Michael Shepard has an established reputation of being a compassionate attorney who, along with mesothelioma and asbestos related injuries, also helps people in their pain and suffering arising out of injuries inflicted to them due to the faults of others. If people are injured due to exposure to toxic chemicals, product defects, nursing home negligence, silica, talc, welding fumes automotive or aviation accidents, they should contact the attorneys office to seek guidance for obtaining compensation for the injury caused.
In his website, the mesothelioma cancer lawyer acknowledges that the time of the injured is precious and says “We know our clients want the freedom to see family and friends whenever they choose. We also know that because of their condition, they don’t want to be bogged down in legal matters. Through years of experience in this field, we have developed a streamlined approach to handling asbestos-related litigation that lessens the amount of time our clients spend dealing with lawyers and the courts. After a client’s brief, free, one-on-one consultation with us, we take the matter into our own hands, independently investigating the specific facts of the case, collecting crucial evidence and confronting the people who are responsible for your illness or injury. We make every effort to transform our clients’ “good” case into a “great” case that may secure the maximum compensation deserved.”
Whether the injured is in Boston, Vermont, New Hampshire or Rhode Island, Boston Mesothelioma cancer lawyers are ready to look into the case and assess the maximum compensation during the first free one to one consultation.
Source
(ACEL) announced that it has entered into a purchase and supply agreement with Scientific Protein Laboratories LLC or SPL for the commercial production of Onconase or ranpirnase.
Onconase, the company's lead drug candidate, is currently being evaluated as a treatment for unresectable malignant mesothelioma or UMM in a confirmatory Phase IIIb clinical trial.
Kuslima Shogen, chief executive officer of Alfacell, said, “We have been pleased with the superb performance of the extremely well qualified team at SPL for many years and are confident that the commercial production of ONCONASE is in the right hands. This agreement is another step forward for Alfacell as we plan for the commercialization of ONCONASE.”
Onconase is a first-in-class product candidate from Alfacell's proprietary ribonuclease or RNase technology.
In addition to an ongoing Phase IIIb study in malignant mesothelioma, Alfacell is conducting a Phase I/II trial of Onconase in non-small cell lung cancer or NSCLC and other solid tumors.
ACEL is currently trading at $2.40, up 16 cents or 6.95%.
Source
The Mesothelioma Lawyer expresses his concern over the student’s health risks as asbestos that was used in these old school buildings as the primary insulation and fireproofing construction material is now projecting from the school building sites due to poor maintenance. It is contaminating the schools environment posing students, teachers and the staff to mesothelioma cancer and asbestos related respiratory diseases.
The school going students and the staff working in these schools are exposed to the risk of asbestos related respirator diseases thus laying the foundation for mesothelioma. This fact is also reviled by the Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Centers report. The school buildings in New York have now grown old and need maintenance. Due to lack of maintenance in the old building the asbestos which had been used in construction is now exposed. It is polluting the environment endangering the lives of students, teachers and staff exposing them to the risk of contracting asbestos related respiratory diseases and mesothelioma cancer.
During an emergency inspection in NY schools which was carried as a NY City School was blamed for an incident of asbestos exposure. It was reveled during the inspection that 80% of the building built prior to 1980 used asbestos as insulation and fire proof material during the construction phase. Now due to the poor maintenance the risk of exposure of asbestos has increased manifolds posing risk of health to all the occupants of the school buildings. The report by the Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Centers Report also state that in 2004 one Brooklyn School was forced to open late as they had to ensure the safety of the school building, staff and the students.
Even a small amount of asbestos exposure contaminates the environment, increases the possibility of inhalation of asbestos particles thus marking a start of respiratory disorders leading to mesothelioma cancer.
Mesothelioma lawyer Shepard studies all such cases, takes the path of law to bring relief to the injured who had not known about the risks of being exposed to asbestos. At present Shepard Law Firm is assisting Mesothelioma victims in:
- Boston
- New Hampshire
- Vermont
- Rhode Island
To learn more about Mesothelioma / Asbestos Risks visit Mesothelioma Cancer Resource
for free informaation
Source
Alfacell Corp. licensed U.S. commercialization rights for the Phase III cancer drug Onconase (ranpirnase) to Strativa Pharmaceuticals in a deal worth up to $225 million.
Just $5 million will change hands up front, but both Alfacell and Strativa stand to gain much more if their gamble in choosing each other as partners pays off. Specifically, Alfacell could get $30 million for FDA approval of Onconase in unresectable malignant mesothelioma (UMM) and up to $190 million for milestones tied to Onconase sales as well as development and commercialization of the drug in additional indications. Alfacell also would receive double-digit royalties and retains a co-promotion option.
For Alfacell, the gamble lies in choosing Strativa, the recently-launched specialty Pharmaceutical division of Par Pharmaceutical Cos. Inc. So far, Strativa markets just one product: Megace ES for anorexia, cachexia and unexplained weight loss in HIV patients. Although the company has deals in place for three additional late-stage products, all three are for HIV or cancer supportive care, and Onconase would be Strativa's first true oncology therapeutic.
Lawrence Kenyon, executive vice president and chief financial officer for Alfacell, told BioWorld Today that Onconase has been the subject of "bids from multiple companies for a number of years." Strativa was selected because it had the hunger of a start-up looking to build an oncology business focused on niche products, combined with the resources and infrastructure of Par Pharmaceuticals, he said.
For Strativa, the gamble lies in Onconase's somewhat checkered development history. The drug, a natural ribonuclease isolated from frog eggs, failed a Phase III trial in pancreatic cancer and its first Phase III trial in UMM.
In the pancreatic cancer trial, a preliminary analysis showed that Onconase plus tamoxifen failed to improve survival compared to 5-fluorouracil. Kenyon said part of the problem was an inability to recruit sufficiently healthy patients into the trial, and the pancreatic cancer program subsequently was discontinued. (See BioWorld Today, July 16, 1998.)
The first Phase III UMM trial compared Onconase as a monotherapy to doxorubicin. Again, there was no survival difference in the overall population, but Kenyon said a retrospective analysis showed that the sickest patients had been disproportionately weighted to the Onconase group. Backing them out of the analysis resulted in a two-month survival difference.
Onconase is now being studied in a Phase IIIb trial designed to confirm the positive data seen in the Phase III subset analysis. The trial, which was designed in coordination with the FDA, compares Onconase plus doxorubicin to doxorubicin alone in the less-severe groups of UMM patients. Enrollment of 428 patients is complete, and Kenyon said the company is "very close" to obtaining the number of clinical events needed to analyze the data.
Under the deal with Strativa, Alfacell will continue to fund development, manufacturing and regulatory work with Onconase, including the ongoing Phase IIIb trial. Strativa will fund U.S. commercialization.
Previous deals with US Pharmacia affiliate USP Pharma Spolka Z.O.O. and Genesis Pharma SA cover Onconase commercialization in Eastern Europe and certain Southeast European countries, respectively.
