We are again doing a sponsored walk this year to raise the much needed funds for research. The walk will be from Holywell to the Southern Water plant along the seafront, and will start at 11.00am then afterwards at Eastourne United Football Club for a barbeque a raffle and a few well earned drinks.
Anyone who wants to take part please contact me 01323 649220 or email millietalula@supanet.com or chris@nimaprint.co.ukl and I will send you out a sponsor form and all the details.
The theme of the walk is to "Be A Little Angel & Walk For Charity" so we would like to see wings, halo's and any other angelic things you can think of to wear.
Thanks for all your support and we look forward to seeing you there.
Monday, 21 February 2011
Thursday, 2 December 2010
Brighton Marathon 2011
Bernie Barnaville is running the Brighton marathon in aid of our charity on Sunday 11th April 2011, it is a gruelling 26 miles, so think he is wonderful to take this on.
He has set up a donation and information site www.justgivine.com/bernie-barnaville and also has sponsor packs available, so please give him your support.
All the money you raise goes directly to Mesothlioma & Asbestos research so every penny is needed to find a cure.
The opening of the UK Centre for Medical Research and Inovation planned for London in 2011 will hopefully concentrate some of it research on asbestos exposure and subsequent diseases, it's new chief executive Sir Paul Nurse is a renown specialist in cancer research and cell biology.
He has set up a donation and information site www.justgivine.com/bernie-barnaville and also has sponsor packs available, so please give him your support.
All the money you raise goes directly to Mesothlioma & Asbestos research so every penny is needed to find a cure.
The opening of the UK Centre for Medical Research and Inovation planned for London in 2011 will hopefully concentrate some of it research on asbestos exposure and subsequent diseases, it's new chief executive Sir Paul Nurse is a renown specialist in cancer research and cell biology.
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Experimental Drug
Study Recruiting Mesothelioma Patients for Testing of Experimental Drug
Oct 26, 2010
A Phase II clinical trial, sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), is recruiting mesthelioma patients to test an experimental drug intended to block proteins that aid the growth of cancer cells. It will measure drug safety, patient response and survival rates.
Both men and women age 18 and older will be included in the trial. Patients must have undergone standard chemotherapy that has not been effective in halting their cancer. Patients may be diagnosed with either pleural mesothelioma or peritoneal mesothelioma. Both cancers are linked to asbestos exposure, and can take twenty, thirty years or more to develop after the initial exposure.
Estimated enrollment for the study is 55 patients and it will be conducted at the National Institute of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, MD USA.
The trial is expected to be complete by April 2012.
Oct 26, 2010
A Phase II clinical trial, sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), is recruiting mesthelioma patients to test an experimental drug intended to block proteins that aid the growth of cancer cells. It will measure drug safety, patient response and survival rates.
Both men and women age 18 and older will be included in the trial. Patients must have undergone standard chemotherapy that has not been effective in halting their cancer. Patients may be diagnosed with either pleural mesothelioma or peritoneal mesothelioma. Both cancers are linked to asbestos exposure, and can take twenty, thirty years or more to develop after the initial exposure.
Estimated enrollment for the study is 55 patients and it will be conducted at the National Institute of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, MD USA.
The trial is expected to be complete by April 2012.
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
EL Trigger Litigation Judgement
The Court of Appeal gave its long awaited judgment in the EL Trigger Litigation on 8 October 2010. It had been hoped that this hugely anticipated judgment would bring certainty to the question of which insurer should meet a mesothelioma claim resulting from historic asbestos exposure. What has emerged however is a very complex outcome. The decision, covering more than 160 pages, has almost as many permutations as there were parties to the case.
The background
· Bolton v MMI set the scene in 2006. It was a public liability (PL) case in which it was held that a mesothelioma victim sustains injury for the first time when the tumour starts to develop, 10 years before the manifestation of symptoms.
· Four insurers (Builders Accident, Independent, Excess and Municipal Mutual) had employers liability (EL) policies which were worded in a very similar way to the PL policy in Bolton and which responded if the injury was sustained or contracted during the term of the policy. Those insurers then started to decline EL claims on the Bolton principle.
