|
|
HEALTH: Asbestos Victims Lose to Business in Proposed Law - Groups
By Daniel Porras
NEW YORK, Oct 28, 2003 (IPS) - U.S. labour and public interest groups are protesting a proposed bill they say will lead to gross under-compensation and years of waiting for thousands of Americans with asbestos-related diseases.
The bill has been dubbed the asbestos-company bailout bill - a settlement that favours corporations like construction and energy giant Halliburton, the target of more than 200,000 asbestos claims.
Asbestos was widely used for fireproofing and insulation until the 1970s, when scientists concluded that inhaled fibres could be linked to cancer and other diseases. Injury claims over the material have driven 67 U.S. firms into bankruptcy.
USAction, a consumer activist organisation, recently took out a full page ad in 'The New York Times' highlighting a 59-year-old Navy veteran dying of lung cancer, whose settlement would be nullified under the proposed new law.
The law, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act, would create a special federal court within the Court of Federal Claims that would have jurisdiction over all asbestos-related claims and could bar individuals from suing companies under product-liability laws.
Under the bill, companies that produce asbestos would - over 20 years - pay into a trust fund from 108 billion dollars to 153 billion. People with asbestos-related diseases then would file claims with the special court, which would determine the severity of damages and the compensation.
Insurers and other ''defendants'' would be protected from further asbestos-related litigation, but might have to make additional contributions in the event the fund runs out of money.
"Settlements for people who are in court now will be thrown out," Helen Gonzales, policy director at USAction, told IPS. "Truly sick people, many of whom can't get health insurance, will have to go back to square one."
According to Gonzales, Halliburton, once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney and now under fire for receiving multi-million-dollar untendered contracts from Washington to rebuild Iraq, would save 3.7 billion dollars on pending asbestos settlements, which would be dismissed if the bill passes.
People with serious illness might then have to wait years for compensation to be dispersed through new bureaucratic channels, if they are deemed eligible for compensation at all.
"Consumers don't have a voice in this debate at all," said Gonzales. "It is all about rewarding corporations that pay money to Republican leaders in Congress."
Senate bill 1125 was sponsored by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah state, who proposed it to deal with the 60 to 90 thousand new asbestos-related lawsuits annually in the United States.
According to Hatch's office, the bill was created so that "all claimants can have a fair shot at getting compensation", and born out of concern that all the lawsuits would clog the justice system and push many companies into bankruptcy.
The bill will be considered by the full Congress when it convenes in November.
Injuries from exposure to asbestos range from mild respiratory infections to mesothelioma, a potentially deadly cancer of the cellular lining of the chest cavity. Some of them can take years to develop.
Asbestos is still used in items like brake pads and gaskets, roofing shingles and roofing sealants.
The top payment from the fund would be about 750,000 dollars for someone with mesothelioma, according to media reports.
The proposed law would establish a schedule of 10 compensation levels based on the seriousness of a claimant's illness.
The New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH) says the arrangement is unacceptable, claiming that a worker with 20 to 40 percent loss of lung function would receive only 75,000 dollars under the bill, even though he or she might be unable to work.
According to NYCOSH Executive Director Joel Sufro, the industry has taken the asbestos-disease crisis and twisted it into a litigation crisis. "If the companies want a compensation system that will reduce their costs ... they must set one up that does not take money away from the people whom they have hurt."
Another strong voice against the bill has been Public Citizen, a national non-profit consumer advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader in 1971 to represent consumer interests in government and the courts.
"The test for any bill must be whether it improves the lot of victims as a whole by providing them with swift, fair payments, while preserving the option to vindicate their current rights in court," the group says.
"Unfortunately, the proposed substitute does not meet this test."
Echoing USAction's criticism, Public Citizen called the proposed law a "one-sided proposal that could cut costs for asbestos companies and insulate them from much of their liability by wiping out large numbers of valid claims".
Labour groups opposing the bill include the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Communications Workers of America and the Service Employees International Union.
"Overall, the bill would exclude the vast majority of workers with asbestos-related diseases from compensation and provide very low levels of compensation for workers with significant impairment and even fatal disease," says AFSCME.
"Because of restrictive medical criteria that departs from medical guidelines, many of those with severe asbestosis, who are totally disabled, will be eligible for a maximum award of only 40,000 dollars."
Public Citizen also contends the law would create an untested federal bureaucracy and an adjudication and compensation system the government might be unable to run.
"Taxpayers should not be responsible for bailing out corporations that sold this deadly product," it says.
"The ability to collect similar funds from defendants has proven to be very difficult and a major stumbling block in federal programs such as the Black Lung Benefits Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act."
(END)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
What is RSS?
