The case involved Edward and Anna Alberes who alleged that Mr. Alberes had developed asbestosis as a result of his exposure to asbestos during his working life between approximately 1953 and 2006. In particular, Mr. Alberes alleged exposure in the late 1970s or early 1980s when he worked on a job as a pipefitter helper over a period of only 5 days. The job was based at the Goodrich’s Louisiana facility where he was responsible for installing and removing asbestos-containing gaskets allegedly manufactured by Garlock Sealing Technologies.
Mr. Alberes also claimed that while working at Goodrich he had worked in the vicinity of laggers who were removing and installing insulation which contained asbestos. At the end of each day, Mr. Alberes was required to clear up after them which again involved being exposed to asbestos.
Industrial hygienist, Franke Parker III, gave evidence on behalf of the Claimant. He stated that the work Mr. Alberes did with the asbestos-containing gaskets would have exposed him to concentrations of asbestos above “contemporary occupational limits” which would have been a significant contributing factor in his development of asbestosis. The defendant’s medical expert in the case, Dr. Robert Jones, gave evidence to the effect that all exposures are cumulative and contribute to the resulting disease.
The defendant asserted that the Claimant had failed to provide evidence of frequent and regular exposure to asbestos fibres at Goodrich,
“Goodrich points to the fact that Mr. Alberes’ exposure at its Plaquemine facility was only for five days on a turnaround job and inconsequential in the scope of a life-long career employed as a labourer, pipefitter helper and crane operator”.
The decision of Judge Terri F. Lowe, handed down on 10th December 2014, reversed the original decision of the trial court. The judgment stated,
“On appellate review, we find that because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether [the Claimant’s] exposure to asbestos at Goodrich was a substantial contributing factor to [his] development of asbestosis the trial court committed reversible error.”
They further noted that Goodrich had failed to provide any case law in support of their assertions. Lowe went onto say that,
“Given that the substantial contributing factor test in asbestos-related cases focuses on the quality of exposure versus the duration of exposure, granting summary judgment on these grounds was in error”. The appeals court held that the Claimants had provided sufficient evidence based on Mr. Alberes’ account and the experts’ opinions to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Claimant’s asbestos exposure at the Goodrich facility was a substantial contributing factor to his development of asbestosis.
Exposure to asbestos can lead to serious and sometimesfatal illnesses. Low levels of exposure are often associated with mesothelioma, an asbestos related cancer which is known to be caused in many instances by low levels of exposure. However, this case goes to show that consideration needs to be given to all exposure to asbestos as it is likely to have contributed to any asbestos related condition to some extent.
Asbestos and its use is now banned, however, due to the latency period for development of asbestos related diseases, generally being between approximately 20 and 50 years, there are still thousands of individuals diagnosed with asbestos-related illnesses each year.