Attorney Jim Sokolove, founder of The Law Offices of James Sokolove, has long focused on providing consumers with important and timely information. Most recently, that commitment found the attorney reaching out to diverse audiences with back-to-back appearances on a PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) news segment and on a popular rock station’s radio talk show.

Sokolove was interviewed for PBS’ “The Smart Consumer” news program and the first segment aired on January 11, 2008 in

The Tennessee Supreme Court recently heard arguments from both sides in a take-home asbestos case involving mesothelioma victim Amanda Satterfield, the daughter of an ALCOA employee.

In 2003 Amanda, then 23, filed suit against ALCOA Inc. and Breeding Insulation Co. seeking $10 million in compensatory and $10 million in punitive damages, alleging that since infancy she had been exposed to deadly asbestos dust and fibers brought home each night on her father's clothing, as a result of his handling of asbestos products on the job at ALCOA Tennessee Operations. Doug Satterfield began working for ALCOA as an asbestos hauler in 1973, and unknowingly exposed his home and family to the cancer-causing material.

On January 1, 2005 Amanda lost her battle with mesothelioma. Her father, Doug Satterfield, representing her estate, has continued the suit on her behalf, although he has stated that the case is not about the money, but about justice.

At the hearing each side had thirty minutes to present its case and answer questions from the five justices, who will determine whether the case should go to trial. Satterfield's attorney argued that ALCOA has a responsibility for third parties who are exposed to harmful agents from the company's facilities-that public policy should extend at least to the worker's home and family members. The real question, he contends, is what ALCOA knew, when they knew it, and what they did about it. In response, ALCOA's attorney argued that the company's legal responsibility is limited to actual employees, not their families, and that to extend that legal duty would open the floodgates to mesothelioma litigation in Tennessee, creating "an infinite universe of potential plaintiffs".

The case is on appeal from the Tennessee Court of Appeals which reversed the lower court's decision to dismiss the case. The Court of Appeals reinstated the lawsuit and charged ALCOA with the cost of appeal in April 2007. The Tennesssee Supreme Court is expected to issue its written opinion by early April 2008.

The Salem-Kaizer School District has filed suit against Woodburn Construction Company for $209,000, the amount the district allegedly spent to clean up asbestos contamination at the Grant Community School, reports the Statesman Journal. The school district blames the defendant for the contamination, stating that it released asbestos twice during a kitchen remodel project at the school, resulting in a delay to the 2006-2007 school year. The District alleges that air samples taken at the school revealed asbestos not only in the kitchen, but in multi-purpose rooms, the lobby hall, the north-south hall, Room 7, and classrooms 1, 4, and 5. It is seeking $157,000 in cleanup costs, $22,000 it paid to other contractors to finish the job, and $30,000 in contract penalties.

According to the lawsuit filed in Marion County Circuit Court, the first asbestos release occurred in June 2006 when a subcontractor of Woodburn demolished an entire asbestos-containing wall, and another subcontractor cut into an asbestos-containing floor. The District contends that both subcontractors failed to take appropriate precautions, causing the kitchen to be covered with asbestos dust and debris. Cleanup of the first release took nearly two months to complete. The suit further states that the second release occurred in August 2006 when a third subcontractor drilled holes in the kitchen wall. Cleanup of the second release delayed the start of school for a week. The school district, Woodburn, and two subcontractors were fined by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for the first incident; Woodburn and a third subcontractor were fined in connection with the second. The Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division also states that it has fines pending against both the District and the companies.

Additionally, the lawsuit states that thirteen school employees were exposed to asbestos, two of which have filed compensation claims with the school district. Both of those claims have been denied.

Woodburn had originally filed suit against the District in June 2007 for $226,600, seeking payment in full for the remodeling job. The District counterclaimed in September 2007, alleging breach of contract by Woodburn for ignoring asbestos reports and allowing unlicensed contractors to perform asbestos abatement work. Woodburn recently filed suit in December 2007 against the four subcontractors it hired to work on the project.

According to an article published in yesterday's East Oregonian, the Oregon Department of Environment Quality (DEQ) has issued a $23,704 penalty to Seven Lakes Development, LLC, a Wyoming corporation, for allowing unlicensed persons to perform an asbestos abatement project and openly accumulating asbestos-containing waste material, relative to the demolition of three vacant residential structures and a former laundromat owned by the company in southeastern Pendleton, OR.

This is the second fine issued by the DEQ for asbestos mismanagement in regard to this particular property. The first, a fine in the amount of $17,400, was issued to Hatley Construction, the company contracted by Seven Lakes to demolish the buildings on the lot. Hatley was fined for conducting an asbestos abatement project without a license and for openly accumulating improperly labeled and packaged asbestos-containing waste material. DEQ regulations require buiding owners to ensure that asbestos abatement projects are performed by licensed asbestos removal contractors, which Hatley wasn't.

Both Hatley and Seven Lakes are appealing the penalty, alleging that the DEQ has gone overboard in this case--overstepping its authority and double-dipping. Property owner Jim Whitney claims that Hatley was hired to remove residential buildings
(containing asbestos siding and tile) on a commericial lot and that there are different regulations that apply to asbestos abatement for residential and commercial buildings. Whitney also questions DEQ's motives in issuing a fine against Seven Lakes several months after the fine against Hatley.

In response the DEQ has stated that the fact that the buildings were residential is of no significance because once the asbestos is brought outside, or if asbestos siding is removed from the outside of the dwelling, DEQ regulations apply. Furthermore, the DEQ contends that the fines were issued separately because the issuing officer was out of the office for a period of time, otherwise Hatley and Seven Lakes would have been fined at the same time. Also, because Hatley complied with DEQ and hired a licensed asbestos remover to clean the site, there was less urgency to press the case while the officer was out of the office.

An attorney representing Seven Lakes and Hatley in its appeal stated that the case is "far from over" and that he "hopes to obtain validation for his clients through the appeal process."

Attorney Jeffrey Donnellon filed suit in U.S. District Court in Columbus, Ohio earlier this month on behalf of 4 former and 33 current inmates of the Chillicothe Correctional Institution seeking damages caused by the inhalation of asbestos fibers in the prison. According to Donnellon, many of the plaintiffs believe they have lung problems attributable to asbestos. The suit accuses Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction officials with providing false information regarding the presence of asbestos and of "deliberate indifference" to a known health risk. The lawsuit further alleges that inmate work crews had been forced to remove or work with asbestos without proper training or protection.

Chillicothe prison, which opened in 1966, is a state correctional facility housing 2,850 inmates and employing a staff of 587. According to the lawsuit, many of the prison's steam pipes are wrapped in asbestos insulation, including those located in many dormitory units and utility tunnels. In many areas the insulation has broken down and is in powder form. Lab tests done on samples collected by prison inmates from dormitory floors and steam pipe insulation confirmed the presence of asbestos. Contrary to these findings, prison officials had told state inspectors last year that there was no asbestos present in prison housing units. A January 26th report revealed that when asked about asbestos, a prison official stated that any asbestos in housing units was removed two years ago.

The plaintiffs are also seeking a court ordered independent investigation into the matter and are requesting that the prison be closed if the asbestos cannot be safely removed.