"The Ultimate Cheat Sheet" On Ny Asbestos Litigation
From Shiapedia
New York asbestos lawyer (right here on Squareblogs) Litigation
Mesothelioma victims in New York can receive compensation from an attorney for mesothelioma. Exposure to asbestos often causes these kinds of diseases; symptoms can take years before they appear.
Judges who manage NYCAL's caseload have crafted an inclination to favor plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further weaken the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is different from a typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve multiple defendants (companies being sued) as well as multiple law offices representing plaintiffs, as well as multiple expert witness. These cases are often inspired by specific job sites because asbestos was used to make various products and a lot of workers were exposed to asbestos at work. Asbestos sufferers often develop serious illnesses like mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. It is one of the biggest 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 are experienced in asbestos cases. The docket is also the site of some of the largest plaintiff verdicts in recent history.
New York Court of Appeals made some major changes to the NYCAL docket recently. In 2015 the political establishment in Albany was shaken to the core when former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. Silver was accused of destroying every reasonable created tort reform bill that was passed by the legislature for more than 20 years, while working for the plaintiffs firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler retired in April 2014, citing reports that she had given the Weitz & Luxenberg firm "red carpet treatment". She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton who implemented a number changes to the docket.
Moulton introduced an entirely new rule for the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to provide proof that their products were not the cause of mesothelioma of plaintiffs. He also implemented an updated policy that states that he would not dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony had been completed. This new policy may have a significant impact on the pace of discovery for cases on the NYCAL docket, and could lead to a more favorable outcome 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 bring about more uniform and efficient handling of these cases, because the current MDL has developed reputation for abuse of discovery, unwarranted sanctions and low evidentiary requirements.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption and mismanagement by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals concerning his ties to asbestos lawyers have brought attention to New York City's asbestos docket, which is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton, who is now in charge of NYCAL, has already held an open Town Hall with defense attorneys to hear complaints regarding the "rigged" system that favors an asbestos law firm that is powerful.
Asbestos litigation differs from the typical personal injury lawsuit, with many of the same defendants (companies who are sued) and plaintiffs (people who file the lawsuits). Asbestos litigation can also involve similar job sites where a lot of people were exposed to asbestos, which led to mesothelioma and lung cancer. This can result in large judgments in cases, which can block the courts dockets.
To limit this problem, several states have passed laws to restrict the types of claims that can be filed. These laws usually address medical criteria, two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders, forum shopping, punitive damages and successor liability.
Despite these laws states continue to experience an influx of asbestos lawsuits. In an effort to cut down on the number of lawsuits filed and resolve them faster, some courts have set up special "asbestos dockets" that apply a series of different rules to these cases. The New York City asbestos docket, for example, requires claimants to meet certain medical requirements and also has a rule of two diseases 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 designed to discourage particularly bad behavior and offer more compensation to victims. You should speak with an New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you file your case in state or federal courts to understand the laws applicable to your particular situation.
Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in environmental and toxic tort litigation, product liability and commercial litigation. He also is a specialist in general liability issues. He has a wealth of experience in defending clients from claims that claim exposure to lead, asbestos and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He is also frequently defending cases alleging exposure to other contaminants and hazards like noise, mold, vibration and environmental toxics.
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 companies that manufacture of asbestos-related products in order to seek compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits that are successful hold negligent asbestos companies responsible for their reckless decisions.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have expertise in representing clients from all backgrounds against the largest asbestos producers in the United States. Their legal strategies could result in a substantial settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich background, and it continues to make headlines. The 2022 national mesothelioma claims report from KCIC states that New York as the third most popular jurisdiction for mesothelioma lawsuit filings, just behind California and Pennsylvania.
The judicial system of the state is shaken 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 dollar referral fees he received from politically powerful plaintiffs law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos lawyers cases. Justice Sherry Klein Heitler was replaced as 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 present an "scientifically sound valid, credible and admissible scientific study" that shows the measured dose of a plaintiff's exposure was not sufficient 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 prove an injury to his or her health as a result of exposure to asbestos in order for a court to award compensatory damages. This ruling, along with a decision made in the beginning of 2016 that holds that medical monitoring is not a tort, makes it almost impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to win a NYCAL motion for summary judgment.
The most recent case on which Judge Toal is presiding of, a mesothelioma case filed against DOVER GREENS, alleges that the company violated asbestos work practice regulations when it renovated buildings on the Manhattan campus in October 2013 for an event for fundraising. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS failed to follow CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to conduct an inspection of the campus; notify EPA prior to beginning renovations; 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 death and injury cases were a major source of delays in federal court dockets and judges' judicial resource were depleted, making it impossible for them from addressing criminal matters or important civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented timely compensation of deserving victims, irritated innocent families, and forced firms to commit huge amounts of money and resources to defense of these cases.
Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses after exposure to asbestos in a workplace environment. Most asbestos claims are filed by construction workers, shipyard workers, and other tradesmen working on buildings constructed or that contain asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to asbestos fibers that were dangerous during the manufacturing process or when working on the actual structure.
The first significant mass tort was asbestos litigation. In the late 1970s to early 1980s, asbestos exposure caused an explosion of personal injury and wrongful deaths lawsuits. This was the case in federal and state court across the country.
The plaintiffs in these lawsuits claim that their illnesses were caused by the negligent manufacture of asbestos lawsuit products and that companies failed to warn them of the dangers associated with such exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are brought in federal court.
In the early 1990s, after recognizing the fact that this litigation was "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 federal and state cases that alleged exposure to asbestos at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases that were later known as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of a Special Master.
Although the majority of these cases were connected to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were common defendants in other asbestos lawsuits. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, as successors and individually to Spraycraft Corporation, CRH, Inc. and successors 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.
