Source: https://www.alston.com/en/services/practices/litigation/products-liability
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 16:57:53+00:00

Document:
We approach your case with a single goal: obtaining the desired result as expeditiously as possible. Whether it is a creative motion or aggressive expert discovery, our efforts are aimed at winning, not just litigating. We often succeed at ending your case early, but if it goes to trial, we are experienced trial lawyers who often get great results—even in the worst jurisdictions.
High-stakes litigation is on the rise in the world of product liability actions. When you find your company facing this kind of problem, you need a team that’s been there. Alston & Bird’s products liability lawyers are “litigation stoppers” and use our extensive experience and technical and scientific know-how to gain critical leverage in these cases; our success at excluding scientific evidence has proven decisive in a number of Daubert victories. We are experienced litigators who try cases all the way to the verdict, but we also know that’s not the best choice in every circumstance. The products liability lawyers at Alston & Bird provide in-depth analysis of the risks and potential costs so you can decide the best course of action. When settlement, arbitration, or mediation offers a better chance of a favorable resolution, we have a long track record of negotiating positive outcomes.
Products liability is a diverse area of law reflecting an array of possible issues, and we have helped clients in industries as varied as automotive, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, chemicals, and consumer products achieve outcomes that not only preserved their place in the market, but prevented future litigation on the same issues. We defend every type of product liability case from individual personal injury to false advertising, diminished value, and product warranty class actions. Our experience in federal and state courts, including California courts, means that our nimble, detail-oriented teams are uniquely positioned to manage your matter in a focused and cost-efficient way. We also understand the crisis-management requirements that a product recall or regulatory enforcement action can create, and our lawyers excel in limiting the damage these events can cause.
In products liability cases, your business goals have to be front and center. Our lawyers understand that your brand’s needs drive the legal strategy, and we work with you to find the most satisfactory conclusion to your case.
National Trial Team, Leadership Team Seroquel Litigation: More than 20,000 plaintiffs nationwide have alleged that Seroquel, a drug typically used in the management of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, caused their diabetes. Alston & Bird, in conjunction with AstraZeneca's other national counsel, has had unprecedented success in this litigation by excluding the testimony of the plaintiffs' specific causation experts in the vast majority of bellwether cases to date, including two cases in the multi-district litigation pending in Florida, three cases in consolidated litigation in Delaware state court and one case in consolidated litigation in New Jersey state court. An article in The AmLaw Litigation Daily emphasized the success AstraZeneca has had with its defense strategy: “A pattern is forming in the ongoing product liability litigation over AstraZeneca's antipsychotic Seroquel, and it's not pretty for the plaintiffs.” To date, no case has gone to trial. We are also participating on the national discovery team which has included document review and analysis and taking dozens of depositions of plaintiffs, prescribing physicians, experts and treating physicians.
Regional Counsel, Dialysis Products Liability and Medical Negligence: Our team represents the world's largest integrated provider of dialysis products and services, in products liability and complex medical negligence actions in various states throughout the country. In addition, we routinely render advice regarding state and federal compliance issues and regulatory requirements applicable to the client's network of end-stage renal disease facilities.
Clinical Trials Litigation: In 2009, we represented a global pharmaceutical company in a clinical trial wrongful death case filed in the Northern District of Florida. After developing a strong scientific evidence defense prior to formal discovery, we settled the claim on behalf of the company on favorable terms. We have also represented and advised clients in connection with clinical trials and biomedical research litigation in the United States and Canada. Our lawyers have written and lectured extensively on risk reduction and litigation avoidance strategies, including the litigation chapter of Barnett International’s 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 editions of Good Clinical Practice: A Question & Answer Guide.
National Trial Team, Trasylol litigation: Alston & Bird serves on the national trial team in the Trasylol pharmaceutical litigation and has significant involvement in deposing plaintiffs and key healthcare providers. We also serve as Georgia counsel in the YAZ/Yasmin pharmaceutical litigation and have represented our client in PPA litigation.
Preferred Counsel, major health care supply company: We are preferred counsel to a Fortune 20 manufacturer and distributor of medical supplies and pharmaceuticals. Alston & Bird has handled numerous matters for this client, including mass litigation involving several hundred patients who allege health effects from the use of surgical instruments allegedly contaminated with hydraulic fluid. We also have represented this client in litigation involving various medical devices and commercial disputes.
