"Ask Me Anything:10 Responses To Your Questions About Ny Asbestos Litigation

New York Asbestos Litigation

Mesothelioma sufferers in New York can receive compensation from a mesothelioma attorney. The exposure to asbestos is often the cause of these types of illnesses; symptoms may develop for years before they show up.

Judges who manage the caseload of NYCAL have developed a pattern that favors plaintiffs. A recent decision could further undermine defendants' rights.

Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos litigation is distinct from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve a variety of defendants (companies that are sued), multiple law firms representing plaintiffs, and numerous expert witnesses. These cases usually are based on specific job sites since asbestos was used to make various products and a lot of workers were subjected to it while at work. Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.

New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. In reality, it is one of the largest dockets across the nation. It is administered under a special Case Management Order. This CMO was created to manage large numbers of asbestos cases involving numerous defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket has also witnessed some of the largest plaintiff awards in recent history.

New York Court of Appeals made some major changes to the NYCAL docket in the last few days. In 2015 the political system in Albany was shaken to the foundations by the conviction of former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. Silver was accused of sabotaging tort reform bills in the legislature for a period of 20 years, while also working at 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 some changes to the docket.

Moulton introduced an amendment to the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to present evidence that their products aren't accountable for the mesothelioma that plaintiffs suffer from. He also implemented a new policy in which he wouldn't dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony had been completed. This new policy could have a significant impact on the speed of discovery for cases on the NYCAL docket and could lead to an outcome that is more favorable for defendants.

A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed MDL 875 in the last few days and ordered that all future asbestos cases be transferred to another District. This will result in more uniform and efficient treatment of asbestos cases. The MDL in its current MDL is infamous for its abuse of discovery, unwarranted sanction and inadequate evidentiary standards.

Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

After years of corruption and mismanagement by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals regarding his connections to asbestos lawyers have finally focused attention on New York City's rigged asbestos docket. Justice Peter Moulton, who is now the head of NYCAL has already held a Town Hall meeting with defense lawyers to hear complaints regarding the "rigged" system which favors an asbestos law firm with a strong reputation.

Asbestos litigation is different from a typical personal injury lawsuit, as it involves many of the same defendants and plaintiffs. Asbestos lawsuits also usually involve similar workplaces where a lot of workers were exposed to asbestos, frequently leading to mesothelioma, lung cancer, or other illnesses. This can result in large verdicts that could clog dockets of the courts.

To combat this issue, several states have passed laws that limit the type of claims that can be filed. These laws usually address medical requirements, two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders, forum shopping, punitive damage and successor liability.

Despite these laws, some states continue to see a significant number of asbestos lawsuits. Certain courts have created special "asbestos Dockets" to reduce the number of asbestos lawsuits and accelerate the resolution of these cases. These dockets apply various rules that are specifically designed for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos docket, for example demands that claimants meet certain medical requirements and has a two-disease rule and uses an accelerated trial plan.

Some states have also passed laws that restrict the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in asbestos attorney cases. These laws are designed to discourage particularly bad behavior and provide greater compensation to the victims. Regardless of whether your case is filed in federal or state court, you must work with a New York mesothelioma lawyer to know how these laws impact your particular situation.

Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation, commercial litigation, product liability and general liability matters. He has extensive experience defending clients from claims that claim exposure to asbestos, lead and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He has also defended claims claiming exposure to many other contaminants and hazards such as chemical and solvents, noise, mold, vibration and environmental toxins.

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 manufacturers of asbestos-containing products to seek compensation. The successful mesothelioma lawsuits make asbestos companies accountable for their rash decisions to prioritize profits over public safety.

New York mesothelioma lawyers are experienced in representing clients from diverse backgrounds against the nation's largest asbestos manufacturers. Their legal strategies may result in a substantial settlement or trial verdict.

Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich background, and it continues to be the subject of headlines. The 2022 national mesothelioma lawsuit report by KCIC lists New York as the third most popular jurisdiction for mesothelioma lawsuit filings, just behind California and Pennsylvania.

The state's judiciary has been buffeted by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. In 2015 the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges, which were partly relating to the millions of dollars of referral fees he earned for the powerful plaintiffs law firm Weitz & Luxenberg from handling asbestos lawsuit cases. After the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler who had been the head 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 won't be able to obtain summary judgment unless they have the existence of a "scientifically valid and legally admissible research" showing that the measured amount of exposure a plaintiff received was not sufficient to cause mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the chance that NYCAL defendants will be able to obtain summary judgment.

Additionally, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff has to prove an injury to their 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 held that medical monitoring is not a tort claim, makes it virtually impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to win a NYCAL motion for summary judgment.

The most recent case, in which Judge Toal is in charge on, a mesothelioma suit filed against DOVER GREENS claims that the company was in violation of 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 didn't follow CAA and asbestos NESHAP regulations because it failed to inform and inspect the EPA prior to starting renovation activities, properly removing, storing 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 which prevented them from dealing with criminal cases or other crucial civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented timely compensation of deserving victims, frustrated innocent families, and forced companies to invest huge amounts of money and resources to defense of these cases.

Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases, 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 constructed or that contain asbestos-containing materials. These individuals were exposed to asbestos fibers that could be harmful during the manufacturing process or while working on the actual 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 court across the country.

These lawsuits are brought by plaintiffs who claim that their illnesses were the result from the negligence of asbestos manufacturing products. They claim that the companies did not warn them about the dangers that come 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 a "terrible overload of the calendar," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, and New York Supreme Court justice Helen Freedman consolidated hundreds of federal and State cases involving asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for settlement or pretrial purposes. Under the supervision of a Special Master, Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman consolidated these cases known as Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation.

Many defendants were involved in other asbestos-related 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.