Friday, May 21, 2010

Oil spill may endanger human health, officials say

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - With a huge and unpredictable oil slick drifting in the Gulf of Mexico, state and federal authorities are preparing to deal with a variety of hazards to human health if and when the full brunt of the toxic mess washes ashore.

The list of potential threats runs from temporary, minor nuisances such as runny noses and headaches to long-term risks such as cancer if contaminated seafood ends up in the marketplace. While waiting to see how bad things will get, public health agencies are monitoring air quality, drinking water supplies and seafood processing plants and advising people to take precautions.

"We don't know how long this spill will last or how much oil we'll be dealing with, so there's a lot of unknowns," said Dr. Jimmy Guidry, Louisiana's state health director. "But we're going to make things as safe as humanly possible."

Oil has been spewing into the Gulf at a rate of at least 200,000 gallons a day since an offshore drilling rig exploded on April 20, killing 11 people. Little if any has reached land thus far, but shifts in wind speed and direction could propel the slick toward populated areas.

In a possible hint of things to come, a foul stench drifted over parts of southwestern Louisiana last week. The oil probably was the culprit, said Alan Levine, secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, whose office heard about dozens of complaints - even from state legislators in New Orleans, some 130 miles from the leaky undersea well.

"Their eyes were burning, they felt nauseated, they were smelling it," Levine said.

Farther up the coast at Shell Beach, marina operator and commercial fisherman Robert Campo said the smell gave him a headache as he collected oysters 20 miles offshore. "It was rotten," he said.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has began round-the-clock air monitoring in Gulf coastal areas and posting online hourly readings for ozone and tiny particles such as soot. Both can cause respiratory problems and are particuarly aggravating for people with chronic conditions such as asthma.

Crude oil emits volatile organic compounds that react with nitrogen oxides to produce ozone. Fires being set by the Coast Guard to burn off oil on the water's surface would produce sooty, acrid smoke.

"We don't know what the impacts are going to be yet," said Dave Bary, an EPA spokesman in Dallas. "We don't know in what direction this oil will go."

The potential for unhealthy air quality depends on a variety of factors, particularly the speed and direction of winds that could disperse fumes and determine where they go, said Jonathan Ward, an environmental toxicology professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.

With the leaky Gulf well some 50 miles offshore, Ward said much of the oil vapor likely wouldn't reach land, although the potential for air pollution from the slick will remain as long as the leak continues.

Public health agencies in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi advised people near the coast who experience nausea, headaches or other smell-related ailments to stay inside, turn on air conditioners and avoid exerting themselves outdoors.

In addition to air pollution, officials also were guarding against health problems from tainted drinking water and seafood.

Some communities, including New Orleans, get their supplies from the Mississippi River. Its southerly currents will prevent oil from drifting upstream to city intake pipes, and the Coast Guard is making sure that any ships with oil-coated hulls are scrubbed down before proceeding up the river, Guidry said.

Even so, the state health department has ordered testing of municipal water systems near the Gulf for signs of oil.

"It's next to impossible that a high amount would get in," Guidry said. "Even if some got through, more than likely the treatment system would eliminate it."

The department this week began taking samples at seafood processing plants. Officials have ordered a temporary moratorium on fishing in federal waters from the Mississippi River to the Florida Panhandle, but sampling will provide benchmarks enabling scientists to track any increases in contaminant levels once fishing is allowed to resume.

Louisiana health officials said they believe fish, shrimp and other Gulf delicacies already on the market are safe.

"If we see increases in hydrocarbons or other contaminants, we'd stop the flow of seafood," Levine said.

Even after the immediate crisis passes, risks could linger for years, said Gina Solomon, an associate professor at the University of California-San Francisco medical school and a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"Exposure to some of the chemicals in oil has been linked to cancer," Solomon said. "Those chemicals can get into sediments in the Gulf, build in the food chain and be a long-term problem in fish and shellfish."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is working with epidemiologists in the Gulf states to develop studies of health repercussions from the oil spill, Guidry said.

Yet another hazard is direct contact with oil-saturated water - particularly for cleanup crews and volunteers involved in animal rescue operations.

When the container ship Cosco Busan hit a bridge and released 53,000 gallons of highly toxic bunker fuel into San Francisco Bay in November 2007, officials managing the cleanup ordered volunteers to wear protective suits, gloves and masks that later were discarded at a hazardous waste dump. Some oil fouled beaches, which were closed to prevent danger to the public.

People working around the Gulf spill should be equipped with respirator devices and wear heavy-duty gloves and protective clothing to guard against painful skin rashes, said Solomon, who has treated patients exposed to oil fumes.

"The workers absolutely need to be protected," Solomon said.

This article was written by John Flesher of the Associated Press

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/05-07-2010/20100507003507_1.html

If you or someone you know has been affected by the oil spill in the gulf or by any chemical spill, please contact Murphy Law Firm. Don't be a Victim Twice!

http://www.batonrougeinjuryaccidentattorney.com/Personal-Injury/Chemical-Toxic-Exposure.shtml

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

N.J. Court Affirms Record $30.3 Million Award in Asbestos Exposure Case

A New Jersey appeals court on Monday upheld a $30.3 million verdict in an asbestos-exposure mesothelioma case, the largest known award in the state.

