The Ohio Supreme Court this week has ruled that a 2004 law that imposed stricter rules on asbestos-related claims can be applied retroactively to those cases filed before the law was passed.
The state Supreme Court said Wednesday the law was valid because the changes were “remedial and procedural” and not in violation of the Ohio Constitution, which bars retroactive laws that change the nature or substance of a law.
The law in question, passed in September of 2004, requires the medical expert to actually treat the claimant instead of merely reading the medical records and the claimant is required to offer specific medical evidence that their condition was caused by asbestos exposure.
In Ohio there are about 40,000 cases that had been filed prior to law being passed and many of those are likely to be dismissed as a result of this week’s ruling.
Linda Ackison had filed a wrongful death suit in May of 2004 against Dayton Malleable and others claiming that long-term exposure to asbestos at work had contributed to the illness and death of her husband, Danny.
Richard Schuster, an attorney for Dayton Malleable called the ruling significant for the economy of Ohio as well as for the companies involved in the suit.
“For the businesses located here in Ohio, it will allow the cases to come off their books and allow them to focus on doing business and, hopefully, hiring people here in Ohio,” he said. “It really focuses the attention on those people who are ill, who have a real disease, and allows those cases to move through the courts, which have been clogged up by people who weren’t sick.”
Vin Green, an attorney for Ackison, condemned the ruling saying that the decision was a ruling on the side of big business and against the well-being of Ohio citizens who have been injured by asbestos exposure. He also called it “completely and totally inaccurate” to say that those filing asbestos claims weren’t sick. “If you have damage to the lining of your lungs, you are sick,” he said.
In Georgia, the retroactive portion a similar law was overturned and the legislature then passed a new law. Kansas has a similar law not yet challenged and a similar Florida law is being challenged in the courts.