The First Steps in Your Mesothelioma Lawsuit

Posted on February 22, 2016 by Steven Kazan

For those who have worked around asbestos without proper protection, mesothelioma is always a concern. You will need more than a history of asbestos exposure, however, before you file your mesothelioma lawsuit. Here are some important steps to get you started.

Your Mesothelioma Diagnosis

If you know you have been exposed to toxic asbestos at home or at work, you will probably want to keep tabs on your health. It makes sense to educate yourself about the signs and symptoms of this very serious cancer, as well as other asbestos-related diseases.

Most people who have worked or lived in environments with asbestos fibers in the air do not develop mesothelioma. If you develop symptoms common to mesothelioma, such as a persistent cough or hoarseness, however, you should consult your doctor immediately. An early diagnosis may prolong your life.

It can be important to get your mesothelioma diagnosis confirmed by an experienced mesothelioma doctor. After you have gotten your initial diagnosis, your lawyer can help you figure out if you need to visit a specialist before you file your mesothelioma lawsuit or apply for compensation from an asbestos trust fund.

Chart Your Work History

One key component of every mesothelioma lawsuit is your employment history or other asbestos exposure. You can help move the process forward by making a list of your employers and the dates where you worked at each place. This list should go back to your very first job, even if you started working many years ago. Mesothelioma always takes decades to appear. Your exposure on the job when you were in your 20s could lead to this disease when you are in your 60s or 70s.

Your work history should also include the different roles you filled at each job. If you remember any details about your worksites, this may also be useful. Were you installing asbestos insulation or ripping it out? Did you work around plumbing or in the boiler room of a ship in the Navy? All these details may be pertinent to your mesothelioma lawsuit.

You don’t have to complete this task alone. Your mesothelioma lawyer will help you by researching your former employers to find out which ones have a history of asbestos use. In addition, a good mesothelioma law firm employs investigators who can locate the records you need to prove your employment and to uncover where asbestos was used on your worksites.

Even if you don’t believe that you were exposed to asbestos at a particular jobsite, you should include it in your work history. Asbestos can sometimes be present in situations where you wouldn’t expect it or didn’t know about it.

What If You Didn’t Work Around Asbestos?

Some people have gotten mesothelioma through exposure to asbestos outside of a workplace. Many people have won mesothelioma lawsuits after they inhaled toxic asbestos dust from a spouse’s or parent’s work clothes. Some people come into contact with asbestos through renovations at your home or workplace.

Mesothelioma Lawsuit Preparations

To prepare for your mesothelioma lawsuit, write down your employment history even if you don’t think that’s where your asbestos exposure originated. In addition, list other places and times where you think you might have been exposed to asbestos. If your spouse worked around asbestos, include his or her work history as well.

It is important to be as thorough in this process as possible. This task may seem hard when you are also feeling the effects of mesothelioma on your health. Again, this is a good time to lean on your mesothelioma lawyer for help.

Choose the Right Lawyer for Your Mesothelioma Lawsuit

After your mesothelioma diagnosis has been confirmed, you will need to think about finding the best lawyer for your mesothelioma lawsuit. You want someone who is experienced in asbestos litigation and who is relentless in pursuing justice for his or her clients.

The process of choosing your mesothelioma lawyer may go against the grain. It is important to hire one of the best firms in the field. This is one instance where you can have access to the best lawyers no matter your economic situation or where you live.

This is because top-notch mesothelioma attorneys will work with you on a contingency fee basis, which means that you don’t need to put out any money up front. Your lawyer will take a percentage of any award or settlement you get. You are in no danger of going into debt over legal fees; if you don’t receive any compensation, neither does your asbestos attorney.

Choosing an experienced mesothelioma attorney is important because it can mean a difference of millions of dollars in compensation for your claim. This is money that you and your family can use to cover expenses during your illness and beyond.

You don’t have to pick a lawyer in your hometown or even your home state. You can seek legal representation from the best mesothelioma lawyers in the United States. You won’t be out of pocket for travel, either: your attorneys will come to visit you in your home.

Kazan Law is one of the pioneering firms in asbestos litigation. We are proud to have helped thousands of clients file mesothelioma lawsuits for more than 40 years. If you have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, we are happy to evaluate your case for free and tell you honestly how, where, and with who you can best get the justice and compensation you deserve.

