Panel to Rule on Merging Asbestos Cases : Litigation: At issue is whether the 31,000 cases should be consolidated before one judge, several judges in different jurisdictions or left alone.

Seven federal judges began grappling Thursday with the tough question of whether consolidation of the nation’s 31,000 asbestos cases would relieve overwhelmed courts or cause more expense and delay.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which acts to consolidate large and complex federal cases, heard about 50 lawyers argue how the cases should be handled. The standing-room-only hearing was held in Manhattan federal court.

The cases from across the nation involve claims that asbestos--a once-common insulating material--has caused injuries.

Asbestos has been linked with serious ailments, including forms of lung cancer. A large number of asbestos-related diseases has been reported among Americans who frequently handled it, such as shipyard workers who installed asbestos during World War II.

At issue is whether the cases should be consolidated before one judge, several judges in different jurisdictions or left alone. If the panel combines the cases, it could have a tremendous impact on how they are resolved.

Advocates say consolidation would compensate asbestos victims more quickly and fairly, cut legal costs for firms facing injury claims and help judges who are inundated with cases.

Other lawyers say the issues in the cases are too different to allow the suits to be combined.

Several panel members suggested that a judge or judges overseeing consolidation could help the parties resolve issues and reach settlements.

“What we ought to have is an asbestos czar, like a drug czar,” said one panel member, U.S. District Judge Robert Merhige of Richmond, Va. “He ought to be able to meet with (company) executives and lead plaintiffs’ lawyers and work things out.”

Among those who advocate consolidation is Arthur Miller, a Harvard University professor and legal editor of the television show “Good Morning America.”

He told the panel that the litigation had reached a “crisis” level, and that the 2,000 asbestos trials a year are a “monumental misapplication of human resources.”

Miller said that although the first asbestos case was brought 25 years ago, the number of cases that will be brought is not even at midpoint.

But he said the panel should not go too far.

“I believe the time for action is here, but I strongly urge the panel to walk, not run,” he said. “It would be a great mistake at this juncture to do more than to establish the mechanism.”

Some victims’ lawyers disagreed, asking the panel to leave their cases alone. Among them was Fred Baron, a Dallas lawyer whose firm is involved in 1,271 cases.

“There is no reason to transfer the cases,” Baron said. “All of the cases have individual issues; they are different kinds of cases.”

He said his firm’s cases are pending in 24 federal districts that are moving the suits along faster than they would be if they were consolidated.

Manufacturers involved in the cases are also at odds over consolidation. The Center for Claims Resolution, which represents 20 companies, including GAF Corp., Union Carbide Corp. and Pfizer Inc., wants the cases consolidated.

John Aldock, a lawyer representing the group, said, “The current system is really strained.” He blamed the problem on “the race for assets in different courts.”

He said there was a need for a centralized case management system headed by one federal judge.

Other manufacturers and their insurers disagreed, including Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.