42 Years - A Professional Law Corporation - Helping Asbestos Victims Since 1974

Posts by: Steven Kazan

The Careful Investigation Required For Your Mesothelioma Case

mesothelioma caseIn theory, a law firm should do considerable investigation before it tells a client that it can take on a mesothelioma case. But there are some law firms that just want to get people to sign up with them. Then they’ll turn around and broker that case to someone else, because they have no real intention of doing any actual work involved in a mesothelioma case.

These businesses assume that if you have a mesothelioma diagnosis, there will be money in it for them from somewhere. Their attitude is, “We don’t care because we are going to get a third or half of the fees for no work.”

We do things differently at our asbestos law firm. Once a client calls to consult with me about a mesothelioma case it establishes a confidential attorney client relationship, whether or not they hire me. I firmly believe that I am ethically obligated to give them good advice and protect their best interests and their confidences.

We may know in the first phone conversation that someone has enough provable asbestos exposure for a mesothelioma case and who the likely culprits are. There are other mesothelioma cases that require extensive investigation before I can tell a client the case has value.

Here are five questions we consider:

1.       Is the mesothelioma diagnosis accurate? Nowadays it usually is since it is almost always based on a pathology report after a biopsy, and even a community hospital pathology department uses standard lab tests and often gets outside consultation.

2.       Can we show that there was asbestos exposure? Almost all the time we can. Sometimes people don’t remember where they were exposed to asbestos. I had a mesothelioma case involving an orthopedic surgeon who didn’t have a clue. After a couple hours of detailed interview, he remembered that one summer during college he worked at an oil refinery doing clean-up.

3.       Can we identify where and when the asbestos exposure took place, and figure out whose asbestos product it was? We explore a client’s work history and exposure history to see what evidence there is. A client might say, “My dad worked at the shipyard.” Or “I did drywall work.”

4.       Whose asbestos fiber was it? Not just who made the products that were used at that time and place, but how did the asbestos get there? Anyone in the chain of production and distribution from the mining company who dug up the asbestos fiber to the product manufacturer to the wholesaler to the local hardware store has liability for the asbestos product, and thus for the exposure.

5.        Is the case worth doing? That is something we will decide before we commit to doing it. The deciding factor is whether we will be able to get enough money from anyone for you to justify your time and energy. That requires some effort to determine.

Promising someone the moon and the stars and not being able to deliver is not a good thing, and the last thing a mesothelioma patient needs is to waste time and energy on a lawsuit with mesothelioma attorneys who can’t deliver what they promise, when time and energy are the patient’s most limited and precious resource. At Kazan Law, we are honest and conservative. We tell prospective clients the truth about what a case will take out of them, and what it will likely produce for them and the family. We aim to exceed our clients’ expectations. No one’s ever gotten mad at me for doing better than I told them we would.

Kazan Law Staff Runs For Justice

Kazan Law Run for Justice team members

Kazan Law staff all work very hard for our clients with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.  As you might guess, asbestos litigation is very demanding stressful work but work we firmly believe in. And to keep doing it as best we can, it is good for all of us to let off steam now and then.  And it is great for the teamwork of the firm when Kazan Law staff can do something fun all together.  It is especially wonderful when we can do fun activities that also benefit a good cause.

That’s exactly what some Kazan Law staff did recently when we had our very own Run for Justice Team participating in the 5th annual Oakland Running Festival. The Oakland Running Festival raises much-needed funds for the local community. In its first four years, according to official Running Festival information, it has generated an estimated $12 million in economic activity for the city of Oakland and $1 million for local charities.

As the Oakland Running Festival marathon began Sunday morning, according to a local newspaper report, the sun was just starting to come up and the air was cool — welcome weather for the 1,099 marathon runners who attempted the 26.2-mile course around the city.

Nearly 10,000 runners showed up to participate in the marathon, half-marathon, 5K or kids’ races. And among that happy throng of 10,000 was our own group of Kazan staff runners.  Those who crossed the finish line include:

5K: Adrian Elfenbaum (Settlement Administrator)

Half-Marathon: Gordon Greenwood (Partner), Caitlin McEldrew (Paralegal), Jazmin Solorzano (Legal Assistant)

Marathon Relay: Sophie Noero (WorkSafe employee), Matt Thiel (Associate), Tara Runyan (IT Director), Ny Kundidzora (Paralegal)

Marathon: Michael Stewart (Associate), Justin Bosl (Partner)

“Congratulations to everyone that came out yesterday to Run for Justice at the Oakland Running Festival. As always, it was a great event and it was great to see some Kazan t-shirts out there!”  Kazan Law partner and marathon race participant Justin Bosl said in an email to the staff.

