When John Pruitt was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, he took legal action against the companies that had provided asbestos-containing materials to the ships on which he had served during his time in the U.S. Navy. Though two of the companies objected to a magistrate judge’s reports and recommendations regarding dismissing the case, an appellate court agreed with the magistrate judge and allowed the claims to move forward.
Navy Veteran Blames Asbestos-Contaminated Equipment for His Mesothelioma
In assigning blame for his malignant pleural mesothelioma, Mr. Pruitt points to asbestos exposure he suffered during his time as a machinist mate in the U.S. Navy and while he worked as a parts purchaser at Schroer Implement Company. In support of his claim, he provided his own deposition testimony and that of a witness who had worked alongside him as a ship-fitter on the USS Tolovana from September 1960 to December 1963. He also provided an expert report from Captain William Lowell regarding Navy exposures during that period.
In response, defendants Gardner Denver and Warren Pumps filed motions for the mesothelioma claims against them to be dismissed for lack of evidence. The magistrate judge rejected their motions for summary judgment and both companies appealed that decision to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, which upheld the lower court’s recommendation.
Appeals Court Rules Evidence in Mesothelioma Claim is Enough to Raise Issues of Fact
In its decision regarding the mesothelioma claim, the appeals court noted that summary judgment must only be granted if the evidence is not probative, and that where there is a genuine factual dispute, it must be rejected. In Mr. Pruitt’s case, the two companies’ arguments that there was no proof that their equipment had caused his illness was contradicted by the evidence submitted by the victim, including records proving that products manufactured by each company had been installed on Tolovana during construction and that it remained aboard throughout the time of Mr. Pruitt’s service.
The judges reminded the asbestos companies that in questions of summary judgment, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, which in this case was the mesothelioma victim. The companies’ motions were denied and the case will proceed for a jury to decide.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, it’s important that you have expert guidance. Contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn how they can help.
