New York Asbestos Litigation
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer victims can find compensation through a dedicated mesothelioma lawyer. Exposure to asbestos often causes these kinds of diseases; symptoms may develop for years before they appear.
Judges who manage the cases of NYCAL have crafted a pattern that favors plaintiffs. A recent decision could further undermine defendants' rights.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is very different than the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve a variety of defendants (companies that are sued), multiple law firms representing plaintiffs as well as numerous expert witnesses. These cases are usually based on specific job areas because asbestos was used to make various products, and a large number of workers were subjected to it while at work. Asbestos-related victims are frequently diagnosed with serious illnesses like mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has its own unique method of dealing with asbestos litigation. It is one of the largest dockets in the nation. It is governed by a unique Case Management Order. This CMO was created to handle asbestos cases involving a large number of defendants. The judges involved in the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket also has seen some of the highest settlements for plaintiffs in recent years.
The New York Court of Appeals has recently made significant changes to the NYCAL docket. In 2015, the political system in Albany was shaken to the core by the conviction of the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. Silver was accused of destroying every reasonable created tort reform bill that was passed by the legislature for more than a decade while working for the plaintiffs' firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time supervisor of the NYCAL docket, retired in April 2014 amid reports that she had offered the Weitz & Luxenberg law firm "red-carpet treatment." She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton, who made a variety of changes to the docket.
Moulton introduced a new rule in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to present proof that their products are not accountable for the mesothelioma that plaintiffs suffer from. He also instituted new rules that stipulated that he wouldn't dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony had been completed. This new rule will greatly impact the pace of discovery in cases in the NYCAL docket and may result in more favorable outcomes for defendants.
In other New York asbestos news, an federal judge from the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed MDL 875 and ordered all future asbestos cases to be transferred to a different district. This change will hopefully bring about more efficient and uniform handling of these cases, because the current MDL has earned itself reputation for a history of abuse of discovery in the past, unjustified sanctions, and a lack of evidentiary requirements.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his mismanagement scandals involving Sheldon Silver's ties to asbestos attorneys have finally brought attention to New York City’s asbestos court that is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton, who is now the head of NYCAL has already hosted an open Town Hall with defense lawyers to hear complaints regarding the "rigged" system which favors an asbestos law firm with a strong reputation.
Asbestos litigation is different from the typical personal injury lawsuit, with many of the same defendants (companies that are being sued) as well as plaintiffs (people who file lawsuits). Asbestos litigation can also involve similar workplaces where a lot of people were exposed asbestos, leading to mesothelioma and lung cancer. This can lead large verdicts that can block court dockets.
To address the issue In order to tackle the issue, a few states have passed laws that limit these types of claims. They typically deal with medical requirements two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders, forum shopping, punitive damage and successor liability.
Despite these laws some states still face a large number of asbestos lawsuits. Some courts have created "asbestos Dockets" to reduce the number of asbestos lawsuits and speed up the resolution of these cases. These dockets follow various rules specifically designed for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos court, for example requires claimants to meet certain medical criteria as well as has two-disease rules. It also utilizes an accelerated schedule.
Certain states have passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damages awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to deter bad behavior and offer more compensation to the victims. It is recommended to consult an New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you file your case in federal or state courts to know the laws that apply to your situation.
Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in environmental and toxic tort litigation including product liability, commercial and toxic tort litigation. He also handles general liability issues. He has extensive experience in defending clients against claims alleging exposure to asbestos, lead and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He also regularly defends claims that claim exposure to a variety of other hazardous substances and contaminants such as chemical and solvents and vibration, noise, mold, and environmental contaminants.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
New York has seen thousands of deaths caused by asbestos exposure. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products to seek compensation. The successful mesothelioma lawsuits make asbestos companies accountable for their rash choices to put profits ahead of public safety.
New York mesothelioma lawyers are adept at representing clients with different backgrounds against the nation's largest asbestos producers. Their legal strategies could result in an enormous settlement or verdict.
Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich background, and it continues to make headlines. According to the 2022 report on mesothelioma claim submissions by KCIC, New York is the third most popular state where you can file mesothelioma lawsuits, following California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judicial system has been shaken by the flurry of asbestos lawsuits. In 2015 the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges partly related to the millions of dollars of referral fees he received from the politically powerful plaintiffs law firm Weitz & Luxenberg from handling asbestos cases. Justice Sherry Klein Heitler was appointed NYCAL's director in the wake of the scandal. She had been managing NYCAL since the year 2008.
Justice Heitler was succeeded as NYCAL judge by Justice Peter Moulton, who has clarified that defendants are not entitled to summary judgment unless they can present an "scientifically solid credible, admissible and reliable scientific study" showing the measured amount of exposure a plaintiff received was too low to cause mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants are able to get summary judgment.
In Everett asbestos lawyer , Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff must prove some damage to their health due to exposure to asbestos in order for the court to make a decision on compensatory damages. This decision, coupled with a decision made in early 2016 that ruled that medical monitoring is not a tort claim, makes it virtually impossible for an asbestos defence lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL Summary Judgment motion.
In the case that Judge Toal was in charge of mesothelioma-related lawsuits brought against DOVER GREEN, the company is accused of violating asbestos work practices regulations when it renovated Manhattan campus buildings in October 2013 to raise money for a fundraising event. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS didn't adhere to CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to inform and inspect the EPA prior to beginning renovations, or to properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos, and having a trained representative on site during renovations.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos-related personal lawsuits for death and injury filled up federal court dockets and judges' judicial resource were drained, preventing them to address criminal matters or crucial civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented prompt compensation of victims and irritated innocent families. It also led to companies to spend excessive amounts of money on defense.
Asbestos claims can be filed by those diagnosed with mesothelioma, or other asbestos-related ailments, after exposure to asbestos while at work. Most asbestos claims are filed by construction employees shipyard workers, construction workers, and other tradesmen working on structures made of or that contain asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to dangerous asbestos fibers either during the manufacturing process or while working on the actual structure.
The first major mass tort was asbestos litigation. From the late 1970s until early 1980s, asbestos exposure caused a flood of personal injury and wrongful deaths lawsuits. This was the case in both state and federal court across the country.
The plaintiffs in these lawsuits claim that their ailments resulted from the negligent manufacture of asbestos products and that the companies failed to warn them about the dangers of asbestos exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were brought in state courts, a majority were filed in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, after recognizing the fact that this litigation was "terrible calendar congestion," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein and New York Supreme Court Justice Helen Freedman jointly consolidated for settlement and pretrial purposes hundreds of state and federal cases that claimed asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Under the supervision of Special Master, Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman consolidated these cases and referred to them as Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation.
While the majority of these cases were connected to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were defendants in other asbestos lawsuits. The defendants listed included Garlock, Inc; H & A Construction Company, individually and as successor to Spraycraft Corporation; CRH, Inc., as the successor to E.I. Dupont; W.R. Grace and Company; Empire-Ace Insulation Manufacturing Corporation; Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp.; and DNS Metal Industries, Inc.