Jimbo's Mystery LinksDating DilemmasNelsonComputerTechPirate RiddlesA Boy, a Girl, and an Umbrella by James D. Nelson MBA Links
AsbestosMesolthelioma search2 on EPA site Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act NIOSH Publications On Asbestos USEPA Office of Air quality Planning and Standards Asbestos Questions and Answers Asbestos Standard for the General Industry
Asbestos litigation prospects for legislative resolution
|
Asbestos litigation prospects for legislative resolutionCRS Report for CongressOrder Code RL32286Asbestos Litigation: Prospects for Legislative Resolution Updated February 8, 2005 Edward B. Rappaport Analyst in Industry Economics and Finance Domestic Social Policy Division Congressional Research Service •:• The Library of Congress CRS-9 Table 1. Asbestos Disease Categories and Compensable Amounts
Source: S. 2290, Sections 121(d), 131. a. TLC means Total Lung Capacity. For full diagnostic descriptions, see bill, subsection 121(d). Some of those who voted against S. 1125 in committee advocated that award values should be higher, promoting instead a schedule known as the Leahy/Kennedy claims value amendment. That schedule would have increased benefits for the lower disease levels the most in proportional terms (e.g., nearly doubling the benefit for Level II and raising by about 50% the Level III benefit). Many of the higher levels would be raised by $100,000 or so; some raises similar to these were incorporated in S. 2290. The biggest differences in dollar terms were the benefits for smokers in the cancer levels. (See Committee report, pp. 202-205.) But supporters of the bill as reported emphasize that each dollar of benefits under this scheme is worth more than under the court-operated tort system. Under the tort system about 40% of total spending is reaching plaintiffs, whereas the administrative system is intended to be more efficient than that. |