Is this a strange title? Yes. When you look at the number of times the media and the courts are looking at Asbestos related civil actions as “mass” then we realize where the problem lies.

There are mass torts. Civil trials where a number of people who are either suffering or have been diagnosed as potentially suffering from the results of asbestos inhalation take up a combined case against those who are “responsible” for their “suffering”. We can say that manufacturers of a product must be responsible for its careful use, but sometimes there is little proof of an individual’s contact with the particular manufacturer’s product. However, the cases go ahead and when one source of damages is exhausted then the same group of people reapply for the next manufacturer or user of asbestos they can sue.

For the manufacturers and users of asbestos there is very little they can do when presented with medical evidence supporting the dangers of asbestos being so clear. They also face medical reports of the individuals in question where a doctor makes his deposition to the court of the damage caused by the inhaling of asbestos fibers is pointed out. This has recently come under a great deal of criticism. A doctor made a series of diagnosis based, not on a personal interview with a patient but solely on the basis of x-rays conducted in a “mass screening” for potential clients to sue for asbestos damage. It seems like a don’t call us, we’ll call you situation where many people could jump on the bandwagon and those who genuinely suffer from the results of the asbestos are missing out on their fair share of the claims.

It is interesting to note that the doctor at the center of this controversy has gone into hiding and could now be outside the USA in order to avoid any questions as to his behavior.

The whole system of “mass” has to come under scrutiny. The need for someone who is genuinely suffering from the results of inhaling asbestos fibers is not in question. The idea that a doctor who practices (i.e. is not perfect yet) can accurately diagnose the results of inhaling asbestos fibers, and also predict the outcome of the results he can see on an X-ray with 100% accuracy must come under some scrutiny. Finally, the ability of an individual to successfully pursue a court action to be compensated for the effects of inhaling asbestos fibers manufactured by company “A” and then goes on to sue company “B” who used the products from company “A” would seem to be “getting two bites at the cherry”. Is this justice or a mass of people getting on the bandwagon?

One final danger of the “mass” system is that someone who has a lung complaint can be substituted for someone who is perfectly healthy for the purpose of the x-ray.

Some judges have now become aware of the dangers of the “mass” system and are seeking to make sure that justice is seen to be done and that those who really need to receive the awards get what they need.

One final danger with the “mass” processing of the claims is when someone comes up with a new slant of the dangers of asbestos. A number of claimants alleged that they suffered from anxiety due to the danger of the asbestos fibers in the work that they were employed to do. It is very difficult to measure how much fear can be caused by close proximity to asbestos and asbestos products, but how can you compensate for that? How much compensation should be sought from the media who sometimes seek to hype up the dangers more that is really necessary? I wonder if newspapers and magazines would be happy to join the “mass” of organizations sued for asbestos exposure.