Where Is Ny Asbestos Litigation Be One Year From Now?
New York Asbestos Litigation
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer victims can find compensation with the help of a dedicated mesothelioma lawyer. The exposure to asbestos is often the cause of these kinds of diseases; symptoms may develop for years before they manifest.
The judges who manage NYCAL's caseload have developed patterns of favoring plaintiffs. A recent ruling could further weaken defendants' rights.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is distinct from a typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve a variety of defendants (companies which are being sued) as well as multiple law firms representing plaintiffs, and multiple expert witnesses. These cases are usually inspired by specific job locations since asbestos was used to make various products, and a large number of workers were exposed to asbestos during their work. Asbestos sufferers are usually diagnosed with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. El Cajon asbestos lawsuits is one of the largest dockets in the nation. It is governed by a special Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to handle huge numbers of asbestos cases that involve a multitude of defendants. The judges who are part of the NYCAL docket are experienced in asbestos cases. The docket has also seen some of the largest plaintiff awards in recent history.
New York Court of Appeals made significant changes to the NYCAL docket in the last few days. In 2015 the political system in Albany was shaken to its core when the court convicted former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. He was accused of killing tort reform legislation in the legislature over a period of 20 years, while moonlighting at the firm representing plaintiffs Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time head of the NYCAL docket, resigned in April 2014 amid reports that she had offered the Weitz & Luxenberg law firm "red-carpet treatment." She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton, who implemented a number of changes to the docket.
Moulton instituted an entirely new rule for the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to submit evidence that their products are not responsible for mesothelioma of plaintiffs. He also implemented new rules that stipulated that he wouldn't dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony was completed. This new policy could have significant effects on the speed of discovery for cases on the NYCAL docket, and could result in a more favorable outcome for defendants.
In other New York asbestos news, an federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed MDL 875 and ordered all future asbestos cases to be transferred to a different district. This should result in an efficient and uniform treatment of these cases. The current MDL is infamous for its discovery abuse, unwarranted sanction and inadequate evidentiary standards.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption and mismanagement by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals regarding his connections to asbestos lawyers have finally brought attention to New York City's asbestos docket, which is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton, who is now the head of NYCAL has already held an open Town Hall with defense attorneys to hear complaints about the "rigged" system that favors an asbestos law firm with a strong reputation.
Asbestos lawsuits differ from a typical personal injury case because it involves a lot of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos litigation also includes similar job sites where workers were exposed to asbestos, resulting to mesothelioma and lung cancer. These cases can result in huge verdicts that could clog courts.
To address the problem In order to tackle the issue, a few states have passed laws that limit these kinds of claims. They typically deal with issues such as medical criteria, two-disease rules expedited case scheduling, forum shopping, joinders consequential damages, and successor liability.
Despite these laws states continue to see high numbers of asbestos lawsuits. In an effort to reduce the number of lawsuits filed and resolve them faster, some courts have established special "asbestos dockets" that use a variety of different rules for these cases. The New York City asbestos court is one example. It requires applicants to meet certain medical requirements and has rules for two diseases. It also uses an accelerated schedule.
Certain states have also passed laws that restrict 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 victims. Regardless of whether your case is filed in a state or federal court, you should consult with an New York mesothelioma lawyer to know how these laws impact your specific situation.
Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in environmental and toxic tort litigation including product liability, commercial and toxic tort litigation. He also handles general liability issues. He has vast experience representing clients in cases 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 toxins.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Many people have died from asbestos exposure in New York. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against the manufacturers of asbestos products to seek compensation. Successful mesothelioma lawsuits make asbestos companies accountable for their reckless decisions to prioritize profits over public safety.
New York mesothelioma lawyers are adept at representing clients with diverse backgrounds against the country's largest asbestos producers. Their legal strategies can result in a favorable settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich background, and it continues to be the subject of headlines. According to the report for 2022 on mesothelioma claim submissions by KCIC, New York is the third most sought-after jurisdiction in which to file mesothelioma lawsuits, following California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judicial system has been shook by the flurry of asbestos lawsuits. In 2015 the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges partly related to millions of dollars in referral fees he earned for the politically powerful plaintiffs law firm Weitz & Luxenberg from handling asbestos cases. Justice Sherry Klein Heitler was appointed NYCAL's director in the wake of the scandal. She was in charge of NYCAL since 2008.
Justice Heitler was succeeded as NYCAL judge by Justice Peter Moulton, who has made it clear that defendants are not entitled to summary judgment unless they have an "scientifically solid credible, admissible and reliable scientific study" showing the measured dose of a plaintiff's exposure was too low to cause mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants will be able to obtain summary judgment.
In addition, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff must show some injury to his or her health from exposure to asbestos in order for the court to give compensatory damages. This ruling, along with a decision from early 2016 which ruled that medical monitoring is not a tort claim, makes it nearly impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL Summary Motion for Judgment.
In the latest case, Judge Toal was the judge in mesothelioma lawsuit 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 money for a fundraising event. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS failed to follow CAA and asbestos NESHAP regulations, failing to inspect and notify the EPA prior to commencing renovations, and properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos, and having a trained representative present at renovation activities.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
At one point asbestos personal injury/death lawsuits clogged federal and state court dockets and drained judges' resources for judicial work and prevented them from addressing criminal cases or other important civil disputes. This bloated litigation hindered the prompt compensation of victims as well as frustrated innocent families. It also caused companies to spend excessive amounts of money on defense.
Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma, or other asbestos-related ailments, after being exposed 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 made of asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to dangerous asbestos fibers in the manufacturing process or when working on the actual structure.
Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, an avalanche of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits stemming from exposure to asbestos engulfed the courts. This happened in state and federal courts across the nation.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits contend that their ailments resulted from negligence in the production of asbestos products and that companies failed to warn them of the dangers that come with exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are filed in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, after 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 that alleged asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for settlement as well as pretrial and discovery purposes. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases and were called the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of a Special Master.
Many defendants had been involved in other asbestos-related claims. The list of defendants included Garlock, Inc; H & A Construction Company, as a successor and individually 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.