Search for: "Asbestos Claimants" Results 501 - 520 of 556
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Jan 2023, 6:07 pm by admin
Asbestos litigation existed as workman’s compensation cases from the 1930s, and as occasional, isolated cases against manufacturers, from the late 1950s.[1] By 1970, federal regulation of asbestos, in both occupational and environmental settings, however, helped create a legal perpetual motion machine that is still running, half a century later. [read post]
24 Oct 2017, 6:29 pm by Schachtman
For instance, in human malignant mesothelioma, the overwhelming majority of occupational cases do have a known cause: amphibole asbestos. [read post]
2 Jan 2014, 8:08 am by Schachtman
  Defense lawyers in Bendectin, silicone, and asbestos cases developed arguments against specious use of epidemiologic evidence, as well as sophisticated, affirmative use of epidemiologic evidence to show lack of association. [read post]
20 Dec 2012, 7:00 am by James F. Aspell
10 Myths and Facts About Workers' Compensation Posted by LexisNexis Workers' Comp Law Community Staff The LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation Law Community and the award-winning blog Work Comp Roundup have teamed up to present some common myths and facts about workers’ compensation. [read post]
6 Oct 2022, 7:39 am by Troy Rosasco
The plume contained numerous cancer-causing agents, including soot, benzene, cement, asbestos, heavy metals, and dioxins. [read post]
3 Aug 2012, 10:00 am by Nat
  The courtroom door is more open to claimants due, in substantial part, to the contingent fee. [read post]
20 Nov 2020, 12:06 pm by Troy Rosasco
This air contained more than 2,500 known toxins, including fiberglass, asbestos, concrete dust powder, and lead. [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 10:36 am by Beck, et al.
But in In re Asbestos II Consolidated Pretrial, 1989 WL 56181 (N.D. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 7:15 pm by Rob Howse
 But the requirements of scientific rationality aren’t even there in GATT or TBT and as the AB suggested in its Article XX analysis in EC-Asbestos, won't read them in. [read post]
8 Jul 2009, 6:40 pm by Bankruptcy Attorney
One blogger suggests that the Justice might have misgivings about the sale cutting off personal injury tort claimants from recovery (see ”What's Bothering Ruthie? [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 5:07 am by Bob Kraft
It also covers illnesses caused by hazardous workplace conditions, such as asbestos-related diseases or chemical burns. [read post]
11 Nov 2007, 10:29 am
If the Vioxx settlement indeed manages to capture 85 percent of claimants and to avoid paying frivolous claims, then later defendants will follow this model. [read post]
17 Sep 2008, 4:34 pm
It is worth noting in this regard that the impersonal, abstract stereotype of the "litigious plaintiff" masks the racial, gendered, and class features of those claimants, claims, and contexts that it commonly targets. [read post]
12 Mar 2011, 8:27 am by Schachtman
  When claimants attempt to show causation for such outcomes by epidemiologic evidence, the inference of causation from a particular prior risk is typically little more than a guess. [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 5:44 am by Maxwell Kennerly
Each claimant may elect to file a civil action after proceeding through Vaccine Court. [read post]
4 Oct 2023, 7:03 pm by Texas Legal News
Unfortunately, the right to file may be forever lost if a claimant fails to file suit within Texas's statute of limitations period. [read post]
3 May 2010, 11:15 am by Hanna Chung
For example, in settling asbestos class action suits, courts have bound future claimants to adhere to an expedited, largely administrative process. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 7:07 am by David Hart QC
It might be thought that similar claimants here would not go uncompensated. [read post]
22 Aug 2022, 1:00 am by Stephan Spencer
To be eligible for this type of settlement, the claimant must prove that the injury occurred on the job and was not caused by employee negligence. [read post]
10 Jan 2010, 4:13 pm by Mike Aylward
  The Appellate Division also emphasized the fact that mere exposure to asbestos fibers was not itself an injury and that given the length of time that it took for asbestos-related diseases to develop, said injuries plainly occurred after any installation operations conducted by Keasbey occurred. [read post]