42 Years - A Professional Law Corporation - Helping Asbestos Victims Since 1974
Menu
Ready to seek justice?888-990-7008

Posts by: Steven Kazan

Kazan Law’s 1988 Victory: Proposition 97 and the Restoration of Cal/OSHA

Posted on by
Cal/OSHA

A younger Barack Obama shakes hands with Kazan Law’s Fran Schreiberg

At Kazan Law, most of our clients who are suffering from the devastating effects of asbestos exposure were hard-working trusting people all their lives.  That is until mesothelioma or other illnesses caused by asbestos exposure deprived them of their ability to work. All because an employer or parts manufacturer exploited their work ethic and loyalty.

My advocacy work on behalf of these workers and their families, some of who are also suffering from asbestos exposure, has made me very committed to the rights to protection of working people. For today’s “Throwback Thursday” post commemorating Kazan Law’s 40th anniversary, I am going to tell you about a special time in 1988 when we really had to stand up for those rights.

I was appalled when in 1987 California Governor George Deukmejian, in apparent cooperation with big business interests closed California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (DOSH or Cal/OSHA).

Workers have a right to a safe place to work.   They should be able to work without risk of workplace injuries, illnesses and death. Clearly Gov. Deukmejian didn’t think so.

In 1983 Deukmejian fired 83 staff members of Cal/OSHA and the following year he ordered a hiring freeze. During his first term in office work-related injuries increased more than 20% as Cal/OSHA’s on-site inspections decreased by 74%.  Then after four years of weakening California’s worker safety, he dismantled Cal/OSHA. Not coincidentally, Deukmejian had received $8 million in political contributions for his reelection campaign from big business. It was no surprise when he shut Cal/OSHA’s doors, returning the program to Federal OSHA despite the knowledge that the federal government’s worker safety program was not nearly as effective as the California program.

California’s outraged attorney general John Van de Kamp was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying, “What the governor is proposing is nothing less than a lethal game of buck-passing. It sends a message of indifference bordering on contempt to California’s working men and women.”

I thought so too.  And I wasn’t the only one. I volunteered on behalf of Kazan Law to represent the California Trial Lawyers Association (now known as Consumer Attorneys of California) on a coalition to restore Cal/OSHA.

We called ourselves WORKSAFE! .  Representing the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California was a very dedicated labor attorney named Frances Schreiberg. The coalition worked with the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO and the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California to draft an initiative that became Prop 97.  It called for the legislature to restore Cal/OSHA program with  a budget sufficient to minimize the risk to workers from industrial injuries, illnesses and exposure to toxic substances including exposure to asbestos. It was a tough fight but we succeeded. Cal/OSHA was restored. I hired Fran Schreiberg as a pro bono counsel to advocate for worker safety on a policy level.  Worksafe continues to advocate for worker safety and Fran, as a founding mother, still works closely with the organization.

 

Deadline Nears For 2014 Broussard Law School Scholarship Applications

Posted on by
Broussard Law School Scholarship

Justice Allen E. Broussard

As asbestos litigation attorneys, we at Kazan Law excel at what we do and it is always exhilarating when we are able to give back to our clients some of the hopes and dreams that mesothelioma took from them.  But we also like giving back in ways that help the hopes and dreams of the communities around us. That includes the Oakland community where our offices are located and the legal community we are so proud to be a part of.

One of the ways we do that makes a meaningful contribution to both of these wonderful communities. That is our foundation’s support for The Allen E. Broussard Scholarship Fund which was established in 1996 after the death of California Supreme Court Associate Justice Allen E. Broussard, and was incorporated as the Allen E. Broussard Scholarship Foundation in 1999. The goal of the foundation is to continue Justice Broussard’s work in the minority community by assisting law students from underrepresented backgrounds in their pursuit of a career in the legal profession.

Born in Lake Charles, Louisiana in 1929, Allen E. Broussard came to the Bay Area with his family as a teenager. He began his years of community service at age 16 while attending San Francisco City College. Here he started his lifelong efforts to ensure equal rights for African Americans in the workforce. Justice Broussard was instrumental in getting the first African Americans hired as a high school teacher and police officer in San Francisco.

Justice Broussard worked diligently to expand opportunities within the legal profession. One of his goals was the diversification of the profession; making sure all minorities are given the opportunity to rise and “take a place at the table,” as he was fond of saying.

Having served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Allen E. Broussard Law School Scholarship Foundation for over a decade, I am honored each year to present three or more academically qualified students from economically challenged backgrounds with a $5,000 scholarship. This award is the largest private scholarship award for law students attending California Bay Area law schools. Four students received the award last year.

