[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Radiation litigation and Judges Opinions
Try as I might, I fail to discern the misinformation or arrogance of some
within the legal profession mentioned by Sandy. What I do discern is a
grieving widow who lost an appeal by a split decision, and who is asserting
her rights as an American. Not knowing the facts of the case, it appears
that the logic of the dissenting judge is sound -- he/she apparently
interpreted the testimony differently than his colleagues. Few decisions,
even by the US Supreme Court are unaimous. I also see what appears to be a
fairly written and balanced article by John McDonald. Perhaps, Sandy, you
or some other RADSAFERS could enlighten me as to the misinformation and
arrogance to which you allude; I simply cannot find it on my own. That you
apparently disagree with the opion of the dissenting judge is your right,
just as it is his. His claim that SCE deliberately used monitoring devices
that underestimated dose must have been derived from the evidence presented,
and if in fact has merit, justifies his comments following. If in fact he
has misunderstood or misconstrued the evidence, well, that is why we have
multiple judges on appellate panels. Meaning no offense, perhaps the
perception of misinformation and arrogance lies in the eye of the beholder.
Hopefully, this will not start a flame war.
Ron Kathren
rkathren@tricity.WSU.edu
At 07:25 PM 8/6/98 -0500, Sandy Perle wrote:
>The following was posted today on Powernet. It points out the
>misinformation, and, arrogance of some within the legal profession. Pay
>close attention to the dissenting opinion of one of the appelate judges
>hearing the case:
>
> July 10, 1998
>
> By JOHN McDONALD
> The Orange County Register
>
> Victory has eluded Linda McLandrich in her quest
> to bring to court those she feels killed her
> husband with radiation contamination at the San
> Onofre nuclear power plant.
>
> But a recent court decision ? which she lost ?
> has provided her with new inspiration to go
> forward.
>
> An appellate judge said in a dissenting opinion
> that Southern California Edison, operator of the
> plant, could be blamed for such a death.
>
> "In fact, the deliberate use by Southern
> California Edison of monitoring devices which
> under-recorded the true amount of radiation and
> the deaths of employees caused by radiation rise
> not only to a valid civil suit for damages but
> also to a possible criminal prosecution for
> homicide," wrote U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
> Judge Warren J. Ferguson in his May 28 dissent.
>
> The two other justices said Edison's conduct
> should be evaluated under the workers' comp
> system.
>
> The majority opinion resulted in Southern
> California Edison being dropped as a defendant
> in McLandrich's lawsuit and that part of the
> case being relegated to the workers'
> compensation board. Nevertheless, two other
> defendants remain in the lawsuit, and Linda
> McLandrich said Ferguson's words prove she is
> not alone in her belief.
>
> "I've fought hard for accountability and justice
> for the death of my husband," the Mission Viejo
> mother of two said. "When we got the dissent, it
> showed here is a judge who agrees."
>
> Linda McLandrich is seeking damages on behalf of
> her two children, Cheryl, 11 and Paul, 5. The
> damages are above the undisclosed sum received
> from a prior workers' compensation settlement in
> the case.
>
> Gregory McLandrich worked as a nuclear engineer
> at San Onofre for 17 years. He died of abdominal
> cancer in 1991.
>
> His wife contends his death was caused by
> exposure to excessive doses of radiation during
> a fuel leak in the mid-1980s.
>
> Her lawsuit contends that Edison used improperly
> calibrated monitoring devices to falsely lead
> workers to believe they were working in safe
> conditions.
>
> While Gregory McLandrich's family cannot sue his
> employer, two other companies involved in the
> San Onofre operation, San Diego Power and Gas
> and Combustion Engineering, remain defendants.
>
> Edison has denied any responsibility for the
> death of Gregory McLandrich, in whose memory the
> company has run a marathon to raise funds for
> charity.
>
> "The safety of employees and the general public
> is the first priority at the San Onofre Nuclear
> Generating Station," Edison officials said in a
> prepared statement in response to Ferguson's
> opinion. "We have worked hard to safely and
> efficiently produce electricity for the past 30
> years. During that time, the operation of the
> plant has never resulted in an injury or death
> to an individual from radiation exposure."
>
> Evidence obtained in preparing the lawsuit shows
> that McLandrich and six others who worked in the
> plant unknowingly received radiation
> contamination, alleges Don Howarth, a Los
> Angeles lawyer who represents all the families.
>
> In two of the cases, workers are said to have
> unknowingly brought radioactive materials home
> and contaminated members of their families.
>
> Howarth said only one case charging that a
> nuclear worker has suffered radiation
> contamination from unsafe job conditions has
> ever been won in court. That case involved Karen
> Silkwood, who died in a mysterious automobile
> accident while on her way to provide information
> against her employer, Kerr McGee, to a newspaper
> reporter.
>
> McLandrich said she knew she had an uphill
> battle when she was approached shortly after her
> husband's death by one of his co-workers.
>
> "He apologized for not coming to the funeral. He
> said that attending might have been a conflict
> of interest because he had been put on a task
> force set up to collect data to fight us if we
> filed a lawsuit," McLandrich said.
>
> Edison said two of the seven lawsuits have
> resulted in jury verdicts in the company's
> favor. Edison experts have challenged the
> allegation that radiation contamination caused
> the workers' cancers.
>
> "In two additional cases, Southern California
> Edison was dismissed as a defendant before it
> had the opportunity to expose the inaccuracy of
> the claims of plaintiffs' attorneys," the Edison
> statement said.
>
> Edison settled one of the seven lawsuits,
> brought by the family of a Nuclear Regulatory
> Commission inspector, under terms not made
> public.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------
>Sandy Perle
>Technical Director
>ICN Dosimetry Division
>Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>Office: (800) 548-5100 x2306
>Fax: (714) 668-3149
>
>sandyfl@earthlink.net
>sperle@icnpharm.com
>
>Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205
>
>ICN Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
>
>"The object of opening the mind, as of opening
>the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
> - G. K. Chesterton -
>
>The opinions expressed are solely, absolutely, positively, definitely those
of the author, and NOT my employer
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html