Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Ex Input:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources records show that Tyco Fire Products discovered soil and well contamination on the Marinette manufacturer’s fire training property in 2013, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported. The contamination involves a class of chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which are linked to cancer and other health issues. The company was found to have some of the highest known concentrations of the chemicals in groundwater and soil in Wisconsin, according to the records. In November 2017, Tyco, a Johnson Controls International unit, acknowledged that the chemicals had spread beyond its Marinette facility and suspended spraying foam products outdoors. The following month, the company started distributing bottled water to residents whose private wells may be affected by the contamination. Tyco tested 168 wells and 56 have shown evidence of the chemicals, the company said. State officials said Wisconsin law requires companies to immediately report pollution , but the company defended its actions by saying that little was known about PFAS at the time. “In 2013, there was not the level of awareness and information as there is today associated with PFOS/PFOA,” said Fraser Engerman, a spokesman for Johnson Controls International. But scientists have warned about the health impacts and other companies have phased out production of the chemicals for more than a decade. Tyco has also claimed that the company didn’t know about contamination beyond the property until 2016. “It wasn’t until 2016 that we had data that showed we had concentrations of these compounds at the edge of the property, so we then began the series of tests which led us to where we are today,” the company’s website states. Doug Oitzinger, the city’s former mayor, dismissed Tyco’s explanation. “This isn’t news to them,” he said. “They know that these pollutants have been judged an environmental danger .” Janell and Duane Goldsmith have twice tested their well water and found chemical contamination above the federal health advisory threshold. Duane Goldsmith has been diagnosed with gastrointestinal stromal tumor cancer and Janell Goldsmith had pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, according to a lawsuit filed in December. The couple’s two sons also have had developmental delays, the lawsuit states. “They’ve known about this for how long — and they have been using these chemicals?” Janell Goldsmith said. “You don’t expect it to happen to your family and to your community. So much crosses your mind.” ___ Information from: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, http://www.jsonline.com

Ex Output:
Records: Tyco knew of contamination 4 years before reporting.


Ex Input:
"The Republican Party of Texas marveled — not in a good way — at an admission of sorts by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about the long-stalled health care overhaul before Congress. According to an e-mail the GOP sent Friday, Pelosi said “the Democrats have to pass their terrible health care bill so that the American people can actually find out what's in it.” Talk about a banana-peel moment. Did Pelosi improbably denigrate her party’s promised legislation and say people can find out what’s in it after it passes? GOP spokesman Bryan Preston pointed us to the text of Pelosi’s March 9 speech in Washington to the National Association of Counties. We learned, for starters, that while the Texas GOP thinks the legislation is terrible, Pelosi clearly doesn't. Instead, Pelosi's remarks celebrate aspects such as a ban on denying health coverage because of a pre-existing conditions, “robust support for public health infrastructure,” more spending on community health centers and reductions in uncompensated care by hospitals. Pelosi also says in the speech that the plan won't require anyone to pay a deductible for preventive health care doctor visits. She summarizes: “It’s going to be very, very exciting.” Yet there’s heft to the GOP's claim that Pelosi said the legislation has to pass so people can find out what’s in it. Pelosi adds: “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” Pelosi's words stirred critics from the right including Marguerite Higgins, a senior editorial services associate at The Heritage Foundation. In a blog, Higgins named the moment the video of the week and called Pelosi’s statement a “stunning demonstration of political condescension.” Separately, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly offered this interpretation of Pelosi's comment: ""She meant there was so much talk about process (in Congress) that people have lost sight of what’s actually in the bill. Once it’s passed, we can remind them of all the good things that are in it."" Capital fusses aside, we wondered if Pelosi spoke accurately; will the plan need to pass before people know what's in it? We called the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, which has posted side-by-side comparisons online of health care plans approved by the House and Senate. Its spokesman, Craig Palosky, reminded us that Congress posts the entire legislation online. Of course, that's not to say the final deal is settled — or, it stands to reason, open to public view. Palosky declined to comment precisely on Pelosi's forecast, saying her comment seemed more about politics than policy. ""It’s not our role to police such comments,"" he said. ""If you want to know what members of Congress are doing, you have to speak to members of Congress.” His nudge led us to call U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, among a handful of physicians in Congress and an opponent to the Democrats' proposal. Burgess told us it's often true that the ins and outs of legislation aren't widely known until after a measure passes into law; that held true, for instance, for the Republican-steered measure providing government aid toward prescription drugs for seniors. Pelosi's ""right,"" Burgess said, though ""I don’t think that’s a good strategy (to declare as much). I wouldn’t recommend anyone actually broadcasting that."" So how does the GOP's statement shake out? The party's e-mail errs when it makes it sound as if Pelosi thinks the health-care measure is terrible. It's very much the opposite. But it accurately quotes Pelosi as saying people will find out what's in the plan after it passes."

Ex Output:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week that the Democrats have to pass their terrible health care bill so that the American people can actually find out what's in it.