“And thank you to everyone who volunteered for the event. Finally, thanks to anyone who came out to cheer us on.”

1976 News Clip Highlights 1st Wave of Asbestos Lawsuits in the Bay Area

 

asbestos lawsuits

If you were playing a trivia game and were asked, “What company is the one most associated with asbestos lawsuits?” The answer of course, would be Johns Manville.

But there was a time not too long ago when not many people aside from employees and shareholders knew the name Johns Manville.  And asbestos lawsuits were almost unheard of.  Workers did not think they would ever stand a chance of prevailing against a big company and their attorneys if they even got their asbestos lawsuits to court.  So big companies could use workers up like Kleenex and outright lie to them about the lethal health consequences of asbestos exposure.

Then in the 1970s, things began to change.  Due in part to the social movements of the late 1960s like the Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s Movement, the Environmental Movement, people began to feel they were empowered and had a voice. The first big wave of asbestos lawsuits began to emerge.

As we commemorate Kazan Law’s 40th anniversary this month, I came across a 1976 clipping from the San Francisco Chronicle about that first wave of asbestos lawsuits stemming from the Johns Manville plant in nearby Pittsburg, CA.  This was one of the first media stories about this landmark development.  I am proud to have been chosen as a young attorney to be on that case and interviewed for the article.

Workers at the Johns Manville plant were suing a former company physician on the grounds that he deliberately withheld information from the workers that they had asbestosis.   Here’s what I said to the reporter:

“We contend that the doctor was negligent and the company submitted the men to deliberate exposure,” said attorney Steven Kazan.”

“They went for years without telling the guys they had lung problems developing so they could be treated and their exposure stopped,” Kazan said bitterly.

This was my first brush with asbestos lawsuits, an area of law that was to become my life’s work. I recall feeling outraged at the time that anyone would violate all standards of human decency by causing the deaths of other humans for profit.  I filed my first Johns Manville case in 1974 and now 40 years later, I still feel the same way.

Kazan Law’s $27 Million Mesothelioma Verdict Makes National Law Journal’s Top 100 Verdicts for 2013

mesothelioma verdictHere at our asbestos law firm, when we are working with a client who is suffering from malignant mesothelioma due to unlawful asbestos exposure, that client is our focus.  Because of the terrible wrong done to them and their family, their time is limited. Their life has been cut short and we take it upon ourselves to work to the utmost of our ability to seek justice for them.  We do this work because we believe it needs to be done; not to pat ourselves on the back.  That is the furthest thing from our minds when we are working on behalf of someone losing their life to malignant mesothelioma.

So it is always gratifying to us at Kazan Law when the work we do on behalf of our clients is acknowledged by our peers.

I am proud to announce that our June 5, 2013 mesothelioma verdict which completed the award to plaintiffs Rose-Marie and Martin Grigg for a total of $27,342,500 in damages for Mrs. Grigg’s asbestos-caused malignant mesothelioma made The National Law Journal’s  elite list of Top 100 Verdicts for 2013. The mesothelioma verdict placed 74 out of 100 nationally and 12th out of 100 nationwide among personal injury/products liability cases brought on behalf of an individual.

The National Law Journal is a periodical that reports legal information of national importance to attorneys, including federal circuit court decisions, major verdicts and coverage of legislative issues and legal news. Its annual Top 100 Verdicts issue catalogs the top accomplishments of the plaintiff’s lawyers in the U.S.

Mrs. Grigg, was exposed to asbestos in the course of shaking out and washing her husband’s work clothing. Mrs. Grigg’s then husband was an insulator for a company that used Owens-Illinois, Inc. Kaylo brand insulation products from 1950-1958.

Mrs. and Mr. Grigg were represented by our attorneys Joseph D. Satterley, Andrea Huston, Ryan Harris and Michael Stewart.

Evidence introduced during trial showed that Owens-Illinois, Inc. knew that asbestos exposure could cause death as early as the 1930s and that test results on Kaylo showed that exposure to the asbestos in the product could cause fatal disease.

The jury awarded Mrs. Grigg $12,000,000 in damages for her pain and suffering, Mr. Grigg $4,000,000 in damages for his loss of consortium, and $342,500 in economic damages. The jury also levied an $11,000,000 punitive damages verdict against Owens-Illinois, Inc.

