New York Asbestos Litigation
Mesothelioma patients in New York can receive compensation from a mesothelioma lawyer. Asbestos exposure is a common cause of these kinds of diseases; symptoms can take years before they manifest.
Judges who manage the caseload of NYCAL have developed a pattern of favoring plaintiffs. A recent ruling 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 involve many defendants (companies which are being in court) as well as multiple law firms representing plaintiffs and numerous expert witnesses. These cases are often inspired by specific job areas because asbestos was used to make various products, and a large number of workers were subjected to it while at work. Asbestos sufferers are usually diagnosed with serious diseases such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. It is among the largest dockets in the United States. It is managed by a special Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to handle the large number of asbestos cases, involving numerous defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos cases. The docket is also the site of some of the largest plaintiff verdicts in recent times.
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 core by the conviction of the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. He had been accused of sabotaging every decently crafted tort reform bill in the legislature for more than 20 years while moonlighting for the plaintiffs firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time supervisor of the NYCAL docket, resigned in April 2014 amidst reports that she had offered 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 instituted an entirely new rule for the NYCAL docket that requires that defendants file proof that their products were not responsible for plaintiffs' mesothelioma. He also instituted a new policy in which he wouldn't dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony was completed. This new rule will greatly impact the pace of discovery in cases in the NYCAL docket, and could result in better outcomes for defendants.
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed MDL 875 in the last few days and ordered that all future asbestos cases be transferred to another District. This will result in a more uniform and efficient treatment of these cases. The MDL currently MDL is infamous for its discovery abuse as well as its unjustified sanction and inadequate evidentiary standards.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of mismanagement and corruption by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals regarding his connections to asbestos lawyers have finally attracted the attention of the asbestos docket, which is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton is now presided over NYCAL and has already held a town hall with defense attorneys to listen to complaints about a "rigged" system that favors one powerful asbestos law firm.
Asbestos litigation is different from the typical personal injury case because it involves a lot of the same defendants and plaintiffs. Asbestos litigation can also involve similar workplaces where workers were exposed to asbestos, which led to mesothelioma or lung cancer. This can result in large judgments in cases, which can cause delays in court dockets.
To combat this issue A number of states have passed laws that limit the types of claims that can be made. They typically deal with medical requirements, two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders and forum shopping, punitive damages and successor liability.
Despite these laws, certain states are still seeing high numbers of asbestos lawsuits. Some courts have created "asbestos Dockets" to reduce the number and speed up the resolution of these cases. These dockets are governed by various rules that are tailored specifically for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos docket for instance is one that requires applicants to meet specific medical criteria, has a two-disease rule and utilizes an expedited trial schedule.
Some states have passed laws that restrict the amount of punitive damages given in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to deter particularly bad conduct and allow more compensation to the victims. It is recommended to consult an New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you decide to file your case in federal or state courts to learn about the laws applicable to your particular situation.
Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in environmental and toxic tort litigation, product liability and commercial litigation. He also is a specialist in general liability issues. He has extensive experience in defending clients against claims of exposure to asbestos, Lead and World Trade Center Dust in both New York City 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 contaminants.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
New York has seen thousands of deaths caused by asbestos exposure. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against manufacturers of asbestos-related products in order to seek compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits that succeed hold negligent asbestos companies responsible for their rash decisions.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have the experience of representing clients from all backgrounds against the largest asbestos producers in the nation. Their legal strategies could lead to an impressive settlement or verdict.
Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and continues to make headlines. According to the 2022 national report on mesothelioma claim filings by KCIC, New York is the third most sought-after jurisdiction for filing mesothelioma claims, after California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judicial system has been shaken 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 in referral fees he earned from the powerful plaintiffs' law firm Weitz & Luxenberg from handling asbestos cases. Following the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, who had managed NYCAL since 2008, was fired amid reports that she had given "red-carpet treatment" to Weitz & Luxenberg asbestos lawsuits.
Justice Heitler was succeeded as NYCAL judge by Justice Peter Moulton, who has clarified that defendants are not entitled to summary judgment unless they have a "scientifically sound, reliable and admissible scientific study" that proves the dose of a plaintiff's exposure was not enough to cause mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants will be able to obtain summary judgment.
In addition, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff has to prove some injury to his or her health from exposure to asbestos in order for a court to make a decision on compensatory damages. This ruling, combined with a ruling from the beginning of 2016 which ruled that medical monitoring was not a tort, makes it virtually impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL Summary Judgment motion.
The most recent case on which Judge Toal is in charge on, a mesothelioma suit filed against DOVER GREENS claims that the company violated asbestos work practices regulations when it renovated buildings on the Manhattan campus in October 2013 to host a fundraising event. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS was not following CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to inspect the campus; notify EPA prior to beginning renovations; appropriately remove, store, and dispose of asbestos; and have a trained representative in place during renovations.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos-related personal death and injury cases filled up federal court dockets and judges' judicial resources were drained, making it difficult for them from addressing criminal matters or important civil disputes. Bellingham asbestos lawyers bloated litigation impeded the timely payment of deserving victims and innocent families, and caused companies to devote inordinate amounts of money and resources for defense of these cases.
Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses after exposure to asbestos while at work. The majority of asbestos claims are filed by construction workers or shipyard workers, as well as other tradesmen who worked on structures made of or that contain asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to asbestos fibers that were dangerous during the process of manufacturing or while working on the actual structure.
The first significant mass tort was asbestos litigation. From the late 1970s to early 1980s, asbestos exposure caused an influx of personal injury and wrongful deaths lawsuits. This was the case in both state and federal court across the country.
These lawsuits are brought by plaintiffs who claim their illnesses were the result of the negligent manufacture of asbestos products. They also claim that companies failed to warn them about the dangers of asbestos exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are filed in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, after recognizing that this litigation was "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 lawsuits that alleged exposure to asbestos at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases, which were known as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of a Special Master.
Many of the defendants were involved in other asbestos-related claims. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, as successors to Spraycraft Corporation, CRH, Inc., successors to E.I. Dupont; W.R. Grace and Company; Empire-Ace Insulation Manufacturing Company Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp.; and DNS Metal Industries, Inc.