| Read Time: < 1 minute | Defective Consumer Devices

California Firefighters Sue Chemical Manufacturers

49 active and retired firefighters in San Jose, California filed two lawsuits against major chemical manufacturers like 3M and DuPont. The firefighters accuse the manufacturers of knowingly providing them with gear and substances that contain harmful per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS. PFAS are linked to cancer and various other health conditions. The firefighters believe they deserve compensation for their interaction with the harmful substance. Source: San Jose Spotlight

Continue Reading

| Read Time: < 1 minute | Defective Consumer Devices

Study Shows Little Advancement in Current Mesothelioma Treatments

A recent study out of Canada highlights the lack of advancement in treatment for pleural mesothelioma. Diagnosis with the cancer, caused by exposure to asbestos, typically leads to survival expectancies of nine to 10 months. Treatment to extend survival time is a main advancement the study shows has not come to fruition.  The study reviewed three types of treatment for mesothelioma: Indwelling pleural catheters, Chemotherapy, and Surgery. While the study determined a lack of advancement in these treatment methods, it also stated that immunotherapy could be a promising future treatment. Source: asbestos.com

Continue Reading

| Read Time: 3 minutes | Personal Injury

Do I Need an Indiana Personal Injury Attorney?

If you’ve been injured in Indiana due to someone else’s negligence or wrongdoing, you may be considering legal action in the form of a personal injury claim. Part of that consideration involves the question of whether you need a personal injury lawyer. Do I Really Need an Indiana Personal Injury Attorney? You are not legally required to have an attorney represent you in a personal injury claim. You are free to file all of the necessary paperwork and represent yourself in the matter. However, your chances of winning your case and obtaining fair compensation are much greater if you hire an experienced personal injury attorney. A personal injury attorney will use their knowledge and skills to fight for your rights and just compensation. You can feel confident knowing that your attorney is working diligently on your behalf. Why Should You Hire an Indiana Personal Injury Lawyer? After an accident, seeking compensation for your injuries can be stressful and time-consuming. Having a personal injury attorney on your side will give you peace of mind and allow you to focus on your recovery. There are various steps to handling a personal injury claim, and your attorney will take care of every complex detail you don’t want to deal with. Personal injury lawyers will handle all aspects of your case from start to finish. Having the help of an attorney can be extremely beneficial for many reasons, including: Gathering relevant evidence and documentation; Determining who’s at fault; Calculating damages; Interviewing witnesses;  Dealing with the insurance company; and Engaging in settlement negotiations. Personal injury claims can be challenging to navigate, especially if you are inexperienced. A personal injury lawyer will take care of everything, easing your worry and stress. What Makes a Good Personal Injury Attorney? When it comes time to pick a personal injury attorney, you will have plenty of options. Still, not every lawyer will be right for you. It is important to look for specific characteristics and attributes when looking for the right personal injury attorney. They Are Knowledgeable and Experienced First and foremost, it is crucial to look for an attorney with extensive experience handling personal injury claims. Personal injury is a unique area of law, and not just any attorney can handle your case. It is essential to have an attorney that fully understands the laws pertaining to personal injury. They Have Glowing Reviews When a client is happy, they will want to tell the world about their excellent experience. Look for an attorney with past clients willing to share their experiences and speak candidly about the attorney. Good reviews from happy clients are always a good sign and can give you a great idea of what you can expect. They Have Past Successes Attorneys will often want to share results from previous cases. These past successes are typically on the attorney’s website. While no two personal injury cases are alike, this shows the attorney is open and honest about past cases and has the ability to handle a case successfully. They Are Communicative Personal injury cases can be confusing and frustrating. You don’t want to find yourself in the middle of your lawsuit, unable to reach your attorney, wondering what is going on with your case. A good attorney will be open and communicative. They will keep you informed along the way and make you feel comfortable and assured. You Feel Confident About Them It’s so important to consult with any potential attorney before committing to them. This initial meeting will allow you to speak to the attorney and get to know them while having any questions answered. Ask yourself what is most important to you in regards to your attorney. Then, after your consultation, determine whether the attorney checks all those boxes. You will be working with your personal injury attorney for some time, so you must hire an attorney you like and feel good about. Contact a Personal Injury Attorney at Gerling Law Today Gerling Law has over 50 years of experience working with injured clients in Indiana and Kentucky. We understand better than anyone the hassle and aggravation that personal injury claims can bring, and we’re here to help in any way we can. We strive to put clients and their needs first, fighting aggressively for their rights and never backing down. Our team offers free case evaluations. We’re ready to hear your story. Contact us today.

