Articles Posted in Multidistrict Litigation

Published on:

Studies have linked Roundup to non-Hodgkins lymphoma
The makers of Roundup just lost another big case, this time involving a couple who used the weedkiller and were later diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This month, a jury in California awarded Alva and Alberta Pilliod more than two billion dollars. The jury found that Monsanto and Bayer acted negligently and failed to warn the plaintiffs of the dangers of using Roundup. The key active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, has been shown in studies to increase the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The jury then awarded Mr. Pilliod $18 million in “compensatory damages,” which is a money award for actual injuries suffered. The jury awarded Ms. Pilliod $37 million in compensatory damages, for a total of $55 million in compensatory damages. Finally, the jury awarded the Pilliods $1 billion each in punitive damages. The final jury award was $2,055,000,000. A truly astonishing number, and a major rebuke to the makers of Roundup.

The Pilliods testified that they used Roundup on their property for more than thirty years, from 1975 and 2011. They were diagnosed with NHL in 2011 and 2015.

Punitive damages play an important role in consumer protection. Punitives are awarded by a jury to punish or deter a bad-acting company, and similarly situated companies, from engaging in similarly awful conduct. Punitive damages are not common, and are usually awarded when a jury decides that the defendants had prior knowledge of a serious issue or problem and ignored this knowledge to the serious injury or detriment of other people.

Published on:

While mild hearing loss can be a side effect of aging, often people suffer hearing loss from working in loud environments. Military service can be a loud environment. There are environmental factors that can be avoided to protect your hearing. Your ability to hear is important and it can be debilitating to suffer hearing loss. 

Today, Product Liability Attorney Clay Hodges shares how noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) can occur, and the litigation emerging from defective earplugs used in the military. To hear more about the impact of noise induced hearing loss and the cases involving Dual-Ended Combat Arms Earplugs, tune in to this episode of Failed Hips and Harmed Drugs. 

Published on:

Hearing Loss For Soldier Wearing 3M Earplugs
In my last post I introduced the 3M Earplugs and the (alleged) defects that caused hearing loss in thousands of military service personnel. I thought it would be helpful to bullet point some of the key allegations made by injured soldiers in lawsuits filed against 3M related to these earplugs.

First, I refer to this product simply as the 3M Earplugs. However, the product’s official name is the Dual-Ended Combat Arms Earplugs (CAEv2). So if in your reading you see 3M Earplugs or Combat Arms Earplugs, it is most likely the same product.

Second, I need to provide some clarification on the defendants involved in this expanding litigation. The 3M Earplugs were originally developed and manufactured by Aearo Holding Corporation (which became Aearo Holding LLC) along with the involvement of Aearo Technologies LLC, Aearo Intermediate LLC, and Aearo LLC. It may be a bit confusing, but it’s not uncommon for a company to have subsidiary companies handling research, or development, or the manufacture of a product. In any case, 3M Company bought Aearo Holding LLC in 2008 and with the purchase acquired the Combat Arms Earplugs. The Earplugs were thus placed under the 3M brand, and 3M became entitled to the profits flowing from the earplugs but also became responsible for the liabilities of the product. Thus, 3M Company is the primary defendant in this litigation.

Published on:

It’s a great question. And I’m glad I asked it for you. Now let me answer it. There are several ways to identify the specific medical device implanted in your body. (A medical device is any manufactured device–like an artificial hip–implanted in the body for the purpose of resolving an injury, curing disease, or improving a person’s health. Medical devices can be artificial joints like hips and knees and shoulders, heart stents and pacemakers, IVC filters, hernia mesh, and hundreds of other examples.)  Some ways of identifying exact product components are better than others. Identifying the medical device several different ways is the best of all.

Product Stickers: The Gold Standard

Product Stickers
It all sort of starts with “product stickers.” These are the identifying stickers that are attached to the box containing the medical device, and they can be peeled off and affixed to a nurse’s hospital note or to another page in the hospital or surgeon’s record for the implant surgery. It goes something like this: the representative for the device maker shows up with the artificial hip components (or other medical device). The surgical nurse or the surgeon will double check that the components are the precise ones needed for the surgery, scan them into the system and note them in the record. The nurse will then peel off the product stickers and attach them to the hospital record and include them with all the other pages of documents explaining details of the surgery. The image at right is an approximation of what the stickers will look like: a bar code, the name of the manufacturer, the specific product name, the Lot and Reference numbers, and other identifying information.

Published on:

Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Litigation
I have written about artificial hip litigation on this site more than any other area of product liability law, and for a very good reason: there is a lot to write about. Metal-on-metal hips have gravely injured tens of thousands of people, and new victims are undergoing revision surgeries each week to remove defective hips. One current active litigation involves Smith & Nephew “Birmingham” artificial hips. MDL 2775 is the multidistrict litigation court handling hundreds of lawsuits filed against medical device maker Smith & Nephew for these (allegedly) defective artificial hips. There are several artificial hip products involved in MDL 2775:

Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System (BHR). The multidistrict litigation court was first organized to handle these BHR lawsuits. The BHR system is a type of metal-on-metal artificial hip, but in resurfacing procedures the  hip “ball” bone is shaped and resurfaced with a smooth metal covering and a metal shell is implanted into the hip socket, thus creating a metal-on-metal connection or “articulation.” As with most metal-on-metal artificial hips, Smith & Nephew uses cobalt and chromium to construct both of these resurfacing components. These metals have been shown to wear away and leach into the blood and tissue of the patient, causing all kinds of symptoms and problems, including metallosis.