Mesothelioma Lawyers’ Funding Helps Win Victory Over Corporate Secrecy

Posted on January 25, 2016 by Steven Kazan

At Kazan Law, we are not just mesothelioma lawyers. We are passionate about everyone’s right to know about potential hazards in our environment and in the products that shape our lives. As part of our commitment to corporate accountability, we joined with another law firm to fund a position at Public Justice, a public interest legal group whose mission includes the pursuit of “high impact lawsuits to combat social and economic injustice.”

That funding recently reaped big dividends for all lawyers who fight against corporate wrongdoing. Jennifer Bennett, the Kazan Budd attorney at Public Justice, won a landmark ruling in the Ninth Circuit that will prevent corporations from keeping evidence of their negligence under wraps.

Challenging a Judicial Standard

Bennett was an outstanding member of the class of 2010 at Yale Law School. With Kazan Law’s help, Public Justice was able to offer this promising young legal mind a place among the ranks of lawyers dedicated to defending plaintiffs’ rights. One of her first projects was to work on a class action suit against Chrysler for an ignition defect that had led to countless collisions and caused more than one hundred fatalities.

The case, Velasco v. Chrysler, involved a defect in the ignition switches in Chrysler automobiles. The defect causes the engine to suddenly cut out while the car is going full speed on the highway. The automaker had never informed the public about the ignition problem. It asked the judge for an order that the records in the Velasco case be filed under seal. This meant that the public – including other attorneys, journalists, and consumers – weren’t able to find out the important information uncovered by this case.

The plaintiffs asked the court to unseal the records and warn other drivers of Chrysler vehicles about this dangerous defect. The US District court refused, despite clear public safety implications. The judge took the position that court records such as these can only be unsealed after a jury verdict.

Mesothelioma Lawyers: Breaking a Cycle of Corporate Wrongdoing

The problem is that most cases never go to a jury. Bennett describes the deadly cycle of corporate malfeasance and the justice system’s complicity in a recent blog post: “Corporation conceals deadly defect. Someone dies, and their family sues. Corporation settles quietly. Court records are sealed. Nobody finds out. More people are hurt; more people sue; more settlements are reached; more records are sealed.” It sometimes takes years or even decades for the truth to come out.

The Velasco case seemed destined to follow this pattern. Chrysler settled before a verdict. The court records, along with the alarming facts about the malfunctioning ignitions, remained sealed away from public scrutiny.

Enter Public Justice, which intervened in the case on behalf of the Center for Auto Safety. Represented by Jennifer Bennett, the Center for Auto Safety appealed to unseal the records, taking the case up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Holding Corporations Accountable

In a major victory for transparency, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the records cannot be kept secret. In doing so, the court created a much broader standard for unsealing court documents. When information is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case,” the court said, the public deserves access.

It’s hard to overstate the importance of this legal decision. If not for this ruling, thousands of Chrysler drivers would not have known that they might have faulty ignition switches. The car company would not have to face public accountability for this major product defect. Even more importantly, judges will use the new standard in future cases.

Bennett highlighted the significance of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in her blog post:

“This is a big deal. It makes the settle-and-conceal model of handling corporate misconduct much more difficult to pull off: Corporations can no longer hope to prevent public access to court records simply by settling a case before a court gets a chance to make a final determination.”

Lawsuits are one way to bring to light willful corporate negligence. Through the discovery process, plaintiffs’ lawyers gain access to internal communications that can reveal that a corporation knew about a harmful product for years and lied about that knowledge. The ruling won by Bennett and Public Justice may stop corporations from hiding their crimes behind a wall of legal secrecy.

Mesothelioma Lawyers’ Funding Helped It Happen

As mesothelioma lawyers, we are very familiar with the harm that comes when corporations hide information about health and safety from the public. Manufacturers used asbestos with no worker safeguards for decades after they knew about its health risks. Those decades led to countless avoidable deaths.

The truth about asbestos and mesothelioma are public now. But many more dangers are still hidden by bad corporate citizens. The Velasco decision will help plaintiffs’ lawyers bring more of those hazards to light. Jennifer Bennett, the Kazan Budd attorney at Public Justice, won a court decision that will save lives in the years to come by holding corporations accountable for the harm they cause. It’s a terrific start to a promising legal career. Kazan Law is proud to have played a role in supporting this talented young lawyer who has already accomplished so much.

