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

asbestos litigation

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why Choosing an Asbestos Attorney is the Most Important Financial Decision You’ll Ever Make

asbestos attorneyLast summer I received an honor from Kazan Law client Debbie Clemmons, who lost her beloved husband Randy Clemmons to mesothelioma. She honored me by asking me to write a chapter for her new book about her family’s experience with mesothelioma, “In His Grace, Grappling with Mesothelioma: The Randy Brady Story”, available on Amazon . And she kindly credits me as a co-author.  Now I am going to honor Debbie and Randy Clemmons by sharing with you the information she prompted me to write.

Selecting an asbestos attorney to represent you and your family is the most important financial decision you will ever make.

It is a more important decision than even buying a home.  Your home could potentially yield you a couple of hundred thousand dollars in return on investment if property values skyrocket in your neighborhood.  But an asbestos case properly handled by a top quality asbestos attorney from a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos can be worth millions to you and your family.

Money cannot replace a person.  But money can prevent additional unnecessary suffering on the part of the family by paying the bills. It also helps give you and your family a sense of justice.  A great harm was done to you and a good asbestos attorney can make sure that those responsible are held accountable, and that the family’s financial security is guaranteed.

Your medical care expenses and the loss of earnings can be compensated with substantial settlements if you choose your asbestos attorney carefully.  But what’s more, you could potentially – as many of my firm’s clients choose to do – set aside a portion of the money you receive for mesothelioma medical research, and we will be honored to contribute to that effort through our firm’s charitable foundation.

You could support a charitable trust to help fund medical research seeking to find a cure and better treatment for mesothelioma.  You could help create a future where possibly no one will suffer from the debilitating effects and losses of this disease.  This would be money that would never go towards this important cause unless someone like you puts it there.  And this would only be possible if you work with an asbestos attorney who is experienced and willing to fight for you every inch of the way, not just take the easy way out and settle for a minimal amount.

Again, this is the most crucial financial decision you will ever make in your life. Getting it wrong could harm your chance of providing your family with financial security for after you’re gone.

Pneumo Abex Corporation – A History of Asbestos Death and Disease

Pneumo AbexWhen I tell people that I am an attorney who seeks justice for those who have been exposed to asbestos, some people react with surprise. “Exposed to asbestos?” they ask.  “Does that still happen?  Is anyone exposed to asbestos anymore?”

Sadly yes. Thousands of people have been exposed to asbestos in the decades since it has become common knowledge about the fatal damage that being exposed to asbestos causes to the lungs. People are being exposed to asbestos right now.  I wish this wasn’t true.

But there are two types of people in this world.  There are people who try to do well by doing good. And unfortunately there are people who will do anything for money. Even if it gets innocent people killed. And that is how people get exposed to asbestos.

Consider the Pneumo Abex Corporation.  Founded in 1928 in Portsmouth, Virginia as the American Brake Shoe and Foundry, Pneumo Abex produced asbestos-containing products until 1987.

Gordon Bankhead worked with Pneumo Abex brake linings from 1965 to 1999 servicing and repairing vehicles at an Oakland, CA shipping company. He helped inspect, replace and grind asbestos-containing brakes. In doing this, he breathed deadly asbestos dust. He died from mesothelioma in 2011 at age 68.

An Alameda County, California jury returned an $11 million verdict in an asbestos wrongful death suit (Emily Bankhead, Tammy Bankhead, and Debbie Bankhead Meiers v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG12632899) against Pneumo Abex LLC on January 15, 2014. Kazan Law partner David McClain represented the Bankhead family. This follows a January 2011 verdict assessing punitive damages against Phuemo Abex LLC of $9 million along with compensatory damages for Mr. Bankhead’s pain and suffering and for his wife Emily’s suffering as she watched his disease progress and take his life.

Evidence our firm brought forward in the Bankhead case and an earlier case (Robert Frank Smith and Mary Lou Smith v. Pneumo Abex LLC, Los Angeles County Superior Court No. BC396072) proved that Pneumo Abex knew of the deadly health effects of breathing asbestos dust since at least the 1940s, but that Pneumo Abex did not begin warning  customers of those effects until years after their customers’ employees like Mr. Bankhead and Mr. Smith were exposed to the asbestos-containing brakes it made and sold. In fact, Pneumo Abex was involved in medical studies on the health effects of asbestos during the 1930s and 1940s and its medical director was a frequent speaker on asbestos health hazards during the 1940s.

