New York Asbestos Litigation
Mesothelioma patients in New York can receive compensation from a mesothelioma lawyer. These diseases are usually brought on by asbestos exposure. The symptoms may not be apparent for many years.
Judges who manage the cases of NYCAL have developed a pattern that favors plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further weaken the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is distinct from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve numerous defendants (companies who are being sued) and law firms representing plaintiffs, and multiple expert witnesses. These cases usually are focused on specific work locations because asbestos was used to create various products, and a large number of workers were subjected to it at work. Asbestos-related victims are frequently diagnosed with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. In fact, it is one of the largest dockets in the United States. It is managed under a special Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to handle huge numbers of asbestos cases that involve a multitude of defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos cases. The docket is also the site of some of the highest plaintiff verdicts in recent times.
The New York Court of Appeals has recently made some significant changes to the NYCAL docket. In 2015, the political establishment in Albany was shaken to its core when the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. He was accused of sabotaging tort reform legislation in the legislature for more than 20 years while working at the plaintiffs firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time manager of the NYCAL docket, retired in April 2014 amid reports that she had given the Weitz & Luxenberg law firm "red-carpet treatment." She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton, who implemented a number of changes to the docket.
Moulton instituted a new rule for the NYCAL docket that requires that defendants file evidence that their products are not the cause of mesothelioma in plaintiffs. Additionally, he introduced an entirely new procedure in which he would not dismiss cases until expert testimony from witnesses was completed. This new policy may have significant effects on the speed of discovery for cases on the NYCAL docket, and could result in a more favorable outcome for defendants.
In other New York asbestos news, an federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed MDL 875 and ordered all asbestos cases in the future to be transferred to a different district. This should lead to more consistent and efficient handling of these cases, as the MDL currently MDL has earned 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 mismanagement and corruption by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals concerning his ties to asbestos lawyers have finally attracted the attention of New York City's rigged asbestos docket. Justice Peter Moulton, who now preside over NYCAL has already held a Town Hall meeting with defense attorneys to hear complaints regarding the "rigged" system that favors a powerful asbestos law firm.
Asbestos litigation differs from the typical personal injury lawsuit, which has many of the same defendants (companies who are sued) and plaintiffs (people who file lawsuits). Asbestos lawsuits also usually involve similar job sites where many workers were exposed to asbestos, usually leading to mesothelioma or lung cancer, as well as other diseases. This can lead large verdicts that can clog the dockets of the courts.
To limit this problem A number of states have passed laws that limit the types of claims that can be made. They typically deal with medical requirements two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders and forum shopping, punitive damage and successor liability.
Despite these laws some states continue see a high number of asbestos lawsuits. In an effort to reduce the number of cases filed and speed up the resolution process certain courts have set up special "asbestos dockets" that apply a series of different rules for these cases. The New York City asbestos court is one example. It requires applicants to meet certain medical standards and has rules for two diseases. It also uses an accelerated schedule.
Certain states have also passed laws to limit the amount of punitive damages awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to discourage bad conduct and provide more compensation to the victims. Whatever the case is filed in a state or federal court, you should work with a New York mesothelioma lawyer to learn more about the laws that affect your particular situation.
Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on toxic tort and environmental litigation, commercial litigation, product liability and general liability matters. He has vast experience representing clients in cases of exposure to asbestos, lead and World Trade Center Dust in both New York City and New Jersey. He has also defended claims claiming exposure to many other hazards and contaminants like solvents and chemicals as well as vibration, noise, mold, and environmental toxins.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Thousands of people have lost their lives from asbestos exposure in New York. In five counties, mesothelioma sufferers and their loved ones have filed lawsuits against manufacturers of asbestos-based products for compensation. The successful mesothelioma lawsuits hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their reckless decisions to place profits over public safety.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have experience representing clients of all backgrounds against the biggest asbestos producers in the nation. Their legal strategies may result in a favorable settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation has a long history in New York, and continues to make headlines. The 2022 mesothelioma claim national report from KCIC lists New York as the third most popular place for mesothelioma lawsuits, after California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judicial system has been shook by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was convicted in 2015 of federal corruption charges in connection with 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 had managed NYCAL since 2008, was replaced amidst reports that she gave "red-carpet treatment" to Weitz & Luxenberg asbestos lawsuits.
Justice Peter Moulton succeeded Justice Heitler as NYCAL judge. He has declared that defendants won't be able to get summary judgment without a "scientifically credible and admissible study" showing that the measured dose of exposure that a plaintiff received was too low to cause mesothelioma. This eliminates the likelihood that NYCAL defendants will be able to obtain summary judgment.
In addition, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff must prove an injury to their health as a result of exposure to asbestos for a court to give compensatory damages. This ruling, combined with a decision from early 2016 which ruled that medical monitoring was not a tort claim, makes it nearly impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL Summary Motion for Judgment.
The most recent case on which Judge Toal is presiding, a mesothelioma lawsuit filed against DOVER GREENS, claims that the company violated asbestos work practices regulations when it renovated buildings on the Manhattan campus in October 2013 for an event to raise money for. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS did not adhere to CAA and asbestos NESHAP regulations because it failed to notify and inspect the EPA prior to commencing renovations, and properly removing, storing and dispose of asbestos, and having a properly trained representative present at renovation activities.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos-related personal lawsuits for death and injury filled up federal court dockets and judges' judicial resources were drained, making it difficult for them from addressing criminal matters or crucial civil disputes. This bloated litigation hindered the timely compensation of victims as well as frustrated innocent families. Additionally, it caused businesses to spend a lot of money on defense.
Asbestos claims are filed by individuals diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases after exposure to asbestos in a workplace environment. Most asbestos claims are filed by construction employees shipyard workers, construction workers, and other tradesmen working on buildings constructed or that contain asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to asbestos fibers that could be harmful in the manufacturing process or when working on the actual structure.
The first significant mass tort was asbestos litigation. From the late 1970s until early 1980s, asbestos exposure led to a flood of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. This was the case in both state and federal court across the country.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits argue that their illnesses were caused by the negligent manufacture of asbestos products and that companies failed to warn them about the dangers of asbestos exposure. While Springfield asbestos lawsuits of asbestos cases were brought in state courts, more than half were brought in federal courts.
In the early 1990s recognizing that the litigation was a "terrible congestion of the calendar," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, and New York Supreme Court justice Helen Freedman consolidated hundreds of state and federal cases involving asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for settlement or pretrial purposes. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases and were known as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of the Special Master.
Many defendants had been involved in other asbestos claims. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, as successors and individually to Spraycraft Corporation, CRH, Inc., successors to E.I. Dupont; W.R. Grace and Company; Empire-Ace Insulation Manufacturing Company; Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp.; and DNS Metal Industries, Inc.