asbestos, mesothelioma,groundwater, groundwater contamination,toxic exposure, vinyl chloride, benzene, manganese, berylium, asbestos,benzene exposure

Smith, Union Carbide, Asbestos & Mesothelioma

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 firmSmith, Union Carbide, Asbestos & Mesothelioma: A recent case in the United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana ruled on a plaintiff’s motion in limine.

The Smith, Union Carbide, Asbestos & Mesothelioma case documents what many pipe insulators, brake mechanics, Navy veterans and others may face today – past potential direct and secondary exposure to asbestos and mesothelioma. The court ruled: motion should be DENIED.

A brief summary of the facts include:

  • This matter arises from the death of Plaintiff’s husband, Walter Hansen Smith, Jr., as a result of mesothelioma.
  • Defendants Union Carbide, Ethyl Corporation, and Dow Chemical Company are property owners on whose premises Mr. Smith worked as a pipe insulator.
  • As a union member, Mr. Smith worked at many different premises for brief periods of time.
  • Relevant here, Mr. Smith worked at Union Carbide’s facility for a one to two week period sometime between 1965 and 1970.
  • To prevail against Union Carbide, Plaintiff must prove that Mr. Smith’s exposure to asbestos while working at Union Carbide’s premises was a substantial factor in causing his injury.
  • Consequently, Defendant Union Carbide retained Certified Industrial Hygienist William Dyson, Ph.D., to conduct a dose reconstruction assessment of Mr. Smith’s lifetime asbestos exposure.
  • Dr. Dyson would testify to “his professional opinion as to the estimated level of asbestos exposure Mr. Smith allegedly sustained as a result of his time working at the Union Carbide Taft facility.” 
  • Plaintiff filed the instant Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendant’s Expert Witness William Dyson on August 25, 2014.
  • Plaintiff seeks to have the Court preclude William Dyson from testifying or, alternatively, to preclude him from testifying as to any specific asbestos exposure level with regard to Mr. Smith. 

To find out more on the case, see Case No. 136323 – February 11, 2015.


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

FREE CASE REVIEWAt 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.