why asbestos litigation are important
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer victims can find compensation through an experienced mesothelioma lawyer. Asbestos exposure is a common cause of these kinds of illnesses. symptoms may develop for years before they appear.
Judges who oversee NYCAL's caseload have developed an inclination to favor plaintiffs. A recent decision could further undermine defendants' rights.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is different than the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve numerous defendants (companies that are sued) and law firms representing plaintiffs, and numerous expert witnesses. In addition, there are usually specific job sites that are the focus of these cases since asbestos was used in a variety of products and many workers were exposed to asbestos while working. Asbestos victims often suffer from serious diseases like mesothelioma and lung cancer.
New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. In fact, it's one of the largest dockets in the country. It is managed by a special Case Management Order. This CMO was created to manage huge numbers of asbestos cases, involving many defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket has also witnessed some of the highest plaintiff awards in recent history.
New York Court of Appeals made some major changes to the NYCAL docket last week. 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 had been accused of sabotaging every decently designed 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 manager of the NYCAL docket, retired in April 2014 amid 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 an entirely new rule for the NYCAL docket, which requires defendants to provide evidence that their products were not responsible for plaintiffs' mesothelioma. He also implemented a new policy in which he wouldn't dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony was completed. This new rule will greatly affect the speed of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket and could result in more favorable 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 another District. This should result in more efficient and uniform handling of these cases, because the current MDL has earned itself a reputation for discovery abuse as well as unjustified sanctions and minimal evidentiary requirements.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his mismanagement, the scandals surrounding Sheldon Silver's connections to asbestos lawyers have finally brought attention to the city's asbestos court, which is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton is now the head of NYCAL and has already held a town hall meeting with defense attorneys to hear complaints about a "rigged" system that favors one mighty asbestos law firm.
Asbestos litigation is different from the typical personal injury case because it involves a number of the same defendants and plaintiffs. Asbestos litigation also involves similar workplaces where a lot of people were exposed asbestos, leading to mesothelioma and lung cancer. These cases can result in huge verdicts that could clog courts.
To address the issue to address the issue, a number of states have enacted laws that limit these types of claims. These laws typically address medical criteria, two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders and forum shopping, punitive damages and successor liability.
Despite these laws states are still seeing an influx of asbestos lawsuits. Some courts have created special "asbestos Dockets" to reduce the number of asbestos cases and accelerate the resolution of these cases. These dockets are governed by different rules that are tailored specifically for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos court for instance, requires applicants to meet certain medical criteria and has rules for two diseases. It also uses an accelerated schedule.
Some states have passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to deter particularly bad behavior and allow for greater compensation to the victims. No matter if your case is filed in a state or federal court, you should consult with a New York mesothelioma lawyer to learn more about the laws that affect your specific case.
Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation, commercial litigation, product liability and general liability issues. He has vast experience 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 claims that claim exposure to a variety of other hazards and contaminants such as solvents and chemical as well 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 the manufacturers of asbestos products to seek compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits which are successful hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their reckless decisions.
New York mesothelioma lawyers are skilled in representing clients from different backgrounds against the nation's most significant asbestos manufacturers. Their legal strategies may result in a generous settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and continues to make headlines. The 2022 mesothelioma claim national report from KCIC lists New York as the third most popular state for mesothelioma lawsuits just behind California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judicial system has been shook by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was convicted in 2015 on federal corruption charges relating to millions of dollars of 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 was in charge of NYCAL since 2008, was fired 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 will not be able to obtain summary judgment without a "scientifically credible and admissible study" that proves the dose of exposure a plaintiff received was not sufficient to cause a mesothelioma. This virtually eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants are able to get summary judgment.
Justice Moulton also ruled that the plaintiff must show damage to their health due to asbestos exposure before the judge to award compensatory damages. This ruling, when combined with a ruling in early 2016 that held that medical monitoring is not a tort claim, makes it almost impossible for asbestos defense lawyers to prevail on a NYCAL motion for summary judgment.
In the latest case, Judge Toal presided over, a mesothelioma suit filed against DOVER Green, a company that is accused of not following asbestos work practices regulations when it renovated Manhattan campus buildings in October 2013 to raise money for a fundraising event. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS failed to follow CAA and Asbestos NESHAP requirements by failing to conduct an inspection of the campus; notifying EPA before starting renovation activities and properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos and have a trained representative on site during renovations.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos-related personal injury and death cases once were a major source of delays in federal court dockets and judges' judicial resource were drained, making it difficult for them from addressing criminal cases or other important civil disputes. The bloated litigation impeded the prompt compensation of victims as well as frustrated innocent families. It also caused companies to invest excessive money on defense.
Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma, or other asbestos-related ailments, after exposure to asbestos while at work. The majority of asbestos claims are filed by construction employees shipyard workers, construction workers, and other tradesmen that worked on buildings made or that contain asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to asbestos fibers that could be harmful during the manufacturing process or while working on the 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 cases arising from exposure to asbestos filled the courts. This occurred in federal and state courts across the country.
These lawsuits are filed by plaintiffs who claim that their illnesses resulted of the negligent manufacture of asbestos products. They also claim that companies failed to inform them of the dangers associated with asbestos exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were brought in state courts, more than half were filed in federal courts.
In the early 1990s 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 state and federal cases that alleged asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for settlement, pretrial, and discovery purposes. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases that were later referred to as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of the Special Master.
Although the majority of these cases were relating to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were common defendants 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.