BHR Hip Components Used in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). These hip implants are constructed with Smith & Nephew BHR components and non-BHR components, but instead of resurfacing the “ball-bone” with a metal covering the bone is removed and a metal ball component is implanted. MDL 2775 added these Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) cases to the litigation shortly after the MDL launched.

Published on:

Roundup weedkiller with glyphosate can cause cancer
Herbicides have become a way of life. For some, like farmers and ground maintenance men, herbicide application is part of making a living. For homeowners, herbicides are used to grow the perfect weed-free lawn. For all of us, herbicide usage is closely linked to the production of our food. The most common herbicide? Glyphosate-based herbicides. The most well-known brand? Roundup. The alarming part? Glyphosate exposure has been alleged to increase the risk of cancer. More particularly, glyphosate is allegedly related to the increased risk for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other blood cancers. Glyphosate-based herbicides are still widely used in our country.

Glyphosate discovered in the 1970s

In 1970, a chemist working at Monsanto within the herbicide screening program named John Franz discovered glyphosate, an organophosphate compound which would become the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. By 1972, Roundup was marketed to the public as an environmentally friendly herbicide that is safe for both human and wildlife alike. Roundup was produced commercially starting in 1974. It would quickly become one of the most popular herbicides of all time.

Published on:

Oxycontin is one opioid causing addiction
One year ago a multidistrict litigation site (MDL 2804) was chosen as the venue for cities, counties, and states to bring civil actions against the makers of opioids. As I wrote about then, the opioid crisis has created huge burdens on states and municipalities. State and local governments have shouldered much of the cost of caring for individuals addicted to opioids. The federal government estimated that, in 2015 alone, 12.5 million people misused prescription opioids, and 33,000 people died from opioid overdose. In 2013, opioid abuse resulted in over $78.5 billion in economic losses. Cities, counties, and states have picked up much of that staggering cost. These government entities in MDL 2804 are fighting back, and many have filed lawsuits against the makers of opioids to recoup the billions of dollars lost in this ongoing crisis.

And while MDL 2804 is critically important, and overdue, other groups of opioid victims do not necessarily “fit” within the concept of an MDL focused on government plaintiffs. Among other victims, huge numbers of infants have been born addicted to opioids. Starting life this way creates layers of physical, mental, and emotional challenges. These children are the ultimate “innocent victims,” and they deserve an MDL court dedicated to ensuring a fair and full opportunity to seek compensation for their injuries.

Opioid-Addicted Infants Present Unique Claims

Published on:

Xarelto Plaintiffs seek new trialsRecently, three cases in the Xarelto multi-district litigation (MDL) ended in defense verdicts in favor of Xarelto’s manufacturers, Bayer, Janssen, and Johnson & Johnson. These lawsuits, specifically the Orr trial, the Boudreaux trial, and the Mingo trial, stem from the manufacturers’ failure to provide instructions regarding routine prothrombin time (PT) testing for patients with a high risk of bleeding while on Xarelto. In addition, the plaintiffs argued that defendants misled doctors about whether tests were available to assess effects and risks of the medicine.

Since the cases ended in verdicts for the drug manufacturer, the Plaintiffs are now appealing for new trials. The plaintiffs argue that the defense verdicts are a result of the district court wrongfully admitting evidence, denying admission of other evidence, and giving improper instructions to the jury.

In the legal brief, these arguments for new trials are broken down into four main points:

Published on:

Xarelto MDL Louisiana federal courtAfter more than three years of litigation, and with no settlement agreement in sight, Judge Eldon Fallon has issued a court ruling to move hundreds of cases along in the next several months. Just to recap, the federal court in Louisiana was chosen as the multi-district litigation (MDL) site for plaintiffs filing lawsuits for injuries suffered after taking the blood-thinning drug Xarelto. In 2017 Janssen, Bayer and Johnson & Johnson, manufacturers and sellers of Xarelto, won three “bellwether trials” in this MDL, which you can read about here. Nevertheless, studies and evidence show Xarelto can cause uncontrollable bleeding in patients, and there is no available antidote once the bleeding starts. But with the defense winning three cases last year, the drug companies have (so far) not been willing to agree to a global settlement of the remaining 21,000+ cases. In an effort to wind down the litigation and encourage settlement, Judge Fallon has chosen to move things along:

Case Management Order No. 6

On February 27, 2018, Judge Fallon issued Case Management Order No. 6 (CMO No. 6) in the Xarelto MDL. This Order sets out the procedure for the selection of 1,200 Xarelto cases over the next six months. These cases will enter rigorous individual discovery and will be prepared for trials in the plaintiffs’ home districts. Among other things, the plaintiffs chosen in these 1,200 cases will be responsible for completion of an extensive “Plaintiff Fact Sheet,” which is essentially a comprehensive questionnaire on all salient facts about the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s use of Xarelto, the injuries suffered, and other relevant information. The defendants will also have to submit a “Defendant Fact Sheet.”

Published on:

Plaintiff Sherri Booker Wins Jury Verdict Against C.R. Bard
Victims of C.R. Bard’s IVC filters got some great news two weeks ago. An Arizona jury in the first bellwether trial awarded a woman $3.6 million for injuries she suffered after Bard’s “G2” IVC filter broke into pieces in her inferior vena cava vein, requiring open heart surgery to remove the broken pieces.

The plaintiff, Sherri Booker, was implanted with Bard G2 IVC filter to prevent blood clots from reaching the heart and lungs. The problem was, the G2 moved inside her inferior vena cava (it is not supposed to move), then it broke apart. In 2014, she had to undergo open heart surgery. The surgeon was not able to retrieve all the broken pieces.

The Jury’s Verdict