Continue Reading

| Read Time: < 1 minute | Defective Consumer Devices

Conwed Co. Under Scrutiny for Minnesota Plant Conditions That Caused Mesothelioma

Many families are filing lawsuits against Conwed Co. for exposure to asbestos in a Cloquet, Minnesota plant. One widow, June Ulvi, lost her husband to mesothelioma in 2010 after he worked in the plan for 30 years. Jim Ulvi is one of 39 former plant workers diagnosed with the deadly cancer. The Ulvi’s filed a lawsuit before Jim died and received a settlement, however, June said the money was not enough to right the wrong that Conwed committed. Source: The Bemidji Pioneer

Continue Reading

| Read Time: 3 minutes | Dangerous Drugs

Zantac Lawsuit Attorneys for Plaintiffs Who Have Taken Ranitidine (Generic Zantac) Use Recent Supreme Court Decision To Support Their Claim

May 5, 2021 — Plaintiffs in the Zantac multidistrict litigation are utilizing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Ford Motor Co v. Montana Eighth District. The March 25 decision in the Ford case held that state courts in Montana and Minnesota had jurisdiction over product liability claims against Ford despite the company not directly selling the defective vehicles in the states. Ford argued that in-state residents who were affected by crashes in Montana and Minnesota were not permitted to sue in their own state courts because Ford did not design, manufacture or sell the allegedly defective vehicles there. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Ford’s argument and ruled that, because Ford was very active in selling vehicles in the two states, Montana and Minnesota state courts had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs’ cases.  Justice Elena Kagan stated in the court’s majority opinion that plaintiffs only need to show a connection between their lawsuit and the defendant’s actions in their state.  Ford had argued that the plaintiffs needed to show that the defendant’s actions in their state had caused their injuries.  The decision is popular and has already been cited in 31 cases, mainly to clarify the jurisdiction issue. Zantac lawsuit lawyers for plaintiffs, specifically those who took a generic version of Zantac (ranitidine), are also seizing the opportunity to use the recent ruling to their advantage.  The plaintiffs have faced a similar jurisdictional challenge that the Ford plaintiffs battled in the states of California and Massachusetts.  They argued in a brief filed on April 23, 2021 in West Palm Beach, Florida that the “law has been entirely overruled by Ford,” referring specifically to the 11th U.S. Court of Appeals but-for rule. Both Massachusetts and California have “innovator liability” laws that allow people who have taken generic versions of a drug to claim that the drug’s originators misrepresented risks in the drug’s labels.  The supreme courts of both states allowed claims under the laws which resulted in 2017’s T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp in California and 2018’s Rafferty v. Merck & Co Inc in Massachusetts. Despite those laws seeming to favor the Zantac plaintiffs, U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg, the judge over the Zantac MDL, dismissed the plaintiffs’ innovator liability claims in December 2020 on jurisdictional grounds.  Rosenberg cited a 2018 precedent from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Waite v. All Acquisition Corp, stating that personal injury plaintiffs who are asserting specific jurisdiction are required to show that the defendant’s actions within the court’s home state directly led to the alleged injury.  The judge stated that the plaintiffs did not claim a causal link between their claims and the marketing activities in both California and Massachusetts by name-brand Zantac defendants. Judge Rosenberg allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint so that they could claim that the actions taken by the name-brand Zantac defendants in California and Massachusetts caused the plaintiffs to take the generic form of Zantac called ranitidine.  The new complaint explained that the marketing in the two states led to a higher demand for Zantac, and in turn caused higher sales of the generic version. On March 24, one day before the Supreme Court ruled on the Ford case, name-brand defendants Pfizer Inc, GlaxoSmithKline Plc, Sanofi SA, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Patheon NV moved to dismiss the amended claim.  They argued that they did not affect the introduction of ranitidine into the marketplace.  In the defendant’s brief, they said, “In short, while California and Massachusetts may choose to adopt their own novel tort principles governing companies based there, due process forbids them from applying those laws extraterritorially to hold the out-of-state brand-name manufacturers liable for the sales of other companies’ products.”  They continued with, “Plaintiffs’ highly attenuated theory of liability leaves them with no basis for specific jurisdiction.” The plaintiffs argued the opposite.  They claimed that the Ford decision requires plaintiffs to show that a defendant conducted business within the jurisdiction and that the plaintiff’s lawsuit relates to the defendant’s actions within the jurisdiction. The plaintiffs said that there is no doubt that name-brand defendants were involved in marketing in California and Massachusetts.  According to the plaintiffs’ application of the Ford decision, the defendants did not need to directly sell ranitidine in order to relate to the plaintiffs’ claims and hold responsibility for the failure to warn about both Zantac and ranitidine’s carcinogenic risk. Reference:  Frankel, Alison. “Zantac Generics Plaintiffs Hope SCOTUS Ford Decision Rescues Claims against Brand-Name Makers.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 27 Apr. 2021, www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-zantac-idUSKBN2CE2NX.

