Manhattan institute proposes law reforms to prevent asbestosis scams

A new report from the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy part of a series of reports called “Trial Lawyers, Inc.,” describes how some unscrupulous attorneys have turned to profiteering and “abusive litigation” involving asbestos. The Manhattan Institute’s report centers on the practice of using class action lawsuits to generate thousands of false asbestos claims. This practice, says the report, not only allows people to claim compensation falsely; it also means that people who are genuinely affected by asbestos-related diseases don’t get the compensation they need or deserve. The report proposes four law reforms that, it says, will “prevent the worst of [the] documented abuses.” First, the report says, medical criteria laws should be established, to prevent the practice of mass screening. The report points to an example of a law passed in Texas in 2005 as a good example of such a reform: “Texas legislation outlaws mass screenings, requires a certified medical report, and places mesothelioma and other malignant cases at the front of court dockets.” Second, states should prevent trial lawyers from “forum-shopping.” This refers to the practice of lawyers hunting down the states and court rooms that are most likely to look upon their cases favorably. A good example, says the report, are the laws established in Mississippi in 2004, where “a plaintiff could file a claim only in the county in which he resided, where the defendant corporation was headquartered, or where the injury actually occurred. In addition, Mississippi’s reform required that the rule apply to every plaintiff so that lawyers could not bundle claims together and ship them to a permissive county where only one of the plaintiffs resides.” Third, says the Manhattan Institute, states could adopt “joint-and-several” liability reforms that would solve the “solvent defendant” problem. This problem occurs when lawyers sue companies that are more or less unrelated to the manufacture of asbestos products. The report suggests that such companies should not be held “severally liable.” meaning they shouldn’t be held 100% responsible for asbestos-related damages in cases where they are not 100% responsible for a plaintiff’s injuries. Fourth, the practice of “double-dipping,” where plaintiffs can win compensation multiple times for related conditions, should be outlawed to prevent scams of the type that was uncovered in Texas in 2005. In that scam, plaintiffs were receiving compensation for both asbestosis and silicosis in separate lawsuits. The Manhattan Institute report also points out, however, that “judges, prosecutors, and even corporate defendants must be involved in defeating the asbestos litigation morass.” (Source: Asbestos and Mesothelioma News)