Understanding Your Risk of Mesothelioma
Mesothelioma is a vicious type of cancer that most commonly attacks the membrane lining of the lungs, but it can also affect the heart and other areas of the body. Currently, there is no cure for mesothelioma. The people most at risk for developing mesothelioma are those who work in industries that use the building material asbestos. Eighty percent of all mesothelioma cases can be directly linked to asbestos exposure. Commonly affected professions include construction workers, plumbers, asbestos miners, military personnel, ship builders, and car mechanics.
Some people are exposed to asbestos through their environment when asbestos laced products breakdown in buildings. When asbestos is present in the environment and inhaled, the fine particles lodge in the lining of the lungs and settle there. Statistically, between two and 10 percent of people who are exposed to asbestos at some point develop mesothelioma in their lungs later in life.
A secondary risk factor for developing mesothelioma is smoking. Although smoking is not a direct causal factor, smokers who are exposed to asbestos have double the risk of mesothelioma and increased risk of asbestos lung cancer by as much as 50 to 90 percent. It is possible that smoking creates the conditions that make it easier for asbestos to become embedded in the lung lining, leading to inflammation. Other secondary less common causes of mesothelioma are polio vaccines, radiation from X-rays, and exposure to zeolites, simian virus 40 (SV 40) and erionite.
Asbestos was Commonplace
Between 1940 and 1978, asbestos was widely in use in many different forms, though after the toxic nature of asbestos was discovered, it was banned for general use. According to the National Institute of Health (NIH), it is possible that as many as 11 million people have been exposed to asbestos. Even now in the United States people are still being exposed, putting them at risk of developing mesothelioma.
Mesothelioma takes many years to show up in the body – symptoms may first appear as many as 20 to 50 years after exposure occurs. There are four different types of mesothelioma, and pleural mesothelioma, which affects the lungs, is the most common type. Between 70 and 90 percent of all mesothelioma cases are pleural. Between 10 and 30 percent of cases are stomach or peritoneal mesothelioma. Cases affecting the heart, known as pericardial mesothelioma, comprise approximately one percent of all cases. Testicular mesothelioma is very rare and accounts for less than one percent of cases.
Because of the direct link between asbestos and mesothelioma, experts advise that there is no level of asbestos exposure that is considered safe and acceptable.
Delaware Mesothelioma Lawyers at Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A. Fight for Victims of Asbestos Exposure
If you or someone you love has developed mesothelioma after asbestos exposure in the workplace, we can help. The Delaware mesothelioma lawyers at Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A. have a proven track record helping workers suffering from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Call us today at 302-656-5445 to schedule a free consultation about your case, or contact us online. From our offices in Wilmington and Georgetown, we serve clients throughout upstate and downstate Delaware.
Cancer in Delaware: The Industrial Impact
Recently, the News Journal published an article about Delaware’s high lung cancer rate: the state ranks 17th in the nation for the number of men suffering from the disease and 3rd for women.
The article does point out that Delaware’s cancer rates have improved: in the 1990s Delaware’s cancer death rate was second in the country, but it is now 14th.
What is to blame for the Delaware’s high cancer rate?
According to the article smoking is the reason – about 20 percent of Delawareans still smoke. What the article fails to address is that many other factors can contribute to a state cancer’s rate.
Other factors include the presence of heavy industry in the state. For years, deadly products such as asbestos and benzene were used throughout Delaware, often at companies that were among the largest employers in the state. Even for those who did not work directly with these products, they often had secondhand exposure from contact with friends and family and also through environmental exposure (in the air and water).
Delaware was host to two companies who used massive amounts of asbestos in the manufacture of various products: Haveg in Marshallton and Amoco in New Castle. From the 1930’s to 1980, these plants used tons of raw asbestos that circulated freely around the working areas and blew out of windows into the community.
Several years ago the News Journal published a feature on several generations of one family that was devastated by cancer caused by asbestos at the Haveg plant. Many Delawareans have filed cases against asbestos manufacturers or have filed workers compensation actions after being diagnosed with cancer from asbestos. Many of these individuals never smoked in their lives.
Utah is another case in point that smoking is not necessarily the only factor that contributes to a state’s cancer rate.
Utah has the highest percentage of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) of any state in the country. Mormon theology forbids the use of tobacco, hence Utah has the lowest percentage of tobacco users of any state.
Despite this, Utah has an incredibly high cancer, due in part to the number of individuals who work in heavy industry, particularly uranium mines.
Not only have former miners gotten sick and died, but those lived near the mines, including many children have developed diseases like leukemia and lung cancer and ultimately died. Thousands of abandoned uranium mines still remain throughout the state.
So, while smoking certainly contributes to a state’s cancer rate, it is by far not the only factor.
It is too convenient for industry to blame the victim, the dying cancer patient, and ignore their contribution. Improvements in public health require more than simply changing personal lifestyles – corporate lifestyles also need to change, placing human health needs before profits.
