What Is Ny Asbestos Litigation? History Of Ny Asbestos Litigation
New York Asbestos Litigation
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer patients can seek compensation with the help of a dedicated mesothelioma lawyer. The exposure to asbestos is often the cause of these kinds of illnesses. symptoms may develop for years before they appear.
Judges who oversee the cases of NYCAL have crafted a pattern that favors plaintiffs. A recent ruling could further weaken defendants' rights.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is much different from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve numerous defendants (companies who are being in court), multiple law firms representing plaintiffs, and multiple expert witnesses. Additionally there are often specific work sites which are the subject of these cases because asbestos was used in a variety of products and many workers were exposed to asbestos on the job. Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with serious illnesses like mesothelioma and lung cancer.
New York has its own unique way of dealing with asbestos litigation. In fact, it's one of the largest dockets across the nation. It is managed by a special Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to handle asbestos cases that have numerous defendants. The judges who are part of the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket also has seen some of the largest plaintiff awards in recent history.
New York Court of Appeals made significant changes to the NYCAL docket recently. In 2015 the political establishment in Albany was shaken to its foundation when former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. Silver was accused of sabotaging every decently 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 head of the NYCAL docket, resigned in April 2014 amid reports that she'd given 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 instituted a new rule for the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to submit evidence that their products are not the cause of plaintiffs' mesothelioma. He also instituted new rules that stipulated that he would not dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony had been completed. This new policy will significantly alter the speed of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket and could result in more favorable outcomes for defendants.
In other New York asbestos news, an federal judge from the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed MDL 875 and ordered all asbestos cases in the future to be transferred to a different district. This will result in more uniform and efficient treatment of these cases. The current MDL is known for its abusive discovery practices, unwarranted sanction and inadequate evidentiary standards.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption and mismanagement by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his mismanagement scandals involving Sheldon Silver's ties with asbestos lawyers have finally brought attention to New York City’s asbestos court that is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton, who is now the head of NYCAL has already hosted a Town Hall meeting with defense attorneys to hear complaints regarding the "rigged" system which favors a powerful asbestos law firm.
Asbestos litigation differs from the typical personal injury lawsuit, with many of the same defendants (companies who are sued) as well as plaintiffs (people who file the lawsuits). Asbestos litigation also involves similar job sites where workers were exposed to asbestos, resulting to mesothelioma or lung cancer. This can result in large verdicts that can clog the court dockets.
To address the issue, several states have adopted laws that limit these kinds of claims. These laws typically deal with issues such as medical guidelines, two-disease rules and expedited case scheduling joinders, forum shopping, the right to punitive damages and successor liability.
Despite these laws, certain states continue to see high numbers of asbestos lawsuits. Some courts have created "asbestos Dockets" to help reduce the number and accelerate the resolution of these cases. These dockets apply different rules specifically designed for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos docket for instance demands that claimants meet specific medical criteria, has a two-disease rule and uses an expedited trial schedule.
Some states have passed laws that restrict the amount of punitive damage that can be awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to discourage bad conduct 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 applicable to your particular situation.
Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation including product liability, commercial litigation and general liability issues. He has a wealth of experience defending 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 claims alleging exposure to numerous other hazards and contaminants like solvents and chemicals and noise, mold, vibration, and environmental toxins.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
New York has seen thousands of deaths caused by asbestos exposure. Across five counties, mesothelioma victims and their families have filed lawsuits against companies of asbestos-based products in order to receive compensation. The successful mesothelioma lawsuits hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their reckless decisions to place profits over public safety.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have expertise in representing clients from all backgrounds in court against the largest asbestos manufacturers in the country. Their legal strategies may result in a generous settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and continues to be the subject of headlines. The 2022 mesothelioma claim national report by KCIC lists New York as the third most popular place for mesothelioma lawsuits, following California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judiciary has been hit by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was convicted in 2015 of federal corruption charges in connection with millions of dollars in referral fees which he received from powerful political plaintiffs' law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. Following the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, who had managed NYCAL since 2008, was fired amid reports that she provided "red-carpet treatment" to Weitz & Luxenberg asbestos lawsuits.
Justice Peter Moulton succeeded Justice Heitler as NYCAL judge. He has declared that defendants won't be able to get summary judgment unless they have the existence of a "scientifically credible and admissible study" proving the measured dose of exposure that a plaintiff received was too low to cause mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the chance that NYCAL defendants will be able to obtain summary judgment.
Justice Moulton also ruled that plaintiffs must prove health harm suffered from asbestos exposure in order for the judge to award compensatory damages. This ruling, combined with a ruling from the beginning of 2016 that ruled that medical monitoring is not a tort, makes it virtually impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to win a NYCAL Summary Judgment motion.
In the latest case, Judge Toal presided over, mesothelioma-related lawsuits brought 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 funds for a fundraising event. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS failed to adhere to CAA and asbestos NESHAP regulations because it failed to inform and inspect the EPA prior to starting renovations, or to properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos and appointing a trained representative on site during renovations.
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 matters or other important civil disputes. The frenzied litigation hindered the timely compensation of deserving victims and innocent families, and caused firms to commit huge amounts of money and resources for defense of these cases.
Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses after exposure to asbestos in their work environment. The majority of asbestos claims are filed by construction employees, shipyard workers, and other tradesmen working on buildings made or that contain asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to asbestos fibers that could be harmful in the manufacturing process or while working on the actual structure.
Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. In the late 1970s and 1980s an avalanche of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits stemming from exposure to asbestos filled the courts. This was the case in both state and federal court across the nation.
Worcester asbestos lawyers are filed by plaintiffs who claim their ailments were the result of negligent manufacturing of asbestos products. They also claim that companies failed to inform them of the dangers of asbestos exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were filed in state courts, more than half were brought in federal courts.
In the early 1990s recognizing that the litigation was a "terrible overloaded calendar," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, and New York Supreme Court justice Helen Freedman consolidated hundreds of federal and State cases involving asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for settlement as well as pretrial and discovery purposes. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases that were later called the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of the Special Master.
While the majority of these cases were related to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were common defendants in other asbestos lawsuits. 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. were all defendants.