It is tempting to reject asbestos as a problem of the past. Most of its consumption was in the 1970s, and litigation began on asbestos ...
It is tempting to reject asbestos as a problem of the past. Most of its consumption was in the 1970s, and litigation began on asbestos more than half a century ago. Many manufacturers and major mining companies have disappeared for a long time.
However, asbestos litigation returned in the news.
In July 2018, the Johnson & Johnson Elementary Court ordered the US $ 4.69 billion not to warn customers that their children's powder contained asbestos, which occurs naturally in talcum powder. The company now faces thousands of such claims, and its actions declined in December 2018 in a report known to have polluted contamination. The company plans to challenge these cases and continue to fight them, but even if it wins in the end, its appearance raises the following question: Why is asbestos going on?
She has studied asbestos for decades and has written books on her dangers and surrounding policies. Problems related to asbestos or the substance itself will not disappear.
Stronger than steel, and possibly fatal.
One reason the problem persists is that there are still tons of asbestos left in our communities, a legacy when asbestos was assessed because of its wonderful commercial properties. They are fibers made of rock that are stronger than steel, but they are flexible enough to be woven into the fabric. It is water resistant, corrosion resistant, and flame retardant, as well as abundant and easy to extract.
Manufacturers found ways to add asbestos to everything from hair dryers to warships, surface tiles, modeling clay to children, auto parts and rocket silos. Asbestos is still legally used in the United States UU. For some purposes, despite efforts to ban it completely, like many other countries, including EU countries, Australia and dozens of other countries.
Scientists now know that exposure to asbestos fibers can be lethal, causing a number of deadly diseases, such as mesothelioma, aggressive cancer in the lining of the organs and the lining of the lungs with asbestos, and progressive scarring in the lungs. Exposure to asbestos can also cause pleural plaques, the fibrous thickness of the peritoneal membrane. This condition is asymmetrical and may not develop into serious diseases. But those exposed are facing years of uncertainty because many of the worst asbestos-related diseases can take decades to appear.
Asbestos may pose a threat to today's health. Because it is a metal, asbestos does not evaporate and its risks do not diminish over time. In any case, some asbestos products can become more dangerous because they become fragile and are likely to release fibers in the environment.
The asbestos fibers can also be released when they are disturbed, a fact that is tragically reflected in the terrorist attacks of September 11 when the collapse of the World Trade Center towers unleashed a dust cloud containing asbestos.
Finally, asbestos is seen as part of the natural landscape of some societies, and epidemiologists have found high rates of asbestos-related cancer in areas known to have deposits containing asbestos.
Thus, even if the United States followed the example of other countries and banned its use, health risks from asbestos would continue. According to this assessment, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that asbestos-related deaths continued worldwide, even in countries that had been banned in the early 1990s.
Judgments, as a result of policy?
The last reason for continuing litigation is political. Asbestos is a global problem, but the US response was different. While other countries have treated asbestos injuries through central benefit programs that combine cost and risk, the United States has relied far more on litigation.
Consideration of the Netherlands. During the 1970s and 1980s, Dutch workers suffered five to 10 times as many asbestos-related illnesses than American workers. Dutch labor law allows employers to sue their employers for workplace injuries. However, in the 1990s, there were 10 cases of asbestos in the Netherlands. During the same period, there were one in three civil cases filed in the Eastern Province of Texas concerning asbestos.
Dutch workers have not sued because they did not have to. They enjoyed health benefits and more comprehensive unemployment, deducted from any recovery in the courts.
US workers did not file a lawsuit at the beginning either. Instead, they asked for relief from compensation programs for state workers. But these programs are designed to compensate workers for painful injuries, such as broken arms and legs, and do not show occupational diseases slowly, such as mesothelioma and cirrhosis. As a result, these programs provided very limited relief.
Without rest, the lawyers moved
Leading lawyers entered the gap. Thanks to favorable decisions and the discovery of decades of corporate efforts to conceal the risks of their products, asbestos litigation procedures are becoming increasingly established. By early 2000, nearly 730,000 claims had been filed with more than 8400 companies in 75 of the 83 categories of economic activity in the US economy. Based on their early successes, lawyers created a broad infrastructure to support these claims, resulting in a complete cottage industry with extensive marketing campaigns and sophisticated strategies to find new claims. The final price was estimated at more than $ 325 billion dollars today.
At first, this litigation illustrated the heroic side of the American legal system: its resilience, its ability to innovate, and its ability to meet strong interests. However, over time, serious concerns have emerged from lawyers, policy experts, and judges about their costs and equity. Many studies have shown that the administrative costs of asbestos litigation accommodate more than half of all compensation paid. These costs may be acceptable if the asbestos claim has provided timely and consistent compensation to the victims, but payments have been irregular and slow.
At the same time, claims are often grouped into bankruptcy compensation agreements or large trust funds, where compensation varies and little individual legal proceedings are offered to claimants. Worse, asbestos litigation has been plagued by dubious practices and allegations of fraudulent practices that supersede the scrutiny of those who suffer the most and burden courts and corporations.
In light of these problems, judges, interest groups and members of both political parties repeatedly asked Congress to establish a national fund to compensate for asbestos injuries in accordance with other developed democracies. All these efforts have failed at the federal level for a variety of complex political reasons, which have frustrated commitments on who pays, how much, and for whom.
As a result, the confounding frequency in asbestos litigation will continue, as the asbestos problem will not disappear on its own. People who do not have adequate health insurance and social benefits will continue to suffer, and lawyers will continue to find ways to file claims. Just ask Johnson & Johnson.
COMMENTS