Dallas Morning News Publishes Kazan Law EFH Rebuttal

Posted on January 20, 2016 by Steven Kazan

A letter I wrote in rebuttal to the head of a fuel conglomerate’s deceptive open letter to Texans has been published by the Dallas Morning News, the newspaper that originally published the piece by Hunter L. Hunt, chairman and CEO of Hunt Consolidated Energy. The Kazan Law rebuttal letter is another effort to provide all pertinent information to possible EFH asbestos victims.

In his letter, Hunt praised his company’s proposed acquisition of Oncor Electric Delivery Company. But he conveniently left out the fact that because of this acquisition thousands of EFH’s potential asbestos victims have been stripped of significant legal rights.

Hunt Buying Oncor From EFH

Hunt Consolidated put together a deal to take over Oncor, the biggest power distributor in Texas. The deal would help end the $40 billion bankruptcy of Oncor’s parent company Energy Future Holdings (EFH).

EFH is selling Oncor, the primary piece of its portfolio, to the Hunt group for $19 billion as a way to try to get out of bankruptcy. EFH had filed for bankruptcy in April 2014. At that time, it listed liabilities of over $40 billion.

EFH has accepted Hunt’s purchase offer. If the deal wins approval by the Texas Public Utilities Commission, EFH would be split into two companies owned by different sets of lenders.

Hunt would get Oncor, which sends power to more than 3 million Texas customers over 119,000 miles of power lines.

Hunt is the lead of a group of investors seeking to participate in the purchase. The Hunt group includes Anchorage Capital Group, Arrowgrass Capital Partners, Avenue Capital Group, BlackRock, Centerbridge Partners, GSO Capital Partners and the Teacher Retirement System of Texas, according to media reports.

Hunt Letter Doesn’t Tell Whole Story

In his open letter, Hunt invokes everything but mom and apple pie in order to sway the officials who have to approve of his Oncor purchase.

“As the Public Utility Commission of Texas considers Hunt’s proposal to acquire Oncor, I want to share why we believe our proposal is in the best interest of customers, our fellow Texans, and the economic health of Texas,” he says.

He goes on to say, “For more than 80 years, Hunt has been active in Oncor’s communities. We know that the local utility is the bedrock of every town and city in Texas. The utility turns on the lights at the churches, the football stadiums, the schools, the community centers and, most importantly, our homes.”

What he conveniently doesn’t say is that at Hunt’s insistence, all those exposed to EFH’s asbestos products and services since the 1930s were swept into an EFH bankruptcy provision that took away their rights to sue for unlawful asbestos exposure if they get sick.

Asbestos Claims Cut Off By EFH Bankruptcy

Hunt ensured that Energy Futures Holding (EFH), with known asbestos claims against it, was able to drastically limit the legal rights of all its past, present and future asbestos victims as part of its bankruptcy. This was done to make sure that Hunt would not have to compensate people who may become fatally ill from being exposed to asbestos while they or a family member worked at a facility where EFH handled asbestos.

Anyone who ever worked at any EFH site or had a family member who did, would have had to file a claim by December 14, 2015 or lose all rights to make any asbestos claims against EFH, its subsidiaries and its insurance companies, even if they are not sick yet.

Asbestos insulation was widely used in power plants built before 1980. But the toxicity of asbestos was already well-established at that time and less dangerous substitutes were available. The plants could have been retro-fitted with nontoxic materials but they were not.

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the EPA have determined that asbestos is a human carcinogen and there is no safe level of exposure.

By denying those who may develop mesothelioma or other asbestos-related disease the right to sue, Hunt is being allowed to potentially get away with murder.

Kazan Law EFH Rebuttal: Text of the Published Letter

Here in its entirety is the text of my published letter exactly as it appeared in the Dallas Morning News:

“Hunt’s op-ed piece sounds good but is grossly misleading. I am counsel to an asbestos widow who serves as a member of the Energy Future Holdings creditors’ committee in the EFH bankruptcy and to objectors who are appealing the order confirming the EFH deal with the Hunt group. As part of this deal, Hunt and his lawyers have insisted on eliminating the rights of all Luminant and Oncor employees and their families, as well as the rights of thousands of other Texans and other Americans, to fair compensation for fatal asbestos cancers that could occur in the decades ahead caused by work an EFH company did at 1,000 power plants around the world.

I agree with Hunt that it is important for the Texas PUC and all Texans to “see the facts and understand the details,” since once they understand what is truly at stake here they will conclude it would be a disaster to join him “in supporting the Hunt proposal as the very best way forward for Oncor and all of those dependent on Oncor in their daily lives.”

