.

It wasn’t until June of 2010, that the NFL acknowledged concussions can lead to dementia, memory loss, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), and other symptoms. These plaintiffs have suffered multiple concussions, many returning to play with little or no medical guidance.

The NFL’s own Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee wasn’t founded until 1994. It’s chair was a rheumatologist with no certification regarding brain injuries or concussions.

This same committee concluded in 2006, after looking at five years of data, that because a significant number of players returned to play within a week, that "mild TBIs in professional football are not serious injuries."

A year earlier, a study by the Center for the Study of Retired Athletes found that NFL players who suffered multiple concussions were significantly more likely to suffer mild cognitive impairment and memory loss than players who did not have concussions.

Learn more about Football Concussion Injuries.

Since 2007, Attorney Jason Luckasevic has been actively investigating and exploring cases for retired NFL players. To have your case evaluated by Jason Luckasevic or John Tierney, please contact them at 1-800-471-3980 or by emailing Jason.

This press statement on gel fuels and other illuminating fuels was released by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on June 14, 2011.

CPSC staff initiated an investigation last week into serious burn incidents apparently related to gel fuel used in firepots. While CPSC’s investigation is still open and active, consumers should be aware of the burn and poisoning hazards that can occur from using illuminating fuels in firepots, tiki torches, and other consumer products. CPSC staff recommends that consumers never refuel a hot product as this can create a serious situation of the fuel splattering and burning those nearby. Adding fuel to an open-flame is a potentially hazardous activity, with a risk of burns and uncontrolled fires. It is important to follow proper safety guidelines when refueling any open-flame device. CPSC staff recommends that consumers first look for flames, then cautiously feel the vicinity of the flame, as some flames are difficult to see. Only add fuel when the flames are extinguished and the container is cool to the touch. Never pour fuel over an open flame.

Consumers should keep the fuel out of the reach of young children and when not in use, store it away from children. Always securely replace the child resistant cap after use. Most illuminating fuels are sold in special child-resistant packaging because they generally consist of petroleum distillates, a specific class of hydrocarbon chemicals. This class of chemicals is particularly hazardous if ingested and aspirated into the lungs, where it can cause chemical pneumonia, pulmonary edema, or death. Illuminating fuels should never be transferred to other containers, as young children may mistake the new container with containers of common drink items.

Learn more about the gel fuel burns.

Have you been injured? Do you have a question about a potential case? We may be able to help you get answers.

John was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma. Caused by exposure to asbestos, peritoneal mesothelioma is a tumor arising from the thin membrane lining the organs of the abdomen–such as the stomach and intestines–and the abdominal cavity itself.

Peritoneal mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive cancer, but his doctors at UPMC were hopeful that surgery could extend his life 5 to 10 years. Without it, he was given a prognosis of 6 to 12 months.

However, his hopes for a positive outcome were dashed when his insurance carrier, Aetna, denied the surgery, stating "Clinical studies have not proven that this procedure is safe and effective for treatment of the member’s condition."

Petok, his family, and doctors began a battle, not against Petok’s cancer, but his insurance carrier. They went through the initial internal appeal process at Aetna. Petok’s doctors from UPMC wrote in support for John’s surgery that "significant delays in treatment may result in death from tumor progression."

The Petoks and their attorney filed and lost, not one, but two internal appeal processes.

Like most cancers, early detection and diagnosis are crucial to achieving a positive outcome. "We’re working on borrowed time," their attorney said.

Finally, after several months, the appeal process moved to an external review panel. At this review, medical professionals outside of the insurance company reviewed Petok’s case and the recommended surgery.

On March 28, the panel agreed with the surgical procedure recommended by John’s doctors for treatment of his peritoneal mesothelioma. Now, John can battle his cancer, instead of his insurer.

The Petok family hope that others facing similar struggles will push through the appeal process. Their husband, father, and grandfather, John, is scheduled for surgery on April 15.

While there can be no discounting smoking’s ill health effects, the flood of information on smoking’s risks can drown out other causes of lung cancer. A recent study in The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, a research journal on hazards and risks to health resulting from work, highlights another contributor to lung cancer: asbestos.

Asbestos as a cause of lung cancer is often ignored because of smoking. One reason for this is readily revealed in “The effect of smoking on the risk of lung cancer mortality for asbestos workers in Great Britain (1971-2005)”: among asbestos workers, smoking is more common than in the general population. The study followed asbestos workers from 1971 until 2005, at which point some 53% of asbestos workers were still active smokers. In contrast, 45% of the general population in Great Britain smoked in 1971, and that number dropped to 24% by 2005.