As of Oct. 31, Alfacell reported $5.4 million in cash and equivalents, most of which was earmarked to support the Onconase trial and new drug application filing. Once the filing is submitted, Alfacell intends to work with Strativa on additional indications for Onconase, including the possibility of moving a non-small-cell lung cancer program into Phase II.
Kenyon said the money from Strativa also will allow Alfacell to "ramp up" its preclinical work on AC 03-636 for glioma and antiviral indications, AC CJ-001 for glioma, and AC CJ-002 for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Shares of Somerset, N.J.-based Alfacell (NASDAQ:ACEL) rose 25 cents, or 14.3 percent, to close at $2 on Tuesday. Meanwhile, shares of Woodcliff Lake, N.J.-based Par Pharmaceuticals (NYSE:PRX) rose 52 cents to close at $21.49.Source
SUFFERERS of the asbestos-linked disease mesothelioma will have access to cheap treatment from today, after a long campaign to secure federal government subsidy paid off.
The government says the chemotherapy agent Alimta - the only treatment available specifically for the killer cancer of the lung or stomach lining - will be listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) from today.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon said the listing of Alimta was an important announcement that followed the "tireless campaigning" of Bernie Banton, who died, aged 61, in November from the disease.
"Bernie was a great Australian hero and it is due to his efforts that many people will understand the significance of this decision," she said.
About 600 Australians are diagnosed annually with mesothelioma, but the long lag time between exposure to asbestos and the onset of symptoms means its prevalence is tipped to rise in the future.
Medical studies have estimated 18,000 people will have become victims of the disease by 2020.
Alimta, which can increase survival time and improve a sufferer's quality of life, has been out of reach for many patients at $20,000 or more for six treatments.
From today, sufferers will pay a maximum of $31.30 for each prescription. Eligible concession-patients will pay $5 for each prescription.
The subsidy will cost the government about $26 million annually and is expected to benefit about 300 people a year.
The listing of the drug became an election issue after Mr Banton criticised then health minister Tony Abbott for failing to personally receive a 17,000-signature petition brought to his Sydney electoral office in October.
Mr Abbott was forced into an embarrassing apology after questioning whether the dying campaigner's motives for speaking out were "pure of heart".
A week later, a government-appointed board recommended the drug be added to the PBS after three times rejecting its listing since 2004.
Mr Abbott bypassed the normal process of cabinet approval by immediately announcing the drug's listing.
Until now, only about half of Australians suffering mesothelioma were getting easy access to the palliative care drug through state government subsidy and workplace compensation schemes.
A Maryborough cancer sufferer has welcomed the placing of a chemotherapy drug onto the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) this week.
In 1995, 65-year-old Gary Morse was diagnosed with an incurable lung cancer.
He says the chemotherapy and asbestos cancer drug, Alimta, helped him greatly last year.
But he say it would have cost him about $20,000 if his oncologist had not persuaded a private health insurer to pay the cost.
"We have private insurance and he [the oncologist] got in contact with them and got them to agree to pay for the first three treatments and the results were great," he said.
"Then he talked them into paying for the next one and of course now it's come onto the free list, which is better still.
"If we hadn't had private insurance we would have had to take it out of our superannuation retirement fund.
"I know of another one person who's on it, and it's increased his life span, and of course it's also going to increase mine too.
"This year 22 of our family were all together for Christmas, the first time ever, and I thought it was going to be the 'last supper', actually, until this new drug come on the scene.
"Now we can look forward to the future. I'm really pleased with it."
ANYONE with an air conditioner should cherish the relief today because the cost of running it is going to rise substantially in the new year.
Like the fireworks at midnight, we could set our watches by the price rises that herald the new year, and along with electricity, the cost of public transport, toll booths and health care will rise.
Energy bills will be the most significant of the new year price rises for Victorian consumers.
On January 1, Victoria's three biggest energy retailers — Origin Energy, AGL and TRUenergy — will charge up to 17% more for power, after the drought, increased demand and renewable energy targets pushed the cost of generating electricity to record highs.
An average household paying $945 annually for its power bill is likely to pay $1106 for consuming 6500 kilowatt hours of peak and off-peak electricity. A larger family could face a rise of about $220 annually.
Riding trams, trains and buses will be more expensive in January, with the the cost of public transport in Melbourne rising by about 20 cents per trip, with a zone 1, two-hour full fare going from $3.30 to $3.50, and a zone 1-and-2, two-hour ticket rising from $5.30 to $5.50.
And you will not escape the price rises by taking the car, with Citylink passes set to rise by 4.5%, with an e-tag day pass going up to $5.97 and a 24-hour pass rising to $11.45.
Health too, will get more expensive.
The amount you have to spend to be eligible for the Medicare Safety Net — under which the Government picks up 80% of medical costs after you've spent a certain amount in a year — will rise by $9.80 to $529.30 for concession card holders and $19.70 to $1058.70 for general patients.
It will also be harder to qualify for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme safety net. The threshold for general patients will rise $82.80 to $1141.80 and for concession card holders it will go up $15.60 to $290.
The amount patients will have to contribute to the cost of subsidised medicines will go up 60 cents to $31.30 for general patients and 10 cents to $5 for concession card holders.
But it is not all bad news.
Several new drugs will attract subsidies from tomorrow, including Champix for those quitting smoking and Alimta for the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma.
And it will be easier to get eye treatment, with optometrists given the right to prescribe certain subsidised medications for the first time.
Bernie Banton, the public face of the campaign against asbestos company James Hardie, has died, but his efforts have been hailed as a decades-long legacy for asbestos disease sufferers.
Mr Banton, 61, died at his Sydney home about 1am (AEDT) on Tuesday with his family by his side.
His wife Karen, brother Bruce, sister Grace and five children have accepted the NSW government's offer of a state funeral.
Mr Banton was diagnosed in August with peritoneal mesothelioma, an abdominal cancer caused by his exposure to asbestos when he worked for a subsidiary of James Hardie from 1968 to 1974.
He had already been suffering for years from asbestosis, a lung disease also caused by exposure to asbestos.
Despite this, he led the campaign to force James Hardie to establish a fund that would provide adequate compensation for all its employees suffering from diseases caused by their exposure to asbestos at its factories.
He was, NSW Premier Morris Iemma said, "a truly great Australian, a man who fought for others at a time when he should have been worrying about his own health".
"In November 2006, on the day we signed the final agreement to secure compensation for Hardie victims (workers in James Hardie factories who contracted diseases caused by asbestos), Bernie knew he'd achieved something special.
"That deal was worth $1.5 billion over the next 40 years for those who suffered and continue to suffer this dreadful disease.
"It would not have been possible without Bernie Banton."
Prime Minister-elect Kevin Rudd said he was "a fighter" who was "a symbol, a living symbol of what is right and decent and proper in the workplace relations of this country".