Steven Kazan, Oakland, Calif., Managing Partner, Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

Mesothelioma Lawyer Ted Pelletier Named Partner at Kazan Law

Posted on January 19, 2016 by Steven Kazan

We are pleased to announce that premier mesothelioma lawyer Ted Pelletier has been named partner at Kazan Law. We congratulate him for his distinguished accomplishments in the courtroom and the community.

Mesothelioma Lawyer Ted Pelletier

As a mesothelioma lawyer, Mr. Pelletier brings to his practice over 20 years of experience handling dozens of appeals in the California Courts of Appeal and California Supreme Court, representing many injured consumers, including those with asbestos-related illnesses.

Upon graduating with honors from Hastings College of the Law, Mr. Pelletier joined an appellate law firm where he achieved a number of victories on behalf of asbestos victims. Mr. Pelletier recollects, “I learned through that process about the disease and what it did to people. It felt great to help them.”

One of Mr. Pelletier’s proudest accomplishments was successfully representing the first Californians to sue cigarette manufacturers, including two smokers who contracted asbestos disease from smoking 1950s Kent cigarettes made with asbestos filters.

Having earned a reputation as a prominent mesothelioma lawyer, Mr. Pelletier joined Kazan Law as of counsel in 2013, where he served as lead appellate counsel in several cases involving cutting-edge legal issues in the asbestos field. “I knew from 17 years in this field that Kazan Law was the best,” explains Pelletier. “Money doesn’t replace a person, but it can help a family pay medical bills and compensate for the loss of a loved one,” Pelletier continues, “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.’”

Since joining Kazan Law, Mr. Pelletier successfully represented asbestos plaintiffs in many landmark Supreme Court and appellate court cases. Mr. Pelletier’s cases included Scott v. Ford Motor Co, which affirmed the plaintiff’s verdict and obtained reversal on dismissal of punitive-damages claim, Hellam v. Crane Co., which affirmed the plaintiff’s verdict and post-judgment settlement-credit issues, and Johnson v. U.S. Steel, which reversed summary judgment for benzene product defendant.

Mr. Pelletier actively participates in Kazan Law’s trials, leading the firm’s briefing on legal issues including evidentiary issues, jury instructions, and post-trial matters. In the appellate courts, he currently represents asbestos plaintiffs in several matters, including in the California Supreme Court in Webb v. Special Electric Co. In 2014, Mr. Pelletier associated in the representation of the plaintiffs in Kesner v. Pneumo Abex, obtaining a reversal of the judgment of nonsuit in the appellate court and is now acting as lead appellate counsel in the California Supreme Court.

When asked about his new position as partner, Mr. Pelletier replies that he is “thrilled to be part of the leadership team that will take Kazan Law into the future and strengthen its status as one of the premier plaintiffs’ asbestos litigation firms in the country.”

Mr. Pelletier has been happily married for over 20 years to his wife Mia, with whom he has two wonderful daughters, Sophie and Julia.

Kazan Law Honored by Alameda County Bar Association

Posted on January 15, 2016 by Steven Kazan

We’re excited to announce that Kazan Law has been honored by our community of peers. Our asbestos law firm has received the Distinguished Service Award from the Alameda County Bar Association. We are the only law firm to receive this designation for this year’s awards.

Why Kazan Law Supports the Alameda County Bar Association

As members of the legal community, we often must ask ourselves what kind of justice system do we believe in? Do we believe in a system only available to a select few, i.e. the wealthy and powerful? Or do we believe in and strive to support a system of justice that protects all community members equally? At Kazan Law where we advocate for the rights of people exposed to asbestos through the negligence of often big and powerful interests, we have dedicated ourselves to ensuring that our legal system protects all community members equally.

For over 40 years, Kazan Law has been winning precedent-setting cases and achieving financial justice for our clients. We set a high standard of excellence for ourselves and work hard on behalf of our clients to achieve it.

The mission statement of the Alameda County Bar Association says, “Our mission is to promote excellence in the legal profession and to facilitate equal access to justice.” This aligns perfectly with our own goals at Kazan Law which we put into practice every single day.

How the Alameda County Bar Association Helps the Community

At Kazan Law, we strongly believe that all lawyers should support their local bar association. Bar associations provide vital legal services free or at low-cost within their communities and work to improve administration of justice. A bar association also gives attorneys an ongoing forum for addressing issues of concern to our profession as it continues to evolve.