A Historical Overview of Asbestos, Including the Risks it Poses Today
This recent article from the New Republic highlights the worldwide use of asbestos. The article also demonstrates that those in charge of asbestos companies knew the dangers of asbestos but downplayed the risks. The article highlights that although asbestos is not as commonly used today, it still causes the death of thousands annually.
Legislation to Be Introduced to Limit Victim’s Rights to Access to Courts
Two pieces of legislation that will be going to a vote the week of November 11 could adversely affect victim’s rights.
FACT. Asbestos companies and their supporters are using their political influence to pass a new bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. The “Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act” (“FACT”) is going to a vote the week of November 11. This bill will delay and, in some cases, deny justice and compensation to people suffering from asbestos-related diseases, such as mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis, and pleural diseases, among other diseases. It is merely the latest attempt by asbestos corporate interests to avoid responsibility for their wrongdoings. There are already too many hurdles and impediments and delays in asbestos victims’ cases! More are not needed when these clients are suffering because some corporations chose to use a poisonous product rather than put consumers’ and employees’ health and safety before their corporate bottom line.
You can call your Representative and tell him or her to OPPOSE the bill, and ask your family and friends to do the same. Go to www.takejusticeback.com/asbestosaction to do this right now.
LARA. H.R. 2655/S. 1288, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, known as LARA, would amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by replacing the current version of the Rule, which has been in effect since 1993, with the 1983 version of Rule 11. LARA would increase litigation, unnecessarily meddle with the authority of the federal judiciary, and disproportionately affect plaintiffs, especially plaintiffs in civil rights cases.
Some of the most important changes in the LARA are:
- the elimination of Safe-harbor provision which protect against the imposition of sanction if the filing alleged to be sanctionable is withdrawn or corrected within 21 days.
- Sanctions, including attorneys’ fees and costs are to be paid to the party prevailing on the motion rather than the Court .
LARA will have the following effects:
- Encourages satellite litigation. For the 10 years that mandatory sanctions were in effect, litigation surrounding Rule 11 significantly increased. Any time a party filed a Rule 11 motion – because judges had no discretion and were forced to issue a sanction for even the smallest violation of the Rule – a countermotion would be immediately filed and a whole side or “satellite” litigation business erupted. Parties would be encouraged to litigate rather than resolve these issues.
- Threatens an independent judiciary. Since 1993, Rule 11 has been discretionary rather than mandatory. Under current Rule 11, judges are able to use their discretion to assess the complex nature of a case, and evaluate potential violations of the rule and issue sanctions accordingly. This appropriately leaves the determination of whether or not sanctions should be imposed for a violation of Rule 11 to the judges who hear the cases, and not Congress.
- Jeopardizes civil rights cases. Sanctions were more often imposed against plaintiffs than defendants and more often imposed against plaintiffs in certain kinds of cases, primarily in civil rights and certain kinds of discrimination cases. This may be because such cases are difficult to prove because people and institutions generally try to hide discriminatory or retaliatory motives, as they know the law does not allow such conduct.
- Willl unfortunately encourage the use of Rule 11 as a litigation tactic to prevent all claims from proceeding, especially those that involve new legal issues, that are different from the “norm” or difficult to prove from being brought at all and thus lessen the public’s constitutional right to trial by jury.
THESE BILLS SHOULD BE OPPOSED BY ANYONE WHO VALUES OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY. CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TO DO SO!!
Liz Lewis Rides for Cancer Research
On August 3rd and 4th of 2013, Jacobs & Crumplar attorney Elizabeth Lewis participated in the 34th 2013 Pan-Mass Challenge (PMC) which is 2-day, 192 mile bike ride across the state of Massachusetts along with 5,500 other cyclists. The PMC raises money for research and care at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) in Boston.
The PMC raises more money for charity than any other single event in the country, $375 million since 1980 and $37 million last year alone! This success is the result of a lot of people riding for, and caring about, a cure.
Liz rode in honor of her late husband, Steve Lewis, who died on March 15, 2006, as well as in honor of Jacobs & Crumplar’s many clients who have died from cancer, many caused by asbestos or benzene or other harmful chemicals. These clients have died from mesothelioma, lung cancer, and other types of cancers. She placed the honorees’ names on her t-shirt which she wore during the 192 mile, which was both physically and emotionally challenging.
Liz said that “Before the ride I was questioning my ability to finish the ride and even thought about changing to a shorter course. But I completed the entire ride and from Sturbridge to Provincetown, the scenery was beautiful and the people I met along the way were wonderful. I am thankful that I was able to enjoy the Pan Mass experience which is the largest athletic fundraiser in the world! ”
She was required to raise $4300 but her personal goal was to raise $6000. She did better than her personal goal and has raised $6135 for this worthy cause.
To learn more about the Pan-Mass Challenge, please visit www.pmc.org.