New York Asbestos Litigation
Mesothelioma patients in New York can receive compensation from a mesothelioma lawyer. Asbestos exposure is a common cause of these kinds of illnesses. symptoms can take years before they manifest.
Judges who manage the caseload of NYCAL have developed a system that favors plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further weaken the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is very different than the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve multiple defendants (companies being sued) and multiple law firms representing plaintiffs, as well as multiple expert witness. These cases are often focused on specific work sites because asbestos was used to make a variety products and many workers were subjected to it at work. Asbestos sufferers are usually diagnosed with serious diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer.
New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. It is among the largest dockets in the nation. It is governed by a unique Case Management Order. This CMO was created to manage huge numbers of asbestos cases that involve numerous defendants. The Judges involved in the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos cases. The docket has also seen some of the most prestigious award for plaintiffs in recent times.
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 rocked to its core by the conviction of former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. He was accused of sabotaging tort reform bills in the legislature for a period of 20 years, while moonlighting at the plaintiffs ' firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler retired in April 2014 following 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 established an entirely new rule for the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to submit evidence that their products were not the cause of mesothelioma in plaintiffs. He also implemented an updated policy that states that he would not dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony was completed. This new policy may have a significant impact on the pace of discovery in 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 asbestos cases in the future to be transferred to another district. This will result in an efficient and uniform treatment of asbestos cases. The MDL currently MDL is well-known for its abuse of discovery and unjustified sanctions, as well as inadequate evidentiary standards.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption and mismanagement by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals surrounding his ties to asbestos lawyers have attracted the attention of New York City's rigged asbestos docket. Justice Peter Moulton is now presided over NYCAL and has already held a town hall meeting with defense lawyers to hear complaints about a "rigged" system that favors a powerful asbestos law firm.
Asbestos lawsuits differ from a typical personal injury case because it involves a lot of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos litigation also involves similar workplaces, where many people were exposed to asbestos, which led to mesothelioma or lung cancer. This can result in large verdicts that could clog courts.
To limit this problem A number of states have passed laws that limit the type of claims that can be filed. These laws typically address medical criteria, two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders, forum shopping, punitive damage and successor liability.
Despite these laws, some states continue to experience an influx of asbestos lawsuits. In an effort to cut down on the number of lawsuits filed and speed up the resolution process, some courts have established special "asbestos dockets" that apply a series of different rules for these cases. The New York City asbestos court is one example. It requires applicants to meet certain medical requirements as well as has two-disease rules. It also employs an accelerated scheduling.
Certain states have passed laws that restrict the amount of punitive damage given in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to deter particularly bad behavior and allow for greater compensation to go to victims. You should speak with an New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you file your case in state or federal 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 handles 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 is also frequently defending cases involving exposure to other hazardous substances and contaminants, such as vibration, noise, mold and environmental toxics.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
New York has seen thousands of deaths caused by asbestos exposure. Across five counties, mesothelioma victims and their loved ones have filed lawsuits against the manufacturers of asbestos-based products for compensation. The successful mesothelioma lawsuits hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their reckless decisions to place profits over public safety.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have expertise in representing clients from all backgrounds against the biggest asbestos producers in the United States. Their legal strategies can result in a generous settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and continues to draw attention. According to Athens asbestos lawyers on mesothelioma claim submissions by KCIC, New York is the third most popular state in which to file mesothelioma lawsuits, following California and Pennsylvania.
The judicial system of the state has been shaken by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. In 2015, former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges partly related to the millions of dollars in referral fees he earned from the powerful plaintiffs' law firm Weitz & Luxenberg from handling asbestos cases. Justice Sherry Klein Heitler was replaced as NYCAL's manager in the wake of the scandal. She was in charge of NYCAL since 2008.
Justice Peter Moulton succeeded Justice Heitler as NYCAL judge. He has stated that defendants won't be able to obtain summary judgment without a "scientifically valid and legally admissible research" proving the measured dose of exposure a plaintiff received was too low to trigger mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants are able to get summary judgment.
Additionally, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff has to prove an injury to his or her health from exposure to asbestos in order for a court to give compensatory damages. This ruling, along with a ruling from the beginning of 2016 that ruled that medical monitoring was not a tort, makes it virtually impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to win a NYCAL Summary Judgment motion.
The most recent case, in which Judge Toal is in charge on, a mesothelioma suit filed against DOVER GREENS, alleges that the company was in violation of asbestos work practice regulations when it renovated buildings on the Manhattan campus in October 2013 to host a fundraising event. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS did not adhere to CAA and asbestos NESHAP regulations, failing to inform and inspect the EPA prior to beginning renovations, or to properly removing, storing and dispose of asbestos, and having a trained representative 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 which prevented them from dealing with criminal cases or other important civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented timely settlement of victims and frustrated innocent families. It also led to companies to invest excessive money on defense.
Asbestos claims can be filed by those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related ailments, after exposure to asbestos at work. Most cases are filed by construction workers, shipyard employees and other tradesmen who worked on structures that contained or were made with asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to dangerous asbestos fibers in the manufacturing process or when working on the structure itself.
Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. In the late 1970s and early 1980s an avalanche of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits arising from exposure to asbestos was a major issue for courts. This occurred in both state and federal court across the nation.
These lawsuits are filed by plaintiffs who claim their ailments were the result from the negligence of asbestos manufacturing products. They also claim that companies failed to inform them of the dangers of asbestos exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were brought in state courts, more than half were brought in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, when they realized that this litigation constituted "terrible calendar congestion," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein and New York Supreme Court Justice Helen Freedman jointly consolidated for settlement, pretrial and discovery purposes hundreds of state and federal cases which claimed asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Under the supervision of the Special Master, Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman consolidated these cases and referred to them as Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation.
Many defendants were involved in other asbestos-related claims. The defendants listed included Garlock, Inc; H & A Construction Company, individually and as successor 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.