Kazan Law Makes U.S. Chamber of Commerce List for Top Plaintiff Asbestos Law Firms

Posted on October 31, 2013 by Steven Kazan

From left, Steven Kazan, Joseph Satterley, Justin Bosl

I am delighted to tell you that our mesothelioma law firm just made the list of Top Plaintiffs’ Firms for Asbestos Litigation in a new list just published by the US Chamber of Commerce. Only 15 law firms made the list out of the hundreds of firms across the country advertising themselves as asbestos attorneys.

Receiving a spot on this list is a double distinction because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, headquartered in Washington D.C., traditionally sides with the defendants, the companies who are allegedly responsible for asbestos exposure and lobbies on their behalf. It has an adversarial relationship at best with firms who represent those suing for damages from asbestos-related illness.

So to be chosen as a worthy opponent by the U.S. Chamber is quite an honor. And it’s an honor we’ve more than earned. Kazan Law has played a significant role in asbestos litigation for nearly four decades.

Kazan Law consistently makes lists for top US law firms including the prestigious Super Lawyers and the US News & World Report’s Best Lawyers list. The U.S. Chamber’s list was published on October 13 by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.

I was personally named in the U.S. Chamber’s list of top asbestos litigators. In addition, two other Kazan Law partners are noted in the Chamber’s listing. They are Joseph Satterley and Justin Bosl. Satterley is a leading asbestos attorney whose own grandfather suffered from asbestosis, a potentially deadly disease caused by asbestos exposure. Bosl became a partner at Kazan Law in January 2013. He first joined the firm as a law clerk in 2004 and accepted an associate position in 2006. He was named to the Top 40 Under 40 list by The National Trial Lawyers in 2012 and 2013.

I founded Kazan Law in 1974 and since then our firm has represented thousands of people suffering from asbestos related illnesses, particularly mesothelioma. Our attorneys include pioneers in asbestos litigation and are among the most experienced mesothelioma lawyers in California.

But the fact that the top attorneys named for Kazan represent different age and experience level is a clear indication that Kazan Law is well positioned to be a top asbestos litigation firm for years to come.

“Safe” Cigarette Filters Found to Have Contained Deadly Asbestos Fibers

Posted on October 28, 2013 by Steven Kazan

Most mesothelioma victims unknowingly inhaled deadly asbestos fibers into their lungs on their jobs, typically through materials used for building construction or auto parts. Another large group of mesothelioma victims are family members who breathed in those asbestos fibers from clothing and other asbestos dust-covered items those who worked with asbestos brought into the home.

Now a new group of mesothelioma victims has emerged – people who smoked Kent cigarettes during the 1950s. Mesothelioma, a lethal lung disease, typically takes decades to produce symptoms signifying its malignant presence.

Kent cigarettes, produced by Lorillard Tobacco, had filters packed with deadly asbestos fibers. This was a selling point for the cigarettes touted as a safer alternative to other cigarettes by the company, according to a new article by FairWarning.org, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit investigative news organization focused on public health and safety issues, and published in the consumer advocate magazine Mother Jones.

“It’s hard to think of anything more reckless than adding a deadly carcinogen to a product that already causes cancer—and then bragging about the health benefits. Yet that’s precisely what Lorillard Tobacco did 60 years ago when it introduced Kent cigarettes, whose patented ‘Micronite” filter contained a particularly virulent form of asbestos,” the article states.

Lorillard allegedly added the filters to the cigarettes as a marketing gimmick, according to the article, to relieve consumers’ fears of the harmful effects of tobacco and nicotine and keep them from quitting. The harmful effects of smoking had just started to become public knowledge at that time.

The health benefits of the asbestos filter would prove false, but it avoided the potential loss of millions of customers, according to the article.

Although it was already known that asbestos caused lung disease in miners and plant workers, the cigarette company reportedly banked on the reputation of asbestos as an effective filter material. It contracted with Hollingsworth & Vose to supply asbestos for the cigarette filter it called Micronite.

“What is ‘Micronite’?” one of its ads asked. “It’s a pure, dust-free, completely harmless material that is so safe, so effective, it actually is used to help filter the air in operating rooms of leading hospitals.”