Kazan Law’s offices always have been located in Oakland, California which is in Alameda County. The Alameda County Bar Association is the leading legal organization in this area that:

Seeks to provide legal help to all people living in Alameda County who otherwise could not afford it.
Coordinates services of volunteer attorneys to provide pro bono legal assistance to Alameda County’s low-income population.
Promotes excellence in the legal profession and facilitates equal access to justice.

The Alameda County Bar Association pairs low-income clients with qualified pro bono attorneys to handle cases. Its programs also include monthly clinics in the areas of family law, domestic violence, bankruptcy, guardianship, immigration, and landlord-tenant disputes.

The Alameda County Bar Association also provides training, mentoring and malpractice insurance for volunteer attorneys including retirees, paralegals, and recent law school graduates thus enriching the local legal profession.

For all these reasons and more, we are proud that all of the mesothelioma attorneys at Kazan Law are members of the Alameda County Bar Association.

Other Distinguished Service Award Recipients

As the law firm selected to be this year’s Distinguished Service Award Recipient from the Alameda County Bar Association, we are pleased to be among excellent company.

The complete list of the Distinguished Service Award for 2016 is:

Judge: Hon. Kimberly Colwell, Superior Court of California, County of Alameda Lawyer
Lawyer: Jamie Rudman, Sanchez & Amador, LLP
New Lawyer: Vincent Tong, Tong Law Law Firm
Law Firm: Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood Community Organization
Community Organization: Eviction Defense Center

California Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin, who is also the former Alameda County Bar Association Board president, is the featured speaker at the awards presentation on January 16, 2016.

At Kazan Law, we win cases for our clients, most of whom are mesothelioma patients and their families. We also support mesothelioma medical research, asbestos regulations and workers rights. In addition we provide philanthropic and professional pro bono support to those who need it. We do all of these because they are important. We do not do them to win awards. However, we are grateful for this recognition from the Alameda County Bar Association and offer our sincere thanks for the honor.

Mesothelioma Law Firm Kazan Law M&A Award Winner

Posted on January 6, 2016 by Steven Kazan

Kazan Law is deeply proud and honored to have won the Corporate America M&A Award for best California mesothelioma law firm of 2015. The M&A award, “Best for Asbestos Litigation,” reflects more than four decades of tremendous work which includes a series of historic and financial settlements won from negligent companies who wittingly exposed innocent people to fatal poisoning through asbestos exposure.

Mesothelioma Law Firm Award– Voted By Peers We are delighted and also grateful to our clients and colleagues for voting us in to the category of best mesothelioma law firm. For us, one of the most meaningful aspects of being selected for the M&A awards is that it is strictly a peer-based list, and winners are chosen based purely on merit. This is not a selection you can buy your way into.

The M&A Awards

In the words of Corporate America: “The M&A Awards identify and commemorate the tireless efforts and stunning achievements of those firms excelling in their industry and outperforming their competitors. These prestigious awards celebrate management brilliance and business acumen across America. Corporate America selects their winning luminaries through a rigorous judging process, during which we leave no stone unturned to ensure that all winners are chosen purely on merit. Winners of these awards are considered among the real leading lights in their industry.”

About Corporate America Publication

Corporate America is a publication designed to inform, entertain, influence, and shape conversations across the nation through high quality editorial, in-depth research and an experienced and dedicated network of advisors. Both their website and magazine provide readers with authoritative news and real-time analyses of major trends and topics influencing today’s corporate landscape.

Mesothelioma Law Firm: Kazan Law

Since 1974, Kazan Law has represented thousands of people suffering from asbestos related illnesses, particularly mesothelioma. Our principals are pioneers in asbestos litigation and have earned a reputation as the most experienced mesothelioma lawyers in California. Our deep foothold in, and understanding of, asbestos bankruptcy reorganizations and asbestos bankruptcy funds is unparalleled.

Winning the M&A award for best mesothelioma law firm in California marks a banner year for Kazan Law that included a number of awards, including the Northern California Super Lawyers 2015, and numerous multi-million dollar wins for the pain and suffering of victims and families with asbestos-related illnesses. To our esteemed colleagues and clients, you have our humble gratitude.

Flavored E-Cigarettes: The New Big Lie?

