Lawsuit Updates

A new case management order has been issued to organize witness depositions for the upcoming Tier Two Personal Injury Bellwether Trials. The key issue is that not all potential witnesses were deposed during the earlier fact discovery phase, meaning their testimony has not yet been collected.

According to the order, if either party adds a new witness to their trial list who wasn’t previously deposed, the other party has the right to request a deposition of that witness. This request must be made within 14 days of receiving the updated witness list.

A former U.S. Navy service member from Boerne, Texas, has filed a lawsuit in the AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL), seeking damages for health issues linked to firefighting foam exposure. The lawsuit names multiple manufacturers, including 3M, Chemours, and DuPont, alleging that their PFAS-containing AFFF products caused the plaintiff’s thyroid cancer and other severe health problems.

The plaintiff claims repeated exposure to the foam during their Navy career led to harmful effects due to PFAS’s bioaccumulative and cancer-causing properties. This case adds to the growing legal pressure on AFFF manufacturers to address the health risks of their products.

Insurance disputes are becoming a major issue in the ongoing AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL). A recent decision in South Carolina highlighted this struggle, with corporate defendants like BASF fighting their insurers over who should pay for legal defense and settlements. The judge dismissed one case involving BASF and sent another back to New York for further action.

The Exactech implant MDL (Multidistrict Litigation) continues to grow, with 36 new cases added in October, bringing the total number of pending cases to 1,806. However, due to the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, no new claims are expected to be filed in the MDL during November.

This development may affect the pace of future litigation, but the fight for justice remains ongoing for those impacted by defective Exactech implants.

Exactech has declared bankruptcy, and a bankruptcy hearing is scheduled for today. Unfortunately, in 2024, companies often use bankruptcy as leverage in settlement negotiations, and Exactech’s legal team has been hinting at this possibility for some time.

If you have not yet joined the litigation and believe you have a claim, it is crucial to consult with a lawyer today. For those who have already filed a claim with a lawyer, there’s no need to panic. Simply sit tight and let your attorney guide you through the process. The litigation continues, and we are here to ensure your rights are protected.

In the past 30 days, 100 new cases have been added to the Exactech implant recall MDL, increasing the total number of pending cases to 1,770. Additionally, several hundred more cases are awaiting resolution in Florida state court. This surge in claims shows the ongoing impact of the defective Exactech implants and the growing number of individuals seeking justice.

From June to August 2024, only about 50 new Exactech implant defect lawsuits were added to the MDL, bringing the total number of pending cases in the MDL to 1,670. While the pace of new cases slowed during this period, the number of claims continues to rise as more affected individuals come forward.

A man from Tulsa, Oklahoma, recently became one of the latest plaintiffs to file in the Exactech implant recall MDL. This plaintiff received an Exactech Optetrak Logic knee replacement implant in October 2016. Unfortunately, the implant failed after just seven years, requiring revision surgery in 2023. His case was filed directly in the Exactech MDL earlier this week, adding to the growing number of claims related to defective implants.

In May, 42 new cases were added to the Exactech class action MDL, marking a notable decrease in the volume of new claims. This is the second consecutive month in which fewer cases have been filed. Despite this slowdown, there are now over 1,500 pending cases in the MDL, highlighting the continued legal actions stemming from the Exactech implant recall.

A new lawsuit has been filed in the MDL by an Indianapolis woman against several hair relaxer manufacturers, including L’Oréal, SoftSheen-Carson, and Strength of Nature. The plaintiff alleges that using the defendants’ products, such as Dark and Lovely, Optimum Salon Haircare, and Africa’s Best, from the early 1970s to 2018, led to her developing endometrial cancer in 2021.

The complaint claims the products contained harmful chemicals that increased her cancer risk and includes causes of action for negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, breach of warranties, and consumer protection violations. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages and a jury trial.

In August, the chemical hair relaxer class action MDL saw the addition of 200 new cases. However, September brought a decline, with 98 cases being removed from the MDL, reducing the total number of pending cases to 8,393. This adjustment reflects the ongoing fluctuations in case filings and the legal process surrounding the hair relaxer litigation.

The next status conference for the hair relaxer MDL is scheduled for December 12, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. The magistrate judge emphasized public accessibility, allowing both the public and media to join the hearing via phone. Interested listeners can dial 650-479-3207 and use access code 2308 182 1801 to listen in.

However, the judge reminded attendees that photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting court proceedings is strictly prohibited. Violating these rules could lead to sanctions, including restricted access to future hearings.

Following a significant surge of over 1,000 new cases in October, the hair relaxer multidistrict litigation (MDL) saw a notable slowdown in November, with only 161 new filings—an 85% decrease. The current total of cases in the MDL now stands at 9,649. While the volume of filings within the MDL has decreased, there has been an increase in the number of hair relaxer lawsuits being pursued in state courts.

