The Dutch Institute for Asbestos Victims

Our plain-English summary of The Dutch Institute for Asbestos Victims, by Y.R. Waterman, M.G. Peeters (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2004).

The study

• Authors: Y.R. Waterman, M.G. Peeters
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Published: 2004;10(2):166-76
• Type of article: Review
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

The primary goal of the Dutch Institute for Asbestos Victims is to compensate mesothelioma victims who have been exposed to asbestos in the workplace, while they are still alive, by acting as a neutral mediator between these victims and their (former) employers or their insurers. Representatives of victims, employees, employers, and insurers have agreed to cooperate in the formation and operation of the Institute. The process of reaching a financial settlement has been collectivized, standardized, pacified, and institutionalized. The difficulty of awarding compensation while victims are still alive has led to the Advance Payment Scheme.

In plain English

This article is not a medical study. It is a descriptive account of the Dutch Institute for Asbestos Victims (IAS), which opened in January 2000. The Institute mediates between people with mesothelioma who were exposed to asbestos at work and their former employers or insurers, using standard procedures, time limits and standardized compensation amounts. Two of these, for material damages, could be higher if greater actual damage was proved. Mediation took an average of 8.9 months in its first two years and 9.1 months in 2002. Clients died on average 97 days after requesting mediation; only a minority received compensation while alive. About 600 people requested mediation in 2000, and about 250 a year in 2001 and 2002. Nearly one in three requests in 2000 and 2001 was rejected, most often (41%) because the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma was not confirmed. The authors concluded that the Institute had met some aims but failed its main one: compensating most applicants while alive. They described the Advance Payment Scheme, started in January 2003, as a big step forward.

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: Descriptive legal and policy article about a compensation and mediation institute (not a medical or epidemiological study), reporting the Institute's own figures for its first years
• Who was studied: People with mesothelioma who were exposed to asbestos in the workplace in The Netherlands and who applied to the Institute for mediation or compensation, from its opening in January 2000 through 2002
• Exposure: Occupational asbestos exposure (in the workplace, under a Dutch employment contract). Fiber types are not specified.
• Main results:
  • Reaching financial compensation by mediation took an average of 8.9 months in the first two years (27 January 2000 to 31 December 2001) and an average of 9.1 months in 2002. The authors noted these figures exceed the recommended time limits.
  • A successful claim on the government TAS compensation scheme took an average of 7.8 months in the first two years and an average of 9.69 months in 2002
  • On average, clients died 97 days after requesting mediation, and only a minority of claimants received compensation while still alive
  • 600 people requested mediation in 2000. The number fell to about 250 a year in 2001 and 2002, somewhat lower than the expected 300 a year.
  • Nearly one in three requests in 2000 and 2001 was rejected at some stage. The reasons were: no confirmation of the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (41%), death of the employee on or before 6 June 1997 (21%), no evidence of a relevant employment contract (11%), applicants not surviving relatives as defined (9%), no employment contract (2%), self-employment (1%), and other reasons (15%).
  • Institute figures by year (Table 2):
• Rejections for both mediation and compensation: 118 (55%) in 2000, 144 (36%) in 2001 and 70 (27%) in 2002.
• Successful mediations: 31 (14%), 89 (22%) and 95 (37%).
• Compensation scheme claims completed: 67 (31%), 168 (42%) and 93 (36%).
  The authors said it was too early to detect a trend.
  • In 2002 the standardized awards were:
• emotional damage: 44,350 euros;
• material damages to surviving relatives: 2,464 euros;
• remaining material damages: 2,464 euros.
  This came to a total minimum of 49,278 euros.
  • The two material-damage amounts (for surviving relatives and remaining material damages) could be higher than the standard amounts if the applicant proved that the actual damage exceeded them
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the Institute had met its targets in some respects but not in others. By 2002 it had failed in its main objective of ensuring that most applicants were compensated while alive. They regarded the Advance Payment Scheme, operational from 1 January 2003, as a big step forward.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The Institute has no means to compel employers or insurers to cooperate; individual employers are not legally bound by the Covenant
  • Standardized rates allow almost no distinction between claimants in the nature or extent of their damages. For example, a younger victim cannot claim more for emotional damage than an older one.
  • The services are limited to mesothelioma victims who were (former) employees. Non-mesothelioma asbestos victims were not expected to be included in 2004.
  • Figures on rejections and settlements from the first years are affected by a backlog, so it is too early to detect a trend

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Asbestosis.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Mesothelioma.

Related studies

• Justice for asbestos victims and the politics of compensation: the French experience — A. Thébaud-Mony (2003)
• The cost of compensating asbestos victims under the Occupational Disease Compensation Act of 1983 — F.B. Siskind (1987)
• Asbestos law: victims' rights and industry's reaction — K. Asch (1979)
• The James Hardie story: asbestos victims' claims evaded by manufacturer — B. Hills (2005)
• Global asbestos justice: South African asbestos victims win right to sue Cape PLC in U.K. courts — L. Kazan-Allen (2001)
• James Hardie asbestos victims compensation summary — Australian Council of Trade Unions (2008)

Browse more research in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, or return to medical research.