What is Pain and Suffering in a Lawsuit?

Lawsuits are very complicated, and each case is unique. To get the best outcome possible, you need to have an experienced legal team on your side. Here at GoldenbergLaw, we have more than 30 years of experience providing clients with the Gold standard of advocacy. We have the knowledge, expertise, and compassion to help you get justice. Contact us today for a free consultation! 

Pain and suffering in a lawsuit provides a plaintiff financial compensation for having to go through physical and mental suffering as a result of the defendant’s actions.

Physical Pain and Suffering

Physical pain and suffering involve injuries that limit one’s ability to move, coordinate actions, or perform daily living activities. It includes not only the physical effects the victim has already suffered but also the physical pain and suffering they are likely to endure in the future due to the defendant’s wrongdoing. 

Physical pain and suffering can include

  • Permanent damages or changes to the victim’s body 
  • Disfigurements
  • Scarring 
  • Back pain 
  • Traumatic brain injury 
  • Neck pain 
  • Broken bones
  • Internal organ damage
  • Nerve damage
  • Paralysis
  • Headaches
  • Pulled or strained muscles
  • Dislocated joints

Mental Pain and Suffering

Mental and emotional pain and suffering refer to any non-physical suffering that resulted from the defendant’s actions. It includes not only the mental effects the victim has already suffered but also the mental and emotional suffering they will likely endure in the future due to the defendant’s negligence. 

Mental pain and suffering can include

  • Fear
  • Insomnia
  • Grief
  • Worry
  • Anxiety
  • Depression
  • Inconvenience
  • Loss of enjoyment of life
  • Loss of consortium
  • Diminished quality of life
  • Distress
  • Embarrassment 
  • Humiliation 
  • Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

Proving Pain and Suffering

Pain and suffering needs to be proven. In order to do so, the extent of the victim’s injuries needs to be thoroughly documented. 

Ways to prove pain and suffering include: 

  • Medical records
  • Pharmacy records
  • Medical bills
  • Doctor’s notes
  • Therapist or mental health counselor’s notes 
  • Journals that document the victim’s pain 
  • Testimony from the victim about their physical pain, emotional trauma, and psychological harm as a result of their injuries 
  • Photographs of the victim’s injuries 
  • Videos of the victim’s injuries and daily life
  • Testimony from friends, family, and co-workers about how the particular injury has negatively impacted plaintiff’s life 
  • Testimony from third-party medical experts

How GoldenbergLaw Can Help You

If you or a loved one suffered harm as a result of someone else’s actions, you need a legal team with experience and compassion. We know that lawsuits are complex, and we want to help you navigate the process and achieve the outcome you deserve. Our team has more than 30 years of experience, and we will give you a free consultation of your potential case. Contact GoldenbergLaw today!

U.S. Supreme Court Refused to Hear Johnson & Johnson’s Appeal

On June 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would not hear Johnson & Johnson’s appeal of the $2.1 billion talcum powder verdict levied against them by a Missouri jury. 

Johnson & Johnson requested the U.S. Supreme Court hear their appeal and argued that their company did not get a fair trial when a Missouri jury awarded nearly $5 billion to 22 women who alleged that they developed ovarian cancer after using the company’s talcum powder products. The jury found that J&J’s talcum powder products contained asbestos and substantially contributed to the plaintiffs’ ovarian cancer diagnoses. The $5 billion award was later reduced to $2.1 billion. 

Ken Starr, an attorney for the plaintiffs, wrote in his brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that the Court should not review the case because Johnson & Johnson “knew for decades that their talc powders contained asbestos, a highly carcinogenic substance with no known safe exposure level. They could have protected customers by switching from talc to cornstarch, as their own scientists proposed as early as 1973. But talc was cheaper and petitioners were unwilling to sacrifice profits for a safer product.” 

The U.S. Supreme Court did not give an explanation for not taking the case, and Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh recused themselves from consideration of the case.

