At Asbestos Justice, we pride ourselves on recovering high awards of mesothelioma compensation for clients swiftly.
We have recently settled a mesothelioma claim for a client out of court within 6 months of being instructed to deal with his case.
The Claimant worked on a full-time basis as an apprentice sheet metal worker for a company called G R Everson & Sons Limited based in the Paddington and the White City areas of London. This was quite a large sheet metal and copper smith business which was involved the manufacture of fish fryers and large commercial kitchen appliances.
Initially, when a statement was taken from the Claimant in support of his mesothelioma claim, he was unable to remember the name of the company he worked for due to the passage of time.
Unfortunately, when his HMRC work history arrived, this referred to the incorrect company name of G P Everson & Sons Limited in error. However, we were able to apply for sight of his HMRC deduction cards which did refer to the correct name of the Defendant company as G R Everson & Sons Limited. The full company address was 1/5 Wellington Close, 56 Ledbury Road, West London 11. Using our expertise as specialist asbestos disease solicitors, we were able to locate insurance coverage for the Claimant’s period of asbestos exposure, therefore opening the door to his claim for mesothelioma compensation.
Whilst the Claimant worked for the company for 30 months in total between 1963/64 and 1965/66 approximately, he was only exposed to harmful amounts of asbestos dust for the first 9 months of his apprenticeship
He worked on one job only during this period and this involved shaping and shaving pieces of marinite insulation to be drilled, fitted and tapped to various parts of the fryers. He was aware that this material contained asbestos but at the time of working for the company he had no idea of the dangers involved. The fact that no warnings were provided to him, was relied upon as proof of negligence in support of the mesothelioma claim.
The Claimant explained in his statement that the marinite boards were cut up by one worker in a shed around 30 feet away from where he worked on the line within the works. He would cut up the boards to smaller sizes and they would then be passed to him and his colleague to fit to the fryers.
The shed door was always wide open and the worker made use of a hand, electric saw to cut the boards down from their original size on a trestle. The Claimant confirmed in support of the mesothelioma claim that the process of using the electric saw resulted in a lot of asbestos dust being released into the general working environment. This would billow out all over the general area. The dust was visible in the working environment and covered the factory floor, including the area where he worked. He could remember seeing clouds of asbestos dust being generated when the work with the electric saw was being completed near to where he worked.
He and his colleague were issued with job tickets which noted down how many fryers they had to line each day and this could be up to a dozen a day. Before starting work at their own work station, they both had to go over to the shed where the other worker was cutting up the boards with the electric saw in order to pick them up to be taken over to our station. The boards would be stacked up, just outside the shed ready for them to pick up after they had reviewed the job tickets.
The evidence in support of the claim for mesothelioma compensation confirmed thatthe boards were stacked up around 5 feet away from where the other worker sawed through the boards with the electric saw and he did not stop sawing when they went over to collect the boards which they then carried by hand over to their station. He was exposed to a great deal of airborne dust when lifting the boards up to be transferred back to his station as the clouds of asbestos from the electric saw work billowed up into the atmosphere which covered his work clothes, hair and skin.
It was successfully argued in the mesothelioma claim that such exposure amounted to a letting off of substantial dust in breach of Factories Act legislation.
Workers including the Claimant were on bonus in those days, so the more fryers they completed, the more they got paid and therefore they all worked flat out to get as many done as possible to increase their wages.
After transferring the boards over to their work station, he and his colleague used handsaws to trim the marinite boards down to be fitted to size on the fryers. Sawing through the edges of the boards resulted in puffs of asbestos dust rising up into the atmosphere which they inhaled.
They would work on around 12 boards at a time per fryer and repeated the process throughout the course of the working day, finishing many fryers each shift. Sometimes they would complete a dozen fryers over a day.
Filing down the edges of the marinite boards resulted in further dust rising up into the atmosphere but not as much dust as sawing through the edges created. Sawing through the marinite boards was described by the Claimant as dusty work.
He would also have caused to drill holes into the marinite using electric drills which resulted in further puffs of asbestos dust being released into the atmosphere. The boards would have to be tapped into place and they would use threading material to be put into the holes before fitting screws to the boards to be screwed into place on the fryers.
The evidence described the dust from the marinite boards as always being visible during working hours and he was therefore exposed to asbestos dust from the marinite boards throughout the course of the working week for around 9 months in total.
As an apprentice, the Claimant would also need to sweep up the white dust which had gathered on the floor at the end of each day. Other workers would use a brush for this and in sweeping up the dust over around 20 to 30 minutes at the end of each shift, further asbestos dust would rise up into the atmosphere which they all inhaled. Clouds of asbestos dust would be created by this type of work and such evidence on exposure was relied upon as proof of negligence in the successful claim for mesothelioma compensation.
The Claimant had suffered asbestos exposure when working for his local council during the 1970s for around 5 years but the medical evidence obtained in support of the mesothelioma claim showed that even though he was exposed to asbestos with the council over a lengthy period, the potency of this exposure equated to less than 1% of his total dose of asbestos exposure. In such circumstances, no mesothelioma claim could be brought against the council as in order to establish causation of mesothelioma, there is a need to show that this 1% threshold is exceeded. This was easily surpassed in respect of the mesothelioma claim against G R Everson & Sons Limited as the medical evidence confirmed that the marinite boards he worked with contained brown asbestos, otherwise known as “amphibole” asbestos. This form of the material is considered to be very harmful to health.
The circumstances surrounding this mesothelioma claim were particularly horrifying in that the Claimant’s mesothelioma soon spread to his spine, resulting in him suffering paralysis from the waist down from March of 2016 onwards.
A significant amount of mesothelioma compensation was recovered for his condition at the top end of the range of figures referred to in the Judicial College Guidelines, which are used by judges in mesothelioma claims to assist them in valuing such matters.
If you require assistance in pursuing a mesothelioma claim or believe you have any other valid claim for asbestos compensation, then please contact us today on our freephone number 0800 038 6767. Alternatively, head over to the ‘Contact Us’ page, complete the form and we will be in touch.