This part of the future is not yet here, but the story pasted below illustrates part of the promise of biomarkers.....
ScienceDaily (Feb. 9, 2010) — The earlier the doctor finds the tumor, the better the patient's chances of recovery. A new testing method aims to detect the disease in its initial stages. The technology is based on a microfluidic chip with tiny channels in which a blood sample from the patient circulates. The chip traces marker proteins which are indicative of cancer. The measured concentration of the tumor marker in the blood will help doctors to diagnose the disease at an early stage.
Similar testing systems already exist but their measurements are not very precise and they can only detect molecules that are present in the blood in large quantities. What's more, the tests have to be carried out in a laboratory, which is time-consuming and costly.
A project funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research and coordinated by the Fraunhofer FIT aims to improve matters. Biofunctionalized nanoparticles developed by research scientists at the Fraunhofer Institute for Silicate Research ISC in Würzburg are the key element in the new sensor. "We have improved the detection limit compared with the present state of the art by a factor of one hundred," explains Dr. Jörn Probst, Head of the Business Unit Life Science at the ISC. "Whereas previously a hundred molecules were needed in a certain quantity of blood to detect tumor markers, we now need only one. This means that diseases can be diagnosed much earlier than with present methods."
But how does the biosensor integrated in the chip register the few biomolecules swimming around in the blood that are indicative of a certain disease? "We have placed antibody-occupied nanoparticles on the sensor electrode which fish out the relevant proteins. For this purpose, we repeatedly pump the blood across the electrode surface. As with a river, the flow is fastest in mid-channel and the water runs more slowly near the bank. We have therefore made a sort of fishing rod using nanoparticles which registers the antibodies in the middle of the blood flow where most proteins swim by per unit of time.« If an antibody catches the matching protein, a tumor marker, the electrical charge distribution shifts and this is picked up by the electrode."
The researcher groups are now developing a first demonstrator combining four independent single-molecule-sensitive biosensors. The experts are also working on the simultaneous detection of several tumor markers, which will increase the clarity of tests. The system will be ready to enter the market in a few years' time
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Hazards from 3rd Hand Smoke Residue - Generating "Toxins" ?
The online story pasted below is noteworthy for the the conclusion that cigarette smoke residue from nicotine causes the presence of excess "toxins" on furnishings inside buildings. It seems premature to conclude that tobacco companies will soon face property damage claims for contaminating property, but it does make one wonder. Note also the closing paragraph's reference to developing biomarkers to prove the presence of the "toxins." Biomarker science is the subject of today's second post.
________________________________________________________________________
ScienceDaily (Feb. 9, 2010) — Nicotine in third-hand smoke, the residue from tobacco smoke that clings to virtually all surfaces long after a cigarette has been extinguished, reacts with the common indoor air pollutant nitrous acid to produce dangerous carcinogens. This new potential health hazard was revealed in a multi-institutional study led by researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab).
"The burning of tobacco releases nicotine in the form of a vapor that adsorbs strongly onto indoor surfaces, such as walls, floors, carpeting, drapes and furniture. Nicotine can persist on those materials for days, weeks and even months. Our study shows that when this residual nicotine reacts with ambient nitrous acid it forms carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines or TSNAs," says Hugo Destaillats, a chemist with the Indoor Environment Department of Berkeley Lab's Environmental Energy Technologies Division. "TSNAs are among the most broadly acting and potent carcinogens present in unburned tobacco and tobacco smoke."
Destaillats is the corresponding author of a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Co-authoring the PNAS paper with Destaillats were Mohamad Sleiman, Lara Gundel and Brett Singer, all with Berkeley Lab's Indoor Environment Department, plus James Pankow with Portland State University, and Peyton Jacob with the University of California, San Francisco.
The authors report that in laboratory tests using cellulose as a model indoor material exposed to smoke, levels of newly formed TSNAs detected on cellulose surfaces were 10 times higher than those originally present in the sample following exposure for three hours to a "high but reasonable" concentration of nitrous acid (60 parts per billion by volume). Unvented gas appliances are the main source of nitrous acid indoors. Since most vehicle engines emit some nitrous acid that can infiltrate the passenger compartments, tests were also conducted on surfaces inside the truck of a heavy smoker, including the surface of a stainless steel glove compartment. These measurements also showed substantial levels of TSNAs. In both cases, one of the major products found was a TSNA that is absent in freshly emitted tobacco smoke -- the nitrosamine known as NNA. The potent carcinogens NNN and NNK were also formed in this reaction.
"Time-course measurements revealed fast TSNA formation, up to 0.4 percent conversion of nicotine within the first hour," says lead author Sleiman. "Given the rapid sorption and persistence of high levels of nicotine on indoor surfaces, including clothing and human skin, our findings indicate that third-hand smoke represents an unappreciated health hazard through dermal exposure, dust inhalation and ingestion."