Additionally, all lawsuits related to fibroids and hysterectomies, which are often associated with the use of hair relaxers, are now being handled outside of the MDL, as plaintiffs continue to seek justice in individual proceedings.

The NEC class action lawsuits in both state and federal courts are progressing, but at a slow pace. However, progress is being made. Plaintiffs believe the stronger cases are solid, but there may not be as many strong cases as attorneys initially expected.

As of December 2023, 290 cases have been filed in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois, with Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer overseeing the consolidation and coordination of these cases. Many more lawsuits have been filed in state court.

The first bellwether trials for the NEC MDL are scheduled for 2024. The outcomes of these trials could have a significant impact on the future of the lawsuits. However, it’s more likely that settlement offers related to NEC baby formula cases will be made, bringing an end to the litigation for many families.

To prevent defendants from being wrongly named in NEC lawsuits, the MDL judge has introduced a new rule specifically regarding Mead Johnson & Company. The rule requires that the company can only be included in the lawsuit if there is clear evidence showing that the baby used their products.

To make sure this is followed, the court has set out clear steps for identifying Mead Johnson products. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs must carefully review the baby’s medical and feeding records from birth until discharge to confirm which products were used. If the records don’t show clear evidence of using Mead Johnson products, further investigation is needed.

If lawyers don’t follow these rules or fail to prove that Mead Johnson products were involved, the case could be thrown out. This new rule highlights the importance of careful research before filing a lawsuit to ensure that only relevant cases against Mead Johnson move forward in the NEC formula MDL.

The judge overseeing the NEC formula MDL has scheduled an important in-court status conference for December 19th, which is not very common in such cases. During this conference, several key topics will be discussed, including the process for selecting the bellwether cases (which are representative cases used to guide the rest of the litigation), ongoing discovery issues (where both sides exchange evidence and information), and the possibility of moving toward settlement mediation to resolve the cases without going to trial. This conference will be a critical step in moving the litigation forward.

The number of cases in the infant formula NEC class action MDL keeps growing steadily. In November, 26 new cases were added, which is the same number as the month before. Currently, there are 626 cases pending in the MDL. However, there is no information on how many of these cases involve Enfamil compared to other formula brands.

Referring to meningiomas as “benign” overlooks the serious risks they pose, much like calling a ticking time bomb harmless just because it hasn’t exploded yet. While many women with meningiomas may initially do well, these tumors can silently grow, pressuring vital brain areas and leading to seizures, vision loss, and cognitive impairments.

Even when surgery successfully removes the tumor, the aftermath can be devastating—chronic headaches, emotional challenges, and the need for ongoing medication. Full recovery may take months, and continuous monitoring is required to ensure the tumor does not return. The Depo-Provera litigation underscores that, whether benign or malignant, the harm caused by these tumors is undeniable, and pharmaceutical companies must be held accountable for failing to warn patients about these dangers.

An increasing number of cases involving inoperable meningiomas are being reported in Depo-Provera lawsuits. These tumors, located near critical brain structures like the optic nerves, brainstem, or major blood vessels, are often deemed too risky for surgical removal.

Affected individuals face significant physical and emotional challenges, relying on treatments such as radiation therapy or long-term monitoring instead of definitive surgical options. Women with inoperable meningiomas have reported severe symptoms, including debilitating headaches, vision loss, memory problems, and other neurological impairments, underscoring the devastating impact of these conditions.

A motion has been filed with the MDL Panel to consolidate over 20 Depo-Provera lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The motion cites the high number of cases already filed in California, including 18 out of 22 referenced lawsuits, and the state’s unique innovator liability laws that allow plaintiffs to sue the brand-name manufacturer, Pfizer, even if they used generic versions of the drug.

California is seen as a key jurisdiction for this litigation due to its large population of Depo-Provera users and a recent study linking the drug to a 550% increased risk of intracranial meningiomas. The motion anticipates thousands of additional cases, making the Northern District a strategic venue for streamlining proceedings and addressing the growing number of claims.

A plaintiff who contracted a surgical site infection following a hip replacement surgery involving the Bair Hugger device was awarded a $1.8 million settlement. The patient experienced multiple surgeries to treat the infection and long-term health complications. The settlement included reimbursement for medical expenses, lost wages, and compensation for pain and suffering caused by the infection.

In a class action lawsuit, multiple patients who suffered infections after surgeries involving the Bair Hugger system reached a collective settlement worth $2.5 million. Each plaintiff received compensation for medical expenses, additional surgeries, and ongoing treatments. This case highlighted the widespread impact of the device and the manufacturer’s failure to address its design flaws.

A knee surgery patient filed an individual lawsuit after developing a life-threatening infection. The court awarded a $3.2 million verdict, ruling that the Bair Hugger device was responsible for contaminating the sterile environment during surgery. The verdict included compensation for the patient’s medical costs, rehabilitation, and emotional distress.

