Bikin Ngakak, TKI Telpon Majikan Ini Bikin Gagal Paham yang Mendengarnya, Ada yang Bisa Menerjemahkan? Part 2
Mesothelioma Law Suit
Tragic consequences new bill could rob asbestos disease victims of rights to seek justice
Maria Adams of Morgantown talks about the husband she lost to mesothelioma, a rare cancer caused by asbestos exposure, and her desire to drop legislation that would make it harder for Hoosiers to take legal action
His eyes flickered open, but just briefly.
The TV hummed softly in the background, probably on the westerns channel, Larry Myers' favorite, but his wife, Loa, can't quite remember.
Do you need anything she asked, more out of love than any expectation he would answer or that she could actually do something.
Larry was tired, his eyelids heavy.
Heavier still were his lungs. Each breath waged a war against the foreign fibers that had invaded his body and the tumors claiming their territory each breath a losing battle.
Yet lying in the hospital bed, the machines slow beeps betraying the hopes that Loa would be able to bring her husband home, Larry was still a winner. Just one year before, the lifelong Hoosier and his wife had waged another battle in the court rooms of Indiana.
This one was for the right to hold accountable those who knowingly produced and exposed him to the asbestos fibers that shackled his lungs. For the right to seek justice for the mesothelioma cancer that, just hours after Loa posed her question, claimed Larry s life at 79 years old.
The state s Supreme Court agreed with the Myers in its March 2016 opinion. That decision reaffirmed a previous court ruling that said a provision in the Indiana Product Liability Act, which set a cutoff period for when lawsuits could be brought against manufacturers, did not apply to latent diseases such as those caused by asbestos exposure.
I think Larry knew that there wasnt much they could do for him, but theres other people that are going to suffer with this disease, Loa said, sitting recently at her kitchen table in the home where she and Larry lived for the last 40 years of their 60 year marriage. If anything, this fight was for everybody, not just for him.
Loa Myers stands by photos through the years of her and her husband Larry Myers, Friday, Feb. 16, 2018, as she talks about her late husband, who died of mesothelioma in 2017. A current law basically establishes a statute of limitations for people to sue manufacturers, but the nature of asbestos diseases is that they lay dormant and will never present themselves within that timeframe. This issue has been before the Indiana Supreme Court three different times, most recently in 2016, for Larry Myers case, when the court ruled that asbestos disease victims should be considered outside that statute and should have the right to sue the manufacturers
But now, nearly two years after that ruling and one year after Larry's death, a bill is working its way through the state s General Assembly that could effectively kill not only future asbestos lawsuits but also likely derail the more than 50 cases currently pending in the state.
Here s why: The bill seeks to undue the Supreme Court ruling in the Myers case and again impose that cutoff, or what in legal terms is called a statute of repose. That means no one could sue a manufacturer if more than 10 years had passed since the person first became exposed to asbestos.
The problem is,mesothelioma and other diseases caused from exposure to asbestos can take decades to present itself, sometimes as many as 50 years, according to the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. Asbestos disease is rarely diagnosed within 10 years of exposure.
And even if that were the case, the law also states that a medical diagnosis of an asbestos disease is only valid for the purpose of taking legal action if that diagnosis is made 15 years after the first exposure — or 5 years past the cutoff to sue.
So within the four corners of the bill itself, it s creating an impossibility and setting an impossible standard, said Kathy Farinas with the Indianapolis based firm George & Farinas, which represents asbestos victims across the state. That statute completely extinguishes any person s right to bring a cause of action against those manufacturers.
If the proposal in the bill to create the 10 year cutoff becomes law, Indiana would be the only state in the country where there is not an exception to the statute of repose for latent or asbestos diseases.
The legislation, titled the Asbestos Litigation bill, is authored by Rep. Matt Lehman, R-Berne, and is crafted from a 2007model law by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council ALEC.
The law, House Bill 1061, is being pushed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, both of which lobby for business interests.
Generally speaking, proponents of the law believe allowing businesses to be held financially liable for actions committed years, even decades, prior is an unfair burden that creates financial uncertainty.
