What Happened In The MassTorts World Last Month? 2018-Mar

No signs of settlements in the ongoing Xarelto Litigation currently underway in the Eastern District of Louisiana, leads U. S. District Judge Eldon Fallon to order two separate waves of lawsuits, each comprising 600 cases totaling to 1,200 lawsuits to be prepared for trial. These additional cases will go through case-specific discovery. The first wave requires the plaintiffs and defendants to pick their 200 cases each until April 16, 2018, and the court will make its random selections on April 30. Similarly, for the second wave, August 16 is set for the plaintiffs and defendants to submit their pick of cases to undergo a discovery process and August 30 for the court to make its random selections.

Bayer and Johnson & Johnson's Janssen division are facing more than 18,000 cases nationwide wherein each allegation points that users and the medical community were not adequately warned about the risk of uncontrollable bleeding on Xarelto.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is warning doctors not to prescribe fluoroquinolones unnecessarily for conditions that don’t require antibiotic treatment. This decision was taken after data was released which suggested that fluoroquinolones are often used to treat conditions that do not require antibiotic treatment or those with a different recommended first-line therapy. Because severe side-effects are linked to this group of drugs  which involve tendons, muscles, joints, nerves and the central nervous system, with chances of life-threatening Clostridium difficile infection, which causes diarrhoea that can lead to severe colon damage and death, CDC has warned doctors to prescribe them only when “absolutely necessary.”

All Fluoroquinolone Neuropathy federal cases were transferred to the District of Minnesota and assigned to Judge John R. Tunheim as MDL No.-2642. Defendants include Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Research & Development LLC, McKesson Corporation, Schering Corporation, and Bayer Corporation. Allegations faced by the defendants are that they allegedly developed, manufactured and marketed fluoroquinolones. However, the defendants deny that fluoroquinolones are defective or unreasonably dangerous or that they failed to provide adequate warnings.The main allegations faced by the company are that they downplayed the risk and failed to alert the medical community and patients with adequate safety warnings.

A wrongful death lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island recently against Johnson & Johnson, Imerys Talc America, and Personal Care Products Council by a man on behalf of himself and his late wife. The man alleges that his late wife developed ovarian cancer linked to J&J’s Talcum Powder products’ use over 15 years and succumbed to it. Allegations include that the defendants had the knowledge of the increased risk of ovarian cancer associated with genital use of talc-based body powder, yet they continued to actively market the safety of the product to users and failed to inform customers and end-users of the products' health hazards, particularly when used by women in the perineal area.

The giant conglomerate J&J maintains that it does not intend to offer talcum powder settlements for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer. J&J is defending nearly 7,000 Talcum Powder lawsuits nationwide, filed by women who claim they developed ovarian cancer due to the long-term use of products promoted for feminine hygiene by the defendants. The motley of lawsuits is filed under MDL No. 2738- In Re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation formed in 2016, presided by Hon. Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J./ Hon. Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J., in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; hundreds of lawsuits are also filed in Missouri 22nd Circuit Court, St. Louis; cases are also filed in California and Delaware state courts.

The Proton Pump Inhibitor lawsuit defendants, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Procter & Gamble Co., McKesson Corp., Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Pfizer Inc., and Pfizer subsidiary Wyeth, are facing a growing number of lawsuits.  The drugs in question include Nexium, Prilosec, Prevacid, Protonix, and others. The plaintiffs allege that PPIs cause kidney injuries including acute interstitial nephritis, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and end-stage renal disease. Each allegation holds the drug manufacturers responsible for withholding information about the risks associated with long-term use of the acid-reflux medications. The PPI lawsuits have been centralized in the District of New Jersey before Judge Claire C. Cecchi for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Recently, a PPI lawsuit was filed by a Newark woman alleging that Nexium manufacturers AstraZeneca did not warn her of the potential risks of CKD and AKI associated with the use of Nexium in the product labelling, nor in the direct consumer advertising, which caused her to develop CKD. She further added that if she had been warned about the potential kidney related side-effects, she would not continue her prolonged use of the drug and would have switched to another antacid to relieve her heartburn.

The first Bard IVC Filter bellwether belonging to MDL: 2641 in re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation is scheduled to convene on March 14 this year before U.S. federal Judge David G. Campbell, in the United States District Court District of Arizona.

An Order released by the court informed that the plaintiff Sherr-Una Booker may present evidence pertaining to the performance of a predicate device at the trial.