“If we live in a society where product manufacturers are not held responsible for products once those products leave their possession, the world we live in is a dangerous place,” Kazan Law partner Joseph D. Satterley said to the jury when he asked them to find justice for Mrs. and Mr. Grigg.

Kazan Law Proud to Continue Support for Philip A. Harley Memorial Mock Trial Competition

Moreau_team_50Here at Kazan Law our top priority is seeking justice for our clients who are asbestos exposure victims. A big part of doing that is taking a big picture approach that encompasses the past, the present, and the future.

We fight hard for our clients in the present but we hope there will be no victims of asbestos exposure in the future. In fact we hope for a future with fewer victims of any kind of crime and a better understanding of the laws that help us all create a more civil and equitable society.

Philip A. HarleyTo help forge that kind of future, our firm funds a very important educational activity in our local high schools called a “mock trial competition.” And in doing this we honor our firm’s past by dedicating the competition to the memory of our dear friend and partner Philip A. Harley. (1947-2009).

During his career, Phil was a dedicated attorney for victims of asbestos exposure and other catastrophic, toxic -related diseases and injuries. He believed his knowledge and skills were best used to assist those who have been the most severely impacted by corporate misconduct.  He always made a point of supporting consumer advocacy programs including trial-related education programs.

We are proud that the Alameda County Philip A.Harley Memorial Mock Trial Competition has become an annual testament to Phil’s legacy of justice and advocacy. The competition is a countywide high school criminal trial program designed to increase understanding of our judicial system and the processes necessary to create a just society. Student teams of ten to twenty students study a hypothetical case, conduct legal research, and receive individual coaching by volunteer attorneys in trial preparation, courtroom protocol, courtroom procedure, analytical skills, and communication skills.

Congratulations to American High School for taking first place at the Alameda County Philip A. Harley Memorial Mock Trial final competition. We are pleased to continue supporting this event in Phil’s honor.

FAIR Act Would Have Been Unfair to Asbestos Victims

12_27_05_Daily_JournalAs we celebrate Kazan Law’s 40th anniversary with “Throwback Thursday” posts about the firm’s history, I recall a time not too long ago when the firm almost ceased to exist.  Powerful corporate interests fueled a push for federal legislation that would have made all asbestos law firms extinct.  And Kazan Law, one of the best asbestos law firms in the US, would no longer have been able to advocate for mesothelioma patients and other asbestos victims whose lives have been devastated by being exposed to asbestos.

The 2005 legislation was cleverly named “The FAIR Act” – The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act – but it would have been profoundly unfair to those asbestos victims with a claim to bring against a company who had knowingly caused them to be exposed to asbestos.

The FAIR Act, if it had been enacted into law, would have prohibited injured asbestos victims from bringing asbestos claims against individual defendants.  They would have had to file asbestos claims with an Orwellian-sounding Office of Asbestos Disease Compensation. This Office would have administered a fund called the Asbestos Injury Claims Resolution Fund. A panel would have determined each victim’s compensation amount, if any. Victims who developed fatal asbestos related cancers such as mesothelioma, asbestosis, or lung cancer would have been limited to $1 million in compensation.  Totally inadequate.

Companies guilty of grave misdeeds and crimes against innocent people would have gotten off with a pittance.  And I, my partners and my entire staff would have been out of a job.

“I have threatened one of my partners that his new full-time job will be to teach me how to play golf,” I told a reporter for the San Francisco Daily Journal, a local legal newspaper, for an article about the proposed legislation at the time.  “I will probably retire.”

That was almost a decade ago.   The FAIR Act was an unfair bad idea and it was justifiably defeated. It never became law.  Kazan Law has gone on to win multi-million dollar verdicts for our clients, several in this past year. We remain engaged and impassioned about seeking justice for asbestos victims.  And I still haven’t needed to learn to play golf.

Read the December 27, 2005 article from the Daily Journal.

Who Can File an Asbestos Lawsuit?

asbestos lawsuitWho can sue for asbestos exposure?  The truth is just about anyone.  The more important question to ask is who can file an asbestos lawsuit and win?  Anyone can sign papers and pay a filing fee at a courthouse.  And if you want a lawyer, you can always find a lawyer who is willing to file a lawsuit.

Because asbestos exposure cases are usually handled on a contingency fee basis to refine the question even more you might ask who might have a claim of sufficient value to persuade a lawyer to take the case on a contingency?