Specific to Indiana, Lehman also believes the Myers ruling that undid the 10-year cutoff was, in essence, the courts making legislation.
The concern that I have, Lehman said, is that I think it is the responsibility of this legislative body to make public policy. Not the judicial branch, but the legislative branch.
When asked whether his legislation, in effect, prevents any future asbestos lawsuits he said it in no way limits Hoosiers rights to seek justice, adding that the cutoff section of the bill will be further examined.
What makes an asbestos death different
For Loa Myers and others who have been unable to escape the unforgiving reach of asbestos diseases, the proposed legislation has them overwhelmed by a cruel sense of disbelief.
Larry was so exuberant when the decision came in, and it was this feeling at the end of it that finally something had been set right, Loa Myers said of their Supreme Court ruling. I just can t imagine that they can take something that was decided and undecide it, and I know he d feel the same way.
Her husband is a perfect example of someone who could not sue under the proposed law.
Larry Myers worked as an electrician for 40 years beginning in 1959. Yet the northern Indiana resident was not diagnosed until 2014.
Loa remembers the gnawing feeling she just couldn t admit to herself when Larry began to cough and be short of breath that winter, all too closely resembling a friend of her husband who had died from mesothelioma.
I guess I knew somewhere within me that that s what this was or could be, she said. I was familiar with what had happened to his friend and they worked together in the same places, so I think we just kind of put two and two together and came up with four even though you don t want to.
Decades had also passed for Jim Adams, whose mesothelioma diagnosis came in 2014 after working as an electrician both in the U.S. Navy on its ships and then in numerous buildings around Indianapolis once he finished his service.
Adams thrived in his work, his wife Maria said, and felt as though he was bringing buildings to life.
Maria Adams, Morgantown, lost her husband of 34 years to mesothelioma, caused by working around asbestos during his career as an electrician
He loved the buildings like they were people, Maria said. He didn t retire until he was 74, and they had to kick him out then or he probably would still be there.
Jim Adams died at 85 years old in 2016, two years after his diagnosis.
Working with asbestos is the main risk factor for mesothelioma, a rare type of cancer that occurs in the lining of the body s internal organs most commonly in the lungs but also occasionally in the abdomen or around the heart.
Asbestos was most heavily used between the 1940s and 80s in occupations working in construction, ship yards, insulation, power plants, and other similar fields. The microscopic fibers would be released into the air as a fine dust when disturbed and often inhaled by workers where they could remain in the lungs and cause disease.
Attorney Kathy Farinas speaks during a Senate Committee meeting discussing HB1061 at the Statehouse, Monday, Feb. 19, 2018. The new law in this year's general assembly would again strip asbestos victims of the rights to sue manufacturers. Farinas is an asbestos and mesothelioma attorney. Victims and families joined her in support at the meeting
Symptoms such as shortness of breath, a persistent cough and chest tightness often don t present themselves for years or can be easily overlooked as something more minor. For most, mesothelioma isn t diagnosed until it has already reached an advanced stage and a cure isn't possible.
Nearly 1,000 people have died from mesothelioma in Indiana between 1999 and 2016, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Most live just 12 to 18 months after diagnosis rarely long enough to see their day in court.
It s just not right to be able to say that it won t matter because by the time these individuals are sick, they won t be able to hurt us, Maria Adams said of the language to restore the Product Liability Act's statute of repose. It wasn t right for Jim, but I guess more importantly now, it s not right for someone who follows us who doesn t even know.
There is potentially some hope for opponents of the legislation An amendment was attached to the bill as it left the House that would send the section of the bill that enacts the 10-year statute of repose to summer study committee to be looked at urgently. That means that the 10 year cutoff would not be enacted immediately if HB 1061 became law. But it also means the cutoff is still very much part of the bill and could be applied later on.
Mark Behrens of the U.S. Chamber Institute of Legal Reform said he believes the cutoff should be part of the bill, despite acknowledging that the time period would almost always be exhausted by the time someone developed an asbestos disease.
The business community strongly supports that part of the bill and thinks it should be restored, he told IndyStar. The point of a statute of repose is for business planning and to provide some predictability and finality to potential defendants.