Now six decades later, both companies face numerous lawsuits from former workers in its factories as well as former smokers who say they inhaled the asbestos fibers when they smoked. The company denies that enough asbestos fibers escaped from the filter to cause mesothelioma in smokers. But last month a Florida jury awarded $3.5 million in damages to a former Kent smoker with mesothelioma. In addition, Lorillard, based in Greensboro, NC, settled 90 cases in the last two years and has 60 more cases pending, according to its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

If you’re a former Kent smoker with mesothelioma, please keep in mind that Kazan Law has a particular expertise in handling these types of cases and can handle them nationwide.

Mesothelioma Rates Double for Firefighters According to New Study

Posted on October 24, 2013 by Steven Kazan

Firefighter mesothelioma rates are twice that of the rest of the population according to a dramatic new study – the first ever of its kind.

The researchers said it was likely that the findings were associated with exposure to asbestos, and noted that this is the first study ever to identify higher rates of mesothelioma in U.S. firefighters.

What also makes the study important is that it analyzed cancers and cancer deaths through 2009 among 29,993 firefighters from the Chicago, Philadelphia, and San Francisco fire departments who were employed since 1950. The large number of study subjects and the many years that they were tracked elevates the credibility and importance of the study; especially in light of the grim results.

The findings are consistent with earlier studies, but because this one followed a larger study population for a longer period of time, the results strengthen the scientific evidence for a relation between firefighting and cancer, the researchers said.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) led the study in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute and the University of California Davis. The results from the NIOSH researchers and their colleagues were reported on October 14 in the online edition of the international medical journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, an offshoot of the cutting edge British Medical Journal.

Other types of cancer were also found to be elevated in this study of firefighters in the three U.S. cities. The researchers found that rates of cancers of the respiratory, digestive, and urinary systems were higher in the firefighters than in the U.S. population as a whole.

Firefighters can be exposed to contaminants from fires that are known or suspected to cause cancer. These contaminants include combustion byproducts such as benzene and formaldehyde, and materials in debris such as asbestos from older structures. These materials may be inert under normal conditions but break down and are released when structures collapse during a fire.

The findings of the new study do not address other cancer risk factors, such as smoking, diet and alcohol consumption, NIOSH pointed out, according to an article in EHS Today, an occupational health and safety magazine.

A second phase of the study is planned and will further examine employment records from the three fire departments to gain more insight into occupational exposures, and to look at exposures in relation to cancer incidence and mortality, NIOSH said.

Mesothelioma Rates Double for Firefighters According to New Study

Posted on October 24, 2013 by Steven Kazan

Firefighter mesothelioma rates are twice that of the rest of the population according to a dramatic new study – the first ever of its kind.

Court Tells Asbestos Defendant ArvinMeritor that it Cannot Waste The Court’s or Plaintiff’s Time

Posted on October 23, 2013 by Steven Kazan

Automobile and commercial truck components manufacturer ArvinMeritor seems to believe that it should not be held accountable for its actions. Fortunately, the justice system believes otherwise. As I previously reported, an Alameda County jury found ArvinMeritor liable for punitive damages for its wrongful conduct in exposing workers to asbestos. As it upheld the punitive damages award, the appellate court noted that the evidence was clear —“ArvinMeritor’s conduct continued over many years, and evinced an indifference to or reckless disregard of the health and safety of [workers] and those similarly situated.”

More recently, ArvinMeritor intentionally ignored a court’s order and filed a frivolous motion, without legal or factual support, in an attempt to burden two plaintiffs as they sought justice through the legal system. A steadfast local judge, the Honorable Jo-Lynne Q. Lee, denied ArvinMeritor’s motion and fined ArvinMeritor’s counsel, national defense law firm Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP, for advancing a meritless position.

ArvinMeritor’s request would have increased the financial and time burden on the plaintiffs and their counsel. ArvinMeritor also represented to Judge Lee that its position was justified by the facts of the case and the law. Neither was true, and Judge Lee quickly and appropriately responded. She concluded that “ArvinMeritor’s position was not substantially justified” and ordered Hawkins Parnell to pay the plaintiffs monetary sanctions for their time opposing the motion.

