A New Jersey appeals court has revived a widow’s asbestos and lung cancer lawsuit, finding that she presented enough evidence to link her husband’s death to asbestos provided by his employer, defendant Union Carbide.

The New Jersey Appellate Division stated on Wednesday that given the available evidence, a “reasonable jury could infer he was exposed to the toxic material from the company’s products while working at a chemical plant,” the asbestos and lung cancer lawsuit states. The appeals court reversed the trial court’s December 2015 award of summary judgment to Union Carbide.

The late Willis E., had worked for the Bloomfield plant, located in New Jersey, between 1954 and 1994. The plant had manufactured asbestos-containing adhesive products. Evidence presented showed taht Union Carbide delivered tens of thousands of pounds of asbestos to the plant between 1970 and 1982.

According to the asbestos and lung cancer lawsuit, the evidence provided shows that he worked directly with the asbestos containing products, particularly the contaminated friable dust, throughout that 12- year period.

Willis was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a tumor of the tissue that lines the lungs, heart, stomach, or other organs, in October 2010. According to the asbestos and lung cancer lawsuit and initial filing, this was the result of direct exposure to the asbestos containing products in which he later died from three months later.

Willis’s widow, plaintiff Thomasina F., filed this wrongful death lawsuit in June 2011.

In December 2015, the trial court granted Union Carbide’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that Willis E.’s had direct exposure to the substance.

The case was reversed, however, by the current two-judge appellate panel stating that evidence provided maintained that the “business provided more than 30,000 pounds of asbestos to the Bloomfield, New Jersey, facility between 1970 and 1982 while he regularly handled asbestos there,” the asbestos and lung cancer lawsuit maintains.

According to the panel, “the testimony establishes decedent’s contact with asbestos was frequent, regular, and proximate.”

According to the asbestos and lung cancer lawsuit, Union Carbide had delivered between 1970 and 1971, roughly 1,550 pounds of a specific kind of asbestos related product.

The evidence further showed that 36,823 pounds of another type of asbestos was also delivered between 1971 to 1982 to another plant.

Two of the late Willis E.’s coworkers had also testified during discovery about the job position and conditions during his time working for the facility.

According to the decision, the testimony from the coworker stated that he “retrieved powdered materials, including asbestos, by scooping in out and placing it in bags before taking the material to work locations,” it states.

The coworker had also maintained that he had seen his late colleague using asbestos in the mill room, the asbestos and lung cancer lawsuit claims.

The colleague also stated of himself that “some of the products we milled had asbestos in them” and “at that point [he] knew what asbestos was.”

Additionally, “in the mill room, decedent scooped, weighed, and mixed the necessary ingredients, including asbestos. The air of the mill room contained visible dust, and the decedent wore a mask while he worked for this reason.”

A second coworker had stated that while he worked at the facility from 1956 and 1964, he claimed that he had seen packaging labeled “asbestos” several times. He just could not recall where when asked during discovery.

The panel agreed that the court’s order “should be vacated because ‘the evidence is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether decedent … was exposed to respirable asbestos from [Union Carbide]’s products.’”

The appellate panel also concluded that although there is no direct evidence proving that the decedent had been exposed to asbestos, circumstantial evidence is csufficient.