For a person injured after that repose expires, is it tough on them? Yes, he continued. But what makes an asbestos death different
A solution without a problem
Those opposing the law, including the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, find themselves asking the same question and arguing that other provisions of the complex bill tallying nearly 20 pages long and peppered with medical terms treat asbestos litigation differently than other personal injury cases.
Those provisions focus on the two other major areas that the Chamber and proponents support establishing standards for diagnosing asbestos disease, including the 15 year timeline, and determining that settlement claims should beadmissible in court.
The bill s author and Behrens argue that the 15 year standard is necessary to prioritize those who are actually sick.
That section of the bill also lays out a set of criteria that doctors must use to determine an asbestos disease diagnosis. The doctor must interview the patient and write a report detailing the diagnosis and potential causes or sources of exposure.
Doing so will keep those who are not actually sick from burdening the court system, Behrens said though he acknowledges that problem was more prevalent across the U.S. nearly 15 years ago and that it is not currently present in Indiana among its 52 pending cases.
The medical criteria solves a past problem and potential future problem, Behrens said, but is also just good policy.
Todd Barnes with Farinas George would disagree, asking if it is the role of the legislature and if it is best equipped to set diagnostic standards.
This bill has the legislature playing doctors and it requires the doctors to play lawyers, said Barnes, adding that it is not and should not be a doctor's job to interview a patient about potential defendants. This is a solution without a problem, and it s a terrible solution.
Anderson doctor David Mares, who has long treated asbestos diseases and testified as an expert witness, has serious concerns about this section of the bill. He argues that it could create unnecessary testing and medical costs and also limit asbestos victims' options for getting the best possible care.
Trial attorneys also disagree with the requirement to make settlement documents admissible and thus allow them to be presented to a jury. Settlement documents are currently shared in the discovery process of a trial, but are barred by a law pertaining to civil proceedings from being used as evidence.
The trial attorneys largest concern is that settlements could prejudice jurors.
It s a tricky process, but asbestos victims, in addition to being able to sue those responsible, also are eligible to receive settlements from trust funds that were set up by the major asbestos-producing companies.
With more than 25 billion dollars across nearly 50 trust funds, according to the Mesothelioma Center, claims are meant to be paid out quickly to those who qualify for the specific trusts based on their exposure.
Behrens argues that plaintiff lawyers delay seeking claims because they don t want jurors to hear about them in their civil suits. Farinas says that s not the case and that it s unfair for jurors to be told about the trust fund settlements because they are separate and could give jurors a false impression about what is an appropriate monetary judgment in a civil suit.
According to the Mesothelioma Center, the median percentage the trusts offered to pay in 2010 was only 25 percent of a claim.
These two means of recourse the lawsuits and trust claims are meant to hold accountable two different but culpable groups depending if the companies and manufacturers are still in business or have filed for bankruptcy, according to Farinas.
What s wrong is trying to put these documents in front of a jury to pass the blame and say someone else is at fault, the lawyer said. Also, if they start to see the amounts from these small trust claims and think that s what these cases are worth, that s where we have problems.
Cheated of time
Both Farinas and Behrens made their case last Monday before the Senate committee currently considering this bill.
Also at the hearing, sitting in the front row facing the Civil Law committee members, were victims of asbestos disease and family members of those the disease had already claimed. One gentleman clutched his oxygen tank, another woman held the picture of her late husband.
Maria Adams was also there, her hand clasped tightly around a tissue. She thinks often of the strolls she and Jim would take hand in hand at the bottom of Bryce Canyon during their honeymoon or in the park eating Heath Dairy Queen blizzards on a sunny afternoon. She s not had a Heath blizzard since.
That was time to just be us, said Maria, unknowingly running her fingers over the ring her husband had engraved for her. Jim and I thought we would have time together, and we just feel cheated.
If I had all those legislators in front of me, she added, I would just ask how they could think that they re serving the people of their state by writing this on paper.
Indiana has a tumultuous history when it comes to asbestos litigation.
