Johnson & Johnson Puts Money Aside for Talc Verdict

In a securities filing in February 2021, Johnson & Johnson announced that it had set aside nearly $4 billion in litigation expenses in 2020 “primarily associated with talc-related reserves and certain settlements.” There are more than 25,000 talcum powder lawsuits nationwide based on claims that talcum powder products caused their ovarian cancer. The majority of the talcum powder lawsuits are pending in the multidistrict litigation in the New Jersey federal court. However, there are also state court cases ongoing in New Jersey, Missouri, and California. 

This information comes to light after a $4.7 billion verdict (later reduced to $2.1 billion) was awarded to 22 women who alleged that Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder caused their ovarian cancer. 

The 2018 $4.7 billion verdict was cut by the Missouri Court of Appeals in June 2020 because the Court held the conduct of Johnson & Johnson’s subsidiary could not be imputed to Johnson & Johnson as a whole. However, the Missouri Appeals Court refused to completely overturn the verdict because the trial evidence demonstrated that Johnson & Johnson’s conduct “was outrageous.” 

Johnson & Johnson is currently appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court asking for the verdict to be thrown out entirely. 

Despite pulling talc-based products from the U.S. and Canadian markets in May 2020 due to a decline in consumer demand and “misinformation” about the safety of the products, Johnson & Johnson still contends that their talc products are safe.

What Does This Mean?

This news does not mean that there is a settlement for the talcum powder litigation; however, it does mean that Johnson & Johnson has been putting money aside in anticipation of potentially resolving cases.

How GoldenbergLaw Can Help

If you or a loved one developed ovarian cancer after using Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products, contact the Minnesota Talcum Powder Attorneys at GoldenbergLaw today for a free consultation. We have provided the Gold standard of advocacy for more than thirty years, and you can leave the sleepless nights to us!

Bayer Proposes $2 Billion Settlement for Future Roundup Cancer Cases

Bayer’s Proposed Settlement

In February 2021, German company Bayer AG proposed a $2 billion settlement to cover future claims brought by individuals who are diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after being exposed to Roundup. The proposal comes as Bayer has struggled to finalize the settlement of claims that Monsanto’s weedkiller Roundup caused numerous plaintiffs’ non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. 

The proposed plan will be implemented over four years to provide compensation, outreach to potential victims, diagnostic assistance, and free legal aid for those who have been exposed to Roundup. There will also be compensation options available for individuals who are diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after the initial four-year period and funding set aside for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma research. As part of the settlement proposal, Bayer will ask permission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to add a reference link to scientific studies and information to consumers on Roundup labels. 

Future claimants could receive up to $200,000 under the proposed settlement, and the parties can agree to extend the four-year settlement period. Anyone who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after exposure to Roundup and is not satisfied with their compensation offer under the settlement agreement can go to court and try for a better result independently. 

However, the settlement agreement must be approved by the multidistrict litigation’s U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco in order to take effect.

Previous Settlement Proposals

In June 2020, Bayer announced a potential $10 billion settlement plan in an attempt to settle the majority of the roughly 125,000 claims against Roundup. 

Also in June 2020, Judge Chhabria questioned the legality and fairness of a prior settlement plan from Bayer which envisioned creating a panel of scientists who would make decisions on the legitimacy of future claims. Judge Chhabria was concerned about whether future class members would have sufficient opportunities to decide if it was in their best interest to join the settlement plan. Additionally, only $1.25 billion was allocated for future Roundup claims in that proposed settlement plan. 

Experts are skeptical about whether the revised settlement proposal will win over Judge Chhabria. Despite the proposed amount being larger than the previous $1.25 billion settlement offer, University of Richmond School of Law professor Carl Tobias questioned its effectiveness: “I don’t know if the money is right, whether that is enough. And I still wonder about future claims, how many there are going to be and when they are going to be and how they are going to be taken care of.” 

Jury Verdicts Against Roundup

In August 2018, a California federal jury awarded plaintiff Edwin Hardeman $80 million. However, the award was later reduced by the judge to $25 million. 

State court juries in San Francisco and Oakland also awarded large verdicts to the plaintiffs in the amounts of $289 million and $2 billion after a trial over whether glyphosate caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the plaintiffs and whether Monsanto deliberately failed to warn the public about the health risks of Roundup. However, both of those verdicts were reduced after trial to $78.5 million and $87 million. A California appellate panel further reduced the $78.5 million verdict to $20.4 million. 

Roundup settlement talks began in earnest after the substantial jury awards for the plaintiffs.

Background on Roundup

Roundup litigation began in 2015 and was consolidated into a multidistrict litigation after the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer deemed the active ingredient in Roundup (glyphosate) a probable human carcinogen. Bayer inherited the Roundup litigation after acquiring Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion. 

Roundup was first brought to market by Monsanto in 1974, and is still widely used by farmers throughout the United States. In the 1990s, there was a dramatic increase in use of Roundup when Monsanto introduced “Roundup Ready” plants that had been genetically altered to resist herbicide. That combination allowed farmers to kill weeds without harming their crops. However, experts and plaintiffs’ attorneys contend that the innovation came at a high cost to public health, especially to farmers and landscapers. 

The plaintiffs’ attorneys have alleged that Monsanto knew of the health risks associated with Roundup since the 1990s when studies emerged showing a correlation between the product and lymphoma. According to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, due to Monsanto downplaying the scientific studies and refusing to put a warning label on the weedkiller, farmers and landscapers used the product thinking it was safe. Despite the Roundup litigation, glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) will remain on the market.

GoldenbergLaw Can Help

If you or a loved one was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after being exposed to Roundup, contact the Minnesota Roundup Cancer Attorneys at GoldenbergLaw. We have over thirty years of experience providing the Gold standard of advocacy. Contact us today and leave the sleepless nights to us.

Penumbra Jet 7 Xtra Flex Catheter Recall

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced today that Penumbra has recalled all units of the Penumbra Reperfusion Catheter with Xtra Flex Technology (Jet 7 Xtra Flex) due to increased risk of serious injury and death while removing blood clots in stroke patients.

Free Consultation

The Penumbra Jet 7 catheter recall comes after the FDA received over 200 medical device reports detailing issues with the catheter, including serious injuries such as hemorrhages, blood vessel damage, and death. Twenty of these reports involve patient deaths in procedures in which the catheter was used. The recalled JET 7 Xtra Flex catheter was intended to be used to remove blood clots in the brains of patients who have suffered acute ischemic strokes.

According to the FDA’s recall announcement, Penumbra’s testing found that the distal tip of the Jet 7 Xtra Flex catheter is not able to withstand the same burst pressures to failure as the manufacturer’s other catheters also used to remove clots in stroke patients. As a result, the Jet 7 Xtra Flex catheter can balloon, expand, rupture, break, or completely separate in the middle of surgery. Such product failure may lead to catastrophic injuries.

Injuries associated with the Penumbra Jet 7 Xtra Flex Catheter Recall include:

  • Brain Bleeds
  • Hemorrhagic Strokes
  • Blood Vessel Damage
  • Death

Contact GoldenbergLaw

The catheter recall attorneys at GoldenbergLaw are currently representing individuals and the families of individuals who have suffered serious injuries or death due to the Penumbra Jet 7 Xtra Flex catheter. Contact us today for a free Penumbra Jet 7 lawsuit consultation. We have over 30 years of experience litigating defective medical device cases and have recovered tens of millions of dollars for our clients. Let us deliver the Gold standard advocacy you deserve.