carbonless.org
Carbonless Copy Paper Injury and Information Network

Litigation Page

Current Litigation Data

NJ_Court_Motion_2002.pdf

   PLAINTIFFS, SANDRA MCCRACKEN, LARRY MCCRACKEN, NOLA JANE CRAWFORD, RW NORWELL CRAWFORD, JOSHUA G BRYANT, THURMAN WRIGHT, THURMAN WRIGHT II, DENNIS B FORSYTH, CAROL D LAW, KEN HALL

Worker's Compensation Cases Won:

Colleen Janee Civil No.B133271 MCS CCP injury

(Name withheld by request) MA Case won on CCP injury

Wisconsin, Plaintiff worked in a Nursing Home using CCP

Rutigliano v. Metro Fuel

Product Liability/Personal Injury:

Bonnie T. Hayden et al v. Appleton Papers, Inc. et al Civil Action No. 86-5232 US District Court PA --Settled

Palma A. Lillis, et al v. McGraw-Hill, Inc. and Appleton Papers, Inc. et al Civil Action No. L-54250-81 NJ Superior Court Mercer County --Settled

Anita J. Prokopochuk v. McGraw Hill, Inc. and Appleton Papers, Inc et al Civil Action No. L-001267-82 NJ Superior Court Mercer County--Settled

Dorothy A. Brown, et al v. McGraw-Hill, Inc. and Appleton Papers, Inc. et al Civil Action No. L-000573-83 NJ Superior Court Mercer County--Settled

Janet Leonard, et al v. McGraw-Hill, Inc. and Appleton Papers, Inc. et al Civil Action No. L-000722-83 NJ Superior Court Mercer County--Settled

Diane L. Cokinos, et al v. McGraw-Hill, Inc. and Appleton Papers, Inc. et al Civil Action No. L-037483-83 NJ Superior Court Mercer County--Settled

Judith F. Applegate, et al v. McGraw-Hill, Inc. and Appleton papers, Inc. et al Civil Action No. L-037153-83 NJ Superior Court Mercer County---Settled

Kathleen V. Coleman, et al v. McGraw-Hill, Inc. and Appleton papers, Inc. et al Civil Action No. L-042964-83 NJ Superior Court mercer County---Settled

Donna Gogan, et al v. McGraw-Hill, Inc. and Appleton Papers, Inc. et al Civil Action No. L-061475-83 NJ Superior Court Mercer County--Settled

Andrew Madziar v. Ultimate Distribution and Appleton papers, Inc et al Civil Action 20454 NJ Court , --Settled

Dorothy Nelson v. Appleton, Missouri settled

Nancy Mageris v Appleton, Utah settled

Kathleen Duncan et al v. Appleton, Seattle, WA 6 plaintiffs settled

Stillman v. Appleton and B. P. Chemical NC status unknown

Margaret Marks v. Appleton Papers, Inc. et al settled

New...

Cinquanti, Ellis v. Appleton Papers Inc. et al settled & dismissed McLaughlin has not signed agreeing to dismiss documents McLaughlin is looking to secure a good malpractice lawyer to pursue this egregrous matter.

The following tolls have been used to avert legal ruling in Massachusetts. This will survive the “junk science” argument. The attorneys are not using the power of the federal government to combat the "junk science" argument. These are accepted by the US Government.

1. Federal Register, August 17, 1994, Part 3. EPA Final Report: Principles of Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment. Available free from EPA's Cincinnati publications center. This document sets forth the accepted differential diagnosis for medical conditions that result from chemical exposures. What state court will throw out a diagnosis following procedures accepted by the U.S. government or declare the diagnostic tests accepted by the U.S. government as "junk science"?

2. Federal Register, April 5, 1994, Part 2. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Indoor Air Quality; Proposed Rule. Available free from the OSHA technical information office. This document sets forth OSHA's findings on the "material adverse health effects" of indoor air pollution from volatile organic compounds (e.g., toluene, formaldehyde) emitted by building materials and office equipment in office buildings. OSHA even provides a chart showing which materials emit each VOC and discusses the effects of mycotoxins from molds in poorly maintained ventilation systems. Health effects include pulmonary effects, cardiovascular effects, neurological effects, reproductive effects, and cancer. What state courts would dismiss OSHA findings as "junk science"? Even though the rule was never finalized, the OSHA findings are still valid.

The medical and legal communities need to use these tools to support the claims of injured workers. I am surprised this information has remained so little used.

You can send for a copy to review: EPA FINAL REPORT: Principles of Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment; request Publication #600Z94001 at 1 800-490-9198. The OSHA Proposed Rule On indoor Air Quality, request #9004 at 1 800-321-6742 .

The following might be of assistance to injured individuals or their attorneys:

Liberty Mutual PA office sent a three page letter to Robert Ellis, Personnel Officer, Camden County Board of Social Services; Camden, NJ. The letter discusses Social Services "employee complaints in the ACU, Food Stamp, Investigation and Codes areas." The 'symptoms included skin rashes, headaches,eye and throat irritation." Ramsey states, "generally speaking, it is believed that most such episodes of complaints are triggered by actual physical condition." Page two lists " handling of specialty papers. For instance, handling of some "no carbon required" papers has been known to cause skin reactions"

State of Wisc. advised Liberty Mutual Ins. was the carrier for Appleton Papers, Inc. early 70's to 1988. Home Indemnity Ins. 1/88 to 1/94. This information was verbally given in the 90's from several state sources.

Liberty NW has referred clients to CCPIIN for assistance.
 

"US Justice Department is using Civil Racketeering Laws the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in Tobacco Litigation** The government alleges the industry schemed for decades to deceive the public about the dangers ....." "The RICO statute is designed to get remedies where there has been an enterprise that violated fraud statutes, stated William Schultz" " Justice Department lawyers say the industry's past behavior is enough to show a reasonable likihood of future wrongdoing."** Remember that one of the ccp manufacturers was owned until the 1990's by BATUS tobacco company. The same pursuit of the Justice Department should beconsidered in ccp cases. Possibly in Que Tam.

**Tobacco vs. U.S.: Legal fight lights up, Washington, The Associated Press. By Nancy Zuckerbrod in The Post-Standard Sunday, September 19, 2004

US EPA Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substancesletter from Joseph J. Merenda, Director, Existing Chemical Assessment Division. Sent to Richard A. Lemen, Director of Division of Standards Development and Technology Transfer, NIOSH, CDC dated 8/21/87.Merenda suggested NIOSH use EPA TSCA Laws to obtain information 8(co) which requires companies to keep records of allegations of significant adverse reactions to particular chemicals, processes or effluents, and 8(do), which requires manufacturers, importers and processors to submit unpublished health and safety studieson specified chemicals." This letter was in the NIOSH public file in 11/93 when the McLaughlin's reviewed the ccp files. Plaintiff attorneys might consider this.