Page Updated diciembre 30, 2024

Asbestos Company’s Objections to Lung Cancer Case Consolidation Denied

Página revisada y editada por

Abogado de mesotelioma Paul Danziger

Whether dealing with mesothelioma, lung cancer, or any other asbestos-related diagnosis, the idea of pursuing legal justice can be daunting. The idea of facing off against an asbestos company is intimidating, which is why the idea of consolidating similar cases is so appealing. Though the defendants object to cases being joined, in the state of New York the action is viewed as an overall positive by the courts as long as the cases are similar enough. In a recent example, two lung cancer victims successfully convinced a judge that they shared enough elements in common for consolidation to represent a smart move.

Asbestos Lung Cancer Victims Ask for Consolidation of Cases Against Asbestos Companies

As is true of many mesothelioma victims, both Paul Scandaliato and Guiseppe Rullo were exposed to asbestos on the job. Their workplace exposure occurred from the 1960s through 1980 when each man worked for Consolidated Edison Company of New York. The two worked with similar equipment and machinery, so it is unsurprising that they both developed asbestos-related lung cancer.

For consolidation to occur, the New York courts require that a preponderance of certain criteria be shared between cases. Those criteria are:

Common worksites

Similar occupation

Similar time of exposure

Type of disease

Whether plaintiffs are living or deceased

Status of discovery in each case

Whether all plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel

Type of cancer

With both men represented by the same attorney and sharing so many commonalities in their claims, they appealed to the court to allow them to consolidate their litigation in the name of judicial economy. To support their case, they pointed out how many of the criteria required for a successful consolidation they shared.

Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Win Argument

On review of the two cases and the many elements that they shared, the judge denied the asbestos companies’ arguments against combining the cases. The judge agreed that judicial economy would be served by consolidating the cases.