Asbestos law: victims' rights and industry's reaction

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos law: victims' rights and industry's reaction, by K. Asch (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1979).

The study

• Author: K. Asch
• Journal: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
• Published: 1979;330:255-72
• Cited by: 2 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher
• In J-M's library: Johns-Manville's company medical library held a copy (J-M no. 004025).

In plain English

This paper was a review of U.S. law on asbestos-related diseases, not a medical study. The author described two routes to compensation: workers' compensation claims against employers, and product liability lawsuits against manufacturers and suppliers. Citing a legal treatise, the author reported that asbestosis is compensable in sixteen jurisdictions that specifically mention it or asbestos-related diseases, and that five states limit medical benefits for asbestosis. In a New Jersey case, the widow of a man who died of malignant mesothelioma in 1975 received $15 a week in death benefits, based on his 1924 wage of $17.75 a week. The author argued that a proposed federal bill would mainly benefit industry and would eliminate tort suits, letting people with pending suits keep them only by giving up its benefits. The author argued that new time limits in Utah, Colorado and Tennessee would severely limit lawsuits, since these diseases appear slowly. The author reviewed the Borel case, in which the jury rested liability on strict liability. The author concluded that workers' compensation was inadequate and that tort suits were the only means of attempting adequate compensation.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Legal review (review of U.S. workers' compensation and product liability law as it applies to asbestos-related diseases)
• Who was studied: No study population. The paper reviewed U.S. state and federal law, court cases (including Bush v. Johns-Manville Products Corporation and Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation), and a proposed federal bill, as of the late 1970s.
• Exposure: Workplace asbestos exposure in general. No fiber types or doses are analyzed.
• Main results:
  • Citing Larson's treatise, the author reported the following. Four jurisdictions (Georgia, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island) refer to asbestosis in their schedules of occupational diseases. Twelve other jurisdictions make specific reference to asbestosis or asbestos-related diseases. In these sixteen jurisdictions, asbestosis is a compensable occupational disease.
  • According to Larson, five states limit medical benefits for asbestosis.
  • The author concluded that workers' compensation for asbestos-related diseases is inadequate in all states.
  • In Bush v. Johns-Manville Products Corporation, the decedent worked for the defendant from November 1922 to February 1924 and died in 1975 of malignant mesothelioma. His widow was awarded death benefits of $15 a week, based on his last wage with that employer of $17.75 a week. The appeals court affirmed the award.
  • The author argued that the proposed federal Asbestos Health Hazards Compensation Act would primarily benefit industry rather than victims. The author says the bill was drafted by lawyers for a leading asbestos corporation.
  • According to the author, the proposed Act provides for eliminating third-party tort actions for asbestos-related diseases. People with tort suits already pending could either dismiss them with prejudice to receive the Act's benefits, or give up those benefits and pursue the tort suit.
  • The author argued that product liability time limits enacted in Utah, Colorado and Tennessee severely limit third-party lawsuits for asbestos-related disease, because these diseases usually take ten years or more to develop. The author noted that these laws had not yet been tested for constitutionality.
  • In Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, an insulation worker's case involving asbestosis and mesothelioma, the jury rested liability on strict liability.
  • The author reported obtaining documents in 1977 discovery proceedings. A South Carolina court reviewing this evidence said it showed that Raybestos-Manhattan and Johns-Manville exercised editorial control over a 1935 industry-sponsored study.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that a third-party tort action was, at the time, the only means of attempting to adequately compensate a person injured by asbestos-related disease.

Related studies

• Global asbestos justice: South African asbestos victims win right to sue Cape PLC in U.K. courts — L. Kazan-Allen (2001)
• Justice for asbestos victims and the politics of compensation: the French experience — A. Thébaud-Mony (2003)
• The James Hardie story: asbestos victims' claims evaded by manufacturer — B. Hills (2005)
• James Hardie asbestos victims compensation summary — Australian Council of Trade Unions (2008)
• The cost of compensating asbestos victims under the Occupational Disease Compensation Act of 1983 — F.B. Siskind (1987)
• The Dutch Institute for Asbestos Victims — Y.R. Waterman, M.G. Peeters (2004)

Browse more research in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, or return to medical research.