The Next Window

I just finished reading an article in the <a href="http://www.thenextwindow.com/exit.php?url_id=533&amp;entry_id=108" title="http://www.wsj.com" onmouseover="window.status='http://www.wsj.com';return true;" onmouseout="window.status='';return true;">Wall Street Journal</a> entitled The Silicosis Sheriff.<br />
<br />
This <a href="http://www.thenextwindow.com/exit.php?url_id=534&amp;entry_id=108" title="http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB112129552607885138-IdjfYNhlaV4opyuaYCHaKqGm4,00.html" onmouseover="window.status='http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB112129552607885138-IdjfYNhlaV4opyuaYCHaKqGm4,00.html';return true;" onmouseout="window.status='';return true;">article</a> is about Judge Janis Graham Jack, a Federal court judge in Texas, who actually dug into the nearly 10,000 silicosis claims presented to her as a class action suit — and how she stood up and said "No." Last month, she released her 249 page verdict. Not only did she throw out most of the claims, she came down hard with sanctions on the plaintiffs' lawyers involved <i>and</i> she ordered them to pay the legal defense costs of the defendants.<br />
<br />
This is not to say that there are not legitimate cases of silicosis, asbestosis, lung cancer and other serious diseases that can come from exposure to occupational exposures or even recreational substances. The article does not make any such claims.<br />
<br />
The article is about abuse and fraud in our "class action" (also known as "mass tort") legal system and the Judge who was willing to "kick the tires" instead of accepting the claims at face value.<br />