A patient who underwent hip replacement surgery and contracted a severe infection attributed to the Bair Hugger system received a $5 million settlement. The plaintiff alleged that the device circulated contaminated air, causing the infection that led to multiple surgeries and prolonged hospitalization. The settlement covered medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of quality of life.

A class action lawsuit was filed against several breast implant manufacturers, accusing them of failing to adequately warn patients about the risks of implants, including rupture, chronic pain, and the development of Breast Implant Illness (BII). The lawsuit resulted in a $50 million settlement in 2020, which aimed to compensate victims for the physical, emotional, and financial damages caused by the implants. 

Victims of this class action were provided funds to help cover the costs of implant removal, corrective surgeries, and ongoing medical care. The settlement also offered compensation for pain, suffering, and the loss of quality of life. This case highlighted the importance of transparency in the medical device industry and the need for manufacturers to provide clear warnings about potential health risks.

Johnson & Johnson, another leading breast implant manufacturer, faced lawsuits over the risks associated with its implants. In 2019, the company agreed to a $100 million settlement with women who suffered from complications such as implant rupture, infections, and other health issues. The settlement provided compensation for medical costs related to corrective surgeries, follow-up treatments, and the physical and emotional distress caused by the complications. 

In addition to medical damages, the settlement included financial support for the psychological and emotional trauma endured by many victims who were unaware of the risks posed by the implants. This case underscored the importance of holding manufacturers accountable for failing to adequately inform patients about potential dangers.

In 2019, Allergan, one of the largest manufacturers of breast implants, faced multiple lawsuits due to its textured implants being linked to BIA-ALCL (Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma). The company ultimately agreed to settle the claims for over $3 billion. This breast implant settlement covered thousands of women who had developed BIA-ALCL or suffered other complications, such as implant rupture or chronic pain. 

Many victims were compensated for their medical treatment, surgeries to remove the implants, and legal fees. The settlement also provided for ongoing medical monitoring for affected individuals. This case set a significant example, highlighting the potential for substantial financial relief for those harmed by dangerous products.

Judge Sargus has denied the plaintiffs’ motion for remand, as discussed in our September 5 update. The judge explained that there is a limited stay in effect, as outlined in Case Management Orders 52 and 53 (referenced in the July 6 update), which prohibits any motions or remand requests during this period. Since the motion was filed while the stay was in place, the Court denied the motion without prejudice.

While this ruling was expected, it would have been beneficial to see Bard’s response to the motion, as it likely would have included comments on the ongoing settlement negotiations. Many plaintiffs have been left in the dark for too long, and any insight into the settlement process would have been valuable.

A plaintiff in the Bard hernia mesh multidistrict litigation has passed away. William Mabry, who died in June 2022, is survived by his wife, Joyce, who is now pursuing legal action on his behalf. According to an October 15, 2024, court filing, Joyce believes that William’s death resulted from complications caused by the Bard hernia mesh as well as the underlying injury it was used to treat. As the administrator of his estate, Joyce will continue the fight against Bard, now bringing a wrongful death claim in addition to the original lawsuit for the harm caused by the defective product.

An increasing number of individuals are filing lawsuits against Covidien after being harmed by their hernia mesh products. As of November, there are 1,546 pending hernia mesh lawsuits in the multidistrict litigation (MDL 3029) against Covidien, a major manufacturer of hernia mesh. While several settlement agreements have been reached between hernia mesh manufacturers and those injured by the products, many victims continue to suffer from complications linked to meshes used in hernia repair surgeries. As these injuries persist, more lawsuits are expected to be filed against Covidien, as well as other major hernia mesh manufacturers such as Atrium, Ethicon, and Bard.

Judge Sargus appointed Ellen K. Reisman and John Jackson as Special Masters to oversee the settlement process. The court has also introduced an Intensive Settlements Process (ISP), which will be managed by the Special Masters under the court’s supervision until all pending claims are resolved.

Settlement Masters typically play a key role in organizing and categorizing plaintiffs into tiers or grids, taking into account factors such as the severity of their injuries and the strength of their claims.

The court has scheduled early discovery and motion practice focused on preemption and the adequacy of warning labels in the Ozempic lawsuits. However, the issue of marketing discovery has not been fully addressed, and plaintiffs are now seeking permission to include it at this early stage through a new motion.

Plaintiffs argue that marketing discovery is essential to the case, as pharmaceutical companies may downplay or obscure risks in their marketing, which can undermine the effectiveness of warnings provided on product labels. This is particularly significant given the stakes in this litigation. There is ample precedent supporting the relevance of marketing materials in evaluating the adequacy of warnings and in challenging preemption defenses, as marketing directly influences consumer perception and usage.

As the number of cases in the Ozempic MDL continues to rise, new filings are focusing on the claim that Novo Nordisk purposely minimized the risks of gastroparesis in its marketing. Plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that the company was aware of Ozempic’s effects on stomach motility but chose not to update the warning labels, fearing it might stop patients from starting or continuing the treatment.

The failure to address gastroparesis risks early in the drug’s release is expected to be a central issue in the litigation. As a result, many lawyers are now prioritizing cases specifically involving gastroparesis-related complications.

Last week, attorneys representing plaintiffs in the Ozempic lawsuits filed a revised master complaint in the MDL (Multidistrict Litigation). This updated document refines the allegations against the defendants that include Novo Nordisk, with a sharper focus on claims regarding the drug’s role. It causes gastrointestinal injuries and other serious side effects.

What is a master complaint? In an MDL, a master complaint combines common allegations and claims from individual lawsuits into one unified document, providing a clear framework for the litigation. Plaintiffs then file short-form complaints that reference the master complaint, detailing their unique experiences and specific claims. This process streamlines the legal proceedings and ensures consistency across the cases.

In November, 79 new cases were added to the Ozempic MDL (Multidistrict Litigation), bringing the total number of filings to over 200 in just the past two months. The MDL now includes more than 1,300 pending cases which reflect the growing number of individuals who are looking for legal action due to negative effects linked to Ozempic.

A cyclist was struck by a rideshare driver performing an illegal U-turn on a busy street. The collision caused the cyclist to suffer broken ribs, a punctured lung, and a fractured arm that required multiple surgeries and months of physical therapy. The accident left the cyclist unable to work for an extended period, causing financial hardship in addition to the physical pain.

The legal team built a strong case by gathering eyewitness testimonies and surveillance footage showing the driver’s illegal maneuver. Faced with overwhelming evidence, the rideshare company’s insurer agreed to settle for $900,000. This amount helped the cyclist cover medical bills, rehabilitation, lost income, and other damages.

A rideshare driver struck a pedestrian while speeding to a pickup location. The pedestrian sustained multiple fractures, including a shattered pelvis, and a traumatic brain injury that required intensive medical care and prolonged rehabilitation. The victim faced significant financial and emotional strain, losing the ability to work during their recovery and needing assistance for daily tasks.

The rideshare company initially denied full responsibility, claiming the driver was off-duty. However, the victim’s attorney presented evidence proving the driver was logged into the app and en route to a ride request, making the rideshare insurance policy applicable. After a trial, a jury awarded the victim $1.5 million to cover medical expenses, loss of future earnings, and emotional suffering.

A passenger was seriously injured when the rideshare vehicle they were traveling in was T-boned at an intersection by a distracted driver who failed to stop at a red light. The accident caused severe spinal injuries, requiring immediate surgery and months of physical therapy. The victim also suffered from psychological trauma due to the accident, which disrupted their ability to return to work and affected their quality of life.

The legal team demonstrated that the rideshare driver failed to maintain caution and the other motorist’s negligence combined the situation. Through persistent negotiations, the victim secured a $2 million settlement, with funds sourced from both the rideshare company’s insurance and the at-fault driver’s policy. This settlement ensured the victim could cover extensive medical expenses, ongoing rehabilitation, and future financial losses.

A family of four suffered serious injuries when an intoxicated driver veered into oncoming traffic and caused a head-on collision. All family members required hospitalisation and lengthy rehabilitation.

The extreme negligence due to drunk driving, combined with the severity of injuries to multiple family members, led to a high settlement. This amount helped cover medical expenses, lost wages, emotional trauma, and long-term care needs.

A motorcyclist was struck by a car making an illegal U-turn, leading to severe leg injuries requiring multiple surgeries. The driver’s fault in making an illegal maneuver led to a fair settlement covering the victim’s medical bills, lost income during recovery, and compensation for long-term physical limitations affecting daily life.

A 35-year-old woman in California was struck by a distracted driver who ran a red light, resulting in multiple fractures, internal injuries, and the need for surgery and prolonged rehabilitation.

The court awarded a high compensation due to the driver’s negligence and the lasting impact of injuries, which included permanent scarring and loss of mobility. This verdict covered medical costs, lost earnings, and non-economic damages for pain and suffering.

A driver in Maryland sustained multiple fractures and a traumatic brain injury after being rear-ended by a commercial truck. The collision was caused by the truck driver’s failure to reduce speed in heavy traffic.

The severity of the injuries and the truck driver’s clear negligence led to a substantial settlement. The funds covered extensive medical expenses, rehabilitation, and compensation for long-term disability due to brain injury.

A Missouri jury awarded $495 million to the family of an infant who suffered severe complications from NEC after consuming Abbott’s premature infant formula in the NICU. Lawyers believe this verdict could have a significant impact on the future of baby formula litigation. The award consisted of $95 million in damages and $400 million in punitive damages. Abbott disagrees with the verdict and plans to seek an appeal. This case was in state court, while bellwether trials for the federal MDL are set to begin in May 2025, unless the defendants attempt to negotiate a settlement before then.

The most recent state court trial involving baby formula has resulted in a win for the defendants. A St. Louis jury sided with Abbott and Mead Johnson in a case where a mother of a premature infant, who developed NEC, claimed that the companies failed to warn about the risks of the disease. This verdict is surprising, especially after two state trials earlier this year resulted in huge wins for the plaintiffs.

In the MDL (Multidistrict Litigation), there was also major news earlier this month. The parties involved proposed a schedule for the four bellwether cases, with the first trial set to begin on May 5, 2025. These trials will continue through February 2026, but the schedule still needs to be approved by Judge Pallmeyer.

The defense win in Missouri yesterday won’t stop the momentum of this litigation. In October alone, 26 new cases were filed, bringing the total to over 600 pending cases. Many more are being added in state court. Right now, state court cases are moving faster than the MDL, shaping the tone of this litigation and encouraging more plaintiffs to file in state court.

Just yesterday, I mentioned signs that seemed to point to a plaintiff’s victory. However, it’s impossible to predict the outcome of a trial. The defendants secured their first defense win in Whitfield. Plaintiffs’ lawyers were confident, even asking for $6 billion in punitive damages during their closing statements.

The recent defense win in Missouri shows how unpredictable jury trials can be. While the plaintiffs in this case didn’t win, it’s unlikely to stop the ongoing NEC lawsuits. Lawyers for the plaintiffs are still hopeful, pointing to previous cases where large amounts of compensation were awarded as proof that the litigation is strong and moving forward.

PFAS chemicals are pervasive, found in crops, food, drinking water, products, and the environment. As a result, many individuals continue to reach out with questions about filing claims for PFAS-related health issues. Despite claims from defense lawyers representing the PFAS industry that “strong defenses are available,” we remain skeptical about these assertions. We are committed to helping victims and their families seek justice and compensation, and we encourage anyone affected by PFAS exposure to contact us for guidance on their legal rights.

Recent PFAS lawsuits target prominent companies, including 3M, Corteva, DuPont, Oppermann Webbing, and Tyco Fire. While these lawsuits highlight key defendants, they represent only a fraction of the entities involved in the ongoing PFAS litigation. Over the past several decades, numerous companies have manufactured and sold products containing harmful PFAS chemicals, making them potentially liable for the devastating health impacts, including cancer diagnoses, experienced by victims. As investigations continue, more companies may face legal accountability for their role in the widespread contamination

The PFAS multidistrict litigation against major manufacturers, including 3M and AGC Chemicals, continues to grow. On October 29, 2024, seven significant cases were transferred from state courts to the federal MDL (2873). These cases allege widespread water contamination caused by PFAS chemicals. The Honorable Richard M. Gergel will oversee the management of these newly added lawsuits, further strengthening the pursuit of accountability for affected communities.

On November 8, 2024, the federal court handling PFAS multidistrict litigation (MDL) approved the addition of two more cases: Town of Dundee, Florida v. AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc. and Henson v. AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc. These cases expand the growing MDL, which now encompasses 10,934 lawsuits as of November 1, 2024. The lawsuits highlight injuries caused by PFAS contamination in drinking water, and more cases continue to be filed.

A Massachusetts state court ruled that federal law preempts a plaintiff’s claims that Monsanto failed to warn about the dangers of Roundup, delivering a setback for the plaintiff. While the court allowed design defect claims to proceed, losing the failure-to-warn argument weakens the case significantly.

The decision aligns with the 3rd Circuit’s ruling in Schaffner v. Monsanto, raising concerns among legal experts. Critics fear this precedent could encourage more courts to adopt similar rulings, providing judges inclined to protect corporations like Monsanto with a stronger legal basis for dismissing failure-to-warn claims.

The Roundup multidistrict litigation (MDL) saw six new cases added in October 2024, bringing the total number of pending cases to 4,355. This relatively small increase reflects the ongoing but slowing pace of new claims being filed. The MDL continues to serve as a hub for handling the large number of Roundup lawsuits, streamlining the process for plaintiffs seeking justice for damages caused by the weed killer.

In the Womack trial held in Philadelphia, Monsanto secured a victory against claims related to Roundup exposure. Despite being represented by experienced plaintiffs’ attorneys and following a previous $78 million verdict in a similar case, the trial presented challenges. The plaintiff’s claim was based on only ten residential uses of Roundup starting in 2015, making it a more difficult case to win. While this outcome highlights the complexities of such litigation, it’s a reminder that not every trial will result in a plaintiff’s victory. 

A Chicago Roundup trial ended in a mistrial after the defense introduced an irrelevant and prejudicial reference to a past alcohol-related criminal charge against the plaintiff during cross-examination. The judge condemned this action as “serious misconduct,” stating it unfairly prejudiced the jury, and warned the defense against further improper tactics.

The plaintiffs argued that the mention of the charge, which had no relevance to the case, served only to bias the jury and warranted a mistrial. Legal experts criticized Monsanto’s attorneys for the move, noting that such evidence is inadmissible under basic rules of evidence.

A study published in August 2019 lent support to the growing number of lawsuits against Injectafer, confirming that the drug can cause hypophosphatemia (HPP), a condition in which phosphorus levels in the body become dangerously low. This condition is linked to severe health complications, including muscle weakness and bone pain, which were central to many of the claims brought against the manufacturer.

As lawsuits against Injectafer continued to move forward in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, many plaintiffs claimed that the drug manufacturer failed to warn about the risks associated with the drug, particularly dangerous side effects like hypophosphatemia. In response, a motion was filed to combine two of the cases for a single trial to save judicial resources. However, the court decided to hold separate trials for the first two bellwether cases, meaning they would be tried individually to better understand how juries may respond to the evidence presented.

A major development occurred when U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone set the date for the first trial in the Injectafer litigation, scheduled to begin on June 5, 2023. While the outcome of this trial won’t directly affect other lawsuits, it is expected to influence the direction of future settlement talks and negotiations to avoid the need for more trials.

In February 2023, the court was considering final pretrial motions for the upcoming June 2023 trial. Additionally, two other significant lawsuits were scheduled to go to trial later in the year, on October 2, 2023, and November 29, 2023. These bellwether trials are seen as important for setting the tone for future cases.In February 2023, the court was considering final pretrial motions for the upcoming June 2023 trial. Additionally, two other significant lawsuits were scheduled to go to trial later in the year, on October 2, 2023, and November 29, 2023. These bellwether trials are seen as important for setting the tone for future cases.

DePuy Synthes, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, faced lawsuits regarding its Attune knee implants, with plaintiffs claiming that the implants loosened prematurely, causing pain and complications. In 2019, DePuy reached a $120 million settlement to resolve thousands of claims. Patients who suffered from premature implant failures and required revision surgeries received compensation. The settlement addressed allegations of design flaws and improper warnings about the risk of loosening and instability.

Though primarily known for hip replacement lawsuits, Stryker’s knee implants were also involved in product liability claims. In one case, Stryker agreed to a $1.4 billion settlement in 2014, related to its Rejuvenate and ABG II hip implants, which were later extended to cover knee replacements. The settlement addressed issues of premature implant failure, leading to serious health risks. The settlement provided compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other damages caused by defective implants.

In 2015, Zimmer settled multiple lawsuits related to its NexGen knee implant for approximately $1 billion. The claims alleged that the NexGen knee implants failed prematurely, causing pain, instability, and the need for revision surgeries. Many patients filed lawsuits citing the implant’s design flaws, specifically the faulty femoral component. The settlement resolved claims for thousands of individuals who suffered complications due to the defect.

Uber has begun testing video recording during rides in select cities, including Washington, D.C., allowing drivers to use front-facing cameras to record their trips. Currently in the pilot phase and not widely available, this feature complements the company’s existing audio recording option. Both video and audio recordings are encrypted and can only be accessed if a driver or rider submits a safety report.

While this initiative isn’t a perfect solution, it’s a step in the right direction—one that is long overdue. Such measures could have helped protect many women who have been victims of sexual assault and rape by Uber drivers.

Lawyers are in disagreement over deadlines related to privilege log disputes and document production. Plaintiffs argue that Uber’s privilege logs, which include thousands of entries, are overly broad and wrongly classify business communications as privileged. They suspect Uber is shielding non-privileged documents by simply copying lawyers on them. In response, Plaintiffs proposed a revised deposition schedule to allow more time for challenging these designations. Uber, however, contends that most of its designations are valid and argues that depositions should proceed without delay. The parties remain at an impasse, with Plaintiffs seeking more flexibility and Uber pushing for coordination with California state court proceedings.

Uber has filed a motion requesting that certain internal documents remain confidential, arguing that their public release could harm the company’s competitive position and violate privacy interests. The company’s legal team contends that the documents contain sensitive business plans, privileged communications, and legal strategies, which, if disclosed, would put Uber at a disadvantage. Uber is seeking to prevent the release of these documents, even with redactions.

However, the distinction must be made between genuinely confidential business information and material that may simply be embarrassing if exposed.

Today, a federal court rejected Uber’s motion to amend a previous discovery order in the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) case. Uber had requested the court to establish a firm deadline of November 27, 2023, for the production of custodial documents. The company argued that the existing order, which mandates the continuous production of documents “created through the present and on an ongoing basis,” placed an undue and disproportionate burden on them. Uber further contended that this ongoing requirement violated the proportionality and relevance standards outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

To reach a settlement, the key is to get bellwether cases to trial. The bellwether plaintiffs have been actively involved in pretrial discovery, with most disputes resolved, except for a few pending requests. Although some issues remain, both the California state court and the MDL are moving forward smoothly, and there’s no strong reason to delay the start of the first trials.

In November, 27 new cases were added to the social media addiction class action MDL, which is more than the 10 added in September but still a relatively low number. This suggests the mass tort will likely remain low-volume, which could be beneficial for victims in terms of settlement amounts and how quickly the litigation progresses. The MDL now has 620 pending cases.

The family of a 15-year-old boy from Charlotte, North Carolina, is suing Instagram, claiming that the platform contributed to his death by suicide almost three years ago. The lawsuit, filed by the boy’s father as the administrator of his estate, argues that Instagram’s design and algorithms led to his addiction and worsened his mental health, including anxiety, depression, and excessive social media use.

The social media addiction lawsuit MDL saw a big increase in November, with 195 new cases, a 31% rise from the previous month. There are now 815 social media addiction cases
pending. Our lawyers remain confident in the strength of this litigation for cases with solid evidence.

A new lawsuit was filed yesterday in the MDL, where the family of two teens from Hooks, Texas, claims that social media platforms like Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Snap Inc., TikTok, and Google (YouTube) are responsible for causing serious mental health issues. The plaintiffs say that the addictive features of these platforms, along with a lack of warnings about the risks, led to compulsive use, depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts, including cutting.

The lawsuit includes claims of strict liability for design defects, negligence, and violations of consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for the harm caused by the platforms’ design, marketing, and maintenance.

As we continue with the Suboxone litigation, we’ve learned a lot more about the drug. Initially, we considered whether Suboxone should be recalled after seeing the severe dental damage it caused.

However, we now recognize the benefits of Suboxone, such as its low overdose risk and long-term manageability when side effects are controlled. Instead of supporting a recall, we believe there should be a strong warning (which still doesn’t exist in 2024) to help people make informed decisions and manage the risks of severe tooth decay.

We often receive calls from people who took the Suboxone pill and want to file a claim. It’s frustrating when we can’t assist them, and we understand that. However, the key to these claims lies in the sublingual film version.

The film dissolves in the mouth before being absorbed, leading to prolonged exposure to the drug. This extended contact affects the mouth’s pH balance. Buprenorphine and naloxone in the film lower the mouth’s natural pH, which can cause harm. Suboxone lawyers argue that the manufacturers failed to warn about these risks and that the film form is more harmful than previous versions of the drug.

On Friday, Judge Calabrese made changes to Case Management Order No. 3, which allows plaintiffs claiming dental injuries from Suboxone film to file their cases directly in his Ohio court. The update specifically addresses how legal documents are delivered. Defendants, including Indivior Inc., Indivior Solutions Inc., and Aquestive Therapeutics, have agreed to waive the formal process of serving summons for cases within the MDL.

A new lawsuit has been filed by a plaintiff from Madison, Indiana, who claims that the makers of Suboxone failed to warn users about the drug’s severe dental damage risks. The lawsuit alleges that Indivior and Aquestive Therapeutics knew about these risks for over a decade but didn’t provide proper warnings. Despite a 2022 FDA alert confirming the dental issues linked to buprenorphine products dissolved in the mouth, the plaintiff argues that the medication guides were never updated adequately.

On August 20, 2024, Judge Cote officially dismissed all cases in the Tylenol Autism Multidistrict Litigation, following her July ruling. Plaintiffs’ counsel has filed an appeal, but if the appeal is unsuccessful, all federal cases will be considered resolved in favor of the defendant drug manufacturers.

After the dismissal of the federal MDL in August, plaintiffs’ lawyers have turned to appeal as their last option. We will provide updates on the appellate filing as soon as new details emerge. Meanwhile, several state-level cases are still ongoing, particularly in Illinois and California. In these cases, Johnson & Johnson has filed motions to dismiss based on federal preemption. We will continue to update this page as those rulings are issued. The California case is scheduled for trial in April 2025.

The appeal challenging the dismissal of the Tylenol autism and ADHD MDL is now underway. Plaintiffs argue that Judge Cote improperly excluded expert testimony linking Tylenol use during pregnancy to developmental disorders in children. The appeal claims the judge misapplied the Daubert standard, which ensures evidence is based on sound scientific principles, and wrongly took on the role of a scientist in deciding the medical dispute. The plaintiffs contend that the judge’s focus on public policy rather than scientific methods was inappropriate for the Daubert hearing.

As appeals take time, a ruling is not expected until early next year. We will provide updates as more information becomes available.

As we await the appellate court’s decision on the dismissal of the Tylenol and autism MDL, new claims continue to be filed in state courts nationwide. If your child has been diagnosed with autism, you may still have legal avenues to pursue compensation. The Lawsuit Legal News team is here to provide answers, helping you understand whether you can file a claim in state court or if you qualify for a toxic baby food autism lawsuit against certain baby food manufacturers. Let us guide you through your options.

As the first bellwether trial in the Valsartan multi-district litigation (MDL) draws near, we are seeing an increase in interest surrounding the case. This is a common development, and we anticipate continued inquiries and new Valsartan claims for the foreseeable future. If you believe you may have a claim, now is the time to act. Contact us today for a free consultation to discuss your case.