Since the most likely human exposure to these TSNAs is through either inhalation of dust or the contact of skin with carpet or clothes, third-hand smoke would seem to pose the greatest hazard to infants and toddlers. The study's findings indicate that opening a window or deploying a fan to ventilate the room while a cigarette burns does not eliminate the hazard of third-hand smoke. Smoking outdoors is not much of an improvement, as co-author Gundel explains.
"Smoking outside is better than smoking indoors but nicotine residues will stick to a smoker's skin and clothing," she says. "Those residues follow a smoker back inside and get spread everywhere. The biggest risk is to young children. Dermal uptake of the nicotine through a child's skin is likely to occur when the smoker returns and if nitrous acid is in the air, which it usually is, then TSNAs will be formed."
The dangers of mainstream and secondhand tobacco smoke have been well documented as a cause of cancer, cardiovascular disease and stroke, pulmonary disease and birth defects. Only recently, however, has the general public been made aware of the threats posed by third-hand smoke. The term was coined in a study that appeared in the January 2009 edition of the journal "Pediatrics," in which it was reported that only 65 percent of non-smokers and 43 percent of smokers surveyed agreed with the statement that "Breathing air in a room today where people smoked yesterday can harm the health of infants and children."
Anyone who has entered a confined space -- a room, an elevator, a vehicle, etc. -- where someone recently smoked, knows that the scent lingers for an extended period of time. Scientists have been aware for several years that tobacco smoke is adsorbed on surfaces where semi-volatile and non-volatile chemical constituents can undergo reactions, but reactions of residual smoke constituents with atmospheric molecules such as nitrous acid have been overlooked as a source of harmful pollutants. This is the first study to quantify the reactions of third-hand smoke with nitrous acid, according to the authors.
"Whereas the sidestream smoke of one cigarette contains at least 100 nanograms equivalent total TSNAs, our results indicate that several hundred nanograms per square meter of nitrosamines may be formed on indoor surfaces in the presence of nitrous acid," says lead-author Sleiman.
Co-author James Pankow points out that the results of this study should raise concerns about the purported safety of electronic cigarettes. Also known as "e-cigarettes," electronic cigarettes claim to provide the "smoking experience," but without the risks of cancer. A battery-powered vaporizer inside the tube of a plastic cigarette turns a solution of nicotine into a smoky mist that can be inhaled and exhaled like tobacco smoke. Since no flame is required to ignite the e-cigarette and there is no tobacco or combustion, e-cigarettes are not restricted by anti-smoking laws.
"Nicotine, the addictive substance in tobacco smoke, has until now been considered to be non-toxic in the strictest sense of the term," says Kamlesh Asotra of the University of California's Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, which funded this study. "What we see in this study is that the reactions of residual nicotine with nitrous acid at surface interfaces are a potential cancer hazard, and these results may be just the tip of the iceberg."
The Berkeley Lab researchers are now investigating the long-term stability in an indoor environment of the TSNAs produced as a result of third-hand smoke interactions with nitrous acid. The authors are also looking into the development of biomarkers to track exposures to these TSNAs. In addition, they are conducting studies to gain a better understanding of the chemistry behind the formation of these TSNAs and to find out more about other chemicals that are being produced when third-hand smoke reacts with nitrous acid.
"We know that these residual levels of nicotine may build up over time after several smoking cycles, and we know that through the process of aging, third-hand smoke can become more toxic over time," says Destaillats. "Our work highlights the importance of third-hand smoke reactions at indoor interfaces, particularly the production of nitrosamines with potential health impacts."
In the PNAS paper, Destaillats and his co-authors suggest various ways to limit the impact of the third hand smoke health hazard, starting with the implementation of 100 percent smoke-free environments in public places and self-restrictions in residences and automobiles. In buildings where substantial smoking has occurred, replacing nicotine-laden furnishings, carpets and wallboard can significantly reduce exposures.
________________________________________________________________________
ScienceDaily (Feb. 9, 2010) — Nicotine in third-hand smoke, the residue from tobacco smoke that clings to virtually all surfaces long after a cigarette has been extinguished, reacts with the common indoor air pollutant nitrous acid to produce dangerous carcinogens. This new potential health hazard was revealed in a multi-institutional study led by researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab).
"The burning of tobacco releases nicotine in the form of a vapor that adsorbs strongly onto indoor surfaces, such as walls, floors, carpeting, drapes and furniture. Nicotine can persist on those materials for days, weeks and even months. Our study shows that when this residual nicotine reacts with ambient nitrous acid it forms carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines or TSNAs," says Hugo Destaillats, a chemist with the Indoor Environment Department of Berkeley Lab's Environmental Energy Technologies Division. "TSNAs are among the most broadly acting and potent carcinogens present in unburned tobacco and tobacco smoke."
Destaillats is the corresponding author of a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Co-authoring the PNAS paper with Destaillats were Mohamad Sleiman, Lara Gundel and Brett Singer, all with Berkeley Lab's Indoor Environment Department, plus James Pankow with Portland State University, and Peyton Jacob with the University of California, San Francisco.
