In Ohio, more than 1,000 cases alleging injury from exposure to silica have been filed in the past year alone. Thousands of additional silica cases are expected to be filed in the next year. In fact, the courts in Cleveland have already created a special docket to deal with the onslaught of silica suits. Ironically, nearly all of these cases have been brought by the same law firms that filed tens of thousands of asbestos suits in Ohio, Texas and other states. In Mississippi, another hot bed for mass torts, over 17,000 silica and mixed dust claims have been filed by personal injury lawyers from all over the country.

“Mixed-dust” claims have emerged as a catch-all term describing exposure to a combination of asbestos, silica and other dusts, allowing plaintiffs to sue an even broader group of defendants. Fortunately, better industrial hygiene practices in the workplace; an increase in the use of breathing protection equipment; and improved OSHA standards have decreased the number of injuries related to exposure to silica and mixed dust. At the same time, however, the number of workers claiming respiratory injury due to silica and mixed dust exposure has dramatically increased.

The target list of potential defendants in silica and mixed dust litigation is vast. Silica dust can be found at any facility that uses and processes sand, gravel, rock, and mineral ores, or where abrasive, grinding, and finishing supplies are used, like mines, foundries and construction sites. While exposure to silica or mixed dust does not automatically cause an injury, repeated exposure over time may be harmful. Under premises liability, potentially anyone who owns, leases or manages a property where there is silica or other dusts could be sued.

As long as sand, stone, cement, masonry and glass are used in manufacturing processes and in construction, silica and mixed dust exposure will remain an issue.

HB 342 – Silica Mixed Dust Claims
HB 342, passed during the 125th General Assembly, proactively aims to stop silica and mixed dust claims from becoming the next mass tort crisis in Ohio. This legislation is desperately needed to pull the plug on the imminent tidal wave of silica and mixed dust claims expected to hit Ohio courthouses.

Like the asbestos bill, HB 342 requires individuals exposed to silica or mixed dust to meet minimum medical criteria showing that their injury was caused by such exposure before pursuing a personal injury claim. The medical criteria are similar to those established in the House-passed asbestos bill. The bill also provides limited liability protections for premises owners where silica or mixed dust exposure may exist. HB 342 was signed by Governor Taft on June 2 and will take effect on September 2, 2004.

125th General Assembly (2003-04)

HB 342 (Widener, R-Springfield)

Bill Text LSC Bill Analysis Bill Summary

Enactment Process

EFFECTIVE DATE - September 2, 2004 SIGNED BY GOV. BOB TAFT - June 2, 2004 (effective in 90 days after signature) HOUSE CONCURRENCE VOTE May 25, 2004 - House concurred in Senate amendments 68 - 28 SENATE FLOOR VOTE May 25, 2004 - Bill passed Senate 22 -11 SENATE TESTIMONY Senate Judiciary Committee May 19, 2004 - Proponent Testimony Richard D. Schuster - Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease May 18, 2004 - Sponsor Testimony Rep. Chris Widener (R – Springfield) HOUSE FLOOR VOTE May 12, 2004 - Bill passed House 64 -32 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TESTIMONY House Civil & Commercial Law Committee May 5, 2004 - Bill schedule to be heard in House Civil & Commercial Law Committee but no one testified. February 4, 2004 - Bill schedule to be heard in House Civil & Commercial Law Committee but no one testified. January 28, 2004 Richard D. Schuster - Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease January 21, 2004 - Proponent Testimony Dr. David Rosenberg - University Hospitals Health System January 7, 2004 - Sponsor Testimony Rep. Chris Widener (R – Springfield) December 9, 2003 - Bill referred to House Civil & Commercial Law Committee December 3, 2003 - Bill introduced in the House