National Trial Team and National Science Counsel, Phentermine (Fen-Phen) Litigation: As national science counsel for a major phentermine manufacturer in diet drug litigation, Alston & Bird prepared the MDL Daubert brief and conducted the MDL Daubert hearing on behalf of all phentermine defendants. This hearing resulted in the exclusion of expert witnesses for the plaintiff against the phentermine defendants. In the only “Fen-Phen” case tried against a phentermine defendant, we obtained a directed verdict in a Fayette, Mississippi, state court case based on scientific evidence issues.
National Trial Team and National Science Counsel, Silicone Breast Implant Litigation: In litigation involving silicone breast implants, Alston & Bird lawyers were involved in the ground-breaking scientific evidence strategies that brought that mass tort to an end. We served as both national science counsel and as a member of the national trial team in breast implant litigation for one of the three major manufacturers in that litigation. Our partner, Jane Thorpe, was integral to the creation of the 706 National Science Panel appointed by the MDL judge, including helping to establish the panel’s procedures and guidelines, and she coordinated and participated in virtually every Daubert hearing conducted by state and federal courts in those cases. On behalf of the joint defense, Jane presented much of the scientific evidence, by cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ experts and direct of the defense experts, considered by the 706 National Science Panel.
National Coordinating Counsel and National Trial Team, Natural Rubber Latex Glove Allergenicity Litigation: We served as national counsel for this mass tort litigation alleging severe allergic reactions to natural rubber latex. Our clients were the target defendants in litigation that threatened the very existence of the industry that provides 20 billion protective gloves to the medical profession annually. We litigated over 900 cases in federal and state courts nationwide. We obtained complete defense victories for our clients in five of the six cases. The remaining case, tried in Beaumont, Texas, resulted in a verdict that was remitted and settled for a modest amount. We also coordinated the successful regulatory response to efforts banning certain types of latex gloves in the European Union, and coordinated the ultimate settlement strategy nationally.
National Trial Team, Asbestos Litigation: Alston & Bird serves as managing counsel in asbestos litigation pending in several jurisdictions around the country, including Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Illinois, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. In this role, we have primary responsibility for preparing and trying the cases in these jurisdictions and formulating new and innovative challenges to plaintiffs’ claims. We also serve on the client’s National Trial Team, and have been called to try cases in these and other jurisdictions, including California, Massachusetts, Maryland, Louisiana and Ohio. We have staffed trial teams exclusively with Alston & Bird attorneys, or with "virtual" law firms including local counsel and other trial firms used by this client.
Coordinating Counsel, Uranium Litigation: We served as lead Daubert counsel on behalf of several clients in suits alleging that ionizing radiation/natural uranium ore dust caused 18 different types of cancers. Our firm handled the cross-examinations of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses in the fields of radiation dose reconstruction, epidemiology, oncology and biology. We also coordinated the presentation of defense experts and prepared extensive Daubert motions challenging the methodology and reliability of the opinions of the plaintiffs' five experts in these fields. After an extensive Daubert hearing, the trial court excluded key expert testimony and entered summary judgment for the defendants in March of 2005. All cases settled on favorable terms following our Daubert victory.
National Coordinating Counsel, Silica Litigation: We are national counsel for for an international mineral and mining company and its subsidiaries in silica litigation pending in multiple jurisdictions, including an MDL proceeding in Texas. The client has also retained us to handle litigation in Madison County, Illinois, with more than 300 plaintiffs, involving exposure to manganese at a processing facility.
Coordinating Counsel, Mold Litigation: We served as national coordinating counsel for one of the nation’s largest land owners in litigation related to alleged “toxic mold” exposure. We were lead trial counsel and science counsel in class action and individual plaintiff litigation across the country. We helped develop a creative mediation and settlement plan that led to the efficient and cost-saving resolution of the mass claims brought by thousands of property residents.