It has been in and out of the state s Supreme Court several times, most recently with the 2016 Myers decision. Similar laws have also been proposed in Indiana in the past, including during last year s legislative session.
Still, the law has advanced farther this year than it has before by making it out of the chamber in which it was introduced. The bill is now before the same committee that killed last year s legislation, which was introduced in the Senate.
The committee chose not to vote Monday after lengthy testimony, but could take a vote in its meeting this week. If it passes, it would advance to the full Senate floor.
Behrens said that 12 other states have already enacted similar legislation and have failed to see the concerns that are being raised about HB 1061.
In an ongoing effort, the IndyStar and the USA TODAY Network used computer programs to compare the text of hundreds of thousands of bills introduced in statehouses across the country. The analysis allows reporters to identify bills that share similar language and wording. This tool found nearly 20 bills introduced across the U.S. this year and last that closely resembled the model legislation crafted by ALEC, pushing for the establishment of diagnostic medical standards or for the admissibility of asbestos trust settlement claims.
Both Sen. Aaron Freeman, R-Indianapolis, and Rep. Ryan Hatfield, D-Evansville, said to IndyStar that those other states reached compromises on their laws with language not as aggressive as the bill currently being considered in Indiana.
It s extremely unfair and it s a national model bill that does not fit with the way our legal systems work in Indiana, Hatfield told IndyStar. And I fear it will have tragic consequences for victims and their families.
Those living in South Bend, Terre Haute or Evansville would be less than 20 miles from a state where those rights are preserved, Hatfield said.
This bill says that we, in the state of Indiana, are not going to allow for just compensation and recovery when these individuals are in the final months of life, he added, and we are not going to hold accountable those companies that chose to use products they knew or should have known would kill you.
If victims and families aren t able to seek compensation from these companies, then it puts the burden not only on those individuals but also on Veteran s Affairs, Medicaid, Medicare and private insurance to pay for those medical costs.
But for the families, this fight is about much more.
It s not about the money, it s about these folks taking responsibility for knowingly exposing people, Loa Myers said. It s not the numbers that matter, it s the human life.
Maria Adams of Morgantown talks about the husband she lost to mesothelioma, a rare cancer caused by asbestos exposure, and her desire to drop legislation that would make it harder for Hoosiers to take legal action
His eyes flickered open, but just briefly.
The TV hummed softly in the background, probably on the westerns channel, Larry Myers' favorite, but his wife, Loa, can't quite remember.
Do you need anything she asked, more out of love than any expectation he would answer or that she could actually do something.
Larry was tired, his eyelids heavy.
Heavier still were his lungs. Each breath waged a war against the foreign fibers that had invaded his body and the tumors claiming their territory each breath a losing battle.
Yet lying in the hospital bed, the machines slow beeps betraying the hopes that Loa would be able to bring her husband home, Larry was still a winner. Just one year before, the lifelong Hoosier and his wife had waged another battle in the court rooms of Indiana.
This one was for the right to hold accountable those who knowingly produced and exposed him to the asbestos fibers that shackled his lungs. For the right to seek justice for the mesothelioma cancer that, just hours after Loa posed her question, claimed Larry s life at 79 years old.
The state s Supreme Court agreed with the Myers in its March 2016 opinion. That decision reaffirmed a previous court ruling that said a provision in the Indiana Product Liability Act, which set a cutoff period for when lawsuits could be brought against manufacturers, did not apply to latent diseases such as those caused by asbestos exposure.
I think Larry knew that there wasnt much they could do for him, but theres other people that are going to suffer with this disease, Loa said, sitting recently at her kitchen table in the home where she and Larry lived for the last 40 years of their 60 year marriage. If anything, this fight was for everybody, not just for him.
Loa Myers stands by photos through the years of her and her husband Larry Myers, Friday, Feb. 16, 2018, as she talks about her late husband, who died of mesothelioma in 2017. A current law basically establishes a statute of limitations for people to sue manufacturers, but the nature of asbestos diseases is that they lay dormant and will never present themselves within that timeframe. This issue has been before the Indiana Supreme Court three different times, most recently in 2016, for Larry Myers case, when the court ruled that asbestos disease victims should be considered outside that statute and should have the right to sue the manufacturers
But now, nearly two years after that ruling and one year after Larry's death, a bill is working its way through the state s General Assembly that could effectively kill not only future asbestos lawsuits but also likely derail the more than 50 cases currently pending in the state.