Continue Reading

| Read Time: 2 minutes | Defective Medical Devices

Bayer Pays Roundup Plaintiff To Appeal Case

In an attempt to get a case to the Supreme Court, Bayer AG has entered into a deal with Georgia doctor John Carson where he is required to appeal his Roundup case and continue fighting against the company. Carson sued Bayer in 2017, and after Judge R. Stan Baker in Savannah did not throw the case out at the company’s request, litigation moved forward.  Baker decided in December 2020 that Bayer had no duty to warn Roundup users about its cancer risk because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had approved the product’s label.  Other U.S judges have rejected this type of claim, known as a preemption claim. For Judge Baker’s decision to impact other  Roundup lawsuit cases, Bayer needs a federal appeals court to agree.  The company entered into a settlement with John Carson’s lawyer, Ashleigh Madison, in order to ensure that Carson appeals.  Bayer will be paying Carson as long as he follows through with appealing the preemptive question to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta.  Carson must also surrender any claims that he won. Bayer defends its settlement, explaining in a statement that it will pay Carson an undisclosed sum.  However, Carson will receive more money if he wins on appeal according to court records. “The parties have reached an agreement to resolve the Carson case on confidential terms contingent on the outcome of future appellate review of the district court’s dismissal of his failure-to-warn claims on federal preemption grounds,” Bayer said. If Bayer succeeds in Atlanta and then has a case heard by the Supreme Court, the company could potentially save hundreds of millions of dollars.  The Supreme Court is likely to only hear Bayer’s case if there is a contradictory decision in a different appeals court.  Before any of this can occur, Bayer must first win in Atlanta.  The company has shown confidence in its argument, stating in a legal brief that laws and regulations “make clear” that the EPA’s approval of a Roundup label without a warning should decide the case. A Loyola Law School professor, Adam Zimmerman, also agrees that a favorable Supreme Court ruling on preemption could curb the steady stream of Roundup lawsuits. “If you win on preemption, and you win at the Supreme Court, that’s a win that works in federal court, in different circuits and across the state courts in a way that can finally bring an end to a significant piece of the litigation,” Zimmerman said. Madison has declined to comment, and Carson has not returned calls to his office. Reportedly Madison has shared with other lawyers that the settlement is the “best possible outcome” for Carson and that, under the deal’s terms, the appeal is in his “best interest.” Reference:  Joel Rosenblatt. “Bayer Deal Pays Roundup Plaintiff to Keep Fighting in Court.” Bloomberg, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-21/bayer-deal-pays-roundup-plaintiff-to-keep-fighting-it-in-court.

Continue Reading

| Read Time: 2 minutes | Defective Consumer Devices

Roundup Lawsuit Lawyers Fight Back Against Corrupt Bayer Deal

May 4, 2021 — After Bayer AG entered into a deal with a plaintiff to keep him fighting the company in court, lawyers for the tens of thousands of other plaintiffs in the Roundup multidistrict litigation are calling out the company’s ill-intentioned move. Bayer is striving to attain a favorable ruling in the Roundup lawsuit litigation that claims exposure to its glyphosate-based herbicide leads to non- Hodgkin’s lymphoma.  The most recent step taken toward the company’s goal was entering into a deal with Georgia doctor, John Carson.  Bayer’s strategy is to win a decision from the Supreme Court that would undermine a key claim in the Roundup lawsuits and stop any more cancer cases from piling on top of the ones the company has already had to answer to. Bayer defended its deal, informing the court that the structure of the accord has been approved by other appeals courts. “The company has been completely transparent about its desire to appeal Roundup failure-to-warn cases on federal preemption grounds, and this settlement, which the plaintiff voluntarily agreed to, is an appropriate path for such an appeal,” the company said in a statement.   Roundup plaintiffs’ lawyers did not agree.  In a letter they penned to an Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals on April 20, 2021, they wrote that Bayer’s actions were a manufactured “pay-to-appeal scheme” that will erode the U.S. system of justice if it’s permitted.  They also stated that, “The court should reject this brazen manipulation of our judicial system.” While Bayer disclosed a few details of the deal in a notice to the Atlanta court, it did not mention what the plaintiffs’ lawyers described as an onerous $100,000 penalty Carson is required to pay if he backs out of his appeal.  Bayer’s omission is described in the letter to be “on its face misleading, and speaks to the deceptive nature of this appeal.”  The letter illustrates the insidious plan by explaining that Bayer is “paying Carson to appeal and then threatening him if he does not follow through,” according to the letter. Carson has not responded to requests for comment and his lawyer, Ashleigh Madison, has declined to comment. The case is Carson v. Monsanto Co., 21-10994, occurring in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit (Atlanta). Bayer has offered to pay up to $11.6 billion to resolve existing Roundup lawsuits from approximately 125,000 consumers in the U.S. and future claims. New lawsuits are being filed almost every day. Reference:  Rosenblat, Joel. “Plaintiff Lawyers Accuse Bayer of ‘Pay to Appeal Scheme’ in Roundup Litigation.” Insurance Journal, 23 Apr. 2021, www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2021/04/23/611263.htm.

