Asbestos Manufacture Garlock Files for Bankruptcy Protection

Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, a former manufacturer of asbestos products (The Anchor Packing Company), announced that it has taken a step toward a permanent resolution of asbestos-related personal injury claims against the company. Today, Garlock filed a voluntary petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina in Charlotte to establish a trust to resolve all current and future asbestos claims against Garlock under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.


Asbestos has been used for insulation properties. It is a known cancer causing agent and responsible for causing asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.


For the past 35 years Garlock has defended its liability in asbestos claims. Garlock has processed more than 900,000 asbestos claims to conclusion (including judgments, settlements and dismissals) and, together with its insurers, has paid over $1.4 billion in settlements and judgments and over $400 million in fees and expenses.


Garlock manufactured asbestos containing gaskets, pipe joints, values and other equipment.


Garlock will operate in the ordinary course under court protection from asbestos claimants while in the claims resolution process available under Chapter 11. All pending litigation against Garlock will be stayed as the company seeks to develop and implement a court-approved plan to permanently resolve all asbestos-related claims. Garlock plans to negotiate with representatives of asbestos claimants to establish a trust to pay all valid claims. Absent a negotiated resolution, Garlock intends to ask the court to determine the amount necessary to fund the trust.


Click here to read more about asbestos related disease and claims for benefits. For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com  have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered asbestos related illnesses.

Oil Spill Workers Exposed to Hazards

The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued safety precautions to be taken by workers who are responding to the British Petroleum oil spill.

The original workers' compensation acts of 1911 did not consider occupational illnesses and diseases compensable events. Through the years that has changed and those conditions are now compensable in most jurisdictions. The American legal system, which was based upon British common law, rapidly developed a need to adopt a mechanism for the delivery of benefits to injured workers during the early 20th century. The initial workers' compensation statutes adopted by numerous states were based upon the British statute which provided for compensation benefits in cases in which traumatic accidents had occurred but not in cases in which occupational disease was involved. While the British statute was amended by 1906 to include occupational disease, none of the American statutes reflected this modification at the time of their enactment.

"Marine oil spill responders face a variety of health and safety hazards, including fire and explosion, oxygen deficiency, exposure to carcinogens and other chemical hazards, heat and cold stress, and safety hazards associated with working around heavy equipment in a marine environment. A full discussion of these hazards is beyond the scope of this training booklet, but a brief list of hazards and their known health consequences is shown in Table 1 [see below]. Your workers should be trained to anticipate and control exposure to the hazards associated with their assigned duties.

"To determine acceptable levels of exposure and train your workers about them, consult OSHA's exposure limits in Subparts G and Z. If OSHA does not regulate an exposure of concern, consult the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Recommended Exposure Limits (RELs) and Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) levels. If neither OSHA nor NIOSH has established a limit, consult the American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs) for chemical, physical, and biological agents. You may use a more protective limit than OSHA's if one has been established and plan your controls accordingly. Material Safety Data Sheets from the product manufacturer may provide useful information for worker training.

"Additional Hazards Marine oil spill responders need training to work safely around these and other potential hazards. You should decide which hazards apply to your operations.

• Biological (e.g., plants, animals, insects, remediation materials)
• Drowning
• Noise
• Electricity
• Slips and Trips
• Biohazardous debris (e.g., syringes on shoreline)
• Ergonomic Stresses (e.g., repetitive strain, low back pain)
• Sunburn
• Confined Spaces
• Underwater Diving
• Falls
• Unguarded Equipment
• Cranes
• Fatigue
• Vehicles (e.g., aircraft, boats, cars, trucks)
• Cutting and Welding
• Fire and Explosion
• Degreasers
• Heat or Cold Stress
• Dispersants
• In-Situ Burning Particles

Hazards of exposure include the following:

To read more about petroleum exposure and workers' compensation.

Click here for more information on how Jon L Gelman can assist you in a claim for workers' Compensation claim benefits. You may e-mail Jon  Gelman or call 1-973-696-7900.

Read the OSHA Informational Booklet.

CMS Claims No Statute of Limitations May Exist in a Recovery Action

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have filed a reply brief in US v Strickler, et al, now pending in the US District Court in Alabama, alleging that the government’s recovery action was valid and filed within the six years Statute of Limitations. “The answer is clear: the United States’ claim, which seeks reimbursement based on a statutory right to recover monies conditionally paid by Medicare, is contractual and implied in law. Therefore, the six-year limitations period applies.”

The government states that the question for the question is whether the recovery action falls within a contract express or implied in law or fact, which subjects the United States to the six-year limitations period in § 2415(a), or in tort where a 3 year statute would apply.

Alternatively the government advances the proposition that if the could determines that none of the above categories apply then no statute of limitations would apply. “As noted in the United States’ Omnibus Response (at 20 n.10), if the Court were to decide that this claim falls into none of these categories, then no limitations period applies. See, e.g., United States v. Palm Beach Gardens, 635 F.2d 337, 341 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding that cause of action under the Hill-Burton Act was neither tort nor contract, and therefore the United States could pursue its cause of action at any time).”

Should the six year statitute apply, this it would accrue when, “…MSP claims accrue when the United States can “demonstrate” that a primary plan, or an entity that received money from a primary plan, was “required or responsible” to make payments under a primary plan. 42 U.S.C.§ 1395y(b)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii); see also Glover v. Liggett Group, Inc., 459 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 2006) (noting that defendants have no obligation to reimburse Medicare until the defendants’ responsibility to pay a beneficiary’s expenses has been demonstrated).”

