Welders Disease Blog

THE WELDING FUME LITIGATION FROM A MEDICOLEGAL PERSPECTIVE - by By Robert Eli, JD

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 06:45:47 -0400

ROBELI.COM APRIL NEWSLETTER -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE WELDING FUME LITIGATION FROM A MEDICOLEGAL PERSPECTIVE 10 April 2006 By Robert Eli, JD INTRODUCTION This short medicolegal brief is an attempt to answer three questions: 1) If the exposure to welding fumes containing manganese is potentially toxic, why has liability been so difficult to prove in a court of law? 2) What can be done to provide a medical treatment rather than a legal remedy for the damages that are claimed? 3) What factors relating to neurological damage from the exposure to welding fumes containing manganese might confound the issues of proximate cause and the evaluation of damages? WHY IT IS SO DIFFICULT TO PROVE THAT THE EXPOSURE TO WELDING RODS CONTAINING MANGANESE CAUSE NEUROLOGICAL DAMAGE Proof that the exposure to welding rods containing manganese causes neurological damages a court of law is particularly difficult for two reasons: 1) For ethical reasons there cannot be a controlled scientific human study of the neurodegenerative effects of high level exposure to welding fumes containing manganese; and, 2) There are so many other factors that can cause neurodegeneration that the normal control group needed for such a scientific study would be difficult to assemble. We only know that manganese exposure causes neurological damage in humans from the many case studies that have reported it. The same is true for all other metals at high exposure rates. There are no controlled scientific human studies proving that lead, mercury or antimony is neurotoxic in humans. Yet, no one would seriously claim that these metals could not be neurotoxic at high levels in humans. There is no plausible scientific basis for arguing that manganese is an exception. Case studies in humans are generally not considered persuasive evidence because of wide differences in the patient population. For this reason, they are rarely cited as references in the literature; and, if used in a court of law, they are subject to the objection of their limited probative value. But the connection between excessive manganese exposure and neurological damage has definitely been demonstrated in controlled scientific studies using rats. These studies have used oral or injected manganese. Arguably they have no relevance to whether the exposure to welding fumes containing manganese would produce similar results. However, a study of the affect of welding fumes containing manganese could be constructed using young rats, to minimize the influence of confounding factors. The Parkinson-like symptoms that result from the uncontrolled exposure to welding fumes containing manganese is properly designated as an issue of toxicology. For obvious reasons toxological studies are always done with rats. THE MEDICAL ASPECTS OF NEUROLOGICAL DAMAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXPOSURE TO WELDING FUMES CONTAINING MANGANESE Manganese deficiency is associated with a number of pathological conditions. The liver maintains manganese homeostasis. Liver disease causes manganese levels to rise and Parkinson-like symptoms to appear. The rate of removal has been calculated in animal studies and it is fairly rapid. Thus, a welder who either stops welding or starts welding with adequate ventilation may suffer only minor damages where the exposure has been limited in terms of time and degree. Manganese deficiency is associated with a number of pathological conditions. The liver maintains manganese homeostasis. Liver disease causes manganese levels to rise and Parkinson-like symptoms to appear. The rate of removal has been calculated in animal studies and it is fairly rapid. Thus, a welder who either stops welding or starts welding with adequate ventilation may suffer only minor damages where the exposure has been limited in terms of time and degree. Certain degenerative factors associated with the aging process inevitably contribute to the same neurodegenerative processes as those that are associated with the exposure to welding fumes containing manganese. The net effect of these factors causes a loss of brain tissue even in the normal otherwise healthy aging population. The normal healthy aging population means that portion of the population who are not obese; don't smoke or drink alcohol in excess; do not have diabetes or other degenerative diseases; and, are not totally sedentary. These other factors significantly aggravate the neurodegeneration otherwise seen in the normal healthy aging population. Of all the factors that might cause symptoms that duplicate or augment the same type of neurological damage as that caused by exposure to welding fumes containing manganese, excessive alcohol use is by far the most important one. Alcohol can cause liver cirrhosis, thus preventing the liver from removing manganese from the body. The effect is the same as that of excessive exposure to welding fumes containing manganese. Chronic alcoholism could rise to the level of proximate cause. It could also significantly increase the damages from the exposure to welding fumes containing manganese. Liver cirrhosis is easy to test for and the scientific proof of both causation and damage is very persuasive. Besides alcohol, aging and the other factors enumerated above cause far more damage than the uncontrolled exposure to welding fumes containing manganese. The damage includes both reduced mortality and deterioration in the quality of life. These other factors are both easy to test for and easy to quantify. Unlike the symptoms induced by the uncontrolled exposure to welding fumes containing manganese, chelation therapy has little or no effect. Also, unlike the neurodegeneration caused by the uncontrolled exposure to welding fumes containing manganese, the neurodegeneration caused by these factors does not abate over time.

