Nobody knows exactly how many people have died due to asbestos exposure, but based on the number of mesothelioma victims that come forward each year, it’s clear that there are hundreds of thousands, if not more. With only a few attorneys specializing in representing these types of cases, it makes sense that they would frequently represent victims with similar stories. One group of victims’ families all represented by the same lawyer sought to consolidate their claims for compensation, and though the asbestos companies named as defendants objected to them doing so, the New York judge hearing their cases granted their request.
Commonalities Between Mesothelioma Claims Drives Consolidation Request
The petition to show cause for joint trials was filed by Lisa Winter on behalf of plaintiffs in three mesothelioma claims: Pasquale Cinfo, Robert Morie, and Frank E. Toscani. All three men were exposed to asbestos during the course of their employment. They had all worked on similar equipment and machinery, all developed pleural mesothelioma and had died of their illness, and all of their cases were being represented by the same attorney. Their motion suggested that having a jury hear the three cases combined into one made more sense than having three separate cases.
In response, the asbestos companies named as defendants in the mesothelioma claims argued that there were not enough commonalities to justify consolidating the cases because the three men’s occupations, worksites, and timeframes for exposure to asbestos had differed.
Judge Determines that Similarities Between Mesothelioma Claims are Enough to Warrant Consolidation
In reviewing the three mesothelioma cases, Justice Adam Silvera of the Supreme Court of New York noted that the state has established certain elements required for consolidating claims involving two separate plaintiffs, and when three plaintiffs wanted to consolidate claims there needed to be three or more of those factors present, as well as a sharing of the same disease. The potential shared factors are common worksites; similar occupation; similar time of exposure; type of disease; whether plaintiffs are living or deceased; status of discovery in each case; representation by the same counsel; and type of cancer diagnosed.
In ruling that the mesothelioma victims’ families could consolidate their cases, Justice Silvera noted that a previous judge had held that “judicial economy would be served by consolidating the actions of deceased plaintiffs with mesothelioma and whose exposure was related to their work on similar products.” He pointed out that though the plaintiffs did not share common worksites, this did not preclude their consolidation and said that “adequate safeguards” could be put in place during the trial to avoid juror confusion. The cases will be joined.
If you or someone you love has been affected by mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