Posted on December 15, 2015 by Steven Kazan

E-cigarettes, electronic devices that deliver nicotine by vaporizing a liquid rather than burning dried tobacco, are being sold to the American public as a safer alternative to cigarette smoking. Given the tobacco industry’s decades long track record of lying to the world about the dangers of smoking, it’s natural to be skeptical about the rosy health claims of electronic cigarettes. Now, a new study has shown that flavored e-cigarettes (also known as e-cigs) contain chemicals that may cause a severe and irreversible lung disease.

For decades, tobacco companies paid scientists to sow doubt about the growing body of evidence linking cigarette smoking with lung cancer, a fact that is now undisputed. As these deceptions have come to light, acceptance of cigarette smoking in the US has declined. In 1965, 42% of US adults were smokers. In 2015, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that number had gone down to 15%.

As cigarette smoking has become less socially acceptable, with states instituting bans on smoking in most public spaces, offices and restaurants, e-cigarette use has been on the rise. Young people have the highest rate of “vaping” (vaping is the term for e-cig use, since users inhale vapor, not smoke). Just over 5% of those in the 18 to 24 year category vape regularly. The industry has promoted vaping among young people, producing flavored e-cigarettes blatantly aimed at a youth market. One leading brand features flavors that include Cherry Crush, Peach Schnapps, and Vivid Vanilla.

That flavoring puts more than sweetness into the vapor. It adds toxic chemicals into the mix as well.

Butter Flavoring and Popcorn Lung

In 2000, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) was called in to investigate an outbreak of obliterative bronchiolitis among people who had worked at a plant that manufactured microwave popcorn. The disease is caused by scarring or swelling of the bronchial tubes in the lungs. The symptoms of this disease are similar to asthma or chronic bronchitis, so it can be difficult to diagnose. It is uncommon and incurable. Because the sufferers had all worked at a popcorn plant, the disease became known as “popcorn lung.”

Studies determined that popcorn lung was caused by the butter-flavored topping. Chemicals used in the flavoring became airborne during the manufacturing process. One chemical in particular, diacetyl, is suspected of being responsible for this disease.

Flavored E-Cigarettes Put Workers and Vapers in Danger

Diacetyl is a common ingredient in a number of other artificial flavorings, including fruit flavors. A new study looked for diacetyl, as well as two other chemicals that may be implicated in obliterative bronchiolitis, in flavored e-cigarettes. The study tested 51 types of e-cigs. Researchers detected diacetyl in more than 75% of the flavors and at least one of the three chemicals in over 90% of the samples tested.

Workers, who are exposed to constant large doses of these chemicals, may have the highest risk of developing debilitating lung disease after prolonged exposure. However, vapers may also be susceptible, as they inhale these toxics along with their Cherry Crush or Vivid Vanilla. Because flavored e-cigarettes are widely used among young people whose lungs may still be developing, the effects could be even more severe.

Focusing on Lung Disease for Over 40 Years

Kazan Law is no stranger to dealing with big corporations that put workers and consumers at risk. We have been at the forefront of asbestos litigation since the first plaintiffs filed lawsuits in the early 1970s. We continue to hold corporations accountable every day, for mesothelioma and lung cancer caused by exposure to toxic asbestos fibers.

Our practice is about more than winning settlements and verdicts for our clients, though that is an important part of what we do. It is also about holding corporations accountable for their negligent actions. It’s about standing up to big businesses that put profits ahead of the health of their workers and customers and the general public.

Manufacturers who used asbestos knew about its potentially fatal health effects for decades but continued to expose unsuspecting workers to this toxic mineral without proper – or any – protective gear. Even when the information about the health risks of asbestos became public, government was slow to step in and regulate. The widespread and negligent use of asbestos only stopped after the weight of lawsuits became too heavy for corporations to bear.

The toxic effects of diacetyl and other flavoring chemicals are not unknown. E-cigarette manufacturers add these chemicals to their products in search of an easy profit, disregarding the risk to human health. The FDA currently has no authority to regulate e-cigarettes, the way it does tobacco, so flavored e-cigarettes are not subject to any government oversight. While the FDA pursues a legal process to obtain regulatory authority over e-cigarettes, some states and cities have passed their own rules limiting the use of these nicotine-delivery devices.

Flavored e-cigarettes have only been on the market for a few years. Lung disease can take time to develop. Symptoms may be latent for years until they become too severe to ignore. At Kazan Law, we think public health matters. We think there’s no time to lose.