DJ Judicial Order:Welding Fumes Cause Neurological Damage

Wed, 1 Mar 2006 12:02:17 -0400

4044 DJ 28-Feb-06 at 13:22:00 14:20 Symbol: CAT GE LECO Industry: FAC IDD TRQ XDJGI XDJI XFFX XGTI XNYA XSCI XSP5 Subject: DJEN DJIN DJN DJRT DJWR WSJC BNEU CNW DJFX DJWI FCTV GEN HLT LWS SNPR WEI Market Sector: IDU NND Geographic Region: CT IL NME OH US USC USE Product/Service: CMR DJCB EWR RTRS A group representing professional welders said a Cleveland judge issued a written ruling saying that scientific evidence shows that welding fumes containing manganese can cause serious neurological damage to welders. The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee in the national welding fume litigation, which includes an estimated 4,000-6,000 cases, described the ruling as a "major victory" in a legal battle being waged against Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc. (LECO), General Electric Co. (GE), Westinghouse, Caterpillar Inc. (CAT) and other manufacturers of welding rods and equipment. "The evidence so far presented is sufficiently reliable to support the assertion that exposure to low-manganese welding fumes can cause, contribute to, or accelerate a movement disorder, including a parkinsonian syndrome that some doctors will diagnose as PD," the order, written by Judge Kathleen O'Malley, said. O'Malley ruled last year that scientific evidence supports the conclusion that welding fumes cause Parkinson's disease. O'Malley also ruled that health warnings given by two welding-equipment manufacturers, Hobart Brothers Co. and ESAB, could be found by a jury to be "grossly inadequate and possibly even misleading." Attorney John Beisner, who has defended corporations in multiple welding-fume cases, including this one, had claimed that there weren't scientifically sound studies that showed mild steel welding causes Parkinson's disease or any other Parkinson's-like movement disorder. Representatives for Lincoln Electric, General Electric, Westinghouse, Caterpillar, ESAB, and Hobart Brothers couldn't be reached. A spokeswoman for Beisner said she was reviewing the order so she could comment. -Jonathan Vuocolo; 201-938-5400; AskNewswires@dowjones.com Order free Annual Report for General Electric Co. Visit http://djnewswires.ar.wilink.com/?link=GE or call 1-888-301-0513 (END) Dow Jones Newswires

Welding-rod Cases Score Wins, but Also Draw Flak

Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:53:52 -0400

"Recent developments in welding-rod cases in three state courts suggest that the demise of this litigation is not imminent, despite an Ohio hearing set for this week on whether to sanction plaintiffs' counsel for filing two allegedly questionable federal cases. Plaintiffs' verdicts were recently upheld by intermediate appellate courts in Illinois and New York, and the Maryland high court was the first to hold that an insurer's pollution exclusion does not shield it from a duty to defend and indemnify a welding-rod defendant. About 10,000 such cases are pending in state and federal courts nationwide." Peter Geier, National Law Journal, 2/13/06

