Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
House Judiciary hearing exposes split over bill to shield stone‑slab makers from lawsuits
Loading...
Summary
At a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on a bill repeatedly referenced as “HR 54 37,” industry witnesses said rising litigation is crippling domestic suppliers; public‑health expert David Michaels warned blanket immunity would worsen a silicosis public‑health crisis and shift costs to taxpayers.
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers on the House Judiciary subcommittee heard sharply divided testimony on a bill referenced in the hearing record as “HR 54 37,” with industry representatives urging federal relief from lawsuits and public‑health experts warning that immunity would multiply cases of work‑related silicosis.
Industry witnesses led by Rebecca Schultz, chief legal officer at Cambria, told the subcommittee that an onslaught of litigation — she said Cambria is defending about 400 suits, most pending in California — is forcing small distributors and manufacturers to consider exiting the business. "We're under attack from hundreds of lawsuits," Schultz said in her testimony, arguing that many defendants are upstream sellers who did not fabricate the slabs and that litigation is failing to address dangerous, illegal fabrication shops.
By contrast, Dr. David Michaels, a professor at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health and a former head of OSHA, said the hearing should focus on protecting workers, not shielding manufacturers. Michaels described silicosis as "deadly, devastating, and thoroughly preventable," and cited California surveillance that he said has identified nearly 500 cases there, with dozens of deaths and multiple lung transplants. "If lawsuits by workers with silicosis are prohibited, these manufacturers will make no effort to prevent more workers from dying or becoming disabled by silicosis," Michaels testified.
The hearing included trade association testimony from Jim Heeb of the Natural Stone Institute and family‑business testimony from Gary Talwar of Natural Stone Resources. Heeb described training programs and collaboration with regulators while warning that small member companies face rising insurance costs and dozens of suits. Talwar described his family operation and said some distributors now face dozens of suits and are at risk of bankruptcy.
Committee members pressed witnesses on competing claims. Rep. Jordan asked whether any Cambria employees had been diagnosed with silicosis; Schultz answered that none had. Rep. Raskin and other Democrats emphasized court rulings and letters in the record from public‑health groups opposing the bill; lawmakers entered letters from the American Public Health Association, the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics, and physician researchers into the record. Republicans on the panel described the problem as litigation that could drive domestic manufacturing out of business and emphasized the disproportionate burden borne by distributors and small firms named in suits.
Witnesses and members disputed causes and remedies. Industry witnesses said the problem stems from noncompliant fabrication shops that dry‑cut slabs without water or ventilation and that enforcement and certification (they cited California’s actions and a pulled certification provision in SB 20) would address the risk. Michaels countered that engineered stone often contains high concentrations of respirable crystalline silica coated with resins that make it more hazardous than many traditional stones and argued that substitution and product stewardship have succeeded in other industries.
No formal votes or committee actions occurred during the hearing. The chair closed the session after accepting written materials for the record and gave members five legislative days to submit additional questions and exhibits.
The hearing highlights a central policy choice for lawmakers: whether to address worker safety and enforcement first, or to consider statutory limits on product‑liability exposure for manufacturers and distributors. Supporters of the bill say litigation is being used as a regulatory tool that threatens domestic jobs; opponents say immunity would remove a critical mechanism for worker protection and accountability and shift medical costs to public payors such as Medicaid and state programs.
The subcommittee did not vote on the measure and left open follow‑up questions and written exchanges; members entered multiple letters and court rulings into the record and indicated they would pursue additional submissions during the five legislative days allowed after the hearing.