Trial Counsel, Wood Treatment Facility/Dioxin Litigation: We represented this leading building products company in mass tort litigation involving more than 1,300 plaintiffs alleging personal injuries caused by air and surface water emissions from a former wood treatment site in Alabama. The principal chemicals of concern were dioxin, arsenic, creosote and chromium, which allegedly resulted in cancers, birth defects and other diseases. We obtained a significant early victory with the successful removal of all of the cases to federal court on fraudulent joinder grounds. In addition, 400 cases were dismissed as a result of our aggressive pre-trial motions practice. We eventually obtained a very favorable settlement of all remaining claims.
National Counsel, Friction Products/Asbestos Litigation: Our toxic tort and product liability lawyers serve as national coordinating co-counsel and trial counsel for a Fortune 500 automobile parts distributor in asbestos litigation. Our team is responsible for management of regional and local counsel, interface with company lawyers and management, implementation of a national document collection process, creation of document and discovery databases, development of company witnesses and defense strategies, cultivation of new medical and scientific experts, and trial of any cases.
National Counsel, Automotive Class Actions: Our lawyers have recently been engaged by one of the world’s largest automobile manufacturers as national coordinating counsel for class action litigation that has followed its widely-publicized vehicle recalls. This engagement reflects the range of our capabilities in the often overlapping areas of product liability and consumer class actions as well as our ability to respond in high-pressure, high-profile litigation environments.
Aeronautic Industry: We have handled numerous ground and water contamination claims arising from cleaning and degreasing solvent formulations employed by the aeronautical industry during historical manufacture, assembly and testing operations. : Adams v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation (complete defense against mass toxic tort and medical monitoring class actions based on alleged TCE and NDMA product exposures); Allen v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation (similar claims); and the Lockheed Workers Exposure Litigation (representation of a major chemical supplier to Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works facility during successive trials concerning mass exposure claims).
Trial Counsel: We are one of a select few “primary law firms,” for a science-based products and services company and we handle all commercial and tort litigation for the company in Southern California. Our lawyers offer decades of experience relating to a wide variety of chemical-based product claims for this client, including many of its petroleum based solvents and cleaning agents, neoprene elastomer “all weather” products, pesticides, paints and coatings. We have particular expertise in defending cancer induction claims brought by industrial and agricultural workers, obtaining dismissal of many such claims on summary judgment.
National Trial Team, National Coordinating Counsel, Isocyanate Litigation: Alston & Bird serves as national litigation and trial counsel in mass tort lawsuits for alleged exposure to isocyanates in underground coal and platinum mines. Our work has included handling a lawsuit with more than 1,600 plaintiffs in Alabama, a lawsuit with 99 plaintiffs in West Virginia, and a nationwide putative class action with 30,000 plaintiffs in which coal miners claim a variety of health diseases caused by alleged isocyanate exposure.
Preferred Counsel, power management company: We have, with great success, represented a power management company for over 20 years in a wide assortment of product liability litigation claims alleging catastrophic personal injury, wrongful death and property damages associated with the company's electrical distribution, automotive/heavy truck, crane/winch and electronic component product lines. Without exception, the outcomes of our many engagements in these areas have been limited to defense verdicts at trial, summary judgments, voluntary dismissals or nuisance value settlements.
National Litigation Counsel, building products company: We serve as litigation counsel to an international building products company and its various subsidiaries. In that capacity, we advise the client on contract, warranty, CPSC and product liability claims and represent them in litigation pertaining to their various building products.
Trial Counsel, Childproof Lighter Litigation: We served as lead trial counsel for the world’s largest manufacturer of utility lighters, in a lawsuit where the plaintiff alleged that a lighter’s defective design caused third degree burns to more than 70 percent of her body. The case settled under favorable terms.
Automotive Product Recall Litigation: We have served as lead trial counsel for a number of Japanese corporations, including a major automobile manufacturer that sought to recover more than $300 million from a U.S. supplier for product recall damages associated with one of its best selling trucks, and a leading electronics company against an over $30 million claim by GM that the company’s torque and position sensors contained a significant design defect that led to a major product recall. Both cases settled under very favorable terms. We are currently serving as lead trial counsel for a global manufacturer of automobile electronics in a product recall case alleging defective voltage control oscillators. The amount in controversy exceeds $25 million.
