Author Archives: Victor Pasternack

Congratulations to Pasternack Tilker Attorneys Recognized As 2018 Super Lawyers

We are proud to congratulate each of Victor PasternackJordan ZieglerKevin WalshCatherine Stanton, and Edgar Romano for being named to the New York Super Lawyers list as one of the top attorneys in New York for 2018. No more than 5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by Super Lawyers.

This is the 13th consecutive year Ziegler has been selected, the 12th consecutive selection for Stanton, the 10th for Pasternack, the 9th for Romano and the 5th for Walsh.

We are honored that so many of our attorneys have been a recurring presence on this prestigious list for over a decade.

Super Lawyers selects attorneys using a patented multiphase selection process. Peer nominations and evaluations are combined with independent research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis. The objective is to create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel. The first Super Lawyers list was published in 1991.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Congratulations to 6 Pasternack Tilker Attorneys Recognized As 2016 Super Lawyers

We are proud to congratulate each of Chris Latham, Victor Pasternack, Edgar Romano, Robert Saminsky, Catherine Stanton, and Jordan Ziegler for being named to New York Super Lawyers list as one of the top attorneys in New York for 2016. No more than 5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by Super Lawyers. 

This is the 11th consecutive year Ziegler has been selected, the 10th consecutive selection for Stanton, the 8th for Pasternack and Saminsky, the 7th for Romano, and the first for Latham. 

We are honored that so many of our attorneys have a multi-year recurring presence on this prestigious list. Super Lawyers is a research-driven, peer-influenced rating service of lawyers who have attained a high degree of professional achievement. The annual selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations by practice area. The first Super Lawyers list was published in 1991. 

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Partner Chris Latham Supports Construction Site Safety At City Hall Rally

Partner Chris Latham recently joined thousands of building trades workers, Councilman Corey Johnson, and Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer outside City Hall to protest the deaths of workers on construction sites in 2015. 14 of the 16 workers who died on construction sites in 2015 were non-union workers.
 
The rally coincided with the announcement of a new bill, sponsored by Brewer and Johnson, that would obligate all workers on buildings taller than 10 stories to go through state-approved apprenticeships.
 
In her remarks, Brewer said “We have to raise safety standards and put in place measures that will ensure every worker on any sized building has safety equipment, proper training and proper quality supervision,” she said. “We have to set the bar higher.”
 
For more information about how you can help ensure that both union and non-union construction workers earn middle class wages, receive fair benefits, are properly trained and work on safe worksites go to http://www.middleclassstrong.com/.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Take-home Asbestos Exposure Causes Mesothelioma Decades Later

Today’s post comes from guest author Brian M. Wright, from Causey Law Firm.

Today’s guest post was co-authored by my wife, Kaitlin Wright, Associate Attorney with Bergman Draper Ladenburg Hart.  – – BMW

Take-home asbestos exposure through laundering contaminated clothing causes mesothelioma decades later.

Thomas H. Hart, III

Kaitlin T. Wright

There are few things in life that seem as mundane and benign as the simple act of doing household chores like laundry. Yet this routine chore, done for her husband, was the source of Barbara Brandes’ unwitting exposure to asbestos that ultimately caused her death decades later.

From 1971 until 1975, Barbara Brandes’ husband Ray worked as an operator at the newly-constructed Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) Cherry Point oil refinery in Ferndale, Washington. Defendant Brand Insulations contracted to perform the insulation work during the construction of the ARCO refinery in 1971 and 1972. At a time when there could be little doubt that the world knew asbestos was dangerous and carcinogenic—after the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the genesis of the environmental revolution it epitomized—Brand used asbestos insulation in its work at the Cherry Point refinery without warning workers or taking any precautions to reduce hazardous asbestos exposures generated by Brand’s insulation work.

During the early 1970s, Brand insulators worked on-site at the Cherry Point refinery fabricating and installing insulation in the areas where Ray Brandes worked as an operator. The dust generated by Brand’s insulation activities contaminated Ray’s clothing with asbestos fiber. He was also exposed to asbestos when he and other ARCO employees removed the insulation materials Brand had installed when performing repairs to equipment and pipe.

