.
Casualty

Legal Updates for Asbestos and Mass Tort Litigation

Can Testing Gene Mutations Help in Defending Mesothelioma Claims?

Legal Updates for Asbestos & Mass Tort Litigation – February 2020

February 3, 2021

by Erin N. Margolin

If you have ever watched television, you have surely seen a commercial from a plaintiff’s firm proclaiming: “Mesothelioma is caused by asbestos exposure. If you or a family member suffers from mesothelioma, you may be entitled to financial compensation.” However, these advertisements are misleading. As advances in genetics research are made, it has become clear that occupational asbestos exposure is not the only potential cause of mesothelioma. In fact, in at least 20 to 30% of mesothelioma diagnoses, occupational asbestos exposure has nothing to do with the diagnosis. As information on other potential causes of mesothelioma increases, large payouts by industrial defendants on these cases are no longer a foregone conclusion.

Let’s start with a basic scientific overview. Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that occurs in the thin layer of tissue that covers the majority of your internal organs, i.e., your mesothelium. There are several types of mesothelioma: pleural mesothelioma (mesothelioma that affects the tissue that surrounds the lungs); peritoneal mesothelioma (mesothelioma that affects the tissue in the abdomen); pericardial mesothelioma (mesothelioma that affects the tissue around the heart); and tunica vaginalis mesothelioma (mesothelioma that affects the tissue around the testicles). Mesothelioma occurs when the DNA in cells is damaged. DNA is the chemical in our cells that makes up our genes. Genes are the instructions for how our cells function, and we inherit our genes from our parents.

Consequently, it makes sense in that our genes play a role in whether or not we are predisposed to various cancers, including mesothelioma. For instance, BAP1 tumor predisposition syndrome is caused by mutations in the BAP1 gene. BAP1 is an important “good” gene, which suppresses tumors, and every human has two copies of this gene: one from their father and one from their mother. BAP1 gene mutations have been found in the genes of patients with mesothelioma, in addition to various other types of cancer. P16 deletions also are a possible feature of the genes of patients with malignant mesothelioma; in fact, this deletion occurs in up to 80% of pleural mesothelioma cases and approximately 25% of peritoneal mesothelioma cases. It can be expounded from this that some people with no industrial asbestos exposure whatsoever, but with certain gene mutations, are more predisposed to developing mesothelioma than others who do not have the same genes. Likewise, many individuals with a large amount of occupational exposure to asbestos never develop mesothelioma, likely because they do not have any gene mutations.

In the 2011 article “Germline BAP1 Mutations Predispose to Malignant Mesothelioma,” Joseph Testa opined that mesothelioma clustering associated with the BAP1 gene mutation is observed in some families; in fact, such clustering in families in the U.S. and Turkey have lead to up to 50% of family members developing mesothelioma. Dr. Testa’s study sequenced the BAP1 in germline DNA from one family in Wisconsin and one family in Louisiana, none of whom had any occupational asbestos exposure. In the family from Wisconsin, six affected family members (four with mesothelioma and two with other types of cancer) had identical gene mutations, whereas, unaffected family members did not. Likewise, the genes of the five affected family members (three with mesothelioma and two with other types of cancer) in the Louisiana family showed complete concordance between the BAP1 mutation status and linkage analysis.

The question then becomes: What else plays a factor in these pre-disposed individuals developing mesothelioma?

In 2018, Dr. Richard Attanoos wrote an article titled “Malignant Mesothelioma and its Non-Asbestos Causes,” about the developing information on the other causes of mesothelioma. Dr. Attanoos states that therapeutic radiation for other malignancies is a now a well-established cause of mesothelioma. Additionally, he noted that chronic pleural inflammation can cause mesothelioma, as diffuse malignant mesothelioma has been reported in patients with tuberculosis, chronic empyema, peritonitis and/or Crohn’s Disease. Dr. Attanoos expounded that some mesotheliomas are also idiopathic in nature and some may be caused by mineral fibers other than asbestos.

Dr. Attanoos goes on to explain that while most pleural mesotheliomas (70% to 90%) in men in Europe and North America were attributable to occupational asbestos exposure; for peritoneal mesothelioma, however, the proportion was lower. Additionally, in North America, few mesotheliomas in women were attributable to asbestos exposures. Dr. Attanoos pontificates that, given amphibole asbestos exposures are presently uncommon and epidemiologic evidence, including incidences of mesothelioma in both sexes, as well as the time trend of these diagnoses in addition to the lack of occupational asbestos exposures, suggests that there are other factors which cause mesothelioma. In simpler terms, there is overwhelming evidence that recent diagnoses of mesothelioma cases are being caused by something other than occupational exposure to asbestos. Dr. Attanoos opines that the current data suggests that a smaller fraction of tumors in men and very few tumors in women are now related to asbestos.

