The Companies That Are The Least Well-Known To Follow In The Ny Asbestos Litigation Industry
New York Asbestos Litigation
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer patients can seek compensation with the help of an experienced mesothelioma lawyer. These diseases are usually caused by exposure to asbestos. Symptoms may not appear for a long time.
The judges who manage NYCAL's caseload have developed a pattern of favoring plaintiffs. A recent ruling could further weaken defendants' rights.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is distinct from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve multiple defendants (companies being sued), multiple law offices representing plaintiffs, and a variety of expert witnesses. In addition there are typically specific work sites which are the focus of these cases because asbestos was used in a variety of products and many workers were exposed to asbestos during their work. Asbestos-related victims are frequently diagnosed with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. It is among the largest dockets across the country. It is administered under a special Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to handle huge numbers of asbestos cases, involving numerous defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos cases. The docket has also witnessed some of the most prestigious plaintiff awards in recent history.
The New York Court of Appeals has recently made significant changes to the NYCAL docket. In 2015, the political establishment in Albany was shaken to the foundation when the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. He had been accused of sabotaging every decently designed tort reform bill in the legislature for more than a decade while working for the plaintiffs firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time manager of the NYCAL docket, was dismissed in April 2014 amidst reports that she had given the Weitz & Luxenberg law firm "red-carpet treatment." She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton, who introduced a variety of changes to the docket.
Moulton introduced new rules in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to provide evidence that their products aren't accountable for the mesothelioma that plaintiffs suffer from. He also implemented an updated policy that states that he would not dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony was completed. This new rule could have an impact on the speed of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket and could lead to a more favorable outcome for defendants.
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed MDL 875 last week and ordered that all asbestos cases in the future be transferred to another District. This change should lead to an efficient and uniform treatment of these cases. The MDL in its current MDL is known for its discovery abuse, unwarranted sanction and low evidentiary standards.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption and mismanagement 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 is now the head of NYCAL and has already held a town hall with defense attorneys to hear complaints about the "rigged" system that favors a powerful asbestos law firm.
Asbestos litigation is different from the typical personal injury lawsuit, which has many of the same defendants (companies that are sued) as well as plaintiffs (people who file lawsuits). Asbestos litigation also includes similar workplaces where a lot of people were exposed to asbestos, resulting to mesothelioma and lung cancer. This can lead to large judgments in cases, which can cause delays in court dockets.
To address the issue, several states have adopted laws to limit these types of claims. These laws usually address issues including medical criteria, two-disease rules and expedited case scheduling joinders, forum shopping, the right to punitive damages and successor liability.
Despite these laws, certain states continue see a high number of asbestos lawsuits. In an effort to cut down on the number of filings and resolve them faster, some courts have established special "asbestos dockets" which apply a set of different rules for these cases. Alameda asbestos lawyers for instance, requires claimants to meet specific medical criteria and has a two-disease rule and uses an expedited trial schedule.
Certain states have passed laws that restrict the amount of punitive damage given in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to discourage particularly harmful behavior and allow for greater compensation to go to victims. No matter if your case is filed in federal or state court, you must work with an New York mesothelioma lawyer to learn more about the laws that affect your specific case.
Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on toxic tort and environmental litigation including product liability, commercial litigation and general liability issues. He has extensive experience in the defense of clients against claims of exposure to asbestos, lead and World Trade Center Dust in both New York City and New Jersey. He has also defended cases that claim exposure to other hazardous substances and contaminants, such as noise, mold, vibration and environmental toxics.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
New York has seen thousands of deaths caused by asbestos exposure. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against manufacturers of asbestos-related products in order to seek compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits which are successful hold negligent asbestos companies responsible for their rash decisions.
New York mesothelioma lawyers are experienced in representing clients from different backgrounds against the nation's largest asbestos producers. Their legal strategies could result in an enormous settlement or verdict.
Asbestos litigation has a long history in New York, and continues to be the subject of news. The 2022 national mesothelioma claims report from KCIC lists New York as the third most popular state for mesothelioma lawsuit filings, just behind California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judiciary has been hit by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. In 2015, 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 politically powerful plaintiffs' law firm Weitz & Luxenberg from handling asbestos cases. Justice Sherry Klein Heitler was named NYCAL's manager in the wake of the scandal. She was in charge of NYCAL since the year 2008.
Justice Heitler was succeeded as NYCAL judge by Justice Peter Moulton, who has made it clear that defendants are not able to obtain summary judgment unless they have a "scientifically sound valid, credible and admissible scientific study" showing the measured dose of a plaintiff's exposure was too low to cause mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the chance that NYCAL defendants will be able to obtain summary judgment.
In addition, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff must show an injury to his or her health from exposure to asbestos for the court to make a decision on compensatory damages. This ruling, along with a ruling in early 2016 that ruled that medical monitoring is not a tort claim makes it virtually impossible for asbestos defense lawyers to win a NYCAL motion for summary judgment.
The most recent case on which Judge Toal is in charge of, a mesothelioma case filed against DOVER GREENS, claims that the company was in violation of asbestos work practice regulations when it renovated buildings on the Manhattan campus in October 2013 to host an event for fundraising. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS was not following CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to inspect the campus; inform EPA before starting renovation activities and to appropriately remove, store, and dispose of asbestos and have a trained representative on site during renovation activities.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos-related personal injury and death cases once filled up federal court dockets and judges' judicial resource were depleted, making it impossible for them from addressing criminal matters or important civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented timely compensation of victims as well as frustrated innocent families. It also led to companies to spend excessive amounts of money on defense.
Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses after exposure to asbestos in a work environment. The majority of asbestos claims are filed by construction employees shipyard workers, construction workers, and other tradesmen that worked on structures made of or made of asbestos-containing materials. These workers were exposed asbestos fibers that were dangerous in the manufacturing process or when working on the actual structure.
Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. From the late 1970s to early 1980s, asbestos exposure led to an influx of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. This happened in federal and state courts across the country.
These lawsuits are filed by plaintiffs who claim that their illnesses resulted of negligent manufacturing of asbestos products. They claim that the companies did not warn them about the dangers that come with asbestos exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were brought in state courts, a majority were 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 lawsuits that alleged exposure to asbestos at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases and were known as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of a Special Master.
Many defendants had been involved in other asbestos claims. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, both individually and as successors to Spraycraft Corporation, CRH, Inc. and successors to E.I. Dupont, W.R. Grace and Company, Empire-Ace Insulation Manufacturing Company Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp., and DNS Metal Industries, Inc. were all defendants.