At the end of each shift Ray worked at the Cherry Point refinery, he would return home in the clothes he had worn to work. Barbara would launder that clothing several times a week. When she shook the clothes out before putting them into the washer, asbestos fiber was released and dispersed into the air, exposing Barbara to invisible, imperceptible carcinogenic dust.

More than 40 years after Ray left the ARCO refinery, Barbara was diagnosed in June of 2014 with malignant pleural mesothelioma, a terminal cancer of the lining of the lung. At the time of her diagnosis, Barbara was advised by her physicians that her life expectancy was likely one year. Barbara succumbed to her mesothelioma on April 19, 2015, the evening before closing arguments in her trial against Brand Insulations.

The case was tried over two weeks in April in King County Superior Court before Judge William Downing. Plaintiffs were represented by Tom Hart and Kaitlin Wright of Bergman Draper Ladenburg Hart, PLLC. Brand Insulations, Inc. was represented by David Shaw and Malika Johnson of Williams, Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC. Barbara was 80 years old at the time of trial. The jury found that Brand was negligent, and that Brand’s negligence was a proximate cause of Barbara’s mesothelioma. The verdict included non-economic damages in the amount of $3,500,000.

Discovery Hurdles

One of the challenges in this case was locating witnesses capable of testifying to Ray Brandes’ employment and exposures at the Cherry Point refinery. Due to health issues, Ray was unable to testify or to recall the names of his coworkers so that they could be contacted and interviewed. An ad placed in The Bellingham Herald led to identification of Ray’s former coworkers, some of whom remembered working with him at the refinery back in the 1970s. An ARCO employee who responded to the ad testified at trial, and was one of the most compelling witnesses in the case as he was able to provide direct testimony regarding the work practices and exposures Ray Brandes experienced while Brand was working in his vicinity.

Liability Issues

In pretrial motions practice, the trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s common law product liability claim against Brand, leaving negligence as the sole theory of liability for trial. Plaintiffs presented evidence that Brand had won the insulation subcontract with the general contractor for construction of the Cherry Point facility by coming in with the lowest lump-sum bid for the job. Brand contracted to perform “installation of thermal insulation of columns, heat exchangers, vessels, reformers, tanks, and piping in the various refinery units” at Cherry Point, procuring and installing all insulation materials on equipment and on the miles of piping required to be insulated throughout the refinery.

Brand offered testimony from Michael McGinnis, the project engineer who coordinated the Cherry Point job on behalf of Brand. Mr. McGinnis testified that he was just 21 years old when he traveled from Chicago to Ferndale to oversee the job, and conceded that he was equipped only with a high school education and on-the-job experience gained from his work as an apprentice insulator for Brand. On cross-examination by Mr. Hart, Mr. McGinnis acknowledged that the Cherry Point project was Brand’s largest dollar-value job in the company’s history by orders of magnitude. Mr. Hart also elicited from Mr. McGinnis on cross-examination the concession that no one at Brand had reviewed then-applicable Washington regulations identifying asbestos as a hazardous dust and requiring industrial hygiene controls to reduce exposures, nor did Brand make any effort to comply with those regulations.

Plaintiffs offered testimony from workers at the Cherry Point refinery who explained that the work of Brand insulators in the various refinery units manipulating, cutting, sawing, and installing asbestos insulation products generated considerable dust. Additional witnesses explained that ARCO had initially requested an asbestos-free refinery, but the asbestos-free insulation failed, so Brand reverted to asbestos-containing insulation materials part-way through their work at Cherry Point. Under cross-examination by Mr. Hart, Mr. McGinnis conceded that Brand nonetheless never warned workers that they were using asbestos or took any measures to reduce asbestos exposures to bystanders like Ray Brandes.

