The case of Augustus Adams vs. the late Clarence Hales has been refused consolidation in a ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Richard E Myers II against Dow Chemical and Fluor, where he noted that the two cases were entirely different.
Adams and Hales were both employees of a DuPont plant in Kinston, North Carolina, where they worked from the 1950s through the 1980s, and apparently developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos.
Judge’s Rationale for Denying Consolidation
Judge Myers II pointed out that the two cases differed widely in occupation, exposure, and injury and decided that the differences between the two cases would likely cause prejudice and confusion if brought together.
Adams manned the insulation department and Hales the carpentry department, so there was a mix of exposure to various goods even though the departments were adjacent.
Moreover, the men were of different medical age and with different injuries, only Adams was still alive when the ruling was made.
Judge Myers II was quick to point out that the cases were difficult to show how distinct they were at trial in order to avoid a possible risk of prejudice and misunderstanding, and thus the court ruled against the case separation.
Arguments Against Consolidation
While Adams’ and Hales’ families pressed for consolidation based on the same allegations, witnesses and timeframes, Dow and Fluor claimed differences in occupational exposure and possible secondhand asbestos exposure for Hales.
The decision reflects the court’s acknowledgment that each case is very different and should be tried differently so that there is equal treatment.