The authors report that in laboratory tests using cellulose as a model indoor material exposed to smoke, levels of newly formed TSNAs detected on cellulose surfaces were 10 times higher than those originally present in the sample following exposure for three hours to a "high but reasonable" concentration of nitrous acid (60 parts per billion by volume). Unvented gas appliances are the main source of nitrous acid indoors. Since most vehicle engines emit some nitrous acid that can infiltrate the passenger compartments, tests were also conducted on surfaces inside the truck of a heavy smoker, including the surface of a stainless steel glove compartment. These measurements also showed substantial levels of TSNAs. In both cases, one of the major products found was a TSNA that is absent in freshly emitted tobacco smoke -- the nitrosamine known as NNA. The potent carcinogens NNN and NNK were also formed in this reaction.
"Time-course measurements revealed fast TSNA formation, up to 0.4 percent conversion of nicotine within the first hour," says lead author Sleiman. "Given the rapid sorption and persistence of high levels of nicotine on indoor surfaces, including clothing and human skin, our findings indicate that third-hand smoke represents an unappreciated health hazard through dermal exposure, dust inhalation and ingestion."
Since the most likely human exposure to these TSNAs is through either inhalation of dust or the contact of skin with carpet or clothes, third-hand smoke would seem to pose the greatest hazard to infants and toddlers. The study's findings indicate that opening a window or deploying a fan to ventilate the room while a cigarette burns does not eliminate the hazard of third-hand smoke. Smoking outdoors is not much of an improvement, as co-author Gundel explains.
"Smoking outside is better than smoking indoors but nicotine residues will stick to a smoker's skin and clothing," she says. "Those residues follow a smoker back inside and get spread everywhere. The biggest risk is to young children. Dermal uptake of the nicotine through a child's skin is likely to occur when the smoker returns and if nitrous acid is in the air, which it usually is, then TSNAs will be formed."
The dangers of mainstream and secondhand tobacco smoke have been well documented as a cause of cancer, cardiovascular disease and stroke, pulmonary disease and birth defects. Only recently, however, has the general public been made aware of the threats posed by third-hand smoke. The term was coined in a study that appeared in the January 2009 edition of the journal "Pediatrics," in which it was reported that only 65 percent of non-smokers and 43 percent of smokers surveyed agreed with the statement that "Breathing air in a room today where people smoked yesterday can harm the health of infants and children."
Anyone who has entered a confined space -- a room, an elevator, a vehicle, etc. -- where someone recently smoked, knows that the scent lingers for an extended period of time. Scientists have been aware for several years that tobacco smoke is adsorbed on surfaces where semi-volatile and non-volatile chemical constituents can undergo reactions, but reactions of residual smoke constituents with atmospheric molecules such as nitrous acid have been overlooked as a source of harmful pollutants. This is the first study to quantify the reactions of third-hand smoke with nitrous acid, according to the authors.
"Whereas the sidestream smoke of one cigarette contains at least 100 nanograms equivalent total TSNAs, our results indicate that several hundred nanograms per square meter of nitrosamines may be formed on indoor surfaces in the presence of nitrous acid," says lead-author Sleiman.
Co-author James Pankow points out that the results of this study should raise concerns about the purported safety of electronic cigarettes. Also known as "e-cigarettes," electronic cigarettes claim to provide the "smoking experience," but without the risks of cancer. A battery-powered vaporizer inside the tube of a plastic cigarette turns a solution of nicotine into a smoky mist that can be inhaled and exhaled like tobacco smoke. Since no flame is required to ignite the e-cigarette and there is no tobacco or combustion, e-cigarettes are not restricted by anti-smoking laws.
"Nicotine, the addictive substance in tobacco smoke, has until now been considered to be non-toxic in the strictest sense of the term," says Kamlesh Asotra of the University of California's Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, which funded this study. "What we see in this study is that the reactions of residual nicotine with nitrous acid at surface interfaces are a potential cancer hazard, and these results may be just the tip of the iceberg."
The Berkeley Lab researchers are now investigating the long-term stability in an indoor environment of the TSNAs produced as a result of third-hand smoke interactions with nitrous acid. The authors are also looking into the development of biomarkers to track exposures to these TSNAs. In addition, they are conducting studies to gain a better understanding of the chemistry behind the formation of these TSNAs and to find out more about other chemicals that are being produced when third-hand smoke reacts with nitrous acid.
"We know that these residual levels of nicotine may build up over time after several smoking cycles, and we know that through the process of aging, third-hand smoke can become more toxic over time," says Destaillats. "Our work highlights the importance of third-hand smoke reactions at indoor interfaces, particularly the production of nitrosamines with potential health impacts."
In the PNAS paper, Destaillats and his co-authors suggest various ways to limit the impact of the third hand smoke health hazard, starting with the implementation of 100 percent smoke-free environments in public places and self-restrictions in residences and automobiles. In buildings where substantial smoking has occurred, replacing nicotine-laden furnishings, carpets and wallboard can significantly reduce exposures.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Asbestos Ban Sought in Phillipines, Along with Some Kind of "Early Detection" Program
The article is here. Note also that the article says the legislation would provide money for an early detection program for cancers. One wonders exactly what is contemplated.
