Mesothelioma Support in Texas

Exposed to asbestos in Texas?
We have options for mesothelioma victims and residents of Texas.

First Name
Email Address
Telephone Number
State
Message

Asbestos Exposure in Texas

Texas Asbestos Exposure Areas
Do you think you might have been exposed to asbestos? See a list with the areas containing asbestos throughout Texas.
Texas Asbestos Exposure Companies
Have you been exposed to asbestos at work? See a list with asbestos companies in Texas.
Asbestos Exposure Professions in TX
Professions that might have exposed you to asbestos? See a list with the professions that may have wrongfully exposed you to dangerous levels of asbestos.
Texas Asbestos Exposure Power Plants
See a list with the power plants containing asbestos throughout Texas. Locations of power plants may affect your health!

CSX Fraud Suit Against Asbestos Lawyers Is Revived

The fourth circuit US court of appeals has revived the case in which the CSX transportation has accused Pittsburg law firm namely: Robert Peirce & Associates in a mesothelioma case.

CSX accused the law firm for fraud which involved the use criminal activity to benefit the mesothelioma lawyers in the firm. In its appeal court said that the judge in West Virginia abused his discretion by dismissing 11 claims against the law firm because CSX waited too long to file them.

Thousands of claimants of Peirce and other law firms were diagnosed positively for asbestos related diseases. The diagnosis was carried out by Dr. Ray Harron and later it was found that the reports which he signed for silicosis were the reports of same patients who had already recovered claim for asbestosis and mesothelioma cancer. Together these two diseases are seldom in one person, these fake reports resulted in the surrender of his Texas medical license.

This enforced CSX to file sue in July 2007 which made the fourth circuit to give right to railroad to bring the case to trial. The fourth circuit said that from the known facts CSX has no way in which it can determine the truthfulness of the lawsuits. The decision also showed that how law firms get benefitted from the liberal rules for asbestos compensation. CSX said that the law firm must have known that some claimants were lying because in one of the cases the description of exposure to asbestos was given by two different people and later on the individual testified under oath that neither he nor his wife had written in the bits describing how he’d handled “asbestos cement and valve packing.” As far as the judgment is concerned it will be very tough for CSX to convince jury that the law firm was conscious of any fraud as the firm was not blamed in 2009 in one of such cases.