Fix it or Fail It. Asbestos Reform Misses the Mark

Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:00:40 -0400

AMERICA'S NEWSPAPERS URGE CONGRESS TO FIX OR DEFEAT "FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED" ASBESTOS TRUST FUND BILL THAT ELIMINATES RIGHTS OF ALL AMERICANS -- VICTIMS & DEFENDANTS Excerpts From Editorials Opposing "Fairness In Asbestos Injury Resolution Act" THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: "Asbestos Showdown," February 14, 2006: "Sometimes the only thing worse than a big economic problem is a Congressional attempt to fix it. That's the case with Arlen Specter's $140 billion asbestos trust fund, which faces a crucial test today in the Senate . . . [W]hat Congress would create here is a gigantic new federal entity, with all of the moral hazard that such things always involve . . . The companies that support the trust fund would receive an immediate benefit, while taxpayers would be assuming a lifetime of political risk.." Newark, NJ, STAR-LEDGER: "Ensuring a Fair Asbestos Bill," February 13, 2006: "The biggest problem is that FAIR is so narrow that thousands of asbestos victims could be left out, including those exposed during rescue and cleanup work at Ground Zero, or in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. So could those with long exposure to asbestos who don't yet have asbestos scarring of the lungs - even though experts say they eventually will. . . . Victims aren't the only ones who might get a raw deal. Small and medium sized businesses make a convincing case that the fund's convoluted contribution formula was set up so giant corporations, which have the greatest asbestos liability, end-up paying far less into the fund than they should, while smaller companies pay much more than their fair share. All of these flaws should be fixed." Spokane, Wash. SPOKESMAN-REVIEW: "Fair Compensation: Senate Asbestos Trust Fund Bill Needs Refinement," February 10, 2006: "[In recent months] Senator Arlen Specter, R-PA, urged supportive lobbyists to spend more on public relations to bolster flagging support. That time would have been better spent shoring up the bill's weaknesses . . . [T]here is no hard science behind the $140 billion figure. [It] isn't based on what victims will need; it's based on what industry and insurers are willing to pay. In addition, the American Medical Association says the medical criteria are too stringent and could lock out thousands of people with significant illnesses . . . Many [exposed vermiculite plant] workers would not be covered by the trust fund. Plus, victims that may emerge from 9/11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina would be shut out. The Senate bill doesn't need better salesmanship; it needs better craftsmanship." HOUSTON CHRONICLE: "Burn This Bill: Despite Flaws that Undermine Rights of Asbestos Victims, Legislation Moves Forward," February 8, 2006 "Strongly pushed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Senate Bill S. 852 tramples on consumer rights by eliminating many patients' access to the courts; it makes ineligible for damages those who suffered exposure to asbestos outside the workplace; and it mandates an inadequate, privately funded $140 billion compensation mechanism. . . The Senate should drop this S. 852 into the Capitol incinerator." TIMES-TRIBUNE of Scranton, PA: "Reform Judges, Congress," February 6, 2006 "Recently, Sen. Arlen Specter called upon lobbyists for the asbestos industry and insurers to ramp up their lobbying and advertising in favor of a bill to limit asbestos-related litigation in favor of a settlement fund. As Congressional Quarterly noted, it was a case of the lobbied lobbying the lobbyists to lobby." WASHINGTON TIMES: "Fix The Asbestos Trust Fund," December 12, 2005: "The Senate's trust fund is all but certain to go bankrupt in a few years unless its multiple problems are fixed." WASHINGTON TIMES: "An Asbestos Bust," September 26, 2005: "Could the Senate's asbestos fund proposal eventually cost taxpayers tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars? That's the question that should be on lawmakers' minds . . . Evidence keeps mounting that the trust fund will go bust in a few years and leave taxpayers on the hook for huge sums of money." THE BUFFALO NEWS Editorial: "A bad piece of legislation: Asbestos bill threatens to take away rights of victims to fair compensation for illness," July 2, 2005: "A flawed piece of legislation is making its way through the U.S. Senate. Before matters go any further, the "Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act" (FAIR), which has made it out of committee, deserves to be defeated . . . [One] problem with the legislation is that there is no clear sunset provision to allow people to pursue claims in court if, or when, the fund runs out of money. And, consumers of asbestos products, and those who fall into the category of 'do-it-yourself' homeowners unwittingly installing asbestos insulation, also would be barred from the courts and would have no recourse if they become ill. They would not be allowed to dip into the $140 billion pot of money. This legislation is riddled with problems. This is roughly a 300-page bill that has been in the works for at least three years. At stake are the interests of tens of thousands of victims and billions of dollars." THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE Editorial: "Unwanted Intrusion: Asbestos bill in U.S. Senate would undercut recent Texas legislation with an inferior law opposed by consumers and corporations," June 21, 2005: "[T]he Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act . . . would eliminate defendants' and plaintiffs' access to state and federal courts. Instead, it would use borrowed federal funds and mandatory assessments on all corporate defendants in asbestos civil litigation and their insurers to establish a $140 billion fund. Only ill workers who could prove five years of occupational exposure to asbestos, and their dependents, would be eligible for compensation . . . By limiting claimants to workers exposed to asbestos on the job, the Senate bill ignores