Silica Plaintiff Opposing Summary Judgment Disputes American Optical’s Characterization of His Claims

HATTIESBURG, Miss. — The plaintiff in a Mississippi silica case has responded to defense motions for summary judgment, discounting their “irrelevant and unsubstantiated” comparisons to unsuccessful prior litigation and disputing assertions that his action is time-barred.

Plaintiff Talmadge V. Langston submitted responses on Nov. 26 and 29 to several dispositive motions filed earlier in November in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi by American Optical and other defendants.

Langston alleges in a complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi that exposure to respirable silica while he worked as a sandblaster …