Sometimes, lawyers can do what governments and business cannot or will not do – protect the health of citizens and workers. Kazan Law is proud to be a part of this movement. If you are an e-cigarette smoker and are experiencing severe lung issues, talk to your doctor at once. If you are told your problems seem related to diacetyl, we’d like to hear from you.

Mesothelioma Verdict Withstands Second Appeal

Posted on December 11, 2015 by Steven Kazan

A mesothelioma verdict was recently upheld by the California Court of Appeal, First District (Hellam v. Crane Co. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 851). Our team from Kazan Law successfully defeated a second attempt by Crane Co. to use James Hellam’s mesothelioma settlements to reduce the economic-damages award it must pay. Mr. Hellam died from mesothelioma he developed from exposure to asbestos in Crane Co.’s products while working at his grandfather’s boiler service when he was a teenager.

Threat to How Mesothelioma Settlements Are Used to Reduce Economic Damages Defeated

In its second thwarted attempt to reduce the Hellam family’s economic-damages award, Crane Co. tried to get the courts to reconfigure the entire way mesothelioma settlement amounts are applied to reduce economic damages in wrongful death and personal injury cases.

In its decision to deny that request, the court characterized Crane Co.’s proposed change to the method of using mesothelioma settlements to calculate the setoff for economic damages as being “completely at odds” with California law. If it had been successful, the change Crane Co. sought could have significantly reduced, if not completely erased, the jury’s award of $937,882.56 in economic damages to Mr. Hellam.

Hellam affirms California’s long-standing method for allocating pre-verdict mesothelioma settlement proceeds to determine the defendant’s setoff for economic damages. I see this case as a great example that demonstrates how our current judicial system works.

This decision has a broader impact to plaintiffs, especially those involved in multi-defendant tort actions. It preserves public policies that are strongly reflected in the law, including encouraging mesothelioma settlements and maximizing the injured plaintiff’s recovery from the at-fault parties.

Kazan Law partners Dianna Lyons and Frank Fernandez, both now retired, tried and won the mesothelioma case against Crane Co. Kazan Law of counsel Ted Pelletier and associate Ian Rivamonte successfully handled the appeal.

Economic Damages Part of Mesothelioma Verdict Upheld

Crane Co. attempted with this second appeal to increase the amount of a mesothelioma settlement credit the company was entitled to for economic damages. But the appellate court rejected this proposed change.

While Crane Co. tried to base this second appeal on how mesothelioma settlements should be used to reduce economic damages, its first appeal challenged the jury decision over its liability in the case. The appellate court held that evidence supported the finding that Crane’s gaskets and cement were defectively designed because they emitted and exposed Hellam to significant levels of toxic asbestos fibers during ordinary use.

This appellate decision made in April 2014 affirmed the trial court’s award of over $85,000 in litigation costs to Mr. Hellam and the following compensation for damages:

Economic damages = $937,882.56

Non-economic damages = $4,500,000.00

Total = $5,437,882.56

Mesothelioma Verdict Based on Teenage Asbestos Exposure

As a teenager, Mr. Hellam worked for his grandfather’s one man boiler service operation, over the course of five summers between 1962 and 1966. Mr. Hellam’s grandfather purchased Cranite gaskets and a dry powdered cement product from Crane Co’s wholesale outlet in Salinas, California. When Mr. Hellam mixed that powdered material with water to form a slurry in the process of refurbishing boilers, and cut sheet gasket material in the refurbishing process, he inadvertently inhaled asbestos dust.

Because the products carried no warnings, Mr. Hellam’s grandfather did not know to take precautions for himself and his grandson in handling the Crane Co. products or to choose a substitute product that did not contain asbestos. Mr. Hellam had no asbestos exposure during the rest of his career. He was a San Jose, California police officer for 13 years before becoming a motivational speaker for the next 31 years of his life.

A Hall of Fame softball player, Hellam had taken pride in coaching both of his sons in softball and had eagerly anticipated teaching his grandsons how to play. He also was looking forward to continuing his career in worldwide motivational speaking which allowed him to travel around the globe.

Then suddenly, his once rich and full life came to a halt. Instead of doing the things he loved, he was forced to focus his dwindling energy on battling malignant mesothelioma – a battle he sadly lost.

