The impact of Wednesday's Ohio Supreme Court decision puttingrestrictions on the filing of asbestos injury cases may notimmediately produce any readily discernable impact, a plaintiff'sattorney said.

The plaintiff's lawyer, Vincent Greene, made his remarks in thewake of the high court's ruling that a 2004 state law, requiringplaintiffs to submit medical proof of harmful injury from asbestosbefore their cases are heard, can be applied retroactively.

His comments were disputed, however, by a defense lawyer whocountered that there would be "tremendous" impact.

According to the Property Casualty Insurers Association ofAmerica, at the time the law was passed in an effort to clear courtdockets, there were 40,000 cases pending in Cuyahoga Countyalone.

Mr. Greene said he thought the immediate impact of the decisionwill be "muted." He noted that several counties have stayed casesrather than dismiss them, pending the Supreme Court ruling.

So the effect will not be "that dramatic." The law at issue, henoted, has been on the books for four years, so "it's notcataclysmic or titanic. There will be individuals whose conditionswill worsen and they can meet that standard later on."

Other plaintiffs, he said, may develop cancers as a result ofexposure and that can be a cause for a suit that the lawpermits,

Mr. Greene represented Linda Ackison on behalf of her latehusband, Danny Ackison. Mr. Ackison also had cancer of theesophagus, so the case can continue, he said. Mr. Ackison was alaborer at Dayton Malleable, in Ironton, Ohio, where he was exposedto asbestos gaskets and packing.

He called the court's decision a results-oriented one in favorof business and against sound jurisprudence.

The court said the law would only have been unconstitutional ifit impaired or took away a right, or imposed new or additionalburdens, duties, obligations or liabilities as to a pasttransaction, or creates a new right.

As a remedial law, the court said in an opinion written byJustice Robert R. Cupp, has been found to be one that affects onlythe remedy provided, and includes laws that merely substitute a newor more appropriate remedy for enforcement of an existingright.

The court's action drew an angry dissent written by Justice PaulE. Pfeiffer. "This court's job in this case is not to fix a crisisdeclared by the General Assembly. Our duty is to determine what isright for Danny Ackison under the Ohio Constitution," he wrote.

Robin Harvey, with Baker Hostetler law firm in Cincinnati, whorepresented a company which was dismissed, said the decision waspart of a movement to clean up "a cesspool of abuse" with casesdeveloped by radiology mills.

The Ohio statute calls for a plaintiff to have had anestablished competent, doctor patient relationship.

She said the law ruled out "unimpaired cases" where only thingshown was a change on the pleural lining of the lungs, but theplaintiff had no physical symptoms.

Ms. Harvey said 37,000 cases that are pending are unimpaired. Inthe past, she said that plaintiff attorneys would package one validcase of mesothelioma with a bunch of unimpaired cases and use it toleverage settlements of "garbage cases."