New York Asbestos Litigation
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer sufferers can receive compensation with the help of an expert mesothelioma lawyer. Exposure to asbestos often causes these kinds of diseases; symptoms may take decades before they show up.
Judges who oversee the cases of NYCAL have developed a system that favors plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further erode the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is different than the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve multiple defendants (companies being sued), multiple law offices representing plaintiffs, as well as multiple expert witnesses. These cases are usually based on specific job areas because asbestos was used to create various products and a lot of workers were subjected to it at work. Asbestos victims are often diagnosed with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma and lung cancer.
New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. In reality, it is one of the largest dockets in the United States. 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. The judges who are part of the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos cases. The docket also has seen some of the highest award for plaintiffs in recent times.
New York Court of Appeals made some major 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 killing every reasonably created tort reform bill that was passed by the legislature for more than 20 years while moonlighting for the plaintiffs' firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler retired in April 2014, citing reports that she gave the Weitz & Luxenberg firm "red carpet treatment". She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton who implemented some changes to the docket.
Moulton established a new rule for the NYCAL docket, which requires defendants to submit evidence that their products were not responsible for mesothelioma in plaintiffs. In addition, he implemented a new practice in which he did not dismiss cases until expert testimony from witnesses was completed. This new rule could have a significant impact on the speed of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket, and could result in an outcome that is more favorable to defendants.
In other New York asbestos news, a federal judge in 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 change will hopefully bring about more efficient and uniform handling of these cases, because the current MDL has developed a reputation for discovery abuse, unwarranted sanctions and a lack of 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 focused attention on the asbestos docket that is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton, who is now the head of NYCAL has already held a Town Hall meeting with defense lawyers to discuss complaints regarding the "rigged" system which favors an asbestos law firm that is powerful.
Asbestos litigation is different from a typical personal injury lawsuit because it involves a number of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos litigation also involves similar job sites where a lot of people were exposed to asbestos, which led to mesothelioma and lung cancer. This can result in large verdicts that can block courts.
To address the issue In order to tackle the issue, a few states have passed laws that limit these types of claims. They typically address issues including medical criteria, two-disease rules, expedited case scheduling, forum shopping, joinders, punitive damages and successor liability.
Despite these laws, some states continue to see a significant number of asbestos lawsuits. To reduce the number of filings and resolve them faster, 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 instance is one that requires applicants to meet specific medical criteria and has a two-disease rule and has an accelerated trial schedule.
Certain states have also passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to discourage bad conduct and provide greater compensation to the victims. Regardless of whether your case is filed in a state or federal court, you should consult with a New York mesothelioma lawyer to know how these laws impact your particular situation.
Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on toxic tort and environmental litigation as well as commercial litigation, product liability and general liability issues. He has vast experience defending clients against claims of exposure to asbestos, Lead and World Trade Center Dust in both New York City and New Jersey. He also regularly defends cases that claim exposure to other hazards and contaminants, such as noise, mold, vibration and environmental contaminants.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
New York has seen thousands of deaths due to asbestos exposure. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against the manufacturers of asbestos products to seek compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits that succeed hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their rash decisions 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 may result in a favorable settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation has a long-standing history in New York, and continues to make headlines. According to the report for 2022 on mesothelioma claims filed by KCIC, New York is the third most sought-after jurisdiction where you can file mesothelioma lawsuits, following California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judiciary has been impacted by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was found guilty in 2015 of federal corruption charges related to millions of dollars of referral fees which he received from powerful political plaintiffs' law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. Justice Sherry Klein Heitler was named NYCAL's manager following the revelations of the scandal. She had been managing 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 an "scientifically solid, reliable and admissible scientific study" showing the measured exposure of a plaintiff was not enough to cause mesothelioma. Montgomery asbestos lawyers eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants will be able to obtain summary judgment.
Justice Moulton also ruled that plaintiffs must prove damage to their health from asbestos exposure in order for the court to award compensatory damage. This ruling, in combination with a decision in early 2016 that holds that medical monitoring is not a tort, makes it nearly impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL motion for summary judgment.
In the most recent case, which Judge Toal was in charge of mesothelioma-related lawsuits brought 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 charity. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS did not follow CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to inspect and notify the EPA prior to beginning renovations, or to properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos and appointing a trained representative present at renovation activities.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
At one point, asbestos personal injury/death cases were a major blockage of state and federal court dockets and depleted judges' judicial resources and prevented them from addressing criminal cases or other important civil disputes. The bloated litigation impeded the timely compensation of victims as well as frustrated innocent families. Additionally, it caused businesses to invest excessive money on defense.
Asbestos claims are filed by people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related illnesses after exposure to asbestos in a workplace environment. Most asbestos claims are filed by construction workers shipyard workers, construction workers, and other tradesmen working on buildings constructed or containing asbestos-containing materials. These workers were exposed 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, an avalanche of personal injury and wrongful death cases arising from asbestos exposure filled the courts. This was the case in state and federal courts across the country.
These lawsuits are filed by plaintiffs who claim that their ailments were the result of the negligent manufacture of asbestos products. They also claim that companies failed to inform them of the dangers of asbestos exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are brought in federal court.
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 the Special Master.
While 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 listed 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. were all defendants.