Note further that the article is part of a stream of asbestos information pouting forth every day from various social media. The plaintiff's bar is doing very well at using social media to make people very conscious of asbestos.
Note further that the article is part of a stream of asbestos information pouting forth every day from various social media. The plaintiff's bar is doing very well at using social media to make people very conscious of asbestos.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Hardie and CSR Avoid "Collusion" Charges for Trial This Week
Here is an article updating this prior post on the effort to amend "collusion" claims against James Hardie and CSR in an asbestos personal injury trial. In short, the court denied the motion to amend on the eve of trial in this particular case, but is said to have indicated that similar amendments might be allowed in other cases not so close to trial. See the full text below.
_________________________________________________________________________
Judge denies late changes in asbestos case
LEONIE WOOD
February 10, 2010 .
THE Victorian Supreme Court has declined late changes to an asbestos damages case in which a Melbourne man, who is dying from mesothelioma, planned to accuse James Hardie and CSR of joining forces to disguise the dangers of asbestos.
Justice Terry Forrest said the proposed amendments in their present form would not be allowed.
Although the judge said the proposed pleadings in the case of Robert Berengo were deficient, he also made it clear that litigants in the future might well be able to allege joint liability if they properly set out the material facts and the case that is to be answered.
Mr Berengo wanted to allege that the Australian asbestos manufacturers deliberately did not put their brand names on their asbestos-related products during the 1960s and 1970s, making it harder to identify which of the two should bear liability in cases of injury and disease.
He also wanted to allege that the companies had agreed to co-operate to dissuade regulators from restricting the use of asbestos and to influence public opinion about the dangers of their product.
Mr Berengo's trial, in which he accused the two companies of negligence, begins on Tuesday
_________________________________________________________________________
Judge denies late changes in asbestos case
LEONIE WOOD
February 10, 2010 .
THE Victorian Supreme Court has declined late changes to an asbestos damages case in which a Melbourne man, who is dying from mesothelioma, planned to accuse James Hardie and CSR of joining forces to disguise the dangers of asbestos.
Justice Terry Forrest said the proposed amendments in their present form would not be allowed.
Although the judge said the proposed pleadings in the case of Robert Berengo were deficient, he also made it clear that litigants in the future might well be able to allege joint liability if they properly set out the material facts and the case that is to be answered.
Mr Berengo wanted to allege that the Australian asbestos manufacturers deliberately did not put their brand names on their asbestos-related products during the 1960s and 1970s, making it harder to identify which of the two should bear liability in cases of injury and disease.
He also wanted to allege that the companies had agreed to co-operate to dissuade regulators from restricting the use of asbestos and to influence public opinion about the dangers of their product.
Mr Berengo's trial, in which he accused the two companies of negligence, begins on Tuesday
Asbestos Litigation Risks - Some Companies Seek Unique Legislative Answers for Unique Risks
As described in this article, Crown Cork and Seal continues its efforts to obtain legislative solutions for its unique asbestos litigation risks. Key excerpts are below from an article about action by the legislature in Virginia:
A closely divided House of Delegates voted Monday to shield a company from liability to asbestos-related health claims.
"Del. Terry Kilgore's bill, HB 629, doesn't mention any company by name. But the way it is drafted, it applies to only one: Crown Cork & Seal, a Philadelphia-based manufacturer of cans and bottle caps. It has plants in Suffolk and Winchester.
Crown Cork & Seal has never manufactured any products containing asbestos. But in 1963 it purchased the stock of Mundet Cork Co., which had an insulation division that it sold 90 days later. Under existing law, Crown is liable to lawsuits resulting from the presence of asbestos in Mundet's insulation products.
Kilgore's bill. which won preliminary House approval, limits Crown's asbestos-related liability to the value of Mundet's assets at the time it was purchased.
Kilgore, R-Lee County, characterized the measure as a "jobs bill," saying it would protect a Virginia employer from potentially crippling litigation. Dozens of asbestos companies have been driven into bankruptcy by billions of dollars in lawsuits brought by workers who contracted deadly lung diseases from handling the material."
A closely divided House of Delegates voted Monday to shield a company from liability to asbestos-related health claims.
"Del. Terry Kilgore's bill, HB 629, doesn't mention any company by name. But the way it is drafted, it applies to only one: Crown Cork & Seal, a Philadelphia-based manufacturer of cans and bottle caps. It has plants in Suffolk and Winchester.
Crown Cork & Seal has never manufactured any products containing asbestos. But in 1963 it purchased the stock of Mundet Cork Co., which had an insulation division that it sold 90 days later. Under existing law, Crown is liable to lawsuits resulting from the presence of asbestos in Mundet's insulation products.
Kilgore's bill. which won preliminary House approval, limits Crown's asbestos-related liability to the value of Mundet's assets at the time it was purchased.
