Recent massive plaintiff-favored verdicts in Roundup lawsuits may pressurize Bayer to settle the rest of the claims!
As of January 2024, there have been significant developments in the ongoing Roundup lawsuits, primarily focusing on claims that the weed killer, particularly its active ingredient glyphosate, is linked to cancer, specifically non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
In October 2023, a St. Louis jury awarded a plaintiff $1.25 million, finding Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup, did not adequately warn about the product’s risks, which allegedly led to the plaintiff’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Additionally, a Philadelphia jury recently awarded a substantial verdict of $175 million in a similar lawsuit. These verdicts have marked a change in the tide of Roundup litigation, shifting momentum towards the plaintiffs after a series of defense victories for Monsanto in previous trials.
In a case involving Mike Dennis, who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and attributed it to glyphosate exposure, a jury awarded him $7 million in compensatory damages and $325 million in punitive damages, though Bayer, Monsanto’s parent company, plans to appeal.
A class action lawsuit in Australia is examining the link between Roundup and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This judge-only trial could provide a new perspective and may influence Roundup lawsuits in the U.S.
Bayer has settled around 100,000 Roundup lawsuits, paying out more than $11 billion. These settlements represent about 80% of all claims over Roundup weed killer, but approximately 40,000 lawsuits remain actively pending.
The Roundup Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) was settled for around $10 billion in 2020, which included $1.25 billion for future Roundup cases. Despite these Roundup settlements, more individuals continue to file lawsuits, and the litigation is ongoing.
Several scientific studies have linked glyphosate exposure to cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. This has prompted regulatory scrutiny, with agencies like the FDA and EPA being ordered by courts to reevaluate their findings on glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential.
In a Missouri trial, Monsanto’s representative conceded that studies indicating chromosome damage were predominantly carried out by independent researchers, as opposed to company-funded research claiming no chromosomal harm.
Court of Appeals, which overturned the EPA’s stance that glyphosate isn’t likely carcinogenic to humans. This led to the FDA retracting its initial position on glyphosate’s non-carcinogenic nature and promising a more thorough evaluation.
There have been debates over the statute of limitations, with plaintiffs arguing that the clock should start ticking not when the harm occurs but when they become aware of it.
These developments reflect a dynamic and evolving legal situation, with significant implications for both plaintiffs and the defendant companies. The Roundup lawsuits highlight the complex interplay between scientific research, legal strategy, and corporate accountability in public health issues.
These updates highlight the complex and evolving nature of the Roundup litigation, indicating a shift in legal strategies and growing global attention to the potential health risks associated with glyphosate-based products.
Learn about the Batiste dry shampoo lawsuit regarding high benzene levels. Explore eligibility for compensation and stay informed on consumer rights. Read the article to know more.
Dry shampoo, a popular cleansing and styling product, has become a go-to solution for instantly refreshing greasy and oily hair while also adding volume. However, recent developments surrounding Batiste, a prominent product in the haircare industry, raise concerns and offer potential compensation for consumers.
Church & Dwight Co., the owner of Batiste, has agreed to a substantial $2.5 million settlement in response to a Batiste class-action lawsuit. The Batiste dry shampoo lawsuit alleges that Batiste’s dry shampoos contain elevated levels of the carcinogenic compound benzene, posing potential risks to consumers. This settlement brings attention to an issue in the industry, with several companies recalling dry shampoos due to benzene concerns in recent years.
In the lawsuit, Batiste is not the only one; other major haircare brands, including The Procter & Gamble Company and Unilever, have faced similar issues, prompting recalls of products from popular lines such as Pantene, Aussie, Dove, and TRESemmé. The common thread in these cases is the presence of benzene, a chemical known for its carcinogenic properties.
The scrutiny of Batiste intensified in 2022 when an independent laboratory, Valisure, conducted extensive testing on over a hundred samples from 34 different dry shampoo product brands, including Batiste. The findings were alarming: 70% of the samples tested contained benzene levels exceeding the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) limit of two parts per million (ppm). Specifically, a bottle of Batiste Dry Shampoo was found to contain a staggering 15 ppm of benzene, well above the regulatory limit.
Customers who purchased specific Batiste dry shampoo products, namely Batiste Bare, Clean, or Batiste Light Bare, before May 30, 2023, may qualify for compensation. Additionally, individuals who bought other Batiste products may also be eligible. While proof of purchase is not mandatory, providing a receipt can lead to a higher payout.
Affected consumers can receive reimbursement through either a cash payment or a voucher. Those without proof of purchase can receive $2 per product for up to five products, with a maximum payment of $10.
The potential health risks associated with benzene in these haircare products underscore the importance of being vigilant about the ingredients in personal care items. If you’ve purchased Batiste dry shampoo within the specified timeframe, exploring your eligibility for compensation can be a prudent step in ensuring consumer rights are protected.
Discover the process of In Vitro Fertilization, CooperSurgical’s products, and the lawsuits centered on CooperSurgical IVF solutions. Learn more about CooperSurgical IVF lawsuits in this article.
In vitro fertilization is referred to as IVF. It’s among the forms of assisted reproductive technology (ART) that are more known. In order to help sperm fertilize an egg and aid the fertilized egg’s implantation in the uterus, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) employs a combination of medications and surgical techniques.
In the IVF procedure, a woman’s eggs are removed and subsequently fertilized with sperm to produce a healthy embryo that is inserted into the uterus. Often, the embryos must be stored for a while before being implanted, and in these situations, they need to be carefully maintained.
The firm CooperSurgical Fertility is well-known for its work in reproductive genetics and IVF. It provides a large selection of assisted reproductive technologies and services.