"Australia is going to be poorer for Bernie's passing - our whole nation will be poorer for Bernie's passing," Mr Rudd said.
Mr Banton was diagnosed in 1999 with asbestosis and ARPD (asbestos-related pleural disease), which reduced his lung capacity to 40 per cent.
He began to rely on an oxygen bottle, but he refused to let it slow him down, taking it with him everywhere he went as he campaigned for fair compensation from James Hardie for all its affected workers.
Estimates of future claims continued to rise, and the company was eventually forced in December 2004 to sign Australia's largest ever compensation settlement, worth up to $4.5 billion over 40 years.
In a statement, James Hardie expressed its condolences to the family of Mr Banton, acknowledging his work in raising public awareness of asbestos-related disease.
"The company acknowledges the significant contribution Mr Banton made to raising the awareness of asbestos-related diseases in Australia, and his role in the eventual implementation of the final funding agreement to compensate Australians with asbestos-related personal injury claims," the company said.
NSW parliament rose for a moment's silence and both sides of politics delivered statements praising him.
"Bernie courageously pursued justice for sufferers of asbestos-related diseases and their families, we all owe him a debt of gratitude," NSW Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca said.
Former ACTU secretary Greg Combet said Mr Banton had been a fighter for other people and a fighter for justice.
"I hope that people properly appreciate the importance of the settlement that was reached with James Hardie a few years back, because it was a very hard fight and Bernie contributed a lot," Mr Combet said.
"That's how he should be recognised."
Last Thursday, Mr Banton won a confidential payout as compensation for his terminal mesothelioma, including exemplary damages for what his lawyers called James Hardie's "contumelious" disregard for the health of its workers when they knew of the dangers of asbestos.
In 2000, he had been awarded $800,000 compensation for asbestosis.
And last month he succeeded in getting the palliative drug Alimta subsidised by the federal government for mesothelioma sufferers.
His brother Bruce said Mr Banton's funeral would probably be held on Saturday but details were still being discussed.
"One thing we will be asking is for instead of flowers at the service is donations for asbestos research and treatments," he said.
In a further tribute, the Asbestos Diseases Research Institute at Sydney's Concord hospital will also be named the Bernie Banton Centre.
In Melbourne, he was honoured at a commemorative service, part of Asbestos Awareness Week, to remember people who have died from asbestos-related diseases.
SourceVictims of asbestos fight payout 'apartheid'
People suffering from pleural plaques through exposure to asbestos will soon be facing a postcode lottery to determine whether they qualify for compensation.
Pleural plaques are a scarring on the lining of the lungs, an asymptomatic sign of exposure to asbestos that does not of itself lead to more serious asbestos-related conditions. While about 1,800 people die of asbestos-related diseases each year in Britain, a number that is rising, some commentators have labelled plaques sufferers as 'the worried well' and the House of Lords recently ruled that the condition was not worthy of compensation.
'When people say those things, it's because they haven't had to live with it,' says Valerie Pask, a 55-year-old mother of seven from Nottingham who was diagnosed with plaques last year. Asbestos has left its mark on three generations of her family. 'I'll never forget my eldest brother in the final weeks before he died,' she recalls. 'He was unable to say more than a few words because his lungs were so congested.'
Valerie's brother died from mesothelioma, the cancer contracted from breathing in asbestos dust. Her father worked all his life as a lagger, fitting insulation at power stations. He died of heart disease in 1980, at the age of 65, with his death certificate recording that the condition was 'related to asbestosis'. 'My eldest brother, Brian, died at the age of 50 in 1987 and my next eldest brother, Michael, died in 1991,' she says. Three sons worked with their father. Two of them had their lives cut short by mesothelioma and the surviving brother was recently diagnosed with asbestosis. Her brother-in-law and sister-in-law, who worked with them, have both died of asbestos-related conditions, as did an uncle who worked in London.
But the tragedy doesn't end there. Valerie and her three sisters would clean their father's dust-covered overalls when he came back from the power stations, where he eventually became a site manager. 'He'd take his work clothes off in the conservatory and we'd beat them and get as much dust off as we could; otherwise our washing machine would get clogged up,' she recalls. Two of the four women have been diagnosed with plaques, as has one of their daughters.
In October, the Law Lords refused to overrule an appeal court ruling in January 2006 preventing plaques sufferers from claiming damages (in Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co). 'Proof of damage is an essential element in a claim in negligence and in my opinion the symptomless plaques are not compensatable,' ruled Lord Hoffmann.
That ruling will affect 'thousands who have faced emotional anguish since their diagnosis', says Adrian Budgen, head of the asbestos unit at law firm Irwin Mitchell. 'Plaques are a consequence of negligent exposure to asbestos. This exposure physically scars victims and is often a precursor to very serious and sometimes fatal disease.' Budgen, who is advising Valerie, adds: 'With a family history like theirs, you're going to be worried. She is a relatively young woman who has to live with this for the rest of her life.'
The Scottish government announced this month that it intended to reverse the Law Lords' ruling by introducing new legislation. 'The effects of asbestos are a terrible legacy of Scotland's industrial past and we should not turn our backs on those who contributed to our nation's wealth,' said Holyrood's Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill. 'Pleural plaques in anyone exposed to asbestos mean they have a greatly increased lifetime risk of developing mesothelioma. This will mean that people diagnosed with this condition will have to live with the worry of possible future ill-health for the rest of their lives.'
The Association of British Insurers calls the Scottish approach 'misguided'. Insurers are 'fully committed' to compensating claimants with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, says the ABI's Stephen Haddrill, but 'introducing legislation to overturn a unanimous Law Lords' ruling could significantly increase costs for Scottish businesses'.
None the less, insurers had been paying out for plaques for 20 years prior to the Rothwell case and payouts have been modest. Since the January 2006 ruling, 'full and final' damages, which settle the case once and for all, have been cut from £12,500-£20,000 to £5,000-£7,000.
There is a recent precedent for ministers in England and Wales stepping in to protect families from the courts when they overruled the House of Lords judgment by the Law Lords in the case of Sylvia Barker in 2006. In that case (The Observer, 5 March 2006), insurers argued that if there was more than one employer, compensation for mesothelioma should be split between them. As some have now gone out of business, this would have meant families missing out on part or all of their compensation. Ministers therefore amended the Compensation Act to protect families.
Campaigners are pessimistic about Westminster following the Scottish lead on plaques cases, even though the construction union Ucatt last week won a government commitment to review the Rothwell decision. 'It's going to look unjust if you have sufferers in Scotland receiving compensation and those south of the border aren't,' says Tony Whitson, chair of the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK.
Campaigners point to a growing difference between England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other, where the life-extending drug Alimta is more readily available for mesothelioma sufferers and where bereavement payments of up to £30,000 have been made by the courts (such compensation is fixed at £10,000 in England). Now it seems likely plaques sufferers will only get compensation in Scotland.