Even though Hawkins Parnell knew it was clearly wrong, ArvinMeritor’s counsel disregarded the law and moved forward with the motion, wasting the Court’s and the plaintiff’s time. The Court is applauded for reminding corporate defendants and their counsel that such actions will not go unpunished

Meet Ted Pelletier, Kazan Law’s Lead Appellate and Motions Attorney

Posted on October 21, 2013 by Steven Kazan

Kazan Law is proud to introduce you to Ted Pelletier, the new head of our firm’s appellate and motions department. We are very pleased to bring Ted in-house to exclusively work for you, our clients, after 17 years of observing his excellent appeals work on behalf of injured consumers, especially asbestos victims.

Ted has handled dozens of appeals in the California Courts of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. One of his proudest accomplishments is successfully representing the first Californians to sue cigarette manufacturers, including two smokers who contracted asbestos disease from smoking 1950s Kent cigarettes that contained an asbestos filter. You can read his full bio here.

Right now, we’ll just informally talk to Ted about his work.

Why did you choose to go into law practice?

My mother was an assistant district attorney in Los Angeles. She brought home stories of people whose lives had been devastated by circumstances they had not brought on themselves. The fact that my mom helped them made me feel good about what she was doing. I saw the legal profession as a way to help people who might otherwise be helpless.

How did you become interested in working with asbestos and mesothelioma cases?

I worked in a big law firm for a year in between graduating from UC Santa Barbara and going to law school at Hastings. This firm fought against the rights of injured consumers, and I realized that I couldn’t do that. I wanted to be on the side of the consumer.

After law school, I was fortunate to work for an excellent appellate lawyer practicing on the plaintiffs’ side. The first cases I worked on involved asbestos appeals. I learned through that process about the disease and what it did to people. It felt great to help them.

Why did you decide to work for Kazan Law?

I knew from 17 years in this field that Kazan Law is the best. I always admired their high quality work. I had received overtures before from firms and it had never felt like a good fit — but this one did.

How does your work at Kazan Law help mesothelioma victims?

Money doesn’t replace a person, but it can help a family pay medical bills and compensate for the breadwinner being gone.

We also help give people a sense of justice. Yes, this was done to you but we are making it so that the people who did this are held accountable.

At Kazan, we are also helping to shape the law in this area of fighting for rights of victims, so that the laws provide justice for asbestos victims and applies to everyone, no matter who is representing them.

What do you like about your work?

I know I am fighting battles for people suddenly thrust into the worst battle of their lives.

Imagine that you or someone in your family worked for years installing insulation. Now suddenly you can’t breathe. What do you do?

At Kazan Law, we pool our talents and resources and provide these people with help that they otherwise could not get. We battle for them with people who aren’t willing to stand up and be accountable for what they did but are willing to throw money around to defend themselves even if they sometimes have to manipulate science, facts, or truth to do it. It feels great to fight for these people to get them a sense of justice.

Leading Asbestos Scientist Denies Helping Georgia-Pacific Fight Asbestos Claims

Posted on October 15, 2013 by Steven Kazan

Because the link between malignant mesothelioma and asbestos exposure is so definitive, you would think that by now no scientist would try to prove otherwise. Especially with the loss of life, pain and suffering that malignant mesothelioma causes.

But alas, you’d be thinking incorrectly.

The bigger question to ponder here is can science – and more specifically scientists – be bought? Can the lure of money influence their research results? Would a scientist knowingly or unknowingly come up with conclusions that would enhance the bottom line of the business paying for the research?

According to detailed online reports in Hazards, a UK occupational health and safety magazine and the US scientific journal Nature, a leading toxicologist’s work on asbestos is suspected by US courts in California and New York of aiding fraud.

But the toxicologist, Ken Donaldson, an emeritus professor at the University of Edinburgh, UK, claims he contributed to academic studies on the effects of asbestos in good faith and was “naïve” not to disclose his separate paid consulting for the company involved, Georgia-Pacific, an Atlanta-based multinational and subsidiary of Koch Industries.

He also declares that he did not know at the time that the research was done under the direction of lawyers for Georgia-Pacific, who planned to use the results to fight asbestos claims.

New York’s Supreme Court Appellate Division in June ordered Georgia-Pacific to turn over the raw data and internal communications related to research that, judges said, were “intended to cast doubt on the capability of chrysotile [white] asbestos to cause cancer”. The substance is a component in Georgia Pacific’s joint compound used in construction projects.