Automotive Product Defect Wrongful Death Litigation: Alston & Bird has significant experience representing a leading global manufacturer of automobile safety equipment in wrongful death cases involving allegations of defective safety equipment. We recently obtained summary judgment of one such claim, which was affirmed on appeal, and currently handle two ongoing claims involving deaths alleged to have been caused by a defectively designed airbag system and a defective seatbelt.
Marine Products Cases: We have successfully served as lead trial counsel on several matters for the world’s largest boat manufacturer. Alston & Bird obtained a defense verdict in the jury trial of a case alleging that the manufacturer’s defective design caused a running motor to be propelled into the boat and decapitate a passenger, and won another defense verdict in the jury trial of a case alleging that the manufacturer’s defective design caused the plaintiff to sustain severe and permanent spinal cord injuries. We obtained a dismissal prior to trial of a wrongful death case involving defective design allegations after the court excluded plaintiffs’ expert testimony based on Daubert and spoliation of evidence. The trial court’s decision was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit.
Lead Counsel Product Liability Litigation: We are lead counsel in a product liability litigation for a global electronics and information technology company in the Eastern District Court of North Carolina where a $30 million dollar/year web-hosting business is seeking approximately $100 million dollars for allegedly defective computers and computer components.
Preferred Counsel, Consumer Appliance Litigation: We are national counsel for a leading appliance manufacturer in product liability nationwide litigation involving catastrophic personal injury and serious property damage allegedly caused by the company's line of consumer and commercial appliances.
National Coordinating Counsel, Cell Phone Brain Cancer Litigation: We have represented a major cellular provider in both “no injury” consumer protection actions alleging deceptive sales and marketing practices on behalf of proposed classes of wireless phone users as well as a series of cases alleging that wireless phone use caused the plaintiffs’ brain tumors. We obtained a complete Daubert victory that resulted in the exclusion of six expert witnesses who asserted that wireless phones cause brain cancer. The plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Jane Thorpe presented argument to the appellate panel on behalf of the entire wireless industry and, less than one month later, the Fourth Circuit affirmed our earlier victory.
National Coordinating Counsel, international soft drink company: We have represented this major international soft drink company in a number of nationwide product-related matters. For example, we represented this client and its distributor in putative class actions in multiple states alleging injury from alleged exposure to benzene in soft drinks and asserting claims primarily under consumer protection statutes. We also represent this client against claims by an activist group alleging that the company is deceptively marketing a product in violation of state consumer protection law. In addition, we prepared the company’s 2007 report to the FTC on "Marketing to Children and Adolescents."
National Restaurant Chain. We represent a national restaurant chain in purported class actions by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and private plaintiff’s lawyers alleging that the company engaged in consumer fraud and breach of warranty for failing to disclose the sodium content of its food. Through an aggressive motion practice, we obtained the early dismissal of both purported classes, thus limiting the number of “tag-along” suits that typically follow such consumer fraud class actions.
National Counsel, Consumer Design Defect Litigation: We are one of two law firms designated as national litigation counsel for a leading telecommunications provider and are currently handling cases in Alabama, California, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Kentucky and Florida. We have successfully defended this client in more than 20 consumer product cases alleging that their product contained a design or manufacturing defect that caused personal injury or property loss and that the company failed to warn consumers of the product’s dangerous characteristic. As part of this representation, we successfully defended this client in a hearing loss case pending in Louisiana.
Trial Counsel, Nutritional Supplement Litigation: We represent two national health product retailers and the manufacturers of body building supplements in a class action in the Central District of California. The case arises under California's unfair competition and consumer protection laws and alleges that the defendants' products are "adulterated" within the meaning of the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA). The case involves principles of Article III standing and whether private plaintiffs can use California statutes to enforce provisions by the FDCA, a question of national importance to the dietary supplement industry.
Pool and Spa Drain Covers: We represented a manufacturer in an investigation by the CPSC regarding the safety of pool drain covers. After extensive negotiations with the CPSC that significantly limited the scope of the recall, our client and several other manufacturers conducted a voluntary recall of over one million drain covers. The recall received significant national press, including a report by ABC News, and articles in hundreds of newspapers, including a front-page article in USA Today and pieces in the Wall Street Journal and on CNN.com.
Apparel: We represented a clothing company before the CPSC in connection with the voluntary recall of children’s coats with drawstrings. We also advised a major U.S. apparel company regarding CPSIA testing, certification and reporting obligations, and are representing the company before the CPSC in connection with the voluntary recall of non-compliant children’s apparel and sporting uniforms.
Sporting and Recreational Goods: We represented a U.S. sporting goods manufacturer before the CPSC in connection with a nationwide voluntary consumer level recall. In addition, we successfully negotiated with the CPSC to limit the scope of other recalls from proposed consumer level recalls to more narrow retail level recalls. We also advise several importers and manufacturers of sporting goods and bicycles regarding ongoing obligations under the CPSIA.
Consumer Electronics/Batteries: We assisted an electronics company in connection with a voluntary CPSC recall involving defective counterfeit batteries and have advised on testing various regulatory issues related to its products. In addition to the recall, we worked closely with an electrical engineering expert to identify the counterfeit batteries received from a supplier as the cause of the defect, enabling the company to sue the supplier and achieve an early favorable settlement based on the results of our investigation. We worked with experts, as well as engineers, from the United States and Japan on another consumer products issue that led to reports to both the CPSC and regulatory agencies in Europe and Asia. Following a presentation concerning our clients’ and experts’ failure analysis at the CPSC, we received a “no action” letter from the CPSC. We also assisted in the successful defense of a global electronics company at trial in Bangkok by presenting testimony from U.S. experts in a case in which a product branded with the company’s name was alleged to have caused catastrophic injuries by creating an arc between an uninsulated high voltage line in a factory in Thailand and the injured person.
Consumer Power Tools: We assisted a major power tool manufacturer in analyzing potential product hazards associated with tools imported from China that bore paint containing high levels of lead. We worked with expert witnesses in industrial hygiene to determine whether power saws and other tools coated with lead paint could present a respirable hazard, which would trigger actions under the CPSA and FHSA.
Toys and Children’s Products: We advised manufacturers of children’s products, including toys, on federal regulations and voluntary standards governing products intended for children. In addition, we have drafted CPSA-compliant warnings for toys and advised clients on labeling requirements and product modifications to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations and standards. We are assisting a major consumer product paper company regarding CPSIA obligations, including testing and certification for lead and phthalate content with respect to the company’s disposable children’s products and childcare articles. We are also representing a manufacturer with the voluntary recall of phthalate-containing sports-themed toys pursuant to the CPSIA.
Light Fixtures: We represented a billion-dollar manufacturer of light fixtures and other products in regulatory matters before the CPSC. We guided the company through recalls of overhead light fixtures and worked with the client to determine the cause of the defects. We also represented the company in commercial litigation and negotiations with a supplier of defective component parts.
Building Products: We represented a building products manufacturer in reporting to the CPSC and conducting a cooperative recall with the CPSC.
Furniture and Home Furnishings: We recently used product testing to assist a manufacturer of office furniture in obtaining a “no action” letter from the CPSC. In addition, we have counseled a major home furnishings and decorative accessories distributor regarding its testing and certification obligations under the CPSIA for rugs, bedding and other household furnishings.
Carpets and Rugs: We have assisted a major carpet and rug manufacturer in analyzing potential flammability issues under the FFA, reporting to the CPSC, designing a voluntary recall and implementing a regulatory compliance system.
Motor Vehicles: We advised a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer on its reporting obligations required to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and assisted the company in reporting potential product defects and announcing a cooperative recall.
Hopkins v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and AstraZeneca LP, No. 06C-01-325 SER, 2010 WL 1267219 (Sup. Ct. Del. Mar. 31, 2010) — excluding specific causation expert testimony that Seroquel caused the plaintiff's diabetes.
Jones v. AstraZeneca LP et al., No. 07C-01-420 SER, 2010 WL 1267114 (Sup. Ct. Del. Mar. 31, 2010) — excluding specific causation expert testimony that Seroquel caused the plaintiff's diabetes.
Tate v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, et al., No. MID-L-1608-07-MT (Sup. Ct. N.J. Feb. 10, 2010) — excluding specific causation expert testimony that Seroquel caused the plaintiff’s diabetes and granting summary judgment.
