Notes

Ny Asbestos Litigation: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly
New York Asbestos Litigation

In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer patients can seek compensation with the help of an experienced mesothelioma lawyer. These diseases are usually brought on by exposure to asbestos. The symptoms may not be apparent for many years.

Judges who oversee the cases of NYCAL have crafted a pattern that favors plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further undermine the rights of defendants.

Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets


Asbestos litigation differs from a typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve a variety of defendants (companies that are sued), multiple law firms representing plaintiffs, and multiple expert witnesses. In addition there are often specific job sites which are the subject of these cases due to asbestos was used in a variety of products and workers were exposed to asbestos during their work. Asbestos sufferers often develop serious diseases like mesothelioma or lung cancer.

New York has its own unique method of dealing with asbestos litigation. In fact, it's one of the largest dockets across the nation. It is governed by a special Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to manage asbestos cases that have a large number of defendants. Corona asbestos lawyer involved in the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket is also the site of some of the most significant plaintiff verdicts in recent times.

The New York Court of Appeals has recently made some significant changes to the NYCAL docket. In 2015, the political establishment in Albany was shaken to its base when former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. He had been accused of destroying every reasonable designed tort reform bill in the legislature for more than a decade while working for the plaintiffs' firm Weitz & Luxenberg.

Justice Sherry Klein Heitler retired in April 2014 amid reports that she had given the Weitz & Luxenberg firm "red carpet treatment". She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton who implemented several changes to the docket.

Moulton implemented a new rule in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to submit proof that their products are not responsible for the plaintiffs' mesothelioma. He also implemented a new policy in which he wouldn't dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony had been completed. This new rule could have an impact on the pace of discovery for cases in the NYCAL docket and could result in an outcome that is more favorable to defendants.

A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed MDL 875 recently and ordered that all future asbestos cases be transferred to a different District. This change should lead to an efficient and uniform treatment of these cases. The current MDL is 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 by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his mismanagement, the scandals surrounding Sheldon Silver's connections to asbestos lawyers have finally drawn attention to New York City's rigged asbestos court. Justice Peter Moulton is now the head of NYCAL and has already held a town hall with defense lawyers to hear complaints about a "rigged" system that favors a powerful asbestos law firm.

Asbestos litigation is different from the typical personal injury lawsuit, with many of the same defendants (companies that are sued) as well as plaintiffs (people who file lawsuits). Asbestos litigation also involves similar workplaces where workers were exposed to asbestos, resulting to mesothelioma or lung cancer. This can lead large verdicts that could clog courts.

To address the issue to address the issue, a number of states have enacted laws to limit these types of claims. They typically deal with medical criteria two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders and forum shopping, punitive damages and successor liability.

Despite these laws some states continue see a high number of asbestos lawsuits. To reduce the number of filings and speed up the resolution process, some courts have created special "asbestos dockets" which apply a set of different rules to these cases. The New York City asbestos docket for instance demands that claimants meet certain medical requirements and has a two-disease rule and utilizes an expedited trial schedule.

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

Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on toxic tort and environmental litigation including commercial litigation, product liability and general liability issues. He has extensive experience in defending clients against claims of exposure to asbestos, lead and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He defends clients regularly against claims claiming exposure to many other contaminants and hazards such as chemical and solvents, noise, mold, vibration and environmental toxics.

Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

New York has seen thousands of deaths caused by asbestos exposure. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against manufacturers of asbestos-related products in order to seek compensation. The successful mesothelioma lawsuits make asbestos companies accountable for their reckless decisions to put profits ahead of public safety.

New York mesothelioma attorneys have experience representing clients of all backgrounds against the largest asbestos producers in the nation. Their legal strategies could result in an enormous settlement or verdict.

Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and continues to make headlines. The 2022 mesothelioma claim national report from KCIC states that New York as the third most popular jurisdiction for mesothelioma lawsuits, following California and Pennsylvania.

The judicial system of the state has been shaken by the flurry of asbestos lawsuits. In 2015 the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges partly related to the millions of dollars of referral fees he earned for the powerful plaintiffs' law firm Weitz & Luxenberg from handling asbestos cases. Justice Sherry Klein Heitler was named NYCAL's manager in the wake of the scandal. She had been in charge of NYCAL since 2008.

Justice Heitler was succeeded as NYCAL judge by Justice Peter Moulton, who has clarified that defendants cannot obtain summary judgment unless they have an "scientifically sound credible, admissible and reliable scientific study" that shows the measured exposure of a plaintiff was too low to cause mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the chance that NYCAL defendants can obtain summary judgment.

Justice Moulton also ruled that the plaintiff must prove some health harm suffered due to asbestos exposure in order for the court to award compensatory damage. This ruling, in combination with a decision in early 2016 that ruled that medical monitoring is not a tort claim makes it almost impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL motion for summary judgment.

In the most recent case, which Judge Toal presided over, mesothelioma-related lawsuits filed against DOVER GREEN, the company is accused of violating asbestos work practice regulations when it renovated Manhattan campus buildings in October 2013 to raise money for a fundraising event. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS did not adhere to CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to notify and inspect the EPA prior to commencing renovations, or to properly removing, storing and dispose of asbestos and appointing a trained representative present at renovation activities.

Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos-related personal injury and death cases once filled up federal court dockets and judges' judicial resource were drained, making it difficult for them from addressing criminal matters or crucial civil disputes. This bloated litigation hindered the timely settlement of victims as well as frustrated innocent families. Additionally, it caused businesses to invest excessive money on defense.

Asbestos claims are filed by individuals diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses after being exposed to asbestos in a workplace environment. Most cases are filed by shipyard workers, construction workers employees and other tradesmen who worked on buildings that were or were made with asbestos-containing materials. These workers were exposed asbestos fibers that were dangerous during the process of manufacturing or when working on the actual structure.

The first major mass tort was asbestos litigation. In the latter part of the 1970s and 1980s there was a flurry of personal injury and wrongful death cases arising from asbestos exposure was a major issue for courts. This occurred in both state and federal court across the country.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits contend that their illnesses were caused by the negligence in the production of asbestos products and that companies did not warn them of the dangers that come with exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are brought in federal court.

In the early 1990s, after recognizing that this litigation was "terrible calendar congestion," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein and New York Supreme Court Justice Helen Freedman jointly consolidated for settlement as well as pretrial and discovery purposes hundreds of state and federal cases that claimed asbestos exposure 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.

Many defendants had been involved in asbestos claims in the past. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, both individually and as successors to Spraycraft Corporation, CRH, Inc. as 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.

Read More: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4vjsaJ-iBk