Los recuerdos que se desvanecen no impedirán que la demanda por mesotelioma del veterano siga adelante.
Malignant mesothelioma is an insidious disease that doesn’t make itself known until decades after the exposición al amianto that causes it. As a result, many victims are reluctant to move forward with claims, afraid that their fading memories of exact product names or locations will work against them. A recent ruling by the Rhode Island Superior Court should address that hesitation, as the court ruled that even fading memories could be combined with hard evidence to provide enough proof for a case to move forward to a jury.
Asbestos Company Objections Overruled by Judge in Mesothelioma Claim
The recent ruling by the Rhode Island Superior Court revolved around a claim filed by U.S. Navy veteran Paul F. McCarthy. McCarthy was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma more than fifty years after having been exposed to asbestos while serving aboard the U.S.S. Glennon. Though he remembered having worked with the asbestos-contaminated equipment during his service in the 1950s, his specific memories of product manufacturers had faded over the years. He relied upon research to determine which companies had provide the equipment, and the asbestos companies named in his suit objected, claiming that the evidence he had submitted was insufficient. They sought a dismissal of his case.
Judges Deem Related Information Sufficient for Mesothelioma Case to Proceed
In reviewing the information submitted by the mesothelioma victim, the Rhode Island court determined that by having conducted diligent research as to the companies that provided the asbestos-contaminated products, and having proven that he’d worked in the setting in which they were placed, he had met the burden of proof for the case to proceed. Though the judges agreed that this type of decision needed to be made on a “case by case” basis, they also indicated that Mr. McCarthy’s use of “historical documents to show a range of years during which the Defendants supplied equipment to the Glennon, and Mr. McCarthy’s sworn statement described his contact and proximity to those products and areas of the ship that allegedly contained asbestos” was sufficient.
Este fallo es significativo porque confirma que víctimas de mesotelioma are not required to recall exact product names or manufacturers decades after their asbestos exposure. By allowing historical records and sworn testimony to fill the gaps left by time, the court rejected the defense tactic of exploiting fading memories to avoid accountability. For Navy veterans whose exposure occurred generations ago, this decision reinforces that diligent research and credible evidence can still bring asbestos manufacturers before a jury.
Para conocer el proceso de reclamaciones abierto a los veteranos y sus familias, consulte Compensación para veteranos por exposición al amianto. Continuar con Noticias sobre veteranos expuestos al amianto.
Paquete de compensación financiera GRATUITO
- Información sobre despachos de abogados que recuperarán su INDEMNIZACIÓN MÁS ALTA
- Aprenda cómo cobrar en 90 días
- Solicite su parte de $30 mil millones en fondos fiduciarios
