$6 Million Pretrial Settlements In Case Involving Chromium And Nickel-related Cancer In Metal Spray

A man in his 40’s worked for many years as a metal sprayer in a building where jet airplane parts were refurbished. This young man worked for many years working with metal sprays containing carcinogens chromium and nickel. Martin & Jones discovered that the manufacturer of these metal sprays placed cancer warnings on products sold in Europe for nearly 20 years before warnings were placed on their products sold in the U.S. This young man worked spraying these metal powders onto airplane parts before warnings were placed on the American products, and at age 44 he developed oral cancer in the nasopharyngeal area. The type of cancer he developed and its location are known to be caused by exposure to chromium and nickel. In addition to radiation, the cancer was treated with radical surgical resection, which involved removing almost all of his lower jaw. Surgical attempts to reconstruct the jaw failed, leaving him horribly disfigured, unable to take food by mouth, nearly impossible to understand when speaking, and dependent upon tube feeding.

He bravely underwent many more surgeries hoping to improve his appearance, allow him to eat food, and allow him to speak in a way that his friends and family could understand. He died four years after his diagnosis due to complications from his many surgeries.

Martin & Jones filed lawsuits against the companies that manufactured the metal spray powders which he used that contained nickel and chromium. Martin & Jones lawyers took testimony from the manufacturer’s executives which proved the company knowingly withheld adequate warnings from its American product. After taking this testimony, Martin & Jones was able to settle the case for $6 million shortly before trial. Those settlement proceeds went to the widow and two young daughters.

(Cases or matters referenced do not represent the law firm’s entire record. Each case is unique and must be evaluated on its owns merits. The outcome of a particular case cannot be predicated upon a lawyer’s or a law firm’s past results. Unless otherwise specified, each of the following matters was contested on liability and/or damages, the opposing parties were represented, the matters involved complex legal and/or factual issues, and the law firm was successful in collecting the amounts stated. Case summaries are from 2000 through the present.)