U.k. mesothelioma ruling may deny compensation to thousands

A controversial ruling by the United Kingdom’s House of Lords may end up denying thousands of people compensation for asbestos-related diseases if it is not overturned. Since the ruling was made last year, the U.K. government has been discussing options to handle the situation, and has plans to publish a consultation paper on the issue later this month. The House of Lords ruling concerns people suffering from an asbestos-related condition called pleural plaques. The plaques develop in response to asbestos exposure, and are sometimes a precursor to mesothelioma; however the pleural plaques are themselves a benign condition. In its controversial decision the House of Lords ruled that people who suffered from pleural plaques caused by asbestos exposure no longer had the right to claim compensation. People with the condition had been able to claim compensation for twenty years prior to the new ruling. U.K. Minister of Justice Bridget Prentice this week said that the consultation will begin by the middle of June, and will cover the ruling, its legal background, medical evidence relevant to the case, and the possible advantages and disadvantages of suggestions to alleviate issues caused by the House of Lords ruling made last year. One proposal is simply that the decision be reversed. However, there are some issues relating to fairness to people claiming for other reasons, due to the details of the House of Lords ruling. Simply overturning the decision would mean people who had received a contaminated blood transfusion and had a higher risk of developing AIDS or hepatitis would be unable to sue. Another option under discussion is setting up a trust fund from which people with pleural plaques or another serious asbestos-related disease could claim compensation. The announcement of the proposal discussions comes on the hells of the launch of a test-case which could prove to be equally important for British asbestos compensation laws. The case involved employers’ liability insurance, and will decide whether such insurance takes effect from when a worker is exposed to asbestos or from when the worker develops an asbestos-related disease. The test case involves Charles O’Farrell, who died in 2003 after being exposed to asbestos while working for steel company Humphreys & Glasgow Limited. The company’s insurer is refusing to pay compensation for O’Farrell’s death, because the company has ceased trading and is in liquidation. This is an important test case because if the courts find in favor of the insurance company it might leave thousands of people unable to claim compensation, if they develop an asbestos-related disease at a time when the company responsible for their asbestos exposure is no longer in existence. (Source: Asbestos and Mesothelioma News)