WORKEDTODEATH.NET

 

News and Events

 

Home

Meetings Useful Links Contacts Pratt and Whitney Brain Tumor Study
UPDATE   MARCH 10, 2008

DEAR FRIENDS,   I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW I HAVE MOVED TO FLORIDA.  I AM STILL INVOLVED IN THE CASE AND WILL REMAIN SO.  I HAD TO MOVE FOR MEDICAL REASONS AND AM CERTAINLY ENJOYING THE WARM WEATHER.  I WILL BE ATTENDING THE ANNUAL MEETING AND HOPE TO SEE EVERYONE THEN.   CAROL SHEA

MY NEW PHONE IS 352-638-9260    SEE YOU ALL SOON

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OUR FRIEND CAROLE BASS HAS WRITTEN A TERRIFIC ARTICLE ABOUT THE CASE FOR THE MARCH, 2008 ISSUE OF SCIENTIFIC AMERICA.  HER ARTICLE WILL BE POSTED ON THEIR WEBPAGE AT www.sciam.com SO THAT YOU MAY ACCESS IT.  PLEASE READ IT, SHE DID A WONDERFUL JOB.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN MAY OF 2007, BEFORE WE LEFT FOR FLORIDA, I WAS PRIVILEGED TO ACCEPT THE ED REGAN PROFILES IN COURAGE AWARD  FOR MY ADVOCACY WORK FROM CONNECITCOSH.  THE AWARD WAS PRESENTED TO ME BY DEBBIE BELANCIK FROM THE IAM AND CONNECTICOSH AT A DINNER IN THE MIDDLETOWN UNION HALL,  I WANT TO THANK THEM VERY MUCH FOR THAT HONOR AND WILL CONTINUE TO TRY AND HELP OUR CAUSE.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KATE GRECO AND I WERE ASKED TO PARTICIPATE IN A VIDEO PRESENTED BY THE IAM UNION.  THIS VIDEO WILL BE PRESENTED ON THEIR WEBSITE AND ALSO AT THEIR ,  2008 CONVENTION HERE IN FLORIDA.   WE WERE VERY HAPPY TO BE ABLE TO HELP AND HOPE YOU ALL GET A CHANCE TO VIEW IT ON THEIR WEBSITE.   MORE INFO WILL BE COMING SOON ON HOW TO VIEW THIS. 

 
 
   
 
March 6, 2006

Pratt cancer researchers push for more participation in study

Too few people have agreed to participate in the massive study of brain cancer at jet-engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a researcher said Wednesday.
Gary Marsh, the University of Pittsburgh researcher heading the study, said only about 25 percent of the thousands of people who are eligible have agreed to participate and another 25 percent have refused.

He said participation needs to improve to make the study a strong scientific project.

“It’s just kind of discouraging,” Marsh said before a meeting with members of families of deceased workers, state officials and health experts. “There’s a fair amount of indifference. It’s kind of surprising.”

Marsh and his team are trying to determine whether a cancer cluster exists at Pratt, and if so, what may be the cause.

Pratt, a division of Hartford-based United Technologies Corp., and the state Department of Health began the study in 2002 after complaints from families of workers who had died from glioblastoma multiforme, a form of brain cancer. They documented more than three dozen such deaths among hundreds of thousands who have worked at Pratt since the early 1950s.

Glioblastoma is the most frequent brain tumor and accounts for between 12 percent and 15 percent of all brain tumors, which are projected at 18,820 this year, according to the National Cancer Institute.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which represents employees at the jet engine manufacturer, has also urged greater participation in the study, Marsh said.

Debra Belancik, the union’s environmental health and safety coordinator, said employees are interested.

“Concerns are high,” she said. “It’s not just a North Haven issue. It’s everyone’s issue.”

Carol Shea, whose husband, John, died in 2000 at age 56, said a group she helped organize, Worked to Death, will work with the Machinists union to inform workers about the study.

“There’s no good reason to not participate,” she said.

