In June of 2020, Geraldine Rabb Perkins died of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Though she had never worked with asbestos, she spent years doing her husband Harang Joseph Perkins’s laundry while he had served in the U.S. Navy at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard from 1968 to 1974, where he was constantly exposed to the toxic material. The couple’s daughter has filed a claim against the United States for damages, and the case is making its way through the court system.
Mesothelioma Victim’s Daughter Points to Navy’s Failures to Follow Government Rules
In filing her mesothelioma claim against the United States, Tristan Perkins points to the years when her Navy veteran father was reassigned to maintenance of steam heating system of vessels at the shipyard, as well as his Navy years after. She asserts that her mother was sickened by the asbestos she was exposed to while laundering her father’s work clothing, and that the government’s own rules had required that they provide him with protective clothing, equipment, laundry, and or facilities to shower and change. She also is asserting a failure to warn.
In response to Ms. Perkins’ mesothelioma claim, the government filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that they are protected by rules of sovereign immunity. Ms. Perkins responds that there are exceptions to those rules based on failures to exercise or perform a statute or regulation.
Court Assesses Whether Government’s Acts Were Discretionary in Mesothelioma Case
In analyzing the evidence submitted in the mesothelioma claim, the judges noted mandatory asbestos directives that the victim’s daughter asserted the Navy failed to follow. Though the government prevailed in having Ms. Perkins’ claims about the Navy’s failure to provide her father with protective equipment, laundry service, or a place to shower and change, as well as their duty to warn of asbestos’ dangers, they denied the government’s defense of its failure to provide Mr. Perkins with protective clothing.
In its decision, the court noted that the government’s directives had specifically said that “Personnel engaged in ripout operations will be provided and required to wear clean coveralls at the beginning of each shift.” The use of the word “will” in this and subsequent asbestos control measures represented mandatory action with no element of choice. Though the government argued that Mr. Perkins’ duties did not include ripout operations, the judge determined that there were sufficient issues of material fact on this question for it to be heard by a jury.
If you or someone you love has been affected by exposure to asbestos, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more.