The deadline for applying for the 2014 scholarships is this month. Email info@broussard-scholarship.org or call (415) 983-7680 for more information.

Appellate Court Decides in Favor of Victim in Ford Mesothelioma Case

Posted on by

mesothelioma caseSometimes even in the tragic world of a mesothelioma case, there is reason to celebrate.  At Kazan Law that is what keeps us doing what we do.  When we snatch victory from the jaws of defeat for our clients through tenacious asbestos litigation and are able to get justice in a mesothelioma case, it’s a good day.

In our latest victory, we achieved justice for not only the specific mesothelioma case we were representing but for all mesothelioma cases.  That is because the court upheld two important principles in asbestos law:

  1. That the average working person cannot be expected to have the same level of scientific knowledge about the long term consequences of asbestos exposure that the decision-makers at a large company should have.
  2. That a company cannot be let off the hook for causing injury to someone in one state because the laws of the state where the company has its headquarters are different.

These are important concepts. We are very proud of our work in this case well handled by Ted Pelletier and our appellate and motions team, and of the brilliant appellate court that protected the rights of all citizens.

Specifically, a California appellate court upheld a $1.5 million judgment for our client Patrick Scott and his family. They also decided that the Scotts should be allowed to pursue punitive damages which the trial court had said they couldn’t do.

Scott, a former service-station owner, was exposed to asbestos from car parts made by Ford Motor Company since the 1960s.  In a published opinion in Scott v. Ford Motor Co., No. A137975, Division One of the First Appellate District first rejected Ford’s argument that Scott was a “sophisticated user” who should have known the dangers of Ford’s products.  Because Ford insisted during the trial that those dangers were not scientifically established when Scott was exposed, the jury rejected Ford’s contradictory claim that he was supposed to know all about those very dangers.  The opinion notes that there are different standards for what Scott as owner of a “local automotive business,” was expected to know compared to what Ford, a “large international business directly involved in the manufacture of the products” should have known.

The opinion also reinstates the Scotts’ claim for punitive damages, which the lower court had rejected because the law in Michigan, where Ford is headquartered, disallows punitive damages.  Every part of this case occurred in California: Ford’s sale of its products; Scott’s exposures, his disease diagnosis and treatment.  So the appeals court decided California law is what matters here.  Otherwise Ford would get a free pass or as they put it “a nationwide shield from punitive damage liability,” to sell defective products in California and every other state without fear of punishment.  That would be a nightmare not just for mesothelioma cases but for every case that could result from driving a car with parts that malfunctioned.

The Careful Investigation Required For Your Mesothelioma Case

Posted on by

mesothelioma caseIn theory, a law firm should do considerable investigation before it tells a client that it can take on a mesothelioma case. But there are some law firms that just want to get people to sign up with them. Then they’ll turn around and broker that case to someone else, because they have no real intention of doing any actual work involved in a mesothelioma case.

These businesses assume that if you have a mesothelioma diagnosis, there will be money in it for them from somewhere. Their attitude is, “We don’t care because we are going to get a third or half of the fees for no work.”

We do things differently at our asbestos law firm. Once a client calls to consult with me about a mesothelioma case it establishes a confidential attorney client relationship, whether or not they hire me. I firmly believe that I am ethically obligated to give them good advice and protect their best interests and their confidences.

We may know in the first phone conversation that someone has enough provable asbestos exposure for a mesothelioma case and who the likely culprits are. There are other mesothelioma cases that require extensive investigation before I can tell a client the case has value.

Here are five questions we consider:

1.       Is the mesothelioma diagnosis accurate? Nowadays it usually is since it is almost always based on a pathology report after a biopsy, and even a community hospital pathology department uses standard lab tests and often gets outside consultation.

2.       Can we show that there was asbestos exposure? Almost all the time we can. Sometimes people don’t remember where they were exposed to asbestos. I had a mesothelioma case involving an orthopedic surgeon who didn’t have a clue. After a couple hours of detailed interview, he remembered that one summer during college he worked at an oil refinery doing clean-up.

3.       Can we identify where and when the asbestos exposure took place, and figure out whose asbestos product it was? We explore a client’s work history and exposure history to see what evidence there is. A client might say, “My dad worked at the shipyard.” Or “I did drywall work.”

