Despite Confusion Over Facts, Mesothelioma Victim Will Have His Day in Court

When a mesothelioma victim decides to file a lawsuit against an asbestos company, their quest for justice can encounter many hurdles. One of the biggest challenges is tied to the amount of time that has passed and the difficulty of remembering specific details integral to proving liability. A recent case involving a subcontractor exposed to asbestos in his work environment exemplifies this difficulty. Though the testimony Michael Benavidez provided contained so many disparities that the trial court dismissed the case, an appeals court overturned that decision and allowed the case to move forward.

Fifty Years Later, Mesothelioma Victim Struggles with Details

The case of mesothelioma victim Michael Benavidez demonstrates how challenges of memory can be overcome in a legal setting. The sheet metal worker had been a subcontractor at an Anheuser-Busch facility in California in the 1970s. He filed a claim against Fluor Corporation, accusing them and their workers of negligent handling of asbestos-containing building materials in his work environment. Fluor’s attorneys sent him questionnaires and later deposed him twice, only to find that the answers he provided were inconsistent in details about the exact years that he was exposed and what the role of the workers was. In answer to some questions he recalled Fluor’s emblem on helmets while for others he said that he had seen Fluor trucks. The company filed a motion for the case to be dismissed because his responses were “devoid of any specific facts” and calling his testimony “varied and inconsistent.” The court agreed and dismissed the case.

Appeals Judge Overturns Summary Judgment in Mesothelioma Lawsuit

Anybody can have difficulty remembering details fifty years after the fact, and when the years combine with the emotional challenges presented by a mesothelioma diagnosis, exact recall can feel impossible. A victim of asbestos exposure can easily lose hope without the support of an experienced legal team. In Mr. Benavidez’ case, the legal team filed an appeal that resulted in the victim being provided with another chance to tell his case in court. The judges on the appeals court overturned the lower court’s decision saying there were enough triable issues of material fact for a jury to consider.