New York Asbestos Litigation

Mesothelioma patients in New York can receive compensation from a mesothelioma lawyer. Exposure to asbestos often causes these kinds of diseases; symptoms may take decades before they appear.

The judges who manage NYCAL’s caseload have developed a pattern of favoring plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further erode the rights of defendants.

Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos litigation is much different from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve numerous defendants (companies that are in court), multiple law firms representing plaintiffs, and numerous expert witnesses. These cases are often focused on specific work locations because asbestos was used to make various products and a lot of workers were subjected to it at work. Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma and lung cancer.

New York has its own unique method of dealing with asbestos litigation. In fact, it’s one of the largest dockets in the United States. It is governed by a special Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to handle asbestos cases involving a large number of defendants. The Judges involved in the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos cases. The docket also has seen some of the highest award for plaintiffs 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 the core when the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. He had been accused of sabotaging every decently 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 gave the Weitz & Luxenberg firm “red carpet treatment”. She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton who implemented several changes to the docket.

Moulton introduced new rules in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to present proof that their products aren’t responsible for the mesothelioma that plaintiffs suffer from. In addition, he implemented a new practice in which he did not dismiss cases until all expert witness testimony was completed. This new rule will greatly alter the speed of discovery in cases in the NYCAL docket, and could result in more favorable outcomes for 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 will result in a more uniform and efficient treatment of these cases. The MDL currently MDL is well-known for its abuse of discovery, unwarranted sanction and inadequate evidentiary standards.

Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

After years of corruption and mismanagement by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals concerning his ties to asbestos lawyers have finally attracted the attention of the asbestos docket, which is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton, who now preside over NYCAL, has already held a Town Hall meeting with defense lawyers to discuss complaints about the “rigged” system which favors an asbestos law firm that is powerful.

Asbestos litigation differs from a typical personal injury case, as it involves many of the same defendants and plaintiffs. Asbestos litigation also generally involves similar workplaces where a lot of people were exposed to asbestos, usually leading to mesothelioma, lung cancer or other diseases. These cases can result in huge verdicts that could clog dockets of the courts.

To limit this problem A number of states have passed laws to limit the type of claims that can be filed. These laws usually deal with issues such as medical criteria, two-disease rules expedited case scheduling, forum shopping, joinders punitive damages and successor liability.

Despite these laws, certain states still face a large number of asbestos lawsuits. Some courts have created “asbestos Dockets” to reduce the number of asbestos cases and speed up the resolution of these cases. These dockets are governed by different rules that are specifically designed for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos court for instance, requires applicants to meet certain medical criteria and has rules for two diseases. It also utilizes an accelerated schedule.

Certain states have passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are meant to deter particularly bad behavior and allow for greater compensation to the victims. You should speak with an New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you decide to file your case in federal or state courts to learn about the laws applicable to your particular situation.

Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on toxic tort and environmental litigation including product liability, commercial litigation and general liability issues. He has extensive experience in 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 alleging exposure to other contaminants and hazards like 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-containing products to seek compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits that succeed make asbestos companies liable for their rash decisions.

New York mesothelioma attorneys have experience representing clients of all backgrounds against the biggest asbestos manufacturers in the country. Their legal strategies could lead to a generous verdict or settlement.

Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich background, and it continues to make headlines. The 2022 national mesothelioma lawsuit report by KCIC lists New York as the third most popular state 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 on federal corruption charges relating to millions of dollars in referral fees he received from politically powerful plaintiffs’ law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. Justice Sherry Klein Heitler was appointed NYCAL’s manager in the wake of the scandal. She had been managing NYCAL since 2008.

Miami Gardens asbestos attorneys was succeeded as NYCAL judge by Justice Peter Moulton, who has clarified that defendants cannot obtain summary judgment unless they have a “scientifically sound credible, admissible and reliable scientific study” that shows the measured dose of a plaintiff’s exposure was not sufficient to cause mesothelioma. This eliminates the likelihood that NYCAL defendants are able to get summary judgment.

Additionally, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff must show some damage to their health due to exposure to asbestos for the court to make a decision on compensatory damages. This ruling, along with a ruling from the beginning of 2016 that held that medical monitoring was not a tort, makes it nearly impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to win a NYCAL Summary Motion for Judgment.

In the latest case, Judge Toal was the judge in a mesothelioma suit filed against DOVER Green, a company that is accused of not following asbestos work practices 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 NESHAP requirements for asbestos by failing to check the campus; 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 injury and death cases once were a major source of delays in federal court dockets and judges’ judicial resource were drained, preventing them from addressing criminal matters or important civil disputes. This bloated litigation hindered the timely settlement of victims as well as frustrated innocent families. Additionally, it caused businesses to spend a lot of money on defense.

Asbestos claims are filed by those diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases following being exposed to asbestos in their work environment. The majority of cases are filed by shipyard workers, construction employees, employees, and other tradesmen who worked on structures that contained or were constructed using asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to dangerous asbestos fibers during the process of manufacturing or when working on the structure itself.

The first significant mass tort was asbestos litigation. In the late 1970s and 1980s an avalanche of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits arising from exposure to asbestos engulfed the courts. This happened in federal and state court across the nation.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits claim that their ailments were caused by the negligence of asbestos-related products’ manufacture and that companies failed to warn them about the dangers that come with exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were filed in state courts, a majority were filed in federal courts.

In the early 1990s, after recognizing that this litigation constituted “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 which claimed asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases, which were called the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of the Special Master.

While the majority of these cases were connected to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were defendants in other asbestos lawsuits. 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. were all defendants.