The Biggest "Myths" About Ny Asbestos Litigation May Actually Be Right

New York Asbestos Litigation

In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer sufferers can receive compensation through an experienced mesothelioma lawyer. Asbestos exposure is a common cause of these kinds of illnesses. symptoms can take years before they manifest.

The judges who manage NYCAL's caseload have crafted patterns of favoring plaintiffs. A recent ruling could further erode defendants' rights.

Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos litigation is different than the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve numerous defendants (companies who are being accused of being sued) as well as multiple law firms representing plaintiffs as well as multiple expert witnesses. In addition there are often specific workplaces that are the subject of these cases because asbestos was employed in a variety of products and many workers were exposed on the job. Asbestos sufferers often develop serious diseases like mesothelioma and lung cancer.

New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. It is among the biggest dockets across the United States. It is managed by a special Case Management Order. This CMO was created to handle asbestos cases that have many defendants. The judges who are part of the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket is also the site of some of the highest plaintiff verdicts in the past.

The New York Court of Appeals has recently made significant changes to the NYCAL docket. In 2015 the political system in Albany was shaken to the core by the conviction of former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. He had been accused of killing every reasonably designed tort reform bill in 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 new rules in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to submit evidence that their products aren't responsible for the mesothelioma that plaintiffs suffer from. In addition, he instituted a new practice in which he did not dismiss cases until expert testimony from witnesses was completed. This new policy may have a significant impact on the speed of discovery for cases in the NYCAL docket, and could lead to an outcome that is more favorable to defendants.

In other New York asbestos news, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed MDL 875 and ordered all asbestos cases in the future to be transferred to a different district. This should result in a more uniform and efficient treatment of these cases. The MDL in its current MDL is well-known for its abusive discovery practices, 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 concerning his ties 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 hosted a Town Hall meeting with defense attorneys to hear complaints about the "rigged" system that favors an asbestos law firm that is powerful.

Asbestos litigation differs from the typical personal injury case because it involves a number of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos litigation also generally involves similar work sites where a large number of workers were exposed to asbestos, frequently leading to mesothelioma, lung cancer, or other diseases. This can lead large verdicts that can clog the dockets of the courts.

To combat this issue A number of states have passed laws to limit the type of claims that can be filed. They typically cover issues like medical guidelines, two-disease rules expedited case scheduling, forum shopping, joinders, consequential damages, and successor liability.

Despite these laws some states still face a large number of asbestos lawsuits. To reduce the number of cases filed and speed up the resolution process certain courts have established special "asbestos dockets" that use a variety of different rules to these cases. The New York City asbestos docket for instance is one that requires applicants to meet certain medical requirements and has a two-disease rule and uses an accelerated trial schedule.

Certain states have passed laws that restrict the amount of punitive damage that can be awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to discourage particularly bad behavior and provide more compensation to victims. You should consult a New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you file your case in federal or state courts to know the laws that apply to your case.

Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on toxic tort and environmental litigation including commercial litigation, product liability and general liability matters. He has vast experience defending clients against claims of exposure to asbestos, lead and World Trade Center Dust in both New York City and New Jersey. He has also defended cases that claim exposure to other hazardous substances and contaminants like noise, mold, vibration and environmental toxins.

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 companies that manufacture of asbestos products to seek compensation. Successful mesothelioma lawsuits hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their rash choices to place profits over public safety.

New York mesothelioma attorneys have the experience of representing clients from all backgrounds in court against the largest asbestos manufacturers in the country. Their legal strategies could lead to an enormous settlement or verdict.

Asbestos litigation has a long history in New York, and continues to be the subject of news. The 2022 national mesothelioma claims report by KCIC declares New York as the third most popular state for mesothelioma lawsuit filings, after California and Pennsylvania.

The state's judiciary has been buffeted by the influx of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was found guilty in 2015 of federal corruption charges relating to millions of dollars in referral fees that he received from the politically powerful plaintiffs law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. Justice Sherry Klein Heitler was replaced as 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 present a "scientifically solid credible, admissible and reliable scientific study" showing the measured amount of exposure a plaintiff received was too low to cause 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 some injury to his or her health due to exposure to asbestos for a court to make a decision on compensatory damages. This decision, coupled with a ruling from the beginning of 2016 that held that medical monitoring was not a tort claim makes it virtually impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL Summary Judgment motion.

In the most recent case, which Judge Toal presided over, mesothelioma lawsuit brought against DOVER GREEN, the company is accused of violating asbestos work practice regulations when it renovated Manhattan campus buildings in October 2013 to raise funds for a charity. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS was not following CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to check the campus and inform EPA prior to beginning renovations; properly remove, store, and dispose of asbestos; and have a trained representative in place during renovations.

Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos-related personal lawsuits for death and injury were a major source of delays in federal court dockets and judges' judicial resources were drained, preventing them to address criminal matters or other important civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented timely settlement of victims and irritated innocent families. It also led to companies to invest excessive money on defense.

Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses after exposure to asbestos in their work environment. Most asbestos claims are filed by construction workers or shipyard workers, as well as other tradesmen that worked on structures made of or that contain asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to asbestos fibers that could be harmful during the process of manufacturing or while 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 arising from asbestos exposure engulfed the courts. This happened in state and federal courts across the country.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits argue that their ailments resulted from the negligent manufacture of asbestos products and that the companies failed to warn them about the dangers that come with 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 the fact that this litigation was "terrible calendar congestion," District Judge Jack B.  Fishers asbestos attorney  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 Special Master, Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman consolidated these cases known as Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation.

Many of the defendants were involved in other asbestos claims. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, as successors and individually 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.