the plight of people who purchased asbestos products, installed them in their homes and suffered exposure. Residents of neighborhoods polluted by asbestos ... would be ineligible for compensation, with the exception of a single community in Montana. As the bill cuts off victims' access to the judicial process, there's also the question of what happens if the compensation fund runs out of money and eligible patients have no other option for redress of their claims." BANGOR DAILY NEWS Editorial: "Faulty Trust Fund, June 10, 2005": "Although the Senate Judiciary Committee late last month overwhelming passed a $140 billion fund, committee members immediately said they would not support the deal on the floor. The biggest problem is that there is too little money in the fund . . . Under the bill passed by the Senate committee, victims could not sue but would receive between $25,000 and $1.1 million, depending on the severity of their illness. This is too little for victims that will basically suffocate to death. It is far less than the companies expected to pay out." Spokane SPOKESMAN-REVIEW Editorial: "Asbestos Bill Needs More Work," May 23, 2005: "[I]t isn't clear what will happen when the [proposed trust fund] money runs out. Are victims out of luck? Will taxpayers pick up the tab? What is clear under the current bill is that litigation at that point won't be an option. The complications don't end there. The bill limits compensation to those who worked in direct contact with asbestos for at least five years, but it makes an exception for residents of Libby, Mont., who got sick from the dust workers carried home with them on their clothing. Nobody begrudges compensation for Libby residents; hundreds of them have died. But what about communities where the ore was shipped for processing? Spokane had such a plant. So did numerous communities around the country. . . . There is no solution that will satisfy industry and all legitimate victims of asbestos. But Congress should work toward a more balanced solution." THE BILLINGS GAZETTE of Billings, MT, Editorial: "More Work Needed on Asbestos Bill," May 18, 2005: "An asbestos bill isn't good enough unless it assures people who have contracted serious illnesses from asbestos exposure that they will receive compensation as adequate as they would get through the court system . . . [The proposed $140 billion trust fund] seems like a huge amount of money, but if it wasn't enough, those responsible for asbestos-caused illness and disease would have no further liability. Congress would be under pressure to use tax money to pay compensation . . . A bad asbestos bill would be worse than none at all." ALAMEDA NEWSPAPER GROUP News Feature Published by THE OAKLAND TRIBUNE, ALAMEDA STAR-NEWS, SAN MATEO COUNTY (CA) TIMES, PLEASONTON (CA), and THE ARGUS of Freemont-Newark, CA.: "Asbestos trust may leave Californians in the dust," May 13, 2005: "Americans who never worked with asbestos but have been breathing its toxic fibers could lose valuable legal rights and have a tough time getting medical bills paid out of a $140 billion asbestos trust fund headed for Senate debate today, legal experts say. As Congress rushes to eliminate asbestos litigation and replace it with a federal compensation program for victims, lawmakers have concentrated on ailing asbestos workers but left in limbo thousands of people who have non-occupational or environmental exposures to asbestos. . . . Millions of tons of vermiculite contaminated by asbestos fibers were shipped by rail and truck to 200 locations nationwide, most of it to 40 sites where workers used ovens to expand the vermiculite and repackaged it as attic insulation, a garden-soil additive or coating for building materials. According to investigations by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, workers at some of those plants are dying of asbestos-related disease. Plants' smokestacks billowed a fine mist of invisible asbestos fibers over blocks of homes, and at unfenced sites where children played. They breathed the same asbestos as people in Libby, but if the trust fund bill passes as written, their eligibility for compensation would be dubious and they would have no legal recourse." THE DAILY INTERLAKE of Kalispell, MT, Editorial: "Asbestos Solution Must Be Fair," May 11, 2005: "In large part, the covered class of victims would be asbestos workers with at least five years of exposure, or their families. Consumers of asbestos products would not be covered, nor would workers with milder forms of asbestos disease. Yet the asbestos industry would gain immunity from all lawsuits, even those from people not covered by the legislation. And even though $140 billion seems like an inexhaustible supply of money, it isn't. Some estimates suggest that even with the limits on coverage, the fund will come up $100 billion short, which raises the possibility that down the road it will be taxpayers picking up the bill instead of the guilty parties. . . . If Congress is going to get involved in this monumental issue, it must do the job right." THE TAMPA TRIBUNE Editorial: "Asbestos Fund Inadequate for Size of Potential Problem," May 9, 2005: [T]he fund being considered by the Senate is a bad deal for many people injured by asbestos fibers, including Tampa residents who lived near a plant that processed the cancer-causing material. The $140 billion fund, provided by asbestos-using companies and their insurers, may not be large enough for all legitimate claims, raising the possibility that taxpayers will have to pay for damages. About the only people who could file claims would be workers with five years of occupational exposure and their families. Consumers of asbestos products couldn't file claims. Nor could neighbors possibly harmed by airborne emissions. Also excluded would be smokers. They would lose the right to file a lawsuit, even if they are diagnosed with an asbestos-caused illness. . . . If Congress can't do better than that, it should just toss the problem back to the state and federal courts." THE CAPITAL TIMES of Madison, Wisconsin, Editorial: "Kohl's Wrong on Tort Reform," March 3, 2005: "President Bush, emboldened by the easy passage of his deceptively named Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, wants to push for passage of additional pieces of so-called "tort reform." Now the question facing U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., is whether he will continue to side with the president's radical - and dangerous agenda - or stand up for what is best for Wisconsin families and communities . . . Passage of the Class Action Fairness Act has provided momentum for an administration agenda on tort reform that includes proposals to restrict asbestos litigation and to curb medical malpractice suits . . . Now Herb Kohl has to decide which side he is on: that of the mighty corporations that are looking for every loophole they can find to avoid responsibility for the harm they do, or that of the Wisconsinites who will be injured and defrauded as a result of tort reform measures." DETROIT FREE PRESS Editorial: "LAWSUIT LIMITS: In haste to cap damages, don't forget real victims," February 28, 2005: "A trust fund [to compensate asbestos victims] that could release money without litigation could help, if it were adequately funded and the caps on awards were fair. . . In the coming debate, Congress should not let Bush forget the real victims." HOUSTON CHRONICLE Editorial: "DECLINING FEDERALISM: This year, Presidents Day finds the president busily expanding federal power at the states' expense," February 21, 2005: "The [class action] bill also takes long-held powers from states and gives them to federal judges with little federal consumer protection law to rule by. The suits that aren't thrown out will still be decided by state law, but by overworked judges unfamiliar with it. Bush's federal power grab doesn't stop there. He wants to federalize asbestos litigation and medical malpractice suits . . . President Bush's push to make the entire nation protective of deep-pocketed big business goes against the principles of limited federal government that Ronald Reagan embraced." [Note: This editorial was also published by THE VICTORIA ADVOCATE of Victoria, TX, under the headline "Federalism Redefined" on February 28, 2005.] ST PETERSBURG TIMES of Florida, Editorial: "Montana Horror Story," February 14, 2005: "Whatever the outcome [of the criminal indictment of W.R. Grace for knowingly exposing its workers and customers to highly toxic tremolite asbestos fibers and covering it up], at least one question will remain unanswered. Why does the culture at the top of some corporations turn otherwise decent people into merciless automatons who turn their backs on human suffering?" THE RECORD of North Jersey, Editorial: "Big Win For the Cheaters," February 14, 2005: "The courts exist to help balance the scales of justice between the powerful and powerless, the moneyed and the poor. Congress and Mr. Bush are weighting the scales toward the moneyed. And they are on a roll. Republicans are now turning toward overhauling asbestos litigation and medical malpractice claims. They'll probably use the same tactics that have worked well so far [on class action "reform"]: Demonize all trial lawyers for the excesses of a few, exaggerate the frequency of "frivolous lawsuits," belittle the legitimate claims of ordinary people." THE DENVER POST Editorial, "Grace Under Pressure," February 10, 2005: "It's rare for an American corporation to face criminal charges for breaking environmental laws, but this week the U.S. Justice Department indicted W.R. Grace & Co. for asbestos contamination in Libby, Mont. Staffers at the Denver office of the Environmental Protection Agency were instrumental in cracking this important case. The case underscores why Congress shouldn't pass current legislation that would erase the liability of Grace and other asbestos companies. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., would make it nearly impossible for victims of the type of asbestos used by Grace to recoup medical expenses and disability payments." ARIZONA DAILY STAR of Tucson Editorial: "A Matter of Justice," January 14, 2005: "The president appears determined in his crusade against trial lawyers and juries not to let the facts get in the way of his argument. The rhetoric of tort reform is being fashioned by its promoters to ignore the purpose of the tort system. A tort is a harmful act, and to employ this right in court is nothing less than to seek justice for that harmful act. In asbestos lawsuits, for example, there are two diseases that afflict workers, asbestosis and mesothelioma, a form of cancer. Both attack the lungs. Both diseases shorten lives. And both develop over a long period of time. Plaintiffs who bring lawsuits must persuade juries that they have suffered a great harm. The same is true of any plaintiff who files a malpractice lawsuit. The purpose of tort reform is to impose severe limits on the judgment of juries. Yet it offers no better arbiter of justice. It really represents an effort to provide insurance companies yet another leg-up in the world of commerce. In that sense, it is the worst form of corporate welfare. The president's views to the contrary, it's a movement that should be thwarted." RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL Editorial: "Finger Pointing Won't Fix System," January 12, 2005: "The problem isn't a system that can't quickly resolve difficult disputes, we're told, but too many 'frivolous' lawsuits. The problem is greedy, unethical lawyers (or doctors, depending on your point of view), not an insurance system that makes it difficult for injured parties to get compensation. Yes, the medical malpractice system is in trouble (though probably not nearly as much as the president and supporters would have you believe). And, yes, the litigation over asbestos is a mess - an extremely costly mess. Fixing them, however, requires that we look for the best way to help those who have been injured, not for ways to get even with the lawyers who supported the Democratic candidate for president. Cosmetic fixes, like artificial caps on 'punitive' damages or pushing lawsuits into the federal courts, won't meet that goal."

