Harold Dusto died of malignant pleural mesothelioma after thirty years of asbestos exposure in a filthy factory. When his family filed a personal injury lawsuit accusing the company of ignoring employee health, a judge dismissed it based on a statute that limited workplace injury claims to the state’s worker compensation system. This week an appellate court reopened the case, agreeing with Dusto’s survivors that the company’s consistent failure to meet OSHA standards and active deceptions to employees created an exception to the exclusive remedy rule.
Factory Conditions Cited in Mesothelioma Appeal
The mesothelioma victim worked in Rogers Corporation’s Manchester, Connecticut factory for more than 30 years, from 1970 to 2002. The factory produced an industrial plastic that contained both chrysotile and crocidolite asbestos. He stopped working there in 2015, was diagnosed with the rare form of cancer in May 2019, and died five months later.
When the family’s original lawsuit was dismissed by Superior Court Judge Barbara N. Bellis under an “exclusive” remedy statute that shuttled them back to the worker compensation system, they appealed the decision, arguing that their case qualified for an exception based on the company’s knowledge that Mr. Dusto’s condition was “substantially certain to occur.”
Man’s Mesothelioma Death Blamed on “Filthy” Factory Environment
While the company argued that they conducted health screenings and provided mandatory respirators that the mesothelioma victim had worn, Mr. Dusto’s family submitted evidence of the conditions that the mesothelioma victim had faced during his many years of work. This included a report prepared by an industrial hygienist in 1972 that criticized the cleanliness of the facility, reading in part, “In general, Rogers Corporation Manchester was a real mess. Their housekeeping and attitude of the foremen as well as the hourly people left a lot to be desired in the area of environmental control.
Despite the company’s proven knowledge that asbestos could cause malignant mesothelioma, they indicated that the pervasive fibers were only a ‘nuisance dust.” Based on industry-wide correspondence and other proofs provided in the appeal, the court agreed with the family’s assertion that the company had intentionally deceived workers and was enough to reverse the original summary judgment decision. The renewed claim will move forward for trial.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, it’s important to have guidance from people with extensive knowledge of the challenges you’ll face. For help, contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net today at 1-800-692-8608.