Donaldson, who was a co-author on some of the research, has been criticized by other environmental health researchers, both for failing to declare his interests on the papers, and later for claiming that he had no links or funding connections to asbestos manufacturers. Some are calling for Edinburgh University to sever ties with Donaldson, a previously well-regarded world expert on lung diseases caused by inhaled particles of various types.

Georgia-Pacific allegedly funded the research in an attempt to prove that many asbestos-exposed cancer sufferers could go uncompensated because they were exposed to the wrong kind of “shorter” chrysotile fibers, were not exposed at high enough levels or, if exposed at a high level, not exposed long enough. Global exports of chrysotile increased by 20 per cent in 2012.

Laurie Kazan Allen of the London-based International Ban Asbestos Secretariat (IBAS) – my sister – told Hazards: “The lack of transparency is what is appalling on this. Donaldson, like many of his co-authors, clearly had an undeclared relationship with Georgia-Pacific. Professor Donaldson says the conclusions of the papers are ‘indisputable’, conclusions the court determined could be part of a Georgia-Pacific bid to deny the asbestos cancer link.”

Berkshire Hathaway Subsidiary Settles Insurance Dispute With Ford

Posted on October 11, 2013 by Steven Kazan

Kiewit Tower, the location of Berkshire’s corporate offices in Omaha, Nebraska

Kazan Law has just learned that in a surprise twist to asbestos litigation news we recently reported, a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary has suddenly settled a major outstanding insurance claim. The unexpected settlement follows in the wake of a wave of negative publicity and lawsuits surrounding Berkshire Hathaway-owned companies’ alleged intentional delay in paying insurance claims including those to asbestos victims.

“Even (Warren) Buffet reacts to press coverage,” J. Robert Hunter, head of the Consumer Federation of America’s insurance division and former Texas insurance commissioner, was quoted as saying in a Scripps News update of its original coverage of the famous philanthropist’s apparent profiteering at the expense of victims waiting to be compensated for corporate wrongdoing.

Famous tycoon and philanthropist Warren Buffet heads the Omaha-based Berkshire Hathaway. As the chairman, CEO and largest shareholder of Berkshire Hathaway, he is consistently ranked among the world’s wealthiest people.

Although the only settlement publicly announced at this time is with Ford Motor Co. for unpaid claims over rollover deaths, it can be hoped that resolution for mesothelioma-stricken victims of asbestos exposure will follow.

Scripps previously obtained sworn testimony from a former Berkshire claims executive who criticized Berkshire subsidiary National Indemnity and its claim-handling arm Resolute Management Inc. for reportedly delaying and denying claims to asbestos-caused cancer sufferers and others.

National Indemnity, according to Scripps’ coverage, agreed to take on tens of billions of dollars in “so-called long-tail insurance risk” from major insurers including Lloyds of London and American Insurance Group (AIG).

“The long-tail policies cover asbestos and other health hazards that might take years or decades to develop into illness or a covered claim,” the report states.

Berkshire was entitled to invest the money until it had to pay out a claim but sought, according to allegations, to extend its ‘float” of the funds to boost its bottom line instead of paying on claims, including those of asbestos victims.

Ford announced that it received two million more than it had asked for in its settlement, walking away with $22.1 million. Representatives for National Indemnity disputed Ford’s claim but would not reveal any settlement figures. The case had been set for trial later this month in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Asbestos Industry Funds Allegedly Biased Scientist’s Research

Posted on October 10, 2013 by Steven Kazan

Asbestos regulation and legal cases often rely on testimony from expert witnesses who are supposed to provide factual impartial evidence. Typically these expert witnesses are medical professionals and scientific researchers who can influence decisions because of their knowledge of asbestos and how it affects human health at various exposure levels.

But what if the experts who are supposed to be the ultimate authority on asbestos allow their opinions to be swayed by the business interests of whoever is funding their research? What if the entity funding the research sees it as a business investment with an expected return instead of a philanthropic use of funds to advance scientific knowledge to help all humankind?

This is what a professor from Ivy League Brown University is alleging about a professor at Canada’s prestigious McGill University.

David S. Egilman, MD, MPH, a clinical professor of family medicine at Rhode Island’s Brown University suggests impropriety in his presentation at an asbestos industry conference held at McGill University last week. Entitled “The Past is Prologue, Universities in Service to Corporations: the McGill QAMA Asbestos Example.”