Continue Reading

| Read Time: < 1 minute | Defective Consumer Devices

Over 40,000 Roundup Lawsuit Claims Still Unresolved

May 4, 2021 — The multidistrict litigation (MDL) handling the lawsuits against Bayer Monsanto Roundup is teeming with over 40,000 unresolved claims that plaintiffs have developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma after exposure to the herbicide.  In re: Bayer Roundup Products Liability Litigation is seeing more plaintiffs decide to take their cases to trial because Bayer’s settlement offers are insufficient in providing the fair compensation they deserve.  Additionally, the Big Pharma company is falling under fire for its proposed settlement framework.  Roundup Lawsuit Attorneys charge that there is not clear guidance within the framework making it especially confusing and unreliable which results in particularly harsh treatment to the vulnerable who are suffering from the brutal fallout from cancer. Recently, Roundup Lawsuit lawyers have filed motions for clients with non-Hodgkins lymphoma looking to throw out a proposed settlement to the MDL, which would allow Roundup maker Bayer AG to continue selling the herbicide and protect it from future cancer lawsuits.  Instead of resolving all the lawsuits together, the settlement allows Bayer’s lawyers to negotiate individually with each law firm. So far, the juries of three different Roundup trials have delivered multimillion-dollar verdicts against Bayer AG. Reference:  “More than 40,000 Cancer Claims Remain Unresolved from Proposed Bayer Monsanto Roundup Weed Killer Lawsuit Settlement.” PR Newswire, Cision, 26 Apr. 2021, www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/more-than-40-000-cancer-claims-remain-unresolved-from-proposed-bayer-monsanto-roundup-weed-killer-lawsuit-settlement-301276971.html.

Continue Reading

| Read Time: < 1 minute | Defective Consumer Devices

3M Plaintiffs Win $7.1 Million In First Trial

May 3, 2021 — As more than 230,000 veterans, current service members, and more users of 3M earplugs have filed claims stating that the earplugs have caused them significant hearing loss rather than protecting them from it, the verdict of the first 3M lawsuit to go to trial was highly anticipated.  The bellwether trial consolidated the lawsuits of three veterans and lasted for five weeks in the U.S. District Court in Pensacola, Florida under Judge M. Casey Rodgers.  On April 30, 2021, a federal jury found that 3M Co. failed to warn about defects in its product and awarded the veterans $7.1 million. Each veteran received $2.1 million in punitive damages and the veterans’ individual awards were $340,000, $320,000, and $160,000. A 3M spokeswoman stated that the company is in disagreement with the verdict, saying that the plaintiffs did not meet the burden of proving the “product was defectively or negligently designed.” She also informed that the company will consider “multiple grounds for appeal.” Attorneys for the veterans were just as confident, stating, “The evidence is clear: 3M knew their earplugs were defective, yet they allowed our service members to suffer these life-altering injuries.” The next bellwether trial begins May 17. Reference: Randazzo, Sara. 3M Loses First Trial Over Military Earplugs. 30 Apr. 2021, www.wsj.com/articles/3m-loses-first-trial-over-military-earplugs-11619809398.

Continue Reading

| Read Time: < 1 minute | Defective Medical Devices

Paragard Faces Lawsuits for Misinforming Patients of IUD Risks

Paragard is facing a growing number of lawsuits related to its IUD. In 2019, the U.S. F.D.A. informed the pharmaceutical company that its advertising was misleading and did not accurately inform patients of side effects. Multiple women have filed lawsuits against Paragard for not informing them of potential health issues, including: Uterine perforation, Ectopic pregnancy, and Pelvic inflammatory disease. Many of these lawsuits were consolidated into multidistrict litigation in 2020. Source: Legal Examiner

Continue Reading