As a result of where they live, what occupation they worked in, or where their family members worked, many mesothelioma victims suffer multiple exposures to asbestos over the course of their lives. This can create a complicated legal question, but the courts have determined that mesothelioma is not a “single compensable disease,” and that victims can pursue compensation for all exposures where it is legally permitted. The case of Callen Cortez provides a remarkable and tragic example.
Mesothelioma Victim Exposed to Asbestos by His Work, His Father’s Work, and His Brother’s Work
Callen Cortez traces his malignant mesothelioma to multiple exposures over his life. He grew up in Louisiana, where his father worked for an insulation company, his brother worked for the Avondale Shipyards, and he worked for the shipyards himself as an adult. When he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma he sued his father’s employer for his childhood take-home exposure. He also sued Avondale Shipyards for teenaged take-home exposure to his brother’s asbestos-contaminated clothing, and for his own later adult exposure as a worker. Avondale filed a motion to have both cases against them dismissed.
Avondale argued that Callen’s cases against them should be dismissed because they were protected from litigation by the rules of the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA). The U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana reviewed the case on three separate questions: whether the LHWCA protected Avondale from being sued by Callen as their employee; whether the LHWCA precluded suits filed against Avondale from family members of employees; and whether Callen could prove Avondale had been intentional in its negligence.
Court Permits Mesothelioma Victim to Sue for Exposure to Take-Home Asbestos
The justices carefully reviewed each of the three questions posed by Callen Cortez’ mesothelioma lawsuit and handed down a mixed decision. They agreed with Avondale Shipyards that the LHWCA protected them from being sued by him as their employee. They also agreed that there was no evidence that the company had intended for him to be exposed to asbestos or sickened. But on the question of the LHWCA preempting his claims of exposure as a result of his brother’s work, the court ruled in favor of Mr. Cortez.
In agreeing that Mr. Cortez could sue for asbestos exposure he’d suffered as a result of his brother’s employment, the justices also referenced his exposure to asbestos from his father’s work, writing, “Plaintiff’s claim against Avondale in its capacity as his brother Daniel’s employer is materially indistinguishable from plaintiff’s claims against his father’s employers for whom plaintiff himself never worked. The Court finds that plaintiff is not deprived of a tort claim for non-employment injuries suffered via his brother in the home, merely because he later became an Avondale employee.”
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, you need help from people with experience and knowledge. The Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can connect you with these resources. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
