Syracuse, NY, June 19, 2006--Legislation to create a national asbestos trust fund is once again drawing criticism for allegedly shortchanging the injured, making the public pay for employers’ wrongdoing, and setting the stage for eventual financial collapse, according to the NewStandard.
In late May, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) rolled out his second attempt this year to forge a compensation system for one of the country’s most massive occupational-health problems. The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2006 proclaims an end to what many corporate defendants call a "litigation nightmare." But critics say the new bill simply dresses up the anti-lawsuit, pro-corporate agendas of its predecessor.
"A bad bill was simply made a lot worse," said Michael Tucker with the Committee to Protect Mesothelioma Victims, an advocacy group for patients with the rare asbestos-related cancer. Noting that the bill’s biggest supporters include companies linked to hundreds of thousands of sicknesses and deaths, he added, "Victims have never been involved in crafting this legislation, and they’ve been left out in the cold yet again."
Following the same framework as legislation blocked earlier this year in the Senate, the bill would move asbestos-injury cases out of courtrooms and into a "no-fault" claim trust-fund system administered by the Department of Labor. The fund would be financed through pre-planned contributions by corporations and insurers facing litigation for making workers sick.
Projected to dole out about $140 billion to victims and their families over the course of three decades, the fund would, in theory, provide efficient compensation for the injured and minimize financial damage to corporations.
Building on the previous bill’s controversial medical criteria, the new proposal would require more extensive medical evidence and paperwork to prove an injury. Echoing criticisms of the tort system aired by corporate defendants, Specter argued that a more rigid process would discourage fraudulent and frivolous claims driven by individuals looking to take advantage of the courts.
The new bill reflects earlier demands from some industry interests for an even more watertight ban on asbestos lawsuits. It rescales companies’ funding obligations to accommodate smaller businesses, forecloses "dormant" claims that have idled in existing dockets for years and blocks lawsuits for certain unresolved claims even after the fund "sunsets" or runs out.
The legislation also responds to victims’ concerns that the fund would not be inclusive enough, mainly with overtures toward special treatment for Hurricane Katrina survivors and people impacted by toxic pollution from World Trade Center ruins.
In a Senate speech promoting the bill, Specter argued that maintaining the existing civil litigation system would lead to bankruptcies and "prolong the suffering of asbestos victims, companies and their employees."
The proposed fund has encountered resistance from not only victims, but also public-interest groups worried that the bill would replace the courts with corporate welfare.
Opponents question the fund’s capacity to handle the hundreds of thousands of anticipated claims related to asbestos, which is linked to various types of cancer and respiratory illnesses causing about 10,000 deaths per year, according to estimates by the Centers for Disease Control.
