A newly proposed bill may have the power to delay asbestos lung cancer compensation payments. The consumer watchdog group Public Citizen warned against this new bill claiming that not only will it delay justice for lung cancer and mesothelioma victims but it will reduce their privacy.

The Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2015 was brought before a House subcommittee on Feb. 4. The bill stated that those who developed lung cancer or mesothelioma after asbestos exposure and later filed an asbestos lung cancer lawsuit against the source of the alleged source of the asbestos exposure, may not receive compensation as soon as they would like.

The asbestos bill would allow those responsible for paying the compensation to gather additional information on plaintiffs. Essentially, the corporations could delay payments in asbestos lung cancer lawsuits until all information was gathered.

Another part of the bill requested the presence of asbestos trusts which could theoretically remove the need for asbestos lung cancer lawsuits to be filed. Asbestos lung cancer or mesothelioma victims could give the trusts certain extremely personal information, which would-be defendants in asbestos lung cancer lawsuits or asbestos class action lawsuits could access.

Victims would be required to share their name, address, employment history, medical information, amount of compensation, and part of their social security number. All of this information could easily be shared with any corporation who asked for it, Public Citizen explained.

Pros and Cons of Proposed Asbestos Bill

Those in favor of this new way of handling asbestos lung cancer lawsuit rewards claimed that this bill would prevent people from filing multiple claims for the same lung cancer or mesothelioma diagnosis.

These “double dippers” would be unable to sue multiple companies for being the sole cause of their potentially deadly disease. Plaintiffs may name several defendants in asbestos lung cancer lawsuits if they each contributed to the same diagnosis, but they must be upfront about who they are suing.

The asbestos bill could also shorten the asbestos lung cancer lawsuit process, which can be lengthy.

Public Citizen suggested that the asbestos bill was actually “extremely misguided.” The group claims that the bill could easily be abused by companies whose products or work places caused people to develop asbestos lung cancer or mesothelioma.

Companies could continue making information requests of the victims, which would prevent any reward from being given. This is especially problematic when considering that asbestos lung cancer and mesothelioma victims may not have as long to wait for the compensation process to conclude.

The letter addressed to the subcommittee stated, “this bill will delay and deny justice to people suffering from lethal asbestos-related disease, severely invade the privacy of asbestos victims and their families, and interfere with state legal systems without justification . . . . It will do little more than harm dying victims.”

Public Citizen continued to point out that corporations who have allegedly been the sources of asbestos exposure were not truly “interested in transparency,” as it has been the secrecy and misconduct of several companies that has led to asbestos lung cancer lawsuits and asbestos class action lawsuits in the first place.