Asbestos Exposure and Mesothelioma: Understanding Your Rights in Mass Tort Cases

October 13, 2023

Asbestos, a group of six naturally occurring minerals, was widely used in several industries due to its heat resistance, strength, and insulating properties. Unfortunately, asbestos fibers are harmful when inhaled or ingested, leading to serious health issues, such as mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive form of cancer.


When it comes to seeking legal redress for asbestos-induced health issues, victims have several options at their disposal. It's important to understand these different avenues to make an informed decision about the best course of action for you.


Class action lawsuits involve a group of individuals who have suffered similar harm coming together to sue a common defendant. However, in the context of asbestos-related diseases, class action lawsuits are relatively rare today. This is largely due to the unique nature of each individual's exposure and the subsequent health impacts, which can vary significantly from person to person.


MDL is a method of grouping cases involving similar issues for pretrial matters. It's often used in asbestos litigation to streamline the process and avoid duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings. While this approach can be efficient, it's important to remember that each case remains separate and distinct, preserving the individual aspects of each claim.


Individual lawsuits tend to offer the best chances for compensation for asbestos victims. They allow for a more personalized approach, taking into account the unique circumstances of each victim's exposure and resulting health issues. Consequently, they often result in higher compensation than class actions.


Apart from lawsuits, other legal options available to mesothelioma victims include:

  • Asbestos trust fund claims: Asbestos trust funds were established by bankrupt asbestos companies to pay claims to victims.
  • Veterans benefits claims: Veterans may be eligible for benefits if they were exposed to asbestos during their military service.
  • and workers' compensation: Workers' compensation may be an option for those exposed to asbestos at work.


Given the complexity of asbestos litigation, it's crucial to consult with a lawyer before deciding on your course of action. A knowledgeable attorney can guide you through your options and help you choose the path that offers the best chance of securing the compensation you deserve. Remember, filing or joining a class action may delay compensation, so it's worthwhile exploring individual legal actions. By educating yourself about the different legal avenues available and seeking professional advice, you can take an active role in your pursuit of justice and compensation.


While this article provides general legal information, it does not constitute legal advice. The best way to get guidance on your specific legal issue is to contact a lawyer.


Contact Us

By submitting this form you agree to receive text messages.

By Rebecca Rivera December 9, 2025
As reported in the Washington Post December 5th, 2025 by Amudalat Ajasa A prominent scientific journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, has retracted a widely cited 2000 study that previously concluded the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, posed no cancer risk to humans. The retraction was initiated after evidence emerged suggesting the study was heavily influenced by the herbicide's seller, Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), in an apparent effort to disguise potential health risks. Specific concerns cited by the journal include the strong possibility that Monsanto employees contributed to the writing without proper acknowledgment, that the authors may have received undisclosed payments from the company , and that the findings were based solely on unpublished Monsanto studies. This misconduct, discovered through internal company emails during federal litigation, is significant because the faulty research served as a bedrock for regulatory decisions regarding glyphosate for decades. Summary of Alleged Faulty Study and Monsanto's Influence The Study and Its Conclusion: The retracted paper, published in 2000, was a "bedrock study" that concluded: "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans." The Retraction: The scientific journal retracted the study due to a loss of confidence in its results and conclusions, citing the need to "maintain the integrity of the journal." Evidence of Undisclosed Influence: The co-editor in chief cited evidence suggesting that Monsanto employees "may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co authors." Undisclosed Payments: The retraction also noted that the study's authors may have been paid by Monsanto without disclosing it . Basis of Findings: The journal stated that the study's findings about cancer risk were "solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto." Discovery of Influence: Monsanto's influence over the study was reportedly discovered through internal emails released during federal litigation against the company in 2017. Impact: The study "had a significant impact on regulatory decision-making regarding glyphosate and Roundup for decades," and was one of the most-cited papers on glyphosate safety, underpinning federal regulations for the pesticide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) even cited it in its 2016 review of glyphosate. Context and Aftermath Bayer's Defense: Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018) defended the chemical's safety and argued that Monsanto's involvement was appropriately cited in the acknowledgments, stating that glyphosate is the most extensively studied herbicide and that the "vast majority of published studies on glyphosate had no Monsanto involvement." Regulatory Stance: The EPA stated the retraction would not affect its current stance —which is that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans"—because the agency does not directly rely on review articles like this one, but uses them to find other relevant individual studies. Litigation: Bayer has spent approximately $10 billion to settle lawsuits arguing the company did not warn customers about the negative health impacts of using Roundup. Read the full article in the Washington Post
By Rebecca Rivera November 14, 2025
In this series premiere episode, Founder & President of SOSCSA, Child Sexual Abuse Survivor & BSA Bankruptcy Claimant, Curtis Garrison interviews attorney Jason J Joy for an update on the BSA bankruptcy and discussing childhood abuse litigation for which Jason is an outspoken and experienced advocate. Jason's firm is actively litigating cases for many clients his law firm represents. This podcast is recommended for clients already represented, and for those who are still contemplating coming forward to establish a claim. Topics covered in this episode: Recent BSA Bankruptcy Trust report Lajun Claimants (Guam) v. Boy Scouts of America and their recent Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court The 1.5% initial payment, possible second payment time / total percentage Future Claims, BSA Councils, BSA Charters (churches, schools, etc) which there are over 100,000 entities possibly getting free of liability Mixed Claims explained We did not vote for this plan, they promised we would be paid in “Paid in Full” Plans to file an Amicus Brief Statute of Limitations 
By Rebecca Rivera November 6, 2025
The Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy case, involving tens of thousands of survivors of childhood sexual abuse, is among the largest and most contentious mass tort proceedings in U.S. history. In this podcast, Attorney Jason Joy breaks down the latest ruling from the Third Circuit Court, which leaves many survivors of childhood sexual abuse with drastically underfunded compensation.