By Alison Lapp : Herald-Sun Washington Bureau
http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-629685.html
Jul 24, 2005 : 7:23 pm ET
WASHINGTON -- Hillsborough doctor
Bret Williams has dedicated his life to
treating underserved populations, from tobacco farmers in Caswell County
to indigenous populations in Bolivia.
But the most difficult illness he's faced was his
own.
The Duke University-trained physician learned in
April 2003 that his chest pain was a symptom of mesothelioma, a disease
known as the signature cancer of asbestos exposure because virtually
nothing else causes it.
One month later, complications from the removal of
his right lung left him dependent on a respirator at Duke University
Medical Center.
The 53-year-old father of three said his situation
looked desperate.
"I couldn't be weaned off the respirator, and they
had all the children come to say their good-byes," Williams said. "I
eventually pulled my own breathing tube out and started breathing again. I
was one of the lucky ones. Being a doctor, I knew how to respond. I sought
the best possible treatment, but still almost died."
Williams says he was exposed to asbestos during his
youth in Kansas and while repairing his home in North Carolina. A lawsuit
he filed against several asbestos manufacturers is set for trial in
September. But he worries that a bill in the Senate would wipe out his
case.
Williams, who has no current signs of mesothelioma
and has been able to resume work, joined the Association of Trial Lawyers
of America in Washington last week to meet with senators and lobby against
the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution, or FAIR Act of 2005.
The bipartisan legislation, co-sponsored by Sens.
Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., would create a privately
funded and publicly run fund to compensate victims of asbestos exposure.
Asbestos companies and insurers would pay $140
billion into the fund over 30 years, which would be available to people
who meet medical criteria for mesothelioma and other asbestos-related
diseases. In return for the fixed payments, victims would not be allowed
to sue the firms.
Williams said he was upset that lawsuits that had
not reached settlement would be subject to compensation under the fund
rather than an amount decided in a jury trial. Mesothelioma patients would
be eligible for $1.1 million, half what the Trial Lawyers Association
estimates they currently receive in court.
Mike Riley, a lawyer who represents asbestos
victims in Raleigh and Durham, said both the loss of the right to a jury
trial and the reduction in the amount of settlement payments skew the
legislation in the asbestos companies' favor.
"It's simply a bailout for companies that have
manufactured and made a profit on asbestos-containing products," he said.
Lobbying Congress
The Washington-based consumer rights group Public
Citizen agrees.
It estimates that companies that manufacture
asbestos-containing products spent $144.5 million lobbying Congress from
2003 through 2004. The Dow Chemical Co., which has research and
development offices in Cary, spent $3.6 million during that period,
according to Public Citizen, and the FAIR Act would reduce its future
liability payments from a projected $1.6 billion to $2.2 billion over 15
years to an estimated $378.5 million over the next 30 years.
Scot Wheeler, who represents Dow, said the act
would benefit the general public, not just businesses.
"A national solution, such as legislation, is
needed to provide fair compensation to the victims," he said, "as the
courts cannot handle the volume of cases and have not been able to
adequately distinguish those plaintiffs who have asbestos-related diseases
from those who do not."
Political compromise
In Senate Judiciary Committee discussions on the
bill this spring, Leahy called the act the "essence of legislative
compromise," trying to balance the interests of the more than 70 companies
nationwide that have declared bankruptcy, in part because of asbestos
litigation, with those of the 27.5 million workers who were exposed to
asbestos on the job between 1940 and 1980.
But Riley said the legislation falls short, because
only people who worked professionally with asbestos-containing products
would be eligible for payments. Family members who washed their relatives'
asbestos-laden clothes or people who lived near plants that processed
asbestos-containing materials would not be able to file suit, as they are
now eligible to do in North Carolina, he said.
The Association of Trial Lawyers of America also
opposes the bill's 5 percent cap on lawyers' fees, saying it would force
many plaintiffs to face the legal system without the help of attorneys who
now collect an average of 24 percent of settlements. David Carle, a
spokesman for Leahy, said large payments to lawyers would not be necessary
under the fund because settlements would no longer be decided in an
adversarial system.
During his Capitol Hill visit, Williams met with
staffers for Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C. Douglas Heye, a spokesman for Burr,
said the senator was still reviewing the legislation, but believed there
were "flaws in the current system that need to be fixed," including
controlling lawyers' fees.
PATIENT PROFILES
