New York Asbestos Litigation
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer sufferers can receive compensation through an expert mesothelioma lawyer. The exposure to asbestos is often the cause of these types of illnesses; symptoms may develop for years before they show up.
Judges who oversee the cases of NYCAL have crafted a pattern that favors plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further weaken the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is different from a typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve a variety of defendants (companies who are being sued) as well as multiple law firms representing plaintiffs, and multiple expert witnesses. Additionally there are typically specific job sites which are the subject of these cases because asbestos was used in a variety of products and a lot of workers were exposed to it on the job. Asbestos victims are often diagnosed with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has its own unique approach to handling asbestos litigation. It is among the largest dockets in the United States. It is administered under a special Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to manage asbestos cases involving many defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket are experienced in asbestos cases. The docket is also the site of some of the highest plaintiff verdicts in the past.
The New York Court of Appeals has recently made significant changes to the NYCAL docket. In 2015 the political system in Albany was shaken to its core by the conviction of the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. He was accused of killing tort reform legislation in the legislature over a period of 20 years, while also working at the plaintiffs ' firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time supervisor of the NYCAL docket, was dismissed in April 2014 amid reports that she'd 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 introduced an entirely new rule for the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to provide evidence that their products are not the cause of plaintiffs' mesothelioma. He also instituted an updated policy that states that 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 in the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed MDL 875 and ordered all future asbestos cases to be transferred to another district. This will result in an efficient and uniform treatment of asbestos cases. The MDL currently MDL is known for its discovery abuse, unwarranted sanction and inadequate evidentiary standards.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption and mismanagement by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his mismanagement scandals involving Sheldon Silver's connections to asbestos attorneys have finally brought attention to New York City's asbestos court, which is rigged. 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 lawsuits differ from the typical personal injury case because it involves a lot of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos litigation also includes similar job sites where a lot of people were exposed to asbestos, which led to mesothelioma or lung cancer. This can result in huge cases that can block the court dockets.
To limit this problem To address this issue, several states have passed laws to limit the type of claims that can be filed. These laws usually address issues including medical guidelines, two-disease rules expedited case scheduling, forum shopping, joinders the right to punitive damages and successor liability.
Despite these laws states are still seeing high numbers of asbestos lawsuits. In an effort to reduce the number of filings and to speed up their resolution certain courts have set up special "asbestos dockets" that use a variety of different rules to these cases. The New York City asbestos docket, for example, requires claimants to meet certain medical requirements, has a two-disease rule and uses an accelerated trial schedule.
Some states have also passed laws to limit the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to discourage particularly bad behavior and provide greater compensation to the victims. Regardless of whether your case is filed in federal or state court, you should consult with a New York mesothelioma lawyer to learn more about the laws that affect your particular situation.
Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in toxic tort and environment litigation including product liability, commercial and toxic tort litigation. He also handles general liability issues. He has a wealth of experience in defending clients from claims that claim exposure to lead, asbestos and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He also regularly defends claims that claim exposure to a variety of other hazardous substances and contaminants such as chemical and solvents and noise, mold, vibration and environmental toxics.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
New York has seen thousands of deaths caused by asbestos exposure. Across five counties, mesothelioma sufferers and their families have filed lawsuits against companies of asbestos-based products for compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits that succeed hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their rash choices to place profits over public safety.
New York mesothelioma lawyers are skilled in representing clients from different backgrounds against the nation's largest asbestos manufacturers. Their legal strategies could result in a generous settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich background, and it continues to make headlines. The 2022 national mesothelioma lawsuit report by KCIC lists New York as the third most popular jurisdiction for mesothelioma lawsuits after California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judiciary has been impacted by the influx of asbestos lawsuits. In 2015, former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges, which were partly relating to the millions of dollars in referral fees he earned from the politically-powerful plaintiffs' law firm Weitz & Luxenberg from handling asbestos cases. Justice Sherry Klein Heitler was appointed NYCAL's director in the wake of the scandal. She was in charge of NYCAL since the year 2008.
Justice Heitler was succeeded as NYCAL judge by Justice Peter Moulton, who has clarified that defendants are not entitled to summary judgment unless they can present an "scientifically solid credible, admissible and reliable scientific study" showing the measured amount of exposure a plaintiff received was too low to cause mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants will be able to obtain summary judgment.
Additionally, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff must show some injury to their health from exposure to asbestos in order for the court to award compensatory damages. This ruling, combined with a ruling from the beginning of 2016 that ruled that medical monitoring was not a tort claim makes it almost impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL Summary Judgment motion.
The most recent case on which Judge Toal is presiding, a mesothelioma lawsuit filed against DOVER GREENS, claims that the company was in violation of asbestos work practices regulations when it renovated buildings on the Manhattan campus in October 2013 to host an event to raise money for. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS did not follow CAA and NESHAP requirements for asbestos by failing to inspect the Campus; notifying EPA before starting renovation activities and to properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos and have a trained representative in place during renovations.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos-related personal lawsuits for death and injury filled up federal court dockets and judges' judicial resource were depleted, making it impossible for them from addressing criminal cases or important civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented timely settlement of victims as well as frustrated innocent families. Additionally, Baytown asbestos lawyer caused businesses to spend a lot of money on defense.
Asbestos claims can be filed by those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related ailments, after being exposed to asbestos while at work. Most cases are filed by construction workers, shipyard employees and other tradesmen working on structures that contained or were constructed with asbestos-containing materials. These individuals were exposed by dangerous asbestos fibers either during the manufacturing process or while working on the structure.
Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, an avalanche of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits stemming from asbestos exposure was a major issue for courts. This occurred in state and federal courts across the nation.
The plaintiffs in these lawsuits claim that their illnesses resulted from the negligence of asbestos-related products' manufacture and that companies failed to inform them of the dangers associated with such exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were brought in state courts, more than half were brought in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, recognizing 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 as well as pretrial and discovery purposes hundreds of federal and state cases that claimed asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Under the supervision of a Special Master, Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman consolidated these cases, referred to as Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation.
Although the majority of these cases were connected to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were common defendants in other asbestos claims. The defendants listed included Garlock, Inc; H & A Construction Company, as a successor and individually 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. were all defendants.