New York Asbestos Litigation
Mesothelioma victims in New York can receive compensation from a mesothelioma lawyer. Exposure to asbestos often causes these kinds of diseases; symptoms may develop for years before they show up.
The judges who manage NYCAL’s caseload have crafted an inclination to favor plaintiffs. A recent decision could further undermine defendants’ rights.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is distinct from a typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases include multiple defendants (companies being sued), multiple law offices representing plaintiffs, and a variety of expert witnesses. These cases are often based on specific job locations because asbestos was used to make various products and a lot of workers were subjected to it at work. Asbestos victims are often diagnosed with serious illnesses like mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. In fact, it is one of the largest dockets in the country. It is governed by a unique Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to handle huge numbers of asbestos cases that involve many defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket are experienced in asbestos cases. The docket also has seen some of the highest award for plaintiffs in recent times.
New York Court of Appeals made significant changes to the NYCAL docket in the last few days. In 2015 the political establishment in Albany was shaken to its core when former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. He was accused of sabotaging tort reform legislation in the legislature for a period of 20 years while working 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 some changes to the docket.
Moulton introduced an amendment to the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to present evidence that their products are not responsible for the mesothelioma that plaintiffs suffer from. In addition, he implemented a new practice in which he would not dismiss cases until expert testimony from witnesses was completed. This new policy will dramatically affect the speed of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket and could result in more favorable outcomes for 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 another district. This should result in an efficient and uniform treatment of these cases. The MDL currently MDL is known for its abusive discovery practices and unjustified sanctions, as well as low evidentiary standards.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption and mismanagement by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals regarding his connections to asbestos lawyers have finally attracted the attention of the rigged asbestos docket. Justice Peter Moulton, who is now in charge of NYCAL has already hosted a Town Hall meeting with defense lawyers to discuss complaints regarding the “rigged” system which favors a powerful asbestos attorneys law firm.
Asbestos litigation differs from a typical personal injury lawsuit, as it involves many of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos lawsuits also usually involve similar job sites where many people were exposed to asbestos, frequently leading to mesothelioma, lung cancer, or other diseases. This can lead to large case verdicts, which can cause delays in the courts 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 usually address issues including medical requirements, two-disease regulations, expedited case scheduling, forum shopping, joinders, the right to punitive damages 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 speed up the resolution of these cases. These dockets apply different rules specifically designed for asbestos 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 utilizes an accelerated schedule.
Certain states have also enacted laws to restrict the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to stop bad behavior and allow for greater compensation to be awarded to victims. Regardless of whether your case is filed in federal or state court, you should consult with a New York mesothelioma lawyer to know how these laws impact your particular situation.
Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in toxic tort and environment litigation, product liability and commercial litigation. He also handles general liability issues. He has a wealth of 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 cases alleging exposure to other hazards and contaminants like 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 for compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits that succeed make asbestos companies accountable for their rash decisions to place profits over public safety.
New York mesothelioma lawyers are skilled in representing clients from different backgrounds against the nation’s largest asbestos producers. Their legal strategies could result in a generous settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation has a long history in New York, and continues to be the subject of news. According to the 2022 national report on mesothelioma claim filings by KCIC, New York is the third most popular jurisdiction for filing mesothelioma claims, 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 in referral fees that he received from the politically powerful plaintiffs law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. Following the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler who had been the head 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 stated that defendants won’t be able to obtain summary judgment without the existence of a “scientifically reliable and admissible study” proving the measured amount of exposure a plaintiff received was too low to cause mesothelioma. This virtually eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants will be able to obtain summary judgment.
Additionally, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff must show 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 ruling, along with a decision from early 2016 that held that medical monitoring was not a tort claim makes it nearly impossible for an asbestos attorney defense lawyer to win a NYCAL Summary Judgment motion.
In the case that Judge Toal was the judge in a mesothelioma suit filed against DOVER GREEN, the company is accused of violating asbestos work practice regulations when it renovated Manhattan campus buildings in October 2013 to raise funds for a fundraising event. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS did not follow CAA and NESHAP requirements for asbestos 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 on site during renovation activities.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos-related personal lawsuits for death and injury filled up federal court dockets and judges’ resources were depleted, making it impossible for them from addressing criminal matters or other important civil disputes. This bloated litigation hindered the timely settlement of victims and frustrated innocent families. It also caused companies to invest excessive money on defense.
Asbestos claims can be filed by those diagnosed with mesothelioma, or other asbestos-related ailments, after exposure to asbestos while at work. The majority of cases are filed by construction workers, shipyard employees, and other tradesmen who worked on buildings that contained or were made with asbestos-containing materials. These workers were exposed asbestos lawyers fibers that were dangerous during the process of manufacturing or while working on the structure itself.
The first significant mass tort was asbestos litigation. In the late 1970s and early 1980s an avalanche of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits stemming from exposure to asbestos engulfed the courts. This occurred in state and federal courts across the nation.
The plaintiffs in these lawsuits claim that their illnesses resulted from negligence in the production of asbestos products and that companies failed to inform them of the dangers that come with exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were filed in state courts, a majority were filed in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, 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 federal and state cases which claimed asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases, which were called the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of a Special Master.
Many of the defendants had been involved in asbestos claims in the past. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, as successors to Spraycraft Corporation, CRH, Inc. and successors to E.I. Dupont; W.R. Grace and Company; Empire-Ace Insulation Manufacturing Corporation; Bell/Atlas asbestos lawsuit Corp.; and DNS Metal Industries, Inc.