This last month, a California judge upheld the verdict of an asbestos cancer lawsuit against Honeywell International Inc., filed on behalf of a plaintiff who died as a result of his lung cancer diagnosis.

The verdict was in favor of plaintiff Sam D., a mechanic who claimed to be exposed to asbestos in brake linings made by Honeywell, which was a substantial factor for his lung cancer diagnosis.

The jury found that the expert testimony from pathologist Dr. James A. Strauchen stating that any trace amount of asbestos exposure can lead to cancer gave compelling evidence.

Honeywell had argued that Dr. Strauchen’s theory that every exposure to asbestos can cause cancer was both speculative and illogical, and so did not give adequate or conclusive evidence to the plaintiff’s claim.

Dr. Strauchen’s testimony, stated Honeywell, had given undue sway to the jury’s decision that the plaintiff’s exposure contributed to his cancer diagnosis, which ultimately resulted in his death.

However, the California appeals court negated this argument earlier this month. Instead, the court concluded that the testimony came from a legitimate scientific debate, and could therefore be allowed as evidence.

In determining whether or not expert testimony is admissible in court, it must be determined whether or not the theories are based on reasonable evidence – meaning that at least some of scientific literature supports the theory.

The court’s job is not, however, to actually reach scientific conclusions based on theories provided – they’ll leave that to the scientists and stick to determining whether the evidence is reasonable enough to use for the case, if not scientifically conclusive.

“If the opinion is based on materials on which the expert may reasonably rely in forming the opinion, and flows in a reasoned chain of logic from those materials rather than from speculation or conjecture, the opinion may pass, even though the trial court or other experts disagree with its conclusion or the methods and materials used to reach it,” the panel wrote. The decision was unanimous.

According to the asbestos lung cancer lawsuit, Sam began his work with Honeywell’s brake linings in 1964. The linings were made with roughly 50 percent asbestos fibers. Sam’s task was not only to install these brake linings in cars, but also to first sand the linings. Sanding the brake linings allegedly caused dust to fly into the air and expose Sam’s lungs to the asbestos fibers.

It wasn’t until August 2011 that Sam was diagnosed with mesothelioma lung cancer. The mechanic sued Honeywell, as well as a few home remodeling product manufacturers that he sometimes worked for over asbestos exposure.

Unfortunately, Sam died of mesothelioma lung cancer in May 2012. However, his daughter took over the asbestos lawsuit on his behalf after his death.

The jury reached the conclusion that 85 percent of responsibility for Sam’ lung cancer could be attributed to Honeywell’s actions, while the other 15 percent belonged to the various home remodeling companies. Ultimately, Sam’s family was awarded $2 million in damages.

Asbestos Exposure Lawsuits

Most asbestos lung cancer lawsuits are linked with workers who have been exposed to large amounts of asbestos over time. Mesothelioma lung cancer is typically diagnosed many years after initial asbestos exposure, and often in late stages of the disease.

A person diagnosed with lung cancer as a result of asbestos exposure not only incurs physical, mental, and emotional pain and suffering, but serious medical expenses as well.

Many people exposed to asbestos while on the job have filed asbestos cancer lawsuits after being diagnosed with mesothelioma or lung cancer for some kind of compensation for their injuries.

According to many asbestos cancer lawsuits, the companies that knowingly allow their workers to be exposed to asbestos should have been aware of the dangerous nature of their asbestos-containing materials.