New York Asbestos Litigation
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer victims can find compensation through an experienced mesothelioma lawyer. The exposure to asbestos is often the cause of these kinds of illnesses. symptoms can take years before they manifest.
Judges who oversee NYCAL's caseload have developed a pattern of favoring plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further undermine the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is much different from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve multiple defendants (companies being sued) as well as multiple law offices representing plaintiffs, as well as multiple expert witness. These cases are often focused on specific work areas because asbestos was used in the production of a variety products and many workers were subjected to it during their work. Asbestos sufferers often develop serious illnesses such as mesothelioma and lung cancer.
New York has its own unique way of handling asbestos litigation. It is among the largest dockets across the United States. It is governed by a unique Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to manage asbestos cases involving a large number of defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos cases. The docket has also seen some of the largest plaintiff awards in recent history.
The New York Court of Appeals has recently made significant changes to the NYCAL docket. In 2015 the political system in Albany was rocked to its foundations by the conviction of former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. Silver was accused of sabotaging tort reform legislation in the legislature over a period of 20 years while working at the plaintiffs ' firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler retired in April 2014 following reports that she gave the Weitz & Luxenberg firm "red carpet treatment". She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton who implemented several changes to the docket.
Moulton implemented a new rule in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to present evidence that their products are not responsible 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 had been completed. This new rule will greatly affect the speed of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket, and could result in better 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 will result in more uniform and efficient treatment of asbestos cases. The MDL in its current MDL is well-known for its abusive discovery practices and unjustified sanctions, as well as inadequate evidentiary standards.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his mismanagement, the scandals surrounding Sheldon Silver's ties to asbestos attorneys have finally brought attention to New York City's rigged asbestos court. Justice Peter Moulton is now presided over NYCAL and has already held a town hall meeting with defense attorneys to listen to complaints about a "rigged" system that favors one mighty asbestos law firm.
Asbestos lawsuits differ from a typical personal injury lawsuit because it involves a number of the same defendants and plaintiffs. Asbestos litigation can also involve similar job sites, where many people were exposed asbestos, leading to mesothelioma and lung cancer. This can result in huge case verdicts, which can clog the court dockets.
To address the problem, several states have adopted laws that limit these types of claims. These laws usually address medical criteria, two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders, forum shopping, punitive damages and successor liability.
Despite these laws, certain states continue see a high number of asbestos lawsuits. To reduce the number of lawsuits filed and resolve them faster certain courts have created special "asbestos dockets" that use a variety of different rules to these cases. The New York City asbestos court is one example. It requires applicants to meet certain medical standards, has two-disease rules and utilizes an accelerated schedule.
Some states have passed laws that restrict the amount of punitive damage given in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to deter particularly bad conduct and allow more compensation to go to victims. Regardless of whether your case is filed in federal or state court, you must work 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 as well as product liability and commercial litigation. He also handles general liability issues. He has extensive experience in the defense of clients against claims of exposure to asbestos, Lead and World Trade Center Dust in both New York City and New Jersey. He also regularly defends claims that claim exposure to a variety of other hazardous substances and contaminants like solvents and chemicals and noise, mold, vibration, and environmental toxics.
Akron asbestos lawsuit has seen thousands of deaths due to asbestos exposure. Across five counties, mesothelioma victims and their families have filed lawsuits against the manufacturers of asbestos-based products to recover compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits that succeed hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their reckless decisions.
New York mesothelioma lawyers are skilled in representing clients from different backgrounds against the nation's most significant asbestos manufacturers. Their legal strategies could result in an impressive settlement or verdict.
Asbestos litigation has a long history in New York, and continues to make headlines. According to the 2022 national report on mesothelioma claims filed by KCIC, New York is the third most sought-after jurisdiction where you can file mesothelioma claims, after California and Pennsylvania.
The judicial system of the state has been shook by the flurry of asbestos lawsuits. In 2015 the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges that were linked to the millions of dollars of referral fees he earned for the powerful plaintiffs' law firm Weitz & Luxenberg from handling asbestos cases. Following the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler who had been the head of NYCAL since 2008, was dismissed amid 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 obtain summary judgment unless they have a "scientifically valid and legally admissible research" that proves the dose of exposure a plaintiff received was not sufficient to cause mesothelioma. This virtually eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants are able to get summary judgment.
Justice Moulton also ruled that the plaintiff must show health harm suffered due to asbestos exposure in order for the judge to award compensatory damages. This ruling, along with a decision in early 2016 that held that medical monitoring is not a tort, makes it almost impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL motion for summary judgment.
The latest case in which Judge Toal is presiding, a mesothelioma lawsuit filed against DOVER GREENS, alleges that the company violated asbestos work practice 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 didn't follow CAA and asbestos NESHAP regulations, failing to inform and inspect the EPA prior to commencing renovation activities, properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos, and having a properly trained representative at renovation activities.
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' judicial resource were drained, preventing them to address criminal matters or important civil disputes. This bloated litigation hindered the timely compensation of victims and frustrated innocent families. Additionally, it caused businesses to invest excessive money on defense.
Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma, or other asbestos-related illnesses after being exposed to asbestos while at work. Most cases are filed by shipyard workers, construction employees, employees as well as other tradesmen who worked on buildings that contained or were constructed using asbestos-containing materials. These workers were exposed asbestos fibers that could be harmful during the process of manufacturing or while working on the actual structure.
The first major mass tort was asbestos litigation. From the late 1970s to early 1980s, asbestos exposure triggered a flood of personal injury and wrongful deaths lawsuits. This occurred in state and federal courts across the nation.
The plaintiffs in these lawsuits claim that their ailments were caused by the negligence in the production of asbestos products and that companies did not warn them about the dangers associated with such exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are filed in federal court.
In the early 1990s, recognizing that the litigation was a "terrible overloaded 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 as well as pretrial and discovery purposes. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases, which were referred to as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of a Special Master.
While the bulk of these cases were relating 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.