In any asbestos injury case, thorough documentation of the condition is critical to building the strongest possible claim. There are several reasons for this. First of all, there is the need to establish that the condition has been properly diagnosed and does indeed exist.
Previously, we began looking at Louisiana law concerning deadlines for filing different types of legal claims. As we noted, wrongful death, survival and personal injury actions all involve a one year deadline, either from the date of death or the date of injury. In some types of personal injury cases, determining the actual date of injury is challenging, including asbestos injury cases.
One of the important issues that can sometimes present issues in asbestos-injury litigation is the timing of filing a lawsuit. As a technical matter, if a lawsuit is filed too late, the opportunity to pursue a claim is lost. Filing at the right time, however, also requires an accumulation of evidence sufficient to allow for a successful claim.
Last time, we began looking at the importance of working with an experienced attorney to explore all potential avenues of compensation for asbestos exposure. As we noted last time, one potential alternative for pursuing compensation for asbestos-related diseases is to seek benefits from the Veterans’ Administration.
Asbestos exposure over the years has not been shared equally by all. Certainly those worked in the trades and in certain industries during the years before asbestos fell into disfavor have a high rate of health problems years later, as do their family members.
We’ve been looking in recent posts at some tort reform measures that are currently being pushed in Congress which could impact asbestos litigation if passed. These measures include the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act and the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. A third bill that could have an effect on asbestos litigation is the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act (FACT).
You may hear someone say the word asbestos and immediately connect negative connotations to the substance. For years, this material acted as a staple in many building projects, as it had resistance to chemicals and heat as well as flame retardant and non-conductive properties. Though many individuals have recognized the potential hazards of this material, asbestos has continued uses in some areas.
In our previous post, we began looking at the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, which is part of a larger package of bills aimed at reforming the tort system at the federal level. As we noted last time, the bill is aimed particularly at making it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring class actions, which will assuredly impact asbestos class action litigation if it is approved and signed into law. The bill does this not only by altering the requirements for class certification, as we mentioned last time, but also
Readers who follow the happenings in Washington D.C. may have heard that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are currently pressing a handful of bills aimed at reforming the tort system. Tort reform has long been a battle fought at the state level, but the series of bills currently being advanced aims to make changes that would have a national impact.
Previously, we began looking at a recent asbestos case appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals on the issue of whether a company was entitled to remove the suit to federal court. As we pointed out, the company in the suit intended to take advantage of a federal statute granting immunity to government contractors under certain circumstances, and the court ultimately ruled in favor of the company.