Manganese Exposure from Welding: An Emerging Liability Risk

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

In the 1930s, warnings began to appear cautioning welders about risks of neurological effects caused by manganese in fumes from welding. Since the early 1990s, litigation based on these effects has increased dramatically. The basic allegation is that fumes from manganese-alloy welding rods can produce Parkinsonism, a severe neurological condition similar to Parkinson's disease. Exposure to manganese produces symptoms such as weakness, apathy, headaches, muscle cramps, and joint pains, followed by uncoordinated speech and gait, and possibly a form of psychosis known as “manganese madness.” Parkinsonism, involving tremors and movement disorder, develops as the last stage. However, most cases of Parkinson's disease, which has similar symptoms, do not have an identifiable cause and are termed “idiopathic Parkinson's disease” (IPD). The close resemblance between manganese-induced Parkinsonism and IPD makes distinguishing the two conditions difficult, and greatly complicates litigation. Causes of the increase in litigation include recent pro-plaintiff verdicts, new studies linking welding fume exposure and neurological impairment, increased publicity regarding welding fume warnings, and aggressive recruiting of claimants by plaintiff attorneys. Companies that use welding or that make or sell welding rods and equipment are targets of this emerging litigation. There are many potential plaintiffs with manganese-induced Parkinsonism or with Parkinson's disease, with which it may be confused. Informal reports from a recent unpublished study suggests that 12% of welders may have “Parkinson's type disease.” This percentage, and a population of 360,000 or more exposed to welding fumes, suggests that there may be at least 40,000 welders with impairment that would make them plausible plaintiffs. Under the circumstances, defendant companies should take all appropriate measures to protect welders from fumes. To better position themselves to develop strategies for litigating or settling potential claims, defendant companies must proactively assess numerous factors, including the nature of their welding rod liabilities; the availability of insurance coverage to cover such liabilities; the status of the scientific evidence regarding exposure and health effects; the continued evolution of welding rod litigation; events transpiring on the regulatory front such as federal and state tort reform; and the development of other mass torts such as asbestos and silica.