10 Things You'll Need To Know About Ny Asbestos Litigation
New York Asbestos Litigation
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer victims can find compensation through an experienced mesothelioma lawyer. These illnesses are often caused by exposure to asbestos. The symptoms may not show up for a long time.
Judges who manage the cases of NYCAL have developed a system that favors plaintiffs. A recent ruling could further weaken defendants' rights.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is very different than the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve multiple defendants (companies being sued) as well as multiple law offices representing plaintiffs, and multiple expert witness. These cases are often based on specific job locations since asbestos was used to make various products and a lot of workers were exposed to asbestos during their work. Asbestos victims are often diagnosed with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has its own unique method of dealing with asbestos litigation. In fact, it is one of the largest dockets across the nation. It is administered by a specific Case Management Order. This CMO was created to manage the large number of asbestos cases that involve numerous defendants. massachusetts asbestos litigation on the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket also is the location of some of the most significant plaintiff verdicts in the past.
New York Court of Appeals made significant changes to the NYCAL docket recently. In 2015 the political system in Albany was rocked to its core by the conviction of the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. He was accused of killing 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 had given the Weitz & Luxenberg firm "red carpet treatment". She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton who implemented a number changes to the docket.
Moulton implemented a new rule in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to present proof that their products are not responsible for the mesothelioma that plaintiffs suffer from. He also instituted an updated policy that states that he would not dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony had been completed. This new policy will dramatically impact the pace of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket and may result in more favorable outcomes for defendants.
In other New York asbestos news, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed MDL 875 and ordered all future asbestos cases to be transferred to another district. This change should lead to a more uniform and efficient treatment of these cases. The current MDL is known for its abusive discovery practices and unjustified sanctions, as well as inadequate evidentiary standards.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his mismanagement the scandals surrounding Sheldon Silver's ties to asbestos lawyers have finally brought attention to the city's asbestos court that is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton, who is now in charge of NYCAL, has already held an open Town Hall with defense lawyers to discuss complaints regarding the "rigged" system which favors a powerful asbestos law firm.
Asbestos litigation differs from the typical personal injury lawsuit, which has many of the same defendants (companies who are sued) and plaintiffs (people who file the lawsuits). Asbestos litigation can also involve similar workplaces where a lot of people were exposed asbestos, leading to mesothelioma or lung cancer. This can result in large verdicts that can block courts.
To address the issue to address the issue, a number of states have enacted laws that limit these kinds of claims. They typically cover issues like medical requirements, two-disease regulations and expedited case scheduling joinders, forum shopping, consequential damages, and successor liability.
Despite these laws some states continue see a high number of asbestos lawsuits. In an effort to reduce the number of filings and to speed up their resolution certain courts have set up special "asbestos dockets" that apply a series of different rules for these cases. The New York City asbestos docket for instance is one that requires applicants to meet specific medical criteria and has a two-disease rule and has an accelerated trial plan.
Certain states have passed laws that restrict the amount of punitive damages awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to discourage particularly bad behavior and provide more compensation to victims. No matter if your case is filed in a state or federal court, you should consult with an New York mesothelioma lawyer to understand how these laws affect your specific situation.
Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in toxic tort and environment litigation, product liability and commercial litigation. He also handles general liability issues. He has extensive experience defending clients from claims that claim 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 hazardous substances and contaminants such as chemical and solvents and noise, mold, vibration, and environmental toxics.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
New York has seen thousands of deaths due to asbestos exposure. Across five counties, mesothelioma victims and their loved ones have filed lawsuits against manufacturers of asbestos-based products in order to receive compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits which are successful hold negligent asbestos companies responsible for their rash decisions.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have experience representing clients of all backgrounds against the biggest asbestos producers in the nation. Their legal strategies could result in an enormous settlement or verdict.
Asbestos litigation has a long-standing history in New York, and continues to be the subject of news. The 2022 national mesothelioma claims report from KCIC declares New York as the third most popular jurisdiction for mesothelioma lawsuits, after California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judiciary has been buffeted by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was convicted in 2015 of federal corruption charges relating to millions of dollar 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 managed NYCAL since 2008, was dismissed amid reports that she provided "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 without a "scientifically valid and legally admissible research" proving the measured dose of exposure that a plaintiff received was not enough to trigger mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the chance that NYCAL defendants can obtain summary judgment.
Additionally, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff must show an injury to his or her health due to exposure to asbestos in order for a court to award compensatory damages. This ruling, combined with a decision made in early 2016 that ruled that medical monitoring was not a tort claim makes it nearly impossible for an asbestos defence lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL Summary Judgment motion.
In the latest case, Judge Toal was the judge in a mesothelioma suit brought against DOVER Green, a company that is accused of violating asbestos work practice regulations when it renovated Manhattan campus buildings in October 2013 to raise funds for a fundraising event. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS failed to follow CAA and asbestos NESHAP regulations, failing to inspect and notify the EPA prior to starting renovations, or to properly removing, storing and dispose of asbestos, and having a trained representative present at renovation activities.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos-related personal lawsuits for death and injury filled up federal court dockets and judges' resources were drained, preventing them from addressing criminal matters or other important civil disputes. The frenzied litigation hindered the timely payment of deserving victims, irritated innocent families, and prompted firms to commit huge amounts of money and resources to defense of these cases.
Asbestos claims are filed by those diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases following exposure to asbestos in a workplace environment. Most asbestos claims are filed by construction employees shipyard workers, construction workers, and other tradesmen that worked on buildings constructed or that contain asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to asbestos fibers that could be harmful during the process of manufacturing or while working on the actual structure.
The first major mass tort was asbestos litigation. In the latter part of the 1970s and 1980s there was a flurry of personal injury and wrongful death cases arising from exposure to asbestos filled the courts. This happened in both state and federal courts across the nation.
These lawsuits are filed by plaintiffs who claim their illnesses were the result from the negligence of asbestos manufacturing 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 filed in state courts, more than half were filed in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, recognizing the fact that this litigation was "terrible calendar congestion," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein and New York Supreme Court Justice Helen Freedman jointly consolidated for settlement as well as pretrial and discovery purposes hundreds of federal and state cases that claimed asbestos exposure 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 claims. The defendants list 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 Company; Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp.; and DNS Metal Industries, Inc.