Here s why: The bill seeks to undue the Supreme Court ruling in the Myers case and again impose that cutoff, or what in legal terms is called a statute of repose. That means no one could sue a manufacturer if more than 10 years had passed since the person first became exposed to asbestos.
The problem is,mesothelioma and other diseases caused from exposure to asbestos can take decades to present itself, sometimes as many as 50 years, according to the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. Asbestos disease is rarely diagnosed within 10 years of exposure.
And even if that were the case, the law also states that a medical diagnosis of an asbestos disease is only valid for the purpose of taking legal action if that diagnosis is made 15 years after the first exposure — or 5 years past the cutoff to sue.
So within the four corners of the bill itself, it s creating an impossibility and setting an impossible standard, said Kathy Farinas with the Indianapolis based firm George & Farinas, which represents asbestos victims across the state. That statute completely extinguishes any person s right to bring a cause of action against those manufacturers.
If the proposal in the bill to create the 10 year cutoff becomes law, Indiana would be the only state in the country where there is not an exception to the statute of repose for latent or asbestos diseases.
The legislation, titled the Asbestos Litigation bill, is authored by Rep. Matt Lehman, R-Berne, and is crafted from a 2007model law by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council ALEC.
The law, House Bill 1061, is being pushed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, both of which lobby for business interests.
Generally speaking, proponents of the law believe allowing businesses to be held financially liable for actions committed years, even decades, prior is an unfair burden that creates financial uncertainty.
Specific to Indiana, Lehman also believes the Myers ruling that undid the 10-year cutoff was, in essence, the courts making legislation.
The concern that I have, Lehman said, is that I think it is the responsibility of this legislative body to make public policy. Not the judicial branch, but the legislative branch.
When asked whether his legislation, in effect, prevents any future asbestos lawsuits he said it in no way limits Hoosiers rights to seek justice, adding that the cutoff section of the bill will be further examined.
What makes an asbestos death different
For Loa Myers and others who have been unable to escape the unforgiving reach of asbestos diseases, the proposed legislation has them overwhelmed by a cruel sense of disbelief.
Larry was so exuberant when the decision came in, and it was this feeling at the end of it that finally something had been set right, Loa Myers said of their Supreme Court ruling. I just can t imagine that they can take something that was decided and undecide it, and I know he d feel the same way.
Her husband is a perfect example of someone who could not sue under the proposed law.
Larry Myers worked as an electrician for 40 years beginning in 1959. Yet the northern Indiana resident was not diagnosed until 2014.
Loa remembers the gnawing feeling she just couldn t admit to herself when Larry began to cough and be short of breath that winter, all too closely resembling a friend of her husband who had died from mesothelioma.
I guess I knew somewhere within me that that s what this was or could be, she said. I was familiar with what had happened to his friend and they worked together in the same places, so I think we just kind of put two and two together and came up with four even though you don t want to.
Decades had also passed for Jim Adams, whose mesothelioma diagnosis came in 2014 after working as an electrician both in the U.S. Navy on its ships and then in numerous buildings around Indianapolis once he finished his service.
Adams thrived in his work, his wife Maria said, and felt as though he was bringing buildings to life.
Maria Adams, Morgantown, lost her husband of 34 years to mesothelioma, caused by working around asbestos during his career as an electrician
He loved the buildings like they were people, Maria said. He didn t retire until he was 74, and they had to kick him out then or he probably would still be there.
Jim Adams died at 85 years old in 2016, two years after his diagnosis.
Working with asbestos is the main risk factor for mesothelioma, a rare type of cancer that occurs in the lining of the body s internal organs most commonly in the lungs but also occasionally in the abdomen or around the heart.
Asbestos was most heavily used between the 1940s and 80s in occupations working in construction, ship yards, insulation, power plants, and other similar fields. The microscopic fibers would be released into the air as a fine dust when disturbed and often inhaled by workers where they could remain in the lungs and cause disease.