Kilgore, R-Lee County, characterized the measure as a "jobs bill," saying it would protect a Virginia employer from potentially crippling litigation. Dozens of asbestos companies have been driven into bankruptcy by billions of dollars in lawsuits brought by workers who contracted deadly lung diseases from handling the material."
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
More on the Palermo Claim to the Manville Trust 37 Years After Death
Thanks to information contributed by professional contacts, more information is coming out regarding the previously described "Palermo" claim to the Manville Trust, and a related federal court lawsuit against the DII Trust by the same claimant. The claims are unique because they are being made over the last four or so years, some 37 years after Mr. Palermo's death in 1966. This window into the asbestos trust world was opened by public publishing of opinion in Gail Garner v. DII Industries, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9583 (Feb 4. 2010).
Here is an image of the complaint mentioned in the federal district. The complaint includes some very interesting correspondence with the Manville Trust regarding the claims raised.
Here is an online post that appears to be by the claimant, who says she is Mr. Palermo's daugher. The post is to a public website.
In short, it appears the daughter of Mr. Palermo is an active pro se litigant seeking money for his estate from at least 7 trusts. And, judging by the attachments to the complaint, there are multiple other unusual "extraordinary circumstances" claims to the chapter 11 asbestos trusts.
One can certainly appreciate the logic and reasons for the claims asserted by Ms. Garner on behalf of the estate. On the other hand, it's pretty amazing to see this happening and think about the defense side consequences. The claims also shed some light on propensity to claim, and various factors related to the appropirate amounts of compensation of claims so long after death. The claims also raise issues about whether and how much lawyers are needed for claims to chapter 11 trusts.
Most importantly, taken as a whole, the papers provide yet a precise example of why the actions of the chapter 11 trusts and the trustees should be transparent instead of cloaked in secrecy. The public and the policy makers of our day should have access to the facts. On secrecy, here's another plug for a 2009 law review article written by Stephen Wm. Smith, a United States Magistrate Judge in the Southern District of Texas, Houston division. See "Kudzu in the Courthouse: Judgments Made in the Shade," 3 Fed. Cts. L. Rev. # 2, 177 (2009). The full text article is available here, and is free.
------------------------------
From: http://www.deanamartin.com/Ask/ask_may05.asp
Dear Deana:
I just read your book in 2 sittings. I enjoyed it. It surprised me. There was much heartbreak as there was much enjoyment. My life was similar. My dad, Angelo Palermo, (Italian American) was away at work a lot (spray coating asbestos) and he lost a daughter (my sister) in a tragedy (she drowned), four years before he died. He died at age 51 of cancer. While I was reading your book, on page 198 you stated 'Dad, inhaling deeply on his Kent cigarette…’ I have an old ad about Kent cigarettes having asbestos filters. Thirty-four (34) years after the death of my father, I put in a claim against Johns-Manville, a large asbestos company. No attorney would take the case but I did it on my own, and won. I now have 6 more claims in against other asbestos companies. I believe you have a case to sue for asbestos wrongful death. There is no statue of limitation (discovery rule). I can help you and I would like some assistance in how I can publish a book about my case. Please respond. Really enjoyed your book. Our family, including my father, loved your father.
Sincerely,
Gail Palermo Garner
-------------------------------
Here is an image of the complaint mentioned in the federal district. The complaint includes some very interesting correspondence with the Manville Trust regarding the claims raised.
Here is an online post that appears to be by the claimant, who says she is Mr. Palermo's daugher. The post is to a public website.
In short, it appears the daughter of Mr. Palermo is an active pro se litigant seeking money for his estate from at least 7 trusts. And, judging by the attachments to the complaint, there are multiple other unusual "extraordinary circumstances" claims to the chapter 11 asbestos trusts.
One can certainly appreciate the logic and reasons for the claims asserted by Ms. Garner on behalf of the estate. On the other hand, it's pretty amazing to see this happening and think about the defense side consequences. The claims also shed some light on propensity to claim, and various factors related to the appropirate amounts of compensation of claims so long after death. The claims also raise issues about whether and how much lawyers are needed for claims to chapter 11 trusts.
Most importantly, taken as a whole, the papers provide yet a precise example of why the actions of the chapter 11 trusts and the trustees should be transparent instead of cloaked in secrecy. The public and the policy makers of our day should have access to the facts. On secrecy, here's another plug for a 2009 law review article written by Stephen Wm. Smith, a United States Magistrate Judge in the Southern District of Texas, Houston division. See "Kudzu in the Courthouse: Judgments Made in the Shade," 3 Fed. Cts. L. Rev. # 2, 177 (2009). The full text article is available here, and is free.