Brand argued that it did not or could not have known of a risk of take-home asbestos exposure from the insulation work it performed at Cherry Point resulting in mesothelioma among family members of ARCO operators like Ray Brandes. Plaintiff’s expert pathologist Dr. Andrew Churg testified that Mrs. Brandes had malignant mesothelioma of the pleura or lining of the lung, and that her mesothelioma was caused by washing her husband’s asbestos-contaminated work clothing. Plaintiff’s expert industrial hygienist, John Templin, CIH, testified to the industrial hygiene measures and engineering controls available to Brand in the 1971-75 timeframe to protect against Ray and Barbara Brandes’ significant asbestos exposures resulting from Brand’s insulation work. Plaintiffs also called Dr. Barry Castleman who testified regarding the extensive body of scientific and medical literature published throughout the decades leading up to Barbara’s exposures in the early 1970s, which confirmed that asbestos exposure could cause fatal disease, including mesothelioma, and detailed methods of avoiding dangerous exposures to bystanders and family members of exposed workers. Brand called Francis Weir, Ph. D., and Joseph Holtshouser who testified regarding toxicology and industrial hygiene principles. Dr. Weir testified during cross-examination by Mr. Hart that other West Coast insulation contractors were researching the hazards of asbestos by the time Brand began its work at Cherry Point. Mr. Holtshouser testified to the dose reconstruction of Barbara’s asbestos exposures he had performed and opined that her exposures were minimal and insignificant.

Damages

Prior to her diagnosis, Barbara had undergone many rounds of chemotherapy in an attempt to slow the progression of her cancer and prolong her life. She was not a candidate for surgical resection of her tumor, nor was radiation therapy recommended. Barbara bravely pursued as aggressive a chemotherapy regimen as her body could tolerate and her oncologist would recommend. She had more than one bout with pneumonia and experienced many other side-effects from the chemotherapy. Plaintiffs elected to forego pursuit of economic damages related to Barbara’s medical treatment, and instead simply asked the jury to decide Barbara’s non-economic damages for her injuries, disability, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and pain and suffering.

Because Barbara passed away on the eve of closing arguments and submission of the case to the jury, Plaintiffs faced the prospect of quickly converting Barbara’s personal injury action to a survivorship action to allow the case to proceed. This was successfully accomplished and the jury was instructed as to the fact of Barbara’s passing, the change in the case caption, and that future non-economic damages were no longer to be considered in assessing Plaintiff’s damages. In closing, Ms. Wright and Mr. Hart brought together the story of Brand undercutting local insulation companies to win the Cherry Point contract, and Brand’s concomitant sacrifice of safety to maximize profit in the largest job it had ever undertaken. The jury was unanimous in its finding of Brand’s negligence.

Barbara is survived by her eight children and many grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and a great-great-grandchild. While Barbara’s deteriorating health prevented her from being present in the courtroom every day, her daughter Ramona Brandes attended trial and was able to observe her mother’s engrossment in the case even as she approached the end of her life. Ramona explained: “My tales of the trial in her last days were one of the things she sparked on, wanting to hear every last detail. She passed away the day before closing arguments, but I know her verdict is something she would have been so thrilled about because her win will help other families like ours fighting for their own justice.”

Thomas H. Hart, III, Partner – Bergman Draper Ladenburg Hart, PLLC

Tom Hart was a pioneer in asbestos litigation in the United States and continues work on behalf of injured shipyard workers, former Navy personnel, pipe fitters, carpenters and others ravaged by asbestos disease. Since 1980, Tom has successfully represented asbestos victims in over 40 States and Territories. Tom has won verdicts and settlements totaling hundreds of millions of dollars for his clients and their families. In 1986, Tom filed and served as Lead Counsel in the first Nation-wide Class Action Settlement for asbestos victims.

Kaitlin T. Wright, Associate – Bergman Draper Ladenburg Hart, PLLC

Kaitlin Wright joined Bergman Draper Ladenburg Hart as an associate in 2013 after graduating from Seattle University School of Law, magna cum laude. Prior to joining Bergman Draper Ladenburg Hart, Kaitlin externed with the Honorable Stephen J. Dwyer at the Washington Court of Appeals in Seattle. Kaitlin also worked during law school as a Rule 9 legal intern with the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office in Everett. In her two years at Bergman Draper Ladenburg Hart, Kaitlin has represented mesothelioma victims in litigation in Washington and Oregon and has tried cases to verdict in both states.

 

Photo credit: Tabsinthe / Hampton Patio / CC BY

 

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Stolen Money: Wage Theft by Employers Common

Today’s post comes from guest author Brody Ockander, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

We all know that money is stolen from hard-working people every day in the form of robberies, burglaries and other thefts, but you might be surprised to learn that employers steal more money from hard-working people than robberies, burglaries, larcenies and auto thefts combined.

