Consolidation of Claims Works to Benefit of Courts and Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer Victims
It is well known that America’s courts are overburdened with cases waiting to be heard, and this presents a significant problem for people diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, lung cancer, and other asbestos-related diseases. These victims are running out of time, so they work to do whatever they can to move their cases forward. One popular option is to consolidate their claims whenever they can.
Asbestos Companies Object to Consolidating Mechanics’ Mesothelioma and Asbestos Claims
Consolidating mesothelioma and lung cancer claims is permitted in New York’s courts when certain criteria are met, but the asbestos companies named in these claims tend to object to this move: they are concerned that when juries hear from multiple victims alleging harm by the same company, it will work against them.
In a recent example, two auto workers diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer, represented by the same attorney, and who both worked with auto parts made by Mercedes Benz, Volkswagen, and other companies requested that their cases be consolidated in the interest of judicial economy. Though the companies objected to their petition, the New York judge hearing their case granted their request.
Workplace Exposure to Asbestos Common in Mechanics’ Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer Claims
Asbestos present in auto parts, and particularly in brake linings and gaskets, is frequently cited in mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung cancer claims and was the basis for claims filed by both Joseph Munna and Daniel Lamonica. Though the two men worked for different companies, both were diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer and both blamed asbestos in parts provided by the same companies. Their shared attorney suggested consolidating their cases so that they could each save money and time, and the men agreed. But the companies they were seeking justice from objected.
Though Mercedes-Benz USA, Volkswagen Group of American, and other defendants all argued that there were not enough commonalities between the two men’s asbestos claims for them to be consolidated, Justice Adam Silvera of the Supreme Court of New York County disagreed. Noting the significant number of factors in common, including similar occupations, similar time of exposure, type of disease, and status of discovery, as well as the fact that New York did not require that every factor match, he ruled that enough of the state’s requirements had been met, that jury instructions would eliminate any juror confusion and that the cases could be joined.
Paquete de compensación financiera GRATUITO
- Información sobre despachos de abogados que recuperarán su INDEMNIZACIÓN MÁS ALTA
- Aprenda cómo cobrar en 90 días
- Solicite su parte de $30 mil millones en fondos fiduciarios