This is expounded upon in the 2018 article “Genomics and Epigenetics of Malignant Mesothelioma,” authored by Dr. Adam Sage. Dr. Sage notes that there have been global efforts to limit asbestos exposure through bans; however, a corresponding decrease in mesothelioma diagnoses has not been observed. In fact, the incidence of mesothelioma increased by almost 40% between 2005–2014. He opines that a significant portion of the newly diagnosed cases are the result of non-mining professional occupations and environmental exposures. Dr. Sage believes that germline mutations in the BAP1 gene are one of the most significant factors that lead to the development of mesothelioma.

Testing for BAP1 mutations is fairly easy, especially as genetic testing continues to be on the rise. In fact, much like women with a familial history of breast cancer undergo BRCA testing, there may be a time in the near future when those with a family history of mesothelioma are given genetic testing for BAP1 mutations and P16 deletions so that they can be monitored for early detection. Even ancestral DNA testing companies, such as 23andMe and AncestryDNA, already test clients for BRCA. It is reasonable to assume that other gene mutations linked to cancer will be commonly tested in the future.

Accordingly, it is likely that the presence of the BAP1 mutation will be readily available information in future asbestos litigation. There is already strong evidence to suggest that occupational asbestos exposure is not causing mesothelioma diagnoses to continue to rise. In the meantime, in order to appropriately defend occupational exposure mesothelioma cases, it will be important to question plaintiffs regarding their familial cancer history as well as any genetics testing that they have undergone. Additionally, a history of radiation therapy as well as exposure to other types of mineral fibers should be investigated.

 

Legal Updates for Asbestos & Mass Tort Litigation – February 2020, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tdrau@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Reversed Trial Judge's Orders Granting a Plaintiff's Section 40 Summary Judgement Motion

In Haskins v. Casey, et al., the plaintiff Dane Haskins worked for defendant Ekornes, Inc. (Ekornes) as a material handler. In June 2021, he filed a workers’ compensation claim petition for benefits due to a left shoulder injury in December 2020. He then resolved his workers’ compensation claim in November 2022 under an Order Approving Settlement. In January 2023, he filed a lawsuit against Ekornes and later amended to add additional claims and name other defendants, including the Ekornes president, chief financial officer, and director of human resources. In May 2025, a second amended complaint alleged that after he filed the workers compensation claim, Ekornes placed him on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), denied his request for a work accommodation, and ultimately terminated him from employment in December 2021. He pleaded several causes of action asserting violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) as well as fraudulent concealment and wrongful discharge. The plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment, seeking an order enforcing Section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) as well as summary judgment on his FMLA claims. The defendants opposed the motions and cross-moved for summary judgment on the FMLA claims. After arguments, the court entered an order in December 2025, denying the FMLA motion and cross motion and granting the plaintiff’s Section 40 motion. In the order, the court permitted the plaintiff to pursue compensatory damages at trial in connection with the bodily injury claim. The court also allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of any workers’ compensation benefits to support his claim. The court then denied the defendant's subsequent reconsideration motion in February 2026. The defendants that appealed the Section 40 aspect of the orders. In reviewing the appeal de novo, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff's argument that the work-related injury arose out of his discrimination claims under the LAD. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to pursue a personal injury claim as a part of his LAD claim, noting that the employer’s compensation carrier would be able to assert a lien against any recovery against his LAD claims. In distinguishing between the Richter vs. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021) case, in which the Court found that any recovery would be subject to a Section 40 lien as the allegation was that the defendants failed to accommodate her pre-existing diabetic condition, which resulted in bodily injury. In this case, the Appellate Division indicated that there was no bodily injury caused by Ekornes’ failure to accommodate a pre-existing disability. Rather, the shoulder injury was a result of a workers compensation claim, for which he received appropriate benefits previously. The Appellate Division noted that if the plaintiff was successful in proving his LAD claims, he would be entitled to damages caused by the discriminatory discriminatory conduct such as lost wages and emotional distress damages and that there will be no Section 40 lien. In addition, the Appellate Division disagreed that the petitioner could present evidence about and seek damages for his shoulder injury at trial. Although the petitioner argued that a defendant who retaliated against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim should not benefit from the exclusivity provision of the WCA, the Appellate Division noted that the Legislature did not include this type of scenario in the statue nor did any of the case law recognize this type of claim as a remedy. As such, the Appellate Division reversed the December 2025 order granting the the plaintiff’s Section 40 summary judgment motion as well as the February 2026 reconsideration motion order. The Appellate Division noted that they did not intend to limit the plaintiff in his pursuit of his other claims on under the LAD, FMLA, and workers’ compensation retaliation causes of action.