Valerie says: 'What makes me angry is that if you have a minor scar on your body you can get compensation. Thousands of people receive compensation for stress, but we get nothing. The scarring is inside me.'
She says she suffers nightmares and has been out socialising only four times since she was diagnosed 18 months ago. 'Employers knew the harm asbestos was doing and carried on using it because it was cheap,' she says. 'Thousands of people are affected now and will be over the next 20 years and it all could have been prevented. It's so wrong.'
LegalView.com offers readers several mesothelioma resources including its continually updated mesothelioma blog. A recent blog post regarding mesothelioma offered readers an inside into a new mesothelioma treatment center that is to be built in Australia.
Denver, CO (PRWEB) December 23, 2007 -- LegalView, the number one source for everything legal on the Internet, recently updated its mesothelioma legal blog to inform readers and sufferers of mesothelioma about a new mesothelioma treatment center that will be built. The new center is scheduled to be open in a year, but, according to news reports, the treatment center's first goal is to ensure that every mesothelioma cancer victim will be able to access treatments available at the center.
Mesothelioma is a deadly and rare form of cancer that is inevitably incurable at the moment. While research continues to lengthen a victim's life as well as to ease the pain the cancer causes, there is still no way to 100 percent treat the cancer. Mesothelioma is usually caused by exposure to asbestos fibers that are breathed into the lung and essentially crystallize causing the development of cancer cells on the lining of the lung. It is typical that mesothelioma occurs anywhere from 10 to 40 years after initial exposure to asbestos. Many are currently being diagnosed with the cancer because of years of negligence by companies who knowingly endangered employees by exposing them to the deadly dust. If you or anyone you know has developed mesothelioma cancer, it may be in your best interest to contact a mesotehlioma law firm for more information.
The new mesothelioma treatment center is being built in honor of a local Sydney man who recently passed away. Bernie Benton was exposed to asbestos and began helping others dealing with the same plight. The mesothelioma treatment center will be one of the world's first asbestos research centers that focuses only on mesothelioma. Those suffering from mesothelioma cancer can find more information on this and other mesothelioma treatments at the mesothelioma information portal.
In addition to information regarding mesothelioma, LegalView.com also offers resources on several additional legal issues that are tragically affecting individuals throughout the country everyday. Readers will be able to find a traumatic brain injury law firm who specializes in helping brain injury victims with consultations and attorney referral services. Individuals who have suffered from a construction accident injury or an auto accident can find information on finding a construction accident attorney or auto accident lawyer through LegalView as well.
SOURCE
October 24, 2007 05:58am
LAWYERS for asbestos victims fear the new board of the James Hardie subsidiary Amaca is using a WA case to attempt to limit the number of successful lawsuits.
Denis Walter John Moss and his wife, Patricia Margaret Hannell, won a case against Amaca Pty Ltd, the James Hardie asbestos-producing subsidiary, in December last year and were awarded $5million.
Mr Moss, who died in June, was exposed to asbestos in the mid-1980s and 1990 as a result of occasional work on asbestos cement products in and around his home. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in November 2005.
Amaca appealed against the West Australian Supreme Court decision earlier this year to award damages. The Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's decision, stating Amaca did not breach its duty of care by failing to advertise the dangers of asbestos in the mass media.
Today in Perth, Mrs Hannell is seeking special leave to appeal against that decision in the High Court.
For decades, the key tenet of asbestos disease litigation, particularly in New South Wales, has been the finding by the courts that James Hardie had actual knowledge of the dangers of asbestos as early as 1938 but did not do enough toprotect workers and warn customers.
Slater and Gordon asbestos litigation specialist Tanya Segelov said it was possible the new Amaca board - appointed by James Hardie and the NSW Government - was testing the water in Western Australia, and if successful, might take a harder line in other jurisdictions.
If Amaca won such cases, it could reduce the ability of thousands of future victims to obtain compensation.
A lawsuit filed by Smithfield Foods charges the UFCW with extortion and a smear campaign in the union's efforts to convince the meat processor to agree to voluntarily accept the union without an employee vote. The union says the company has a long history of worker intimidation.
By
It's been used against mobsters, corrupt labor unions and anti-abortion protesters.
Now Smithfield Foods Inc., the Virginia-based meat-processing giant, has joined companies turning to federal racketeering law to try to block a campaign geared to unionization of its employees.
Smithfield Foods' lawyers filed the civil racketeering lawsuit Oct. 17 in federal court in Richmond, Va., the latest development in Smithfield's 14-year fight to prevent the United Food and Commercial Workers from unionizing 4,650 hourly workers at its largest pork-processing plant in Tar Heel, N.C.
The lawsuit contends that the union has resorted to "smear tactics," including trying to undermine the company's stock price by leaking false statements to Wall Street stock analysts.
The lawsuit seeks damages of at least $5.9 million for business losses Smithfield Foods says can be traced to the union campaign, as well as an injunction barring the unions from continuing their activities.
The lawsuit -- Smithfield Food Inc. vs. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union -- has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne.
UFCW officials issued a statement maintaining that Smithfield has a long history of worker intimidation and calling the lawsuit an attempt by Smithfield to avoid a union vote.
UFCW officials noted that the suit was filed two days after negotiators for the company walked out of talks that were close to setting a mutually agreed-upon process for holding a unionization election at the Tar Heel processing plant.
"It is truly shameful that Smithfield is willing to spend millions of dollars on high-priced lawyers and frivolous lawsuits rather than committing the resources needed to provide basic safety and health improvements for Tar Heel workers," the union statement read.
According to the lawsuit, union members have demonstrated at food stores carrying Smithfield Foods products and at public appearances of celebrity chef Paula Deen to urge her to break her contract with Smithfield. Deen's Food Network cable television program, Paula's Home Cooking, features Smithfield products.
The lawsuit contends that in September 2005, the UFCW's Local 400 "decided to abandon all efforts to convince Smithfield employees of the benefits of union membership in favor of a new plan aimed not at the employees, but at Smithfield itself."
The lawsuit says UFCW decided to "extort" Smithfield's recognition of Local 400 "regardless of the degree of actual employee support for such representation, by injuring Smithfield economically until Smithfield either agreed to [union] demands or was run out of business."
In addition to the UFCW international union, in Washington, and Local 400, the Smithfield lawsuit names three groups and seven individuals it describes as "co-conspirators" with the union.
While the use of the federal racketeering statute in a union-organizing dispute may seem unusual, other companies have turned to the racketeering law, says Lynn C. Outwater, a labor relations lawyer and managing partner of the Pittsburgh office of the law firm Jackson Lewis.
Outwater cited the March ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan, of the Eastern District of New York, allowing a civil-racketeering conspiracy case to proceed against the Laborers' International Union.