------------------------------
From: http://www.deanamartin.com/Ask/ask_may05.asp
Dear Deana:
I just read your book in 2 sittings. I enjoyed it. It surprised me. There was much heartbreak as there was much enjoyment. My life was similar. My dad, Angelo Palermo, (Italian American) was away at work a lot (spray coating asbestos) and he lost a daughter (my sister) in a tragedy (she drowned), four years before he died. He died at age 51 of cancer. While I was reading your book, on page 198 you stated 'Dad, inhaling deeply on his Kent cigarette…’ I have an old ad about Kent cigarettes having asbestos filters. Thirty-four (34) years after the death of my father, I put in a claim against Johns-Manville, a large asbestos company. No attorney would take the case but I did it on my own, and won. I now have 6 more claims in against other asbestos companies. I believe you have a case to sue for asbestos wrongful death. There is no statue of limitation (discovery rule). I can help you and I would like some assistance in how I can publish a book about my case. Please respond. Really enjoyed your book. Our family, including my father, loved your father.
Sincerely,
Gail Palermo Garner
-------------------------------
Monday, February 8, 2010
James Hardie and CSR - Allegations of "Collusion"
The asbestos litigation pot continues to boil in Australia. Over the last couple of weeks, CSR was denied the opportunity to split its business, a topic I keep hoping to get to, but life is busy. For now, here is a new article about plaintiff's seeking to amend a complaint to seek to prove up purported collusion between Hardie and CSR. How much does that sound like US litigation ? The text also is pasted below.
___________________________________________________________________________
Hardie, CSR 'colluded', sufferer says LEONIE WOOD
February 8, 2010 .
THE building products manufacturers James Hardie and CSR have been accused in court of joining forces during the 1960s and '70s in a bid to dissuade regulatory authorities from restricting or controlling the use of their potentially lethal asbestos products.
The court has also heard allegations that James Hardie and CSR deliberately did not mark their company names on asbestos-laden products so that they could conceal which company manufactured them - a move which, the court heard, would make it harder to identify which company had liability for future claims of potential injury or disease.
The allegations emerged on Friday before Justice Terry Forrest in the Victorian Supreme Court during preliminary proceedings ahead of a trial in which a Melbourne man, Robert Berengo, is claiming damages from James Hardie's asbestos liability fund, Amaca, and from CSR.
The fresh allegations come just days after Justice Margaret Stone in the Federal Court in Sydney cruelled CSR's plans to spin off its sugar business, citing concerns about the company's future ability to meet asbestos-related claims.
Justice Forrest will decide tomorrow if Mr Berengo's lawyers can amend his statement of claim to incorporate the new allegations of collusive behaviour.
If the judge allows the allegations to proceed, it may pave a new route for claimants in asbestos-related cases who often struggle to prove which of the two Australian asbestos manufacturers was responsible for products that caused their asbestosis or mesothelioma.
Counsel for both James Hardie and CSR criticised the form of the proposed amendments, with Graeme Uren, QC, for CSR describing them in court as ''a porridge of assertions that don't lend easily to a legal conclusion''.
Mr Berengo was a young boy in the early 1970s when he accompanied his father, a builder, to properties where asbestos-cement sheeting and other asbestos products would be sanded, altered or removed.
The proposed allegations are that James Hardie and CSR, which owned Wunderlich, had an agreement or arrangement about how they would influence Australian public opinion and regulatory authorities in the 1970s, and that they co-ordinated their lobbying of authorities and responses to media articles to stifle public concerns about asbestos.
Counsel for Mr Berengo, John Gordon, told the court that his client planned to allege that ''over a considerable period of time, the two companies … formed arrangements, agreements or an understanding to act together to influence the public debate on the dangers of asbestos, and to influence regulatory authorities on the control of, and the use of, the asbestos''.
He said that, as a result, the public was not warned by the companies of the risks and dangers of using asbestos products.
CSR sold Wunderlich to James Hardie in 1976. The case is due to begin on February 15.
___________________________________________________________________________
Hardie, CSR 'colluded', sufferer says LEONIE WOOD
February 8, 2010 .
THE building products manufacturers James Hardie and CSR have been accused in court of joining forces during the 1960s and '70s in a bid to dissuade regulatory authorities from restricting or controlling the use of their potentially lethal asbestos products.
The court has also heard allegations that James Hardie and CSR deliberately did not mark their company names on asbestos-laden products so that they could conceal which company manufactured them - a move which, the court heard, would make it harder to identify which company had liability for future claims of potential injury or disease.
The allegations emerged on Friday before Justice Terry Forrest in the Victorian Supreme Court during preliminary proceedings ahead of a trial in which a Melbourne man, Robert Berengo, is claiming damages from James Hardie's asbestos liability fund, Amaca, and from CSR.
The fresh allegations come just days after Justice Margaret Stone in the Federal Court in Sydney cruelled CSR's plans to spin off its sugar business, citing concerns about the company's future ability to meet asbestos-related claims.
Justice Forrest will decide tomorrow if Mr Berengo's lawyers can amend his statement of claim to incorporate the new allegations of collusive behaviour.
If the judge allows the allegations to proceed, it may pave a new route for claimants in asbestos-related cases who often struggle to prove which of the two Australian asbestos manufacturers was responsible for products that caused their asbestosis or mesothelioma.
