Second-Hand Asbestos Exposure Blamed for Louisiana Woman’s Malignant Mesothelioma

Herbert Tabor never dreamed that his work at Avondale Shipyards would eventually lead to his wife’s death from malignant mesothelioma. But seven years of laundering asbestos-covered clothing meant that Ethel Tabor inhaled countless deadly asbestos fibers that infiltrated her pleural lining and grew into the deadly form of cancer. Now her family is seeking justice from the shipyard, and recently won an important victory in court.

Avondale Shipyard Attempts to Remove Mesothelioma Case from Local Courts

After Ethel’s mesothelioma diagnosis, her family filed a personal injury claim against the shipyard. Their first filing came in August of 2019, and two years later they responded to a discovery request that led Avondale to remove the case to federal court rather than the state court where it had originally been filed. The family filed a motion to return the case to the district court.

Removing a mesothelioma claim to federal court is a common strategy for asbestos companies. If they see an opportunity to seek protection under the federal officer removal statute they do so, and then argue that their actions fell under the auspices of the government. This generally gives them a better chance of defending themselves. But there are rules for when and how removal can be executed, and the family argued that Avondale’s actions came far too late.

Family Appeals Removal of Mesothelioma Claim from Local Courts

In response to the shipyard removing their mesothelioma claim to federal court, the Tabor family filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court in Louisiana. They argued that Avondale’s removal came years after their filing, which far exceeded the 30-day time limit established by law. Though Avondale responded to this by indicating that their removal was a response to the answers provided in the supplemental responses delivered in 2021, the court agreed with the family and returned the case to the local district court.

In their decision, the justices noted both the significant lateness of the removal and the overall position that the shipyard had taken regarding federal officer protection. Upon review of all of the evidence provided, they said that Avondale had not provided anything to suggest that Mr. Tabor’s time at the shipyard had any relation to work ordered by the government or that his exposure to asbestos would have been protected by the federal officer statute. The case will return to the district court.