The lawsuit by the Asbestos & Lead Removal Corp. contended that Laborers Local 78 and business manager Edison Severino carried out a campaign of violence and extortion designed to force the company to agree to a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 78.
The stakes are high in the protracted unionization struggle between Smithfield and the UFCW. With annual sales of $12 billion, Smithfield Foods calls itself the largest producer of hogs and the "leading processor and marketer of fresh pork and processed meats in the United States."
The Tar Heel plant is the largest meat processing plant of its type, according to Smithfield Farms, and slaughters, processes and packages more than 32,000 hogs per day.
The UFCW, on the other hand, represents 1.4 million workers and Landover, Md.-based Local 400 claims 40,000 members.
SOURCE
Regarding the Oct. 15 front page article, ''Cancer death rates declining'': The death rate for mesothelioma, an extremely painful cancer in which membrane cells lining the chest or abdomen become malignant and proliferate uncontrollably, is on the rise.
Mesothelioma, caused by asbestos exposure, is almost always fatal. The life expectancy is 12.3 months with treatment and 9.2 months without. In fact, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, Pennsylvania ranks third in the nation in the mortality rate for mesothelioma.
Mesothelioma's latency is as long as 50 years, so millions of Americans who were exposed in the past five decades are at risk. And, given the current levels of asbestos exposure, it is inevitable that Americans will continue to be diagnosed for decades. The only hope is research to develop effective treatment.
Much has been accomplished with limited, private funding. It is time for the federal government to help find a cure. With facts like these, it is extremely distressing to know that less than 3 percent of cancer research dollars go to mesothelioma research. Wake up, Lehigh Valley; not all cancers or cancer death rates are on the decline.
SOURCE
FAMILIES and campaigners yesterday condemned the "injustice" of a House of Lords ruling which will end compensation for thousands of workers suffering from an asbestos- related condition.
The judgment removes an established right to compensation, which had existed for 20 years, to allow people with pleural plaques - scars on the lungs - to claim damages.
Unions appealed this and the controversial case went before the Lords yesterday, where the Court of Appeal decision was upheld.
The five Law Lords who heard the cases agreed that the appeals should be dismissed because the law does not offer compensation to victims of injuries which cause no or trivial damage.
Activists have now pledged to ask the Scottish Parliament to bring in new legislation in Scotland to reverse the Lords' judgment.
They have prepared a bill, which has cross-party support, and will submit it to Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, urging him to change the law north of the Border.
Harry McCluskey, secretary of Clydeside Action on Asbestos, which represents hundreds of families of former shipyard and factory workers, said: "The judgment has gone against the workers who have to live with the condition with the appalling fear that it could develop into mesothelioma [a form of cancer].
"It is a ridiculous judgment and the injustice is cruel."
Ian Tasker, of the STUC, said: "The STUC has supported asbestos groups and we are extremely disappointed that this is another injustice to the victims of asbestos.
"The legal system pays too much attention to business and it doesn't pay enough attention to the victims."
Pleural plaques can, over time, make breathing difficult and, in some cases, can be accompanied by the development of serious respiratory diseases including mesothelioma and lung cancer.
Previously, victims could claim between £6,000 to £10,000 if they had pleural plaques and more if they developed mesothelioma.
Bill Kidd, an SNP MSP and Robert Brown, a Liberal Democrat MSP, backed the move to introduce new legislation at the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Kidd said: "This decision by the House of Lords flies in the face of common sense and has to be rectified as quickly as possible."
Bill Butler, a Labour MSP, added: "[The ruling] comes down on the side of the employers and insurance companies and disregards the legitimate case of victims and their families."
Solicitor-advocate Frank Maguire, of Thompsons Solicitors, a leading campaigner for asbestos victims, said: "This judgment will only diminish respect for the law by showing how divorced it can be from reality."
Vitamin C whether intravenous or oral is one of the most prevalent types of alternative and complimentary cancer therapies. Yet, this nutrient is still considered “controversial” by mainstream oncology. Since two time Nobel Prize winner (in chemistry and peace) Dr. Linus Pauling advocated its use in cancer starting in the late 1970’s, evidence to its efficacy has been quietly and steadily mounting.
Humans Do Not Make Vitamin C
Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C except humans and a small number of other animals, including, apes, guinea pigs, the red-vented bulbul, a fruit-eating bat and a species of trout.
Vitamin C and Cancer - Early Work
Pure L-ascorbic acid (vitamin C) was first prepared in 1928 by the Nobel prize winning biochemist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi and in 1932 it was shown that this substance was vitamin C. In 1954 and 1959 Dr. W. J. McCormick, a Canadian physician, hypothesized that cancer is a collagen disease, secondary to a vitamin C deficiency. His theory was based on the fact that collagen is the “mortar” that binds cells together and if cells stick together, tumors would have a more difficult time breaking away and metastasizing. This concept was expanded upon when, in 1966, Dr. Ewan Cameron wrote a book entitled “Hyaluronidase and Cancer.” In it he pointed out that the ground substance or “intercellular cement” that binds cells of normal tissues contains various molecules that strengthen it including glycosaminoglycans and fibrils of collagen. Dr. Cameron discussed how tumors can produce enzymes that breakdown these molecules (i.e. hyaluronidase and collagenase).
Linus Pauling, Ph.D. (chemistry) had been interested in vitamin C for many years and had written previously how people required large amounts of vitamin C (1). Working with Dr. Cameron, Dr. Pauling pointed out that Vitamin C could: A) stimulate normal cells to produce increased amounts of a hyaluronidase inhibitor and; B) increase the number of collagen fibrils made (2). Based on these theories, Drs. Pauling and Cameron embarked on a number of studies to test the efficacy of vitamin C in cancer patients.
Pauling and Cameron Studies Find Improvement in Survival and Quality of Life
In 1976, Drs. Pauling and Cameron reported the survival times of 100 terminal cancer patients who were given supplemental ascorbate (10 grams/daily intravenously) and those of a control group of 1,000 patients of similar status treated by the same clinicians in the same hospital (Vale of Leven Hospital in Scotland) who had been managed identically except for the ascorbate. The 1,000 controls were matched by sex, age, primary tumor type, and clinical status. By August 10, 1976 all 1,000 of the controls had died while 18 of the 100 ascorbate-treated patients were still living. As of September 15, 1979, five ascorbate treated patients were still alive and “living normal lives.” The 100 acorbate-treated patients lived, on the average, 300 days longer than their matched controls with better quality of life (measured from the time all patients were considered “untreatable”).
A second study was performed in 1978 with 100 new ascorbate-treated patients and 1,000 matched controls (about half of the controls were in the original set) (3). This analysis broke out the improved survival times by cancer type. For each type of cancer there was an improvement in survival.
Mayo Clinic Studies Do Not Show Significant Benefit
Pauling’s and Cameron’s studies were not considered the gold standard in clinical studies. The gold standard was and remains the randomized, prospective, double-blind study in which half the patients are randomized to one arm of a study, half to another arm and neither the patient nor the doctor knows who is getting what.
