Pleural Plaques and Pleural Thickening: Asbestos Court Decisions

Decisions in our case-law library that involve pleural plaques and thickening: 155 cases, by state. Each line gives the exposure the court described, or else what it decided. For the topic itself, see Pleural Plaques and Pleural Thickening.

California

• Elorreaga v. Rockwell Automation, Inc. (2023). The federal district court denied the defendants' motions to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts Staggs, Spear, Smith and Horn, without prejudice to renewed objections at trial.
• Benavidez v. Fluor Corp. (2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Fluor Corporation and directed the trial court to deny Fluor's motion, so plaintiff Michael Benavidez won.
• Duty v. Trz Realty, LLC (1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2017). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment (nonsuit) for TRZ Realty, LLC after the trial court excluded plaintiffs' causation expert, remanded for further proceedings, and dismissed TRZ's consolidated appeal over expert fees as moot.
• Hanson v. Collins Electrical Co. (1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2016). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Collins Electrical Company, holding Hanson raised a triable issue on medical monitoring damages despite having no lung impairment.
• Walashek v. Air Liquid Systems Corporation (2016). The court denied Foster Wheeler's motions (joined by other defendants) to exclude the opinions of plaintiffs' experts Dr. Fishbein and Dr. Holstein, so plaintiffs may present both experts.
• Bettencourt v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgments on the pleadings for Hennessy Industries on the strict products liability and negligence claims, holding plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend, and affirmed as to all other causes of action.
• Shields v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgments on the pleadings for Hennessy Industries and remanded, holding the plaintiffs' brake-grinding-machine negligence and strict liability claims were sufficient to proceed.
• Garza v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2008). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Joseph and Mary Garza against Asbestos Corporation Ltd., declining to overrule Arena v. Owens-Corning and rejecting ACL's challenge to strict liability for a raw asbestos supplier.
• Brumley v. Fdcc California, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2007). The Court of Appeal reversed in part the dismissal under the five-year rule, reinstating the wrongful death, loss of consortium and cancer survivorship claims against the defendants, while the noncancer survivorship claims stayed barred.
• Quarles v. Advocate Mines Limited (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2006). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Geronia Quarles against Advocate Mines Limited, rejecting the mining company's challenges to the liability findings, causation, expert testimony and damages.
• Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000). The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that Mitchell's second action (for mesothelioma) was not time-barred and that Asbestos Corporation made a general appearance in the first action, so the plaintiffs prevailed on both issues; remanded to resolve remaining issues.
• Wagner v. Apex Marine Ship Management Corp. (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2000). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment dismissing Wagner's Jones Act claims against the Apex Marine and related shipping defendants and remanded, holding his asbestosis claim was not time-barred by his earlier pleural disease diagnosis.
• Anderson v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. (1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 1999). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment that had been entered for Metalclad Insulation Corp. against Warren Anderson on limitations grounds, and remanded the case to the trial court, with costs to Anderson.
• Howard v. Owens Corning (1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 1999). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Owens Corning on a jury verdict that Howard's asbestos exposure was not a cause of his injury, and rejected the Howards' claim that they were entitled to a directed verdict.
• Gutierrez v. Cassiar Mining Corp. (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1998). The Court of Appeal reversed the $37,240 economic damages award for medical monitoring because the trial court refused Cassiar Mining's requested preexisting-condition instruction, affirmed the rest of the judgment for Gutierrez, and limited any retrial to monitoring costs.
• Scheiding v. General Motors Corp. (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1998). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments for General Motors, holding that the federal Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act preempted the railroad workers' and survivors' state-law tort claims over asbestos in locomotives.
• Smith v. ACandS, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 1994). The Court of Appeal reversed the jury judgment, directed entry of judgment for ACandS, and remanded for a new trial against PG&E.
• Williamson v. Plant Insulation Co. (1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 1994). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for the Williamson plaintiffs against Plant Insulation only as to the decedent's noneconomic damages and anticipated economic damages, remanded for a limited new trial on economic damages, and otherwise affirmed, including the finding that the asbestosis claim was timely.
• Clark v. Workers'comp. Appeals BD. (2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 1991). The Court of Appeal affirmed the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision that Shirley Clark's application for death benefits was barred by the statute of limitations, so the employer (Department of Youth Authority) prevailed.
• Indus. Indemnity Co. v. Worker's Comp. App. BD. (2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 1983). The court annulled the workers' compensation judge's findings and the Appeals Board's denial of reconsideration, and directed the Board to decide which employer or insurer (Industrial Indemnity or self-insured National) was liable; this favored petitioner Industrial Indemnity.