Johnson & Johnson’s Request to the U.S. Supreme Court

Johnson & Johnson argued that some women had genetic or family predisposition for cancer, while others did not. The company argued that putting the cases together confused the jury and blurred legal distinctions separate to each claim. 

Whether Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products cause cancer was not the issue the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to review. It had been asked to consider the company’s argument that Missouri courts unfairly combined cases of nearly two dozen women from several different states. 

Johnson & Johnson requested that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the case “to curb due-process abuses in mass-tort suits” and give corporate defendants the same rights to fair trial as everyone else. Johnson & Johnson also thought that the amount of punitive damages was too far out of line with actual or monetary damages. 

In response to the Supreme Court’s June 1 order, Johnson & Johnson said: “The matters that were before the court are related to legal procedure, and not safety. Decades of independent scientific evaluations confirm Johnson’s Baby Powder is safe, does not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer.”

How GoldenbergLaw Can Help You

If you or a loved one were diagnosed with ovarian cancer after using Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products, contact the Ovarian Cancer Attorneys at GoldenbergLaw. Our legal team has over 30 years of experience in providing clients the Gold standard of advocacy. Contact us today for a free consultation!

Bayer AG May End Residential Glyphosate Sales in the U.S.

In May 2021, Bayer AG announced that it may end residential glyphosate sales in the United States. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the popular weedkiller Roundup. The announcement came the day after U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria rejected Bayer AG’s $2 billion settlement proposal to cover future claims that Roundup exposure led to victims’ cancer. 

The $2 billion deal intended to cover two groups of Roundup users: those who have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma but have not filed a lawsuit yet, and users who have been exposed to Roundup but haven’t developed cancer yet. Regarding the second group, Judge Chhabria said that the deal was “clearly unreasonable” for them because, in order to receive compensation, victims would have to make two major sacrifices: 

First, although victims could opt out of the compensation program and file a lawsuit against Monsanto, the victims give up their right to seek punitive damages against the company. Given the amount of damages awarded in the three previous Roundup trials, that could be a lot of money for victims to give up. Second, the deal calls for a panel of scientists to determine whether Roundup causes cancer and the results could be used by either party. Monsanto likely wants the science panel because it lost the previous three trials and the issue of current expert testimony regarding Roundup causing cancer weighs heavily in the plaintiffs’ favor. 

Judge Chhabria commented: “The deal would substantially diminish the company’s settlement exposure and litigation exposure at the back end, eliminating punitive damages and potentially increasing its chances of winning trials on compensatory damages. It would accomplish far less for Roundup users who have not been diagnosed with NHL- and not nearly as much as attorneys pushing this deal contend.” 

After the federal judge’s ruling, Bayer AG said: “We have legal and commercial options that together will achieve a similar result in mitigating future litigation risk, and we will pursue them as quickly as possible. Significantly, the weight of scientific evidence and the conclusions of all expert regulators worldwide continue to support the safety of glyphosate-based herbicides.”

Roundup Lawsuits Mount

Bayer AG wants to end the years of litigation that have led to approximately 125,000 claims that Roundup has caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The $9.6 billion settlement announced in June 2020 intends to resolve 96,000 of those claims. 

Three cases have already gone to trial and each has spelled disaster for Bayer AG. In August 2018, a California state court awarded $289 million to school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson after determining that glyphosate caused his cancer. The jury determined that Monsanto had failed to adequately warn consumers about the risks. In March 2019, a jury in San Francisco federal court awarded Edwin Hardeman, a homeowner who used Roundup on his property, $80 million. In May 2019, a jury awarded more than $2 billion to Alva and Albert Piliod who argued that decades of Roundup usage caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Although all three monetary awards were later reduced by judges and Bayer AG has appealed the verdicts, the losses are still staggering for the company.

How GoldenbergLaw Can Help You

If you or a loved one developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using or being exposed to Roundup, contact the Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Attorneys at GoldenbergLaw. Our team has over 30 years of experience providing the Gold standard of advocacy to our clients.