Attorney Kathy Farinas speaks during a Senate Committee meeting discussing HB1061 at the Statehouse, Monday, Feb. 19, 2018. The new law in this year's general assembly would again strip asbestos victims of the rights to sue manufacturers. Farinas is an asbestos and mesothelioma attorney. Victims and families joined her in support at the meeting
Symptoms such as shortness of breath, a persistent cough and chest tightness often don t present themselves for years or can be easily overlooked as something more minor. For most, mesothelioma isn t diagnosed until it has already reached an advanced stage and a cure isn't possible.
Nearly 1,000 people have died from mesothelioma in Indiana between 1999 and 2016, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Most live just 12 to 18 months after diagnosis rarely long enough to see their day in court.
It s just not right to be able to say that it won t matter because by the time these individuals are sick, they won t be able to hurt us, Maria Adams said of the language to restore the Product Liability Act's statute of repose. It wasn t right for Jim, but I guess more importantly now, it s not right for someone who follows us who doesn t even know.
There is potentially some hope for opponents of the legislation An amendment was attached to the bill as it left the House that would send the section of the bill that enacts the 10-year statute of repose to summer study committee to be looked at urgently. That means that the 10 year cutoff would not be enacted immediately if HB 1061 became law. But it also means the cutoff is still very much part of the bill and could be applied later on.
Mark Behrens of the U.S. Chamber Institute of Legal Reform said he believes the cutoff should be part of the bill, despite acknowledging that the time period would almost always be exhausted by the time someone developed an asbestos disease.
The business community strongly supports that part of the bill and thinks it should be restored, he told IndyStar. The point of a statute of repose is for business planning and to provide some predictability and finality to potential defendants.
For a person injured after that repose expires, is it tough on them? Yes, he continued. But what makes an asbestos death different
A solution without a problem
Those opposing the law, including the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, find themselves asking the same question and arguing that other provisions of the complex bill tallying nearly 20 pages long and peppered with medical terms treat asbestos litigation differently than other personal injury cases.
Those provisions focus on the two other major areas that the Chamber and proponents support establishing standards for diagnosing asbestos disease, including the 15 year timeline, and determining that settlement claims should beadmissible in court.
The bill s author and Behrens argue that the 15 year standard is necessary to prioritize those who are actually sick.
That section of the bill also lays out a set of criteria that doctors must use to determine an asbestos disease diagnosis. The doctor must interview the patient and write a report detailing the diagnosis and potential causes or sources of exposure.
Doing so will keep those who are not actually sick from burdening the court system, Behrens said though he acknowledges that problem was more prevalent across the U.S. nearly 15 years ago and that it is not currently present in Indiana among its 52 pending cases.
The medical criteria solves a past problem and potential future problem, Behrens said, but is also just good policy.
Todd Barnes with Farinas George would disagree, asking if it is the role of the legislature and if it is best equipped to set diagnostic standards.
This bill has the legislature playing doctors and it requires the doctors to play lawyers, said Barnes, adding that it is not and should not be a doctor's job to interview a patient about potential defendants. This is a solution without a problem, and it s a terrible solution.
Anderson doctor David Mares, who has long treated asbestos diseases and testified as an expert witness, has serious concerns about this section of the bill. He argues that it could create unnecessary testing and medical costs and also limit asbestos victims' options for getting the best possible care.
Trial attorneys also disagree with the requirement to make settlement documents admissible and thus allow them to be presented to a jury. Settlement documents are currently shared in the discovery process of a trial, but are barred by a law pertaining to civil proceedings from being used as evidence.
The trial attorneys largest concern is that settlements could prejudice jurors.
It s a tricky process, but asbestos victims, in addition to being able to sue those responsible, also are eligible to receive settlements from trust funds that were set up by the major asbestos-producing companies.
With more than 25 billion dollars across nearly 50 trust funds, according to the Mesothelioma Center, claims are meant to be paid out quickly to those who qualify for the specific trusts based on their exposure.