Colorado

• Miller v. Armstrong World Industries (1991). The Colorado Supreme Court answered the Tenth Circuit's certified question no: discovering pleural thickening and calcification did not start the limitations period on a later asbestosis claim, which favored plaintiff Miller over the defendant manufacturers.
• Miller v. Celotex Corp. (1989). The court granted summary judgment to defendants Celotex, Eagle-Picher, Keene and Owens-Illinois because plaintiff Raymond Miller's asbestos claim was filed after Colorado's three-year limitations period expired.

Connecticut

• Deschenes v. Transco, Inc. (2008). The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the compensation review board's decision, which had upheld full permanent partial disability benefits for the plaintiff against employers Reed and AC & S, and remanded for further fact-finding on apportionment.
• Deschenes v. Transco, Inc. (2007). The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the compensation review board's decision affirming full benefits to George Deschenes, a ruling that favored the employers Reed and AC & S on the legal standard, and remanded for further fact-finding on whether his benefits should be reduced.
• Lafayette v. General Dynamics Corp. (2001). The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the workers' compensation review board and held that collateral estoppel barred Electric Boat from relitigating causation of the decedent's death, so the widow Kathryn Lafayette prevailed and the case was remanded to the commissioner.

Delaware

• Dabaldo v. Urs Energy & Construction (2014). The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's summary judgment for URS Energy & Construction and Crane Co. and remanded, holding the DaBaldos' asbestosis claim was timely.
• In re WR Grace & Co. (2012). The district court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's approval of the Grace–CNA insurance settlement and its confirmation of Grace's Chapter 11 plan, rejecting the objections of the Libby Claimants, BNSF, Montana, Canada, Anderson Memorial Hospital, the Bank Lenders, Garlock and three insurers. In a short appended memorandum it denied Garlock's motion for a stay pending appeal.
• In re WR Grace & Co. (2012). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's approval of the Grace–CNA insurance settlement and confirmed Grace's Chapter 11 plan with its two asbestos trusts and Section 524(g) channeling injunction, overruling all objections from the Libby Claimants, BNSF, Montana, the Crown, Anderson Memorial Hospital, Garlock, the Bank Lenders and the insurers.
• Price v. EI DuPont de Nemours & Co. (2011). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's denial of Patricia Price's motion to amend her complaint as futile, ruling for DuPont and against the Prices.
• Money v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Comp. Fund (1991). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's directed verdict for the Manville Trust Fund and Celotex (appeal stayed as to Celotex) against the five plaintiffs, who lost for lack of direct expert medical testimony on causation.
• Farrall v. AC & S. Co., Inc. (1990). The court granted in part the plaintiffs' and Celotex's motions to alter the judgments, ruling that Celotex's liability is the verdict minus the greater of the total settlement payments or the released tortfeasors' combined fault share, so Celotex owed one plaintiff $323,750 on an $875,000 verdict.
• Sheppard v. AC & S. Co. (1985). The court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion on the statute of limitations as to Sheppard's pleural thickening claim, and denied it as to his pulmonary asbestosis claim, so he lost on one claim and won on the other.

Georgia

• Putzel Elect. Contractors v. Jones (2006). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's affirmance of the workers' compensation award to Allen Ray Jones, rejecting the limitation and insufficient-exposure arguments of Putzel Electric Contractors and its insurer CNA Risk Management.
• John Crane, Inc. v. Wommack (1997). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict for Edgar Wommack against John Crane, Inc., upholding denial of Crane's motions for directed verdict and new trial and its evidentiary and procedural rulings.

Illinois

• Smith v. Illinois Central R. Co. (4th District, 2015). The appellate court reversed the judgment for plaintiff James Smith against Illinois Central Railroad and remanded for a new trial, because the trial court barred the railroad from presenting evidence of Smith's earlier work at the UNARCO asbestos plant.
• Kieffer and Co., Inc. v. Industrial Com'n (2nd District, Industrial Commission Division, 1994). The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgments confirming the Industrial Commission: Kieffer and Company stayed liable for the widow's death benefits, and the widow lost her claim for temporary total disability benefits.
• H & H Plumbing Co. v. Indus. Comm'n (5th District, 1988). Affirmed the circuit court's confirmation of the Industrial Commission's award of temporary total disability and 10% permanent disability benefits to claimant Carl Wade against employer H & H Plumbing.

