We represented James following his diagnosis of mesothelioma.  James was the sole carer for his wife, Maureen who suffered from Parkinson’s disease.

Maureen’s condition significantly limited her mobility and resulted in incontinence, requiring substantial care and assistance. James supported her daily by assisting with washing and dressing, toilet visits, outings, movement around the home, and meal preparation.

After James was diagnosed with mesothelioma, his health deteriorated to the extent that he could no longer provide Maureen with the same level of care. As such, the family arranged for professional carers for Maureen. Sadly, James’s condition declined rapidly, leading to his death within a few months of diagnosis.

James was exposed to asbestos when working for Pinchin Johnson in Silvertown, East London during the 1960s, when the company manufactured paint and resins.  The company later became the International Paint Company Limited.

James worked as a labourer and performed duties such as charging the reactors for the operators and cleaning them from inside.  He was later promoted to a supervisor, where his responsibilities included stripping down the presses and working in close proximity to lagged pipework, often clambering over it to access the reactors.   James was exposed to asbestos on a regular basis throughout his employment with the company. He remained working there until he was made redundant in 1998.

An interim payment was agreed shortly after James’ death and the claim proceeded on behalf of his Estate and Maureen’s dependency.

Sadly, Maureen also passed away following James’s death.  The standard of care provided to Maureen after James died was insufficient and did not match the high level of support previously given by James. The claim continued on behalf of Maureen’s Estate to seek compensation reflecting the quality of care she should have received, comparable to what James had provided, not the care that she did in fact receive.

Expert evidence was obtained from a neurologist regarding Maureen’s Parkinson’s disease and from nursing care specialists representing both parties.  The claim was scheduled for an Assessment of Damages hearing.

Three weeks prior to the Assessment of Damages hearing, the Defendant accepted our offer, which exceeded their previous proposals by £80,000.