Counsel for both James Hardie and CSR criticised the form of the proposed amendments, with Graeme Uren, QC, for CSR describing them in court as ''a porridge of assertions that don't lend easily to a legal conclusion''.
Mr Berengo was a young boy in the early 1970s when he accompanied his father, a builder, to properties where asbestos-cement sheeting and other asbestos products would be sanded, altered or removed.
The proposed allegations are that James Hardie and CSR, which owned Wunderlich, had an agreement or arrangement about how they would influence Australian public opinion and regulatory authorities in the 1970s, and that they co-ordinated their lobbying of authorities and responses to media articles to stifle public concerns about asbestos.
Counsel for Mr Berengo, John Gordon, told the court that his client planned to allege that ''over a considerable period of time, the two companies … formed arrangements, agreements or an understanding to act together to influence the public debate on the dangers of asbestos, and to influence regulatory authorities on the control of, and the use of, the asbestos''.
He said that, as a result, the public was not warned by the companies of the risks and dangers of using asbestos products.
CSR sold Wunderlich to James Hardie in 1976. The case is due to begin on February 15.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
How Often Does Manville Trust Diagnose (and Pay?) Claims 37 Years After Death ?
Today, a new example of issues that arise from secrecy in asbestos litigation. The question in short: How often do asbestos trusts diagnose claims 37 or so years after death, and how often and how much do they pay out for claims that would ordinarily be barred by statutes of limitation?
Chapter 11 asbestos cases, and asbestos trusts, are noteworthy for a penchant for secrecy. The penchant for secrecy applies even though secrecy is perhaps the greatest antithesis of due process, and was an especially detested feature of Star Camber proceedings, as described here in simple terms and here at some length in a wonderfully easy to read but thorough 2009 law review article written by Stephen Wm. Smith, a United States Magistrate Judge in the Southern District of Texas, Houston division. See "Kudzu in the Courthouse: Judgments Made in the Shade," 3 Fed. Cts. L. Rev. # 2, 177 (2009).
Judge Smith explained the problems with secrecy, at 214:
“In our common-law tradition, the exercise of judicial power is an inherently public act. A court of record, by definition, is a court that acts on the record, placing its rulings in the public domain, whether by pronouncement in open court, handwriting on a parchment roll, typing on a docket sheet, or digital key-strokes on-line. It is not merely that publicity has many virtues—promoting public confidence in courts, enhancing reliable fact-finding, and curbing judicial abuse of power. Nor is it simply that the people have already bought and paid for the right to know what their judges do with their office. Rather, it is the public record of judicial decisions that renders those decisions legitimate. Philosophers from Kant to Rawls have written treatises on why this is so, but one of our colonial forebears nailed it with only eight words: “Justice may not be done in a corner.”
How does secrecy play out in asbestos litigation ? In many ways, and they are not all covered here.. For prior examples of asbestos trust secrecy, go here (absence of material data about Manville Trust payments to the not sick), and here (Manville Trust withdrawing data previously made public under licensing agreements). Here's a new example that arises because of an opinion sent along by a friend out east when he enountered a new federal district court opinion that involves asbestos trusts.
According to the pro se complaint, a Mr. Palermo worked with asbestos-contiaing products while working for Halliburton, and "[o]n June 6, 2003, Palermo was posthumously diagnosed with mesothelioma "by a tribunal of asbestos experts who were part of the Extraordinary Claims Panel of the Manville Trust." (Am. Compl. P 17.) How odd is that? To me, it's quite odd since the complaint also alleges that Mr. Palermo had died back in 1966 of metastasis from "stomach cancer."
If true, the allegations indicate that a diagnosis was made some 37 years after death. One may also assume a payment was made by the Manville Trust. The complaint goes to on complain - unsuccessfully - that another trust would not make a payment.
So, what does this all mean in the larger context? It's fairly easy to think that Mr. Palermo may well have actually died of peritoneal mesothelioma due to asbestos-inhalation. And, surely there are arguments to be made for paying compensation whose deaths were wrongfully caused, regardless of the date of death, but those arguments have not succeeded when statutes of limitation are applied. So, for purposes of social policy decision-making, one does have to wonder how often claims of some age are made, how the post-death diagnosis was made (old tissue ? medical records? narrative?), and how much money is paid out each year by the trust for claims of this ilk.
Can answers be obtained? I don't know, but will send an email off to the Manville Trust and will let you know if I hear anything back.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Here are key excerpts from the opinion in Gail Garner v. DII Industries, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9583 (Feb 4. 2010).
"Viewing the allegations in the amended complaint as true, the following are the relevant facts for consideration of the present motion. The decedent, Angelo Palermo ("Palermo"), was a union insulation mason for twenty-nine years from 1937 through 1966 in the construction asbestos industry. He spray coated and handled asbestos-containing products while working for one or more of the Haliburton or Harbison-Walker entities. Palermo died on April 23, 1966, at the age of 51 years. (Am. Compl. PP 14 & 34.) His death certificate listed the immediate cause of death as acute liver failure due to "metastasis cancer due to primary stomach (place of origin)." (Am. Compl. PP 11-15.)
