The Silicosis Sheriff

Silicosis is a disabling, nonreversible and sometimes fatal lung disease caused by overexposure to respirable crystalline silica.  More than one million U.S. workers are exposed to crystalline silica and each year more than 250 die from silicosis.  There is no cure for the disease, but it is preventable.  Let’s look back at the past nine years, the information that has been made available to us by OSHA and CDC, and the latest develop in what’s been referred to as the “latest tort scam, silicosis.”

In May 1996, OSHA issued a Memorandum to its Regional Administrators regarding a Special Emphasis Program (SEP) for Silicosis.  This memorandum provided inspection-targeting guidance for implementing an OSHA-wide SEP to reduce and eliminate the workplace incidence of silicosis from exposure to crystalline silica.  Dental Laboratories have been among the industries that have been included in the SEP.  OSHA has taken action to include dental laboratories in inspections in some states for silica exposure. 

 On March 12, 2004, the CDC published the MMWR Weekly report regarding Silicosis in Dental Laboratory Technicians.  This report covered a period between1994 to 2000 and described 9 reported cases of silicosis in dental laboratory technicians.  It also instructed employers to ensure that they have appropriate controls in place to prevent or minimize worker exposure to crystalline silica.  This publication recommends the exposure control methods that can be used in the dental laboratory.  Also, the CDC asked state health departments to collect appropriate clinical, epidemiologic, and workplace information on persons reported with silicosis to set priorities for workplace investigations.

On June 16, 2005, OSHA posted a peer review agenda on its Web site including two items related to crystalline silica.  The agenda lists plans for two reports related to the development of a proposed standard for crystalline silica.  The first will examine scientific evidence describing the health effects of crystalline silica and present quantitative estimates of the health risks.  The second addresses models and data supporting the preliminary economic analysis of occupational exposure.

Silica is a serious disease and should be a concern of all employers whose employees are exposed to silica dust, however, as in many situations, there are people who want to take advantage of the court system and employers.  On July 14, 2005, The Wall Street Journal reported that Federal Judge Janis Graham Jack exposed the tort bar’s asbestos sequel.  Here are the comments regarding this decision from Tracy L. Moon, Jr. and Janine E. Toner, attorneys with Fisher & Phillips LLP:

“On June 30, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Janis Graham Jack of the Southern District of Texas issued a 249 page decision in the case of Silica Products Liability Litigation finding that lawyers, doctors, and screening companies fraudulently manufactured silicosis claims.  In re: Silica Products Liability Litigation is a mass-tort case consolidating the claims of more than 10,000 plaintiffs, each of whom allegedly has silicosis.  The judge became suspicious when she discovered that the disease causes fewer than 200 deaths annually in the United States.  She conducted 20 months of pretrial proceedings and found that 99% of the plaintiffs were diagnosed by the same nine doctors and that 65% were plaintiffs in asbestos lawsuits.  Judge Jack recommended that the state court on remand throw out nearly all 10,000 silicosis diagnoses that were used in these lawsuits, stating that ‘these diagnoses were manufactured for money.’  The judge ordered Houston law firm ‘Quinn, Laminack & Pirtle to pay a share of Defendants’ February 16-18, 2005 hearing costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees for it’s handling of the silicosis litigation and for bringing “merit less” claims.

Although Judge Jack found that the silicosis litigation in these cases was a scam, she did not rule that all silicosis claims are merit less.  Judge Jack’s decision may make it harder for plaintiffs to certify their claims as class actions, but this does not mean that individuals are precluded from bringing tort actions based on the disease.  Therefore, it is important for employers to continue to comply with OSHA regulations, to ensure that employees are wearing Personal Protective Equipment, and to monitor air quality.”

For more information or legal assistance go to:

http://www.cdc.gov/

http://www.osha.gov/

http://www.laborlawyers.com/

http://www.safelink.com/