After the postponement of the first lawsuit selected for a bellwether trial, a new case has been scheduled to kick off the trials. The first trial will now involve a lawsuit filed by an Alabama man who developed liver cancer after taking Valsartan. This case is seen as a stronger choice, as it will provide valuable insights to all plaintiffs—and potential plaintiffs—about what they can expect as the litigation progresses.

On December 16, 2024, the federal judge overseeing the Valsartan litigation confirmed the selection of five cases for the second set of bellwether trials. These trials are part of the multidistrict litigation (MDL) against the manufacturers of Valsartan, specifically addressing the harmful effects of NDMA contamination in the medication. MDL 2875 includes individuals who were harmed by the contaminated drug, and these bellwether trials will serve as important test cases, offering insights into how other lawsuits in the MDL may be resolved. As such, the outcomes of these trials hold significant implications for all plaintiffs involved in the litigation.

This week, there’s a significant development in the ongoing Valsartan multi-district litigation (MDL). The judge overseeing the case has selected five plaintiffs’ lawsuits to proceed to the next round of bellwether trials. These trials play a crucial role in advancing the litigation process. When bellwether trials result in favorable verdicts for plaintiffs, it often prompts settlement discussions in many cases, although not all cases may follow this path.

The court has imposed a firm deadline of December 11, 2024, for defendants to complete the production of custodial files as previously ordered on October 7, 2024. The judge has mandated rolling production, allowing plaintiffs to begin reviewing documents as they become available. While the court has stated it will not extend this deadline, both parties have been encouraged to discuss ways to expedite specific parts of the production if possible, provided they clarify their respective needs and any objections.

The MDL judge has scheduled the first bellwether trial in the Paragard litigation for December 1, 2025, with the second trial set for February 2, 2026, subject to confirmation of availability from the defendants’ trial counsel.

A new lawsuit has been filed in the Paragard MDL by a California woman who claims her Paragard IUD broke during its removal in February and May 2023. She alleges that the device’s defective design led to breakage beyond the strings, requiring multiple attempts to remove it and causing severe physical and emotional harm. The complaint asserts that Teva failed to provide adequate warnings about the risk of breakage and did not offer proper guidance on removal techniques, leading to prolonged pain, mental anguish, and damage to her reproductive health.

A discovery dispute arose as defendants requested more time to respond to contention interrogatories, proposing a delay until the pretrial conference. Plaintiffs opposed the request, emphasizing the need for timely responses to advance case preparation.

The MDL judge granted the defendants an extension but did not allow a delay until the pretrial conference. Instead, the court paused the defendants’ obligation to respond and will reassess the issue at the next discovery conference.

As of January 2025, the Paragard multidistrict litigation (MDL) continues to progress, with 20 new cases added in December. This brings the total number of pending cases to 2,882, indicating that the litigation has reached a mature stage with fewer new claims being filed.

In January 2025, a federal judge in Houston will decide whether to approve Johnson & Johnson’s bankruptcy plan, which aims to efficiently resolve the ongoing claims after previous failed attempts in New Jersey. Many plaintiffs are growing increasingly frustrated with the prolonged process.

On November 14, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice, through the U.S. Trustee, raised objections to Johnson & Johnson’s choice of Jones Day as counsel for its subsidiary, Red River Talc LLC, in its bankruptcy case. The objection was based on a potential conflict of interest, as Jones Day was instrumental in developing the controversial “Texas Two-Step” strategy, which allows companies to create a subsidiary burdened with liabilities and file for bankruptcy, protecting the parent company’s assets from mass tort claims. This development raises questions about future regulatory oversight, especially with the potential shift in focus under a new administration, which might deprioritize aggressive intervention in corporate restructuring cases like this one.

As of December 3, 2024, the bankruptcy judge has decided to keep the baby powder lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson on hold until mid-March. This delay provides the company time to continue pursuing its bankruptcy strategy, which aims to resolve tens of thousands of injury claims permanently. 

During a recent hearing, the judge ruled against expanding the litigation freeze to include other entities allegedly involved, and also opted not to lift the block to allow some cases to proceed. Johnson & Johnson is proposing to settle the claims by paying over $8 billion through a corporate entity it created specifically for this purpose, which would file for bankruptcy and absorb the lawsuits.

The upcoming bankruptcy hearing on February 18, 2025, will be crucial in determining whether Johnson & Johnson’s proposed $10 billion bankruptcy plan can move forward. The company is using a controversial legal strategy called the Texas two-step, which aims to limit its liability for cancer claims while protecting its financial interests. 

Some victims support this approach for quicker compensation, while others argue it unfairly prioritizes the company’s needs over justice for those harmed. The hearing follows a significant Supreme Court ruling in Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy, which could impact the legality of J&J’s plan. This case may lead to justice for many victims or result in further delays, with appeals potentially extending the legal battle.