New York Asbestos Litigation
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer patients can seek compensation with the help of an expert mesothelioma lawyer. Asbestos exposure is a common cause of these types of illnesses; symptoms may take decades before they appear.
The judges who manage NYCAL's caseload have crafted an inclination to favor plaintiffs. Lubbock asbestos attorney 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 in court) and law firms representing plaintiffs as well as multiple expert witnesses. These cases usually are inspired by specific job sites since asbestos was used to make various products and a lot of workers were subjected to it while at work. Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with serious illnesses like mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has its own unique way of handling asbestos litigation. In fact, it's one of the largest dockets in the country. It is governed by a unique Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to handle large numbers of asbestos cases that involve many defendants. The judges involved in the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos cases. The docket also is the location of some of the most significant plaintiff verdicts in recent times.
New York Court of Appeals made some major changes to the NYCAL docket recently. 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. He was accused of sabotaging tort reform legislation in the legislature for more than 20 years, while moonlighting at the plaintiffs firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time supervisor of the NYCAL docket, retired in April 2014 amidst reports that she'd given 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 introduced a new rule in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to submit proof that their products aren't accountable for the plaintiffs' mesothelioma. He also implemented a new policy in which he would not dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony had been completed. This new policy 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.
In other New York asbestos news, an federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed MDL 875 and ordered all asbestos cases in the future to be transferred to another district. This will hopefully bring about more uniform and efficient handling of these cases since the MDL currently MDL has earned a reputation for discovery abuse in the past, unjustified sanctions, and minimal evidentiary requirements.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption and mismanagement by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals concerning his ties to asbestos lawyers have finally focused attention on New York City's asbestos docket that is rigged. 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 litigation is different from the typical personal injury lawsuit, with many of the same defendants (companies that are being sued) and plaintiffs (people who file lawsuits). Asbestos litigation also generally involves similar workplaces where a lot of people were exposed to asbestos, often leading to mesothelioma, lung cancer or other illnesses. This can result in large judgments in cases, which can clog the court dockets.
To limit this problem To address this issue, several states have passed laws to limit the types of claims that can be made. These laws usually cover issues like medical criteria, two-disease rules, expedited case scheduling, forum shopping, joinders, the right to punitive damages and successor liability.
Despite these laws, some 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 specifically designed for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos docket for instance, requires claimants to meet specific medical criteria and has a two-disease rule and has an accelerated trial plan.
Some states have passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damages awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to stop bad conduct and allow for more compensation to be awarded to victims. You should speak with a New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you decide to file your case in federal or state courts to understand the laws that apply to your case.
Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on toxic tort and environmental litigation as well as product liability, commercial litigation and general liability issues. He has extensive experience defending clients against claims alleging exposure to lead, asbestos and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He also regularly defends claims claiming exposure to many other hazards and contaminants like solvents and chemicals and vibration, noise, mold and environmental toxics.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
New York has seen thousands of deaths due to asbestos exposure. In five counties, mesothelioma victims and their loved ones have filed lawsuits against the manufacturers of asbestos-based products to recover compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits which are successful hold negligent asbestos companies responsible for their reckless decisions.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have experience representing clients of all backgrounds against the largest asbestos manufacturers in the country. Their legal strategies could lead to an enormous settlement or verdict.
Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and continues to make headlines. The 2022 national mesothelioma lawsuit report by KCIC lists New York as the third most popular jurisdiction for mesothelioma lawsuit filings, after California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judiciary has been impacted by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was found guilty in 2015 on federal corruption charges in connection with millions of dollars of referral fees that he received from the politically powerful plaintiffs law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. After the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler who had been the head of NYCAL since 2008, was fired amid reports that she gave "red-carpet treatment" to Weitz & Luxenberg asbestos lawsuits.
Justice Peter Moulton succeeded Justice Heitler as NYCAL judge. He has stated that defendants won't be able to get summary judgment without 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 are able to get summary judgment.
Additionally, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff has to prove an injury to their health due to exposure to asbestos for a court to award compensatory damages. This ruling, when combined with a ruling in early 2016 that holds that medical monitoring is not a tort, makes it almost impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL summary judgment motion.
In the latest case, Judge Toal was the judge in mesothelioma lawsuit filed 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 fundraiser. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS failed to adhere to CAA and asbestos NESHAP regulations, failing to inform and inspect the EPA prior to commencing renovations, and properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos, and appointing a trained representative at renovation activities.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos-related personal lawsuits for death and injury clogged federal court dockets, and judges' judicial resource were drained, preventing them to address criminal matters or other important civil disputes. This bloated litigation impeded the timely payment of deserving victims, frustrated innocent families, and forced companies to devote inordinate amounts of money and resources to defense of these cases.
Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases following being exposed to asbestos in their work environment. The majority of cases are filed by shipyard workers, construction workers 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 in the manufacturing process or while working on the actual structure.
The first major mass tort was asbestos litigation. From the late 1970s until early 1980s, asbestos exposure triggered an influx of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. This was the case in federal and state courts across the country.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits argue that their illnesses were caused by the negligence of asbestos-related products' manufacture and that companies failed to inform them of the dangers associated with such exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are brought in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, recognizing that this litigation constituted "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 cases that alleged exposure to asbestos at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases and were called the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of a Special Master.
A number of defendants had been involved in other asbestos-related claims. The list of defendants included Garlock, Inc; H & A Construction Company, as successors 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.