在出现与石棉相关疾病的症状后，工人必须提起诉讼多长时间？
尽管有40年的诉讼和“发现规则”的存在，这些规则决定了限制法规如何适用于石棉相关疾病，但问题仍然存在争议。
Case in point: A state appeals court in Delaware’s New Castle County last month made a ruling involving an employee of a company that was acquired by URS Corp. The ruling involves the worker’s contention that he didn’t receive or understand at first the medical terminology in his earliest diagnosis.
The appeals-court panel reinstated the claim dismissed by a lower court originally filed, in 2009, by oil-refinery worker Paul DaBaldo Jr. and his wife. He had worked at the Getty Tidewater Oil Refinery in Delaware from 1967 to 2001. His original employer, Catalytic, Inc. and Crane Co., was acquired by Raytheon Constructors, which was acquired by Washington Group International. URS Energy & Construction, part of San Francisco-based URS Corp., later acquired the unit from Washington Group.
DeBaldo sued URS and 19 other defendants for damages related to his illness. URS argued that DeDaldo’s claim was time-barred—in short, the clock had run out. Debaldo then appealed, saying his claim was made on time.
长期病史
病史可以追溯到1990年代。达巴尔多（Dabaldo）的初级保健医师首先指示他在1992年进行X射线检查，所以他做到了。一名放射科医生解释了X射线，以揭示“双边钙化的胸膜斑块可疑地对石棉暴露”。
就达巴尔多的案子而言，当时，特拉华州为期两年的限制法规的时钟开始滴答作响。
Debaldo的初级保健医师在阅读了放射科医生1992年的报告后写信给Debaldothat "there seems to be little doubt that there is a mild degree of asbestos-related pleural disease," according to court documents.
Debaldo在他的证词中说：“我的医生似乎保证了这是 - 使用'好的'一词，因为他没有在任何事情上警告我。”“而且，你知道，我会定期看到他。”
DaBaldo claims he didn’t receive a copy of that 1992 doctor’s report nor did he get copies of other subsequent reports on his chest X-rays, which were interpreted by doctors. It wasn’t until 2007 that he received an unequivocal asbestosis diagnosis from a doctor, DeBaldo’s lawsuit claims.
In many states, the “discovery rule” dictates whether a claim can be made, says Kenneth Fryncko, a Pittsburgh attorney who represents clients in asbestos-related cases. “The statute of limitations begins to run when you know or should have known you had asbestosis,” he says.
该规则可以追溯到Borel v. Fireboard Papercase, a 1973 federal appeals-court decision upholding a jury verdict. It set a precedent under which the cause of action doesn’t start until the disease is discovered or reasonable due diligence should have discovered it.
The clock doesn’t begin to tick until “the effects of the exposure manifest themselves,” wrote the judges on the Borel case.
Unread Reports
