New York Asbestos Litigation

Mesothelioma patients in New York can receive compensation from an attorney for mesothelioma. The exposure to asbestos is often the cause of these kinds of illnesses. symptoms may take decades before they manifest.

Judges who oversee NYCAL's caseload have developed an inclination to favor plaintiffs. A recent ruling could further erode defendants' rights.

Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos litigation differs from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve multiple defendants (companies being sued) and multiple law firms representing plaintiffs, and a variety of expert witnesses. In addition, there are usually specific work sites that are the focus of these cases since asbestos was utilized in a variety products and a lot of workers were exposed on the job. Asbestos-related victims are frequently diagnosed with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.

New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. It is among the largest dockets across the United States. It is controlled by a specific Case Management Order. This CMO was created to handle asbestos cases that have many defendants. The Judges involved in the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket is also the site of some of the highest plaintiff verdicts in recent history.

New York Court of Appeals made some major changes to the NYCAL docket last week. In 2015, the political establishment in Albany was shaken to its core when former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. Silver was accused of destroying every reasonable 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 an entirely new rule for the NYCAL docket, which requires defendants to provide evidence that their products were not responsible for mesothelioma in plaintiffs. In addition, he instituted a new practice in which he did not dismiss cases until expert testimony from witnesses was completed. This new policy could 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 for defendants.

In other New York asbestos news, an federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed MDL 875 and Specializes in Asbestos Litigation ordered all future asbestos cases to be transferred to another district. This change should lead to 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 low 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 brought attention to New York City's rigged asbestos court. Justice Peter Moulton is now presiding over NYCAL and has already held a town hall meeting with defense attorneys to listen to complaints about the "rigged" system that favors a powerful asbestos law firm.

Asbestos litigation differs from the typical personal injury case because it involves a lot of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos litigation can also involve similar job sites where workers were exposed to asbestos, which led to mesothelioma or lung cancer. This can result in huge cases that can clog the court dockets.

To address the problem to address the issue, a number of states have enacted laws that limit these kinds of claims. They typically cover issues like medical requirements, two-disease regulations and expedited case scheduling joinders, forum shopping, punitive damages and successor liability.

Despite these laws states are still seeing an influx of asbestos lawsuits. To reduce the number of filings and to speed up their resolution, some courts have set up special "asbestos dockets" that use a variety of different rules to these cases. The New York City asbestos docket, for example is one that requires applicants to meet specific medical criteria and also has a rule of two diseases and utilizes an accelerated trial plan.

Certain states have also enacted laws to restrict the amount of punitive damages awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to discourage particularly harmful conduct and allow for more compensation to go to 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 environmental and toxic tort litigation, commercial litigation, product liability and general liability matters. He has extensive experience in defending clients against claims of exposure to lead, asbestos and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He has also defended claims claiming exposure to many other hazards and contaminants like solvents and chemicals as well as 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 manufacturers of asbestos-containing products to seek compensation. Successful mesothelioma lawsuits hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their rash decisions to place profits over public safety.

New York mesothelioma attorneys have expertise in representing clients from all backgrounds against the largest asbestos producers in the United States. Their legal strategies could result in a generous verdict or settlement.

Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and continues to be the subject of headlines. The 2022 mesothelioma claim national report from KCIC declares New York as the third most popular jurisdiction for mesothelioma lawsuit filings, following California and Pennsylvania.

The state's judiciary has been hit by the flood of asbestos law and litigation lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was convicted in 2015 on federal corruption charges related 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 named NYCAL's manager in the wake of the scandal. She had been managing NYCAL since the year 2008.

Justice Heitler was succeeded as NYCAL judge by Justice Peter Moulton, who has made it clear that defendants are not entitled to summary judgment unless they have an "scientifically sound, reliable and admissible scientific study" showing the measured exposure of a plaintiff was not enough to cause mesothelioma. This eliminates the likelihood that NYCAL defendants are able to get summary judgment.

Justice Moulton also ruled that plaintiffs must prove health harm suffered as a result of asbestos exposure before the court to award compensation. This ruling, in combination with a decision made in the beginning of 2016 that holds that medical monitoring is not a tort, makes it virtually impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL summary judgment motion.

The latest asbestos litigation case in which Judge Toal is in charge, a mesothelioma lawsuit 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 for an event for fundraising. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS didn't adhere to CAA and asbestos litigation paralegal NESHAP regulations by failing to inspect and asbestos litigation Meaning notify the EPA prior to starting renovations, or to properly remove, store 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 cases were a major blockage of state and federal court dockets and depleted judges' judicial resources, preventing them from addressing criminal cases or other crucial civil disputes. This bloated litigation hindered the timely compensation of victims as well as frustrated innocent families. It also caused companies to spend a lot of money on defense.

Asbestos claims are filed by people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related illnesses after exposure to asbestos in a workplace environment. The majority of cases are filed by shipyard workers, construction workers employees and other tradesmen working on buildings that were or were constructed with asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to asbestos fibers that could be harmful in the manufacturing process or when working on the structure itself.

Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. 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 was the case in both state and federal court across the nation.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits argue that their illnesses resulted from the negligence in the production of asbestos products and that 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 specializes in asbestos litigation (Click Link) federal courts.

In the early 1990s, 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 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 that were later called the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of the Special Master.

Many defendants had been involved in asbestos claims in the past. The list of defendants included Garlock, Inc; H & A Construction Company, as a successor and individually 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.