4.       Whose asbestos fiber was it? Not just who made the products that were used at that time and place, but how did the asbestos get there? Anyone in the chain of production and distribution from the mining company who dug up the asbestos fiber to the product manufacturer to the wholesaler to the local hardware store has liability for the asbestos product, and thus for the exposure.

5.        Is the case worth doing? That is something we will decide before we commit to doing it. The deciding factor is whether we will be able to get enough money from anyone for you to justify your time and energy. That requires some effort to determine.

Promising someone the moon and the stars and not being able to deliver is not a good thing, and the last thing a mesothelioma patient needs is to waste time and energy on a lawsuit with mesothelioma attorneys who can’t deliver what they promise, when time and energy are the patient’s most limited and precious resource. At Kazan Law, we are honest and conservative. We tell prospective clients the truth about what a case will take out of them, and what it will likely produce for them and the family. We aim to exceed our clients’ expectations. No one’s ever gotten mad at me for doing better than I told them we would.

Kazan Law Staff Runs For Justice

Posted on by

Kazan Law Run for Justice team members

Kazan Law staff all work very hard for our clients with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.  As you might guess, asbestos litigation is very demanding stressful work but work we firmly believe in. And to keep doing it as best we can, it is good for all of us to let off steam now and then.  And it is great for the teamwork of the firm when Kazan Law staff can do something fun all together.  It is especially wonderful when we can do fun activities that also benefit a good cause.

That’s exactly what some Kazan Law staff did recently when we had our very own Run for Justice Team participating in the 5th annual Oakland Running Festival. The Oakland Running Festival raises much-needed funds for the local community. In its first four years, according to official Running Festival information, it has generated an estimated $12 million in economic activity for the city of Oakland and $1 million for local charities.

As the Oakland Running Festival marathon began Sunday morning, according to a local newspaper report, the sun was just starting to come up and the air was cool — welcome weather for the 1,099 marathon runners who attempted the 26.2-mile course around the city.

Nearly 10,000 runners showed up to participate in the marathon, half-marathon, 5K or kids’ races. And among that happy throng of 10,000 was our own group of Kazan staff runners.  Those who crossed the finish line include:

5K: Adrian Elfenbaum (Settlement Administrator)

Half-Marathon: Gordon Greenwood (Partner), Caitlin McEldrew (Paralegal), Jazmin Solorzano (Legal Assistant)

Marathon Relay: Sophie Noero (WorkSafe employee), Matt Thiel (Associate), Tara Runyan (IT Director), Ny Kundidzora (Paralegal)

Marathon: Michael Stewart (Associate), Justin Bosl (Partner)

“Congratulations to everyone that came out yesterday to Run for Justice at the Oakland Running Festival. As always, it was a great event and it was great to see some Kazan t-shirts out there!”  Kazan Law partner and marathon race participant Justin Bosl said in an email to the staff.

“And thank you to everyone who volunteered for the event. Finally, thanks to anyone who came out to cheer us on.”

1976 News Clip Highlights 1st Wave of Asbestos Lawsuits in the Bay Area

Posted on by

 

asbestos lawsuits

If you were playing a trivia game and were asked, “What company is the one most associated with asbestos lawsuits?” The answer of course, would be Johns Manville.

But there was a time not too long ago when not many people aside from employees and shareholders knew the name Johns Manville.  And asbestos lawsuits were almost unheard of.  Workers did not think they would ever stand a chance of prevailing against a big company and their attorneys if they even got their asbestos lawsuits to court.  So big companies could use workers up like Kleenex and outright lie to them about the lethal health consequences of asbestos exposure.

Then in the 1970s, things began to change.  Due in part to the social movements of the late 1960s like the Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s Movement, the Environmental Movement, people began to feel they were empowered and had a voice. The first big wave of asbestos lawsuits began to emerge.

As we commemorate Kazan Law’s 40th anniversary this month, I came across a 1976 clipping from the San Francisco Chronicle about that first wave of asbestos lawsuits stemming from the Johns Manville plant in nearby Pittsburg, CA.  This was one of the first media stories about this landmark development.  I am proud to have been chosen as a young attorney to be on that case and interviewed for the article.

Workers at the Johns Manville plant were suing a former company physician on the grounds that he deliberately withheld information from the workers that they had asbestosis.   Here’s what I said to the reporter:

“We contend that the doctor was negligent and the company submitted the men to deliberate exposure,” said attorney Steven Kazan.”

“They went for years without telling the guys they had lung problems developing so they could be treated and their exposure stopped,” Kazan said bitterly.

