Pennsylvania Widow Fights for Justice Following Husband’s Mesothelioma Death

When Darlene Data’s husband Michael died of malignant mesothelioma she took legal action, filing personal injury lawsuits against several companies whose asbestos-contaminated equipment she blamed for her husband’s illness. Though mesothelioma plaintiffs face significant challenges in gathering proof of exposure that took place decades earlier, the Pennsylvania courts have created special allowances that give victims the benefit of the doubt.

Navy Veteran’s Mesothelioma Arose After Multiple Asbestos Exposures

Michael Data’s malignant mesothelioma arose after exposure to multiple asbestos products. After serving in the U.S. Navy from 1969 through 1973, he went on to work at the Crane company  from 1973 through 1974, then on to Mesta Machine from 1974 to 1982, and then finished his career working at the West Pittsburgh Power Station from 1983 to 2009. At each of these locations he worked with equipment contaminated with asbestos, and her lawsuit names many of those companies.

One of the asbestos companies named as a defendants in Mrs. Data’s mesothelioma lawsuit filed a motion for summary judgment, asking for her case against them to be dismissed for lack of evidence. Though her claim was supported by evidence that had been used in previous asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, as well as Mr. Data’s deposition prior to his death and receipts indicating that his employers had purchased Joy Global Underground Mining’s air compressors, the company argued that the presence of their equipment in his workplace was not the same as proving that he had actually worked with it or been exposed to asbestos from it.

Judge Notes Pennsylvania’s Evidence Rules for Mesothelioma Cases

In handing down her decision on the case, Chief Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy noted that “Pennsylvania courts have recognized the difficulties facing plaintiffs bringing asbestos-related litigation ‘where they have unquestionably suffered harm on account of a disease having a long latency period and must prove specific causation under prevailing Pennsylvania law which may be insurmountable.’…. The plaintiff must do more than show the mere presence of asbestos in the workplace, he must prove he worked in the vicinity of a specific manufacturer’s product.”

She went on to say that in the case of Mr. Data’s mesothelioma, Pennsylvania’s courts have ruled that “the court should apply a ‘less stringent’ test where the plaintiff produces direct evidence of exposure to a particular defendant’s product and applicable here, in cases involving mesothelioma, the frequency and regularity requirements should be ‘less cumbersome.’” Based on that she determined that the widow had provided enough evidence to survive summary judgment and the case can continue for a jury to decide.