· Until 2006 insurers had always taken the view that EL policies responded on a causation basis (i.e. if exposure occurred during the life of the policy), and the adoption of the ‘Boltonite’ approach had the effect of shifting insurer responsibility from exposure to the time when the tumour started to develop. This led to vast “black holes” in insurance cover.
· Strikingly, even if the tumour developed during the currency of the policy, claimants who were ex-employees at the time would not on the Boltonites’ argument be covered. This issued weighed particularly heavily on Burton J at first instance. Having considered the overwhelming evidence that until Bolton, the market (including the four insurers) used the verbs ‘cause’, ‘contract’ and ‘sustain’ interchangeably, he concluded that the four insurers’ policies should respond on a traditional causation basis.
The Boltonites appealed.
The Court of Appeal judgment
The Court of Appeal judges took divergent approaches. However, the following principles emerge:
· Where the wording used is “sustained”, the policy which responds is the one in force when the tumour starts to develop.
· Where the wording used is “contracted” (that is synonymous with the word “caused”) then the policy in force at the time of exposure responds.
The lack of unity means each judge’s reasoning needs to be considered in turn.
Rix LJ
· A disease is contracted (within the meaning of the policy) when it is caused.
· Mesothelioma is not sustained on inhalation. Although this frustrates the commercial purpose of the policies (to provide both cover for employers and security for employees), there is no ambiguity in the wording sufficient to justify an alternative interpretation.
· Policies which began after the Employers’ Liability Compulsory Insurance Act 1969, (which came into force in January 1972), respond if the mesothelioma was caused during the life of the policy. This is because such policies are deemed to comply with the Act.
Burnton LJ
· Insurers were entitled to depart from their previous practice of indemnifying and paying mesothelioma claims on a causation basis as the aetiology of mesothelioma became better understood.
· Considered the court was bound by Bolton. Policies with a “sustained” wording would only respond at the date when the tumour starts to develop. By contrast, policies with a “contracted” wording would respond if in force at exposure.
Smith LJ
· The policies should be interpreted according to the understanding of the parties at the time they were entered into. Until Bolton v MMI it was not appreciated that a mesothelioma victim “sustains” injury only when the tumour starts to develop.
· Considered she was not bound by Bolton as that decision related to public liability cases only.
Unfinished business?
This is an extraordinary judgment. Such was the lack of consensus that the leading judgment (Rix LJ) has a seven paragraph postscript responding to the other judgments.
Crucially, Rix LJ considered the court bound by Bolton; had this not been the case he would have preferred to hold that where a victim develops mesothelioma there is actionable injury from the date of inhalation, because liability is created when an employer has materially contributed to the risk. Having not been allowed to arrive at his preferred solution, Rix LJ acknowledged that his decision led to “an unfortunate conclusion”.
For the market, this lack of certainty is deeply troubling. Public authorities will now have to make provision for exposure prior to 1974 (due to the MMI wording), and private sector businesses will have to meet claims if they have a pre-1972 ‘sustained’ policy.
Both defendants and insurers will, by virtue of the joint and several liability provisions in section 3 of the Compensation Act, become liable for an increasing burden of mesothelioma claims as they will now need to fill the insurance “black holes” which result from the vindication of the Boltonites’ position on EL policies written on a ‘sustained’ basis.
Further appeals to the Supreme Court are inevitable. Until that time, the judgment means that some claimants who have no solvent employer to sue may go uncompensated.
The background
· Bolton v MMI set the scene in 2006. It was a public liability (PL) case in which it was held that a mesothelioma victim sustains injury for the first time when the tumour starts to develop, 10 years before the manifestation of symptoms.
· Four insurers (Builders Accident, Independent, Excess and Municipal Mutual) had employers liability (EL) policies which were worded in a very similar way to the PL policy in Bolton and which responded if the injury was sustained or contracted during the term of the policy. Those insurers then started to decline EL claims on the Bolton principle.
· Until 2006 insurers had always taken the view that EL policies responded on a causation basis (i.e. if exposure occurred during the life of the policy), and the adoption of the ‘Boltonite’ approach had the effect of shifting insurer responsibility from exposure to the time when the tumour started to develop. This led to vast “black holes” in insurance cover.
