class actions, disabled rights, copyright, attorneys general, online speech, law schools, obesity, New York, mortgages, legal blogs, safety, CPSC, pharmaceuticals, patent trolls, ADA filing mills, international human rights, humor, hate speech, illegal drugs, immigration law, cellphones, international law, real estate, bar associations, Environmental Protection Agency, First Amendment, insurance fraud, slip and fall, smoking bans, emergency medicine, regulation and its reform, dramshop statutes, hotels, web accessibility, United Nations, Alien Tort Claims Act, lobbyists, pools, school discipline, Voting Rights Act, legal services programs
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

FORUM

« Why, Democrats? | Whaley v. CSX Transportation: South Carolina limits forum-shopping »

February 02, 2005


Silica double-dipping

Out of 8,629 plaintiffs claiming injury from exposure to silica, 5,174 have filed claims seeking (and probably receiving) recovery for injury caused by exposure to asbestos. In a "lawsuit under way in Corpus Christi, Tex., doctors who had signed documents saying that plaintiffs in the case suffered from silicosis backed away from those conclusions when questioned under oath late last year." (Jonathan D. Glater, "Companies Get Weapon in Injury Suits", NY Times, Feb. 2). The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding hearings this morning on asbestos litigation reform; Professor Lester Brickman's testimony is particularly interesting; it seems opponents of asbestos litigation reform are pushing for a loophole in the bill that would encourage such double-recovery.

Posted by Ted Frank at 12:32 PM | TrackBack (2)



categories:
Asbestos









 

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.