Category Archives: MDL
Great News For Plaintiffs Involved in Roundup Litigation
A jury has found Roundup weed killer was a factor in a man's cancer, and it could have wide implications before a judge hearing hundreds of similar lawsuits. https://t.co/pYAfEghqTP
— AP West Region (@APWestRegion) March 19, 2019
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.
— Reuters Business (@ReutersBiz) March 19, 2019
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 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. https://t.co/FUWqKLIQvz
— PBS NewsHour (@NewsHour) March 20, 2019
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.
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.
Today the #SCOTUS ruled in Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries that product manufacturers has a duty to warn when its product requires incorporation of parts and the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize that danger.https://t.co/mnzd0pRMeM
— SCOTUS-Toons (@scotusToons) March 19, 2019
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.
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.
SCOTUS holds, if a product requires a component, & the manufacturer shd know the type of component to be used will render the product dangerous for its intended uses, not obvious to users, the manufacturer has a duty to warn. Air & Liquid v. Devries.https://t.co/mv59sZUjy3
— Alani Golanski (@alanigolanski) March 19, 2019
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.”
1st #SCOTUS opinion in No 17-1104 Air and Liquid Systems Corp v. Devries re: product liability in maritime law
— Kimberly Robinson (@KimberlyRobinsn) March 19, 2019
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.
$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 …
How many children are prescribed this drug in Ireland and the UK still? J.&J. to Pay $2.2 Billion in Risperdal Settlement https://t.co/Oq0M6ppdQz
— Dr Maurice Fenton (@EmpowerIreland) March 6, 2019
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
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
— Schmidt & Clark, LLP (@schmidtandclark) January 17, 2019
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
https://t.co/mLfwv4kkKw Ireland second only to Germany for medical device imports. Medtronic has had its HQ in Dublin since 2015. Last yr Medtronic agreed to pay $12 million in the US in settlement of claims it paid millions of dollars in fees to Drs downplaying adverse effects https://t.co/82wmLYLo5X
— Susan Steven (@SusanSteven1) December 6, 2018
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 …
— Medtronic (@Medtronic) January 14, 2019
J&J Gains Traction in Talc Lawsuits with New Jersey Jury Win
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…
— TruLaw (@tru_law) October 11, 2018
Jury clears J&J of liability in New Jersey talc cancer case
(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.
Jury clears J&J of liability in New Jersey #talc #Cancer case. via @Reuters https://t.co/K3hR0nMt1q Read more about why people are suing @Drug_watch here: https://t.co/548CjINiAG pic.twitter.com/d4usZX3D45
— Terry Turner (@DrugwatchTerry) October 12, 2018
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.
Colgate defeats case alleging asbestos in talc caused woman’s cancer
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.
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.
— Kristi P. Carter (@successthang) May 2, 2018
If you or a loved one has taken the diabetes drug Invokana and suffered a limb amputations contact The Webster Law Firm. The FDA has recently issued a warning regarding the study of the Invokana drug and it's link to limb amputations. #thewebsterlawfirm #houstonlawyer #invokanalawsuit #diabetes2 #makeithappen @jason.webster66
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 …
— Top Class Actions (@TopClassActions) May 2, 2018
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 …
Yeah gel is synthetic, and hasto go through layers of skin tissue to be absorbed into blood stream. You seen this lawsuit on the gels? https://t.co/d7tSostNS5
— IRC not rootbeer (@iowa_is_my_name) May 5, 2018
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 …
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 …
Lawsuit petition alleges implanting doctor knew or should have known, inter alia, several things, including:
only certain patients were appropriate candidates for an IVC filter.
— Matthews&Associates (@Lawfirm_MA) April 23, 2018
A team of #radiologists has pioneered new techniques for #IVCFilter removal. For more on this development, click the link in our bio and read our latest blog post. • • • #fosterandhouston #fandhlaw #law #lawfirm #lawyer #attorney #attorneyatlaw #ryanfoster #julietfoster #IVC #IVCFilterLaw #IVCFilterLawsuit #IVCFilterlawyer #IVCFilterattorney
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 …
Experts predict that half of retrievable IVC filters will fail within 5 years of being implanted. If you have a filter, you need to watch this video about the recent $3.6 million IVC filter verdict: ow.ly/2u7T30jtR1g. Call us at 877-724-7800 for a confidential case evaluation. #IVCFilterLawsuit #IVCFilter #Verdict #Helpful
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 …
In this post, we cover the #NBCNews investigation into C.R. Bard's knowledge of #IVCFilter fatal flaws. Click the link in our bio and read the latest blog post for more. • • • #fosterandhouston #fandhlaw #law #lawfirm #lawyer #attorney #attorneyatlaw #ryanfoster #julietfoster #IVC #IVCFilterLaw #IVCFilterLawsuit #IVCFilterlawyer #IVCFilterattorney
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 …
— LawyerShop.com (@Lawyer_Shop) April 23, 2018
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 …
North Carolina Woman Files Lawsuit Over Celect IVC Filterhttps://t.co/DvFf93Q5jb
— Legal Scoops (@legalscoop) April 24, 2018
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.”
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 …
— CNN (@CNN) April 11, 2018
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 …
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 …
It's truly #disgusting that Johnson & Johnson was told about #studies in the 1970s that showed the #talc #cancer relationship. You can't help but look at the current #court proceedings and #arguments made by J&J and not think back to how #BigTobacco tried to #convince the public that their products were anything but #CancerCausing. If Johnson & Johnson has so much #proof that #talc doesn't cause #OvarianCancer, why have three separate #juries decided they were in the wrong? #TalcumPowderLawsuit #attorney #lawsuit #beatcancer #cancersucks
J&J Lawsuit Shows How Talcum Powder Led to Ovarian Cancer – The Ring Of Firehttps://t.co/CjnTsOqp8e
— matrice (@x84__) April 15, 2018
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
— John Lichtenberger (@AdvertisingLaw) April 17, 2018
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 …
सावधानी हटी, दुर्घटना घटी!
Must read by every #Mom
Know the truth and facts which relate to life of your innocent newborn baby and kid.!
Johnson & Johnson hit with $37M verdict in asbestos-related cancer lawsuit https://t.co/Q3vBHInL0Zhttps://t.co/j1fxBUj7Qg @yogrishiramdev
— tijarawala sk (@tijarawala) April 15, 2018
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 …
In #2006, the #Canadian Government under the Hazardous Products Act and associated Controlled Products Regulations classified #talc as a "D2A", "very toxic, #cancer #causing" substance under its Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System. That same year Imerys Talc, Johnson & Johnson's #talc provider, began placing #warning sheets on the talc it sold to J&J. #TalcumPowderLawsuit #attorney #Lawsuit #StopJ&J #StopTalc #OvarianCancer #ProductLiability #Lawyer #Law #Litigation LawFirm
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 …
— ClassAction․com (@ClassActionCom) April 7, 2018
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.
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.
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 …
More than 6000 lawsuits filed against a company that markets testosterone supplements to men. How many will there be from natal women? https://t.co/4f8IfqcXGn
— SunMum (@Mum3Sun) March 28, 2018
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 …