The so-called "Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act," (S.758/H.R. 1283) creates a windfall for the asbestos industry but denies fair compensation to tens of thousands of American workers and their families. Here are ten reasons to oppose this unjust, unfair and burdensome legislation that will also force the American taxpayers to fund yet another federal bureacracy.

1. The legislation would bail out an industry that has caused harm to millions of Americans. For years, the asbestos manufacturers were fully aware of the deadly hazards posed by their product; yet kept silent while literally millions of Americans were exposed to asbestos and died. Only because Americans were able to use the courts to hold these manufactures accountable through the civil justice system was this deadly menace finally stopped. But now, asbestos manufacturers want to eliminate that same justice system by using the enormous power of the federal government to wipe out state tort law.
   
2. The legislation does not require the asbestos manufacturers to compensate the workers they have injured. There is nothing in the bill that ensures that any workers will be compensated in a timely manner.
   
3. The legislation will screen as many as 80 percent of injured asbestos victims out of the system. The bills impose unreasonable medical criteria in order to deny remedies to thousands of workers who would otherwise be eligible to receive compensation under state law for asbestos-induced diseases.
   
4. The legislation makes it nearly impossible to prove what we already know. Decades after the link between asbestos exposure and lung disease has been conclusively demonstrated, S. 758 and H.R. 1283 would create an ultra-strict burden of proof for establishing that asbestos-induced lung cancer or other diseases were caused by asbestos exposure. This burden of proof is not supported by the medical literature of by the medical community. It would exceed even the substantial level of proof now required in state and federal courts. Under these bills, about one-half of all asbestos cancer cases now compensated would be dismissed.
   
5. The legislation disadvantages already sick workers by severely limiting the damages available to compensate for asbestos-induced disease. Under S. 758 and H.R. 1283, asbestos workers are not entitled to receive compensation for emotional distress or medical surveillance, and manufacturers are exempt from punitive damages. The bill also eliminates, de facto, the right of dying asbestos workers to receive non-economic damages. Since untreated mesothelioma patients generally live less than one year after diagnosis (especially if the diagnosis is made in the later stages of the disease) their claims will not survive the open-ended delays in the bill' certification process and other bureaucratic requirements (Today, most courts give mesothelioma cases expedited trial dates).
   
6. The legislation tilts the playing field in favor of the wrongdoers. At the same time bills eliminate the right to trial by jury for workers under stat law, they preserve all of the state law defenses for the asbestos manufacturers, i.e., medical defenses, contributory negligence, intervening negligence, comparative negligence, state of the are, smoking, sophisticated user, etc. Moreover, the pretrial qualification procedures mandated by the bill will delay the resolution of asbestos claims and substantially increase costs for all plaintiffs. In addition, the bills' limit on attorneys' fees applies only to plaintiffs. There is no such limitations on fees for defense counsel.
   
7. The legislation undermines the effective management of asbestos cases. S. 758 and H.R. 1283 prohibit the consolidation or joinder of similarly situated claims or common issues of law and fact; thus ensuring that the courts will be overwhelmed, the trial of individual cases will be delayed, and justice for dying asbestos victims will be denied.
   
8. The legislation transfers the cost of asbestos related illness from the manufacturers to employers, and from the private sector to state and federal government. Instead of asbestos manufacturers bearing the costs of asbestos-related illness, these bills would shift the cost to employers, especially shipyards. Employers would bear increased costs for workers' compensation liability and ERISA expenses, while state and federal governments would have to pay for increased Medicare, Medicaid, and disability costs.
   
9. The legislation creates a new federal bureaucracy. Instead of the 100 asbestos trials a year now moving swiftly through established U.S. courts, these bills propose the creation of an entirely new federal bureaucracy, the Asbestos Resolution Corporation, to resolve countless claims based on arbitrary and unreasonable medical criteria. You will not hear any politicians who support the Hyde "Fairness" bill tout the wisdom of creating another federal bureaucracy -- especially an agency whose sole purpose is to delay or deny the right of Americans to exercise their constitutional right to a jury trial.
   
10. The legislation is opposed by labor, consumer groups, and even number of asbestos manufacturers. Organized labor and consumer groups representing asbestos victims oppose H.R. 1283 and S. 758. The AFL-CIO and Robert Georgine, president of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, and a named plaintiff in the Amchem settlement, publicly oppose these bills or any other federally legislated settlement of asbestos litigation. Even some asbestos defendants, notably Owens-Corning Fiberglas and W.R. Grace & Co-Conn., oppose these bills.

Oppose S. 758 and H.R. 1283
Let Injured Americans Have Their Day in Court

*** POSTED JUNE 21, 1999 ***