FUNDING INNOVATIVE TREATMENTS THROUGH COMPENSATION
Several new treatments are being developed for people who have asbestos-related diseases. Through interim payments or a fast conclusion to settlement for asbestos exposure, compensation can be recovered directly to access these innovative treatments that may not be available on the NHS or are in the experimental stage and are only available privately or in other countries. Clinical Trials and Research: Ongoing clinical trials and research explore the efficacy of various immunotherapy drugs and combinations in treating mesothelioma. These trials aim to uncover new insights and develop more effective treatment regimens, offering hope for improved survival and quality of life for mesothelioma patients. Potential and Hope: While a series of treatments, including immunotherapy, are not a cure for mesothelioma, they have shown significant promise in managing the disease, slowing its progression, and improving the quality of life for patients.
The advancements in treatments, including immunotherapy, cancer drugs such as Avastin linked with chemotherapy and stereotactic radiotherapy, are a beacon of hope for those battling mesothelioma, opening new avenues for treating and managing this aggressive disease.
Smith v Central Asbestos Company Ltd
Clinical Trials: Patients may be able to participate in clinical trials, which are research studies involving people. These trials aim to find new ways to prevent, detect, or treat disease and improve quality of life.
The landmark case of Smith v Central Asbestos Company Ltd. in 1972 stands as a pivotal moment in the legal landscape of employer liability and workplace safety, particularly concerning the hazards of asbestos exposure. At the heart of this case was Mr. Leslie Smith, an employee of the Central Asbestos Company Ltd., who brought a case against his employer due to the development of asbestosis, a condition directly linked to his prolonged exposure to asbestos fibres at work. Thompsons Solicitors, on behalf of Mr Smith, argued the company had been negligent in its duty of care by failing to ensure a safe working environment and provide adequate protection against the dangers of asbestos inhalation. This case was significant for the broader legal and occupational health communities, as it was the first asbestos-related litigation to ascend to the House of Lords, the UK's highest court of appeal for civil cases at the time.
The legal proceedings culminated in a ruling that set a precedent, reinforcing the principle that employers have a fundamental duty to safeguard their employees from harmful exposures in the workplace. The House of Lords' decision in favour of Mr. Smith underscored the liability of employers for the health and safety of their workers, particularly in contexts involving hazardous materials. In conclusion, the case of Smith v Central Asbestos Company Ltd. has left an indelible mark on the fabric of occupational health and safety law, embodying a significant shift towards prioritising worker protection, and setting a precedent for employer liability in cases of health issues arising from hazardous workplace exposures. It remains a cornerstone case in discussions around occupational health, employer responsibilities, and workers' rights, continuing to influence legal practices and workplace safety standards to this day.
www.thompsons.law
Funding Innovative Treatments Through Compensation
8
9
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator