Category Archives: MDL

Jury finds Roundup weed killer is major factor in man’s cancer

Great News For Plaintiffs Involved in Roundup Litigation

SAN FRANCISCO — Roundup weed killer was a substantial factor in a California man’s cancer, a jury determined Tuesday in the first phase of a trial that attorneys said could help determine the fate of hundreds of similar lawsuits.

The unanimous verdict by the six-person jury in federal court in San Francisco came in a lawsuit filed against Roundup’s manufacturer, agribusiness giant Monsanto. Edwin Hardeman, 70, was the second plaintiff to go to trial out of thousands around the country who claim the weed killer causes cancer.

Monsanto says studies have established that Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, is safe.

A San Francisco jury in August awarded another man $289 million after determining Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A judge later slashed the award to $78 million, and Monsanto has appealed.

Hardeman’s trial is before a different judge and may be more significant. U.S. Judge Vince Chhabria is overseeing hundreds of Roundup lawsuits and has deemed Hardeman’s case and two others “bellwether trials.”

The outcome of such cases can help attorneys decide whether to keep fighting similar lawsuits or settle them. Legal experts said a jury verdict in favor of Hardeman and the other test plaintiffs would give their attorneys a strong bargaining position in any settlement talks for the remaining cases before Chhabria.

The judge had split Hardeman’s trial into two phases. Hardeman’s attorneys first had to convince jurors that using Roundup was a significant factor in his cancer before they could make arguments for damages.

The trial will now proceed to the second phase to determine whether the company is liable and if so, for how much.

Hardeman declined to comment outside court.

“This has been a long time coming for Mr. Hardeman,” said one of his attorneys, Jennifer Moore. “He’s very pleased he had his day in court, and we’re looking forward to phase two.”

Many government regulators have rejected a link between cancer and glyphosate. Monsanto has vehemently denied such a connection, saying hundreds of studies have established that the chemical is safe.

Bayer, which acquired Monsanto last year, said in a statement after the verdict that it continues to “believe firmly that the science confirms glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer.”

“We are confident the evidence in phase two will show that Monsanto’s conduct has been appropriate and the company should not be liable for Mr. Hardeman’s cancer,” it said.

Monsanto developed glyphosate in the 1970s, and the weed killer is now sold in more than 160 countries and widely used in the U.S.

The herbicide came under increasing scrutiny after the France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization, classified it as a “probable human carcinogen” in 2015.

Lawsuits against Monsanto followed. The company has attacked the international research agency’s opinion as an outlier.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says glyphosate is safe for people when used in accordance with label directions.

Hardeman started using Roundup products to treat poison oak, overgrowth and weeds on his Sonoma County property in the 1980s and continued using them through 2012, according to his attorneys. He was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2015.

Justices affirm maritime liability for manufacturers of asbestos-dependent equipment

Opinion analysis: Justices affirm maritime liability for manufacturers of asbestos-dependent equipment

Great News For Asbestos and Mesothelioma Victims

This morning’s 6-3 opinion in Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries affirms the decision of the lower court holding that the manufacturers of asbestos-dependent equipment used on Navy ships can be held liable to sailors who became ill because of their contact with the asbestos.

Because the case involves liability for conduct at sea, the dispute arises under the “maritime law,” a type of federal common law for which the U.S. Supreme Court is the final authority. In the same way that the New York Court of Appeals is the final authority for the law of negligence in accidents that occur in New York, the U.S. Supreme Court sets the rules for tort liability when the injury occurs at sea.

Justice Kavanaugh with opinion in Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries (Art Lien)

In this case, the injuries arise from equipment that the defendants manufactured and sold to the Navy in a “bare-metal” state. The equipment would not function properly without the application of asbestos, but the manufacturers did not themselves apply the asbestos. Rather, the Navy or its agents did. The Navy appears to have sovereign immunity from this type of liability, and the asbestos manufacturers are all bankrupt. Thus, the only people from whom the sailors can hope to recover are the manufacturers of the equipment to which the Navy applied the asbestos.

The trial court adopted a “bare-metal” defense, under which manufacturers cannot be liable for injuries from equipment (the asbestos insulation) that they did not make, sell or distribute. The court of appeals, by contrast, held that the manufacturers were liable if the harms from application of the asbestos were foreseeable. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, adopts a middle standard, under which the manufactures are liable if the product required incorporation of a part (the asbestos) and the manufacturer had reason to know that the integrated product would be dangerous for its intended uses.

The opinion proceeds by explaining the flaws in the two alternate approaches that persuade the Supreme Court to adopt the “required-incorporation” standard. On the one hand, the opinion expresses “agree[ment] with the manufacturers that a rule of mere foreseeability would sweep too broadly.” Kavanaugh notes that products “can foreseeably be used in numerous ways with numerous other products and parts,” and suggests that “[r]equiring a product manufacturer to imagine and warn about all of those possible uses … would impose a difficult and costly burden on manufacturers.”

Conversely, Kavanaugh also rejects the proposed “bare-metal” defense. As he explains, few quarrel with the rule of the “Restatement of Torts” that a manufacturer has a duty to warn if it “‘knows or has reason to know’ that the product ‘is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is supplied.’” For the majority, there is “no persuasive reason to distinguish” that situation from the situation at hand, “when the manufacturer’s product requires incorporation of a part that the manufacturer knows or has reason to know is likely to make the integrated product dangerous for its intended uses.”

Kavanaugh also rejects the manufacturers’ argument that warning by manufacturers will be counterproductive and impractical, first by referring to economic literature suggesting that “the product manufacturer will often be in a better position [to warn] than the parts manufacturer,” and second by scoffing at the suggestion that the warning requirement will “meaningfully add” to existing disclosure obligations. Finally, Kavanaugh notes the court’s longstanding “longstanding solicitude for sailors” and suggests that the maritime context – in which the plaintiffs are “families of veterans who served in the U.S. Navy” – makes liability “especially appropriate.”

The court divides sharply on the question, with Justice Neil Gorsuch (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) dissenting. In general, the dissenters believe that the court’s “required-incorporation” standard is lacking in “meaningful roots in the common law” and also too vague for predictable application. For that group, the bare-metal defense adopted by the district court provides a better answer.

[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondent in this case. The author of this post is not affiliated with the firm.]

The post Opinion analysis: Justices affirm maritime liability for manufacturers of asbestos-dependent equipment appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

J&J inks last-minute Risperdal deal in boy-with-breasts case

$2.2 Billion Risperdal Settlement

Johnson & Johnson has agreed to pay more than $2.2 billion in criminal and civil fines to settle accusations that it improperly promoted the antipsychotic drug Risperdal to older adults, children and people with developmental disabilities, the Justice …

More here

Johnson & Johnson Settles 3rd Risperdal Lawsuit for $158M

They just got dinged with a $158 million settlement in a Medicaid fraud case in Texas for “making false or misleading statements about the safety, cost and effectiveness of the expensive anti-psychotic medication Risperdal, and improperly influencing

Cash Advances Are Now Available on Settled Medtronic Infuse Cases

TriMark Legal Funding LLC Now Offers Lawsuit Cash Advances on Settled Medtronic Infuse Cases

TriMark has offered non-recourse lawsuit cash advances on pending Medtronic Infuse lawsuits for years. Now that these cases have begun to settle, TLFLLC is proud to offer settled case funding to plaintiffs awaiting their settlement checks. We can fund up to 50% of an anticipated net settlement (or any lesser amount you may need) and we have low, non-compounding rates on settled case. If you have a Medtronic case that is part of one of the recent settlements, call and speak to one of TriMark’s friendly representatives today at (877) 932-2628 or take 1 minute and apply online now.

Medtronic Pays $50.9M to Settle Three Federal Cases

Medical device maker Medtronic this week resolved three separate cases with the United States Department of Justice — two of which were cases against companies it acquired. In total, Medtronic will pay $50.9 million in settlements, for problems with a … Read more

Medtronic to pay $31M in DoJ settlement of medical device probes

Two companies now owned by Medtronic agree to pay $31M to resolve a U.S. Department of Justice probe into the marketing of a medical device meant to treat a vascular defect in the brain for unapproved purposes and paying kickbacks to hospitals to get them … Read more

Medtronic units to pay $31 mln to resolve U.S. medical device probes

As part of the settlement announced by the U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday, ev3 Inc, a medical device manufacturer now owned by Medtronic, has agreed to plead guilty to a charge related to a neurovascular medical device. Federal prosecutors in Boston … Read more

Supreme Court sets high bar for medical device lawsuits

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Medtronic, among the world’s largest makers of medical devices, setting a precedent that has killed lawsuits involving some of the most sophisticated devices on the market. WHAT DID THE SUPREME COURT DECISION DO? Read more

Medtronic agrees to settlement with five states in Infuse case

Medtronic has agreed to pay $12 million to five states to resolve a lawsuit that accuses the medical device company of misleading doctors and the public about the safety of a controversial bone-growth product that has been blamed for thousands of patient … Read more

UPDATE 2-Medtronic settles states’ probe into Infuse marketing for $12 mln

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said the settlement will resolve an investigation by her office and those in four other states related to Medtronic’s promotion of Infuse, which is used to stimulate bone growth. In court papers, Healey alleged … Read more

Medtronic settles whistleblower lawsuit for $9.9M

FRIDLEY, Minn. • Medical device maker Medtronic Inc. will pay the U.S. Department of Justice $9.9 million to settle a lawsuit that accused the company of giving doctors gifts in return for using its defibrillators and pacemakers. Medtronic has not …

Read more

Bad Week For Talcum Powder Lawsuits

J&J Gains Traction in Talc Lawsuits with New Jersey Jury Win

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product-liability-and-toxics-law/j-j-gains-traction-in-talc-lawsuits-with-new-jersey-jury-win-1

Johnson & Johnson persuaded a jury to reject a woman’s claims that the company’s iconic baby powder is laced with cancer-causing asbestos in its first trial win in New Jersey litigation over the product.

Jurors in New Brunswick, N.J., deliberated less than a day before unanimously rebuffing Rosalind Henry’s claims J&J sold its baby powder knowing it was tainted with asbestos, a carcinogen, said Carol Goodrich, a company spokeswoman. The ruling follows two mistrials in California where jurors couldn’t…

Read more here

Jury clears J&J of liability in New Jersey talc cancer case

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-cancer-lawsuit/jury-clears-jj-of-liability-in-new-jersey-talc-cancer-case-idUSKCN1ML2QF

(Reuters) – A New Jersey jury on Thursday cleared Johnson & Johnson of liability in a case involving a woman who alleged that the company’s talc-based products, including its baby powder, contain asbestos and caused her cancer.

After less than a day of deliberations, the jury in New Brunswick, New Jersey rejected claims by Rosalind Henry and her husband, who had alleged that Henry’s mesothelioma, a cancer associated with asbestos exposure, was caused by the company’s talc products.

J&J is facing some 10,600 liability lawsuits across the United States over its talc products, most involving claims that they caused ovarian cancer, and that the company knew of and concealed risks associated with the products.

Full story here

J&J California Talc Cancer Trial Ends With Deadlocked Jury

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-02/j-j-california-talc-cancer-trial-ends-with-deadlocked-jury

Jurors weighing claims that Johnson & Johnson’s iconic baby powder is laced with cancer-causing asbestos failed in a second case in two weeks to reach a verdict, resulting in another mistrial.

The latest case was brought by a retired computer salesman who blamed J&J for his mesothelioma, a cancer linked to asbestos exposure, and sought more than $12 million in damages. The Los Angeles jury, which deliberated for several days before a state judge decided the panel was hopelessly deadlocked, voted 8-4 against J&J, one juror short of a victory for the plaintiff, Kirk Von Salzen.

Original story

Colgate defeats case alleging asbestos in talc caused woman’s cancer

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-colgate/colgate-defeats-case-alleging-asbestos-in-talc-caused-womans-cancer-idUSL2N1WI1VK

Colgate-Palmolive has won the dismissal of a lawsuit alleging that a talcum powder the company used to market contained asbestos and caused a deceased Georgia woman to develop ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.

U.S. District Judge J. Randal Hall in Brunswick, Georgia, on Friday said lawyers for Sharon Hanson’s husband failed to establish the talcum powder she used contained asbestos and, even if it did, had not shown she was exposed to more than a minor amount.

Read the full report here

1,100 Invokana Lawsuits Claim Diabetic Ketoacidosis

1,100 Invokana Lawsuits Alleging Diabetic Ketoacidosis, Kidney I – WSIL-TV 3 Southern Illinois

Invokana lawsuits filed on behalf of individuals who developed life-threatening complications allegedly related to treatment with the Type 2 diabetes medication continue to mount in courts throughout the United States.

Original story

Johnson & Johnson: INVOKANA Demonstrated Significant Renal Protective Benefits in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Chronic Kidney Disease

The Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson today announced an additional analysis from the landmark CANVAS Program showing INVOKANA (canagliflozin) improved renal outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with or at …

Original story

https://www.instagram.com/p/BUuBJ13lTsO

Latest testosterone ruling could bring new round of lawsuits

Testosterone ruling could bring lawsuits

Athletics chiefs could face legal action after bringing in a rule that may end the competitive career of Caster Semenya, a leading sports scientist has warned.

The IAAF will today announce a new limit of 5 nanomoles of naturally produced testosterone per …

Get the story

AbbVie, facing thousands of lawsuits about its AndroGel testosterone supplement, notches a significant win

AbbVie’s AndroGel has been blamed for causing heart attacks in men who used the gel.

But a jury in Chicago decided in January the drugmaker did not cause a 72-year-old man’s heart attack. AbbVie faces thousands of lawsuits alleging AndroGel caused heart …

Get the story

First IVC Filter Lawsuit Ends With $3.6 Million Award

First IVC Filter Lawsuit Results in $3.6 Million Award

Booker’s product liability lawsuit is one of more than 3,500 claims that have been centralized into a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

The MDL is proceeding in the District of Arizona. Judge David G. Campbell is presiding.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on …

Original report

Bard Eclipse IVC Filter Lawsuit Set For Second Bellwether Trial to Begin May 15

Following a $3.6 million verdict in the first IVC filter bellwether case to go before a jury last month, C.R. Bard is set to face another trial next month, involving a complaint that alleges a Bard Eclipse Vena Cava Filter fractured and caused a woman to …

Original report

West Palm Beach Attorney Wins $3.6 Million Verdict in Blood Filter MDL

Indiana-based Cook Medical and Georgia-based Bard Medical Division face about 5,800 IVC filter lawsuits in federal court.

Thousands of pending cases have been consolidated into two MDLs with lawsuits against Cook moved to Indiana and Bard’s playing out …

Original report

Additional IVC Filter Lawsuits Filed

Boston Scientific Corp. and Cook Medical Inc., two major manufacturers of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, are facing lawsuits in Kentucky federal court over allegations that their filters have caused serious injuries to patients.

According to a news …

Original report

IVC Blood Clot Filter Lawsuits: Lieff Cabraser Provides Answers to Injured Patients

Wendy R. Fleishman of the national plaintiffs’ law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announces that the firm has published an informational video on IVC blood clot filter injuries and a list of Answers to Frequently …

Original report

IVC Filter Lawsuit Plaintiffs Address FDA Warnings Of Deep Vein Thrombosis & Filter Fracture / Migration

TheProductLawyers.com reports on important FDA warnings which were released regarding IVC filter medical devices.

On August 9th of 2010, the agency released an initial communication which they called “Removing Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters.”

Original report

 

J&J Slammed For Another $80M in Talcum Powder Lawsuit

Talcum Powder Lawsuit: $80M Blow for J&J, Supplier

Jurors in New Jersey ordered Johnson & Johnson and its talc supplier to pay $80 million in punitive damages in a talcum powder lawsuit over the man’s mesothelioma.

This seems an awful lot like throwing down the gauntlet because of course J&J will appeal this and ever single other massive judgment they get hit with.

The verdict on Wednesday, April 11, came after jurors the prior week ordered the companies …

Read full story on DrugWatch

Johnson & Johnson Loses First Asbestos Talcum Powder Lawsuit

New Brunswick, New Jersey
Johnson & Johnson lost its first asbestos talcum powder lawsuit last week, ordered by a jury to pay Stephen Lanzo and his wife $37 million in compensatory damages.