· Strikingly, even if the tumour developed during the currency of the policy, claimants who were ex-employees at the time would not on the Boltonites’ argument be covered. This issued weighed particularly heavily on Burton J at first instance. Having considered the overwhelming evidence that until Bolton, the market (including the four insurers) used the verbs ‘cause’, ‘contract’ and ‘sustain’ interchangeably, he concluded that the four insurers’ policies should respond on a traditional causation basis.
The Boltonites appealed.
The Court of Appeal judgment
The Court of Appeal judges took divergent approaches. However, the following principles emerge:
· Where the wording used is “sustained”, the policy which responds is the one in force when the tumour starts to develop.
· Where the wording used is “contracted” (that is synonymous with the word “caused”) then the policy in force at the time of exposure responds.
The lack of unity means each judge’s reasoning needs to be considered in turn.
Rix LJ
· A disease is contracted (within the meaning of the policy) when it is caused.
· Mesothelioma is not sustained on inhalation. Although this frustrates the commercial purpose of the policies (to provide both cover for employers and security for employees), there is no ambiguity in the wording sufficient to justify an alternative interpretation.
· Policies which began after the Employers’ Liability Compulsory Insurance Act 1969, (which came into force in January 1972), respond if the mesothelioma was caused during the life of the policy. This is because such policies are deemed to comply with the Act.
Burnton LJ
· Insurers were entitled to depart from their previous practice of indemnifying and paying mesothelioma claims on a causation basis as the aetiology of mesothelioma became better understood.
· Considered the court was bound by Bolton. Policies with a “sustained” wording would only respond at the date when the tumour starts to develop. By contrast, policies with a “contracted” wording would respond if in force at exposure.
Smith LJ
· The policies should be interpreted according to the understanding of the parties at the time they were entered into. Until Bolton v MMI it was not appreciated that a mesothelioma victim “sustains” injury only when the tumour starts to develop.
· Considered she was not bound by Bolton as that decision related to public liability cases only.
Unfinished business?
This is an extraordinary judgment. Such was the lack of consensus that the leading judgment (Rix LJ) has a seven paragraph postscript responding to the other judgments.
Crucially, Rix LJ considered the court bound by Bolton; had this not been the case he would have preferred to hold that where a victim develops mesothelioma there is actionable injury from the date of inhalation, because liability is created when an employer has materially contributed to the risk. Having not been allowed to arrive at his preferred solution, Rix LJ acknowledged that his decision led to “an unfortunate conclusion”.
For the market, this lack of certainty is deeply troubling. Public authorities will now have to make provision for exposure prior to 1974 (due to the MMI wording), and private sector businesses will have to meet claims if they have a pre-1972 ‘sustained’ policy.
Both defendants and insurers will, by virtue of the joint and several liability provisions in section 3 of the Compensation Act, become liable for an increasing burden of mesothelioma claims as they will now need to fill the insurance “black holes” which result from the vindication of the Boltonites’ position on EL policies written on a ‘sustained’ basis.
Further appeals to the Supreme Court are inevitable. Until that time, the judgment means that some claimants who have no solvent employer to sue may go uncompensated.
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
Court Date Friday 8th October 2010
El Trigger Litigation
The verdict in the trigger litigation appeal is due to be handed down on Friday at the Royal Court Of Justice London. If the case is won by the victims & families of those exposed to asbestos negligently by their employers it will force insurance companies to finally pay the compensation they have been fighting to hold onto for the last few years. Below is a short outline of the case and why it spent so long in the courts.
Cases were heard together to resolve an important dispute over the relevant ‘trigger’ under various employers’ liability insurance policies which applied to employers of those who suffered and died from mesothelioma. The EL Trigger trial focused on what had to happen during the period of insurance when the insuring clause of a policy stipulated either that an injury must be "sustained” or that a disease must be "contracted” during the period of insurance. The insurers will argue on appeal that the relevant ‘trigger’ under the policies is not the exposure to asbestos, but the development, many years later, of mesothelioma
The hearing has hinged on which policy was key - the one at the time of exposure or when a worker becomes ill. Employers take out liability insurance to insure them against the cost of legal action by staff injured at work.
