Sun exposure is linked to skin cancer, and sunscreen is a common way to block the ultraviolet radiation associated with skin damage and protect against cancer. However, information has emerged that certain types of sunscreen contain Benzene. Benzene is an industrial chemical that is a known human carcinogen, and dozens of sunscreen products recently tested positive for Benzene. This has led to demands for product recalls and questions about the safety of sunscreens which contain Benzene. Recent findings indicate that people who use sunscreen in an effort to avoid skin cancer may actually be increasing their risk of developing other types of cancers, and that regular exposure to Benzene is a major factor for blood tissue cancers including leukemia, myeloma and lymphoma.
Examples of popular sunscreen brands tested by Valisure have detected Benzene, and when sunscreen containing Benzene is put on skin, the body absorbs it, and the chemical enters the bloodstream, which can cause cancer. Benzene exposure is linked to acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Valisure’s research indicates that many popular brands contain Benzene including Neutrogena, Aveeno, Up and Up, Sunburn, CVS health, Solimo, Equate, Coppertone, Walgreens, Babyjanicx, Banana Boat, GoodSense, TopCare, Max Block, and EltaMD.
Neutrogena is owned by Johnson and Johnson, and it recently issued a voluntary recall of some Neutrogena skin products in response to Valisure’s testing results.
Contact David Hughes at Mogab & Hughes Attorneys, P.C. about a sunscreen cancer lawsuit at 314-241-4477 or email him at firstname.lastname@example.org.
About a year ago, I received a call from a grade school classmate inquiring whether he had to pay a $28.00 balance on a medical bill that had already been paid by Medicare. When I inquired as to what the nature of the bill was, he told me that he had sustained burn injuries about three years prior when he was attempting to help a friend prime the carburetor in a vehicle on his friend’s property. I had previously represented my childhood friend in an automobile accident in 1994 where we recovered $100,000.00, and I also had a successful hearing before an Administrative Law Judge and obtained Social Security Disability benefits for him in 2007 due to his ongoing back and knee problems which prevented him from continuing in his career as a certified automobile mechanic for various dealerships in the St. Louis area, but I had not been in touch with him for a while.
In discussing his situation with him, I explained that he may have a lawsuit, and he indicated that he did not want to do anything which would result in his friend having to pay anything out of his pocket. I agreed to that, and I filed suit against my client’s friend to determine if there was any liability insurance coverage which would cover this particular incident. After suit was filed, we determined that his friend’s homeowner’s insurance did not apply because it contained an exclusion which did not provide coverage if the negligent act occurred arising out of the use of a vehicle. We also determined that his friend’s automobile liability coverage did not apply because we determined that the vehicle that was involved was not a covered vehicle under the terms of his automobile policy. (This individual had a number of vehicles that he kept on his property that he collected as a hobby, most of which were inoperable.)
After determining there was no available insurance coverage from this individual, we filed a separate lawsuit against my client’s uninsured motorist policy, and after engaging in extensive discovery, we were able to obtain a settlement for all of the available coverage of $300,000.00 from my client’s uninsured motorist carrier.
If you have been injured in an accident and would like to speak with an experienced attorney, please call Thomas Gregory at Mogab & Hughes Attorneys at 314-241-4477.
On May 5, 2021, Attorney David Hughes gave his claimant perspective on the most recent developments in Mesothelioma and other toxic exposure claims at the Annual Missouri Division of Workers’ Compensation Educational Seminar. He discussed updates on the recent Hegger Case as well as many important issues that remain unanswered in prosecuting toxic exposure claims.
He participated in discussions with a defense attorney regarding Accident Fund Insurance Company; E. J. Cody Company v. E. Robert Casey, Employee/Delores Murphy – 550 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. Sup. Ct. 2018) and Vincent Hegger (deceased), et al. v. Valley Farm Dairy Company, et al., 596 S.W.3d 128 and Hayden v. Cut-Zaven, Ltd. and Papillion, Ltd., E.D. 108695 (Motion for Application to Transfer to Missouri Supreme Court was denied).
David’s Toxic Exposure & Workers’ Compensation in Missouri – The Claimant’s Perspective Presentation can be found here: Attorney David G. Hughes Mesothelioma & Asbestosis Presentation 5-2021
If you have been exposed to Asbestos while working in Missouri and have Mesothelioma or Asbestosis, call Attorney David Hughes at 314-241-4477.