Mesothelioma & Asbestosis compensation claim. Exposure to asbestos at work.
Asbestos workplace compensation claim.
Asbestosis & Mesothelioma compensation?
Pericardial mesothelioma cases.
Peritoneal mesothelioma cases.
If you have been diagnosed with any kind of asbestos induced lung injury, please telephone us now for fast, free advice on how to begin a personal injury compensation claim for asbestos exposure. Our team of solicitors are experinced in representing those affected by exposure to asbestos resulting in mesothelioma, asbestosis and other lung diseases.
Even if you have been exposed to asbestos by a number of different employers, still call us for advice on how to proceed. Typically, we will investigate your exposure with each and every previous employer where you were exposed to asbestos.
Mesothelioma can develop in the pleura (the outer lining of the lungs and the inner chest wall), in the peritoneum (the lining of the abdominal cavity and the pericardium (the covering of the heart). Unlike lung cancer, there appears to be no direct correlation between meothelioma and cigarette smoking.
Mesothelioma may well be related to even short, brief periods of exposure at low level, as well as indirect exposure, such as transferrence from work clothes. There has been some research evidence (Latent Period for Malignant Mesothelioma of Occupational Origin. Journal of Occupational Medicine. 34(7) P718-21. Lanphear & Buncher), that the average latency period for mesothelioma is some 32 years.
Click here to go to the Health and safety Executive's Asbestos Kills, protect Yourself. Asbestos is so dangerous that the Health and Safety Executive recognise that there is no safe level of exposure.
Exposure to asbestos manifests itself in a number of different ways. Largely this is dependent on the level of exposure and the confinement of the exposure. Typically, workers inhale asbestos and dust fibres. Depending on the type of asbestos exposure, it is believed that the long thin asbestos fibres are strongly linked to mesothelioma, while the shorter thicker fibres are associated with asbestosis and lung cancer conditions.
Generally, there are three main types of asbestos:
Chrysotile -a member of the seperntine family which has soft white, curly fibres. It easily crumbles and each fibre is in turn composed of bundles of finer fibrils. Chrysotile can be spun or woven into cloth.
Amosite -a member of the amphibole family which has needle like fibres. These are long and often diamond in cross section. Amosite is sometimes called Grunerite. It is brown or grey in colour.
Crocidolite -a member of the amphibole family. This also has needle like fibres and it is typically blue in colour. It is sometimes also called Riebeckite. Unusually, there is an added danger to the asbestos called Tremolite. This is another member of the amphibole family but also contains chrysotile fibres and as a consequence is extremely dangerous.
The law concerning the control of asbestos can be found here. The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.
You many have been exposed to asbestos through the work of others, for example working on a site where carpenters or joiners were cutting asbestos and you became exposed to the dust. Or, you may have been exposed to asbestos when from the dust on a worker's clothes or overalls. It is well recognised that the partners of asbestos workers have themselves become exposed to asbestos dust when they washed overalls and work clothes. This is called familial exposure.
Generally, pleural palques, pleural thickening and asbestosis are regarded as being dose-related and are therefore considered to be divisible in law, while mesothelioma and lung cancer due to asbestos, are not considerecd to be dose-related and are therefore considered to be indivisible in law. The differce betwen the two is very important for the following reasons: where liability is established against one or more defendants in a divisible injury, then the compensation is apportioned in accordance with the level of the dose, which they exposed the claimant to duirng his employment. So, each defendant is only liable for the damage they have caused. This is identified as accurately as can be done by way of examining the duration and level of exposure. In a simple explanation, if a claimant has been diagnosed with asbestosis and has had say three employers, who exposed him to asbestos and only one of these employers is still in existance or their former insurers could be identified, then that defendant would only be liable for one third of the total award.
Notice the different appoach in the case of say, mesothelioma. Following the decsion in Barker v Corus plc [2006] UKHL 20, their Lordships, by a majority, decided that each defendant was only liable for the tortious exposure which it had caused. So, in essence, mesothelioma liability should be apportioned to the extent of the defendant's eposure and duration of exposure as it is in divisble cases.