The answer to that question depends on how a good a lawyer you want.

If the only lawyer who will take your case is one who is desperate for work and insists that you spend some of your own money to pay for costs, then the case may have only a slim chance of winning.

Instead of scraping the bottom of the barrel, you should seek the best law firm possible to handle your asbestos lawsuit.  Like Kazan Law. We have been asked to review thousands of asbestos exposure cases.  But we only accept the ones we know from experience present a solid case.

There are two types of asbestos lawsuit cases.  Both require a medical diagnosis of an asbestos-related disease such as mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining in the lung or abdominal cavities.

  1. Personal  Injury – The personal injury asbestos lawsuit is brought by someone who is ill due to asbestos exposure.  It is almost always men who develop mesothelioma from occupational asbestos exposure.  But their wives and children sometimes develop mesothelioma from inhaling microscopic asbestos fibers the worker unknowingly brought home on his clothes and tools, and can also file personal injury lawsuits.As part of a personal injury case, the spouse can also sue for loss of consortium. That means the deprivation of the benefits of a spousal relationship due to injuries caused by the asbestos exposure.
  2. Wrongful Death – After the person who suffered due to asbestos exposure dies, a whole new series of claims can be brought for wrongful death.  In California, a potential claimant is anyone who depended on the deceased for more than half their support.  In addition to spouses and children, it could include grandkids and/or elderly parents. In California each heir can bring their own claims.

Factors we use in evaluating potential cases include:

  • the strength of the diagnosis
  • the evidence of asbestos exposure – when, where and to whose asbestos-containing materials
  • potential for recovering monetary damages

If you have any questions please see the the FAQs section of our website or call us at 888-887-1238.

Why You Need a POLST if You Have Malignant Mesothelioma

POLSTDoctor’s office forms, hospital test forms, insurance forms. When you have malignant mesothelioma, you get handed lots of clipboards and wind up filling out lots of forms.  But there is one form you need to make your sure you fill out.  That’s the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment known as the POLST.

As a patient with malignant mesothelioma, there are many things in your life that are not in your control.  But the POLST helps give you control over one very important thing – your medical care.  The POLST also helps you talk with your healthcare team and your loved ones about your choices.  It can help prevent you from receiving unwanted or ineffective medical treatment.  In this way, the POLST can help spare your family the anguish of not knowing what type of medical procedures to say yes or no to. It makes sure that your wishes are known and honored.

The decisions documented on the POLST form include whether to:

  • Attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation,
  • Administer antibiotics and IV fluids,
  • Use a ventilator to help with breathing, and
  • Provide artificial nutrition by tube

Where can I get a POLST form?

You can request the form from your doctor. The form can also be found at www.caPOLST.org

Is the POLST required by law?

Filling out a POLST form is entirely voluntary, but as of 2009, California law requires that the physician orders in a POLST be followed by health care providers.

Does the POLST form replace the Advance Care Directive?

The POLST form complements an Advance Directive and is not intended to replace that document. You still need an Advance Directive to appoint a legal health care decision-maker.

What happens to my POLST form after it is completed and signed?

The original POLST form should stay with you at all times.

  • In a hospital, your POLST will be in your medical record or file.
  • At home, place your POLST in a visible location so it can be found easily by emergency medical personnel – usually on a bedside table or on the refrigerator

Some Things Still Ring True After Four Decades of Asbestos Litigation

Asbestos Litigation Steven Kazan 1985This month Kazan Law celebrates four decades of obtaining justice for asbestos victims.  To commemorate the occasion, we are taking a look at the firm’s history to participate in our own unique way in social media’s Throwback Thursday. In my last post, I talked about how I founded Kazan Law in March 1974 when as a young attorney I found myself representing dying workers. They had been exposed to asbestos because of a company whose name now has become synonymous with asbestos litigation:  Johns Manville.  It was a landmark case that set a legal precedent and launched me on my journey of handling over a thousand of asbestos litigation cases.

In the firm’s archives, I found an interview I gave to the California edition of the Daily Journal, a legal community newspaper, in 1985. Some of what I said then about asbestos litigation still rings true now.  So for Throwback Thursday, here are several excerpts:

Working with asbestos-related clients is both depressing and rewarding, according to Oakland attorney Steven Kazan who heads one of the Bay Area’s major plaintiff’s asbestos practices.  “As much as you try to retain a sense of detachment, you get involved,” said Kazan, the founder of Kazan & McClain. But helping to obtain financial security for asbestos victims dying of chronic disease is rewarding.

