Click here to read the study.
For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 email@example.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational exposures,
Assuming an average latency of 42 years, the authors predict that incidence rates will peak in 2009 and that diagnoses will peak in 2014. However, they caution that ongoing use of chrysotile asbestos (which has been implicated but not conclusively established as a cause of mesothelioma) and the release of asbestos fibers from older buildings during demolition or renovation may slow the projected decline.
Epidemiological evidence has increasingly shown an association of all forms of asbestos (chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, actinolite, and anthophyllite) with an increased risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma. Although the potency differences with respect to lung cancer or mesothelioma for fibres of various types and dimensions are debated, the fundamental conclusion is that all forms of asbestos are “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1).
Although the mesothelioma incidence is anticipated to decline in the coming decades, it may not decrease to background risk levels given that chrysotile consumption has not been banned under the current legislation and that secondary asbestos exposure from the environment will likely continue. Nevertheless, the hypotheses generated from this ecologic study need further confirmation by subsequent analytic studies. The present study provides supportive evidence for an immediate and global ban on asbestos use.
The VA has indicated that exposed veterans may be eligible for governmental benefits including: Health Care Benefits, Disability Compensation Benefits, and other benefits including home loans, vocational rehabilitation and education.
"In our view, the judge's decision here to apply the dual persona doctrine is buttressed by the Supreme Court's pronoun-cement in Olivo, supra, 186 N.J. at 405, to impose a separate duty on employers for injuries to a worker's spouse caused by bystander exposure to the asbestos brought home on work clothes. That is, although Exxon could not be held liable to Bonnie based on her direct occupational exposure, it could be held liable pursuant to Olivo, based on her separate exposure to the asbestos brought home by John from his Exxon job."
"Thus, consideration of the relevant legal principles in light of the disputed evidence presented on the summary judgment motions leads us to the conclusion that there were genuine issues of material fact about the actual extent of Bonnie's and John's exposures to asbestos, which precluded summary judgment. Whether Exxon could be held liable pursuant to the dual persona doctrine require a jury determination. Thus, we affirm the judge's denials of summary judgment."