Ohio Sets Rules for Asbestos Cases

By Matt Brady

NU Online News Service, Sept. 27, 3:56 p.m.EDT?An administrative order issued by Ohio's CuyahogaCounty Common Pleas Court should help to clear the county's docketof asbestos injury cases, an insurance trade group said.[@@]

The order from the court in Cleveland would give priority toclaimants exhibiting symptoms while removing cases involving onlyexposure.

"This court's decision should immediately and dramatically clearthe court's dockets and advance the cases of those who can provethey have an asbestos-related illness. It is the fairest solutionfor all parties, including the sick whose claims haven't been heardbecause of the congested judicial system," said Greg LaCost, seniorcounsel and regional manager for the Property Casualty InsurersAssociation of America.

Under the court's order, the cases of those showing symptoms ofasbestos-related illness will proceed through the regular courtsystem. The cases of individuals exposed to asbestos but withoutshowing signs of illness will be dismissed, temporarily. Shouldthose exposed individuals later develop symptoms of an asbestosrelated illness, or should the court's docket clear, their caseswill be allowed to be reinstated.

Currently, "Ohio workers with proven medical problems fromasbestos currently cannot get fair and timely compensation becausethe courts are clogged with thousands of asbestos cases fromclaimants who are not ill," said Mr. LaCost, with the Des Plaines,Ill.-based PCI.

According to the PCI, the ruling does not set any time limit onthe reinstatement of cases that are dismissed because of a lack ofactual symptoms.

Ohio became the first state to establish medical criteria forthe filing of an asbestos-related lawsuit earlier this year. Underthe law, which took effect Sept. 2, a plaintiff must providemedical evidence to show that an exposure to asbestos was asubstantial factor in the development of their illness.

"The court can focus on the truly sick rather than dedicatingtime and resources to individuals who are not ill currently or whomay never develop an asbestos-related condition," said Mr.LaCost.

He said the order is fair "because it helps those who areinjured now, while still allowing those who may get sick in thefuture to have their day in court. No one is deprived of theirlegal rights."

The court's asbestos-related docket could be further cleared ifU.S. Senate leaders are able to come together on a proposednationwide trust fund proposal to resolve ongoing asbestoslitigation. Negotiations on the issue have been going on for over ayear, and in a letter dated Sept. 15, Senate Minority Leader TomDaschle, D-S.D., made several concessions to the majority position,including agreeing to an overall value of the fund of $140billion.

"While creating a national asbestos fund is unquestionably acomplex undertaking, too much progress has been made to let thisissue go unaddressed in this Congress," Mr. Daschle said in theletter to Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "It is my belief thatthis proposal could serve as the basis for legislation that couldpass the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support."

Despite Mr. Daschle's optimism, however, industry observers inWashington remain skeptical that a deal will be worked out thisyear.