25 Amazing Facts About Ny Asbestos Litigation
New York Asbestos Litigation
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer sufferers can receive compensation with the help of an expert mesothelioma lawyer. These diseases are usually caused by exposure to asbestos. The symptoms may not show up for decades.
Judges who manage the caseload of NYCAL have developed a pattern that favors plaintiffs. A recent ruling could further weaken defendants' rights.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is very different from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases include multiple defendants (companies being sued), multiple law offices representing plaintiffs, as well as multiple expert witnesses. These cases are often focused on specific work locations since asbestos was used in the production of a variety products and many workers were exposed to asbestos while at work. Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has its own unique way of dealing with asbestos litigation. It is among the biggest dockets across the nation. It is controlled by a specific Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to handle asbestos cases with a large number of defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos cases. The docket also has seen some of the most prestigious plaintiff awards in recent history.
The New York Court of Appeals has recently made some 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. He was accused of sabotaging tort reform bills in the legislature for more than 20 years, while also working at the firm representing plaintiffs Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time manager of the NYCAL docket, resigned 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 implemented a number of changes to the docket.
Moulton introduced an entirely new rule for the NYCAL docket, which requires defendants to submit evidence that their products were not responsible for mesothelioma of plaintiffs. Additionally, he introduced the new policy that he would not dismiss cases until all expert witness testimony was complete. This new rule will greatly impact the pace of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket and may result in better outcomes for 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 a different District. This should result in more uniform and efficient handling of these cases since the MDL currently MDL has developed reputation for abuse of discovery as well as unjustified sanctions and low evidentiary requirements.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption and mismanagement by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals regarding his connections to asbestos lawyers have attracted the attention of the asbestos docket that is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton is now the head of NYCAL and has already held a town hall with defense lawyers to hear complaints about a "rigged" system that favors a powerful asbestos law firm.
Asbestos litigation differs from the typical personal injury lawsuit, which has many of the same defendants (companies that are sued) and plaintiffs (people who file the lawsuits). Asbestos litigation also involves similar workplaces where workers were exposed to asbestos, which led to mesothelioma and lung cancer. This can result in large verdicts that could clog dockets of the courts.
To address the problem, several states have adopted laws to limit these types of claims. These laws usually address medical requirements two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders and forum shopping, punitive damage and successor liability.
Despite these laws, some states still face a large number of asbestos lawsuits. In an effort to reduce the number of filings and to speed up their resolution, some courts have set up special "asbestos dockets" which apply a set of different rules to these cases. The New York City asbestos docket for instance, requires claimants to meet specific medical criteria and also has a rule of two diseases and utilizes an accelerated trial schedule.
Certain states have passed laws that restrict the amount of punitive damage awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to deter particularly bad conduct and allow for more compensation to the victims. Regardless of whether your case is filed in a state or federal court, you should work with an New York mesothelioma lawyer to understand how these laws affect your specific 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 from claims that claim exposure to asbestos, lead 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 such as solvents and chemical and vibration, noise, mold, and environmental contaminants.
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 the manufacturers of asbestos-based products in order to receive compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits which are successful hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their reckless choices.
New York mesothelioma lawyers are skilled in representing clients from diverse backgrounds against the country's most significant asbestos manufacturers. Their legal strategies can result in a favorable settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and continues to be the subject of headlines. The 2022 national mesothelioma lawsuit report from KCIC lists New York as the third most popular jurisdiction for mesothelioma lawsuits following California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judicial system is shaken by the flurry of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was found guilty in 2015 on federal corruption charges relating to millions of dollars in referral fees that he received from the politically powerful plaintiffs' law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. Following Aurora asbestos lawyers , Justice Sherry Klein Heitler who had been the head of NYCAL since 2008, was dismissed 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 will not be able to obtain summary judgment unless they have a "scientifically reliable and admissible study" that proves the dose of exposure that a plaintiff received was not sufficient to cause a mesothelioma. This virtually eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants will be able to obtain summary judgment.
Justice Moulton also ruled that plaintiffs must prove injury to their health as a result of asbestos exposure before the judge to award compensatory damages. This ruling, along with a decision from early 2016 that ruled that medical monitoring is not a tort claim, makes it virtually impossible for an asbestos defence lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL Summary Judgment motion.
The latest case in which Judge Toal is in charge of, a mesothelioma case filed against DOVER GREENS, claims that the company violated asbestos work practice regulations when it renovated buildings on the Manhattan campus in October 2013 to host an event to raise money for. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS failed to follow CAA and Asbestos NESHAP requirements by failing to check the campus and notifying EPA prior to beginning renovations and properly remove, store, and dispose of asbestos and have a trained representative on site during renovation activities.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
At one time asbestos personal injury/death lawsuits clogged federal and state court dockets and depleted judges' judicial resources, preventing them from addressing criminal cases or other important civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented timely compensation of deserving victims and innocent families, and prompted companies to devote inordinate amounts of money and resources in defense of these cases.
Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases, after being exposed to asbestos in the workplace. 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. These individuals were exposed to asbestos fibers that could be harmful in the manufacturing process or while working on the structure itself.
Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. From the late 1970s until early 1980s, asbestos exposure led to a flood of personal injury and wrongful deaths lawsuits. This occurred in federal and state courts across the nation.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits contend that their ailments resulted from the negligence of asbestos-related products' manufacture and that the companies failed to warn them of the dangers that come with exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are filed in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, after recognizing that the litigation was an "terrible congestion of the calendar," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, 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 or pretrial purposes. Under the supervision of Special Master, Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman consolidated these cases and referred to them as Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation.
A number of defendants had been involved in other asbestos-related claims. The list of defendants 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 Company Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp.; and DNS Metal Industries, Inc.