On June 6, 2003, Palermo was posthumously diagnosed with mesothelioma "by a tribunal of asbestos experts who were part of the Extraordinary Claims Panel of the Mansville Trust." (Am. Compl. P 17.) On April 4, 2006, Plaintiff filed a claim with DII Industries, LLC, and, the following day, filed a claim with the DII Trust, with regard to her father's death. Defendants eventually rejected the claims, and a pro bono evaluator confirmed Defendants' denial. (Am. Compl. PP 18-27.) (emphasis added)
Chapter 11 asbestos cases, and asbestos trusts, are noteworthy for a penchant for secrecy. The penchant for secrecy applies even though secrecy is perhaps the greatest antithesis of due process, and was an especially detested feature of Star Camber proceedings, as described here in simple terms and here at some length in a wonderfully easy to read but thorough 2009 law review article written by Stephen Wm. Smith, a United States Magistrate Judge in the Southern District of Texas, Houston division. See "Kudzu in the Courthouse: Judgments Made in the Shade," 3 Fed. Cts. L. Rev. # 2, 177 (2009).
Judge Smith explained the problems with secrecy, at 214:
“In our common-law tradition, the exercise of judicial power is an inherently public act. A court of record, by definition, is a court that acts on the record, placing its rulings in the public domain, whether by pronouncement in open court, handwriting on a parchment roll, typing on a docket sheet, or digital key-strokes on-line. It is not merely that publicity has many virtues—promoting public confidence in courts, enhancing reliable fact-finding, and curbing judicial abuse of power. Nor is it simply that the people have already bought and paid for the right to know what their judges do with their office. Rather, it is the public record of judicial decisions that renders those decisions legitimate. Philosophers from Kant to Rawls have written treatises on why this is so, but one of our colonial forebears nailed it with only eight words: “Justice may not be done in a corner.”
How does secrecy play out in asbestos litigation ? In many ways, and they are not all covered here.. For prior examples of asbestos trust secrecy, go here (absence of material data about Manville Trust payments to the not sick), and here (Manville Trust withdrawing data previously made public under licensing agreements). Here's a new example that arises because of an opinion sent along by a friend out east when he enountered a new federal district court opinion that involves asbestos trusts.
According to the pro se complaint, a Mr. Palermo worked with asbestos-contiaing products while working for Halliburton, and "[o]n June 6, 2003, Palermo was posthumously diagnosed with mesothelioma "by a tribunal of asbestos experts who were part of the Extraordinary Claims Panel of the Manville Trust." (Am. Compl. P 17.) How odd is that? To me, it's quite odd since the complaint also alleges that Mr. Palermo had died back in 1966 of metastasis from "stomach cancer."
If true, the allegations indicate that a diagnosis was made some 37 years after death. One may also assume a payment was made by the Manville Trust. The complaint goes to on complain - unsuccessfully - that another trust would not make a payment.
So, what does this all mean in the larger context? It's fairly easy to think that Mr. Palermo may well have actually died of peritoneal mesothelioma due to asbestos-inhalation. And, surely there are arguments to be made for paying compensation whose deaths were wrongfully caused, regardless of the date of death, but those arguments have not succeeded when statutes of limitation are applied. So, for purposes of social policy decision-making, one does have to wonder how often claims of some age are made, how the post-death diagnosis was made (old tissue ? medical records? narrative?), and how much money is paid out each year by the trust for claims of this ilk.
Can answers be obtained? I don't know, but will send an email off to the Manville Trust and will let you know if I hear anything back.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Here are key excerpts from the opinion in Gail Garner v. DII Industries, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9583 (Feb 4. 2010).
"Viewing the allegations in the amended complaint as true, the following are the relevant facts for consideration of the present motion. The decedent, Angelo Palermo ("Palermo"), was a union insulation mason for twenty-nine years from 1937 through 1966 in the construction asbestos industry. He spray coated and handled asbestos-containing products while working for one or more of the Haliburton or Harbison-Walker entities. Palermo died on April 23, 1966, at the age of 51 years. (Am. Compl. PP 14 & 34.) His death certificate listed the immediate cause of death as acute liver failure due to "metastasis cancer due to primary stomach (place of origin)." (Am. Compl. PP 11-15.)
On June 6, 2003, Palermo was posthumously diagnosed with mesothelioma "by a tribunal of asbestos experts who were part of the Extraordinary Claims Panel of the Mansville Trust." (Am. Compl. P 17.) On April 4, 2006, Plaintiff filed a claim with DII Industries, LLC, and, the following day, filed a claim with the DII Trust, with regard to her father's death. Defendants eventually rejected the claims, and a pro bono evaluator confirmed Defendants' denial. (Am. Compl. PP 18-27.) (emphasis added)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
