New York Asbestos Litigation
Mesothelioma sufferers in New York can receive compensation from a mesothelioma attorney. The exposure to asbestos is often the cause of these kinds of illnesses. symptoms can take years before they appear.
Judges who manage the caseload of NYCAL have developed a system that favors plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further undermine the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is very different from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve multiple defendants (companies being sued) as well as multiple law offices representing plaintiffs, and a variety of expert witness. In addition, there are usually specific work sites which are the subject of these cases since asbestos was used in a variety of products and workers were exposed to it during their work. Asbestos sufferers are usually diagnosed with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma and lung cancer.
Tracy asbestos lawyer has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. It is one of the largest dockets across the nation. It is managed under a special Case Management Order. This CMO was created to manage large numbers of asbestos cases involving numerous defendants. The judges who are part of the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket is also the site of some of the most significant plaintiff verdicts in the past.
New York Court of Appeals has made major changes to the NYCAL docket in the last few days. In 2015, the political establishment in Albany was shaken to its core when the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. Silver was accused of destroying every reasonable 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, was dismissed in April 2014 amid reports that she had offered 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 new rules in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to submit evidence that their products aren't responsible for the plaintiffs' mesothelioma. In addition, he instituted a new practice in which he did not dismiss cases until expert witness testimony was completed. This new policy may have an impact on the pace of discovery for cases in 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 last week and ordered that all future asbestos cases be transferred to another District. This change will hopefully result in more uniform and efficient handling of these cases, because the MDL currently MDL has earned reputation for a history of abuse of discovery, unwarranted sanctions and minimal evidentiary requirements.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his mismanagement scandals involving Sheldon Silver's connections to asbestos lawyers have finally brought attention to New York City's asbestos court, which is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton, who is now the head of NYCAL has already hosted a Town Hall meeting with defense lawyers to discuss complaints regarding the "rigged" system that favors an asbestos law firm that is powerful.
Asbestos lawsuits differ from the typical personal injury lawsuit. It has many of the same defendants (companies that are sued) and plaintiffs (people who file the lawsuits). Asbestos litigation also involves similar job sites, where many people were exposed to asbestos, which led to mesothelioma or lung cancer. This can lead to large case verdicts, which can block the court dockets.
To combat this issue A number of states have passed laws that restrict the types of claims that can be made. These laws typically cover issues like medical guidelines, two-disease rules and expedited case scheduling joinders, forum shopping, consequential damages, and successor liability.
Despite these laws, certain states continue to see high numbers of asbestos lawsuits. In an effort to reduce the number of lawsuits filed and to speed up their resolution certain courts have established special "asbestos dockets" which apply a set of different rules to these cases. The New York City asbestos court, for example requires claimants to meet certain medical standards and has rules for two diseases. It also uses an accelerated schedule.
Some states have also passed laws to limit the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to deter bad behavior and provide greater compensation to victims. It is recommended to consult a New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you file your case in federal or state courts to understand the laws that apply to your case.
Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in environmental and toxic tort litigation including product liability, commercial and toxic tort litigation. He also handles general liability issues. He has a wealth of experience in defending clients against claims of exposure to lead, asbestos and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He also regularly defends claims alleging exposure to numerous other hazards and contaminants such as solvents and chemical and vibration, noise, mold, and environmental toxics.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Many people have died from asbestos exposure in New York. Across five counties, mesothelioma victims and their loved ones have filed lawsuits against the manufacturers of asbestos-based products for compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits which are successful hold negligent asbestos companies responsible for their reckless decisions.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have expertise in representing clients from all backgrounds against the biggest asbestos manufacturers in the country. Their legal strategies could lead to an impressive settlement or verdict.
Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and it continues to make headlines. According to the 2022 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 judicial system of the state has been shaken by the flurry 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 from the powerful plaintiffs' law firm Weitz & Luxenberg from handling asbestos cases. Following the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler who had been the head of NYCAL since 2008, was replaced amidst reports that she gave "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 cannot obtain summary judgment unless they present an "scientifically solid valid, credible and admissible scientific study" showing the measured dose of a plaintiff's exposure 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 prove some damage to their health as a result of asbestos exposure in order for the court to award compensatory damage. This ruling, along with a decision in early 2016 that holds that medical monitoring is not a tort claim, makes it almost impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to win a NYCAL motion for summary judgment.
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 to host an event for fundraising. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS failed to adhere to CAA and asbestos NESHAP regulations because it failed to notify and inspect the EPA prior to beginning renovations, and 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 death and injury cases were a major source of delays in federal court dockets and judges' judicial resource were drained, making it difficult for them to address criminal matters or other important civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented timely compensation of victims and irritated innocent families. Additionally, it caused businesses to spend excessive amounts of money on defense.
Asbestos claims can be filed by those diagnosed with mesothelioma, or other asbestos-related ailments, after being exposed to asbestos in the workplace. Most asbestos claims are filed by construction employees or shipyard workers, as well as other tradesmen who worked on structures made of or containing asbestos-containing materials. These workers were exposed asbestos fibers that could be harmful in the manufacturing process or while working on the structure itself.
The first major mass tort was asbestos litigation. In the late 1970s to early 1980s, asbestos exposure caused an influx of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. This was the case in state and federal courts across the nation.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits argue that their illnesses resulted from negligent manufacture of asbestos products and that companies did not inform them of the dangers that come with exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are brought in federal courts.
In the early 1990s recognizing that the litigation was an "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 that alleged asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for settlement or pretrial purposes. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases that were later known as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of the Special Master.
Although the majority of these cases were connected to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were common defendants in other asbestos claims. The defendants list 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.