To test whether ascorbate was effective, Dr. Charles Moertel and his colleagues at the Mayo Clinic conducted two randomized placebo controlled studies of patients each with advanced cancer (published in 1979 and 1985) (4). Patients randomized to the treatment group were given 10 grams of oral ascorbate, and neither study showed significant benefit. (In the first Mayo study, median survival was improved two weeks with the ascorbate group.) Because Moertel’s studies were taken as definitive, ascorbate treatment was considered useless. There were however, at least three significant differences between the Mayo Clinic’s “definitive” studies and those of Drs. Pauling and Cameron.
Mayo Clinic Studies Did Not Replicate the Studies by Pauling and Cameron
Difference #1 - In First Mayo Study Most Patients Were Pretreated With Chemo
The overwhelming majority - 87% (52 of 60 patients) of the patients in the first Mayo study had received chemotherapy before the study began. In contrast, only 4% of the patients in Pauling and Cameron study had received chemo. Pauling wrote, “It is known that cytotoxic chemotherapy damages the immune system and might prevent the vitamin C from being effective, inasmuch as it functions mainly by potentiating this system.(5)”
This is a valid critique. A Pubmed search for vitamin C reveals a large number of peer reviewed medical and scientific journal articles that demonstrate that vitamin C scavenges free radicals when it acts as an antioxidant (6), helps neutralize carcinogenic chemicals such as nitrosamine and nitrites (7), enhances lymphocyte function and mobilization of phagocytes (8), improves natural killer cell activities (9), modulates cell growth and differentiation (10), and enhances IgA, IgG and IgM antibody levels (11). Several of these mechanisms are directly related to the body’s immune system and to cancer resistance. Cytotoxic (cell-killing) chemotherapy is notorious for seriously compromising the patient’s immune system by killing the cells that mediate immunity. (Note: in the 1985 Mayo clinic study, this difference was removed as none of the Mayo patients were administered prior chemotherapy.)
Difference #2 - Pauling and Cameron Administered Intravenous Vitamin C, the Mayo Studies Used Only Oral Vitamin C
A commentary published by doctors from the National Institute of Health (NIH) in 2000 pointed out that there was a second significant difference in study design that may have accounted for the different results in the Mayo Clinic studies (12). The authors explained that intravenous (IV) administration (used by Pauling and Cameron) was superior to oral administration (used by Moertel) in respect to bioavailability of the vitamin. The NIH authors said, “It is now clear that intravenous administration of ascorbate can yield very high plasma levels, while oral treatment does not.” The NIH authors concluded that, “Moertel’s results were not comparable to those of Cameron, as ascorbate was given orally and not intravenously. In retrospect, the route of administration may have been key.”(13)
This observation was repeated in another peer reviewed paper published in 2004 in the Annals of Internal Medicine which stated “Because efficacy of vitamin C treatment cannot be judged from clinical trials that use only oral dosing, the role of vitamin C in cancer treatment should be reevaluated.” (14)
Difference #3 - In Pauling’s and Cameron’s Studies, Vitamin C Therapy Continued For the Life of the Patient
And yet a third difference with the Mayo Clinic study was that vitamin C administration was discontinued immediately after a patient could no longer take oral medications or there was progression of the disease. Apparently, in the Pauling and Cameron studies the IV doses continued regardless of the patient’s changing status. Vitamin C was provided during the life of the patient. However, in Moertel’s studies, because it was administered orally, vitamin C was discontinued in a large number of patients whenever there was a sign of worsening. According to writer Ralph Moss, “Because of the odd departure from Cameron’s protocol, patients in the treatment arm of the experiment (in Moertel’s second study) received vitamin C for a median time of only 10 weeks. None of the Mayo patients died while receiving it. Their deaths occurred after the vitamin had been taken away from them.”(15)
Was the Goal of the Mayo Studies to Replicate Pauling and Cameron’s Work or Denounce It?
Obviously if the Mayo Clinic studies were designed to test the outcomes of Drs. Pauling and Cameron studies then they should have replicated their methodology of administration (as long as it was scientifically reliable and clinically appropriate). Why didn’t Moertel’s group administer the vitamin intravenously throughout the life of the patient? We don’t know. Any one of these discrepancies described above should have been sufficient for a complete reevaluation, but as is so often the case, the cancer establishment had successfully “proved” that a mere vitamin was of no value in cancer and the case was closed. Or was it?
Vitamin C Therapy is Still Used Today
In the intervening 20 years since Moertel’s last study two trends have continued: 1) patients are being administered IV vitamin C in various cancer clinics around the world and many are showing benefit; 2) the overall plausibility of ascorbic acid administered intravenously as a cancer therapy is being better understood by recent insights into clinical pharmacokinetics and its in vitro cancer-specific cytotoxicity.
Clinical Examples from the National Cancer Institute
A reading of Drs. Cameron and Pauling’s book “Cancer and Vitamin C” provides 26 case histories of patients with various cancers who received a benefit from vitamin C including: brain, breast, prostate, bladder, lung, stomach, ovarian cancer, leukemia and mesothelioma. But, since Cameron and Pauling have been considered advocates of vitamin C, here is another more disinterested source. Three case examples come from a peer reviewed article whose authors come from the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, and universities. In a March 2006 article entitled “Intravenously administered vitamin C as cancer therapy: three cases” the authors examined clinical details of three cases in accordance with National Cancer Institute (NCI) Best Case Series guidelines (16). Tumor pathology was verified by pathologists at the NCI who were unaware of diagnosis or treatment. In all three cases (metastatic renal cancer, bladder cancer, and lymphoma), vitamin C demonstrated efficacy.
Although these case histories by themselves are insufficient to prove that vitamin C is an effective treatment for cancer, in the words of these authors, these histories “increase the clinical plausibility of the notion that vitamin C administered intravenously might have effects on cancer under certain circumstances.(17)”
Biological Mechanisms of Vitmain C Are Better Understood Today
The number of peer reviewed journal articles continues to grow that describe the clinical pharmacokinetics and in vitro cancer-specific cytotoxicity of vitamin C. In other words, how Vitamin C is absorbed by the body and can kill cancer cells. For example, an article published in the Annals of Internal Medicine set out the pharmacokinetics of intravenous vitamin C (18); another article in the journal Nature discussed how vitamin C preferentially killed melanoma cells (19); and there have been several articles in Anticancer Research(20), and Oncology (21) that described how ascorbate killed various other cancer cell lines in vitro.
Vitamin C and Collagen
You may recall that Drs. Cameron and Pauling pointed out that Vitamin C could increase the number of collagen fibrils made. In the last 20 years biochemists have described the molecular basis of scurvy and in doing so have helped us understand how vitamin C and collagen are related. Apparently vitamin C plays a role in collagen metabolism by acting as a cofactor in the enzymatic reactions involved in the hydroxylation of praline and lysine. Without this hydroxylation, proper aligned stable helices of the alpha chains are not formed, so the procollagen that is formed is unstable and degraded (22).
