MISSOULA, Mont. — The United States on Feb. 18 declined to intervene in a False Claims Act lawsuit in which a railroad alleges that a Libby, Mont., screening company crafted an asbestos-related disease only it can diagnose to certify thousands of patients as eligible for a special Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicare program, all while lacking the expertise or tools required to render such a diagnosis.
BATON ROUGE, La. — Years of stagnation warrant finding that a plaintiff abandoned his asbestos case against one defendant, but answers filed by three other defendants evidence a waiver of any such claims, a Louisiana appeals court said Feb. 22 in partially affirming dismissal of the suit.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Class action plaintiffs on Feb. 19 appealed dismissal of their California unfair competition law (UCL) and other consumer action claims in which they allege that Johnson & Johnson and a second talc company portrayed consumer talcum powder products as safe despite knowing as early as the 1970s that the products contained asbestos.
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. — Johnson & Johnson’s talc-related reserves and settlements were the largest driver of the company’s health care segment’s litigation expenses, which rose to $3.9 billion in 2020 compared to $400 million in 2019, the company announced in a Feb. 22 Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
NEW ORLEANS — A man acted in bad faith by providing a defendant with untimely notification of a settlement, and with discovery nearly complete, he likely cannot muster facts in a case against the last remaining nondiverse defendant, a federal judge said Feb. 4 in finding a defendant improperly joined and denying remand of an asbestos case.
The following is a listing of plaintiff and defense experts who testified in trials covered by Mealey's Litigation Report: Asbestos since Jan. 1, 2002.
SEATTLE — A couple failed to show the presence of asbestos at a railyard, let alone exposure at levels sufficient to cause mesothelioma, and even if two other defendants had a duty to issue post-sale warnings, there is nothing in the record suggesting that any type of warning could have prevented the exposure, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Feb. 22 in affirming summary judgment for three companies.
SEATTLE — Evidence clearly established that miles of asbestos-containing insulation remained in a facility in 1984, and expert testimony cemented that work with it was sufficient to cause a man’s fatal mesothelioma, a widow told a Washington appeals court Jan. 15 in asking the court to reinstate her suit.
GREENSBORO, N.C. — North Carolina mesothelioma cases are not subject to a reduced causation standard, and plaintiffs in an asbestos action at best show that a man worked at a facility where various defendants’ products were present, but fail to allege proximity or frequent exposure, a federal judge in North Carolina said in granting three defendants summary judgment Feb. 16.
SAN FRANCISCO — A trial court acknowledged that a plaintiff expert could rely on third-party testing of talc for the presence of asbestos, but it then “inexplicably” excluded that testimony as case-specific, a “hard to decipher” ruling that threatens a large swath of expert testimony, a couple tells a California appeals court in a Feb. 1 brief.
LOS ANGELES — A trial judge improperly concluded that he could not consider other verdicts when asked to determine the excessiveness of holding a company 60 percent liable for $25 million in asbestos damages, an amicus curiae tells a California appeals court in a Jan. 4 brief.
LOS ANGELES — A widow knew that she would lose on summary judgment but still declined an offer to settle her asbestos case, and her interpretation of how that process should now play out would undercut the entire rationale to California’s settlement procedure, an oil company tells a California appeals court in a Jan. 21 brief.
WOBURN, Mass. — An administrative oversight resulted in a missed deadline, and the court should remove entry of default judgment against an asbestos-gasket defendant because there is no evidence of willfulness or gross neglect and to give the parties a chance to present the merits of the case, a company told a Massachusetts judge on Feb. 11.
CHICAGO — An asbestos defendant misframes a Frye v. United States ruling in a way that if adopted would permit its expert to perform genetic testing for any reason regardless of scientific support, a woman suffering from mesothelioma in Illinois told a state court judge on Feb. 16 in opposing reconsideration of the ruling.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Two defendants have not shown they cannot be liable for asbestos exposures, that they are entitled to the military contractor defense, that the sophisticated user doctrine applies or that the bare metal defense shields them from liability, a federal judge in California said Feb. 11 in denying them summary judgment.
WOBURN, Mass. — Alleged exposures to asbestos on 25 occasions as a mechanic and isolated instances thereafter fall short of satisfying causation under Mississippi law, a federal judge in the state said Feb. 11 in granting summary judgment to a defendant on what he termed a “close question.”
PITTSBURGH — The majority of courts to have considered Pennsylvania’s consent-by-registration statute found it constitutional, and while it predates recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent on jurisdiction, it remains good law and contains no temporal limitation in this instance, a federal magistrate judge in Pennsylvania said Feb. 11 in recommending that the court deny two motions to dismiss filed in an asbestos case.
WILMINGTON, Del. — An affiliate talc mining company of Chapter 11 debtor Imerys Talc America Inc. filed its own bankruptcy petition Feb. 11 in Delaware federal bankruptcy court seeking to resolve all asbestos personal injury claims as part of a global settlement proposed in Imerys’ case.
WILMINGTON, Del. — While a man identified stamping on the clamps he used on military B-58 bombers, plaintiffs never link that testimony to asbestos exposure, a federal magistrate judge in Delaware said Feb. 8 in recommending that summary judgment be granted.
LOS ANGELES — A California appellate panel on Jan. 29 issued an unpublished decision in which it affirmed summary judgment dismissal of a cancer victim’s chemical exposure case on grounds that the defendant’s medical expert’s opinion was properly admitted and the plaintiff failed to show that his injury was caused by exposure to numerous toxins during his employment with a railroad company.