Mesothelioma Settlements

What is the dollar value of a human Llife?
If you are like most ethical, caring people, you should be appalled and angered that any human being would even ask such a question. However, it is not a new concept. Both the Code of Hammurabi and Mosaic Law addressed the issue of compensation in cases of accidental death or dismemberment. Likewise, old Anglo-Saxon and ancient Scandinavian laws dealt with the questions of weregild, or "man-price" - sums of money that were paid to the victim or his family in personal injury cases.

Of course, anyone who understands the history of asbestos realizes that the recent epidemic of asbestosis and mesothelioma may argue it is not accidental. It is the direct result of gross negligence on behalf of a number of corporations who knew of the dangers of asbestos, but chose to proceed nonetheless. Despite the fact that there may be an ethical argument for considering such negligence criminal, the law in virtually all industrialized nations - including the U.S. - considers death and injury from asbestos a tort, or personal injury matter, and therefore a matter for the civil courts where monetary compensation for medical expenses, lost income and plain and suffering are remedies available under the law.

Mesothelioma Settlement or Damages?

Technically, a malignant malignant mesothelioma settlement is different from an award, or award of damages.. The word "settlement" usually means that the parties have settled out-of-court, either prior to commencement of court proceedings, during the trial at some point prior to the judge's ruling, or any time thereafter.
The offer of a mesothelioma settlement or the willingness to accept a settlement is often more a question of power than of justice. Either party to a lawsuit may offer to settle for a number of reasons; the defendant may wish to avoid negative publicity, or the expense of extended litigation. If the plaintiff's case is a weak one, or if the judge and/or jury appear to be leaning in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's lawyer may advise him/her to accept a settlement. A plaintiff may also offer to settle simply to avoid the time, expense, and psychological and physical strain of a lengthy court proceeding.

On the other hand, if a defendant offers to settle when the plaintiff's case is going well, it may indicate that the defense expects to lose the case. If this is the situation, the plaintiff's attorney will either (A) recommend that s/he not accept the offer, or (B) attempt to negotiate the highest settlement possible.
In any event, the lawyer can only advise the client; s/he is obliged to act in accordance with the client's wishes, regardless of what the best course of action may be, or the lawyer may withdraw as counsel. If the plaintiff accepts a settlement, it constitutes a contract between him/her and the defendant in which the plaintiff agrees not to pursue or (in the case of a trial already underway) continue legal action. Once the mesothelioma settlement has been paid, both parties file a notice with the court that the case has been dismissed.
Because corporations may value their public image nearly as much as large sums of money, such defendants may also stipulate in a mesothelioma settlement that such an agreement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing, and additionally may restrain the plaintiff from discussing the case with other persons (such as reporters or investigative journalists). Those provisions should be bargained for and may be the reason for the offer or the amount of the offer.

How Much?

It is impossible to predict the value (if any) of a case because all the facts may not bet known until trial and juries are not all the same and can react very differently to the evidence. Mesothelioma settlements and damage awards have run into astronomical sums over the past two decades and have lost. The first successful legal action in a mesothelioma case was Clarence Borel v. Fiberboard Paper Products Corporation et. al., which was filed in 1969 and ended in 1973 with a posthumous award to the plaintiff's estate...
In 2005, a retired 82-year-old machinist whose asbestos cancer was found to result from exposure in the workplace sixty years earlier received an award in a California case. In addition, the jury found the corporate defendant guilty of malice, fraud and suppression of evidence.
On the other hand, in 2004, a 76-year-old man brought action against a company in another California case, claiming his mesothelioma was due to asbestos exposure back in the 1950's. The defense for Asbestos Corporation Ltd. was able to convince the jury that the man's problem was actually lung cancer brought on by his history of cigarette smoking. Asbestos is the sole cause of mesothelioma, whereas tobacco use has long been associated with lung cancer. Predictably, the jury found in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff received nothing.

While details of the latter case were not readily available, it is likely that the plaintiff had not gotten his diagnosis from a qualified oncologist. This is important; one of the keys to successfully winning your mesothelioma case is to have an irrefutable diagnosis as well as expert testimony from cancer specialists. In a personal injury suit, proving causation is at the heart of your claim; the more credible the evidence and testimony, the stronger your case will be - resulting in a far greater chance of the jury finding in your favor.
Remember that while medical costs and loss of income are fairly easy to determine, non-economic damages such as pain and suffering are quite subjective; such damages can vary widely from one case to another. In some states, there may be no limits to these non-economic damages.
In 2005, there was an attempt in the U.S. Senate to deny citizens the right to recover damages from asbestos corporations, ironically called the "FAIR Act." Sponsored by Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen Specter, this act called for the establishment of a federal trust fund from which asbestos victims would have been paid; however, it may have been inadequately funded. The bill was defeated in February of 2006, and tabled in committee when re-introduced three months later.