Behrens argues that plaintiff lawyers delay seeking claims because they don t want jurors to hear about them in their civil suits. Farinas says that s not the case and that it s unfair for jurors to be told about the trust fund settlements because they are separate and could give jurors a false impression about what is an appropriate monetary judgment in a civil suit.
According to the Mesothelioma Center, the median percentage the trusts offered to pay in 2010 was only 25 percent of a claim.
These two means of recourse the lawsuits and trust claims are meant to hold accountable two different but culpable groups depending if the companies and manufacturers are still in business or have filed for bankruptcy, according to Farinas.
What s wrong is trying to put these documents in front of a jury to pass the blame and say someone else is at fault, the lawyer said. Also, if they start to see the amounts from these small trust claims and think that s what these cases are worth, that s where we have problems.
Cheated of time
Both Farinas and Behrens made their case last Monday before the Senate committee currently considering this bill.
Also at the hearing, sitting in the front row facing the Civil Law committee members, were victims of asbestos disease and family members of those the disease had already claimed. One gentleman clutched his oxygen tank, another woman held the picture of her late husband.
Maria Adams was also there, her hand clasped tightly around a tissue. She thinks often of the strolls she and Jim would take hand in hand at the bottom of Bryce Canyon during their honeymoon or in the park eating Heath Dairy Queen blizzards on a sunny afternoon. She s not had a Heath blizzard since.
That was time to just be us, said Maria, unknowingly running her fingers over the ring her husband had engraved for her. Jim and I thought we would have time together, and we just feel cheated.
If I had all those legislators in front of me, she added, I would just ask how they could think that they re serving the people of their state by writing this on paper.
Indiana has a tumultuous history when it comes to asbestos litigation.
It has been in and out of the state s Supreme Court several times, most recently with the 2016 Myers decision. Similar laws have also been proposed in Indiana in the past, including during last year s legislative session.
Still, the law has advanced farther this year than it has before by making it out of the chamber in which it was introduced. The bill is now before the same committee that killed last year s legislation, which was introduced in the Senate.
The committee chose not to vote Monday after lengthy testimony, but could take a vote in its meeting this week. If it passes, it would advance to the full Senate floor.
Behrens said that 12 other states have already enacted similar legislation and have failed to see the concerns that are being raised about HB 1061.
In an ongoing effort, the IndyStar and the USA TODAY Network used computer programs to compare the text of hundreds of thousands of bills introduced in statehouses across the country. The analysis allows reporters to identify bills that share similar language and wording. This tool found nearly 20 bills introduced across the U.S. this year and last that closely resembled the model legislation crafted by ALEC, pushing for the establishment of diagnostic medical standards or for the admissibility of asbestos trust settlement claims.
Both Sen. Aaron Freeman, R-Indianapolis, and Rep. Ryan Hatfield, D-Evansville, said to IndyStar that those other states reached compromises on their laws with language not as aggressive as the bill currently being considered in Indiana.
It s extremely unfair and it s a national model bill that does not fit with the way our legal systems work in Indiana, Hatfield told IndyStar. And I fear it will have tragic consequences for victims and their families.
Those living in South Bend, Terre Haute or Evansville would be less than 20 miles from a state where those rights are preserved, Hatfield said.
This bill says that we, in the state of Indiana, are not going to allow for just compensation and recovery when these individuals are in the final months of life, he added, and we are not going to hold accountable those companies that chose to use products they knew or should have known would kill you.
If victims and families aren t able to seek compensation from these companies, then it puts the burden not only on those individuals but also on Veteran s Affairs, Medicaid, Medicare and private insurance to pay for those medical costs.
But for the families, this fight is about much more.
It s not about the money, it s about these folks taking responsibility for knowingly exposing people, Loa Myers said. It s not the numbers that matter, it s the human life.
BERITA LENGKAP DI HALAMAN BERIKUTNYA
Halaman Berikutnya
0 Response to "Bikin Ngakak, TKI Telpon Majikan Ini Bikin Gagal Paham yang Mendengarnya, Ada yang Bisa Menerjemahkan? Part 2"
Posting Komentar