Vitamin C May Prolong Life
Vitamin C has many roles that may be associated with fighting cancer including: acting as an anti-oxidant and scavenging free radicals, supporting the various immune cells, modulating cell growth and differentiation, helping to synthesize carnitine which is essential for the transport of fat to mitochondria, and possibly even strengthening collagen. The mounting evidence does suggest that Drs. Pauling and Cameron were right and that vitamin C is a benefit to cancer patients. We will conclude, therefore, with their words, “Vitamin C is not a miraculous cure for cancer, but…it significantly prolongs the life of the cancer patient…We believe that supplemental ascorbate can be of real help to all cancer patients and of quite dramatic benefit to a fortunate few.”(23)
Perhaps our health authorities will recognize the benefit of this “mere” vitamin. But, maybe the issue all along was not the fact that vitamin C is a potentially effective and non-toxic therapy, but rather that drug companies cannot make sufficient profits from it because as a vitamin it is difficult to patent. If this is the case, it would be an example of how economics not medicine decides what therapies are made available for cancer.
MORE than £30 million pounds in compensation has been paid out to Harland & Wolff employees for asbestos-related illnesses.
As many as 2,693 employees have shared the £30,273,903 compensation since 2001.
But the compensation payout has only allowed employees to receive around £11,241.70 each.
Former Trade Minister Sir Reg Empey agreed in March 2002 to guarantee compensation for ex-shipyard staff.
According to figures also acquired in an Assembly question by DUP MLA Peter Weir, as many as 515 people have died in the last 10 years as a consequence of asbestos-related illnesses contracted through exposure to asbestos in their workplace during the previous decade.
In his Assembly response, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Nigel Dodds, said asbestos- related diseases are in the main "occupationally acquired and include asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer".
It is pointed out that the number of deaths caused by asbestos-related lung cancer is not available.
But it was revealed that the number of deaths from asbestos-related lung cancer may equal those caused by mesothelioma – 439.
In his response Minister Dodds said Harland & Wolff was taken into public ownership in 1975.
"Harland & Wolff plc (H&W plc) remained in public ownership at the time of the privatisation of the shipbuilding business in 1989. All liabilities that existed at this time were retained in H&W plc," he said.
"DETI has guaranteed funding to H&W plc to enable it to meet liabilities as they fall due.
"This commitment covers funding to meet obligations that would fall to the company in relation to agreed compensation claims from employees who contracted asbestos-related illnesses. This position was affirmed in a statement to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 5 March 2002 by Sir Reg Empey, the then DETI Minister."
The news comes as campaigners warn that asbestos disease-linked deaths are at epidemic levels and could become worse in coming decades.
With 515 people dying in the last 10 years the Justice for Asbestos Victims' (JAV) spokeswoman, Fiona Sterritt, has warned greater heartache lies ahead for victims and their families.
She said: "There is no doubt that it is an epidemic. There are people who were working with it on a daily basis into the 1990s. "Anybody putting a noticeboard in a school could have been exposed to it. There is a latency there."
It takes years for asbestos-linked conditions like mesothelioma or lung cancer to develop. JAV was established in 2002 by sufferers and the families of those who died from the diseases.
Ms Sterritt added people like plumbers and electricians had been badly affected. "Everything built before the 1970s likely had some form of asbestos and it can take 30-40 years to develop," she added.
Lobbyists have predicted about 10,000 deaths a year across the UK. Most of those now suffering with asbestos-related diseases were exposed to asbestos between the 1940s and 1970s.
Health Minister Michael McGimpsey told Mr Weir that he was committed to helping those affected.
"This will include health promotion awareness as well as provision of the full range of primary, secondary and community care services appropriate to the respiratory and oncology illnesses commonly associated with asbestos exposure," he said.
In the Assembly Question, Trade Minister Nigel Dodds, revealed there were 53 deaths last year, up on 42 in 1997. In 2004 a total of 65 people passed away.
SOURCE
The hazard, exposure, and risks associated with asbestos fibers have been explored and debated for many years. Human evidence suggests an association between exposure to asbestos and asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma, although the lack of consistent information on fiber type, size, and exposure concentrations and duration limit our ability to establish causal relationships between exposure and disease in some cases. While uncertainties remain in our ability to consistently and accurately quantify asbestos risk to humans, progress has been made in characterizing those key factors, namely hazard and exposure, that are critical to an assessment of health risk.
Because asbestos is a natural material, there will always be some background or ambient exposure to humans. Although mining and commercial applications have diminished in some parts of the world, asbestos continues to have commercial applications, and hence, there remains exposure potential from these sources. Chrysotile and amphibole asbestos are the types most commonly used and hence studied experimentally, and it has become increasingly clear that they differ with respect to toxicity and disease potential. This has been demonstrated in animal models, which appear to be reflective of the human situation as well.
Progress on a number of fronts has led to general scientific consensus on the following: (1) amphibole fibers (which tend to be relatively long and thin) are a more potent risk factor for the development of mesothelioma and, to a lesser degree, lung cancer than are chrysotile fibers (which tend to be relatively short and wide); (2) longer, thin fibers are more pathogenic and there appear to be fiber size thresholds below which asbestos fibers do not pose any threat; and (3) those animal studies in which high exposure concentrations resulted in lung overloading are not considered relevant to humans.
Analysis of the epidemiological literature supports some common patterns including:
(1) for occupational and industrial exposures, the weight of evidence does not consistently support causal relationships between asbestos exposure and onset of pulmonary disease, some studies showing associative relationships but others showing no relationship between exposure and disease onset; and (2) chrysotile alone, uncontaminated by other fiber types, particularly amphiboles, does not appear to be a risk factor for mesothelioma, as once thought.
Advances in risk assessment methodology and analytical techniques, together with reevaluation of historical data, reveal that the current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approach for risk assessment of asbestosis is not in step with current scientific consensus, particularly for chrysotile fibers. In recent years, new knowledge about how asbestos risk can be more accurately and quantitatively determined has been generated. There is thus a scientific basis for adoption of these methods by regulatory agencies, including the EPA. While occupational exposures to asbestos remain and should be vigilantly monitored, there appears to be no compelling scientific evidence that ambient exposure to chrysotile asbestos poses a significant health risk.
The smell of burning leaves, an apple pie baking in the oven, or a wood fire in a neighbor's fireplace often evoke memories of special people and experiences from past autumns. While we may be mindful of inhaling deeply to enjoy these scents, we seldom give thought to what happens to the air we breathe in.