Participants agree to be interviewed and consent to the release of medical records and genetic information.

Shea, who attended the meeting Wednesday, also said she is pleased with the direction the study is headed.

“I’m much happier with this than ages ago,” she said. “They’re really looking into a lot more what we want.”

Last month, the state Supreme Court unanimously rejected a wrongful death claim by families who sued Pratt over the cancer deaths, saying that the plaintiffs’ window to seek damages had already closed.

The company employs about 12,000 workers in Cheshire, East Hartford and Middletown. The study also will look at those who worked in former Pratt & Whitney plants in North Haven, Rocky Hill, Southington and Manchester.

Marsh said the study is on track for release of preliminary information at the end of 2007. Researchers are about done with the identification phase of the study, determining that the records of 257,000 who have worked at Pratt since 1952.

In addition, researchers have compiled 319,000 records in a “job dictionary” that lists job classifications, said Nurtan Esmen of the University of Illinois. The records are expected to help researchers pinpoint manufacturing processes that may have contributed to workplace illness and death.

To give an example of the scope of the project, even a 30-second review of each job classification represents more than 2,600 hours of work, Esmen said.

Source: The Advocate


 

IN REGARD TO OUR CIVIL CASE GRECO V. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES:

As you might have heard by now, on February 28, 2006, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued a very disappointing decision in which it rejected our appeal of 61 brain cancer cases that had been dismissed by Superior Court Judge Carl Schuman in September 2003.  Judge Schuman dismissed 61 of the 71 cases we had filed because they were filed after the statute of limitations for wrongful death had expired.  The statute of limitations requires a case to be filed no later than two years from death and no more than five years from the last day of work.  Most of our clients died long before their survivors discovered the cause of their brain cancer, and in more than half of the cases, the five-year period expired before the workers even became ill.  The Supreme Court said the law was "harsh" and "unfair", but that it had no choice but to affirm the decision and leave it to the state legislature to change the law.

We offered the Supreme Court a choice.  We argued that a different statute of limitations applied - a statute specially designed for personal injuries caused by exposure to hazardous substances that gave injured workers two years to file their case, beginning from the time they discovered the cause of their disease.  The Court said this statute didn't apply because death was not a personal injury!  The Court also refused our suggestion that a federal law applied that would have similarly given us two years from discovery of the cause.  We think that the Court's rigid interpretations were harsh and unfair, but it said that the law was not open to any other interpretation. 

You can read the court's opinion by going to the Court's website.  The name of the case is Greco Vs. United Technologies Corporation, case # SC 17231.  The site  http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR277/277CR150.pdf. 

In my speech I will be giving on April 28th I address the above subject as follows:

In a quote from the Connecticut Supreme Courts decision rendered on February 28, 2006 they stated:

"It is not the function of the court to alter a legislative policy merely because it produces unfair results......."

Then whose function is it? As they state in their decision, it is unfair. They are taking away

our rights to have our day in court because of an unreasonable technicality. IT IS UNFAIR and needs to be changed.. So, my questions to them is when is it the time and who should we look to for change. Isn’t it the job of our Connecticut Supreme Court and Judicial Legislators to make changes to laws that are unfair and leave individuals with no remedy. Isn’t it time to change the statutes of limitation to reflect a fair and equal opportunity to hold these large manufacturing companies responsible for the environmental illnesses they cause in the workplace.

If not them then who? And if not now then when? We can’t wait for another unfair decision to deprive our workers of their rights and their safety any longer. Now is the time. The Court also stated in their decision that

"Individual rights and remedies must at times and of necessity give way to the interests and needs of society"......."

How are they protecting the interests and needs of society, when they are taking away their individual rights. I thought society was made up of individuals. It seems the only rights and remedies they are considering are big business when they continue to let big business neglect their responsibility to keep the workplace environment safe.

We all need to contact our local and state representatives and our judiciary committee members and demand change to these laws not only for ourselves but for future workers and their loved ones to have the right to a remedy.

Thank You:

Carol Shea and Worked to Death