New York Asbestos Litigation
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer sufferers can receive compensation with the help of an expert mesothelioma lawyer. The exposure to asbestos is often the cause of these kinds of diseases; symptoms may develop for years before they manifest.
Judges who oversee NYCAL's caseload have developed patterns of favoring plaintiffs. A recent decision could further undermine defendants' rights.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation differs from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve a variety of defendants (companies that are in court), multiple law firms representing plaintiffs, and numerous expert witnesses. Additionally, there are usually specific workplaces which are the subject of these cases because asbestos was utilized in a variety products and workers were exposed to it while working. Asbestos sufferers are usually diagnosed with serious illnesses like mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. It is one of the largest dockets in the nation. It is administered by a specific Case Management Order. This CMO was created to manage the large number of asbestos cases, involving numerous defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket has also witnessed some of the highest settlements for plaintiffs in recent years.
The New York Court of Appeals has recently made some significant changes to the NYCAL docket. In 2015 the political establishment in Albany was shaken to its base when the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. He was accused of sabotaging tort reform bills in the legislature for a period of 20 years while working at the plaintiffs firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler retired in April 2014 following reports that she gave the Weitz & Luxenberg firm "red carpet treatment". She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton who implemented a number changes to the docket.
Moulton implemented new rules in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to provide proof that their products are not responsible for the plaintiffs' mesothelioma. He also instituted an updated policy that states that he wouldn't dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony had been completed. This new policy will significantly alter the speed of discovery in cases in the NYCAL docket, and could result in more favorable outcomes for defendants.
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed MDL 875 recently and ordered that all asbestos cases in the future be transferred to a different District. This should bring about more consistent and efficient handling of these cases as the current MDL has developed reputation for a history of abuse of discovery in the past, unjustified sanctions, and low evidentiary requirements.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of mismanagement and corruption by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals regarding his connections to asbestos lawyers have brought attention to New York City's rigged asbestos docket. Justice Peter Moulton is now the head of NYCAL and has already held a town hall with defense attorneys to listen to complaints about the "rigged" system that favors a powerful asbestos law firm.
Asbestos lawsuits differ from the typical personal injury lawsuit, which has many of the same defendants (companies that are being sued) as well as plaintiffs (people who file lawsuits). Asbestos litigation also includes similar job sites where a lot of people were exposed to asbestos, which led to mesothelioma or lung cancer. This can result in large verdicts that can clog the dockets of the courts.
To address this issue A number of states have passed laws to restrict the types of claims that can be filed. These laws typically address issues including medical criteria, two-disease rules and expedited case scheduling forum shopping, joinders consequential damages, and successor liability.
Despite these laws, certain states continue to see a significant number of asbestos lawsuits. In an effort to reduce the number of lawsuits filed and to speed up their resolution, some courts have set up special "asbestos dockets" which apply a set of different rules for these cases. The New York City asbestos docket, for example is one that requires applicants to meet certain medical requirements and has a two-disease rule and has an accelerated trial plan.
Some states have also passed laws that restrict the amount of punitive damages awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to deter bad behavior and provide greater compensation to victims. It is recommended to consult an New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you file your case in federal or state courts to learn about the laws applicable to your particular situation.
Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in environmental and toxic tort litigation including product liability, commercial and toxic tort litigation. He also is a specialist in general liability issues. He has extensive experience in defending clients against claims alleging exposure to lead, asbestos and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He has also defended claims that claim exposure to a variety of other hazardous substances and contaminants such as solvents and chemical as well as vibration, noise, mold and environmental toxins.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Thousands of people have lost their lives from asbestos exposure in New York. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against companies that manufacture of asbestos products to seek compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits that succeed hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their rash choices to prioritize profits over public safety.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have experience representing clients of all backgrounds in court against the largest asbestos producers in the United States. Their legal strategies can result in a favorable settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation has a long history in New York, and continues to be the subject of news. The 2022 mesothelioma claim national report from KCIC lists New York as the third most popular jurisdiction for mesothelioma lawsuits, after California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judiciary has been hit by the influx of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was convicted in 2015 on federal corruption charges related to millions of dollar referral fees he received from politically powerful plaintiffs' law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. After the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler who was in charge 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 declared that defendants won't be able to get summary judgment unless they have the existence of a "scientifically credible and admissible study" that proves the amount of exposure a plaintiff received was not enough to cause mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants will be able to secure summary judgment.
Additionally, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff must show some injury to their health due to exposure to asbestos for a court to award compensatory damages. This decision, coupled with a decision from early 2016 which ruled that medical monitoring was not a tort claim, makes it almost impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to win a NYCAL Summary Judgment motion.
In the most recent case, which Judge Toal was the judge in mesothelioma-related lawsuits brought against DOVER Green, the company 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 claims that DOVER GREENS was not following CAA and NESHAP requirements for asbestos by failing to check the Campus; inform EPA prior to commencing renovations and to properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos; and have a trained representative present during renovation activities.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos-related personal lawsuits for death and injury were a major source of delays in federal court dockets and judges' resources were depleted, making it impossible for them from addressing criminal matters or other important civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented timely payment of deserving victims, frustrated innocent families, and prompted companies to invest huge amounts of money and resources in defense of these cases.
Asbestos claims are filed by those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related illnesses after being exposed to asbestos in their work environment. The majority of asbestos claims are filed by construction employees shipyard workers, construction workers, and other tradesmen that worked on buildings constructed or containing asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to dangerous asbestos fibers during the process of manufacturing or while working on the actual structure.
Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. In the late 1970s and early 1980s there was a flurry of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits stemming from exposure to asbestos engulfed the courts. This happened in federal and state courts across the country.
asbestos law and litigation are filed by plaintiffs who claim their illnesses resulted of the negligent manufacture of asbestos products. They claim that the companies did not warn them about the dangers that come with asbestos exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are brought in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, recognizing that the litigation was an "terrible overloaded 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 known as Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation.
While the majority of these cases were relating to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were defendants in other asbestos lawsuits. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, as successors to Spraycraft Corporation, CRH, Inc., successors to E.I. Dupont; W.R. Grace and Company; Empire-Ace Insulation Manufacturing Corporation; Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp.; and DNS Metal Industries, Inc.