Reading Room

The United States Supreme Court ruled that damages can be awarded to an individual for fear of contracting cancer due to exposure to asbestos fiber at work.

A unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court decided that firefighters, whether paid or volunteer, may receive Workers’ Compensation benefits for developing respiratory illness and lung disease as a result of exposure to asbestos, fumes and other toxic substances encountered on the job. Decided February 11, 2002, the case of Culbert vs. City of Jersey City and its companion Lindquist vs. City of Jersey City, reversed the Judgment of the Appellate Division, which threw out the firefighter’s claims.

Many occupations and lifestyles have a history of exposure to high levels of asbestos fiber. If you have engaged in one or more of the following occupations, you may wish to discuss this exposure with your physician.

One of the most pressing challenges in the reformation of New Jersey's Workmen's Compensation system is in the area of occupational disease.

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.

A historical review of knowledge leading up to the causal relationship between asbestos and disease.

Asbestos-related disease was reported in industry more than 70 years ago. Dr. H. Montague Murray in 1906 at the Charing Cross Hospital in London testified before a governmental commission inquiry about occupational disability that he had seen a man in 1898 who was very short of breath and who had worked in an asbestos factory. The man's lungs at autopsy were badly scarred. It was Dr. Murray's prediction that since the hazards of this exposure were now known, very few similar cases would occur in the future, and there was no need to provide compensation benefits.

The California Supreme Court recently decided that a special statute of limitations for injury or illness caused by exposure to asbestos does not bar an action for a second disease, mesothelioma, which was diagnosed several years after the original diagnosis of a related pulmonary condition. The asbestos worker was exposed to asbestos fiber in various industrial workplaces from the early 1940's until 1963, when he became a television repairman.The California Supreme Court recently decided that a particular statute of limitations for injury or illness caused by exposure to asbestos does not bar an action for a second disease, mesothelioma, which was diagnosed several years after the original diagnosis of a related pulmonary condition.  

The rules governing when a claim must be filed as a result of occupational asbestos exposure have been changed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. A signed and sworn workers’ compensation claim petition, even though unsupported by medical diagnosis, is sufficient to impute discovery of the existence of a claim and toll the statute of limitations.

Disclaimer

Thank you for your interest in Jon L Gelman LLC and for visiting our website. This website is offered for general information only and is not legal advice. Users should keep the following information in mind when visiting pages in Jon L Gelman LLC websites.

 The battlefield for the assault on state workers’ compensation programs has shifted from the state capitals to the halls of Congress. Industry and their insurers are now shifting gears from an attempt at tinkering with individual systems to a more generalized approach, where assets and energies can be concentrated uniformly through Federal modification of globalized issues that will place into jeopardy the rights of workers and significantly hamper the efforts of their attorneys in seeking recovery under state workers’ compensation systems.