What Happened In The MassTorts World Last Week? 2019-Jul-15

Plaintiff Claims That Recalled Valsartan Led To Liver Cancer

A plaintiff filed a lawsuit against generic drug makers of Valsartan in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that he was diagnosed with liver cancer due to its side effects.

According to the complaint filed, generic drug makers like Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical, Co., Princeton Pharmaceutical, Solco Healthcare, and Walgreens Boots Alliance were responsible for distributing contaminated blood pressure pills. The plaintiff indicated that he took generic valsartan-containing drugs (VCDs) in August 2016, for the treatment of high blood pressure and continued to take pills until July 2018, when it was discovered that the pills were contaminated with cancer-causing chemicals that were a byproduct of the manufacturing process.

The case joins a growing number of valsartan lawsuits filed in recent months by individuals indicating that they were left with a number of other types of cancer, including liver cancer, kidney cancer, gastric cancer, pancreatic cancer, and other injuries following exposure to NDMA or NDEA.

Valsartan claims are consolidated under MDL No. 2875 (In re Valsartan Products Liability Litigation) in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, presided by Judge Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J and Hon. Joel Schneider, U.S.M.J.

US Judge To Reduce $80M Jury Verdict in Roundup Lawsuit

During a court hearing on a lawsuit against Bayer’s Roundup herbicide, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria stated that he would reduce the $80m damage award against Bayer to $50m or less.

In the four-week trial, a federal jury on March 27 awarded $5 million in compensatory and $75 million in punitive damages to a plaintiff, who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2014. The U.S. Supreme court rulings limit the ratio of punitive damages. Judge Chhabria also stated that he also considered reducing the compensatory damages award as the plaintiff was in full remission and unlikely to suffer as much as he had in the past.

Bayer had asked Judge Chhabria to completely reverse the jury verdict in the plaintiff’s case as the scientific evidence and assessments have found glyphosate safe. Bayer and its Monsanto subsidiary, which was acquired one year ago, now face more than 15,000 Roundup lawsuits. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria is presiding over all the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2741; In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation) in the Northern District of California.

Oklahoma Pins Johnson & Johnson For Opioid Epidemic

In the Oklahoma state lawsuit against opioid manufacturers, Purdue Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals, the state's attorney general (AG) secured $355M from the two defendants.

The state has now proposed a $17.5 billion abatement plan to abate the problem over the next 30 years from Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals, by the AG characterizing them as the "kingpin" of an epidemic responsible for nearly 7,000 deaths of Oklahoma residents.

The AG claimed that Johnson & Johnson is to be blamed for the Oklahoma opioid epidemic, while he is facing criticism from some of his own Republican colleagues about his team's deal-making and go-it-alone style.

The state's $355M deal with Purdue and Teva both faced criticism from lawmakers, who were left out on the settlement discussions and wanted to be responsible for dispersing funds. The AG proposed the $200 million settlement from Purdue to be sent to a trust to fund an addiction studies center at Oklahoma State University in Tulsa; however, this prompted lawmakers to pass a bill clarifying that any settlement funds should go to the state treasury. Following the settlement announced by Teva, the Republican governor and legislative leaders argued the deal violated the spirit of the new law and asked for intervention before a mediator was appointed and an agreement was reached. The money will be part of a special state fund that lawmakers will decide how to spend.

Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman is presiding over the Oklahoma trial, and District Judge Dan Polster is presiding over more than 1,900 lawsuits filed under MDL No. 2804 (In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation) by U.S. cities and counties, each seeking damages for costs associated with addiction and abuse.

J&J Files Motion To Toss Oklahoma Opioid Lawsuit

On July 3, 2019, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) filed a motion to seek dismissal of the Oklahoma opioid lawsuit on the grounds that the state failed to produce enough evidence to support its case. A final call, deciding whether to throw it out or to allow it to proceed is expected on Monday, July 8, when each party would have an hour each to argue its case before the judge. The drugmaker has asked Judge Thad Balkman to toss the case, claiming that the company has been made a "scapegoat" and the state's effort as legally illogical and defective. 

J&J and its subsidiaries have been accused of the opioid epidemic by Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter. The state has presented a $17.5 billion abatement plan over 30 years to fix the opioid epidemic. Hunter also pointed out the fact that J&J once owned two subsidiaries in Tasmania, which supplied 60% of all active ingredients to the opioids manufacturers in the United States, including Purdue Pharma, manufacturer of the painkiller OxyContin.

More than 1,900 opioid lawsuits have been filed under MDL No. 2804 (In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation) which is presided by U.S. District Judge Dan Polster.

J&J's Motion To Toss The Oklahoma Opioid Lawsuit Denied

On July 8, 2019, Oklahoma District Judge Thad Balkman denied Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) request to dismiss the opioid lawsuit due to lack of evidence.

A motion was filed last week by J&J to seek dismissal of the lawsuit claiming that the state failed to produce enough evidence to support its case. Both the parties were given an hour before the decision was rendered. J&J's lawyers said the nuisance law in the state did not apply, while the attorneys representing the state said that the defendants and their attorneys acted in a reprehensible manner.

According to Judge Balkman, the trial that began seven weeks ago, should continue and is expected to go on until late this month. Considering the evidence presented by the State, the judge determined there is sufficient evidence against the defendants, hence denied the motion for directed judgment.

Opioid lawsuits are consolidated under MDL No. 2804 (In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation) which is presided by U.S. District Judge Dan Polster.

Juror Steps Forward To Defend $80M on Roundup Verdict

A juror who supported the $80 million award to a plaintiff against Bayer acquired Monsanto came forward to defend the panel’s decision. The defendant told a California federal judge that an unfair trial led to its $80M loss in Roundup bellwether trial stating that the juror, who recently wrote a letter urging the judge to preserve the award, was seen hugging the plaintiff at a post-trial hearing.

The defendant stated that Juror #5 should not have been selected as she showed a bias behavior against them before the trial. According to the letter posted on the court’s website on July 4, the juror insisted the damage awards “were no accident” and reflected the jury's meticulous planning. The juror also made a note that higher punitive damages were sometimes permitted in extraordinary cases.

The plaintiff used Roundup for more than 30 years and was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2014. In March the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, awarded plaintiff with $5M in compensation and $75M in punitive damages. The defendant denied glyphosate caused cancer and insisted the jury’s decision was unwarranted.

Bayer and its Monsanto subsidiary, acquired a year ago, now face more than 15,000 Roundup lawsuits. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria is presiding over all the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2741; In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation) in the Northern District of California.

3M Earplug Lawsuit: Parties Propose Single-Track Litigation

Attorneys representing plaintiffs and defendants associated with 3M Earplug lawsuits have requested to allow individual personal injury claims and class action complaints to proceed on a single litigation track.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) on April 2019, decided to consolidate the cases due to common questions of fact and law presented in the claims. However, weeks after the cases were transferred to Judge Rodgers and pretrial schedules were established, a motion was filed to establish a separate class-action track. The motion was established stating there were significant differences between the individual hearing loss claims and class-action lawsuits. Judge Rodgers was also asked to form a separate leadership group and schedule for the pretrial proceedings involving claims that seek class-action certification.

Following the motion, a memorandum of opposition was filed last week by both 3M Company and plaintiffs current leadership council, urging Judge Rodgers to reject the separate litigation track, indicating that all parties will benefit from one coordinated track.

U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers is presiding over all injury lawsuits filed under MDL No. 2885 (In Re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Litigation) in the Northern District of Florida against Minnesota-based 3M.

J&J's $417M Talc Verdict Case Gets New Trial

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has been granted a new trial, after an initial $417 million verdict was tossed by Judge Maren E. Nelson and appealed by the estate of a woman who alleged that the company’s talcum baby powder caused ovarian cancer.

The victim developed cancer in 2007, and in July 2016, she along with six other women filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging talc-based product was responsible for their cancer. In August 2017, a California jury awarded $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 million in punitive damages in favor of the plaintiff; however, she died post the announcement of the verdict. The verdict was tossed by Judge Nelson, on October 20, 2017. The victim's daughter, acting as a trustee appealed the decision to dismiss the $417 million verdict against J&J.

On July 9, a new trial was granted to J&J by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Nelson stating the damages were "plainly excessive," ruling punitive damages had not been warranted since no malice was demonstrated. The new trial is granted based on the conflicting evidence about the product’s cancer links.

Hon. Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J./ Hon. Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J., are presiding over all J&J's talcum powder lawsuits consolidated under multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2738; In Re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation) in the District of New Jersey.

Reckitt Benckiser Agrees To Pay $1.4B To End Opioid Crisis

Reckitt Benckiser (RB), a British pharmaceutical company, agreed to pay up to $1.4 billion to settle a long-running probe with the U.S. federal government over sales and marketing of the opioid Suboxone.

On July 11, RB agreed to resolve all federal investigations in connection with the matters of the Indivior indictment and claims relating to state Medicaid programs for the states that choose to participate in the settlement. This would help the company protect its participation in all U.S. government programs.

According to the terms of the settlement, $700 million will be paid to end claims involving marketing of Suboxone that resulted in the submission of false claims to government healthcare programs. This includes $500 million to the federal government and up to $200 million to states that choose to opt into the agreement. RB also agreed for a non-prosecution agreement, under which it will renounce $647 million of proceeds from Indivior and won’t make or market controlled substances in the U.S. for the next three years. It will also cooperate with investigations relating to Suboxone. 

The settlement is considered to be one of the largest so far by any drug company involved in the epidemic of opioid addiction. The previous record was $600 million, paid in 2007 by Purdue Pharma LP.

Opioid lawsuits are consolidated under MDL No. 2804 (In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation) which is presided by U.S. District Judge Dan Polster.