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 diseases; symptoms can take years before they show up.
St. Louis asbestos lawyer who manage the caseload of NYCAL have developed patterns of favoring plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further weaken the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation differs 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. In addition there are often specific workplaces which are the subject of these cases due to asbestos was utilized in a variety products and many workers were exposed to asbestos while working. Asbestos sufferers are usually diagnosed with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. It is one of the largest dockets across the United States. It is controlled by a specific Case Management Order. This CMO was created to manage the large number of asbestos cases that involve a multitude of defendants. The judges who are part of the NYCAL docket are experienced in asbestos cases. The docket is also the site of some of the highest plaintiff verdicts in recent history.
New York Court of Appeals made some major changes to the NYCAL docket last week. 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 had been accused of sabotaging every decently crafted tort reform bill in the legislature for more than a decade while working for the plaintiffs firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time head of the NYCAL docket, resigned 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 made a variety of changes to the docket.
Moulton introduced an amendment to the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to provide evidence that their products are not accountable for the plaintiffs' mesothelioma. He also instituted new rules that stipulated that he would not dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony was completed. This new rule could have an impact on the speed of discovery for cases in the NYCAL docket and could result in an outcome that is more favorable for defendants.
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed MDL 875 last week and ordered that all asbestos cases in the future be transferred to a different District. This should result in an efficient and uniform treatment of these cases. The MDL in its current MDL is infamous 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 asbestos court that is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton is now presided over NYCAL and has already held a town hall with defense attorneys to hear complaints about a "rigged" system that favors one mighty asbestos law firm.
Asbestos litigation differs from the typical personal injury lawsuit, which has many of the same defendants (companies that are sued) as well as plaintiffs (people who file lawsuits). Asbestos cases also typically involve similar work sites where a large number of people were exposed to asbestos, usually leading to mesothelioma, lung cancer or other illnesses. These cases can result in huge verdicts that could clog courts.
To limit this problem A number of states have passed laws to restrict the types of claims that can be filed. These laws usually cover issues like medical requirements, two-disease regulations and expedited case scheduling joinders, forum shopping, consequential damages, and successor liability.
Despite these laws states are still seeing high numbers 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 follow a variety of rules that are specifically designed for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos court, for example requires claimants to meet certain medical criteria as well as has two-disease rules. It also utilizes an accelerated schedule.
Some states have also passed laws that restrict the amount of punitive damages awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to discourage particularly bad behavior and provide greater compensation to victims. Regardless of whether your case is filed in a state or federal court, you must work with a New York mesothelioma lawyer to know how these laws impact your particular situation.
Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in environmental and toxic tort litigation, product liability and commercial litigation. He also handles 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 has also defended cases alleging exposure to other hazards and contaminants like noise, mold, vibration and environmental toxins.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Thousands of people have died from asbestos exposure in New York. Across five counties, mesothelioma sufferers and their families have filed lawsuits against companies of asbestos-based products in order to receive compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits which are successful hold negligent asbestos companies responsible for their rash decisions.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have expertise in representing clients from all backgrounds against the largest asbestos manufacturers in the country. Their legal strategies can result in a favorable settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and continues to make headlines. The 2022 national mesothelioma claims report by KCIC declares New York as the third most popular state for mesothelioma lawsuits, following California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judiciary has been impacted by the influx 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 for the politically-powerful plaintiffs law firm Weitz & Luxenberg from handling asbestos cases. Following the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, who had managed NYCAL since 2008, was replaced amidst 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 made it clear that defendants are not entitled to summary judgment unless they present an "scientifically sound credible, admissible and reliable scientific study" showing the measured exposure of a plaintiff was too low to cause mesothelioma. This effectively ends the possibility that NYCAL defendants will be able to obtain summary judgment.
Justice Moulton also ruled that the plaintiff must show damage to their health due to asbestos exposure in order for the court to award compensatory damage. This decision, coupled with a ruling from the beginning of 2016 which 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 on, a mesothelioma suit 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 for fundraising. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS failed to follow CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to check the campus and notifying EPA prior to commencing renovations and properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos; and have a trained representative in place during renovation activities.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos-related personal death and injury cases were a major source of delays in federal court dockets and judges' resources were drained, preventing them from addressing criminal matters or important civil disputes. The bloated litigation impeded the timely settlement of victims and irritated innocent families. It also caused companies to spend a lot of money on defense.
Asbestos claims are filed by individuals who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases following being exposed to asbestos in a workplace environment. Most cases are filed by construction workers, shipyard employees, and other tradesmen who worked on structures that contained or were constructed using asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to asbestos fibers that could be harmful during the process of manufacturing or while working on the actual structure.
Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, an avalanche of personal injury and wrongful death cases arising from asbestos exposure filled the courts. This was the case in both state and federal courts across the country.
These lawsuits are brought by plaintiffs who claim that their ailments were the result of negligent manufacturing of asbestos products. They also claim that companies failed inform them of the dangers that come with asbestos exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were filed in state courts, a majority were brought in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, when they realized 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 state and federal lawsuits that claimed asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases that were later called the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of a Special Master.
While the bulk of these cases were connected to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were defendants in other asbestos claims. The defendants list included Garlock, Inc; H & A Construction Company, individually and as successor to Spraycraft Corporation; CRH, Inc. as the successor to E.I. Dupont; W.R. Grace and Company; Empire-Ace Insulation Manufacturing Corporation; Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp.; and DNS Metal Industries, Inc.