Mesothelioma Information

Prior to the regulation of asbestos under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (1970), asbestos exposure was rampant in all walks of life. Construction workers faced exposure through the use of asbestos insulation and asbestos-laden building materials (stucco, tiling, fireproofing), families faced exposure through the use of everyday asbestos-laden products (toasters, coffee makers, irons, baby powder), dockworkers faced exposure through contact with the many asbestos-laden products found throughout shipyards, etc.

Virtually every naval vessel that was constructed prior to the enactment of asbestos regulation in 1970 contained dangerously high levels of asbestos. Military exposure to asbestos was so common that approximately 30% of all current malignant mesothelioma sufferers are veterans. Unfortunately, many veteran asbestos victims are under the misconception that they are ineligible for asbestos injury compensation because the source of their initial exposure is governmentally-linked. The fact of the matter is that veterans, like all Americans, have always been able to file asbestos claims against those responsible for their development of an asbestos disease.

The U.S. Government was not directly involved in the production of asbestos products; rather, they held contracts with privately-owned asbestos product manufacturers, purchasing products and materials through them. An asbestos attorney can trace the source of a veteran's military exposure to asbestos, targeting a liable manufacturer through which to seek compensation.

Veterans under the misconception that they are not eligible for asbestos compensation because they cannot sue the government might feel that the passing of the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution (FAIR) act is their only hope for restitution. As it turns out, the passing of the FAIR act would likely serve as more of a detriment to veterans receiving asbestos injury compensation than it would aid their cause.

Veterans and the FAIR Act

The FAIR act seeks the establishment of a $140 billion trust fund that is financed by defendant corporations and insurance companies. Many experts believe that the current rate of asbestos litigation is capable of "drying-the-well" for future asbestos victims, leaving them with little-to-no recourse for compensation (this is a controversial notion).

The problem with the trust fund is that it essentially relieves asbestos product manufacturers of their liabilities related to injuries caused by exposure to their products. Asbestos litigation would be replaced by criteria used to determine claimants' eligibility for trust fund compensation. Many veterans might find themselves ineligible for trust fund compensation because they fail to meet these criteria. For example, certain medical criteria require that asbestos lung cancer claimants are able to demonstrate a minimum of 10-years of occupational exposure to asbestos in order to qualify for trust fund eligibility. Considering that standard military tours of duty ranged from two- to six-years, large numbers of veterans might find themselves on the outside looking in.

Another problem associated with the implementation of the proposed asbestos trust fund is the fact that passing of the legislation would null and void all pending lawsuits, settlements and court dates (approximately 500,000 in the United States). The fund would therefore start with a backlog of claims that would essentially grind the process to a halt, making it incredibly difficult for future claimants to receive compensation in any sort of timely manner.

Paul and Hanley, LLP

If you believe you are suffering from an asbestos-related disease, please contact Paul & Hanley LLP to discuss your legal options.