Iowa

• Beeman v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Fund (1993). The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Joseph Beeman after the jury verdict, upholding the evidence rulings, Keene's liability, and the trial court's setting aside of the punitive damages and the lost-life-opportunity award, so Manville Fund and Keene lost and Beeman's cross-appeal also failed.

Louisiana

• Brindell v. Carlisle Industrial Brake and Friction Inc. (2021). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court, finding the second removal untimely because the defendants did not show plaintiffs acted in bad faith, and that the non-diverse defendants were not improperly joined; the removing defendants lost.
• Thomas v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (4th Circuit, 2006). The appeals court amended the judgment to cut the surviving spouse's wrongful death award against Entergy Louisiana from $2.75 million to $1 million, and otherwise affirmed the jury verdict for the plaintiffs, including the directed verdict for McCarty and the jury's finding of no fault by Johns Manville.
• Alexander v. Thiokol Corp. (3rd Circuit, 2004). The court reversed the trial court's grant of Morton's exception of no cause of action, which had dismissed the workers' suit, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Torrejon v. Mobil Oil Co. (4th Circuit, 2004). The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment notwithstanding the verdict for plaintiff Christina Torrejon against Mobil Oil Company, including the $1.8 million general damage award, and refused to reduce Mobil's liability for the settling manufacturers' fault.
• Hoerner v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (4th Circuit, 2002). The appeals court affirmed most of the jury verdict for the Hoerners but reversed liability for McCarty as employer of other insulators, for Mr. Schuber III, Mr. McCarty and Home Insurance, and four settling-defendant credits, and amended the judgment to $306,111.07.
• Abadie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (5th Circuit, 2001). The appeals court reversed the trial judge's JNOVs that had raised the seven plaintiffs' damage awards and reinstated the jury's awards, affirmed liability of Asbestos Corporation Limited and four Avondale safety officers (O'Donnell, Kennedy, Chantrey, Territo; not Chantrey as to Badeaux), reversed liability of two other officers (Kelmell, Roberts), and recalculated each judgment by virile shares, including the Johns-Manville trust and four of the settling manufacturers.
• Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc. (4th Circuit, 1998). The court affirmed the jury verdicts for the plaintiffs against Owens-Corning Fiberglas (Kaylo insulation) and Rock Wool (One Shot cement), reversed the judgments against Garlock, A.W. Chesterton and Flexitallic, affirmed the judgments against Abadie, Naquin and Terrebonne and the dismissal of Plaisance's claim as prescribed, and ordered a virile-share reduction for Avondale's settlement that, on rehearing, applies only to Duronslet.
• Rareshide v. Mobil Oil Corp. (4th Circuit, 1998). The appeals court affirmed most of the workers' compensation judge's ruling for refinery worker Carl Rareshide against Mobil Oil and its insurer National Union. It cut his temporary total disability benefits to six months, awarded him supplemental earnings benefits afterward, added $500 in appeal attorney's fees, and held his heart attack not compensable.
• Atkinson v. Celotex Corp. (3rd Circuit, 1994). The court affirmed the jury verdicts and judgment, finding no manifest error or abuse of discretion, so the nine plaintiffs who appealed (or their heirs) and Faye Myers did not get higher damages or a consortium award against Owens-Illinois, Keene and INA.
• White v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (5th Circuit, 1982). The court affirmed the trial court's award of permanent total disability workers' compensation benefits to Rayfield White, Sr. against Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, denying Johns-Manville's request for a remand.

Maryland

• Wajer v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (2004). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Baltimore Gas and Electric Company against Anthony and Frances Wajer, holding BGE owed no duty under Restatement §§ 414 or 343 and that the other theories were not preserved.
• ACandS v. Abate (1998). The Court of Special Appeals reversed the judgments for the trial plaintiffs against U.S. Mineral, against Stebbing, and for Goodman and Morrow against Hampshire for insufficient evidence. It vacated the Theis and Glensky judgments against Hampshire for an instruction error, ordered Ciotta's award cut to the $350,000 cap, ordered reformed starting dates on two verdict sheets, and otherwise affirmed for the plaintiffs against Rapid-American and Crane.