This was my first brush with asbestos lawsuits, an area of law that was to become my life’s work. I recall feeling outraged at the time that anyone would violate all standards of human decency by causing the deaths of other humans for profit.  I filed my first Johns Manville case in 1974 and now 40 years later, I still feel the same way.

Kazan Law’s $27 Million Mesothelioma Verdict Makes National Law Journal’s Top 100 Verdicts for 2013

Posted on by

mesothelioma verdictHere at our asbestos law firm, when we are working with a client who is suffering from malignant mesothelioma due to unlawful asbestos exposure, that client is our focus.  Because of the terrible wrong done to them and their family, their time is limited. Their life has been cut short and we take it upon ourselves to work to the utmost of our ability to seek justice for them.  We do this work because we believe it needs to be done; not to pat ourselves on the back.  That is the furthest thing from our minds when we are working on behalf of someone losing their life to malignant mesothelioma.

So it is always gratifying to us at Kazan Law when the work we do on behalf of our clients is acknowledged by our peers.

I am proud to announce that our June 5, 2013 mesothelioma verdict which completed the award to plaintiffs Rose-Marie and Martin Grigg for a total of $27,342,500 in damages for Mrs. Grigg’s asbestos-caused malignant mesothelioma made The National Law Journal’s  elite list of Top 100 Verdicts for 2013. The mesothelioma verdict placed 74 out of 100 nationally and 12th out of 100 nationwide among personal injury/products liability cases brought on behalf of an individual.

The National Law Journal is a periodical that reports legal information of national importance to attorneys, including federal circuit court decisions, major verdicts and coverage of legislative issues and legal news. Its annual Top 100 Verdicts issue catalogs the top accomplishments of the plaintiff’s lawyers in the U.S.

Mrs. Grigg, was exposed to asbestos in the course of shaking out and washing her husband’s work clothing. Mrs. Grigg’s then husband was an insulator for a company that used Owens-Illinois, Inc. Kaylo brand insulation products from 1950-1958.

Mrs. and Mr. Grigg were represented by our attorneys Joseph D. Satterley, Andrea Huston, Ryan Harris and Michael Stewart.

Evidence introduced during trial showed that Owens-Illinois, Inc. knew that asbestos exposure could cause death as early as the 1930s and that test results on Kaylo showed that exposure to the asbestos in the product could cause fatal disease.

The jury awarded Mrs. Grigg $12,000,000 in damages for her pain and suffering, Mr. Grigg $4,000,000 in damages for his loss of consortium, and $342,500 in economic damages. The jury also levied an $11,000,000 punitive damages verdict against Owens-Illinois, Inc.

“If we live in a society where product manufacturers are not held responsible for products once those products leave their possession, the world we live in is a dangerous place,” Kazan Law partner Joseph D. Satterley said to the jury when he asked them to find justice for Mrs. and Mr. Grigg.

Kazan Law Proud to Continue Support for Philip A. Harley Memorial Mock Trial Competition

Posted on by

Moreau_team_50Here at Kazan Law our top priority is seeking justice for our clients who are asbestos exposure victims. A big part of doing that is taking a big picture approach that encompasses the past, the present, and the future.

We fight hard for our clients in the present but we hope there will be no victims of asbestos exposure in the future. In fact we hope for a future with fewer victims of any kind of crime and a better understanding of the laws that help us all create a more civil and equitable society.

Philip A. HarleyTo help forge that kind of future, our firm funds a very important educational activity in our local high schools called a “mock trial competition.” And in doing this we honor our firm’s past by dedicating the competition to the memory of our dear friend and partner Philip A. Harley. (1947-2009).

During his career, Phil was a dedicated attorney for victims of asbestos exposure and other catastrophic, toxic -related diseases and injuries. He believed his knowledge and skills were best used to assist those who have been the most severely impacted by corporate misconduct.  He always made a point of supporting consumer advocacy programs including trial-related education programs.

We are proud that the Alameda County Philip A.Harley Memorial Mock Trial Competition has become an annual testament to Phil’s legacy of justice and advocacy. The competition is a countywide high school criminal trial program designed to increase understanding of our judicial system and the processes necessary to create a just society. Student teams of ten to twenty students study a hypothetical case, conduct legal research, and receive individual coaching by volunteer attorneys in trial preparation, courtroom protocol, courtroom procedure, analytical skills, and communication skills.

Congratulations to Moreau Catholic High School in Hayward for taking first place at the Alameda County Philip A. Harley Memorial Mock Trial final competition. They will represent Alameda County at the state competition on March 21-23 in San Jose. We are pleased to continue supporting this event in Phil’s honor.

