Asbestos Victim’s Family Gets Second Chance at Justice
Frank Burford and his children blame his years of working for Howmet Aerospace’s predecessor Alcoa for his wife’s death from asbestosis, a disease that, like malignant mesothelioma, is caused by exposure to asbestos. When their wrongful death lawsuit claim was dismissed for lack of evidence, the bereaved family appealed and argued that the trial court had demanded the wrong standard of proof. An appellate court agreed and gave the family a second chance at justice.
Texas Judge Grants Asbestos Victim’s Family’s Appeal
According to the lawsuit filed by the Burford family, Carolyn Burford got sick in the same way that many mesothelioma victims do: From years of laundering her husband’s asbestos-covered work clothes. Frank had worked for Alcoa at its aluminum smelter from 1963 to 1993, working with or around asbestos-containing materials regularly.
In the same way that secondary asbestos exposure has led to so many cases of malignant pleural mesothelioma, people exposed to asbestos carried home on their loved ones’ clothing, hair, or skin can lead to asbestosis, asbestos-related lung cancer, and other illnesses. Carolyn Burford washed her husband’s work clothes separately from the rest of their family’s clothing every day for the first twenty-five years that Frank worked for Alcoa. She developed shortness of breath in 2006, was diagnosed with asbestosis, and succumbed to the disease in 2015.
Trial Court’s Dismissal of Asbestosis Claim Reversed by Appellate Court
The trial court dismissed the case, agreeing that there was a lack of evidence that the asbestos at Alcoa’s site was sufficient to have caused Mrs. Burford’s illness, but the family appealed that decision. They argued that the court had applied the standard of proof of causation for mesothelioma and that this was not appropriate for an asbestosis case.
The appellate court decided in the victim’s favor, noting that the family had established that Alcoa was the only source of Carolyn’s exposure to asbestos and that since asbestos was the cause of asbestosis and Alcoa had been her only source of exposure, it was not necessary to apply a statistical standard to establish causation. Concluding that reasonable jurors could find that Carolyn had been exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers that came from Alcoa’s plant and that they could have caused her asbestosis, they reversed the lower court’s decision and allowed the case to move forward
FREE Financial Compensation Packet
- Info on law firms that will recover your HIGHEST COMPENSATION
- Learn how to get paid in 90 days
- File for your share of $30 billion in trust funds