The company knew by then that asbestos killed. By the 1950s they knew it caused lung cancer and by 1963 they knew it caused mesothelioma. Despite its knowledge of the hazards of asbestos, Pneumo Abex continued to sell asbestos-containing brakes until 1987 without warning its victims of the dangers of asbestos or the risk of fatal cancer.

Scientist Secretly Associated with Asbestos Industry May Help Weaken Asbestos Laws

asbestos lawsCreating asbestos laws depends on rigorous honest scientific information.  In order for asbestos laws to protect people, lawmakers need reliable scientific evidence about the harm asbestos exposure does to people exposed to this highly toxic substance.

New stricter asbestos laws and better regulations regarding workplace and product safety to prevent asbestos exposure often hinge on testimony from scientific experts in medicine, epidemiology and toxicology.  When leading scientists allow themselves to become corrupted by money from industries with vested interest in weaker rather than stronger asbestos laws, public health suffers.  Individual people suffer.  They become very sick and die because asbestos laws in their country failed to protect them.

The outcome of asbestos court cases can also depend on reliable scientific evidence about asbestos because courts and juries need to know the facts to determine whether asbestos laws were violated.

We have reported here about university scientists in the U.S., Scotland and Canada who are accused of selling out to the asbestos industry.  Now, new evidence points to a prominent European scientist who is alleged to also have been swayed by asbestos industry bribes.

What is most disturbing is that the scientist in question, Paolo Boffetta, is expected to become the next head of France’s leading epidemiology institute, the Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health (CESP).  This would greatly increase his influence over France’s asbestos laws and regulations.

Kathleen Ruff, an international anti-asbestos advocate based in Canada, reports that Boffetta was the lead author of an industry-friendly article, Estimating the asbestos-related lung cancer burden from mesothelioma mortality, in the British Journal of Cancer.

 

The article concludes, “… that the mesothelioma-producing potential of chrysotile is low and thus the number of mesothelioma deaths will be too unstable to be used to estimate the lung cancers caused by it.”

Bofetta submitted the article under the auspices of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).  Bofetta, along with the other authors, declared “no conflict of interest”.

Yet at the same time that he was co-writing IARC’s article, Boffetta reportedly was being paid by an Italian asbestos company to help it defeat charges of criminal negligence, causing the deaths of a dozen workers who died from mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos used at the company’s Montefibre factory in Italy.

Keep in mind that the IARC is the cancer agency of the World Health Organization.  So this chain of events is like discovering that the National Cancer Institute of NIH has been infiltrated and corrupted by the asbestos industry.

Bofetta testified in support of the company’s argument that if workers had been exposed to asbestos in the distant past, it did not matter if they were subsequently exposed to asbestos. He claimed that repeated, subsequent doses of asbestos do not cause further harm to workers so there should be no consequences to the company for having continued to expose its workers to asbestos over the ensuing decades.

Italian epidemiologist Dario Mirabelli noted according to Ruff’s report that Boffetta considered “a very limited number of studies and the results of those that were considered, were selectively reported. For example, they cite our most recent article on mortality among workers in the Eternit plant in Casale Monferrato, but they do not cite our main result, which is that mesothelioma mortality is directly proportional to the duration of exposure asbestos.”

So in other words, the fox can’t be trusted to guard the henhouse.

Chevron Punished for Misconduct in Asbestos Exposure Case

asbestos exposure caseYesterday I wrote about the order Kazan Law obtained punishing Union Oil for not producing its corporate witness to testify about its past wrong-doing toward asbestos victims. On the same day as Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee of the Alameda County Superior Court issued that order, she also punished Union Oil’s parent company, Chevron, for similar misconduct in an asbestos exposure case. Judge Lee granted Kazan Law partner Justin Bosl’s request to sanction Chevron $1,060 in the asbestos exposure case of Patricia and Billy Joe Sendle.

Billy Joe Sendle was a longtime welder for PG&E in Richmond, Merced, and Fairfield, California. During his work he encountered an asbestos pipe-coating called Somastic, which was developed and licensed by Chevron. He brought the asbestos dust home on his clothing and person. His wife, Patricia, was exposed to that dust, especially when doing his laundry. She now has mesothelioma. Chevron delayed producing its corporate witness for months, resulting in Judge Lee’s order sanctioning it. We hope Chevron will produce a witness soon for this asbestos exposure case to answer for its actions in developing and selling a deadly product.

Related postJudge Orders Monetary Sanctions Against Union Oil

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.