While either cigarette smoking or asbestos may be the cause of lung cancer, together, they create an exceptionally high risk. One cannot simply add the risk associated with each carcinogen together and determine the risk that the two create in individuals exposed to both.

This synergistic connection between asbestos and smoking is well known among researchers who specialize in studies like the one cited above. In fact, a September 2010 journal article covering asbestos workers in China (“Lung cancer mortality from exposure to chrysotile asbestos and smoking: a case control study within a cohort in China”) found that the total risk of lung cancer was one and a half times what would be expected if the risk associated with smoking and the risk associated with asbestos exposure were added together³.

In the Chinese study, no completely unexposed control group was compared to asbestos exposed and/or smoking groups studies. Other studies that have compared non-asbestos exposed, non-smoking workers to asbestos exposed, smoking workers found the latter group fifty or more times likely to develop lung cancer over the former group⁴.

While researchers may be aware of this deadly mix, many primary care physicians are unaware of these connections. Without a thorough patient history, the connection between a patient’s lung cancer and their asbestos exposure may never be made, especially if they smoked. Unfortunately, with a smoker, many people, doctors included, stop looking at other culprits for a patient’s lung cancer. It’s important to note, however, that although smoking is a great risk factor in a lung cancer diagnosis, only 10% of smokers will develop lung cancer.

Asbestos attorneys see thousands of people diagnosed with lung cancer each year, and Dave Chervenick is no exception. A shareholder at Goldberg, Persky, and White, a law firm that has specialized in asbestos cases for more than 30 years, Chervenick notes “If there was one thing I could impress upon our clients with lung cancer, it’s that smoking doesn’t negate your asbestos exposure, and in fact, it’s an important factor related to it.”

Many of Chervenick’s asbestos lung cancer clients were already suffering from another asbestos-related disease, such as asbestosis, before being diagnosed. “When one of our asbestosis clients later develops lung cancer, it’s a little easier for them to see the connection,” Chervenick explains, “however, you don’t have to have asbestosis to develop lung cancer.”

Asbestosis is a scarring of the lung tissues resulting from breathing in asbestos fibers. The small, sharp, and indestructible asbestos bodies lodge in the lungs, causing a buildup of scar tissue that makes it hard for the lungs to expand and contract and complete their job of exchanging carbon dioxide for oxygen.

Asbestosis definitively reveals that you’ve been exposed to asbestos, and because of that, indicates you’re at increased risk of developing an asbestos-related lung cancer. The number of lung cancer cases attributable to asbestos exposure each year in the US is estimated at 3,400 to 8,500. It is likely higher however, thanks to poor tracking mechanisms and a lack of complete worker histories.

It is also not unusual for a worker to be unaware they worked with asbestos. “I’ve had people tell me they don’t believe they ever handled asbestos products,” Chervenick says, “however, after I mention a particular brand of insulation, or a type of sealer, they’ll say ‘well, yes, I worked with that.’ Well, that item contained 10%, or 30%, or even 50% asbestos.”

In order to reduce the risk among asbestos workers and smokers, eliminating exposure to both is recommended. Some studies indicate a reduction in the risk of lung cancer within five years of smoking cessation. The numbers associated with removing asbestos exposure vary, but researchers note “that even if the risk of lung cancer does not decrease following cessation of asbestos exposure, removal from exposure would prevent cumulative dosage.” ¹

In Great Britain, researchers estimate that smoking and/or asbestos exposure result in 96% of lung cancer deaths. Using that guideline on worldwide deaths, that could mean more than 1.3 million lives could be saved from lung cancer if smoking and asbestos were eliminated.

References

1. Gillian Frost, Andrew Darnton, and Anne-Helen Harding. “The effect of smoking on the risk of lung cancer mortality for asbestos workers in Great Britain (1971–2005).” The Annals of Occupational Hygiene. First published online January 20, 2011 doi:10.1093/annhyg/meq089.
2. SEER Stat Fact Sheets: Lung and Bronchus. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results; National Cancer Institute.
   <http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html> Accessed March 22, 2011.
3. Eiji Yano, Xiaorong Wang, Mianzhen Wang, Hong Qiu, and Zhiming Wang. "Lung cancer mortality from exposure to chrysotile asbestos and smoking: a case control study within a cohort in China." Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2010;67:867e871. doi:10.1136/oem.2009.051615
4. Hammond, E. C., Selikoff, I. J. and Seidman, H. (1979). “Asbestos Exposure, Cigarette Smoking and Death Rates.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 330: 473-790. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1979.tb18749.x

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.