Don't Stiff Asbestos Victims

April 22, 2004 Los Angeles Times Editorial Staff Los Angeles Times - For decades now, as tens of thousands of workers exposed to asbestos have sickened and died, employers first stonewalled and then, when the stream of ill employees became a deluge, beseeched Congress for a bailout. Stop the flood of lawsuits that has already caused almost 70 bankruptcies. Get those dying men and women, with their oxygen tanks and shuffling, painful steps, out of the courtroom and away from jurors, they implored. More residents have died from asbestos-related cancers in Los Angeles County than anywhere else in the country, according to federal statistics. But their families have often not been served well by the roulette wheel of lawsuits. Some insulation installers and brake mechanics who were exposed to asbestos but stayed healthy were richly compensated over the years, while asbestos- related cancer victims and their families often got chump change in comparison. All sides, then, have come to view an industry-funded compensation pool as fairer, cheaper and faster than decades more of litigation and billions more in lawyer fees and destroyed lives. Several lawmakers have worked hard in recent years to fine-tune proposals to compensate sick workers more quickly and equitably while protecting corporations from fraudulent claims. The money would come from companies that made asbestos products, and their insurers. A proposal drafted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) has come close. The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last July, and a bipartisan group continued working to iron out lingering concerns. But rather than finalize that plan, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), apparently with Hatch's assent and White House backing, pushed a new bill directly to the Senate floor and scheduled a vote for today. His substitute, a gift to his corporate friends, is a major step backward. The Congressional Budget Office concluded that the proposed $114-billion fund in Frist's bill would fall far short of what's needed to handle the expected number of sick workers. Moreover, the bill would invalidate all jury verdicts still subject to appeal, even in cases where the plaintiffs have received some money, forcing those workers to start all over again by applying to the fund. On its first day, fund administrators would probably face 450,000 claims, with 90,000 more each year. Yet since Frist's bill would let corporations stretch out their fund payments, the plan would create an instant logjam for victims that could last decades. None of this promises a faster or fairer resolution of what seems to be litigation without end. A fair, workable plan is still possible, but senators will first have to reject the one their leader has forced before them.