Scaife v. AstraZeneca LP, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and Zeneca, LP, C.A. No. 06C-04-218 SER, 2009 WL 1610575 (Sup. Ct. Del. June 9, 2009) — excluding specific causation testimony of the plaintiff’s endocrinologist that Seroquel caused the plaintiff’s diabetes and granting summary judgment.
Haller v. AstraZeneca Pharm. LP, 598 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1278-79 (M.D. Fla 2009) — excluding specific causation testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert endocrinologists that Seroquel caused the plaintiff’s diabetes and granting summary judgment.
Guinn v. AstraZeneca Pharm. LP, 598 F. Supp. 2d 1239, 1243 (M.D. Fla 2009) —excluding specific causation testimony of the plaintiff’s expert endocrinologists that Seroquel caused the plaintiff’s diabetes and granting summary judgment.
Cano v. Everest Minerals Corp., 362 F. Supp. 2d 814 (W.D. Tex. 2005) — excluding testimony that exposure to radiation/uranium ore caused 18 different cancers among residents of Karnes County, Texas.
Milam et al. v. Synthes North America, Inc., et al., Civil Action File No. 4:02-CV-0092-HLM (N.D. Ga. 2004) — excluding a metallurgy expert and granting summary judgment in a medical device case.
Alvarez v. Sequoyah Fuels Corp., No. CJ-94-230, District Court in and for Muskogee County, Oklahoma (May 14, 2004) — excluding testimony that airborne nitrogen fertilizer caused skin cancer.
Newman v. Motorola, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d. 769 (D. Md. 2002), aff’d 78 Fed. Appx. 292 (4th Cir 2003) — excluding testimony that using a wireless phone caused brain cancer and granting summary judgment.
Missouri Pacific RR Co. v. Navarro, 90 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. Ct. App. 2002) — reversing admission of testimony that diesel exhaust caused cancer and rendering judgment for the defendants.
McDowell v. Fulton-DeKalb Hospital Authority, et al., Civil Action File No. 1:99-CV-2364-JOF (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2002) — excluding experts in neurology, neurosurgery and infectious disease in a malpractice action alleging delayed diagnosis of spinal epidural abscess.
In re Diet Drugs Products Liability Litigation, MDL 1203, Pretrial Order No. 1351 (E.D. Pa. June 28, 2000) — excluding causation testimony of experts adverse to phentermine defendants.
Jones, et al. v. Sofamor, S.N.C., et al., Civil Action File Nos. 96-CV-3467, 3170 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 29, 1999) — excluding the plaintiff’s causation expert in bone screw litigation.
Wheat, et al. v. Sofamor, S.N.C., et al., Civil Action File Nos. 96-CV-3163, 3164, 3166, 3169 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 29, 1999) — excluding the plaintiff’s causation expert in bone screw litigation.
Washington v. SmithKline Beecham, et al., No. 99-0035, Circuit Court of Jefferson County, State of Mississippi (1999) — directed verdict for a phentermine defendant in diet drug trial based on lack of scientific evidence supporting causation theory.
Allison v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., 184 F. 3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999). — excluding testimony that breast implants cause rheumatologic disease.
Johnson v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., et al., No. CV-92-07501, Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico (1998) — excluding testimony that breast implants cause rheumatologic disease.
In re Breast Implant Cases, 11 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (D. Colo. 1998) — excluding testimony that breast implants cause rheumatologic disease.
Whatley v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co., et al., Civil Action File No. 1-93-CV-2836 (N.D. Ga. 1998) — excluding testimony that breast implants cause breast cancer.
Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 947 F. Supp. 1387 (D. Or. 1996) — excluding testimony that breast implants cause rheumatologic disease.
In Re: Silicone Breast Implant Litigation 706 Panel Report — 706 Panel determines that there is insufficient scientific evidence to establish that silicone breast implants cause rheumatologic disease.
Ed Casey, partner in Alston & Bird’s Environment, Land Use & Natural Resources Group, and Jim Evans, partner in the firm’s Labor & Employment Group, have been named among the top litigators in Los Angeles.
Cari Dawson, Alston & Bird partner and leader of the firm’s Class Action & Multidistrict Litigation Team, has been recognized as one of the country’s top female litigators by Benchmark Litigation, the fourth time she has been honored by the publication as a standout in her field.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.