<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Lawyers USA Online &#187; mesothelioma</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/tag/mesothelioma/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com</link>
	<description>Your Business Partner</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 20:59:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>N.Y. jury awards $35 million to man who died of mesothelioma during trial&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/03/n-y-jury-awards-35-million-to-man-who-died-of-mesothelioma-during-trial/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/03/n-y-jury-awards-35-million-to-man-who-died-of-mesothelioma-during-trial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:51:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Correy Stephenson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verdicts and Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asbestos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mesothelioma]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92210</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A trial that began with eight plaintiffs and more than a dozen defendants ended with just one party on either side of the bar and a jury award of $35 million.</p> <p>Ivo John Peraica was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2010. His suit was consolidated with seven others against many asbestos-related <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/03/n-y-jury-awards-35-million-to-man-who-died-of-mesothelioma-during-trial/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/03/n-y-jury-awards-35-million-to-man-who-died-of-mesothelioma-during-trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Exxon escapes $17.5M asbestos judgment&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/24/exxon-escapes-17-5m-asbestos-judgment/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/24/exxon-escapes-17-5m-asbestos-judgment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:26:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asbestos litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Exxon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mesothelioma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product liability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=90888</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An asbestos defendant should have been permitted to introduce evidence that it had no duty to intervene to protect the plaintiff because of the safety programs implemented by the plaintiff’s employer, the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled in reversing a $17.5 million judgment.</p> <p>The plaintiff worked at a shipyard from <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/24/exxon-escapes-17-5m-asbestos-judgment/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/24/exxon-escapes-17-5m-asbestos-judgment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Substantial factor’ test rejected for asbestos cases&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/16/substantial-factor-test-rejected-for-asbestos-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/16/substantial-factor-test-rejected-for-asbestos-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:12:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asbestos litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mesothelioma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product liability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=90620</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An asbestos defendant in a multiple-exposure case could not be subjected to liability on the ground that its alleged negligence was a &#8220;substantial contributing factor&#8221; to a worker’s mesothelioma, the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled in reversing a $239,000 verdict.</p> <p>The plaintiff’s husband died from mesothelioma in 2007. During the <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/16/substantial-factor-test-rejected-for-asbestos-cases/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/16/substantial-factor-test-rejected-for-asbestos-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Asbestos claim accrued with first diagnosis&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/15/asbestos-claim-accrued-with-first-diagnosis/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/15/asbestos-claim-accrued-with-first-diagnosis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:37:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asbestos litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mesothelioma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statute of limitations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful death]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=90593</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An asbestos plaintiff’s cause of action accrued upon the first communication of a doctor’s diagnosis of an asbestos-related injury or disease, the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled in answering a certified question from the 3rd Circuit.</p> <p>The plaintiff’s husband was exposed to asbestos when he worked at a DuPont plant <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/15/asbestos-claim-accrued-with-first-diagnosis/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/15/asbestos-claim-accrued-with-first-diagnosis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Asbestos plaintiff can show causation, State Supremes say&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/12/asbestos-plaintiff-can-show-causation/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/12/asbestos-plaintiff-can-show-causation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:23:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asbestos litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[causation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mesothelioma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful death]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=89872</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-9907" title="asbestos" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files//srv/www/lwusa/releases/20091015162435/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files//2009/10/asbestos.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />A product liability plaintiff produced sufficient evidence linking her husband’s mesothelioma to particular asbestos products to proceed with her claims against certain manufacturers, the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled.</p> <p>The plaintiff’s husband worked in both the construction and automotive industries in <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/12/asbestos-plaintiff-can-show-causation/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/12/asbestos-plaintiff-can-show-causation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Asbestos manufacturer may have immunity&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/04/asbestos-manufacturer-may-have-immunity/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/04/asbestos-manufacturer-may-have-immunity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:58:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[This Month's Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mesothelioma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[removal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=89651</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A manufacturer that supplied turbines to the U.S. Navy may be immune from a former seaman’s asbestos claims, the 7th Circuit has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>CBS’s predecessor-in-interest, Westinghouse, sold turbines to the U.S. Navy between 1946 and 1971. The plaintiff worked in Navy yards during those years, first as <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/04/asbestos-manufacturer-may-have-immunity/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/04/asbestos-manufacturer-may-have-immunity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mesothelioma duty-to-warn case splits states&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/11/30/mesothelioma-duty-to-warn-case-splits-states/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/11/30/mesothelioma-duty-to-warn-case-splits-states/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:46:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[This Month's Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asbestos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Circuit Breaker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[duty to warn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mesothelioma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product liability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=89604</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-78395" title="asbestos" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files//2011/05/asbestos.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />Mass tort litigators are abuzz over a recent Washington state court ruling that some say expands manufacturers’ duty to warn about potential hazards associated with their products, even when those hazards are not caused by the products themselves.</p> <p>The decision in <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/11/30/mesothelioma-duty-to-warn-case-splits-states/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/11/30/mesothelioma-duty-to-warn-case-splits-states/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Georgia-Pacific must pay $5M for ‘take-home’ asbestos&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/01/georgia-pacific-must-pay-5m-for-take-home-asbestos/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/01/georgia-pacific-must-pay-5m-for-take-home-asbestos/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:59:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asbestos litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mesothelioma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[take-home asbestos]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=88112</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Manufacturer Georgia-Pacific could be liable for mesothelioma contracted by a woman who claimed she was exposed to asbestos fibers carried home on her grandfather’s work clothes, a Maryland appellate court has ruled in affirming a $5 million judgment.</p> <p>The plaintiff’s grandfather worked as a union insulator using products containing asbestos <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/01/georgia-pacific-must-pay-5m-for-take-home-asbestos/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/01/georgia-pacific-must-pay-5m-for-take-home-asbestos/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>$2M asbestos award for seaman’s death reinstated&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/09/26/2m-asbestos-award-for-seamans-death-reinstated/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/09/26/2m-asbestos-award-for-seamans-death-reinstated/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:29:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asbestos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Death on the High Seas Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jones Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maritime law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mesothelioma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-pecuniary damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pain and suffering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful death]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=87924</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The estate of a seaman who died from mesothelioma was entitled to recover compensation for his pre-death pain and suffering, the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled.</p> <p>The plaintiff’s husband died of mesothelioma. As executor of her husband’s estate, the plaintiff sued for wrongful death under general maritime law, alleging that <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/09/26/2m-asbestos-award-for-seamans-death-reinstated/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/09/26/2m-asbestos-award-for-seamans-death-reinstated/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Defense scores verdict in bystander mesothelioma case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/08/28/defense-scores-verdict-in-bystander-mesothelioma-case/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/08/28/defense-scores-verdict-in-bystander-mesothelioma-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:43:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Correy Stephenson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verdicts and Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asbestos litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mesothelioma]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=87172</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-78395" title="asbestos" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files//2011/05/asbestos.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />Rejecting a novel legal theory, a California jury found for defendants Exxon and Ford in a suit brought by a woman who claimed she contracted mesothelioma during visits to her then-boyfriend while he worked at a service station.</p> <p>Marline Petitpas alleged <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/08/28/defense-scores-verdict-in-bystander-mesothelioma-case/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/08/28/defense-scores-verdict-in-bystander-mesothelioma-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