Although these numbers are based on 2012 data, the same probably holds true still today. The most unfortunate part of these statistics is that the victims of wage theft are usually the people who can afford the theft the least.

What is wage theft?

“Wage theft covers a variety of infractions that occur when workers do not receive their legally or contractually promised wages,” according to wagetheft.org.

“Common forms of wage theft are non-payment of overtime, not giving workers their last paycheck after a worker leaves a job, not paying for all the hours worked, not paying minimum wage, and even not paying a worker at all.”

What is even more sobering is to think based on these statistics: they get the numbers regarding traditional theft from what is reported to police, whether it is recovered or not. They get the data for wage theft based on what is: reported, looked into, taken to court, and won back for employees. So, I would be willing to assume that the numbers of wage theft are actually much larger, in reality.

Fortunately, there are remedies under state and federal laws to recover from those thieving employers engaging in wage theft. Even if it is something that seems small, like employers keeping a percentage of tips, it is still wage theft and is actionable in civil court. Contact a lawyer if you suspect your employer of engaging in the activities described above.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Preventing Heat-Related Illness

Today’s post was shared by US Labor Department and comes from blog.dol.gov

HEAT-1

Heat is one of the leading weather-related killers in the United States.

Each year, hundreds of people die due to heat-related illnesses and thousands become ill. Many of us can go inside and turn on the air conditioning, but for outdoor workers in very hot environments, it isn’t that simple. Outdoor workers are particularly vulnerable to heat stress. To encourage heat-related safety precautions, the National Weather Service teams up with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration every year to educate workers about excessive heat and ways to prevent heat illness.

NOAA’s Watch, Warning and Advisory products for extreme heat are based on a number of factors, including the heat index, which is calculated by combining the air temperature with humidity to determine how hot it feels. In direct sunlight, it is advised to add approximately 15 degrees to the heat index since it may feel even hotter in the sun. These products help employers and workers prepare for the heat by planning work schedules, acclimatizing, ensuring there is plenty of water and shade/air conditioning available, and time for breaks.

If you’re not sure how to calculate the heat index, or what the humidity is at a certain time, you can download the OSHA Heat Safety Tool. OSHA’s Heat Safety Tool is a smartphone application that calculates the heat index based on your current location, and provides a risk level and precautions to take. It was recently updated for iOS to be more…

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Congratulations To Our 2015 Super Lawyers!

We are proud to congratulate each of Victor Pasternack,Barbara Doblin TilkerJordan Ziegler, Kevin WalshCatherine StantonEdgar Romano and Robert Saminsky for being named to the New York Super Lawyers list as one of the top attorneys in New York for 2015. No more than 5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by Super Lawyers.

This is the 10th consecutive year Ziegler has been selected, the 9th consecutive selection for Tilker and Stanton, the 7th for Pasternack and Saminsky, the 6th for Romano and the 1st for Walsh.

We are honored that so many of our attorneys have a multi-year recurring presence on this prestigious list.

Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a rigorous multi-phased process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates, and peer reviews by practice area.

The first Super Lawyers list was published in 1991.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Facebook Postings Hurt Workers’ Compensation Claims

Today’s post comes from guest author Thomas Domer, from The Domer Law Firm.

While Facebook is extremely popular and used by over a billion people every day, no Facebook posting has ever helped an injured worker in a workers’ compensation claim. On the contrary, use of a Facebook page poses real dangers for injured workers pursuing workers’ compensation benefits.

Since Facebook is a public site, anything posted can be used by respondent insurance companies in claims denial. Even the most benign postings (birthday parties, family gatherings, etc.) can pose problems. For example, a grandparent lifting a 30 pound grandchild when doctors have imposed a 10 pound lifting limit could damage a claim. Additionally, nothing prevents an Administrative Law Judge from looking at a Facebook page.  Even innocent posts may be subject to misinterpretation. A picture of the worker riding a motorcycle or fishing taken prior to the injury but posted afterward could place the seed of doubt in an ALJ’s mind that the worker is not as limited as he claims. The best advice is to be extremely careful about what is posted because “friends” are not the only one who can access your Facebook page.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.