No fee unless we recover compensation for your family Text size 833-4-ASBESTOS (833-427-2378) Free Case Review

Search

21 results for “Reaction Department”, page 1 of 2

  1. Court case · New York Supreme Court · January 10, 2013 · in the opinion

    Vega v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC (2013)

    …s exhibit 20 is a 1966 study commissioned by UCC which revealed that rats had a more "severe reaction" to Calidria asbestos that had been mined by UCC in California than asbestos that had been mined…

  2. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · August 28, 1996 · in the opinion

    Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Garrett (1996)

    …effect. That OCF had direct knowledge of the hazardous nature of asbestos was evident in 1941, when one of the lawyers in its Legal and Patent Department, having received a letter from a Saranac Doctor, expressed…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit · August 13, 1982 · in the opinion

    Neubauer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1982)

    …and a study to be published by the Labor Department estimates that at least 8,500 workers — perhaps as many as 10,000 — will die each year until the end of this century from asbestos-related…

  4. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · November 18, 1993 · in the opinion

    Srite v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1993)

    …in physical pain. Mr. Ben had been employed at the Petrotex Refinery in the labor department as an insulator. He worked on a daily basis as a sandblaster throughout his tenure at Petrotex, from 1958 until…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · January 21, 1994 · in the opinion

    Tabolt v. Flintkote Co. (In re New York Asbestos Litigation, 1994)

    Flintkote's argument that this procedure provides a double recovery for inflation was rejected after thorough attention by the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Fourth Department, in Brown v. State, 184 A.D…

  6. Court case · Arizona Supreme Court · November 19, 1982

    Nelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona (1982)

    …The court found that Mrs. Nelson had a meritorious excuse. Doctors and neighbors described an abnormal grief reaction that impaired her understanding, and the delay did not prejudice the carriers. It set aside the award and…

  7. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · December 29, 1988 · in the opinion

    Pecorino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1988)

    …pleaded that the Defendants' breach of these various duties (as well as the fact that these products precipitated great harm which was not a consequence of any unique or unforeseeable reaction of the user) caused Mr…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2010 · in the opinion

    Larson v. Georgia Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2010)

    … Deposition Pattern And Reaction Of Alveolar Epithelium And Pulmonary Macrophages," "Interstitial Accumulation Of Inhaled Chrysotile Asbestos Fibers And Consequent Formation of Microcalcifications," "Characterization Of Three Types Of Chrysotile Asbestos After Aerosolization," "Chrysotile Asbestos Inhalation Induces Tritiated…

  9. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 26, 2012 · in the opinion

    Georgia-Pacific v. Farrar (2012)

    …Md. at 726. The complaint alleged that Ms. Crews "suffered a hypoglycemic reaction and experienced a \blackout' causing her to lose control of her vehicle" and strike the vehicle driven by Mr. Gourdine, causing his death…

  10. Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · January 10, 1992 · in the opinion

    Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Watson (1992)

    …After reviewing these options, the memorandum states: If \[the union's\] reaction is unfavorable, the way is opened to spread word among the locals about the refusal of the Union officials to make \[insurance protection and…

  11. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · May 1, 1981 · in the opinion

    Fusco v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1981)

    …972 (5th Cir. 1975) (products liability case time-barred because plaintiff brought suit five years after she had been informed that her physical ailments probably resulted from an adverse reaction to the defendant's product). [\1184…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · November 22, 2010 · in the opinion

    Larson v. Georgia Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2010)

    …Mem. Op., doc. no. 73, at 7.) These articles include, but are not limited to: Chrysotile asbestos inhalation in rats: deposition pattern and reaction of alveolar epithelium, and pulmonary macrophages. (doc. no. 19-2, at p…

  13. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · July 15, 1985 · in the opinion

    Dartez v. Fibreboard Corp. (1985)

    …to bar the proof for purposes of establishing mental anguish. Dartez's own testimony regarding his emotional reaction to the realization of the risks he now faces and Comstock's testimony as to what he told…

  14. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · August 28, 1995 · in the opinion

    Consorti v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1995)

    …of cases which involve substantially the same questions of fact, as happens when large numbers of plaintiffs allege that they have developed similar illnesses in reaction to a particular toxic substance. See Fed.R.Civ.P…

  15. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 7, 1998 · in the opinion

    ACandS v. Abate (1998)

    …they may pierce through the smallest airways into the pleura. The fibers that reach the pleura cause a localized reaction which results in a deposit of scar tissue. When the scarring of the pleura is localized…

  16. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · September 10, 1973 · in the opinion

    Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation (1973)

    …fibers, once inhaled, remain in place in the lung, causing a tissue reaction that is slowly progressive and apparently irreversible. Even if no additional asbestos fibers are inhaled, tissue changes may continue undetected for decades. By…

  17. Court case · New York Supreme Court · March 22, 2013 · in the opinion

    Macek v. CBS Corporation (2013)

    …Plaintiffs' exhibit 20 is a 1966 study commissioned by UCC revealing that rats had a more "severe reaction" to Calidria asbestos mined by UCC in California as compared to asbestos mined in Canada by Johns Manville…

  18. Court case · Minnesota Supreme Court · May 14, 1982 · in the opinion

    DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. (1982)

    …over recent articles carried in local and national newspapers concerning mesothelioma and stated that "unwise treatment of research data in public discussions could cause reactions which were not justified by the state of scientific knowledge." \ \ \ \ \ \ Industry…

  19. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 27, 2010 · in the opinion

    Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. (2010)

    …allergic reactions\]\]. To establish this claim, \[name of plaintiff\] must prove all of the following: \[¶\] 1. That \[name of defendant\] \[manufactured/distributed/sold\] the \[product\]; \[¶\] 2. That the \[product\] had potential \[risks/side effects/allergic reactions…

  20. Court case · Tennessee Supreme Court · September 10, 1990 · in the opinion

    Potts v. Celotex Corp. (1990)

    …drug); Martinez-Ferrer v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 105 Cal. App.3d 316, 164 Cal. Rptr. 591 (1980) (acute allergic reactions and cataracts caused by drug); cf. Anderson v. Sybron Corp., 165 Ga. App. 566, 567-568…