Weekly Mass Torts Bulletin 2024-March-10
Suboxone Lawyers Deadlock on Bellwether Case Selection
Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits have hit another roadblock, as attorneys struggle to agree on a process for selecting bellwether cases.
These early test trials aim to facilitate settlements and prevent thousands of lawsuits from going to trial individually.
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) and Bellwether Trial Selection
Currently, more than 11,000 former Suboxone users are suing the drug maker, alleging that the opioid addiction treatment caused severe tooth decay. Suboxone film, introduced in 2010, has been linked to enamel degradation, resulting in broken or lost teeth and costly dental procedures. In June 2022, the FDA mandated a warning label update after receiving hundreds of complaints. However, plaintiffs argue that earlier warnings could have prevented irreversible damage.
Impasse Over Case Selection Process
Since February 2024, all Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits have been consolidated in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before a U.S. District Judge in the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The judge instructed both parties to identify a small set of representative cases for early bellwether trials, which will help gauge jury reactions and potentially drive settlement discussions. Without a resolution, thousands of costly individual trials may be required.
Discovery Delays and Plaintiff Concerns
However, according to a February 5 update from the Plaintiffs’ Leadership Committee (PLC), the parties have reached an impasse over selecting bellwether cases. The dispute stems partly from delays in the defendant’s discovery process. The PLC argues that the defendant has not produced meaningful discovery materials and is using a slow “piecemeal” approach that hinders case preparation. They claim that the defendants’ “rolling production” of documents makes it impossible to prepare for corporate depositions, delaying litigation further.
Plaintiffs’ Proposed Bellwether Selection Plan
With no agreement in sight, plaintiffs have submitted their own bellwether selection plan. They propose selecting cases filed on or before October 7, 2024, with 100 randomly chosen for case-specific discovery. This pool would then be narrowed to 40 cases—15 selected by plaintiffs, 15 by defendants, and 10 randomly chosen. After further discovery, each side would pick three final cases for bellwether trials by August 3, 2026.
Potential Impact of Bellwether Trials on Settlements
While bellwether trial results will not be binding, they will set a precedent for future jury awards and could significantly impact Suboxone tooth decay settlement negotiations. If no resolution is reached, individual cases may proceed to trial nationwide.
Court Urged to Reinstate Dismissed Paraquat Bellwether Cases
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether to reinstate four Paraquat lawsuits that were previously dismissed.
These cases were originally selected for the first federal bellwether trials to examine potential links between the weedkiller and Parkinson’s disease. However, the trial judge dismissed them last year after barring the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses from testifying.
Background of Paraquat Litigation
These lawsuits are part of a broader legal battle against Syngenta and Chevron, with over 5,800 product liability claims filed in federal court. Plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers failed to warn users about the increased risk of Parkinson’s disease linked to Paraquat exposure. Since June 2021, the cases have been centralized in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of Illinois to streamline pretrial proceedings and prepare representative cases for bellwether trials.
Dismissal of Bellwether Cases and Appeal
Despite the judge’s initial selection of bellwether cases, the first group was dismissed after expert testimony was excluded. This left the plaintiffs unable to prove that their Parkinson’s disease resulted from Paraquat exposure. The plaintiffs appealed the decision, arguing that their experts were unfairly held to an excessively high standard and that the ruling was premature. They claim the judge’s assessment of their testimony exceeded legal precedents and that a jury should have determined the reliability of the evidence.
Defendants’ Position
Syngenta and Chevron continue to deny the allegations, asserting that no peer-reviewed research has definitively linked Paraquat to Parkinson’s disease. They maintain that the plaintiffs’ claims lack scientific support and should be dismissed.
New Bellwether Cases Moving Forward
While the appeal is pending, the judge overseeing the MDL has moved forward with a second batch of bellwether cases. In August 2024, 10 new cases were selected, and in January 2025, six of those cases were chosen for full case-specific discovery. Three cases are set for the first bellwether trial on October 14, 2025, while the remaining three will go to trial on April 6, 2026.
Potential Impact of Bellwether Trials
Although these bellwether trials will not have a binding effect on other cases, their outcomes will likely influence settlement negotiations. If plaintiffs win, Syngenta and Chevron may be pressured to offer settlements to avoid costly individual trials across the country. Conversely, if the defendants prevail, it could weaken the broader litigation efforts.
Significance of the Appeal’s Outcome
As the legal proceedings continue, the Seventh Circuit’s ruling on whether to reinstate the dismissed cases could significantly impact the direction of the Paraquat litigation. The decision may shape how courts handle expert witness testimony and determine the strength of similar claims in the future.
Boehringer Ingelheim Wins Zantac Cancer Lawsuits
Boehringer Ingelheim has successfully defended itself in two lawsuits claiming that its discontinued heartburn drug, Zantac, caused cancer.
A state court jury in Chicago ruled in favor of the privately held German drugmaker after a joint trial involving two Chicago residents who alleged they developed prostate cancer from taking the drug. Both cases had previously ended in hung juries.
Company Maintains Zantac Does Not Cause Cancer
Following the verdict, Boehringer Ingelheim expressed sympathy for the plaintiffs but emphasized that the decision aligns with scientific evidence. "The outcome of this case is entirely consistent with the totality of the scientific evidence, which shows that Zantac does not cause any type of cancer," the company stated. Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Widespread Zantac Litigation and Settlements
These lawsuits are part of a larger wave of litigation against Zantac and its generic versions. Thousands of cases have been filed nationwide, with most now settled. Zantac, first approved in 1983, became the world’s best-selling medicine in 1988 and one of the first drugs to surpass $1 billion in annual sales. Over time, it was marketed by major pharmaceutical companies, including GSK, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
FDA’s Market Withdrawal and Legal Fallout
In 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered Zantac to be pulled from the market after discovering that its active ingredient, ranitidine, could degrade into NDMA, a potential carcinogen, over time or when exposed to heat. This led to a surge in lawsuits against the drug’s manufacturers, with claims that long-term use of Zantac increased cancer risks.
Major Settlements by GSK, Pfizer, and Sanofi
GSK, facing the highest potential liability, agreed in October 2024 to settle approximately 80,000 Zantac lawsuits in state courts—about 93% of the cases against it—for $2.2 billion. Pfizer has also settled most state court cases, while Sanofi announced in April 2024 that it was resolving around 4,000 claims.
Federal Court Dismissals and Ongoing Appeals
In 2022, a federal judge dismissed about 50,000 Zantac lawsuits, ruling they lacked sufficient scientific evidence. Some of these cases are currently being appealed. Meanwhile, many remaining lawsuits are being pursued in Delaware state court, where the Delaware Supreme Court is reviewing whether they can proceed.
Texas Trial to Decide J&J’s $10B Talcum Powder Settlement
A high-stakes trial in Texas will determine whether Johnson & Johnson (J&J) can resolve tens of thousands of talcum powder cancer lawsuits through a controversial $10 billion bankruptcy plan.
This comes after two previous attempts were rejected by federal judges, who deemed the strategy an abuse of the bankruptcy system.
Mass Talcum Powder Lawsuits and Proposed Settlement
Johnson & Johnson faces more than 60,000 lawsuits filed by women across the country, alleging that prolonged use of its Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower products led to ovarian and other reproductive cancers. Plaintiffs claim the company promoted these products for genital use while failing to warn consumers about potential cancer risks. J&J's proposed bankruptcy settlement seeks to consolidate all current and future claims into a single payout, rather than negotiating individual settlements.
Scientific Links and Previous Jury Verdicts
The influx of lawsuits began in 2016 after scientific studies suggested a link between talcum powder use and an increased risk of cancer. Over the years, juries have awarded billions of dollars in damages to plaintiffs, ruling that Johnson & Johnson failed to provide adequate warnings about the potential presence of asbestos in its talcum powder.
Johnson & Johnson’s “Texas Two-Step” Bankruptcy Strategy
Rather than settling cases individually, Johnson & Johnson has repeatedly attempted to shift all legal liability into a newly created subsidiary, which then files for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. This strategy, known as the “Texas Two-Step,” allows a financially strong company to transfer its legal burdens to a separate entity, shielding itself from direct liability. However, federal bankruptcy judges have twice rejected J&J’s attempts, ruling that the company does not face a genuine financial threat and that the bankruptcy filings were made in "bad faith" to limit compensation for affected women.
Increased Settlement Offer and Latest Bankruptcy Filing
In September 2023, Johnson & Johnson proposed an $8 billion settlement, claiming that over 75% of claimants supported the offer. However, the proposed payout was later increased to $10 billion as the company continued to push for bankruptcy protection to block further litigation.
As part of this plan, J&J created a new subsidiary, Red River Talc LLC, transferring all talcum powder lawsuit liabilities to this entity, which then filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. Critics argue that the move exploits Texas' bankruptcy laws, which are perceived to be more favorable to corporate defendants, despite J&J’s financial stability and market valuation of $390 billion.
Trial Begins Over Talcum Powder Bankruptcy Plan
On February 18, a trial commenced before a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, who will decide whether the bankruptcy plan can move forward. The trial is expected to last about two weeks, concluding on February 28, though the timeline for a final ruling remains uncertain.
Government and Plaintiff Objections to the Plan
Many plaintiffs, along with the federal government, strongly oppose the bankruptcy proposal. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs argue that the settlement would prevent them from recovering healthcare costs paid through Medicaid and Medicare for affected plaintiffs. Attorneys representing the victims have also urged the Judge to reject the plan, allowing individuals to continue pursuing their claims separately.
Uncertain Outcome and Future Implications
As the trial proceeds, legal experts and affected individuals are closely watching the outcome. A ruling in favor of Johnson & Johnson could set a precedent for how large corporations handle mass tort litigation through bankruptcy, while a rejection would force the company to negotiate settlements through the traditional court system. The final decision will have far-reaching consequences for thousands of plaintiffs seeking justice for their injuries.