Page Updated diciembre 30, 2024

Navy Veteran with Mesothelioma Blames Shipboard Parts for Illness

Página revisada y editada por

Abogado de mesotelioma Paul Danziger

Michael and Victoria Marcus filed a mesothelioma lawsuit against multiple asbestos companies, accusing them of negligence in having supplied equipment to the Navy that exposed him to the asbestos that caused his fatal illness. Like many veterans, Mr. Marcus was exposed to so many asbestos-containing products that when asked to quantify them, he said that there were “too many to count.”

Navy Use of Asbestos Caused Mesothelioma in Many Veterans

Unaware that asbestos exposure caused malignant mesothelioma and other serious diseases, the U.S. military relied on equipment that contained the material. This was especially true in Navy ships like those that Mr. Marcus served on. According to his claim heard in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, he was a boiler technician and boiler repairman between 1966 and 1986 on Navy vessels and in Navy shipyards, and in those twenty years, he was exposed to countless asbestos-containing products and equipment.

The mesothelioma victim and his wife submitted evidence and testimony about multiple parts and manufacturers whose equipment he worked on and submitted a long list of expert witnesses in support of his claim. They are seeking both compensatory damages and punitive damages against the asbestos companies that failed to warn of the dangers of asbestos.

Hearing in Mesothelioma Case Addresses Numerous Outstanding Legal Issues

In a recent hearing on the case, U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. weighed in on several outstanding legal issues surrounding the mesothelioma claim, including whether testimony from the defendants’ witnesses would be allowed, objections filed by the asbestos companies against the claim, and the specific details involving maritime law. ing

Among the most notable issues addressed in the recent court hearing was a statement concluding that it could not be assumed that a piece of shipboard equipment did not contain asbestos if the mineral was not listed in its specifications. The use of the toxic material was so ubiquitous that it was often included without being mentioned. This makes it painfully obvious that it would have been nearly impossible for a sailor to avoid asbestos exposure.

The other notable aspect of the mesothelioma case was the number of asbestos-containing pumps, gaskets, and valves that the victim was exposed to throughout his 17-year career, a quantity that he described as “too many to count.”  While the defendants argued that this would contribute to the use of an ‘every exposure’ claim in the lawsuit, the judge noted Mr. Marcus’ presentation of the type of work he performed on the various products, evidence that the products contained asbestos, and estimates about the amount of asbestos exposure caused by the work he performed substantially contributed to his development of mesothelioma.