ASBESTOS TORTS IS HERE

Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:46:29 -0400

Life may never be the same for lawyers who litigate silica and asbestos cases. With the passing of the World War II shipyard generation, which made up the bulk of past asbestos cases, and more than 80 asbestos defendants in bankruptcy or out of business, plaintiffs are representing new defendants in specialized industries responsible for different kinds of asbestos illness. Many in the asbestos bar see a return to the asbestos litigation style of the 1980s in the move away from the large inventories of plaintiffs of the past decade to litigation in which each claim is considered individually on its merits. And both plaintiffs and defense lawyers agree that all bets are off if Congress passes its long-considered Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act.

The National Law Journal, 10/31/2005

What’s wrong with manganese?

Fri, 7 Oct 2005 10:36:47 -0400

Medical scientists are concerned that manganese in exhaust fuel could also pose serious health risks. It is well established that manganese is toxic in high doses: like lead, it can impair many organ systems, most notably the brain. ‘Manganism’, a type of Parkinson’s syndrome, refers to a cluster of symptoms – e.g. impaired co-ordination and mental functioning – observed in some individuals exposed to very high levels. http://www.health24.com/medical/Condition_centres/777-792-1461-1673,33191.asp

Defendants Hobart Brothers and ESAB Group Make Strategic Decision to Settle Welding Rod Litigation with Plaintiff Charles Ruth, Announces Barrett Law Firm

Tue, 13 Sep 2005 06:33:43 -0400

Cleveland, Sept. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- Welding rod manufacturing defendants, Hobart Brothers, a subsidiary of Illinois Tool Works Inc. (NYSE: ITW - News), and ESAB Group, a subsidiary of Charter plc (London: CHTR), have agreed to pay a substantial sum of monies as part of a settlement agreement with plaintiff Charles Ruth, a former welder who is suffering from a welding related neurological movement disorder associated with parkinsonism. The agreement enables the defendants to avoid a jury trial regarding, among other things, the potential serious health hazards of the defendants' welding rod products and the defendants' failure to properly and adequately inform the users of these products of their dangers. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050906/nytu300.html?.v=1