The first bellwether will be tried in two phases. The first phase will determine liability and compensatory damages to be followed by a second phase where a decision will be taken whether punitive damages should be awarded.

About 3,000 IVC filter lawsuits are pending in the consolidated action against C.R. Bard for its Recovery, G2, G2 Express, G2X, Eclipse, Meridian, and Denali IVC filters wherein plaintiffs claim that due to manufacturing and design defects, Bard filters are more dangerous than other IVC filters and that Bard failed to warn about the higher risks.

In December 2017, a Bergen County Jury of New Jersey unanimously awarded nearly $15 million to a woman who alleged that she suffered debilitating pain caused by one of the two Pelvic Mesh devices she received in 2008, sold under J&J’s Ethicon brand name Prolift. The verdict supported the claim that the manufacturer failed to adequately warn about the potential side effects.

Ethicon challenged this verdict. However, a New Jersey Superior Court Judge Rachelle Lea Harz denied this appeal stating that the manufacturer failed to warn about certain risks associated with its Prolift and TVT-O implants.

Seven pelvic mesh manufacturers are facing thousands of lawsuits under individual MDLs consolidated by U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, in early 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. The total number of cases under the umbrella was over 102,133 cases as of March 2017. Formation of MDL No. 2327 in Re Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation was a part of the consolidation. Ethicon has consistently had the largest number of product liability cases filed in the federal court with about 38,035 cases filed and 5,547 cases closed. These cases all relate to the use of transvaginal surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse ("POP") and/or stress urinary incontinence ("SUI").

An Invokana lawsuit was filed by a man from Mississippi alleging that the side effects of this antidiabetic drug resulted in the surgery to have his leg amputated and also caused kidney failure, diabetic ketoacidosis, and sepsis. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Johnson & Johnson and its Janssen Pharmaceuticals alleging that the manufacturers failed to adequately warn the users and medical community about the risks, withheld information about the link between Invokana and amputations.

Another Invokana lawsuit was filed by a man from Florida who had to amputate his second right toe due to ongoing ulceration and osteomyelitis, leaving him permanently disfigured. This was less than a year after he was first prescribed Invokana for treatment of type 2 diabetes. This case too shall soon join the Invokana lawsuits pending in the New Jersey federal court.

Another renal failure lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by a man who claims the side effects of Invokana resulted in his diagnosis of renal failure, requiring hospitalization and substantial medical treatment.

A kidney failure lawsuit linked to the use of Invokana was filed by a North Carolina woman who had to undergo hospitalization and a considerable medical treatment. She is holding the makers of Invokana responsible for her injuries.

Invokana: MDL 2750, in re: Invokana (Canagliflozin) Products Liability Litigation) was created in December 2016, presided over by Hon. Brian R. Martinotti, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; the first bellwether is scheduled for September 2018. Cases are also filed in state courts, primarily in California, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. There are more than 1,000 Invokana lawsuits currently pending the federal MDL and are in the pretrial discovery phase.

An increasing number of product liability lawsuits are filed against Bayer Healthcare, the maker of intrauterine birth control device Mirena. The lawsuits are filed by women who allege that the intrauterine device (IUD) maker failed to adequately warn the medical community and the end users about the associated risks.

Recently, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by a woman who raised similar allegations that the side effects of Mirena IUD caused blurred vision, severe headaches, back pains and other symptoms related to pseudotumor cerebri (PTC), or idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) (a medical condition involving a dangerous build-up of fluid pressure around the brain) for which she had to be hospitalized and also undergo a diagnostic lumbar puncture .

A similar complaint was filed by a woman from Ohio in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, who claims the Mirena implant caused a dangerous build-up of fluid pressure on her optic nerves, resulting in papilledema, light sensitivity, blurred vision, headaches and other complications leaving her with a permanent injury.

This case will join the 200 plus centralized lawsuits involving pseudotumor cerebri or intracranial hypertension complications from Mirena IUDs filed against Bayer Healthcare as a part of MDL: 2767, established in April 2017, for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the Southern District of New York, before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.

Retrial for a previously tossed $150 million AndroGel verdict announced as punitive damages and no compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff began on March 7. The plaintiff was allowed to present all claims to the jury by the U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly presiding over the centralized testosterone replacement therapy lawsuits in the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff was earlier ordered by the court that the jury would only reconsider the issue of fraudulent misrepresentation. The court vacated the prior judgment in its entirety and ordered a new trial on all claims.

Other defendants named in the testosterone litigation namely Eli Lilly, Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and GlaxoSmithKline have opted to settle the lawsuits against them. However, no signs of settlements are seen from AbbVie and the company faces nearly 4,510 cases nationally over injuries blamed on AndroGel.

A nine-person jury panel held J&J and its Ethicon Inc. subsidiary responsible for being negligent in designing and marketing of Prolift, a transvaginal mesh device, which caused chronic pelvic pain since the time the plaintiff underwent a prolapse repair surgery in 2009. The jury pointed that the defendants marketed, sold, and recruited physicians worldwide to implant the mesh implant device for Pelvic Floor Repair in women that suffered from pelvic prolapse. The plaintiff was awarded $10 million as compensatory and $25 million as punitive damages in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana Judiciary, with Honorable Judge Philip P. Simon presiding over the 9-day trial.

Over 55,000 product liability claims involving Prolift and other transvaginal mesh implants are a part of the centralized litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

A decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regarding whether it will hear the appeal involving two Risperdal lawsuits is awaited which can further impact hundreds of Risperdal lawsuits currently pending under the centralized MDL litigation in Philadelphia. Both the cases were filed in 2014 and were dismissed by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granting the defendants Johnson & Johnson and its Janssen Pharmaceuticals’ motion for summary judgment after it was brought to the court’s notice that the statute of limitations on the claims had expired in 2009.

Two coordinated actions have been filed for Risperdal cases: one in Los Angeles Superior Court (Risperdal and Invega Product Liability Cases, JCCP 4775) and the other in Philadelphia (In re: Risperdal Litigation, March 2010 Term, Case No. 100300296).

The U.S. District Court, District of Arizona was approached by C. R. Bard, the defendant named in the IVC Filter litigation involving the Eclipse filter, to pass a summary judgment for failure-to-warn, misrepresentation, negligence per se, consumer fraud and unfair trade practices, and punitive damages claims made by the plaintiff. As per the court order released in mid-March, the company’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn and punitive damage claims was rejected.

This would be the second bellwether IVC filter lawsuit which is scheduled to go before a jury on May 15, with a final pretrial conference planned for May 4.

About 3,000 IVC filter lawsuits are pending in the consolidated action against C.R. Bard for its Recovery, G2, G2 Express, G2X, Eclipse, Meridian, and Denali IVC filters wherein plaintiffs claim that due to manufacturing and design defects, Bard filters are more dangerous than other IVC filters and that Bard failed to warn about the higher risks.

More than 1,800 product liability claims involving Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals’ blood thinner Xarelto are awaiting trial in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, and trials for three Xarelto lawsuits are expected to begin this April.

A request to make changes to the Master Complaint was put before the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas by the remaining Pennsylvania plaintiffs to give them time to “reorganize the allegations and provide more details about the actions and inactions that form the bases of already-existing causes of action.” This request is strongly opposed by the defendants.

There are nearly 18,000 Xarelto federal product liability claims consolidated under MDL No.- 2592 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The Atrium C-Qur Hernia Mesh lawsuits centralized in 2017 under MDL 2753 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire include all types of C-Qur line of polypropylene surgical mesh. Hon. Judge Landya B. McCafferty is presiding over the Atrium Medical Corp. litigation where more than 20 lawsuits are pending for trial.

The court convened a regular monthly status conference on March 8 to discuss bellwether case management order, plaintiffs jurisdictional requests, deposition dates for plaintiffs’ requested Rule 30(b)(6) deponent, defendants’ privilege log, and location of the deposition of Reinhard Mayer primarily.

Plaintiffs allege that the C-Qur mesh causes an inflammatory response that may result in improper fixation, bowel adhesions, and other severe complications. Claims also include that Atrium failed to provide appropriate safety warnings to the medical community and patients in spite of being aware of the alleged design defects.

With the Taxotere MDL proceedings moving forward, a case management order (PDF) was issued on March 9, wherein Judge Engelhardt identified four cases that the parties nominated and ranked for the second phase of discovery. One of those four cases will be selected as the first bellwether trial set to begin on September 24. Federal Taxotere lawsuits are filed on behalf of cancer patients who allegedly experienced permanent hair loss related to treatment with Taxotere.

A decision to reopen a mesothelioma case, dismissed in 2015, was taken by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey based on the discovery of a pre-1980 sample of Scotts Turf Builder, allegedly identified as the source of the asbestos exposure which was in the possession of Scotts Company since 1979.

The case was dismissed due to the lack of any potential pre-1980 sample of the Turf Builder. The alleged exposure to the asbestos-containing vermiculite that was used as a filler in the fertilizer used by the plaintiff (now deceased and represented by his wife) on a regular basis from 1967 to 1980.

In addition to the Talcum Powder linked ovarian cancer lawsuits, Johnson & Johnson is now facing Mesothelioma lawsuits along with Imerys Talc America and Cyprus Amax Minerals Co.

Manufacturers of Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) used in the treatment of heartburn have denied all allegations of liability, failure to warn, negligence and breach of warranty, among other claims raised in the “Master Complaint”.

Defendants AstraZeneca, Procter and Gamble, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis filed answers to the master complaint following a March 16 Case Management Order issued by the presiding judge to coordinate allegations raised in the litigation. The drugs in question include Nexium, Prilosec, Prevacid, Protonix, and others.

The main allegation faced by the manufacturers is that the long-term use of PPIs causes kidney injuries including acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), chronic kidney disease, and end-stage renal disease. Other allegations hold the drug manufacturers responsible for withholding information about the risks associated with long-term use of the acid-reflux medications.

PPI Lawsuits have been centralized under MDL No.  2789 created in August 2017 in the District of New Jersey before Judge Claire C. Cecchi for coordinated pretrial proceedings with nearly 500 plus lawsuits pending. Nearly 127 related cases are pending in Delaware Superior Court and around 227 in state courts across the country. 

C.R. Bard, Inc. will face its first transvaginal mesh lawsuit in New Jersey before Bergen County Superior Court Judge James DeLuca. The Plaintiff is a woman who received Bard’s TVM implants to treat Pelvic Organ Prolapse (“POP”) or Stress. Urinary Incontinence that left her suffering from chronic pain. She holds Bard responsible, claiming the devices were defectively designed and manufactured.

Two cases have previously gone to trial in New Jersey, but both cases involved implants manufactured by J&J subsidiary Ethicon. Roughly 160 cases are pending that involve Bard’s implants. Since the first trial in 2012, only three cases involved C.R. Bard implants, out of which two verdicts went in favor of the plaintiff totaling to nearly $7.5 million and the third verdict was announced in favor of the defense.

Hundreds of transvaginal mesh lawsuits have been roped into confidential settlement agreements in recent years by C.R. Bard.

Judge M. Casey Rodgers presiding over the centralized Abilify litigation has set three dates for the first set of bellwether trials. The first trial will begin on June 18, followed by the second on August 6, and the third on August 27 this summer, set for the federal court in Pensacola. Judge Rodgers has favored an aggressive bellwether schedule from the very beginning of this centralized litigation. On the same note, these lawsuits were chosen for convenience as not only were they in the best position to go to trial early but were also filed in the same district where the MDL was consolidated, thereby favoring a speedier trial schedule.

The lawsuits were centralized in October 2016 as MDL No. 2734 (In Re: Abilify Compulsive Behavior Products Liability Litigation) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, where nearly 600 product liability lawsuits are pending against defendant drugmakers Bristol-Myers Squibb and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals.

Allegations include failure to warn the patients and the medical community to look out for symptoms of uncontrollable urges to gamble, binge eating, shop and engage in a risky sexual activity. Plaintiffs state that they could have escaped from the effects of gambling losses had earlier warnings been provided to them.

As per the mid-March proposal, the plaintiffs have requested the next round of bellwether cases to be selected from both Florida and California, owing to the fact that the largest number of complaints are filed here. Plaintiffs have also requested for the cases where Abilify was prescribed for major depressive disorder or depression and also on cases that involve gambling addiction, as opposed to other compulsive behaviors linked to Abilify, such as compulsive shopping and sex addiction.

The defendants’ proposal calls for a random selection of 25 claims from the MDL pool so as not to consciously include any broad category and have requested the court to be fair.

Also, Superior Court Judge James De Luca is presiding over the cases filed in the parallel state court litigation established in New Jersey for which trials are expected to begin by the end of this year.

The number of Abilify lawsuits filed across the nation are on the rise. Reports are also in that the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) received at least 30 reports of compulsive gambling, as well as 24 reports of other impulsive behaviors, in connection with Abilify from 2005 through 2015.

Defendants named in the Risperdal lawsuit, Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals, had filed a motion early March requesting a rehearing before the entire Pennsylvania Superior Court for reconsideration of a related January 2018 ruling. On March 16, 2018, the Pennsylvania Superior Court turned down this request.

As per the January 2018 court decision, the court allowed the plaintiff involved in the lawsuit to pursue punitive damages; this decision came after a three-judge panel found that the trial court should have considered the law of plaintiffs’ home states when considering whether or not punitive damages should be allowed. Anticipating thousands of plaintiffs seeking similar awards, the defendants filed a motion to oppose the decision.

In a retrial that started early March, AbbVie was ordered by a federal jury to pay $3.2 million to the plaintiff who claims he suffered a heart attack while using AndroGel. The jury awarded $200,000 compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages to the plaintiff.  

The plaintiff had been awarded $150 million in punitive damages in July 2017. However, post-trial motions resulted in the dismissal of the verdict by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly of the Northern District of Illinois, on finding that the jury’s decision was “logically incompatible” with the evidence presented at trial; he further ordered a retrial.

Testosterone Replacement Therapy lawsuits are centralized before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly in the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated discovery and management, as part of a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) 2545 (In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation). This litigation involves several drug makers; however, Eli Lilly, Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and GlaxoSmithKline have announced settlements to resolve all of the testosterone claims against their companies. The terms of those deals have not yet been reported.

Cook Celect IVC Filter Lawsuits are progressing as per schedule set by Chief Judge Richard L. Young. On March 9, the second bellwether went to trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The plaintiff claims that the filter perforated his vena cava and couldn’t be removed. The main allegations include failure to warn the plaintiff of known and scientifically knowable dangers in spite of being aware of the risks, design defects, negligence, fraudulent concealment, punitive damages, and breach of express and implied warranty.

The case was dismissed by the judge because it was filed three years after the delivery of the device. The judge also found the terms and conditions applicable to the sale of the plaintiff’s IVC filter "expressly disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability."
All Cook IVC filter lawsuits are centralized since October 2014 under MDL No. 2570 (IN RE: Cook Medical, Inc., IVC Filters Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation), presided by Judge Richard L. Young, in the Southern District of Indiana.

Nearly 700 lawsuits, all involving antidiabetic drugs Byetta, Victoza, Januvia, and Janumet, were reinstated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, wherein the previous ruling was overturned.  The lawsuits were reinstated and remanded to Judge Battaglia for coordinated pretrial proceedings, which had been paused for about two years after the judge passed a motion for summary judgment filed by the drug makers in 2015, finding that the claims were preempted by federal law.

Allegations include that the drug makers knew that the use of this class of diabetes medications, known as incretin mimetics may result in the development of pancreatic cancer, yet they failed to warn consumers and the medical community.

MDL No. 2452 (In Re: Incretin Mimetics Products Liability Litigation) was created in 2013 in the Southern District of California before U.S. District Judge Anthony Battaglia.

The federal court recently adopted a new schedule as per the case management order (PDF) issued on March 21, wherein Judge Battaglia adopted a discovery schedule proposed by the drug makers for discovery and another round of pretrial motions on general causation and preemption issues, before any individual cases will be allowed to go before a jury. Further, the court has set December 11, 2018, as the time-limit within which the parties can file challenges to the admissibility of certain expert witnesses and another round of summary judgment motions, to be followed by a selection of a small group of bellwether trials by December 14. According to this new schedule, the first bellwether trial may begin in January 2020.

The federal jury overseeing the first Bard IVC Filter bellwether trial belonging to MDL No.: 2641 in re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation that began on March 14 this year, before U.S. Federal Judge David G. Campbell, in the United States District Court District of Arizona, awarded $ 4 million to the plaintiff. The award included $ 2 million as compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages for the loss she suffered allegedly caused by C. R. Bard’s IVC filter which broker apart in her body.

About 3,000 IVC Filter lawsuits are pending in the consolidated action against C.R. Bard for its Recovery, G2, G2 Express, G2X, Eclipse, Meridian, and Denali IVC Filters. Claims include manufacturing and design defects,  failure to warn about the associated risks among others.