Complaint: The United States of America v James J. Sticker, et al. Docket 1:09-cv-02423, filed 12.02.2009

Click here to read more about Medicare Secondary Payer Act and workers' compensation.

Breast Cancer Linked to Occupational Exposures

A recent article in Occupational and Environmental Medicine causally links certain occupational exposures to breast cancer. 

"Odds ratios (ORs) were increased for the usual risk factors for breast cancer and, adjusting for these, risks increased with occupational exposure to several agents, and were highest for exposures occurring before age 36 years. Increased ORs were found for each 10-year increment in duration of exposure, before age 36 years (OR_<36), to acrylic fibres (OR_<36=7.69) and to nylon fibres (OR_<36=1.99). For oestrogen-positive and progesterone-negative tumours, the OR doubled or more for each 10-year increase in exposure to monoaromatic hydrocarbons, and to acrylic and rayon fibres. The OR_<36 also doubled for exposure to organic solvents that metabolise into reactive oxygen species, and to acrylic fibres. A threefold increase was found for oestrogen- and progesterone-positive tumours, with exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from petroleum sources.

"Certain occupational exposures appear to increase the risk of developing postmenopausal breast cancer, although some findings might be due to chance or to undetected bias. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that breast tissue is more sensitive to adverse effects if exposure occurs when breast cells are still proliferating. More refined analyses, adjusting for hormonal receptor subtypes and studies focusing on certain chemical exposures are required to further our understanding of the role of chemicals in the development of breast cancer.

Occup Environ Med 2010;67:263-269 doi:10.1136/oem.2009.049817

To read more about occupational disease and workers' compensation click here.

Employer Responsible For Payment of Counsel Fees On Penalty

"... a judge of compensation must award counsel fees in addition to a penalty when an employer fails to make timely payment of temporary disability benefits and the appropriate standard to fashion the reasonable attorneys' fees allowed by statute. We hold that an award of attorneys' fees is mandatory and the judge of compensation is not limited by the statutory formula governing fee awards following an award of benefits. See N.J.S.A. 34:15-64.

"...a petitioner who resorts to section 28.1 to force payment of temporary disability benefits receives not only the 25% penalty but also reasonable legal fees incurred "as a result of and in relation to [the] delay[ ] or refusal[ ]." The fee is not subject to the 20% limitation of section 64, and shall be calculated in accordance with the standard factors for constructing a fee award.


Petitioner was represented by NJ Super Lawyer, David Tykulsker, Esq.

KUBRA QUERESHI - v. CINTAS CORPORATION, 

--- A.2d ----, 2010 WL 2132441 (N.J.Super.A.D.), Decided My 28, 2010. Click here to read more about penalties. Click here to read more about workers' compensation claims.

Amended Complaint Filed in CMS Recovery Action Against Law Firms

The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) [The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)] has filed a first amended complant Stricker case now pending in the US District Court in Alabama for recovery of Medicare Secondary Payments (MSP). 

The recovery action is based upon an alleged failure of the attorneys to honor a claim that CMS had filed in an underlying bankruptcy claim filed in 2003. The settlement provided for distributions to be paid from 2004 through 2013 by the defendants.

The initial complaint alleges that the US may initiate a claim for recovery of Medicare conditional payments when it "learns that payment 'has been or could have be made' under a liability insurance policy of plan. 42 C.F.R. Sec 411,24(b)."

The case is now under a briefing schedule for a pending Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants. Plaintiff's response is due May 27, 2010 and the Defendant's reply is due June 10, 2010.

Complaint: The United States of America v James J. Sticker, et al. Docket 1:09-cv-02423, filed 12.02.2009

Click here to read more about Medicare Secondary Payer Act and workers' compensation.

Federal Challenge to NJ Workers Compensation Delays Unsuccessful

The claim of an injured who brought a Federal Court action pro se for “unwarranted delays” of his NJ workers’ compensation claim was dismissed by a Federal Court. The action was based on a violation of: The Americans with Disabilities Act, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 for violation of the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.






The worker suffered an alleged work related accident on January 29, 2008 as an employee of NJ Transit. He alleged that the Judge of Compensation from October 24, 2008 through January 7, 2010, on numerous occasions imposed delays through cancellation or postponement of his hearings.






The Court held that the Younger Abstention Doctrine, that prohibits unwarranted federal interference in an ongoing state judicial proceeding, bars the claims. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The doctrine is imposed when there is an ongoing state proceeding that involves an important state interest and the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise any constitutional issues. O’Neill v. City of Philadelphia, 32 F.3d 785 (3rd Cir. Pa. 1944).






The legislative intent of the Workers Compensation Act, originally enacted in 1911, was to provide a summary proceeding through an administration system utilizing the concepts of a no-fault system. The compensation program has been severely challenged over the decades by a growing burden of collateral and complex issues that now need resolution as part of the compensation process. Nationally, the state administered systems have become critically impaired by the growing state economic difficulties that have resulted in the availability of fewer resources to operate a system whose responsibilities and magnitude of demands are constantly increasing.






Townsend v. The Hon. Peter J. Calderone and the Hon. William Lake, in their official capacity as members of Labor and Workforce Development Workers’ Compensation, Civil Action No. 09-3303 (GEB), 2010 WL 19999588 (D.N.J.) Slip Copy, Unpublished Opinion.






To read more about delay and workers' compensation.


Click here for more information on how Jon L Gelman can assist you in a claim for workers' Compensation claim benefits. You may e-mail Jon Gelman or call 1-973-696-7900.