Judge Allows Widow’s $5 Million Mesothelioma Award to Stand

When Thomas Glenn died of malignant mesothelioma, his widow Rita filed claims against several companies that she accused of negligently exposing him to mesothelioma. Among them was Fisher Controls International, and that company was the only one that refused to settle out of court. When the jury decided against Fisher and assessed them millions of dollars in damages, the company appealed the decision, asking the court to review and reverse it.

Mesothelioma Victim Worked at Nuclear Station

From the mid-1970s through the 1990s, Thomas had worked as an instrument technician at the Oconee Nuclear Station in South Carolina, and his widow argued that it was exposure to the valves that Fisher Controls supplied to the power station that led to his mesothelioma. She presented evidence at court that the company’s gaskets were contaminated with asbestos, and that his close proximity to other workers who were removing and replacing those parts put him at risk.

Though the company asserted that their gaskets could not have caused Thomas’ mesothelioma because the asbestos that they contained was encapsulated, the jury decided against them. They found Fisher guilty of the charges against them and ordered the company to pay the widow $3 million in wrongful death damages, survival damages, and loss of consortium. They also held that Fisher’s actions made them deserving of having to pay and additional $2.1 million in punitive damages.

Judge Upholds Jury’s Decision in Mesothelioma Claim

In response to the jury’s finding that there was “clear and convincing evidence” that they had behaved in a way that was “willful, wanton, or reckless,” Fisher appealed the decision and the award, but the Court of Appeals of South Carolina denied their request for reversal. Upon review of all of the evidence presented at trial, they decided that the lower court’s actions had been appropriate, that all expert testimony provided had been admissible, and that the verdict was consistent with the information that the jury heard. They also found that the company’s attorneys had acted in bad faith with regard to certain discovery issues and had taken no action to correct their improper behaviors.