An “Urgent Media Recall: Field Safety Notice” was released by CooperSurgical on December 5, 2023, concerning its “LifeGlobal global® Media” lot numbers 231020-018741, 231020-018742, and 231020-018743. According to the recall notice, CooperSurgical has been notified of a concerning “sudden increase” in the number of complaints from the media regarding these specific batches.
CooperSurgical is in the middle of a legal storm due to recent developments in Los Angeles. Two Los Angeles couples who claim that their embryos were destroyed because of a solution made for IVF treatments have filed lawsuits against the firm. CooperSurgical Fertility is a company well known for IVF and reproductive genetics. It offers a wide range of products and services for assisted reproductive technology (ART).
These couples had started the difficult process of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) in order to realize their goal of becoming parents. Adam Wolf, an attorney, was their representative. Sadly, their hopes were dashed when, after being exposed to CooperSurgical’s embryo culture solution, their embryos failed to develop. It is appropriate to hold the company responsible for the loss of embryos from CooperSurgical embryo culture media. By making them accountable for the harm they have caused, filing a CooperSurgical IVF lawsuit ensures that justice is done.
The firm was accused of negligence in a number of areas, including the distribution, production, and marketing of the embryo media, in the CooperSurgical IVF lawsuit. If the CooperSurgical embryo culture media has affected you, it is important to speak with knowledgeable attorneys about your situation and your legal options.
Combat Arms earplugs were produced and provided by Aearo Technologies Inc. and its parent company, 3M Company, between 2003 and 2015. The purpose of the earplugs was to shield service members’ ears from the high decibel sounds that are a part of military training and warfare.
Discover 3M earplug lawsuit settlements and bellwether verdicts, and learn why veterans file lawsuits over 3M. Read the article to know more about the recent settlements.
Regretfully, recent legal proceedings indicate that the earplugs frequently fell loose, leaving numerous soldiers vulnerable to tinnitus and/or permanent hearing loss. One of the most prevalent disabilities among military personnel is hearing loss. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reports that among American veterans, hearing issues rank as the most common service-related condition. More than 2.3 million veterans were receiving compensation for tinnitus, and over 1.3 million veterans were receiving disability benefits for hearing loss as of 2020.
Courts frequently combine similar product-use claims into MDLs in order to improve organization and the judicial economy. Test trials that serve as indicators for upcoming cases are known as bellwether trials.
The initial trials yielded mixed results, with around two to one in favor of the plaintiffs and one in favor of the defendant (3M). There was a $13 million plaintiff’s verdict in November of 2021. There was a $22.5 million verdict in December of 2021. January saw more favorable decisions, including a startling $110 million award in a case involving two plaintiffs. A jury gave a single plaintiff $50 million at the end of March, and another case resulted in an $8 million decision. Ten of the sixteen cases that 3M has tried since 2019 have resulted in losses.
On August 29, 2023, 3M agreed to pay $6 billion to resolve the 3M earplug lawsuit. This sum would be distributed over six years, until 2029, and would consist of $5 billion in stock and $1 billion in 3M shares.
Depending on the severity of their injuries, each veteran may get an average payout of up to $25,000 if the 3M earplug lawsuit settlement is accepted by the huge class of plaintiffs.
The purpose of the earplugs was to shield service members’ ears from the high decibel sounds that are a part of military training and warfare.
The 3M earplug products liability lawsuit is the largest mass tort multidistrict lawsuit in U.S. history, with almost 240,000 veterans suing the company.
Abiomed Impella heart pump lawsuits stirrup controversy in the U.S. Impella heart pumps are designed to help the heart to recover while recuperating from injuries by assisting with the pumping function. Impella heart pump is a percutaneous catheter that is intended to help people with heart diseases by supporting heart in pumping blood.
The heart pump is inserted through a small incision and placed into the heart. The heart pump sucks blood from the left ventricle and pushes it into the aorta. This process maintains the blood flow to the various organs.
Though Impella is claimed to provide support for people with heart complications, it has some defects too. In some cases, it results in frequent cannula dislodgement or device fracture leading to complications from broken pieces entering the blood stream harming the organs.
Johnson & Johnson MedTech acquired Abiomed for $16.6 billion in 2022. They manufacture devices like Impella 2.5, Impella CP, Impella CP with SmartAssist, Impella 5.0, Impella LD, Impella 5.5 with Smart Assist, Impella RP, Impella RP Flex, and Impella RP Flex with SmartAssist.
Complications of Impella heart pumps like bleeding atrial fibrillation, cardiogenic shock, insertion site infection, device failure, perforation, blood clots, vascular injury and death in some cases have stirred controversy.
On April 17, 2023, Abiomed initiated a recall of its Impella 5.5® with SmartAssist® System following complaints from consumers. Around 500 devices were recalled due to damage to the purge sidearm leading to purge fluid, pump stopping its function and failing to render the support to the patient.
The FDA issued a Class I recall on Impella heart pump of around 8,000 units, distributed from May 1, 2021, to the present on June 14, 2023.
The left sided Impella heart pumps recalled for the risk of motor damage after contact with TAVR Stent shocked the consumers.
On June 29, 2023, again Abiomed recalled Impella RP Flex with SmartAssist devices due to purge fluid leak. It also recalled the labeling for the same product as the label did not provide proper warning about the blood clot risks.
Consumers who encountered injuries and loved one’s demise due to the device defect started suing Abiomed. Lawyers are investigating the issues around these heart pumps and the possibility of pursuing lawsuits.
Abiomed Impella heart pump lawsuits are still in the early stages and if more plaintiffs come forward to sue Abiomed, it can turn the wind in favor of the victims.