Ex Input:
The ruling will likely offer some respite to the healthcare conglomerate as it deals with growing pressure over the safety of its talc products, some defense lawyers said. The company revealed in its annual report on Wednesday that it had received subpoenas from the U.S. Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission related to talc litigation. Some plaintiffs’ lawyers, however, played down the impact of the ruling. It was a trial in St. Louis’s 22nd Circuit Court, brought by 21 plaintiffs from outside of the city whose cases were joined to that of a single St. Louis resident, that in July produced a record $4.69 billion talc verdict against J&J. The company is facing several more such lawsuits in St. Louis. However, Missouri’s high court on Feb. 13 ruled in a separate talc case that allowed a non-resident to participate in joined cases was “a clear and direct violation” of state law barring the use of joinder - combining two or more cases - to allow courts to hear cases they otherwise could not. Most state courts can only hear cases involving plaintiffs or defendants from that state or alleging injuries occurring within their jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court strengthened those restrictions in a 2017 decision. But the St. Louis court had allowed out-of-state residents to continue to sue New Jersey-based J&J through liberal use of joinder. In the case that produced the July verdict, 18 of the plaintiffs were from outside Missouri and three were from outside the city of St. Louis. Of the roughly 700 talc cases filed in St. Louis, only 40 involve Missouri residents, according to court filings. If the Feb. 13 ruling closes off the St. Louis court to non-resident claims, J&J may have a stronger hand defending itself in smaller talc cases spread out among other, potentially less plaintiff-friendly state and federal courts. “There’s no real way of reading this decision other than this court clearly saying you can’t join claims if the injury did not occur in the venue,” said Mark Cheffo, a New York-based product liability defense lawyer not involved in talc litigation. J&J in a statement said it was pleased with the decision. “One claim that is properly before a court cannot provide a basis for drawing into a trial other claims that are not. We believe that decision is clearly correct, and we continue to believe that the science doesn’t support plaintiffs’ claims,” the company said, declining further comment. Some plaintiffs’ lawyers said the Feb. 13 ruling was not as definitive as Cheffo suggests. “If defendants are celebrating this ruling as the end of St. Louis mass tort, they have not read the entire Missouri case law,” said Eric Holland, a St. Louis-based plaintiff lawyer involved in the talc litigation. Holland pointed to a 2016 Missouri Supreme Court decision that upheld a $38 million verdict in a pharmaceutical product liability case the defendant claimed had been improperly joined. The court let the result stand, saying that even an improper joinder did not render the trial unfair to defendants. Though the 2016 ruling involved a case already decided, Holland and other plaintiffs’ lawyers said they planned to argue its fairness analysis also applies to out-of-state talc claims in cases yet to go to trial. They said they would also argue joining the cases was the most efficient use of judicial resources. Defense lawyers said the Feb. 13 decision would likely mean dismissal or severing of the out-of-state claims from four upcoming multi-plaintiff cases scheduled for trial in St. Louis. Two of the cases were halted by the Missouri Supreme Court ahead of its ruling. Holland and other plaintiff lawyers said they would challenge J&J requests to sever or dismiss talc cases by arguing the Feb. 13 decision did not overrule the 2016 ruling. Cheffo said the 2016 ruling could make it harder for J&J to overturn the July verdict and its record penalty because the company would have to prove the joinder led to an unfair trial. ‘FORUM SHOPPING’ BY OUT-OF-STATE PLAINTIFFS  The St. Louis court has been a venue for more talc trials and has seen larger verdicts than any other jurisdiction. Outside of St. Louis, the only other significant talc verdicts against J&J to date have come in lawsuits filed by individual plaintiffs in New Jersey and California, where the company is currently facing jury verdicts totaling $142 million. A Los Angeles jury delivered a $417 million talc verdict against J&J in 2017, but the judge threw out the award weeks later as unsupported by the evidence. All talc verdicts against J&J are on appeal. The St. Louis court has a history of issuing large punitive damages against companies and has often been criticized by business groups as allowing “forum-shopping” by out-of-state plaintiffs. While J&J faces some trials brought by individuals in other jurisdictions, the multi-plaintiff St. Louis cases are the largest and have the most potential to produce additional billion-dollar verdicts. Plaintiffs allege that the talc in Johnson’s baby powder and other J&J products causes ovarian cancer, or that asbestos contamination in the talc causes ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. Asbestos is a known carcinogen linked to mesothelioma. J&J and its talc supplier, Imerys Talc America, a co-defendant in the litigation, deny the allegations, saying numerous studies and tests by regulators worldwide have shown their talc to be safe and asbestos-free. Reuters on Dec. 14 published a report detailing that J&J knew that the talc in its raw and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos from the 1970s into the early 2000s - test results it did not disclose to regulators or consumers. (reut.rs/2Gh88KO)   J&J is currently facing roughly 13,000 lawsuits over talc, most of which have been consolidated in federal court in New Jersey. Many plaintiff’s lawyers have fought to keep cases out of federal court, which they feel favors corporate defendants. Three juries have rejected claims that Baby Powder was tainted with asbestos or caused plaintiffs’ mesothelioma. Five other juries have failed to reach verdicts, resulting in mistrials. In a statement, Imerys Talc America said the Missouri ruling affirmed legal arguments it has made in litigation for the last four years. The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Feb. 13, saying it lacked the financial clout to defend against talc lawsuits.

Ex Output:

Court ruling could help J&J defeat St. Louis talc lawsuits.