New York Asbestos Litigation
Mesothelioma victims in New York can receive compensation from an attorney for mesothelioma. These illnesses are often caused by exposure to asbestos. The symptoms may not be apparent for decades.
The judges who manage 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 distinct 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 as well as multiple expert witnesses. These cases are often focused on specific work areas since asbestos was used in the production of a variety products and many workers were exposed to asbestos during their work. Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with serious diseases like mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. It is one of the biggest dockets across the United States. It is governed by a unique Case Management Order. This CMO was created to handle asbestos cases with numerous defendants. The judges who are part of the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos cases. The docket also has seen some of the highest award for plaintiffs in recent times.
New York Court of Appeals made some major changes to the NYCAL docket last week. In 2015 the political system in Albany was shaken to the core by the conviction of former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. Silver was accused of destroying every reasonable designed tort reform bill in the legislature for more than 20 years, while working for the plaintiffs' firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler retired in April 2014 following 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 implemented a new rule in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to submit proof that their products are not accountable for the plaintiffs' mesothelioma. In addition, he instituted the new policy that he did not dismiss cases until all expert witness testimony was complete. This new rule could have significant effects on the speed of discovery for cases on the NYCAL docket and could result in an outcome that is more favorable to defendants.
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed MDL 875 recently 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 infamous for its abuse of discovery 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 New York City's asbestos docket, which is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton, who now preside over NYCAL has already hosted a Town Hall meeting with defense lawyers to discuss complaints about the "rigged" system which favors an asbestos law firm with a strong reputation.
Asbestos litigation is different from a typical personal injury case because it involves a lot of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos litigation can also involve similar workplaces where workers were exposed to asbestos, resulting to mesothelioma or lung cancer. This can result in large verdicts that could clog court dockets.
To address the problem, several states have adopted laws that limit these types of claims. They typically deal with medical criteria two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders, forum shopping, punitive damage and successor liability.
Despite these laws states are still seeing an influx of asbestos lawsuits. To reduce the number of filings and to speed up their resolution certain courts have created special "asbestos dockets" which apply a set of different rules for these 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 passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damage given in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to discourage bad conduct and offer more compensation to the victims. You should consult an New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you file your case in state or federal courts to know the laws that apply to your case.
Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in toxic tort and environment litigation, product liability and commercial litigation. He also handles general liability issues. He has extensive experience defending clients against claims alleging exposure to asbestos, lead and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He has also defended cases involving exposure to other contaminants and hazards, such as vibration, noise, mold and environmental toxins.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Thousands of people have lost their lives from asbestos exposure in New York. In five counties, mesothelioma victims and their loved ones have filed lawsuits against manufacturers of asbestos-based products for compensation. Successful mesothelioma lawsuits hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their rash choices to place profits over public safety.
New York mesothelioma lawyers are adept at representing clients with diverse backgrounds against the nation's largest asbestos manufacturers. Their legal strategies could lead to an impressive settlement or verdict.
Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and continues to draw attention. The 2022 mesothelioma claim national report from KCIC declares New York as the third most popular place for mesothelioma lawsuit filings, following California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judicial system has been shaken by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was found guilty in 2015 on federal corruption charges related to millions of dollars of referral fees he received from politically powerful plaintiffs' law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. After the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler who was in charge of NYCAL since 2008, was fired amid reports that she had given "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 credible and admissible study" showing that the measured dose of exposure that a plaintiff received was not sufficient to cause mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants can obtain summary judgment.
Justice Moulton also ruled that the plaintiff must show injury to their health from asbestos exposure in order for the court to award compensatory damage. This ruling, combined with a decision from early 2016 that ruled that medical monitoring is not a tort claim makes it nearly impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to win a NYCAL Summary Judgment motion.
The most recent case, in which Judge Toal is presiding, a mesothelioma lawsuit filed against DOVER GREENS, alleges that the company violated asbestos work practices 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 adhere to CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to inspect and notify the EPA prior to beginning renovation activities, properly removing, storing and dispose of asbestos, and having a properly trained representative on site during renovations.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos-related personal injury and death cases once filled up federal court dockets and judges' judicial resource were drained, preventing them to address criminal matters or other important civil disputes. The bloated litigation impeded the prompt compensation of victims as well as frustrated innocent families. Additionally, it caused businesses to spend excessive amounts of money on defense.
Asbestos claims are filed by people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases after being exposed to asbestos in a workplace environment. Most cases are filed by shipyard workers, construction employees, employees, and other tradesmen working on structures that contained or were constructed with asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to asbestos fibers that could be harmful during the manufacturing process 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 was a major issue for courts. This occurred in state and federal courts across the nation.
These lawsuits are filed by plaintiffs who claim their ailments were the result from the negligence of asbestos manufacturing 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, more than half were filed in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, after recognizing that the litigation was an "terrible overload of the calendar," District Judge Jack B. Ventura asbestos lawsuit and New York Supreme Court justice Helen Freedman consolidated hundreds of federal and State cases that alleged asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for settlement as well as pretrial and discovery purposes. Under the supervision of a Special Master, Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman consolidated these cases, referred to as Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation.
A number of defendants were involved in other asbestos-related claims. The list of defendants 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 Corporation, Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp., and DNS Metal Industries, Inc. were all defendants.