The lungs are complex organs, considered far more complicated than the heart. They not only take the oxygen from the air and send it into the bloodstream for delivery throughout the body, but the lungs filter out substances like dust, pollen, viruses, and bacteria from the air we breathe. They are also responsible for eliminating waste from the bloodstream. It is clear lung health is important, and October has been designated Healthy Lung Month in recognition of this fact.
If all types of lung disease are combined, it is the 3rd highest cause of death in the United States. Over 35 million Americans live with an ongoing lung disease like asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Lung disease is the cause of 1 in 7 deaths annually in this country.
Unfortunately, it can be easy to overlook early signs of lung disease. At first, many people simply realize they do not have much energy. But as the lung condition worsens, other symptoms become more apparent. Trouble breathing, shortness of breath, reduced ability to exercise, feeling like you are not getting enough air, a chronic cough, coughing up blood or mucus, or pain when inhaling and exhaling, are among the signs of lung disease.
Common lung conditions include:
* Asthma, which affects 20 million Americans. It causes inflammation and swelling of the airways in the lungs. The narrow airways limits the flow of air in and out of the lungs, causing wheezing, coughing, tightness in the chest, and difficulty breathing.
* COPD, which includes emphysema and chronic obstructive bronchitis. Both conditions cause inflammation of the bronchial tubes that carry air to the lungs. This leads to thickening and scarring of the lining of the bronchial tubes and the production of excess mucus, making breathing difficult. COPD is the 4th leading cause of death in the United States.
* Lung cancer, now the leading cause of cancer deaths in American women, is characterized by the abnormal, uncontrolled growth of malignant lung cells.
These cells invade and destroy normal cells in nearby tissues and can spread to other parts of the body.
Fortunately, the risk of developing lung disease can be reduced. First, if you are a smoker, quit. Whether a smoker or a non-smoker, everyone should try to avoid second-hand smoke.
Second, eating a healthy diet, rich in fruits and vegetables, lowers the risk of cancer. Drinking plenty of water helps to replace moisture lost when we exhale, keeping the lung tissue moist and healthy.
Exercise is also important for healthy lungs, stimulating the blood flow required for the lungs to function optimally.
Lung health also benefits from getting vaccinated against the flu every year. Influenza (and pneumonia, often a complication of the flu), damages lung tissue and leads to a number of adverse health effects.
In addition to the above, avoiding environmental hazards such as asbestos and radon is also important in protecting lung health. Protective clothing and a face mask are required for anyone working in a job that entails exposure to asbestos. Radon in the home can be measured with a test kit to determine if remediation is advised.
The Central Connecticut Health District, serving the towns of Berlin, Newington, Rocky Hill, and Wethersfield, sponsors a number of flu shot clinics where pneumonia shots are also available. The Health District also sells low-cost radon test kits. For further information about flu clinics, radon kits, and other public health concerns, contact the Health District at 860-721-2822 (www.ccthd.org). Specific information about lung health and lung disease is available through the American Lung Association at 1-800-548-8252 (www.lungusa.org) and the National Women's Health Information Center at 1-800-994-9662 or 1-888-220-5446 for the hearing impaired (www.4women.gov).
SOURCE
NEW YORK (Associated Press) - The Justice Department plans to seek a wider investigation into the billing practices of L. Tersigni Consulting PC, a firm that advised asbestos-injury claimants in several big bankruptcy cases.
The U.S. Trustee's Office, an arm of the department, has already asked the courts overseeing the Chapter 11 cases of Congoleum Corp., Federal-Mogul Global Inc., W.R. Grace & Co. and G-I Holdings Inc. to appoint examiners to investigate allegations that the consulting firm overbilled its clients in those proceedings.
In new court papers, the trustee's office said L. Tersigni Consulting could also have overbilled clients in other cases. The office said it would seek similar investigations "in all asbestos cases in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, in which LTC was employed as a financial adviser."
Representatives of L. Tersigni Consulting couldn't be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon.
The consulting firm's clients were the official committees representing asbestos claimants in major bankruptcy cases.
Since April 2006, the U.S. Trustee's Office and federal prosecutors have looked into allegations that the firm's sole owner and principal, Loreto Tersigni, submitted bills for services that weren't performed. Tersigni died in May.
"The appointment of an independent fiduciary to investigate these serious allegations of fraud and dishonesty related to the affairs of the debtors is both warranted and necessary," the trustee's office said in court papers. An examiner, it added, could help companies that paid the bills discover whether they have "causes of action" against L. Tersigni Consulting.
The trustee's office is still waiting to hear whether the courts overseeing the bankruptcy cases of Congoleum, Federal-Mogul, W.R. Grace and G-I Holdings will appoint examiners.
However, the judge overseeing W.R. Grace's bankruptcy case has questioned whether she should appoint an examiner.
At a hearing in late September, Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del., pointed out that the federal government had been conducting a probe into L. Tersigni Consulting's billing practices for more than a year. "I don't know why the estates have to be charged with additional money to do an investigation that may already be complete," Fitzgerald said. "There are creditors in these cases who deserve at some point in time to get whatever little money they're going to get out of these cases and to the extent that this work has already been done, they shouldn't be charged with duplicating that work."
The judge also said money could be saved by appointing one examiner to look at the books and records for all of the bankruptcy cases in which the firm is suspected of overbilling.
At the hearing, Fitzgerald also criticized the trustee's office for requesting an examiner only in recent months when it knew for more than a year that there could have been a billing problem involving L. Tersigni Consulting.
His daughter Christine Dennis said, "We raised £1,373 for Mesothelioma Research after organising a charity event in aid of it on behalf of The British Lung Foundation, The Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Research Fund and The June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund."
The family held a charity auction, raffle and disco at Eastbourne United Football Club on September 29.
Mrs Dennis said, "My brothers and some of my dad's friends also played a charity golf match earlier in the day at Horam Park Golf Club on the same day.
"We had support from local businesses and retailers who kindly donated prizes for the auction and money donations for the research funds.
"The event was in memory of my dad Bob Tolley who sadly passed away last year from this terrible disease.
"We as a family wanted to do something to raise funds and awareness for the treatment and research into this disease caused by asbestos.
"We are still searching for witnesses who worked with my dad on a firm called Humphreys & Glasgow Ltd.
"We have the help of a solicitor from Manchester who specialises is asbestos cases.
"But at the end of the day it is not about the money, it is about making someone take responsibility for what happened to my dad, who was only just 67 when he died and still actively working for Hotchkiss Ltd, a local firm.
"There are more and more cases of mesothelioma in Eastbourne so it is not confined to large industrial towns, and because of the latency period of the disease, between five to 60 years, it is very hard to find information about companies sufferers previously worked for."
Asbestos was used in thousands of products and buildings all over the world.
But from the 1980s it was realised that the material had a damaging effect on health.
It was not until the mid 1980s that blue and brown asbestos were banned in the UK, and not until November 1999 that white asbestos was finally banned from use.
SOURCE
No comments:
Post a Comment