But a group of insurance firms had questioned which policy should be enacted. They argued during the nine-week hearing that the policy in place at the time the cancer develops was the one that a compensation claim should be brought against rather than the policy that was in place when the worker was employed by the firm.
They said this was common-sense as victims could have worked for several employers where they were exposed to asbestos. However, this stance was challenged by families, employers and one insurance firm. Solicitors representing the families involved in the case said this would make it harder to secure compensation.
One of the key problems is that many modern-day insurance schemes have exemptions for asbestos. That then only leaves the employer for the victims to go after, but as the disease takes so long to develop many of the firms have ceased to exist.
The verdict in the trigger litigation appeal is due to be handed down on Friday at the Royal Court Of Justice London. If the case is won by the victims & families of those exposed to asbestos negligently by their employers it will force insurance companies to finally pay the compensation they have been fighting to hold onto for the last few years. Below is a short outline of the case and why it spent so long in the courts.
Cases were heard together to resolve an important dispute over the relevant ‘trigger’ under various employers’ liability insurance policies which applied to employers of those who suffered and died from mesothelioma. The EL Trigger trial focused on what had to happen during the period of insurance when the insuring clause of a policy stipulated either that an injury must be "sustained” or that a disease must be "contracted” during the period of insurance. The insurers will argue on appeal that the relevant ‘trigger’ under the policies is not the exposure to asbestos, but the development, many years later, of mesothelioma
The hearing has hinged on which policy was key - the one at the time of exposure or when a worker becomes ill. Employers take out liability insurance to insure them against the cost of legal action by staff injured at work.
But a group of insurance firms had questioned which policy should be enacted. They argued during the nine-week hearing that the policy in place at the time the cancer develops was the one that a compensation claim should be brought against rather than the policy that was in place when the worker was employed by the firm.
They said this was common-sense as victims could have worked for several employers where they were exposed to asbestos. However, this stance was challenged by families, employers and one insurance firm. Solicitors representing the families involved in the case said this would make it harder to secure compensation.
One of the key problems is that many modern-day insurance schemes have exemptions for asbestos. That then only leaves the employer for the victims to go after, but as the disease takes so long to develop many of the firms have ceased to exist.
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
Clinical Trial Of Mesothelioma Med Begins
Bionomics, an Australian biotechnology company, has announced the beginning of Phase II clinical trials for its vascular disrupting agent BNC105 as a treatment for mesothelioma. The company announced its plans to test the drug on mesothelioma patients in December 2009. It will partner with the Australasian Lung Cancer Trials Group (ALTG) and the NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council) Clinical Trial Centre.
The clinical trial involves 60 patients at 12 centers in Australia.It is a single arm, unblinded study for patients with mesothelioma who have progressed on platinum/pemetrexed chemotherapy. BNC105 will be administered on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles. Treatment will continue until disease progression. The primary objective is to determine the tumor response rate.
Principal investigator for the trial is Dr. Anna Nowak, professor at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Western Australia and consultant medical oncologist at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. According to information on the company’s web site, Bionomics has already commenced Phase II testing of the anti-cancer properties of BNC105 in renal cancer in the United States. The commencement of this Phase II trial follows a successful BNC105 Phase I clinical trial in patients with advanced cancers at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, the Western Hospital, Austin Health and the Royal Melbourne Hospital.
Dr. Nowak says, “Mesothelioma remains a substantial problem in Australia and other parts of the world. An early clinical trial of BNC105 suggested some promise in mesothelioma. This Phase II trial will provide hope and an opportunity to participate in a research study for people with mesothelioma who do not have other options for treatment.”
Dr. Deborah Rathjen, CEO and Managing Director of Bionomics, says the company expects to report interim results of this study in mesothelioma patients in early 2011.
In 2005, Bionomics reports there were 597 new cases of mesothelioma diagnosed in Australia and in 2006 there were 486 deaths attributed to mesothelioma.
More information about the clinical trial is available online. Inquiries may be directed to:
Bionomics Limited
Dr Deborah Rathjen
CEO & Managing Director
+61 8 8354 6101 / 0418 160 425
drathjen@bionomics.com.au
The clinical trial involves 60 patients at 12 centers in Australia.It is a single arm, unblinded study for patients with mesothelioma who have progressed on platinum/pemetrexed chemotherapy. BNC105 will be administered on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles. Treatment will continue until disease progression. The primary objective is to determine the tumor response rate.