Thankfully at this time, the Compensation Bill (2006) was due to receive Royal Assent on 27th July 2006. The Goverment quickly amended the Act and inserted and additional section into the Bill. S3 of the Compensation Act 2006, now allows a meothelioma victim (or his estate and dependants) to receive full compensation even of only one employer who exposed the claimant can be identified. The damages are recoverable on a joint and several principle. Damages are not apportioned between defendants. Only one defendant need be identified and this will suffice. This is of course excellent news for mesothelioma sufferers.
The court system recognises the speed with which mesothelioma cases need to be dealt with and an application can be made to the High Court to explain the urgency of this type of mesothelioma application. Typically, an interim compensation award can be arranged to fund treatement and specialist care.
Pleural plaques on the other hand, is a completely different matter. Following the decision in Rothwell v Chemical Insulation & another [2007] UKHL 39, the House of Lords decided that given the scarring from pleural plaques was in effect invisible, given it is in the lungs, then there is no reason to award compensation. This is clearly a decision that is very difficult to undestand as the plaques are as a result of exposure to asbestos. Pleural plaques are a marker of asbestos being present in the lungs and it is recognised as a dose-related. Simply, those who have pleural plaques will have the worry that one day they will be diagnosed with a far more serious asbestos related condition, yet will receive no compensation for this psycological hell.
In the decision, Lord Hope said No action lies for a wrong which has not resulted in some element of loss, injury or damage (...)on their own, pleural plaques did not amount to an injury, or a disease, which is actionable (...) It is a claim which has no value at all.
Lord Scott said Asymptomatic plerual plaques do not constitute damage (...) the law of tort is not concerned with trivia.
Lord Rodger said ...the plaques are not an actionable injury (...) the law treats them as a condition that is not serious enough to require its intervention.
Lord Manse said ...the pleural plaques did not by themselves constitute or involve injury and damage sufficient to enable an action to lie in tort...
Pleural plaques cases in Scotland
In a decision which has important ramifications for the UK insurance industry, the Supreme Court in Axa General Insurance Ltd & Ors v Lord Advocate & Ors [2011] UKSC 46 upheld the Scottish Parliament's right to legislate to reverse, in relation to Scotland, the decision of the House of Lords in Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd [2007] that asymptomatic asbestos-related pleural plaques do not constitute actionable harm. As a result of this decision, those who have developed pleural plaques as a result of exposure to asbestos may now proceed with claims in negligence against their employers under the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009, at substantial cost to their liability insurers.
Pleural plaques cases in Northen Ireland
| Legislation passed in Northern Ireland means that people suffering from pleural plaques will be able to claim compensation. This new ruling will take effect from 14 December 2011, with £2.5m already set aside for compensation. | |
 |
|
| This reverses the House of Lords decision of 2007 in the Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd and conjoined cases, which ruled victims could not claim compensation for pleural plaques in the UK. | |
|
General Damages Asbestosis Claims The asbestosis condition is one that causes lung function impairment. The health of the victim may be static or become slowly progressive. The symptom of breathlessness may cause death through cardio-respiratory failure. Also, there is always an additional risk of the victim of presenting with mesothelioma and or lung cancer. Thus deciding the value of an asbestosis claim is perhaps more difficult than one imagines as the settlement needs to reflect how the victim's life span is affected and to what extent. Where there are multiple defendants, then the damages will be apportioned to the duration and level of exposure as in Holtby v Brigham & Cowan (Hull) Limited [2003] 3 All ER 421. General Damages Pleural Thickening Again, this condition is dose-related and it falls to be examined how the apportionment will be divided between (former) employers. Often, the condition remains static and the victim suffers with breathlessness. Somtimes symptoms may progress to worse breathing difficulties and further disability. This is why it is difficult to assess damages. |
|
Whatever your situation, please telephone for immediate advice on how to begin your asbestos exposure personal injury compensation claim. FREEPHONE 0800 169 3683. The advice is free and you are under no obligation whatsoever.