Defendants: Plaintiffs' Opposition to Two-Disease Rule Motion Misses Mark

PHILADELPHIA - Defendants in the Philadelphia silica litigation have responded to a brief that challenged their attempt to have a two-disease rule applied to silicosis claims, arguing that the plaintiffs misunderstood the crux of the motion in claiming that it was premature. West v. U.S. Silica Co., et al., No. 02265 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls., Philadelphia Cty.).

In a reply brief filed Jan. 26 in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the defendants argue that contrary to plaintiffs' concerns, they are not seeking a ruling from the court as to whether silica can cause cancer, but are instead requesting that the …