New York Asbestos Litigation
Mesothelioma victims in New York can receive compensation from an attorney for mesothelioma. These diseases are usually caused by asbestos exposure. The symptoms may not be apparent for a long time.
The judges who manage NYCAL's caseload have crafted a pattern of favoring plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further undermine the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is distinct from a typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve multiple defendants (companies being sued) and multiple law firms representing plaintiffs, and multiple expert witnesses. These cases usually are based on specific job sites since asbestos was used to make a variety products and many workers were exposed to asbestos at work. Asbestos sufferers often develop serious illnesses like mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has its own unique approach to dealing with asbestos litigation. In reality, it is one of the largest dockets across the nation. It is controlled by a specific Case Management Order. This CMO was created to handle asbestos cases involving many defendants. The judges involved in the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos cases. The docket also is the location of some of the most significant plaintiff verdicts in recent times.
The New York Court of Appeals has recently made significant changes to the NYCAL docket. In 2015 the political system in Albany was rocked to its foundations by the conviction of the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. Silver was accused of sabotaging tort reform bills in the legislature for more than 20 years while working at the plaintiffs firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler retired in April 2014 amid reports that she gave the Weitz & Luxenberg firm "red carpet treatment". She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton who implemented some changes to the docket.
Moulton introduced a new rule in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to provide evidence that their products aren't accountable for the plaintiffs' mesothelioma. He also implemented new rules that stipulated that he would not dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony was completed. This new rule could have an impact on the speed of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket and could lead to a more favorable outcome for defendants.
In other New York asbestos news, an federal judge from the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed MDL 875 and ordered all asbestos cases in the future to be transferred to another district. This change should lead to an efficient and uniform treatment of these cases. The MDL currently MDL is known for its discovery abuse as well as its unjustified sanction and low evidentiary standards.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of mismanagement and corruption by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals surrounding his ties to asbestos lawyers have finally focused attention on New York City's asbestos docket that is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton is now presiding over NYCAL and has already held a town hall with defense attorneys to listen to complaints about a "rigged" system that favors one powerful asbestos law firm.
Asbestos litigation is different from the typical personal injury lawsuit. when asbestos litigation report has many of the same defendants (companies who are being sued) and plaintiffs (people who file lawsuits). Asbestos litigation also involves similar job sites, where many people were exposed asbestos, leading to mesothelioma and lung cancer. This can lead large verdicts that could clog court dockets.
To address the problem In order to tackle the issue, a few states have passed laws that limit these kinds of claims. They typically deal with issues such as medical requirements, two-disease regulations and expedited case scheduling forum shopping, joinders the right to punitive damages and successor liability.
Despite these laws, certain states are still seeing high numbers of asbestos lawsuits. Certain courts have created special "asbestos Dockets" to help reduce the number and speed up the resolution of these cases. These dockets follow a variety of rules that are tailored specifically for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos docket, for example demands that claimants meet certain medical requirements and has a two-disease rule and utilizes an accelerated trial schedule.
Certain states have passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damages given in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to deter particularly bad behavior and allow for greater compensation to the victims. No matter if your case is filed in a state or federal court, you should work with a New York mesothelioma lawyer to know how these laws impact your specific case.
Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation including commercial litigation, product liability and general liability matters. He has extensive experience in defending clients against claims alleging exposure to lead, asbestos and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He is also frequently defending cases involving exposure to other contaminants and hazards like vibration, noise, mold and environmental contaminants.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Many people have died from asbestos exposure in New York. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against companies that manufacture of asbestos-containing products to seek compensation. Successful mesothelioma lawsuits hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their reckless decisions to prioritize profits over public safety.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have the experience of representing clients from all backgrounds in court against the largest asbestos manufacturers in the country. Their legal strategies could result in an impressive settlement or verdict.
Asbestos litigation has a long history in New York, and continues to make headlines. According to the report for 2022 on mesothelioma claims filed by KCIC, New York is the third most popular state where you can file mesothelioma lawsuits, following California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judiciary has been buffeted by the influx of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was convicted in 2015 of federal corruption charges related to millions of dollars in referral fees he received from politically powerful plaintiffs' law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. Following the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler who was in charge of NYCAL since 2008, was replaced amidst reports that she provided "red-carpet treatment" to Weitz & Luxenberg asbestos lawsuits.
Justice Heitler was succeeded as NYCAL judge by Justice Peter Moulton, who has clarified that defendants cannot obtain summary judgment unless they can present an "scientifically solid, reliable and admissible scientific study" that proves the amount of exposure a plaintiff received was not sufficient to cause mesothelioma. This eliminates the likelihood that NYCAL defendants will be able to secure summary judgment.
Additionally, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff must prove some damage to his or her health as a result of exposure to asbestos in order for a 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, makes it nearly impossible for an asbestos defence lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL Summary Motion for Judgment.
In the case that Judge Toal presided over, a mesothelioma suit brought against DOVER Green, a company that is accused of violating asbestos work practices regulations when it renovated Manhattan campus buildings in October 2013 to raise funds for a charity. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS was not following CAA and NESHAP requirements for asbestos by failing to inspect the Campus; inform EPA prior to commencing renovations and to properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos and have a trained representative on site during renovation activities.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
At one point asbestos personal injury/death lawsuits clogged federal and state court dockets and depleted judges' judicial resources, preventing them from addressing criminal cases or other crucial civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented timely compensation of victims as well as frustrated innocent families. It also caused companies to spend a lot of money on defense.
Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases after exposure to asbestos in a workplace environment. The majority of asbestos claims are filed by construction employees or shipyard workers, as well as other tradesmen working on buildings constructed or made of asbestos-containing materials. These individuals were exposed by asbestos fibers that could be harmful during the process of manufacturing or when working on the actual structure.
The first significant mass tort was asbestos litigation. From the late 1970s until early 1980s, asbestos exposure triggered an influx of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. This happened in federal and state courts across the nation.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits contend that their illnesses were caused by the negligence of asbestos-related products' manufacture and that companies did not warn them about the dangers that come with exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are brought in federal court.
In the early 1990s, after recognizing that the litigation was an "terrible overload of the calendar," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, and New York Supreme Court justice Helen Freedman consolidated hundreds of state and federal cases that alleged asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for settlement, pretrial, and discovery purposes. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases, which were referred to as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of the Special Master.
Although the majority of these cases were relating to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were common defendants in other asbestos lawsuits. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, as successors and individually to Spraycraft Corporation, CRH, Inc. and successors to E.I. Dupont; W.R. Grace and Company; Empire-Ace Insulation Manufacturing Corporation; Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp.; and DNS Metal Industries, Inc.