Comardelle, Pennsylvania General, Asbestos & Mesothelioma

This entry was posted in Case Watch℠ Mesothelioma & Asbestos and tagged asbestos coatings louisiana mastics mesothelioma sealants on by (updated 3312 days ago)

ford, brakes, crown zellerbach,georgia pacific, drywall joint compound,kent, cigarettes, lorillard, asbestos, mesothelioma, asbestos lawyer, asbestos law firm, asbestos attorney, mesothelioma lawyer, mesothelioma attorney, mesothelioma law firm UPDATED: 1/10/2015

Comardelle, Pennsylvania General, Asbestos & Mesothelioma: A recent case in the United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana ruled on summary judgment motion.

The Comardelle, Pennsylvania General, Asbestos & Mesothelioma case documents what many people may face today – past potential direct and secondary exposure to asbestos and mesothelioma. The court ruled on the motion.

A brief summary of the facts include:

  • Plaintiffs allege that decedent, Michael Comardelle (“Comardelle”), was “exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products manufactured, distributed, and sold” by defendants during the course of his employment from 1963 through 1979.
  • Plaintiffs allege, “As a result of these exposures to toxic substances, including asbestos, [Comardelle] contracted cancer, mesothelioma, and lung cancer, which was first diagnosed on approximately September 25, 2013.”
  • Comardelle died on May 3, 2014, and his surviving spouse and children were substituted as plaintiffs.

To find out more on the case, see Case No. 13-6555 – November 3, 2014.

UPDATE – January 5, 2015

  • Before the Court is a motion filed by defendant, Bayer CropScience, Inc., seeking “to exclude causation opinions regarding Benjamin Foster products based on the `each and every exposure’ theory.” 
  • Plaintiffs oppose the motion.
  • For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.Among a myriad of other claims, plaintiffs allege that Comardelle was exposed to asbestos-containing “coatings, sealants, and mastics” manufactured, distributed, and sold by Amchem, including an adhesive called Benjamin Foster 81-27.
  • Plaintiffs intend to call Dr. Samuel P. Hammar as an expert witness to opine that Benjamin Foster 81-27 was a substantial contributing factor to the development of Comardelle’s mesothelioma. Amchem moves to exclude or limit this specific-causation opinion testimony, as well as any other expert testimony that relies on an “every exposure” theory.

To find out more on the case, see Case No. 13-6555 – January 5, 2015.

For more on asbestos and mesothelioma, please visit the links below:

FREE CASE REVIEWContact Us

At the Gooch Law Firm, we pride ourselves on providing our clients reliable representation for even the most challenging cases. If you have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, and need an asbestos or mesothelioma lawyer to help you file a mesothelioma lawsuit, contact our office at 1.844.329.5955.

WE ARE HERE TO HELP YOU PROTECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS