Source: https://www.masstortnexus.com/mass-torts-news/category/emerging-mass-tort-litigation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:48:46+00:00

Document:
France and Canada look to banning sale of textured implants-what’s the next move in the USA?
(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) Recent studies have shown that patients with textured implants face a higher risk of a rare form of cancer called breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA ALCL). BIA ALCL is not a breast cancer but a cancer of the immune system. Plastic surgeons have identified at least 688 cases of BIA ALCL worldwide, as of February 2019. The FDA estimates the risk of BIA ALCL among patients with textured implants as between 1 in 3,817 and 1 in 30,000, but newer data from Australia has placed the risk as high as 1 in 1,000.
Nine deaths from a rare form of cancer have been linked to breast implants, the Food and Drug Administration announced as far back as 2017, the US oversight has not taken the warning seriously, however the international oversight apparently has. Countires around the globe are starting to ban the sale of “textured breast implants” based on the emerging clinical linbks to these implants and cancer. .
Red flags were raised as far back as 2011 regarding the safety of breast implants and their possible link to a type of lymphoma, but the FDA has only now updated information on the risk to women with both silicone and saline breast implants.
As of February 1, 2017, the FDA had received a total of 359 reports related to breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma — a rare cancer of the immune system — including nine deaths, the agency said in a statement. ALCL is not a form of breast cancer, but it grows in the breast in implant patients.
A recent study published in JAMA Oncology concluded that found that silicone breast implants with a textured surface are 400-times more likely to cause a rare type of cancer compared to silicone breast implants with a smooth surface.
Approximately 1 out of every 26 women in the United States have breast implants.
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists revealed the ongoing health problems plaguing women with breast implants as part of its global Implant Files investigation in November 2018, and has covered breast implant safety extensively in the aftermath. In the wake of the investigation, health authorities from France to Brazil to the United States recently announced initiatives to better protect patient health.
The Biocell implants, manufactured by Allergan, have a slightly textured surface, designed to adhere better to the surrounding tissue. Health Canada intends to remove them from the market as a precautionary measure, to “protect Canadians from the rare but serious risk of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL)” the department wrote in a news releaseThursday.
Of 28 confirmed cases of BIA-ALCL reported to Health Canada, 24 involved that particular implant, the department said.
BIA-ALCL is not a cancer of the breast tissue, but rather a rare type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that can develop months or years after the implants were put in. It usually leads to an accumulation of fluid inside the breast. It’s generally treated by carefully removing the implant and fluid containing the cancerous cells. In some cases, it can spread throughout the body, warranting chemotherapy treatment, according to the World Health Organization.
Health Canada will allow Allergan 15 days to present medical evidence about the implants’ safety. If the evidence isn’t “satisfactory,” Health Canada intends to suspend their medical license, meaning the product would no longer be permitted for sale in Canada.
France also announced that it intends to ban textured breast implants earlier this week.
Health Canada is currently reviewing breast implant safety and BIA-ALCL and plans to present its entire report by the end of April. A second report looking at other symptoms reported among recipients of breast implants will be released this summer, according to the press release.
If you have breast implants, Health Canada recommends that you speak with your surgeon to find out what type of implant you have received. If you experience any unusual changes to your breasts, you should contact a health-care professional and discuss any decisions about implant removal with them too.
Nearly all the lymphoma cases have occurred in women who had implants with a textured surface, rather than a smooth one. Textured implants made by Allergan, a major manufacturer, were taken off the market in Europe in December. Smooth implants are used more often than textured ones in the United States.
For class attendance information please contact Barbara Capasso at 954.530.9892 or Barbara@masstortnexus.com.
(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) Whether you’re active in litigation funding or a firm exploring outside capital sources to fund your practice, the Litigation Funding Forum April 4th in New York City is where you should be.
Mass Tort Nexus has been invited by DealFlow to meet and discuss the most current issues as well as the forecast for litigation funding in law firm business models. We will be meeting with key members of the industry and asking how the funding world may impact mass torts and other practice areas at law firms.
This includes looking at parties who demand oversight and disclosures to the court when outside capital is used to fund a docket, [not needed from a personal perspective] but there are also those that are demanding more open disclosure. Certain courts including Federal Judge Dan Polster in the Opiate Prescription Litigation MDL 2804, now require firms in that litigation to file disclosures when they are using outside capital to fund their litigation, and this view is being pushed by more defense firms who claim this is needed to show outside interests are involved in ongoing litigation.
This may be a unique trend that goes away once all involved see that securing capital investment in any type of ongoing business is often required for any number of reasons from infrastructure development to business expansion – and why a law firm securing funding from a third party should be viewed any differently seems to be not only intrusive but as interfering with a private business matter. This is an evolving area that may or may not become more open to discussion or it may simply become a non-issue as the parties realize that litigation funding is a regular part of the legal world these days.
Litigation funding is an increasingly popular way to finance the high cost of a legal action, whether as plaintiff or defendant. Lawyers at the highest ranks of the legal profession are updating their toolkits to perform work in litigation funding, while financiers raise hundreds of millions of dollars to fuel demand.
In an uncertain and complex regulatory environment, The Litigation Funding Forum 2019 is your single greatest resource for getting up-to-the-moment information from the brightest minds in the business.
Litigation funding offers significant benefits in terms of financial reporting and operations. Funding solutions can create immediate improvements in cash flow, bring greater certainty over forecasts of legal expenditure and divert valuable resources into revenue-generating areas of the business. Critically, third-party funding can enable a law firm to pursue cases that it would not otherwise pursue due to budget constraints, at zero risk and at zero cost.
Generally, these are the financial concerns when expanding a practice, the last three often require outside capital.
Seeking a reliable source for capital investment makes sense if there’s a viable model and a plan to enter into a mass tort program or other specialty practice area. Law firms that use outside funding lee experience increases in their chance of success based on the ability to move faster and develop a timely docket, once capital funding is in place. Often banks and certain investors will keep their wallets closed unless they can see a well-planned and structured method of attack and a stellar credit rating as they are not in the business of working with law firms entering or expanding in to a new practice area. That’s why a fund or capital group that focuses on the legal is now an accepted source of expansion capital or to support and existing firm’s practice.
Outside funding views from the defense bar and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have called for a nationwide disclosure rule that would lift the veil on the details of litigation finance agreements and reveal the identities of the funders. But the effort has been unsuccessful so far.
For this event, DealFlow has contracted to rent the entire 2nd floor to accommodate attendees. The TKP Conference Center is conveniently located within walking distance of Grand Central Terminal, the Port Authority Bus Terminal, and Penn Station.
ULORIC EMERGING LITIGATION – A Drug Made By Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
ULORIC by Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Inc.
(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) Uloric made by Takeda Pharmaceuticals gained FDA approval subsequent to New Drug Application (NDA: 021856) in February 2009 and is now facing review by the FDA and others as to the risks associated with the drug.
Following an in-depth review of results from a safety clinical trial, the FDA has found that there is an increased risk of heart-related death and death from all causes with Uloric. Besides adding the Boxed Warning, the FDA is limiting the approved use of Uloric only to patients who have failed or do not tolerate another gout medicine Allopurinol.
Excerpt: [2-21-2019] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has concluded there is an increased risk of death with Uloric (febuxostat) compared to another gout medicine, allopurinol. This conclusion is based on our in-depth review of results from a safety clinical trial that found an increased risk of heart-related death and death from all causes with Uloric.
The FDA-mandated study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2018, revealed that the “treatment with Uloric resulted in overall rates of major cardiovascular events that were similar to those associated with Allopurinol treatment among patients with gout who had coexisting cardiovascular disease. However, cardiovascular death and deaths from any cause were more frequent in the Uloric group than in the Allopurinol group”.
Takeda Pharmaceuticals is now under additional scrutiny as well as facing litigation if they withheld, altered or failed to properly disclose risk that that they were aware of, dating as far back to the initial clinical trials in 2009. Takeda is already facing legal problems over Uloric, with multiple Qui Tam lawsuits filed by a former safety consultant for the company. These suits that the company withheld information about dangerous side effects related to Uloric, including kidney problems, liver damage, bone marrow failure, drug interactions and more.
Gout, a type of arthritis that occurs when uric acid crystals build up in the joints. Gout has been found to be more common in men than in women Gout is believed affects about 8.3 million people, or 4% of the U.S. population.
Uloric was the first new drug approved to treat Gout in 40 years. Unfortunately, this new treatment which promised relief for those who suffer from Gout, appears to have numerous significant and potentially life threatening side effects that Takeda never warned the public about.
Initial clinical trials testing febuxostat prior to FDA approval linked the medication to possible increased risks of serious adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including heart attack, stroke and death. The FDA rejected the medication twice over these safety concerns before approving it in 2009 on the condition that the manufacturer conduct the now-completed large, post-market randomized clinical trial to further evaluate the cardiovascular risks.
Excerpt:[ 11-15-2017 ] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is alerting the public that preliminary results from a safety clinical trial show an increased risk of heart-related death with febuxostat (Uloric) compared to another gout medicine called allopurinol. We required the Uloric drug manufacturer, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, to conduct this safety study when we approved the medicine in 2009. Once we receive the final results from the manufacturer, we will conduct a comprehensive review and will update the public with any new information.
Febuxostat is FDA-approved to treat a type of arthritis called gout in adults. Gout happens when a naturally occurring substance in the body called uric acid builds up and causes sudden attacks of redness, swelling, and pain in one or more joints. Febuxostat works by lowering uric acid levels in the blood.
Takeda started post-marketing trials in 2009 and there are glaring issues with the trial results if Takeda had followed normal protocols.
Notably, 57% of the 6,198 enrolled patients left the trial prematurely, often when they encountered gout flares or thought they weren’t being taken good care of, explained lead investigator William White, MD, of UConn Health in Farmingdale, Connecticut, at the meeting. He noted that withdrawal occurred at the same rate in the febuxostat and allopurinol groups.
The CARES population not uncommonly had difficult problems like alcoholism and obesity and would commonly drop out when they felt like it, White said. “They’re ornery. They’re in pain all the time from the disease.” Such a large drop-out rate would have biased results to the null, which makes the observed cardiovascular mortality risk even more striking, according to panelist Bruce Psaty, MD, of the University of Washington in Seattle.
The Uloric Litigation will be used as a case study in the March 8-11, 2019 Mass Tort Nexus “Four Days to Mass Tort Success Course” in Fort lauderdale, FL. To register for the course, contact Jenny Levine at jenny@masstortnexus.com or call (954) 520-4494.
The Mass Tort Nexus Course on Emerging Litigation and Ongoing Mass Torts are considered the premier source in the country to learn about the fundamentals of mass torts and how to enhance your firm practice, increase revenues and manage the related business operations effectively. Don’t wait for the next class or next year, enroll today and learn what others already have, Mass Torts are where your firm can and will grow its practice.
Movants seek transfer and coordination or consolidation of all cases filed on behalf of opioiddependent infants into a separate MDL for the reasons laid out in the Doyle plaintiffs’ recently filed Motion to Vacate CTO-47 (JPML 2804 Rec. Doc. 2398). As discussed therein, the cases of the opioiddependent infants are unique, and further, Movants have grave concerns that the due process rights of opioid-dependent infants are not being protected in MDL 2804 and that the interests of the governmental and corporate parties represented by the MDL leadership are fundamentally in conflict with those of these infants. The question now posed to the Panel, argued in the accompanying brief in support of this Motion, is not whether these cases should be held outside of the MDL as presently structured (they must be), but whether they should be consolidated in a separate MDL.
Presently, there are substantially similar class action suits filed on behalf of opioid-dependent infants pending in the Southern District of West Virginia, the Southern District of Ohio, as well as eight cases currently caught up in MDL 2804 in the Northern District of Ohio. Undersigned counsel anticipates that several more substantially similar opioid-dependent infant class action suits will be filed across the country in the coming months.
The actions on behalf of the opioid-dependent infants assert substantially similar claims and seek substantially similar relief. These suits seek to establish a fund for medical monitoring, damages related to acute neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) treatment and long-term treatment of these innocent victims of the Opioid Crisis.
Absent transfer, the opioid-dependent infants’ unique interests will remain unprotected and these young victims risk losing the opportunity to achieve a productive adulthood.
WHEREFORE, Movants respectfully request that the Panel grant their motion and transfer these cases, for coordinated and consolidated pre-trial proceedings, to the Southern District of West Virginia. Alternatively, Plaintiffs request transfer to the Southern District of Illinois.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 19th day of September, 2018, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which provides an electronic service notification to all counsel of record registered as CM/ECF users.
 Movants are: Deric Rees and Ceonda Rees, individually and as next friend and guardian of Baby T.W.B. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (Illinois Class); Darren and Elena Flanagan, individually and as adoptive parents and next friends of Baby K.L.F., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (Tennessee Class); Rachel Wood, individually and as next friend and adopted mother of Baby O.W., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (Missouri Class); Melissa Ambrosio, individually and as next friend of Baby G.A., and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (California Class); Shannon Hunt, individually and as next friend of Baby S.J., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (Maryland Class); Bobbi Lou Moore on behalf of Baby R.R.C., and all other similarly situated (West Virginia Class); Walter and Virginia Salmons, individually and as the next friend or guardian of Minor W.D. and on behalf of all others similarly situated (National Class).
 All arguments in Motion to Vacate CTO-47 (JPML 2804 Rec. Doc. 2398) are adopted in support of this Motion.
Plaintiffs respectfully move that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“Panel”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Rule 6.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Panel, transfer the actions on behalf of children born opioid-dependent listed in the attached Schedule of Actions and subsequent tag-along actions to a separate MDL before the Southern District of West Virginia.; alternatively, Plaintiffs request transfer to the Southern District of Illinois.
Movants seek transfer and coordination or consolidation of all cases filed on behalf of opioiddependent infants into a new MDL for the reasons laid out in the Doyle plaintiffs’ recently filed Motion to Vacate CTO-47 (JPML 2804 Rec. Doc. 2398). As discussed therein, Movants bring unique claims on behalf of opioid-dependent infants, distinct from the claims of the government and corporate plaintiffs in MDL 2804. These suits bring direct claims on behalf of innocent victims for past and future damages suffered, in contrast to claims for reimbursement. Plaintiffs’ claims do not wholly sound in public nuisance but also in state medical monitoring and product liability causes of action. Further, Movants have grave concerns that the due process rights of opioid-dependent infants are not being protected in MDL 2804 and that the interests of the governmental and corporate parties represented by the MDL leadership are fundamentally in conflict with those of these infants.
Movants established in their Motion to Vacate that concerns for due process, conflicts of interest, and the protection owed to children under the law compel this Panel to exclude such claims from MDL 2804 as it is presently structured. Movants have also established that despite their counsel’s numerous attempts to address these concerns with the leadership of the MDL, the status quo remains. Absent a structural change within the MDL, the question before the Panel is not whether these cases should be held outside of the MDL (they must be), but whether they should be consolidated in their own MDL.
JUDGE BREYER: Well, there’s another option that maybe your colleagues can address for you which is they all go to Judge X. There are common issues. Judge X conducts the discovery with respect to the common issues. And Judge X has the option of addressing the panel, one way or another, or the lawyers do, to create another MDL with this group or that group because the issues aren’t really amenable to the MDL that they are in.
TELLIS: I think that is a fine idea.
JUDGE BREYER: You like that idea?
TELLIS: I like that idea.
JUDGE BREYER: I’m glad you came up with that idea.
JUDGE VANCE: It’s not infeasible to think there could be a personal injury MDL or a third-party payor.
It has become abundantly clear that MDL 2804 is not amenable to the issues affecting opioid dependent infants, making a separate MDL for this group of innocent, injured plaintiffs necessary.
Presently, there are substantially similar opioid-dependent infant class action suits pending in the Southern District of West Virginia, the Southern District of Ohio, as well as eight cases currently caught up in MDL 2804 in the Northern District of Ohio. These state by state class actions filed to date conservatively represent approximately 40% of the children born opioid-dependent in the country. Undersigned counsel anticipates that several other substantially similar opioid-dependent infant class action suits will be filed across the country in the coming months. The actions on behalf of the opioid-dependent infants assert substantially similar claims and seek substantially similar relief.
These suits seek to establish a fund for medical monitoring, damages related to Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS) treatment and long-term treatment of these innocent victims of the Opioid Crisis.
Studies regarding the effect of Defendants’ opioid products upon the health of pregnant mothers and their children in utero, and effects after birth.
Knowledge regarding the effects of methadone (and other addiction treatment drugs) taken by pregnant mothers on their children in utero.
Studies regarding which medications are appropriate for pregnant mothers dealing with opioid addiction.
Knowledge of the diversionary opioid market’s impact on pregnant mothers.
Discovery relevant to Movants’ products liability claims.
To the extent there is overlap of factual allegations and common issues regarding the opioid drug manufacturers’ and distributors’ conduct between the opioid-dependent infant lawsuits and the suits in MDL 2804, Movants envision that discovery in the infants’ MDL would be coordinated with Judge Polster in MDL 2804 in accord with 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
Absent transfer to a separate MDL, the opioid-dependent infants’ unique interests will remain unprotected and these innocent young victims risk losing the opportunity to achieve a productive adulthood.
The Southern District of West Virginia, where the suit of Bobbi Lou Moore on behalf of Baby R.R.C. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 2:18-cv-01231 (S.D.W. Va.) is currently pending, is the most appropriate forum for Multidistrict Litigation. Southern West Virginia is the epicenter of the Opioid Crisis– where it began and where its most profound impacts are being felt. West Virginia has some of the highest rates of fetal opioid exposure and Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS) in the country.
Virginia residents, with the rate as high as 106.6 cases per 1,000 live births (10.66%) in one county. According to the CDC, there are many more opioid prescriptions than people in West Virginia– 138 prescriptions for every 100 people. A congressional investigation revealed that from 2008 to 2012, pharmaceutical distributors sent more than 780 million pills of hydrocodone and oxycodone to West Virginia, a state with only 1.8 million people. Southern West Virginia was especially hard hit: 20.8 million opioid pills were shipped from 2006 to 2016 to Williamson (population 2,900). One pharmacy in Kermit (population 400) ranked 22nd in the U.S. in the number of hydrocodone pills it received in 2006. The grave impact of this flood of prescription opioids on southern West Virginia and the children born there cannot be overstated.
The Courts of the Southern District of West Virginia have a proven track record in administering Multidistrict Litigation, as demonstrated by the Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation. The Southern District of West Virginia provides a well-prepared, well-staffed, and overall top-notch staff and Clerk’s office. As discussed below, the District’s judges have a wealth of experience in complex litigation, particularly pharmaceutical litigation. The convenience of the courts, witnesses, parties, and counsel will all be served by transfer of these cases to the Southern District of West Virginia.
Judge Robert C. Chambers has the requisite experience to manage this complex litigation. He previously served as Chief Judge for this District from 2012-2017, and has presided over 500 cases involving pharmaceutical companies. Judge Chambers is currently presiding over products liability actions involving claims against the manufacturer of prescription anticoagulant drugs. He has also presided over a case featuring complex pharmaceutical litigation, W. Virginia ex rel. Morrisey v. Pfizer, Inc., 969 F. Supp. 2d 476, 479 (S.D.W. Va. 2013). Prior to being appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton, Judge Chambers was in private practice in Charleston for twenty years, and served as legal counsel to the West Virginia State Senate.
Senior Judge David A. Faber, appointed to the federal bench in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush, served as Chief Judge at the Southern District of West Virginia from 2002 to 2007. He has served as a Senior Judge in the district since 2008. He has handled 79 cases involving pharmaceuticals, including several opioid cases. Senior Judge Faber also presided over a case involving medical products liability. Prior to becoming a federal judge, Senior Judge Faber worked in both private practice and served in the military as a JAG, and achieved the rank of Colonel. He attended Yale for law school where he was a National Law Scholar, and holds an L.L.M. degree from the University of Virginia.
Chief Judge Thomas E. Johnston in the Charleston Division has over a decade of experience as a federal judge. He oversees some of the suite of cases collected in the MDL related to the Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation. Chief Judge Johnston has extensive experience presiding over medical cases, including 216 cases involving health care, and 28 cases specifically involving pharmaceuticals, as well as products liability claims. He had previously served as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of West Virginia from 2001 to 2006 before being appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush.
In the alternative, Movants would propose transfer and consolidation in the Southern District of Illinois before the Judge Staci M. Yandle. Judge Yandle was appointed to the federal bench in 2014 after an illustrious career in private practice and a distinguished record of public service, including serving on the Illinois Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. This Panel has previously commended the Southern District of Illinois as convenient due in part to its geographically central location.
For the above-stated reasons and the reasons stated in the Motion to Vacate filed by the Doyle plaintiffs, Movants respectfully request that the Panel transfer the actions on behalf of opioid dependent infants recited on the attached Schedule and all subsequently filed tag-along cases for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings in a separate MDL in the Southern District of West Virginia. Alternatively, Movants request transfer to the Southern District of Illinois, and assignment to Judge Staci M. Yandle.
Kevin W. Thompson David R. Barney, Jr.
THE CREADORE LAW FIRM, P.C.
 JPML 2804 Rec. Doc. No. 382 at 16-17, Transcript of November 30, 2017 Hearing.
 Knight v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 2018 WL 3037442 (S.D.W. Va. June 19, 2018).
 See, e.g., City of Huntington v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., No. CV 3:17-01362, 2017 WL 3317300 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 3, 2017); The Town of Clendenin, West Virginia v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation et al., No. 2:18-CV-01284, (S.D.W. Va.
Sept. 10, 2018); Adkins v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. et al., No. 18-CV-00477, (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 23, 2018).
 Walker v. Medtronic, Inc., No. CIV.A. 2:07-00317, 2010 WL 4822135 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 24, 2010), aff’d, 670 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2012).
 See MDL No. 2187, In Re C. R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation.
 See, e.g., Raab v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 150 F. Supp. 3d 671 (S.D.W. Va. 2015).
 In re: Pradaxa (dabigatran etexilate) Prod. Liab. Litig., 883 F. Supp. 2d 1355, 1356 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2012) (“The Southern District of Illinois’ geographically central location and accessibility also commend it for this nationwide products liability litigation.”).
Attend the July 20-22, 2018 Mass Tort Nexus Opioid Crisis Summit, to learn more about what your firm can do to help individual victims of the opioid epidemic.
The Opiod Crisis Summit will provide information related to the types of claims that may be brought against the opioid defendants on behalf of individual plaintiffs. Additionally, you will receive the proven criteria questions to obtain these clients, as well as vital information related to the complex issues related to qualifying clients for each category of opioid injury.
To register for the Opioid Crisis Summit contact Jenny Levine at 954-530-9892 or email at jenny@masstortnexus.com.
If your personal injury firm is not reaching out to its past clients and engaging in “public awareness marketing,” to obtain opioid clients, you are missing out on an opportunity to help the several hundred thousand individuals and families, that have potential claims against the opioid litigation defendants.
Personal Injury firms are in a unique position to help individuals harmed by the opioid epidemic, as many of these potential clients will have been previously represented by your firm. The first opioid prescription issued to an individual often occurs after a personal injury, such as an auto accident or work place injury. If your firm does not reach out to its past clients and offer to represent them in their potential claim against the opioid defendants, you can rest assured that other firms will eventually sign these cases.
Numerous firms have expressed concerns related to opioid individual cases being eviscerated by the Learned Intermediary Doctrine. This concern may arise from opioid individual cases from over a decade ago, that resulted in defense wins based on learned intermediary doctrine arguments.
Despite the defense Learned Intermediary Doctrine wins from over a decade ago, the researchers at Mass Tort Nexus and many others do not believe the Learned Intermediary Doctrine will be a significant factor in individual opioid cases filed now or in the future.
Much has occurred since the defense “Learned Intermediary Doctrine” wins of the past.
The FDA has issued multiple new Black Box Warnings for all opioid products and more are expected.
The FDA, CDC, NIH and even State Medical Boards have issued new guidelines for opioid prescribing and even stricter guidelines are expected in the future.
Considering all that is now known, it is unlikely that any physician would testify that he/she would continue to prescribe opioids, in the same manner as the past.
It is worth noting that the current Surgeon General Jerome Adams has been personally impacted by the opioid crisis. His brother is one of the many victims.
The learned intermediary was not “learned” in the past, doctors were misinformed or incorrectly “learned.” Defendants would face great challenges in succeeding in arguments sounding in the Learned Intermediary Doctrine given all that is now known.
In June of 2018, the FDA required new Black Box Warnings be added to the prescribing labels of all instant release opioid products partially because prescribers were miseducated by the opioid defendants, their front groups and key opinion leaders.
New Black Box Warning requirements were imposed on all opioid instant release products, as of June 2018. The intent was to ensure that previously miseducated doctors (learned intermediaries) gain an understanding of current proper opioid prescribing standards and cease prescribing opioids based on the past misinformation (incorrect learning) they received over the past several decades.
Mass Tort Nexus invites you to attend our July 20-22 Opioid Crisis Summit and hopes that your firm will join the fight on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of individual opioid victims needing legal representation.
Opioid litigation in New York and other state courts, where hundreds of counties and cities have filed lawsuits against opioid manufacturers and distributors, are now moving forward even with the explosion in the Federal Opiate Litigation MDL 2804 OPIOID-CRISIS-BRIEFCASE -MDL-2804-OPIATE-PRESCRIPTION-LITIGATION, where more than 500 states, counties, cities as well as unions, hospitals and individuals have filed lawsuits against the opioid industry as a whole.
At one point, the opiate industry attempted to raise arguments stating that the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t yet determined whether narcotic painkillers are unnecessarily dangerous – a central question in any litigation, which was quickly denied and seems to show that Opiate Big Pharma is once again attempting to hide behind the FDA shield.
In a two-page order issued in March by Judge Jerry Garguilo of the Suffolk County Supreme Court, New York where he ruled that there is “no compelling reason to impose a stay of proceedings” until the FDA completes its own review of the benefits and risks of opioids. The lawsuits by most of the counties in New York, which have been consolidated in Garguilo’s court, are “backward-looking” toward allegedly fraudulent marketing materials and tactics the drug companies used to convince doctors and patients their products had low risk of addiction.
Oklahoma, one of at least 20 states besides New York that have opioid lawsuit dockets against drugmakers, alleges fraudulent marketing of drugs that fueled the opioid epidemic in the lawsuit filed in June 2017, and seeks unspecified damages from Purdue Pharma, Allergan, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals and several of their subsidiaries.
The New York state court lawsuits are joined by another somewhat unique group of plaintiffs in the legal battle over the opioid-epidemic with class actions filed by consumers who claim they’re seeing skyrocketing health insurance costs as a result of the crisis.
The suits, filed in New York and four other states, were brought by individual persons against opioid manufacturers and distributors, and are among the few class actions filed against drug makers and marketers. The vast majority of cases have been separate actions brought by government entities like cities and counties.
The plaintiffs in this new wave of cases have filed across the country in federal courts in USDC SD New York (Complaint) , a New Jersey Complaint, a Massachusetts Complaint, an Illinois Complaint as well as a California Complaint where they’ve filed lawsuits on behalf of those who paid increased health insurance costs–including higher premiums, deductibles and co-payments–because of effects attributable to the opioid epidemic.
The proposed classes include businesses and individuals who paid for health insurance as part of employer-sponsored plans.
“We don’t know anyone who in the litigation is addressing the private sector harms to consumers and businesses from increased premiums and other insurance costs that flow to anyone in the health insurance market as a result of the fact that insurers are paying more for addictions,” said Travis Lenkner, one of the plaintiffs attorneys filing the cases.
The opioid cases add a new type of plaintiff into the wide-reaching opioid litigation, which have also includes states, Native American tribes, pension funds and hospitals.
Representatives of the other manufacturing defendants, which include Endo Health Solutions, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Insys Therapeutics Inc., did not respond to requests for comment.
It is now fairly common knowledge in the legal world that there is more than enough data that links increased health insurance costs to the opioid epidemic as well as the overall catastrophic impact of the flood of opioids into the America marketplace.
The suits cite statistics. In California, for instance, health insurance premiums for family coverage increased 233.5 percent from 2002 to 2016. Monthly premiums for the plaintiff in that case, Jordan Chu, jumped from $160.52 in 2016 to $240.76 this year. New Jersey residents with private health insurance spent $5,081 in insurance premiums in 2014, up from $2,454 in 2001. And an average family plan in New York with annual costs of $9,439 in 2003 had jumped to $19,375 in 2016.
Plaintiff counsel stated that they will be filing suits in more states and fight any attempts to transfer these cases to the Northern District of Ohio, where U.S. District Judge Dan Polster is overseeing the opioid multidistrict litigation, MDL 2804, even though the cases were filed in federal courts. A damaging discovery win for the plaintiffs was the order of May 18, 2018, see DEA ARCOS Database Access Order May 8, 2018 MDL 2804, where Judge Polster ordered the DEA to turn over distribution data for all 50 states based on the revelations in a prior DEA related order where the Opioid Drug distribution data provided very solid information on all the parties involved in creating the opioid crisis over the last 15 years.
The New York court docket parallels the federal and many other opioid based complaints, filed in state courts across the country where parties have decided to pursue their claims in their state courts versus the federal docket. These filings in both state and federal courts, will only increases the pressure on manufacturers and wholesalers to either win dismissal of these cases or prepare for an accelerated trial schedule.
There are currently more than 500 of the nation’s 3,200 counties have sued and plaintiff lawyers hope to soon get that number to 1,500, which some lawyers consider critical mass for a settlement.
The defendant companies argue they can’t be held liable for selling a legal product sold only with a doctor’s prescription whose distribution was controlled and overseen, from manufacturing to retail sales, by federal and state regulators.
The plaintiffs argue manufacturers used a variety of tactics, including misleading marketing materials and highly paid physician-influencers, to convince prescribing physicians their products were safe for treating chronic pain when, in fact, they were highly addictive.
In the March order, Judge Garguilo rejected the defendants’ claim that the FDA has exclusive authority to determine whether, in effect, opioids should be sold for anything other than relieving the pain of terminal illness. Regardless of what the FDA determines, the judge said, the municipal plaintiffs have the right to seek redress for their costs associated with addiction.
“Because the focus of this lawsuit is on the state of scientific knowledge that existed when the defendants made their marketing claims, there is no risk of inconsistent rulings, and none of the current studies will have any bearing on whether the defendants’ representations were misleading when made,” the judge wrote. The court isn’t being asked to decide the risks and benefits of opioids but whether the defendants misrepresented those risks and benefits, he added.
In case the defendants didn’t grasp the judge’s ultimate goal, the judge restated his “previously expressed desire” for a “prompt resolution of this matter.” The federal judge overseeing multidistrict litigation in Ohio, Judge Dan Aaron Polster, has similarly urged defendants to engage in settlement talks, although a global resolution of the litigation could prove difficult to negotiate.
In addition to hundreds of cases consolidated in federal court, the defendants face a wave of litigation in state court, like the New York cases, as well as lawsuits and investigations by state attorneys general and the federal government. Any settlement would have to protect the defendant companies from future lawsuits over the same issue and that may be difficult to negotiate given all the concurrent litigation in different courts. The time has now arrived for Opioid Big Pharma, in all forms to face the facts that for close to 20 years they have flooded the mainstream commerce of America with massive amounts of opiates with little to no oversight, which whether caused by a catastrophic systemic failure on many levels, or simple greed, the time has now come for the opiate industry to face the music of complex litigation in state and federal court venues across the country.
For those looking to tap into the opioid litigation or learn what the current status is in both state and federal court opioid litigation, please visit www.opioidcrisissummit.com where Mass Tort Nexus is hosting national political leaders and lead opiate counsel who are active in the day to day opioid crisis and have the most up to date case information during the two day event taking place July 21-22, 2018 in Fort Lauderdale.
Will Industrial Talc Litigation Become Another Asbestos? The Litigation Is Moving That Way!
(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) Johnson & Johnson lost another talcum powder cancer trial, when a California jury awarded $4 million in punitive damages on top of $21.7 million in compensatory damages on Wednesday May 23, 2018 to Joanne Anderson and her husband, Ms. Anderson is a 68-year-old woman who sued J&J alleging that he cancer was caused by asbestos in the company’s baby powder. The case is Anderson v. Borg Warner Corp., BC 666513, California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (West Covina).
The jury found that J&J (JNJ.N), was 67 percent responsible for her mesothelioma, a cancer linked to asbestos exposure. Anderson’s lawyers said she was exposed to baby powder laced with the carcinogen when she used it on her children and while bowling.
The verdict against J&J was linked to company documents produced in the trial, “When jurors are given the opportunity to see internal documents and conduct of J&J — things the FDA and government haven’t seen — there is only one choice in how to rule.” According to Chris Panatier, plaintiffs’ lawyer.
Anderson and her husband had sued J&J, a unit of Imerys SA (IMTP.PA), Cyprus Amax Minerals, a unit of Brenntag (BNRGn.DE), Honeywell International (HON.N) and other local talc suppliers, which are now becoming targets more and more in the emerging talc litigation exploding across the country.
J&J’s lawyers have stated that Anderson’s mesothelioma may not have been caused by asbestos in talc, but could have occurred “spontaneously.’’ They also said the woman had a family history of lung and breast cancer. Even though there has been ample evidence shown in court after court, both state and federal that J&J’s talcum powder products are known to be cancer causing. J&J and others have been diligent in suppressing the research and scientific studies showing the cancer links, going so far as to pay “ghost writers” to submit company sponsored “talc is a good product” papers as legitimate scientific materials to recognize medical journals. This conduct dates back to at least the mid-10970’2 when internal J&J consultants working on Talc R&D projects raised red flags on the dangers of talc and the link to cancer.
Hiding Data That Showed Potential Dangers: The standard complaints utilized in the prior trial allege that J&J knew about the risks of ovarian cancer as early as 1971. The complaints allege that “nearly all” of 23 known epidemiologic studies on cosmetic talc reported an associated risk with ovarian cancer, and assert alleged instances in which J&J “knowingly released false information” about the safety of talc in coordination with the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association. Media reports suggest that, in post-trial interviews, jurors indicated that these allegations were part of the motivation for the large punitive damages award.
This is the second jury in less than two months to conclude J&J sold its iconic baby powder knowing it contained at least trace amounts of asbestos and posed a cancer risk to users. In April, jurors in J&J’s hometown of New Brunswick, New Jersey, ordered the company and a unit of Imerys SA, a talc supplier, to pay a total of $117 million to a banker who showed his cancer was tied to baby powder use. See For J&J $37 Million Talcum Powder Mesothelioma Verdict—Add $80 Million In Punitive Damages.
Litigation over J&J’s baby powder is accelerating. The company is facing claims by more than 9,000 plaintiffs, primarily connecting talc to ovarian cancer, according to a May 1 securities filing. J&J didn’t break out the number of ovarian cancer cases versus the number of mesothelioma cases allegedly tied to talc. See Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Litigation MDL 2738 (USDC New Jersey).
J&J, talc supplier Imerys and retail seller incuding Rite-Aid pharmacy (RAD.N) are currently facing similar claims in a trial underway in South Carolina over asbestos talc allegations.
Anderson argued she used J&J’s talc products on her children in the 1970s and on herself in the 1980s and 1990s when she would powder her hands and feet while bowling. She claimed at one point, she went through two bottles a month.

References: § 1407
 § 1407
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.