This Week's Most Popular Stories Concerning Ny Asbestos Litigation
New York Asbestos Litigation
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer patients can seek compensation through an expert mesothelioma lawyer. These diseases are usually caused by exposure to asbestos. Symptoms may not appear for decades.
Judges who manage the caseload 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 much different than the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve a variety of defendants (companies which are being sued) and law firms representing plaintiffs and numerous expert witnesses. In addition there are typically specific work sites which are the focus of these cases due to asbestos was utilized in a variety products and a lot of workers were exposed to asbestos while working. Asbestos sufferers are usually diagnosed with serious diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer.
New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. In reality, it is one of the largest dockets across the nation. It is governed by a special Case Management Order. This CMO was created to handle asbestos cases involving a large number of defendants. The judges involved in the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos cases. The docket has also witnessed some of the largest award for plaintiffs 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 shaken 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 for a period of 20 years, while also working at the plaintiffs ' firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler retired in April 2014, citing reports that she gave the Weitz & Luxenberg firm "red carpet treatment". She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton who implemented a number changes to the docket.
Moulton introduced a new rule in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to present proof that their products are not accountable for the mesothelioma that plaintiffs suffer from. He also implemented new rules that stipulated that he would not dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony was completed. This new policy will significantly impact the pace of discovery in cases in the NYCAL docket and could result in more favorable outcomes for defendants.
In other New York asbestos news, an federal judge from 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 more uniform and efficient treatment of these cases. The current MDL is well-known for its abusive discovery practices and unjustified sanctions, as well as low evidentiary standards.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his mismanagement the scandals surrounding Sheldon Silver's ties to asbestos lawyers have finally brought attention to New York City's asbestos court, which is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton, who now preside over NYCAL has already held an open Town Hall with defense lawyers to hear complaints regarding the "rigged" system which favors an asbestos law firm that is powerful.
Asbestos litigation differs from the typical personal injury lawsuit, with many of the same defendants (companies that are being sued) as well as plaintiffs (people who file lawsuits). Asbestos litigation also includes similar job sites where a lot of people were exposed asbestos, leading to mesothelioma or lung cancer. This can result in large verdicts that can clog the courts.
To address the issue, several states have adopted laws that limit these kinds of claims. They typically cover issues like medical requirements, two-disease regulations expedited case scheduling, forum shopping, joinders the right to punitive damages and successor liability.
Despite these laws, certain states continue see a high number of asbestos lawsuits. Certain courts have created special "asbestos Dockets" to help reduce the number of asbestos cases and speed up the resolution of these cases. These dockets are governed by a variety of rules that are tailored specifically for asbestos 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 employs an accelerated scheduling.
Certain 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 offer more compensation to victims. Whatever the case is filed in federal or state court, you should work with a New York mesothelioma lawyer to learn more about the laws that affect your specific 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 alleging exposure to lead, asbestos and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He has also defended claims that claim exposure to a variety of other hazards and contaminants like solvents and chemicals as well as vibration, noise, mold and environmental toxics.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Thousands of people have died from asbestos exposure in New York. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products to seek compensation. Successful mesothelioma lawsuits make asbestos companies accountable for their rash decisions to prioritize profits over public safety.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have experience representing clients of all backgrounds against the biggest asbestos producers in the nation. Their legal strategies may result in a favorable settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and continues to make headlines. According to the report for 2022 on mesothelioma claim submissions by KCIC, New York is the third most popular jurisdiction in which to file a mesothelioma suit after California and Pennsylvania.
The judicial system of the state is shaken by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. In 2015 the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges, which were partly relating to millions of dollars in referral fees he earned for the powerful plaintiffs law firm Weitz & Luxenberg from handling asbestos cases. After the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler who was in charge of NYCAL since 2008, was replaced amidst reports that she provided "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 able to obtain summary judgment unless they present an "scientifically sound, reliable and admissible scientific study" showing the measured exposure of a plaintiff was too low 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 must show an injury to their health due to exposure to asbestos for a court to make a decision on compensatory damages. This ruling, along with a decision made in early 2016 which ruled that medical monitoring is not a tort claim, makes it virtually impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL Summary Judgment motion.
In the case that Judge Toal was the judge in a mesothelioma suit brought against DOVER Green, a company that is accused of violating asbestos work practices regulations when it renovated Manhattan campus buildings in October 2013 to raise money for a fundraising event. South Gate asbestos lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS failed to adhere to CAA and asbestos NESHAP regulations because it failed to inform and inspect the EPA prior to starting renovations, or to properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos and having a trained representative present at renovation activities.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos-related personal injury and death cases once were a major source of delays in federal court dockets and judges' judicial resources were drained, preventing them from addressing criminal matters or other important civil disputes. The frenzied litigation hindered the prompt compensation of deserving victims, irritated innocent families, and forced firms to commit huge amounts of money and resources to defense of these cases.
Asbestos claims can be filed by those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses after exposure to asbestos while at work. The majority of asbestos claims are filed by construction employees, shipyard workers, and other tradesmen working on buildings made or made of asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to dangerous asbestos fibers during the manufacturing process or while working on the structure itself.
The first major mass tort was asbestos litigation. In the late 1970s and 1980s an avalanche of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits stemming from exposure to asbestos engulfed the courts. This was the case in federal and state court across the nation.
These lawsuits are brought by plaintiffs who claim their ailments were the result of negligent manufacturing of asbestos products. They claim that the companies did not inform them of the dangers associated with asbestos exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are brought in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, after recognizing that the litigation was a "terrible overload of the 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, pretrial, and discovery purposes. Under the supervision of Special Master, Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman consolidated these cases and referred to them as Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation.
Although the majority of these cases were relating to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were common defendants in other asbestos lawsuits. 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 Company Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp.; and DNS Metal Industries, Inc.