The defendants lost on every issue, including the standard of causation to be applied in light of the plaintiff's short history of working with asbestos-laden materials.

The suit, Buttitta v. Allied Signal, A-5263-07, was brought by Susan Buttitta whose husband, Mark, a 50-year-old advertising executive from Glen Ridge, died from mesothelioma in 2002, a year after he was diagnosed.

In February 2008, a Bergen County jury awarded damages of $8 million for pain and suffering; $2 million for loss of consortium; $9,281,660 for lost earnings; $2,030,544 for loss of services; and $3 million to each of Buttitta's three daughters for loss of parental care.

Dozens of companies were sued but only two -- Borg-Warner Corp. and Asbestos Corp. Ltd. -- were the left by the time of the verdict. Two others, C.L. Zimmerman Co. and Honeywell International, settled during trial, while General Motors Corp. settled beforehand, all three on confidential terms.

The suit combined direct exposure claims characteristic of traditional asbestos litigation with indirect or "take home" exposure, as recognized by the state Supreme Court in Olivo v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 186 N.J. 394 (2006).

Buttitta was allegedly exposed as a child to asbestos by his father, who handled brakes and clutches containing asbestos working at a GM warehouse in Bloomfield and carried the fibers home on his work clothes.

Buttitta also encountered asbestos directly in the early 1970s, when he was in college and spent summers and winter breaks working at a GM warehouse in Englewood handling auto parts.

On appeal, Borg-Warner and Asbestos Corp. raised such issues as what standard of causation applies in a mesothelioma case; whether a preliminary hearing was needed to admit testimony of the plaintiff's expert; whether liability should be allocated against the settling defendants; and whether remittitur should have been granted.

On causation, the appeals judges agreed with Superior Court Judge Brian Martinotti that the "frequency, regularity and proximity" test for asbestosis cases should be viewed differently in the context of a claim involving mesothelioma which, unlike asbestosis, can develop from infrequent exposure to a relatively small amount of asbestos.

Thus, Buttitta's "rather brief work history" with asbestos was sufficient to establish medical causation of mesothelioma 30 years later, Judges Francine Axelrad, Clarkson Fisher and Paulette Sapp-Peterson held in a per curiam unpublished opinion.

Another causation-related issue was Martinotti's decision to allow deposition testimony from an unrelated case in Texas to be read to the jury.

Part of Borg-Warner's defense was that its asbestos-related products were not present in the GM warehouse when Buttitta worked there. It was tough to prove because Borg-Warner had destroyed its records of sales to GM facilities in New Jersey when it got out of the clutch business.

The disputed testimony was from John Froning, former manager of GM's clutch and manual transmission group, who testified in the Texas case that from the early 1960s to the mid-1980s Borg-Warner was GM's "prime" supplier of clutches.

Borg-Warner tried to keep out Froning's testimony as irrelevant, but the appeals court agreed with Martinotti that the real question was whether the testimony was too circumstantial, which was for the jury to decide.

The panel also saw no merit in Borg-Warner's argument that Martinotti should have held a hearing on whether to admit the testimony of plaintiff's experts. The company called "novel and unsupported" their opinions that asbestos fibers in Buttitta's biopsied lung tissue were consistent with occupational rather than background exposure, that there was no safe level of exposure and that Buttitta's exposure caused his mesothelioma.

The appeals court said it didn't matter that no expert could identify the specific asbestos-containing product causing the mesothelioma, given Buttitta's testimony about having handled dust-covered boxes and automobile parts.

The judges also rejected the argument that part of the verdict should be allocated against settling defendants GM, Honeywell and Zimmerman, finding no error in Martinotti's denial of a request to include them on the verdict sheet. There was insufficient evidence to allocate liability, the court said, despite evidence that Buttitta was exposed to asbestos-containing parts made by all three and the fact that a reasonable jury could conclude that those other parts were concurrent causes of his death.

Borg-Warner also lost its argument that the $11,030,544 awarded for loss of spousal and parental services was excessive and should have been remitted to $1,088,754, the amount set by the plaintiff's expert.

The appeals judges deferred to Martinotti's "feel of the case" in denying remittitur, saying the award "may have been generous, as recognized by the judge, but it was based on the undisputed evidence that Mark was an active and engaged father, and would have been expected to provide significant intangible services to his children such as guidance, training and counseling."

Asbestos Corp., a Quebec, Canada, company that supplied asbestos to GM and Zimmerman, unsuccessfully appealed rulings that found New Jersey courts had personal jurisdiction over the company and imposed sanctions -- striking its answer and defenses and limiting its role at trial -- for its failure to comply with discovery rulings that allegedly clashed with Quebec law.

Arnold Lakind, of Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader in Lawrenceville who argued the appeal for the plaintiff, says he is not aware of a larger mesothelioma verdict in the state.

The second largest one he knows of is also one of his cases, a $7.8 million verdict against ExxonMobil in May 2008. Plaintiff Bonnie Anderson claimed she contracted mesothelioma from laundering clothing worn by her husband to his job at the Exxon Bayway Refinery in Elizabeth. Oral argument of ExxonMobil's appeal is set for April 26.

