The Gori Law Firm
Get Your FREE Case Review 24 Hours A Day
To protect your safety during the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis, we offer telephone and video conferences, in addition to face-to-face meetings. Please contact our office today to set up a remote consultation.
Arrow
Mesothelioma
& Asbestos
Mesothelioma
& Asbestos

Learn more about mesothelioma, symptoms & treatment, frequently asked questions and more.
Arrow
Mesothelioma
& Asbestos
Mesothelioma
& Asbestos

Learn more about mesothelioma, symptoms & treatment, frequently asked questions and more.
Arrow
Mass Torts, Defective Drugs & Products
Mass Torts, Defective Drugs & Products
We help victims of dangerous drugs (Actos, Mirena, Lipitor, etc.) and faulty devices (hip implants, pacemakers, etc.)
Arrow
Mass Torts, Defective Drugs & Products
Mass Torts, Defective Drugs & Products
We help victims of dangerous drugs (Actos, Mirena, Lipitor, etc.) and faulty devices (hip implants, pacemakers, etc.)
Arrow
Personal Injury &
Workers' Compensation
Personal Injury &
Workers' Compensation

We help clients who need assistance with work-related injuries linked to asbestos and other serious problems.
Arrow
Personal Injury &
Workers' Compensation
Personal Injury &
Workers' Compensation

We help clients who need assistance with work-related injuries linked to asbestos and other serious problems.

Missouri court rules against asbestos defendant’s autopsy request

On Behalf of | Sep 15, 2012 | Mesothelioma/Asbestos-Related Illness |

In a recent landmark ruling, a Missouri judge ruled that a company named as a defendant in an asbestos case may not reserve the right to autopsy the plaintiff in the event that he succumbs to the mesothelioma that is at the center of his case. The judge gave several reasons for denying the defendant company’s autopsy motion, the most significant being that the plaintiff is not deceased, and that he will likely still be alive when his mesothelioma trial starts in the next few months.

In the case, the plaintiff has sued Reicchold Inc. and several other companies, accusing them of exposing him to asbestos and thereby causing him to develop the terminal mesothelioma that he is currently battling. In a recent motion, Reicchold asked the court to allow it to conduct a “postmortem biopsy” of the plaintiff’s lung tissue. In doing so, the company was reportedly attempting to make the unfounded and inaccurate claim that it had used “safe asbestos” and was therefore not responsible for the plaintiff’s illness.

The judge presiding over the case denied Reicchold’s motion, finding that a biopsy was, for the purposes of the court, the same as an autopsy. As such, the judge stated, the decision over whether to conduct an autopsy belonged to the plaintiff’s family.

Further, the company’s motion did not specify who would be named in the autopsy order. The plaintiff cannot be named, because he is not yet deceased; and his family cannot be named because their rights to the plaintiff’s body do not exist until he passes away.

Finally, the judge stated that the biopsy proposed by Reicchold would serve no real purpose. It is unlikely, he wrote, that “the results of the testing of the autopsy lung tissue would be conclusive as to defendant’s liability on plaintiffs’ claims in this case.”

Source: Courthouse News Service, “Mesothelioma Patient Beats Autopsy Demand,” Joe Harris, Sept. 12, 2012

Mesothelioma Lawyers and Personal Injury Attorneys

Get a Free Case Review!

Archives

FindLaw Network