Still true.  Except today it is Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood, A Professional Law Corporation.

Kazan said his firm will look at about 1,800 possible cases this year, 1,000 of them asbestos-related and take only about 100 of them, the article states.

Factors Kazan uses in evaluating potential cases include:

  • the degree of disability

  • the evidence of asbestos exposure

  • potential monetary damages

Also still true.

Kazan said he sometimes advises people with minor asbestos-related problems to wait and see if their illness progresses to avoid settling for an amount of money that will not cover their medical expenses if their condition worsens.

Still good advice.

Although exposure to asbestos has greatly decreased due to public awareness of its dangers, may people have been exposed but not yet become ill and Kazan predicted that he won’t have to change his practice much in the near future.

“For the next 10 to 15 years there will be a substantial volume of asbestos litigation,” Kazan said.

Sadly, this also has proved to be true.  In fact, it’s been more than 25 years and the need to help obtain financial security for asbestos victims continues to drive myself and my associates forward in our work more than ever.

Kazan Law Celebrates 40 Years of Fighting for Mesothelioma Victims

Kazan Law

Kazan Law in 1991. Partners Steven Kazan (seated) and David McClain (standing third from right) remain.

 

This week our firm Kazan Law, one of the top asbestos litigation firms in the US, celebrates its 40th year fighting for mesothelioma victims and winning precedent-setting verdicts.

To commemorate the occasion here’s a look back to how Kazan Law began.

Forty years ago, the workers at the Johns-Manville plant in Lompoc, California didn’t know why; they only knew that people were sick and dying.  A lot of them.  Colleagues they had worked with for many years.  So the labor union representative collected death certificates of those who had died in the last five years and wrote a letter to someone he thought could help them.  That someone was me.

The year was 1974. Telephones were attached to walls, a computer took up a whole room and companies that produced asbestos-containing products were getting away with murder.  Employees exposed to asbestos on the job were dying from asbestosis and malignant mesothelioma.

And in Oakland, California, 40 years ago, I had just hung out my shingle.  Kazan Law then was just me and a secretary. But I had all ready become known for having expertise in litigating complex medical and scientific issues in other kinds of cases, and had worked with a workers compensation attorney who was hired to get workers compensation benefits for some men who worked at the Pittsburg CA Johns Manville asbestos products plant.

Then, in 1974, shortly after going out on my own, I was asked to help by doing the civil law suits for those plant workers.  I won a precedent-setting suit for Reba Rudkin, who developed asbestosis after working for 29 years at Johns-Manville’s plant in Pittsburg, California. Following this case, I represented over one hundred asbestos-affected workers from Johns-Manville plants.

In 1982, I won a $150,000 verdict for Bob Speake, one of the workers from the Johns-Manville plant in Pittsburg in a test case trial ordered by the Superior Court in Contra Costa County, CA.  This case is regarded as a “threshold verdict” because it created the opportunity for punitive damage verdicts against Johns-Manville. Months later, just as we were getting ready to go to settlement conferences on a large group of those cases in advance of a fall 1982 trial of a group of these cases, Johns –Manville filed for bankruptcy court protection. I eventually had 393 cases pending against the company which we resolved with the Trust Fund set up after that bankruptcy.

Today Kazan Law is still headquartered in Oakland California. Kazan, McClain, Satterley  & Greenwood now has 22 attorneys, including me.  As Kazan Law celebrates its 40th anniversary this month, the firm continues to excel at pursuing justice for mesothelioma victims and others exposed to asbestos.  Kazan Law daily puts its 40 years of experience in pioneering asbestos lawsuits and setting precedents to work for its clients today.  An $11 million verdict was just announced last month in Kazan Law’s wrongful death suit on behalf of mesothelioma victim Gordon Bankhead’s wife and children.

I am proud that Kazan Law has remained at the forefront of asbestos litigation in California and nationally.  Since 1974, we have represented thousands of people – those suffering from mesothelioma and their families.  We treasure our reputation as pioneers in asbestos litigation who are among the most experienced mesothelioma lawyers in the United States.

As we celebrate our 40th anniversary, we recognize our history and its significance in asbestos litigation landmarks  and celebrate our current accomplishments as we face the future.

Get a Free Case Evaluation
The owner of this website has made a commitment to accessibility and inclusion, please report any problems that you encounter using the contact form on this website. This site uses the WP ADA Compliance Check plugin to enhance accessibility.