In his presentation, Dr. Egilman questions the accuracy of the conclusions of research on asbestos miners by McGill’s Prof. J.C. McDonald. Prof. McDonald’s research was reportedly financed with one million dollars by the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association (QAMA).

“The available published data shows that the data reported does not support the conclusions,” Dr. Egilman says in the presentation.

The controversy was reported by Kathleen Ruff in an e-bulletin produced by the nonprofit Rideau Institute based in Ottawa. Ruff, one of the Institute’s founders, is noted for her advocacy to end Canada’s export of asbestos.

“Prof. McDonald used his research to promote the use of chrysotile asbestos around the world. His research continues today to be used by the global asbestos industry to promote the sale and use of chrysotile asbestos. It was used, for example, by the global asbestos lobby at the May 2013 Rotterdam Convention conference to help defeat the listing of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance,” Ruff states.

Dr. Egilman and other scientists, according to Ruff, asked McGill to conduct an official investigation under the university’s research integrity regulations. McGill has refused and instead carried out an internal review which, according to Ruff, was “flawed by bias, lack of transparency and misinformation.”

Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway Companies Accused of Profiting By Denying, Delaying Asbestos Victims’ Payments

Posted on October 8, 2013 by Steven Kazan

Asbestos victims were in the news this week when major media sources reported that there are dozens of lawsuits claiming that subsidiaries of the company Berkshire Hathaway are further victimizing them by intentionally withholding their payments. Why? To boost the company’s bottom line by denying and delaying claims owed to those dying from the asbestos-caused lung cancer.

Berkshire Hathaway Inc, headquartered in Omaha, Neb., is the company owned by Warren Buffet, considered the most successful investor of the 20th century. As the chairman, CEO and largest shareholder of Berkshire Hathaway, he is consistently ranked among the world’s wealthiest people.

An investigation by Scripps News, a syndicated media service, stated in a report carried by many media outlets including The Wall Street Journal and ABC News, that Berkshire Hathaway has become “one of the most powerful forces in asbestos and pollution litigation in the world.” And not in a good way.

Apparently, through 25 known deals, Berkshire’s Reinsurance Division took over the insurance risk for asbestos claims from major insurance firms. American Insurance Group (AIG), CNA Financial Group and Lloyd’s of London are among those who paid Berkshire to take on tens of billions of dollars in future asbestos and pollution claims that they had been holding.

Berkshire allegedly invested the money, known as “float” for a very profitable income. And supposedly, the company did not want the bonanza to end even if it was at the expense of the sick and dying asbestos victims who are suffering because of asbestos exposure in their workplace.

Buffett is quoted as celebrating this strategy in his well-known annual letters to shareholders. In his 2009 message he wrote, “Our float has grown from $16 million in 1967, when we entered the business, to $62 billion at the end of 2009.” By 2012, that number had grown to $73 billion.

According to media reports, major companies with outstanding asbestos claims such as Ford Motor Co. and Estee Lauder Inc. sued alongside asbestos victims to get claims paid so they can be reimbursed for fines, legal fees and payments of injury claims.

Berkshire officials refused to reveal to Scripps how many bad-faith allegations against its subsidiaries have been lodged or settled. Berkshire executive Ajit Jain said his division pays $1.4 billion annually for asbestos claims and expenses. And “as is the case with any insurance company, the vast majority of claims are settled without trials,” he said.

Posts by: Steven Kazan

Kazan Law Makes U.S. Chamber of Commerce List for Top Plaintiff Asbestos Law Firms

“Safe” Cigarette Filters Found to Have Contained Deadly Asbestos Fibers

Mesothelioma Rates Double for Firefighters According to New Study

Mesothelioma Rates Double for Firefighters According to New Study

Court Tells Asbestos Defendant ArvinMeritor that it Cannot Waste The Court’s or Plaintiff’s Time

Meet Ted Pelletier, Kazan Law’s Lead Appellate and Motions Attorney

Leading Asbestos Scientist Denies Helping Georgia-Pacific Fight Asbestos Claims

Berkshire Hathaway Subsidiary Settles Insurance Dispute With Ford

Asbestos Industry Funds Allegedly Biased Scientist’s Research

Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway Companies Accused of Profiting By Denying, Delaying Asbestos Victims’ Payments

Our Recent Verdicts

Latest News

Recent Blog Posts

Search Our Site

Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

Mesothelioma Lawyers