New York Asbestos Litigation
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer patients can seek compensation through an experienced mesothelioma lawyer. These illnesses are often caused by exposure to asbestos. The symptoms may not show up for many years.
Judges who oversee the cases of NYCAL have developed a system that favors plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further weaken the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is different from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases include multiple defendants (companies being sued) as well as multiple law offices representing plaintiffs, and a variety of expert witness. These cases usually are based on specific job sites since asbestos was used to create various products and a lot of workers were exposed to asbestos at work. Asbestos victims often suffer from serious illnesses such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. In reality, it is one of the largest dockets in the country. It is managed by a specific Case Management Order. This CMO was created to manage large numbers of asbestos cases that involve a multitude of defendants. The judges involved in the NYCAL docket are experienced in asbestos cases. The docket is also the site of some of the largest plaintiff verdicts in recent history.
The New York Court of Appeals has recently made significant changes to the NYCAL docket. In 2015, the political establishment in Albany was shaken to its base when the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. He had been accused of sabotaging every decently designed tort reform bill in the legislature for more than 20 years, while working for the plaintiffs' firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time head of the NYCAL docket, was dismissed 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 implemented a new rule in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to submit evidence that their products are not accountable for the mesothelioma that plaintiffs suffer from. He also instituted a new policy in which he wouldn't dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony was completed. This new policy will significantly alter the speed of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket and could result in better 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 another district. This should result in more consistent and efficient handling of these cases because the current 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 corruption and mismanagement by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals concerning his ties to asbestos lawyers have brought attention to the rigged asbestos docket. Justice Peter Moulton is now the head of NYCAL and has already held a town hall meeting with defense lawyers to hear complaints about the "rigged" system that favors one mighty asbestos law firm.
Asbestos litigation is different from a typical personal injury lawsuit because it involves a number of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos litigation can also involve similar job sites, where many people were exposed to asbestos, resulting to mesothelioma or lung cancer. This can lead to large case verdicts, which can clog court dockets.
To address the issue In order to tackle the issue, a few states have passed laws that limit these types of claims. These laws typically address medical criteria two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders, forum shopping, punitive damage and successor liability.
Despite these laws, some states continue to see a significant number of asbestos lawsuits. Some courts have created special "asbestos Dockets" to help reduce the number and accelerate the resolution of these cases. These dockets follow different rules specifically designed for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos docket, for example is one that requires applicants to meet certain medical requirements, has a two-disease rule and has an accelerated trial schedule.
Some states have passed laws that restrict the amount of punitive damage awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to deter bad behavior and offer more compensation to the victims. You should consult an New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you file your case in federal or state courts to know the laws applicable to your particular 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. Baton Rouge asbestos attorney 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 has also defended claims alleging exposure to numerous other hazardous substances and contaminants such as chemical and solvents, noise, mold, vibration and environmental toxins.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
New York has seen thousands of deaths resulting from asbestos exposure. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against the manufacturers of asbestos-related products in order to seek compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits which are successful hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their rash decisions.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have expertise in representing clients from all backgrounds in court against the largest asbestos producers in the nation. Their legal strategies could lead to an enormous settlement or verdict.
Asbestos litigation has a long history in New York, and continues to make headlines. The 2022 mesothelioma claim national report by KCIC declares New York as the third most popular jurisdiction for mesothelioma lawsuit filings, after 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 in connection with millions of dollars of referral fees which he received from powerful political plaintiffs' law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. After 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 Peter Moulton succeeded Justice Heitler as NYCAL judge. He has declared that defendants will not be able to get summary judgment unless they have a "scientifically reliable and admissible study" proving the measured dose of exposure that a plaintiff received was not sufficient to cause mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants will be able to obtain summary judgment.
Justice Moulton also ruled that the plaintiff must prove some damage to their health from asbestos exposure to be able for the court to award compensation. This ruling, along with a ruling from the beginning of 2016 that held that medical monitoring is not a tort claim, makes it virtually impossible for an asbestos defence lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL Summary Motion for Judgment.
In the most recent case, which Judge Toal was in charge of mesothelioma lawsuit filed against DOVER Green, the company is accused of not following asbestos work practices regulations when it renovated Manhattan campus buildings in October 2013 to raise funds for a fundraiser. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS was not following CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to check the campus; inform EPA prior to beginning renovations; appropriately remove, store, and dispose of asbestos and have a trained representative on site during renovations.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos-related personal lawsuits for death and injury were a major source of delays in federal court dockets and judges' resources were drained, making it difficult for them from addressing criminal cases or important civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented prompt compensation of victims and frustrated 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 illnesses after being exposed to asbestos at work. Most cases are filed by shipyard workers, construction workers employees and other tradesmen working on buildings that were or were constructed using asbestos-containing materials. These individuals were exposed by dangerous asbestos fibers either during the manufacturing process or while working on the actual structure.
Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. From the late 1970s to the early 1980s, asbestos exposure caused a flood of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. This happened in federal and state court across the nation.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits argue that their illnesses were caused by the negligent manufacture of asbestos products and that the companies failed to inform them of the dangers that come with exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were brought in state courts, a majority were brought in federal courts.
In the early 1990s recognizing that the litigation was an "terrible overloaded calendar," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein and New York Supreme Court justice Helen Freedman consolidated hundreds of federal and State cases that alleged asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for settlement as well as pretrial and discovery purposes. Under the supervision of a Special Master, Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman consolidated these cases, referred to as Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation.
While the bulk of these cases were relating to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were defendants in other asbestos cases. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, 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.