FAIR Act Would Have Been Unfair to Asbestos Victims

Posted on by

12_27_05_Daily_JournalAs we celebrate Kazan Law’s 40th anniversary with “Throwback Thursday” posts about the firm’s history, I recall a time not too long ago when the firm almost ceased to exist.  Powerful corporate interests fueled a push for federal legislation that would have made all asbestos law firms extinct.  And Kazan Law, one of the best asbestos law firms in the US, would no longer have been able to advocate for mesothelioma patients and other asbestos victims whose lives have been devastated by being exposed to asbestos.

The 2005 legislation was cleverly named “The FAIR Act” – The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act – but it would have been profoundly unfair to those asbestos victims with a claim to bring against a company who had knowingly caused them to be exposed to asbestos.

The FAIR Act, if it had been enacted into law, would have prohibited injured asbestos victims from bringing asbestos claims against individual defendants.  They would have had to file asbestos claims with an Orwellian-sounding Office of Asbestos Disease Compensation. This Office would have administered a fund called the Asbestos Injury Claims Resolution Fund. A panel would have determined each victim’s compensation amount, if any. Victims who developed fatal asbestos related cancers such as mesothelioma, asbestosis, or lung cancer would have been limited to $1 million in compensation.  Totally inadequate.

Companies guilty of grave misdeeds and crimes against innocent people would have gotten off with a pittance.  And I, my partners and my entire staff would have been out of a job.

“I have threatened one of my partners that his new full-time job will be to teach me how to play golf,” I told a reporter for the San Francisco Daily Journal, a local legal newspaper, for an article about the proposed legislation at the time.  “I will probably retire.”

That was almost a decade ago.   The FAIR Act was an unfair bad idea and it was justifiably defeated. It never became law.  Kazan Law has gone on to win multi-million dollar verdicts for our clients, several in this past year. We remain engaged and impassioned about seeking justice for asbestos victims.  And I still haven’t needed to learn to play golf.

Read the December 27, 2005 article from the Daily Journal.

Who Can File an Asbestos Lawsuit?

Posted on by

asbestos lawsuitWho can sue for asbestos exposure?  The truth is just about anyone.  The more important question to ask is who can file an asbestos lawsuit and win?  Anyone can sign papers and pay a filing fee at a courthouse.  And if you want a lawyer, you can always find a lawyer who is willing to file a lawsuit.

Because asbestos exposure cases are usually handled on a contingency fee basis to refine the question even more you might ask who might have a claim of sufficient value to persuade a lawyer to take the case on a contingency?

The answer to that question depends on how a good a lawyer you want.

If the only lawyer who will take your case is one who is desperate for work and insists that you spend some of your own money to pay for costs, then the case may have only a slim chance of winning.

Instead of scraping the bottom of the barrel, you should seek the best law firm possible to handle your asbestos lawsuit.  Like Kazan Law. We have been asked to review thousands of asbestos exposure cases.  But we only accept the ones we know from experience present a solid case.

There are two types of asbestos lawsuit cases.  Both require a medical diagnosis of an asbestos-related disease such as mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining in the lung or abdominal cavities.

  1. Personal  Injury – The personal injury asbestos lawsuit is brought by someone who is ill due to asbestos exposure.  It is almost always men who develop mesothelioma from occupational asbestos exposure.  But their wives and children sometimes develop mesothelioma from inhaling microscopic asbestos fibers the worker unknowingly brought home on his clothes and tools, and can also file personal injury lawsuits.As part of a personal injury case, the spouse can also sue for loss of consortium. That means the deprivation of the benefits of a spousal relationship due to injuries caused by the asbestos exposure.
  2. Wrongful Death – After the person who suffered due to asbestos exposure dies, a whole new series of claims can be brought for wrongful death.  In California, a potential claimant is anyone who depended on the deceased for more than half their support.  In addition to spouses and children, it could include grandkids and/or elderly parents. In California each heir can bring their own claims.

Factors we use in evaluating potential cases include:

  • the strength of the diagnosis
  • the evidence of asbestos exposure – when, where and to whose asbestos-containing materials
  • potential for recovering monetary damages

If you have any questions please see the the FAQs section of our website or call us at 888-990-7008.

Get a Free Case Evaluation

Our Recent Verdicts

Latest News

Recent Blog Posts

Search Our Site

Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

55 Harrison St. Suite 400
Oakland, CA 94607
888-990-7008

Mesothelioma Lawyers

© 2025 Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood.
A Professional Law Corporation.