What Happened In The MassTorts World Last Week? 2019-Sep-02

Plaintiffs To Submit Short-Form Complaint In Valsartan MDL

On August 20, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider made it mandatory for all Valsartan lawsuits to be filed along with a short-form complaint that will help in tracking and coordinating the cases. The order also requires the seven-page form to be completed by plaintiffs who have previously filed complaints within 30 days.

The short-form will help both parties and the court to divide the Valsartan cancer lawsuits more efficiently as the size of the MDL is expected to grow rapidly in the coming months, with an estimate of more than 2,000 lawsuits to be filed under the federal court system.

The short form complaint includes options of more than 50 manufacturers, distributors, repackagers, labelers, pharmacies, and wholesalers involved in the sale of contaminated valsartan pills, which impacted most of the U.S. supply for the hypertension drug in recent years. The form also provides a list of seven different kinds of cancers linked with injury the plaintiffs suffered including kidney, liver, colorectal, pancreatic, esophageal, stomach, and small intestine cancer.

Diovan (Valsartan) was manufactured by Novartis International AG and was approved by the FDA on August 14, 2002. Diovan lost its patent in September 2014. The launch of the generic drug had been on hold since patent expiry due to regulatory problems with the FDA. In 2014, a US-based Ohm Laboratories (Ohm), a subsidiary of Ranbaxy Laboratories, was the first to get the approval from FDA for generic Valsartan. Thereafter, many generic versions of Valsartan came into the market via many other pharma companies.

Currently, more than 100 lawsuits on Valsartan cancer cases are pending in the federal court system, each raising similar allegations that poor manufacturing techniques led to contamination of the pills with human carcinogens, which included N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and N-Nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA).

Since February 2019, Valsartan claims are consolidated under MDL No. 2875 (In re Valsartan Products Liability Litigation) in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, presided by Judge Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J and Hon. Joel Schneider, U.S.M.J. 

J&J Fueled Okla. Opioid Crisis: Drugmaker To Pay $572M

Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman ordered drugmaker Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. to pay $572 million after finding that the consumer products giant fueled the state's opioid crisis.

According to a 42-page brief statement read by Judge Balkman, Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter had successfully proven that the defendants created a public nuisance by implementing misleading marketing campaigns about the narcotic painkillers.

Oklahoma wanted J&J to fund a $17 billion “abatement plan” which would last for 30 years and employ a range of measures including public education campaigns, addiction treatment services, and additional medical training to remedy the impacts of the opioid crisis. Judge Balkman was partially supportive of this measure and ordered J&J to pay $572 million immediately.

In a written ruling, Judge Balkman stated that the $572 million would be needed to carry out the state’s plan for an initial year. The judge also added that the state hadn’t presented enough evidence of the costs and time required in future years to provide funds beyond the first year. Following the ruling, the defendants released a statement that they are intending to appeal the ruling and believe they have strong grounds for doing so.

Companies manufacturing opioids convinced the medical community that these medications were not addictive and were purely beneficial. This belief raised the number of prescriptions and sales unwarrantedly, resulting in a mass misuse of these drugs, to the extent that this was identified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a public issue and named it an 'opioid crisis.'

Purdue Pharma Proposes $10-12B To Settle Opioid Crisis

Drugmaker and distributor Purdue Pharma LP and its owners, the Sackler family, have proposed $10 billion to $12 billion to settle more than 2,000 opioid lawsuits against the company.

The proposed deal was part of a confidential discussion by Purdue's lawyers at a meeting held in Cleveland on August 20. The discussion included 10 state attorneys and the plaintiff's attorneys, where David Sackler, the spokesperson for Purdue, represented the Sackler family. Purdue is among the several drugmakers that have been alleged for fueling the opioid epidemic in the United States. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the epidemic claimed 400,000 lives between 1999 to 2017.

The Stamford, Connecticut-based Purdue Pharma is facing allegations claiming that it aggressively marketed prescription opioids by misleading prescribers and consumers about risks from its prolonged use. Purdue said it is actively working with state attorneys general and other plaintiffs to resolve the crisis, and currently, there is no agreement, and the settlement discussions could collapse.

Companies manufacturing opioids convinced the medical community that these medications were not addictive and were purely beneficial. This belief raised the number of prescriptions and sales unwarrantedly, resulting in a mass misuse of these drugs, to the extent that this was identified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a public issue and named it an 'opioid crisis.'

Opioid lawsuits are consolidated under MDL No. 2804 (In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation) presided by Judge Dan Polster.

Bard IVC Lawsuits: Remand Order Suggestion Issued

U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell determined about 600 Bard IVC filter cases are ready to be returned to different federal district courts nationwide for individual trial dates.

According to the Suggestion of Remand and Court Order (PDF) issued on August 20, the cases are being remanded as thousands of cases pending in the MDL have settled or are near a settlement, and the remaining cases would no longer benefit from centralized proceedings.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) will now take into account to remand unresolved claims, and the cases are expected to be reassigned to various individual judges to set trial dates if agreements are not reached by the parties to settle the cases.

An Inferior vena cava filter (IVC filter), earlier popularly known as Greenfield filter, is a medical device implanted in the inferior vena cava just below the kidneys to capture blood clots, preventing them from reaching the heart and lungs, thereby, safeguarding against life-threatening pulmonary emboli (PE). IVC filters were cleared for use through the 510(k) process since 1976. However, in 2010 the FDA issued a device safety communication after reviewing more than 900 adverse events related to the devices over a period of five-years.

More than 8,000 product liability lawsuits were filed against C.R. Bard, consolidated under MDL No. 2641 presided by U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell. Each lawsuit had similar allegations that plaintiffs suffered pain and potential complications when the small devices moved out of position, penetrated internal organs, or fractured, causing small pieces to travel throughout the body.

Georgia’s First Talcum Ovarian Cancer Trial Is Set To Begin

On Monday, September 9, the trial over claims that Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) talc-based baby powder that caused ovarian cancer to a woman is set to begin in Atlanta. In the first case of its kind, Georgia jurors will have a chance to find a link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer.

A trial before Judge Jane Morrison involves the lawsuit filed by an Atlanta resident who died of ovarian cancer in 2016 at the age of 65. The woman filed a lawsuit against J&J shortly before her death. Her adopted minor granddaughter is the named plaintiff in this case.

Georgia jury will see evidence on how the use of talcum powder products for feminine hygiene can result in ovarian cancer. The trial is expected to continue for two weeks. As of February 2016, in seven different trials in Missouri and California juries have awarded more than $5.3 billion in damages against J&J.

From decades, studies have examined the link between genital talc use and ovarian cancer. The research shows that talc particles can migrate into the ovaries, causing inflammation and leading to the growth of malignant cells resulting in ovarian cancer. 

Talcum powder allegations include that the company knew about the risks of using talcum powder for decades and failed to warn the public of the potential risk of ovarian cancer in women despite numerous scientific studies suggesting talc as a cancer-causing mineral. Rather, they chose to market the talcum powder products to women and children for hygienic use despite being aware of the risks desiring profits before consumer safety. Lawsuits also claim J&J hid the fact that talcum powder contains asbestos.

Talc defendants currently face 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.

Summary Judgment Awarded To UCC In Asbestos Case

The Delaware trial court awarded summary judgment to Union Carbide Corp. over an asbestos lawsuit filed against it after finding that the chemical company relied on Georgia-Pacific to warn the end-users for its joint compound products that included Union Carbide’s Calidria asbestos.

The plaintiff purchased and used a joint compound product containing an asbestos product known as Calidria, manufactured by UCC, on multiple occasions between 1971 and 1982. He was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2016 and died later. His wife filed a lawsuit against UCC, alleging that the defendants failed to warn about hazards associated with Calidria, and she also sought relief under the Ohio statue which provided strict liability for defectively formulated products.

UCC filed for summary judgment stating that it provided warnings to Georgia-Pacific. The court found that the defendants relied on Georgia-Pacific to provide warnings to the purchasers of its joint compounds, so the summary judgment was granted in favor of UCC on the claim.

In the U.S., the earliest known asbestos-related lawsuit was filed by a woman in 1929 in the Newark (NJ) Federal Court. Along with her, at least 15 other individuals with asbestos-related claims were trying to get compensation. Unfortunately, the woman's lawsuit was thrown out in 1934, but it brought forth the wave of many such lawsuits. One of the biggest companies targeted by these lawsuits was Johns-Manville Corporation, which filed for bankruptcy in 1982.

J&J is also facing similar lawsuits, each raising a common allegation that asbestos exposure from the company’s talc-based products causes ovarian cancer or mesothelioma.