subject: The Government May Limit Unwarranted Asbestos Claims With New Legislature [print this page] The difficulty lies in the question of what the legislature can and should do to attempt limiting asbestos and silica lawsuits, and this question has been raised in the state affairs committee hearing. The answer may be found in a member of the house, a medical doctor who authored the senate bill that has been pinpointed by certain business interests that note the influx of unfounded claims in the court system. Corporate associations complain that tort attorneys routinely take advantage of potential plaintiffs, in conjunction with medical professionals willing to lend support to their questionable claims. They also indicate that an excessive number of businesses are spending excessive funds defending unwarrantable claims.
Recent changes in tort law, in which a single judge is responsible for all new asbestos cases in the state, inspire personal injury lawyers to say there isn't a need for legislative action. And these personal injury lawyers will often try to push through a case regardless of whether or not that case actually holds any water, taking advantage of a new generation of people who are determined to make money from claims of silica exposure.
Companies have asserted that true injuries could be distinguished from meritless claims by forcing plaintiffs to demonstrate substantive damage resulting from asbestos contact, and not just produce an x-ray image. This would mean the bill being proposed would have to adopt, and modify, the bar's recommendation that state a claimant meet specific medical standards before they would be allowed to proceed with their lawsuit, including a breathing test, X-rays, and exam by a doctor.
The new bill would also provide two measures of protection for workers who were exposed but not yet able to prove health damage. One of those protections would be to remove the application of a two year statute of limitations. If a worker is prevented from following through with a claim, but finds later on severe symptoms have developed and will pass a medical test, the right to file suit again would be allowed no matter how long it's been. Second, this legislation would prohibit insurers from refusing to cover laborers whose physical examinations indicated dangerous asbestos exposure.
Protecting the workers is an important element of this legislation, but some critics indicate that the medical requirements are unfair. This new proposal would keep medical standards where they are, and workers would still be able to sue, but before they could a judge would have to refer the claim to another to determine whether it has any medical merit. Under this proposal, workers would still have the same rights as before but the court would be able to separate out those claims that are baseless or fraudulent.
House members claim that doctors who simply lie, as advocates of this bill claim they do, then raising medical standards won't fix the problem. After all, the doctors could continue lying about a different set of regulations just as easily. Whatever their motives are, clearly the state has an interest in ridding itself of false claims so that the justice system can work more efficiently. Workers who have solid claims should be heard so that they can receive relief as soon as they can get it. Though the current bill is only before the House, the bill's drafter believes that it should be taken up by the Senate as well.
