New York Asbestos Litigation
Mesothelioma sufferers in New York can receive compensation from a mesothelioma lawyer. These diseases are usually caused by asbestos exposure. Symptoms may not appear for a long time.
Judges who manage the cases of NYCAL have developed a system that favors plaintiffs. A recent ruling could further erode the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is much different than the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases include multiple defendants (companies being sued), multiple law offices representing plaintiffs, and a variety of expert witness. Additionally, there are usually specific workplaces that are the focus of these cases since asbestos was used in a variety of products and many workers were exposed to it during their work. Asbestos sufferers often develop serious illnesses like mesothelioma and lung cancer.
New York has its own unique way of handling asbestos litigation. It is among the largest dockets across the United States. It is administered under a special Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to handle asbestos cases with a large number of defendants. The Judges involved in the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket also is the location of some of the largest plaintiff verdicts in recent times.
The New York Court of Appeals has recently made significant changes to the NYCAL docket. In Providence asbestos lawyers , the political establishment in Albany was shaken to its foundation when former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. Silver was accused of sabotaging tort reform legislation in the legislature for more than 20 years while working at the firm representing plaintiffs Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time manager of the NYCAL docket, resigned in April 2014 amidst reports that she had given 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 an entirely new rule for the NYCAL docket, which requires defendants to submit evidence that their products were not responsible for mesothelioma of plaintiffs. Additionally, he introduced the new policy that he would not dismiss cases until all expert witness testimony was complete. This new policy may have significant effects on the pace of discovery for cases in the NYCAL docket, and could lead to an outcome that is more favorable to defendants.
In other New York asbestos news, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed MDL 875 and ordered all future asbestos cases to be transferred to a different district. This should lead to more uniform and efficient handling of these cases, as the current MDL has earned itself reputation for a history of abuse of discovery as well as unjustified sanctions and a lack of evidentiary requirements.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption and mismanagement by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals surrounding his ties to asbestos lawyers have attracted the attention of the asbestos docket that is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton is now presided over NYCAL and has already held a town hall meeting with defense lawyers to hear complaints about the "rigged" system that favors one powerful asbestos law firm.
Asbestos lawsuits differ from a typical personal injury lawsuit because it involves a lot of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos cases also typically involve similar job sites where many people were exposed to asbestos, frequently leading to mesothelioma, lung cancer or other diseases. This can result in large cases that can cause delays in court dockets.
To address this issue A number of states have passed laws to limit the types of claims that can be made. These laws typically address issues including medical criteria, two-disease rules, expedited case scheduling, joinders, forum shopping, the right to punitive damages and successor liability.
Despite these laws, some states still face a large number of asbestos lawsuits. To reduce the number of lawsuits filed and resolve them faster certain courts have established special "asbestos dockets" that use a variety of different rules to these cases. The New York City asbestos court is one example. It requires applicants to meet certain medical criteria as well as has two-disease rules. It also utilizes an accelerated schedule.
Some states have also passed laws to limit the amount of punitive damages awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are meant to discourage particularly harmful behavior and allow for greater compensation to go to 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 concentrates his practice in toxic tort and environment litigation as well as product liability and commercial 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 defends clients regularly against claims claiming exposure to many other contaminants and hazards such as solvents and chemical as well as vibration, noise, mold and environmental toxins.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Many people have died from asbestos exposure in New York. Across five counties, mesothelioma sufferers and their loved ones have filed lawsuits against the manufacturers of asbestos-based products to recover compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits that succeed hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their reckless choices.
New York mesothelioma lawyers are skilled in representing clients from diverse backgrounds against the nation's most significant asbestos manufacturers. Their legal strategies could lead to an impressive settlement or verdict.
Asbestos litigation has a long history in New York, and continues to make headlines. The 2022 national mesothelioma lawsuit report by KCIC lists New York as the third most popular state for mesothelioma lawsuits, just behind California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judicial system is shaken by the flurry of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was found guilty in 2015 of federal corruption charges related to millions of dollars of referral fees which he received from powerful political plaintiffs' law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. Justice Sherry Klein Heitler was appointed NYCAL's manager following the revelations of the scandal. She had been managing NYCAL since the year 2008.
Justice Peter Moulton succeeded Justice Heitler as NYCAL judge. He has stated that defendants will not be able to get summary judgment without a "scientifically credible and admissible study" that proves the amount of exposure a plaintiff received was too low to cause mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants can get summary judgment.
Justice Moulton also ruled that the plaintiff must show health harm suffered as a result of asbestos exposure to be able for the court to award compensation. This ruling, in combination with a decision in early 2016 that holds that medical monitoring is not a tort, makes it nearly impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL summary judgment motion.
In the case that Judge Toal was the judge in mesothelioma lawsuit 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 money for a charity. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS didn't follow CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to inform and inspect the EPA prior to starting renovations, and properly removing, storing and dispose of asbestos and having a properly trained representative on site during renovations.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
At one time, asbestos personal injury/death cases were a major blockage of state and federal courts and drained judges' resources for judicial work and prevented them from addressing criminal cases or other important civil disputes. The bloated litigation impeded the timely compensation of victims and frustrated innocent families. It also caused companies to invest excessive money on defense.
Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases following exposure to asbestos in a work environment. The majority of asbestos claims are filed by construction employees or shipyard workers, as well as other tradesmen who worked on structures made of or containing asbestos-containing materials. These individuals were exposed by asbestos fibers that could be harmful during the manufacturing process or while working on the structure.
The first significant mass tort was asbestos litigation. In the late 1970s and 1980s an avalanche of personal injury and wrongful death cases arising from exposure to asbestos engulfed the courts. This occurred in both state and federal courts across the nation.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits contend that their illnesses were caused by the negligence in the production of asbestos products and that the companies failed to warn them about the dangers of asbestos exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were filed in state courts, a majority were brought in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, when they realized 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.
A number of defendants had been involved in other asbestos-related claims. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, both individually and as successors to Spraycraft Corporation, CRH, Inc. as successors to E.I. Dupont; W.R. Grace and Company; Empire-Ace Insulation Manufacturing Company; Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp.; and DNS Metal Industries, Inc.