Borg-Warner's attorney, Paul Zidlicky of Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C., declines comment. The company, now known as Burns International Services Corp., was also represented by Norah Grimbergen of Hoagland Longo Moran Dunst & Doukas in New Brunswick.

This article was written by Mary Pat Gallagher of The New Jersey Law Journal

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202447541716

At some point in our lives, nearly all of us have been exposed to asbestos in the air we breathe and water we drink either from natural deposits in the earth or from the deterioration of asbestos products around us. Asbestos is a toxic occurring mineral that was found in thousands of products-from 1940-1980. If you have developed lung cancer or mesothelioma because of an exposure to asbestos, do not hesitate to call Murphy Law Firm at 225-928-8800.

http://www.batonrougeinjuryaccidentattorney.com/mesothelioma.html

Toyota faces $16M fine, accused of hiding defect

WASHINGTON — Federal safety regulators said Monday that they intend to fine Toyota Motor $16.4 million — the largest ever penalty against an automaker — for failing to disclose problems with sticky accelerator pedals quickly enough.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Toyota knew in September that it had a problem with accelerator pedals that required fixing, but failed to recall 2.3 million vehicles until January — four months later.

In taking the step, federal authorities are sending the strongest signal yet that they believe the automaker deliberately concealed safety information from them.

"We now have proof that Toyota failed to live up to its legal obligations," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said. "Worse yet, they knowingly hid a dangerous defect for months from U.S. officials and did not take action to protect millions of drivers and their families."

Auto manufacturers are legally obligated to notify NHTSA within five business days if they determine a defect exists. NHTSA said it learned after reviewing Toyota's records that it had known of the pedal defect since at least Sept. 29, 2009.

NHTSA outlined its findings in a five-page letter to Toyota late Monday and gave the company until April 19 to respond in writing. NHTSA said it will go to court to impose the fine if Toyota raises objections.

A Toyota spokeswoman, Cindy Knight, said in a statement that the

company had not yet received a letter from the agency about the fine.

"We have already taken a number of important steps to improve our communications with regulators and customers on safety-related matters as part of our strengthened overall commitment to quality assurance," Knight said.

The $16.375 million penalty is the maximum NHTSA can levy under law. Congress increased the penalties in 2000. Previously, its largest fine was $1 million against General Motors in 2004 for failing to disclose a defect with windshield wipers in 600,000 vehicles for more than two years. Toyota could face more fines as the agency continues to investigate.

"We will continue to hold Toyota accountable for any additional violations we find in our ongoing investigation," NHTSA Administrator David Strickland said.

The fine against Toyota comes just six weeks after the NHTSA launched an investigation into the timeliness and scope of the automaker's three recent recalls. About 2.3 million vehicles were recalled in January for the sticky pedal defect. Toyota has separately recalled 5.4 million vehicles over issues with gas pedals becoming entangled with floor mats, with some covered by both.

Reviewing Toyota's records, NHTSA learned that the automaker issued repair procedures Sept. 29 to its distributors in 31 European countries and Canada to address complaints of sticky accelerator pedals and sudden acceleration. Documents show Toyota was aware that U.S. consumers were experiencing the same problems, the agency said.

NHTSA also obtained hundreds of e-mails from Toyota that support its conclusion Toyota knew of the issue last year.

The agency has received more than 3,000 complaints of runaway Toyota vehicles since 2000, alleging at least 51 deaths.

The penalty is a financial pittance for Toyota, which had revenue of $209 billion last year, but could add to its public relations woes. The company has endured congressional hearings and a torrent of bad publicity over the sudden acceleration problem.

Sid Shapiro, a law professor at Wake Forest University and vice president of the Center for Progressive Reform, a legal research organization, questioned whether the Toyota fine would be effective.

"It's good news that NHTSA is being an aggressive regulator, but you have to have doubts whether a $16 million fine is going to have a deterrent effect on automobile companies that are worth billions of dollars," Shapiro said.

But Mike Rozembajgier, director of recalls for Expert- RECALL, a consulting firm that helps manufacturers conduct product recalls, said the amount of the fine might be less important than the reasoning behind it.

Toyota reported strong March sales, helped by the generous incentives it introduced after the recalls. But Rozembajgier said its customers could be less supportive should it turn out Toyota tried to hide the defects, as the government contends.

"If it was done knowingly," he said, "then it certainly becomes a game-changer for consumers."

NHTSA, which came under harsh scrutiny for conducting eight investigations into sudden acceleration issues at Toyota since 2000 and doing little, is now taking a far more aggressive stance with automakers.

This article was written by David Shepardson of The Detroit News

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14826155?nclick_check=1

Defective products harm millions of people each year. Manufacturers should be held responsible for design detects, improper safety devices and manufacturing defects. If you or someone you know have been injuried as a result of defective product, please don't hesitate to call our office at 225-928-8800. Don't Be A Victim Twice.
http://www.batonrougeinjuryaccidentattorney.com/defective%20products.html