Principal investigator for the trial is Dr. Anna Nowak, professor at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Western Australia and consultant medical oncologist at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. According to information on the company’s web site, Bionomics has already commenced Phase II testing of the anti-cancer properties of BNC105 in renal cancer in the United States. The commencement of this Phase II trial follows a successful BNC105 Phase I clinical trial in patients with advanced cancers at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, the Western Hospital, Austin Health and the Royal Melbourne Hospital.
Dr. Nowak says, “Mesothelioma remains a substantial problem in Australia and other parts of the world. An early clinical trial of BNC105 suggested some promise in mesothelioma. This Phase II trial will provide hope and an opportunity to participate in a research study for people with mesothelioma who do not have other options for treatment.”
Dr. Deborah Rathjen, CEO and Managing Director of Bionomics, says the company expects to report interim results of this study in mesothelioma patients in early 2011.
In 2005, Bionomics reports there were 597 new cases of mesothelioma diagnosed in Australia and in 2006 there were 486 deaths attributed to mesothelioma.
More information about the clinical trial is available online. Inquiries may be directed to:
Bionomics Limited
Dr Deborah Rathjen
CEO & Managing Director
+61 8 8354 6101 / 0418 160 425
drathjen@bionomics.com.au
Monday, 9 August 2010
Medical Research Council Joint Venture Announced
MRC/British Lung Foundation/Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Fund
One clinical research training fellowship will be awarded jointly by the MRC, British Lung Foundation and Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Fund. The British Lung Foundation is the only UK charity working for everyone affected by lung disease. The BLF focuses its resources on providing support for people affected by lung disease today; and works in a variety of ways, including funding world-class research, to bring about positive change to improve treatment, care and support for people affected by lung disease now and in the future. The Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Research Fund aims to raise awareness of mesothelioma, fund crucial research projects, and improve diagnosis, treatment and care for mesothelioma sufferers. Applicants must focus their work on mesothelioma.
The British Lung Foundation's research strategy, which details its research priorities, can be found at: www.lunguk.org
One clinical research training fellowship will be awarded jointly by the MRC, British Lung Foundation and Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Fund. The British Lung Foundation is the only UK charity working for everyone affected by lung disease. The BLF focuses its resources on providing support for people affected by lung disease today; and works in a variety of ways, including funding world-class research, to bring about positive change to improve treatment, care and support for people affected by lung disease now and in the future. The Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Research Fund aims to raise awareness of mesothelioma, fund crucial research projects, and improve diagnosis, treatment and care for mesothelioma sufferers. Applicants must focus their work on mesothelioma.
The British Lung Foundation's research strategy, which details its research priorities, can be found at: www.lunguk.org
Friday, 14 May 2010
Sponsored Walk Sunday 2nd May 2010
Monday, 26 April 2010
Experimental Vaccine Shows Early Promise Against Mesothelioma
A vaccine developed at the Erasmus Medical Research Centre in Rotterdam has shown early promise in its first clinical trials.
Researchers at Erasmus say the vaccine brings about an anti-tumor reponse, Dr Joachim Aerts a pulmonary physician says "We hope to further develop our methods so it will be possible to increase survival in patients with Mesothelioma and eventually vaccinate persons who have been in contact with asbestos to prevent them from getting asbestos related diseases".
The findings have been published online ahead of print publication in the American Thoracic Society's American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
The use of asbestos has been prohibited in most developed countries, but the time between asbestos exposure and diagnosis of mesothelioma can be up to 50 years. The incidence of mesothelioma, therefore, is still on the rise and expected to continue to increase until 2020. Once diagnosed, mesothelioma has a median survival time of 12 months. The standard chemotherapeutic treatment only improves survival time by about three months.
The anticipated increase in the incidence of mesothelioma, together with the paucity of treatment options, has spurred considerable interest in the development of new therapies. Immunotherapy, which uses the body's own immune system to target and destroy cancer cells, has been shown to have some promise.
