What Happened In The MassTorts World Last Week? 2019-Oct-14
Upcoming Roundup Trial Postponed: Bayer
On Sunday, Bayer said in a statement, the upcoming trial date October 15, 2019, for Winston v. Monsanto in St. Louis City has been postponed with a court status conference in February 2020.
The Winston lawsuit, involving 14 plaintiffs, was filed in March 2018. The lawsuit is among the pending cases against Bayer claiming that exposure to the company’s glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, caused them to develop Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and the manufacturers deceived about the risks associated with it.
The lawsuit was the latest that had been set for trial in the St. Louis area, involving mediator Ken Feinberg, who is trying to negotiate a settlement between the company and U.S. plaintiffs. Judge Michael Mullen had scheduled the trial date for the lawsuit. According to a court document from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, dated October 4, a status conference to reevaluate the case had been set for February 10.
Currently, Bayer is facing more than 18,400 claims, each involving similar allegations that Roundup causes Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and other cancers. Roundup lawsuits are consolidated under federal multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2741; In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation) in the Northern District of California, presided by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria.
Judge Orders PFS Filing For Valsartan Cancer Claims
U.S. District Judge Robert B. Kugler in the District of New Jersey ordered the plaintiffs to submit a Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS), giving case-specific information about their valsartan cancer diagnoses and exposure.
According to a case management order published last week, each individual who filed Short Form Complaint in the valsartan litigation should complete a PFS within 90 days. The order includes individuals diagnosed with cancer, plaintiffs seeking medical monitoring through valsartan class action claims, and plaintiffs claiming other economic loss.
It is expected that Judge Kugler will establish a “bellwether” process, as part of the coordinated pretrial proceedings, where the parties will select a representative group of cases based on the information provided on the fact sheet. The group of cases will help the parties gauge how juries may respond to evidence and testimony, which will be repeated throughout the litigation.
Valsartan is used to treat high blood pressure and heart failure. It is also used to improve the chance of living longer after a heart attack. In people with heart failure, it may also lower the chance of having to go to the hospital for heart failure. Valsartan belongs to a class of drugs called angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). It works by relaxing blood vessels so that blood can flow more easily. Lowering high blood pressure helps prevent strokes, heart attacks, and kidney problems.
Valsartan lawsuits filed across the country claim their use of toxic valsartan pills contributed to their cancer diagnoses. Plaintiffs claim cancers including liver cancer, small intestine cancer, stomach cancer, esophageal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and prostate cancers among others.
Nearly 130 product liability lawsuits and class action claims involving valsartan are currently pending in the federal court system. The complaints raise similar allegations that the pills were contaminated with N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), N-Nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA), and other chemicals, which are known to increase the risk of cancers. The long term exposure to these chemicals causes liver cancer, stomach cancer, small intestine cancer, esophageal cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and other cancers.
Phila. Jury Ordered J&J To Pay $8B Over A Risperdal Lawsuit
On Tuesday, a Philadelphia jury ordered Johnson & Johnson (J&J) to pay $8 billion in punitive damages over its antipsychotic drug Risperdal, which caused a Maryland man to develop enlarged breasts.
The latest verdict arises from a lawsuit filed by the plaintiff, who won $1.75 million in 2015, which was later reduced to $685,000. The lawsuit stated that the plaintiff's gynecomastia was the result of his Risperdal use between 2003 and 2008. During the initial verdict, the Philadelphia judge had barred the jury from awarding punitive damages. The rule was later overturned by an appeals court, clearing the way for the punitive-damages trial.
Murray was prescribed the drug off-label as a 9-year-old in April of 2003 to deal with issues stemming from autism.
The plaintiff's lawyer after the verdict stated that the conduct the jury saw in the courtroom was clear and convincing to prove that J&J disregarded the safety of the most vulnerable of children. This is an important moment, not only for this litigation but for J&J, which is a company that has lost its way.
Johnson & Johnson called the jury's decision "grossly disproportionate" with the initial award given in the case.
The talc manufacturer after the verdict stated in a statement that "This award for a single plaintiff stands in stark contrast with the initial $680,000 compensatory award and is a clear violation of due process". They further mentioned that they have been prevented from presenting a meaningful defense due to the court's exclusion of key evidence and that the plaintiff failed to prove the harm he was caused by their client's product.
Around 13,000 lawsuits are filed against J&J, claiming that the powerful antipsychotic drug causes gynecomastia in boys, an undesired growth of breast tissue. Two coordinated actions are filed for Risperdal cases: one in Los Angeles Superior Court (Risperdal and Invega Product Liability Cases, JCCP 4775, presided by Honorable William Highberger) and the other in Philadelphia (In Re: Risperdal Litigation, March 2010 Term, Case No. 100300296).
Georgia Talcum Trial Ends In Mistrial
On Tuesday, a Fulton County State Court jury failed to reach a verdict in a case involving Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) talcum powder, which allegedly caused a woman to die of ovarian cancer in 2016. The trial, considered to be the first talcum powder trial in Georgia, ended in a mistrial after the jury was deadlocked 10 to 2 in favor of the plaintiff.
The lawsuit involves a victim who died in 2016 after a three-year battle with ovarian cancer. Her family stated that she used J&J’s talcum powder products in her genital area for around 15 years, which they claimed was the reason for her cancer. The trial began on September 12, where the plaintiffs' attorney asked the jury to award more than $700,000 in lost wages and $1.3 million in medical bills, plus noneconomic damages for the 20 years that the victim would have lived.
Talc defendants are currently facing nearly 14,000 talcum powder and shower-to-shower lawsuits, consolidated under multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2738; In Re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation), in the District of New Jersey. The MDL is presided by Hon. Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J., and Hon. Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J.
Motion To Dismiss Opioid Lawsuit Denied
On Tuesday, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Janet Sanders denied a motion filed to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the Sackler family, claiming them responsible for the opioid crisis.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey had alleged Purdue Pharma, the Sackler family, and other top executives for fuelling the opioid-addiction in the state. A motion to dismiss the lawsuit was filed by the Sacklers and other board of directors members in April, claiming the lawsuit to be divisive, inflammatory and misleading.
The Sacklers argued, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction as the individuals didn't personally participate in the conduct as outlined in the lawsuit.
Judge Sanders rejected the motion stating that it is the defendants' responsibility to be on notice of deceptive corporate conduct and to report instances of abuse and diversion where applicable. Also, Purdue's attempt to escape the lawsuit was ceased by Judge Sanders last month, where the company had argued the claims were barred by federal preemption because the addictive drugs were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Opioid lawsuits are consolidated under MDL No. 2804 (In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation) presided by U.S. District Judge Dan Polster.
Arizona Uncertain About Purdue's Opioid Settlement
Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican of Arizona, is hesitant about agreeing to Purdue Pharma's opioid settlement deal.
According to recent court filings, Brnovich claims that the company “sought to undermine material terms of the deal.” The state had agreed upon the settlement right before Purdue filed for bankruptcy protection. Brnovich refused to negotiate terms with the company but did not back out of the settlement and wants Purdue to follow through.
The states agreeing to the deal were not supposed to object to the company's request to stop the litigation against it and members of the Sackler family. Purdue has said in court that, if the family continues to face litigation across the country, they may not be able or willing to contribute the $3 billion to $4.5 billion that they have agreed upon.
The deal, which could be worth $12 billion over time, if approved, could end more than 2,600 lawsuits against the company.
Opioid lawsuits are consolidated under MDL No. 2804 (In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation) presided by U.S. District Judge Dan Polster.
Bids To Halt Upcoming Ohio’s Opioid Trial Rejected
On Thursday, the Sixth Circuit rejected the efforts by the Ohio attorney general and drug companies to impede an upcoming opioid trial accusing drugmakers of fueling the opioid crisis.
The panel, along with rejecting the state’s arguments that the counties involved usurped its parent of the nation authority, also rejected the drugmakers' bid to disqualify the judge overseeing the trial.
Attorney General Dave Yost argued through an August 30 petition that the lawsuits filed by the counties threatened the state’s authority to protect the public welfare. The panel ruled, stating that the state hadn’t met, the high bar required for obtaining a writ of mandamus, also Yost did not show how the state would have been harmed by the lawsuits brought by Summit County and Cuyahoga County.
Ohio’s governor, Mike DeWine, had opposed the attorney general’s bid stating that he would refuse any legislation that gives the attorney general control over the counties’ suit as the local governments have shown a significant impact of the opioid epidemic.