Lanzo claimed his regular use of the company’s talcum powder …

Original post on Mesothelioma.com

Talcum Powder Lawsuit: J&J, Imerys to Pay $80M in Punitive Damages

Johnson & Johnson and talc supplier Imerys SA must pay an additional $80 million in punitive damages to a man who said he developed mesothelioma after using asbestos-contaminated talcum powder, a New Jersey state court jury ruled Wednesday.

The court has …

Full story on Asbestos.com

New twist in baby powder lawsuits as focus turns to asbestos contamination

Johnson & Johnson and Imerys Talc America, a unit of Imerys SA, have vowed to appeal the New Jersey verdict and deny asbestos has ever been present in their products or that their talc can cause any form of cancer.

The case of Stephen Lanzo, a New Jersey …

Read more

Does talcum powder cause cancer? A legal and scientific battle rages

Johnson & Johnson’s lead counsel on two of the cases argues that the lawsuits are all about the money, rather than being all about the science.

“My take on the talc ovarian cancer litigation is that it really is skillful and well-funded plaintiffs lawyers …

Get MSN’s full report

Johnson & Johnson Faces $117 Million Verdict in First Asbestos Talcum Powder Lawsuit Loss

Johnson & Johnson faced its first guilty verdict in an asbestos talcum powder lawsuit last week.

After the court reconvened this week, the manufacturing giant and an arm of Imerys, its talc supplier, now owe a $117 million …

Read more

Couple who claimed talcum powder caused mesothelioma wins $37 million in lawsuit

A jury in Middlesex County, New Jersey, awarded $30 million in compensatory damages on Thursday to a man who got cancer after decades of using talcum powder.

His wife was awarded $7 million in damages.

Banker Stephen Lanzo said he used Johnson & Johnson …

Read more

J&J Loses Talcum Powder Lawsuit

Johnson & Johnson suffered its first loss in an asbestos-related talcum powder lawsuit Thursday after a New Jersey jury ordered the company and its talc supplier to pay $37 million in damages.

The jury awarded $30 million in compensatory damages to Stephen …

Read more

Is there a link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer?

That was the setup in one recent high-profile lawsuit against the company that’s taken most of the anti-talc heat, Johnson & Johnson.

The plaintiff, a medical receptionist from Los Angeles named Eva Echeverria, started using J&J baby powder on her genital …

Read more

Asbestos in Talc Products Verdict Means J&J, Imerys Owe Millions

J&J won the first mesothelioma talc trial tied to its baby powder when a California jury ruled in November the product wasn’t responsible for causing a 61-year-old woman’s cancer.

Colgate-Palmolive Co. agreed last year to settle a lawsuit claiming its …

See more on Bloomberg.com

Does talcum powder cause cancer?

Johnson & Johnson’s lead counsel on two of the cases argues that the lawsuits are all about the money, rather than being all about the science.

“My take on the talc ovarian cancer litigation is that it really is skillful and well-funded plaintiffs lawyers …

KMOV News story

Johnson & Johnson, supplier hit with $80M verdict in cancer lawsuit

This is the first trial loss for Johnson & Johnson over allegations that its talc-based products contain asbestos, Reuters reported.

The company is currently fighting more than 6,000 ovarian cancer lawsuits across the country.

Read more

 

Jurors Award $3.2M in AndroGel Lawsuit

Jurors Award $3.2M Verdict in AndroGel Lawsuit

The lawsuits say the drug makers pushed the therapy for Low …

At Drugwatch, Elaine has reported about trials over whether talcum powder caused ovarian cancer and allegations that Androgel causes heart problems in patients who use it.

Read more

U.S. jury orders AbbVie to pay $3 million in AndroGel retrial

It is the second verdict against AbbVie in the consolidated litigation over testosterone replacement products by the Chicago-based company and other drugmakers.

More than 6,000 similar lawsuits have been filed, the bulk of them against AbbVie.

In a …

Read more on Reuters

AndroGel trial do-over slashes AbbVie damages from $150M to $3M

Eli Lilly faces about 550 lawsuits over Axiron, while Endo faces 1,300 cases involving several products.

GlaxoSmithKline didn’t market its own testosterone drug, but helped Endo co-promote Testim for about a year.

Endo won its first bellwether case in …

Read more