Researchers at Erasmus say the vaccine brings about an anti-tumor reponse, Dr Joachim Aerts a pulmonary physician says "We hope to further develop our methods so it will be possible to increase survival in patients with Mesothelioma and eventually vaccinate persons who have been in contact with asbestos to prevent them from getting asbestos related diseases".
The findings have been published online ahead of print publication in the American Thoracic Society's American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
The use of asbestos has been prohibited in most developed countries, but the time between asbestos exposure and diagnosis of mesothelioma can be up to 50 years. The incidence of mesothelioma, therefore, is still on the rise and expected to continue to increase until 2020. Once diagnosed, mesothelioma has a median survival time of 12 months. The standard chemotherapeutic treatment only improves survival time by about three months.
The anticipated increase in the incidence of mesothelioma, together with the paucity of treatment options, has spurred considerable interest in the development of new therapies. Immunotherapy, which uses the body's own immune system to target and destroy cancer cells, has been shown to have some promise.
National Centre For Asbesto-Related Diseases Announced
The blow dealt by the recent let down from the Government, ruling out mesothelioma compensation for pleural plaques sufferers, was softened by plans announced to create an Employers’ Liability Tracing Bureau and the setting up of a UK National Centre for Asbestos Related Disease.
A petition calling for the set-up of a National Centre for Asbestos-Related Diseases (NCARD), with the backing of personal injury and asbestosis lawyers, had been put previously to the Government. In November 2009, the Asbestos Sub-Committee of the All Parliamentary Group on Occupational Safety and Health met up to discuss various asbestos-related issues. On the agenda was NCARD, and MPs were told that it was “moving forward” and “progressing quite rapidly”.
On February 25th,the Government accompanied the negative pleural plaques ruling with an outlined plan to commit £3m funding towards the Centre, as well as increasing state funded, lump sum payments to dependant family members.
There has long been an urgent need in the UK to establish a National Centre to research effective treatments for asbestos-related conditions, such as asbestosis and in particular, malignant mesothelioma, for which the UK has one of the highest reported incidence rates.
The UK was a leader in the manufacture of asbestos products, and consequently has one of the highest rates of mesothelioma in the world.
A NCARD Strategy Document was recently published highlighting their objective to be a virtual network centre. It would link the best UK researchers together with others from around the world and act as a focal point for the attraction of significant dedicated funds.
The Strategy Document already highlights the significant need to increase research and funding in the UK into asbestos-related diseases, and, in particular, develop more effective treatments for malignant mesothelioma.
Another key objective of NCARD will be to increase asbestos awareness of the ever present dangers of exposure and help dispel commonly held misconceptions, especially with regard to white asbestos. The setting up of NCARD could be of long term benefit to the adoption of enlightened attitudes and easing the asbestos compensation process for sufferers pursuing claims.
A petition calling for the set-up of a National Centre for Asbestos-Related Diseases (NCARD), with the backing of personal injury and asbestosis lawyers, had been put previously to the Government. In November 2009, the Asbestos Sub-Committee of the All Parliamentary Group on Occupational Safety and Health met up to discuss various asbestos-related issues. On the agenda was NCARD, and MPs were told that it was “moving forward” and “progressing quite rapidly”.
On February 25th,the Government accompanied the negative pleural plaques ruling with an outlined plan to commit £3m funding towards the Centre, as well as increasing state funded, lump sum payments to dependant family members.
There has long been an urgent need in the UK to establish a National Centre to research effective treatments for asbestos-related conditions, such as asbestosis and in particular, malignant mesothelioma, for which the UK has one of the highest reported incidence rates.
The UK was a leader in the manufacture of asbestos products, and consequently has one of the highest rates of mesothelioma in the world.
A NCARD Strategy Document was recently published highlighting their objective to be a virtual network centre. It would link the best UK researchers together with others from around the world and act as a focal point for the attraction of significant dedicated funds.
The Strategy Document already highlights the significant need to increase research and funding in the UK into asbestos-related diseases, and, in particular, develop more effective treatments for malignant mesothelioma.
Another key objective of NCARD will be to increase asbestos awareness of the ever present dangers of exposure and help dispel commonly held misconceptions, especially with regard to white asbestos. The setting up of NCARD could be of long term benefit to the adoption of enlightened attitudes and easing the asbestos compensation process for sufferers pursuing claims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
