One of the most challenging aspects of pursuing a mesothelioma or asbestos-related lung cancer lawsuit is the significant gap between when the victim’s exposure took place and when their illness is diagnosed. It’s hard for anybody to remember details from four or five decades earlier, and this is especially true when fighting a fatal disease. While asbestos companies try to take advantage of this difficulty, the courts are aware of this problem and allow supporting evidence to make up for these memory lapses. This was evident in a case that was recently heard in a New York courtroom.
85-Year-Old Man’s Testimony About Asbestos-Related Lung Cancer Questioned
The case was filed by John Gonder, an asbestos-related lung cancer victim who blamed his illness on the asbestos-containing products he was exposed to from 1970-1990, when he worked as a Con Ed inspector. Mr. Gonder testified about his work when he was 85 years old, one year before his death. Among the companies named in his lawsuit was Milton Roy, a pump manufacturer.
As often happens in mesothelioma and lung cancer claims, the company asserted that the pumps shipped to Mr. Gonder’s former job sites did not use asbestos-containing gaskets or other parts. Notably, they highlighted that the elderly man had not specifically identified Milton Roy in his testimony, despite the victim submitting contradicting evidence.
Court Rejects Asbestos Company’s Approach, Denies Request to Dismiss Case
In ruling against the asbestos company, Justice Adam Silvera of the Supreme Court of New York County specifically noted that Mr. Gonder had been deposed one year before his passing, at the age of 85, and that despite the extenuating circumstances he had provided “clear and unequivocal details regarding his work history from approximately forty-five years ago, including the locations of powerhouses he worked at, what his role was, and which specific categories of products he was exposed to.”
The judge then pointed out rulings from a previously decided mesothelioma case, in which a court wrote that “pointing to gaps in an opponent’s evidence is insufficient to demonstrate a movant’s entitlement to summary judgment.” Because Mr. Gonder had offered significant evidence that contradicted the company’s arguments, the judge determined that issues of fact in the case needed to be decided by a jury.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can help. Call us today at 1-800-692-8608.