C.R. Bard and Davol will have to defend yet another product liability lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri by a Missouri woman who alleges she faced adverse reactions due to the Ventralex ST hernia patch. The woman had to undergo a revision surgery after the failure of the device which was implanted in 2013, which would further require multiple surgeries for correction.

Another Ventralex Hernia Patch lawsuit claiming negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, and breach of warranty and violation of consumer protection laws was filed by a man from California, and his wife claimed loss of consortium in New Jersey federal court. The man suffered internal injuries after the mesh entangled in his body and states the mesh requires a surgical removal, but cannot be removed.

The  U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts released an amended case management order on March 2 informing all involved in the Stryker Hip Implant litigation about the new deadlines for the selection of potential bellwether trial cases that was initially scheduled for February 14. The court has now set September 4, 2018, for each side to submit a revised proposal as to the number of bellwether cases to be included in the initial bellwether trial pool. The same day, the court will decide the goals of the MDL, as set forth in Paragraph 3(b) of MDL Order No. 5 |LS|#11|RS|. Selection of bellwether trial cases would be no later than October 5, 2018, as per the court order.

A wrongful death lawsuit was filed recently in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by the family of the plaintiff who died as a result of a post-operative infection following a revision surgery, which was allegedly needed because of design defects with certain components of Stryker LFit V40 and Accolade II Femoral Hip replacement system she was implanted with. This case will now join the nearly 200 Stryker Hip Replacement lawsuits involving L-FIT V40 femoral heads that have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani under MDL No. 2768 – In re: Stryker LFIT V40 Femoral Head Products Liability Litigation. Also, more than 86 additional cases have been centralized in an MDL in New Jersey’s Bergen County Superior Court.

LFIT V40 components were recalled by the company in August 2016 after the implants were found to suffer from higher-than-expected rates of taper lock failure.

A related hip litigation MDL involving at least 200 Smith & Nephew Birmingham hip lawsuits was allowed to proceed after the presiding judge, Judge Catherine C. Blake for the District of Maryland, rejected an attempt by the manufacturer to have the cases dismissed which were filed under the MDL centralized in since May 2017.

Another product liability lawsuit will join the centralized Roundup lawsuits under MDL No. 2741: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The plaintiff, a man from Mississippi alleges that the use of this famous weed killer led to his diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The MDL was created in October 2016, before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in the Northern District of California. The main allegation raised by each lawsuit is that the weed killer and its active ingredient, glyphosate, resulted in a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or another cancer. The defendant, Monsanto, will face the first trial on June 18, 2018, in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco. About 3,500 plaintiffs now represent nearly 2,200 cases filed in state and federal courts.

Roundup Lawsuit Proceedings Bifurcated
The Court has bifurcated the Roundup MDL proceedings and has decided to first address the general causation link between Roundup and cancer, before considering any case-specific issues. The Daubert Hearings have been completed. The judge issued a pretrial order on March 19 wherein a telephone case management conference was scheduled so that additional hearings to address epidemiological evidence offered by one expert, and to ask follow-up questions to another expert could be arranged. The court notice released on March 26 cited April 4 and 6 as the scheduled dates for those hearings.

Earlier this month, a man from Florida filed a case against Monsanto in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging that the exposure to Roundup over a period of 30 years led to his diagnosis of diffuse B-cell lymphoma, a type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma linked to glyphosate contained in the weed killer. The lawsuit claims that the situation could have been avoided if he had been told years ago about the potential cancer risks linked glyphosate, which the company allegedly knew, but failed to share with consumers.

With more than 80 product liability lawsuits already pending in the federal court, Onglyza MDL No. 2809 is witnessing a steady rise in the number of lawsuits as expected. Centralization took place in February this year with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky chosen as the venue for trial proceedings under District Judge Karen K. Caldwell. Lawsuits have been filed by individuals who developed congestive heart failure and other side effects naming Bristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca as the defendants for not providing adequate warnings about the severe side-effects linked to this diabetic drug. A recent lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio by the family of an Ohio man who claims that the use of Onglyza and Kombiglyze XR led to the development of heart failure, congestive heart failure, and cardiovascular injury.

Another Onglyza lawsuit was filed by a Kentucky woman in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging she suffered heart failure, congestive heart failure, and cardiovascular injury. Her case will join the growing number of lawsuits filed against the drug manufacturers to be a part of the coordinated pretrial proceedings under District Judge Karen K. Caldwell.