Now with this second appeal upholding the full $5.4 million mesothelioma verdict we won for him, we hope Mr. Hellam’s family can find some peace and that this tragic case now can be closed.

EFH Asbestos Claim Deadline Now Here

Posted on December 2, 2015 by Steven Kazan

December 14 is your last chance ever to file an EFH asbestos claim (Energy Futures Holding). And that day is almost here. On December 14 at 5 pm Eastern Standard Time – which is 2 pm in California – you and your family will permanently lose the chance to achieve justice from this giant energy corporation even if you become sick or die from asbestos exposure in years to come.

Filing an EFH asbestos claim will require documentation so please do not wait until the last minute. You potentially have much to gain by filing a claim and much to lose by doing nothing.

If you or a family member has ever worked at an EFH power plant, you must have your attorney file a claim with the EFH Claims Processing Center by the December 14, 2015 deadline. The time to act is now.

We at Kazan Law can file the EFH asbestos claim for you if you do not have a qualified asbestos attorney. You will not be charged anything unless we obtain a future settlement for you. Although December 14^th is the deadline at the EFH Claims Processing Center, Kazan Law must receive the claim form and our signed form authorizing us to represent you by Monday, December 7, 2015. We also must be able to speak with you by close of business that day in order to prepare your formal EFH asbestos claim form for submission.

Filing a claim whether or not you are ill right now with an asbestos-related disease will protect your future legal rights. This is not how we usually do things but the unfairness of the EFH December 14 deadline leaves no other option.

December 14 EFH Asbestos Claim Deadline Imposed by Bankruptcy

The December 14 deadline for all EFH asbestos claims is unfair. It shortchanges potentially thousands of victims who may have been exposed to asbestos at an EFH-owned plant but currently have no symptoms of asbestos-caused disease. But when you are a $36 billion energy company like EFH with holdings all across the US and around the world, fairness does not enter into the equation.

Energy Future Holdings, knowing it had many asbestos claims against it, successfully filed for bankruptcy. This helped them to limit their financial losses and also drastically limited the legal rights of all its past, present and future asbestos victims.

EFH was required to publish notices about the December 14 claim filing deadline in newspapers and also required to directly contact former employees. But many people either may not have seen the item in the newspapers or received the letters that EFH was ordered to send, and may not realize that this deadline applies to them. The December 14 deadline applies to everyone – ill or not. Please share this information with anyone you know who may be affected.

Who the December 14 Deadline Impacts

The December 14 deadline for filing asbestos claims against EFH potentially impacts thousands of past employees, employees of other companies who worked at sites where companies for which EFH is now responsible did work, and all their family members. Many of them may not know that the power plant where they worked was owned by EFH or worked on by EFH companies. That is understandable. About 70 different companies are part of EFH. EFH subsidiary companies include Ebasco, EECI, Enserch, Lone Star Gas, Luminant and TXU, and many more. They worked [are located ]all over the United States and in overseas countries.

You can find complete lists of EFH-owned domestic and international plants on our website. Please take a look to see whether a plant where you or a relative worked is included.

Asbestos-caused diseases may not produce any symptoms for decades. You may be ill but may not be diagnosed until many years from now. That is why it is so important to file a claim against EFH by the December 14 deadline if you or a family member ever worked at any of the power plants named in the lists we have provided.

Why You Need to Act Before the December 14 Deadline

Please do not wait until the December 14 deadline to act. You need to get started sooner to give a reputable asbestos attorney time to review your information. And we strongly suggest that you do not try to file a claim on your own. It will take just a few moments to complete our asbestos claim form with some basic facts about your situation. We will get in touch with you with any additional questions we may have about your circumstances. We will also give you free expert legal advice about whether you should file a claim with the EFH Claims Processing Center or file any other asbestos-related claim.

If we find you meet the criteria required to file a claim and if you would like our firm to file an EFH asbestos claim for you, you will need to complete and sign a form that gives us official authorization to represent you.

Please understand that submitting this form to us or any other law firm for that matter is not the same thing as submitting it to the EFH Bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Claim Form deadline is Monday, December 14, 2015. The form you would need to sign for proof that we are your legal representation has to be completed by Monday, December 7, 2015. In addition to completing that form, we also need to talk to you before the end of the business day on Monday, December 7 so that we can move forward and prepare your formal claim.

We will do everything we possibly can to help you. But the first move is up to you. Please make that move now while there is still time. Remember, all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. So do something now.

Posts by: Steven Kazan