New York Asbestos Litigation
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer sufferers can receive compensation through a dedicated mesothelioma lawyer. Exposure to asbestos often causes these types of illnesses; symptoms can take years before they appear.
Judges who manage the cases of NYCAL have developed a system that favors plaintiffs. A recent ruling could further weaken the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation differs from a typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve multiple defendants (companies being sued) as well as multiple law offices representing plaintiffs, and multiple expert witnesses. These cases usually are inspired by specific job locations because asbestos was used to create a variety products and many workers were subjected to it during their work. Asbestos victims are often diagnosed with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma and lung cancer.
New York has its own unique method of handling asbestos litigation. In fact, it's one of the largest dockets across the nation. It is governed by a special Case Management Order. This CMO was created to manage large numbers of asbestos cases involving many defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos lawsuit cases. The docket also is the location of some of the most significant plaintiff verdicts in the past.
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 killing tort reform bills in the legislature for a period of 20 years, while moonlighting at the plaintiffs ' firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler retired in April 2014, citing reports that she had given the Weitz & Luxenberg firm "red carpet treatment". She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton who implemented a number changes to the docket.
Moulton implemented an amendment to the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to present proof that their products are not accountable for the mesothelioma that plaintiffs suffer from. He also implemented an updated policy that states that he would not dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony had been completed. This new policy will dramatically alter the speed of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket and may result in more favorable outcomes for defendants.
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed MDL 875 last week and ordered that all future asbestos cases be transferred to another District. This should result in a more uniform and efficient treatment of asbestos cases. The MDL in its current MDL is known for its abuse of discovery, unwarranted sanction and low evidentiary standards.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption and mismanagement by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals surrounding his ties to asbestos lawyers - reviews over at squareblogs.net - have attracted the attention of New York City's rigged asbestos docket. Justice Peter Moulton, who is now the head of NYCAL, has already held an open Town Hall with defense attorneys to hear complaints about the "rigged" system which favors an asbestos law firm that is powerful.
Asbestos lawsuits differ from the typical personal injury case because it involves a lot of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos litigation can also involve similar job sites where a lot of people were exposed to asbestos, which led to mesothelioma or lung cancer. This can result in huge case verdicts, which can clog the court dockets.
To address the issue, several states have adopted laws to limit these types of claims. They typically deal with medical criteria, 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 special "asbestos Dockets" to help reduce the number and speed up the resolution of these cases. These dockets apply different rules that are specifically designed for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos lawsuit docket for instance, requires claimants to meet certain medical requirements and also has a rule of two diseases and utilizes an accelerated trial plan.
Certain states have passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damage given in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to deter bad behavior and provide greater 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 know how these laws impact your particular situation.
Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in environmental and toxic tort litigation including product liability, commercial and toxic tort litigation. He also is a specialist in general liability issues. He has extensive experience in defending clients against claims of exposure to lead, asbestos and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He defends clients regularly against claims alleging exposure to numerous other hazardous substances and contaminants like solvents and chemicals and noise, mold, vibration and environmental toxics.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Thousands of people have lost their lives from asbestos exposure in New York. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against companies that manufacture of asbestos-related products in order to seek compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits that are successful make asbestos companies liable for their reckless choices.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have the experience of representing clients from all backgrounds against the biggest asbestos producers in the nation. Their legal strategies could result in a generous verdict or settlement.
Asbestos litigation has a long history in New York, and continues to be the subject of news. The 2022 national mesothelioma lawsuit report by KCIC lists New York as the third most popular place for mesothelioma lawsuits after California and Pennsylvania.
The judicial system of the state has been shaken by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. In 2015, former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges partly related to the millions of dollars of referral fees he earned for the politically powerful plaintiffs law firm Weitz & Luxenberg from 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 reliable and admissible study" showing that the measured dose of exposure that a plaintiff received was not sufficient to cause a mesothelioma. This eliminates the likelihood that NYCAL defendants are able to get summary judgment.
In addition, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff must show some injury to their health as a result of exposure to asbestos for the court to give compensatory damages. This ruling, when combined with a decision made in the beginning of 2016 that holds that medical monitoring is not a tort claim, makes it virtually impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL motion for summary judgment.
In the case that Judge Toal was in charge of a mesothelioma suit filed 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 charity. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS failed to follow CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to inspect the Campus; notifying EPA prior to beginning renovations and properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos and have a trained representative present during renovation activities.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
At one point asbestos personal injury/death lawsuits were a major blockage of state and federal courts and drained judges' judicial resources which prevented them from dealing with criminal cases or other important civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented timely compensation of victims and irritated innocent families. Additionally, it caused businesses to spend a lot of money on defense.
Asbestos claims are filed by individuals who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases after being exposed to asbestos in a work environment. The majority of asbestos claims are filed by construction workers, shipyard workers, and other tradesmen working on buildings made or containing asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to asbestos fibers that could be harmful during the manufacturing process or while working on the actual structure.
The first major mass tort was asbestos litigation. In the late 1970s and 1980s, an avalanche of personal injury and wrongful death cases arising from asbestos exposure engulfed the courts. This happened in state and federal courts across the country.
These lawsuits are brought by plaintiffs who claim their ailments were the result from the negligence of asbestos manufacturing products. They also claim that companies failed warn them about the dangers associated with asbestos exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are brought in federal court.
In the early 1990s, after recognizing that this litigation constituted "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 alleged exposure to asbestos at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Under the supervision of the Special Master, Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman consolidated these cases, referred to as Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation.
While the bulk of these cases were connected to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were defendants in other asbestos attorneys cases. The list of defendants included Garlock, Inc; H & A Construction Company, as successors to Spraycraft Corporation; CRH, Inc. as the successor to E.I. Dupont; W.R. Grace and Company; Empire-Ace Insulation Manufacturing Company Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp.; and DNS Metal Industries, Inc.