Reading Room

Resolution of an asbestos claim may involve several avenues: litigation (individual or consolidated with other cases), a class action, a court-approved settlement, an administrative claim or settlement, or a claim filed in bankruptcy.

For over 3 decades, Jon Gelman has represented thousands of individuals who have become ill as a result of exposure to asbestos fiber. He is the author of a nationally recognized treatise, now in its 3rd edition, on the subject. He has lectured extensively on asbestos litigation. On behalf of his clients he has successfully brought claims against the suppliers, manufacturers and health research groups of asbestos fiber and products. These types of claims are usually referred to as product liability cases.

Connie R. Gates, who was awarded total disability benefits by the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court, was awarded Social Security Disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits as a result of her sensitivity to latex products. Former nurse was awarded Social Security Disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits due to her sensitivity to latex products.

The statutory formula for compensability for occupational disease is similar to that for accidental injuries, that is, “compensation for personal injuries to or for death of such employee by any “compensable” occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the employment” Section 30. There appears to me to be three essential elements of Section 30. There must be an injury or death – due to a “compensable” occupational disease – which must arise out of and in the course of the employment. There is an exception for willful self-exposure but that exception has never been established, to my knowledge, so it is not that important.  The statutory formula for compensability for occupational disease is similar to that for accidental injuries: "compensation for personal injuries to or for the death of such employee by any “compensable” occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the employment” NJSA 34-15-30.

 Janeth McFarlane worked at the Baptist Hospital in Florida for approximately two years prior to November 1, 1996. She had used latex-powdered gloves. Her employer had ordered, but had not received, powder-less gloves. During her employment she did experience some respiratory difficulty but was unaware of the cause. On November 1, 1996, immediately after using latex powdered gloves, she went into respiratory failure. Her co-workers attempted to revive her but were unsuccessful. 

In a landmark case, the Iowa Supreme Court decided that latex allergy/sensitivity claims are to be considered work-related accidents rather than occupational diseases and that sensitized workers are entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits including those for loss of functional ability. The Court's decision to pinpoint the reaction to a specific event rather than a long period of occupational exposure will make it easier, less complicated, and less costly for injured workers to claim benefits.  

Latex allergy sensitivity claims are becoming more common in workers’ compensation systems throughout the United States. 

The state Supreme Court ruled that workers claiming occupational heart disease need only show that their job substantially contributed to the development of the disease to be awarded compensation. But in the first ruling of its kind in the country, the Court specifically held that smokers can be denied compensation if a job-related disease is principally caused by personal-risk factors such as smoking, obesity or a family history of the illness.

The consensus that usually prevails when the New Jersey Supreme Court decides workers’ compensation claims has shattered this term when the Court dealt with an issue that could affect the ongoing school funding controversy.

In a decision that focuses attention on the risk of harm to reproductive systems caused by exposure to toxins in the workplace, a state appeals court has ordered a judge to award compensation to an industrial employee for sterility, even though the condition did not affect his ability to work. Workers’ Compensation Judge Melvin Shteir had ruled that Ahmed Akef, a chemical worker at a BASF Corp. plant in Middlesex County, suffered no loss "in the workers’ compensation.

The never-ending battle between labor and industry over domination and control of the agency which controls occupational safety and health continues.