Daubert Order for Roundup Litigation

On July 10, 2018, the judge overseeing the Roundup Multidistrict Litigation, or “MDL”, issued a 68-page order outlining his reasoning as to why Plaintiffs’ experts will be allowed to testify at trial regarding their opinions that Roundup causes Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (“NHL”). The Roundup MDL is a consolidation of all federally-filed Roundup cases involving individuals having used Roundup and who have subsequently been diagnosed with NHL. The MDL is located in San Francisco and is being overseen by Judge Vince Chhabria. The significance of this order is paramount as it allows plaintiffs to move to the next phase of litigation.

In product liability cases, like Roundup, there are essentially two hurdles every plaintiff must clear in order to present their case to a jury. To overcome the first hurdle, the “general causation” phase, plaintiffs must be able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that the product in question is even capable of causing the injuries claimed. Overcoming the second hurdle, the “specific causation” phase, involves each plaintiff proving that the product in question caused his or her own specific injuries. Accordingly, in order to advance their cases to trial, the plaintiffs in the Roundup MDL would first have to prove that, generally speaking, it is more likely than not that Roundup causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at exposure levels humans might have experienced. Should that burden be satisfied, the cases would then advance to the second phase where each individual plaintiff would have to prove that Roundup caused his or her own personal development of NHL. However, in order for plaintiffs to move on to the second phase (proving specific causation) they must have at least one expert witness who will be able to testify in support of their claims that that Roundup causes NHL. If plaintiffs are unable to produce such an expert witness at trial, none of the cases are able to proceed to the next phase and will most likely be dismissed by the court.

Determining whether an expert witness will have the ability to testify at trial is the job of the judge overseeing the litigation. Because the Roundup MDL is pending in federal court, when making his decision to allow the plaintiffs’ general causation experts to testify at trial, Judge Chhabria had to apply what is known in the legal world as the “Daubert standard”. As such, Judge Chhabria had to determine if each expert’s opinion that Roundup causes NHL was based on reasoning that is scientifically valid and can be applied to the facts at issue (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)). Under Daubert, the factors Judge Chhabria considered to decide whether the plaintiffs’ experts’ methodologies were valid included: (1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential error rate; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and (5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.

The plaintiffs in the Roundup MDL retained six experts (Drs. Beate Ritz, Christopher Portier, Alfred Neugut, Charles Jameson, Dennis Weisenburger, and Chadhi Nabhan) to provide opinions to satisfy the plaintiffs’ burden at the general causation phase. Broadly speaking, each of these experts reviewed the available scientific evidence (mechanistic data, laboratory animal cancer studies, and epidemiology research (case-control and cohort studies)) and concluded in written reports, that Roundup is capable of causing NHL in humans. But because the evidence reviewed by the experts does not unequivocally conclude that Roundup causes NHL, the court had to determine if the experts’ analysis of the evidence fell within the range of accepted standards governing how scientists conduct their research and reach their conclusions.

The final decision of Judge Chhabria was that all six of plaintiffs’ experts will be allowed to testify at trial regarding their opinions that Roundup causes NHL. While Monsanto still defends its product as safe to users, cases continue to be filed by consumers injured by their use of Roundup. If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma following exposure to Roundup, you may be entitled to compensation.  For a FREE and confidential consultation, call the Yost Legal Group at 1-800-YOST-LAW (1-800-967-8529).

Smith & Nephew: the List of Defective Hip Devices Keeps Growing

Hundreds of individuals have filed lawsuits against Smith & Nephew for injuries related to this manufacturer’s defective metal-on-metal hip implant products. In 2017, a multi-district litigation (MDL) was formed to consolidate certain Smith & Nephew hip implant lawsuits into a single federal district court in Baltimore, Maryland to more efficiently handle these complex cases. Originally, the MDL included only cases for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) hip implant system. However, a growing number of lawsuits filed for other defective Smith & Nephew hip implant systems has resulted in their being added to the MDL. The MDL now consists of three types of Smith & Nephew hip implant cases.

Along with the BHR “pure resurfacing” system which includes the BHR cup and a femoral head cemented into place on the femur, total hip arthroplasty (THA) cases are now also being handled in the MDL. The THA system includes the BHR cup implanted with a modular head and a traditional femoral stem which is impacted into the femur.  The most common femoral stems used in this system include the Synergy and Anthology hip stems, also manufactured by Smith & Nephew. THA patients suffer from the same side effects as the BHR resurfacing patients, which include metal poisoning, device failure, and the need for revision surgery.

The most recent hip implant product added to the MDL is the Smith & Nephew R3 system when using a metal liner. The metal liner, placed between the femoral head and the cup, facilitates a smooth movement of the socket. However, because of problems with this product, Smith & Nephew recalled the R3 metal liner in 2012 and issued a precautionary “hazard alert” to doctors using the metal liner in R3 hip replacement surgeries. The defect with this component arises from the rubbing of the metal liner on the other metal components within the R3 system. This friction releases metal particles into the body, leading to the deterioration of bone and tissue around the joint. As with the other defective Smith & Nephew hip implant products, this triggers the need for revision surgery.

As the list of bad products manufactured by Smith & Nephew grows, so do the company’s legal troubles. Victims injured as a result of this company’s negligence seek the justice they deserve for the defective products that have severely impacted their lives. Our experienced lawyers fight for individuals who have been harmed by defective products. If you or a loved one has been injured or required revision surgery following a Smith & Nephew or other defective hip device, the attorneys at the Yost Legal Group will investigate your potential claim and lawsuit. For a free consultation, please call us at 1-800-YOSTLAW.

Seizure Activity in Newborns – Hypoxia

According to the Florida Neonatal Neurological Network about 20 out of every 1,000 full term births will be affected by a lack of oxygen to the brain (hypoxia) during labor and delivery.  Babies who are born prematurely are at even greater risk, because their lungs are not fully developed and they are unable to fully manage breathing on their own.

Hypoxia is the most frequent cause of seizure activity in newborns and can cause additional damage to the baby’s developing brain.  Neonatal seizure activity can occur within minutes to hours of birth, and is typically confirmed by electroencephalography (EEG) – a test performed by attaching sensors to the infant’s scalp to monitor the brain for any abnormal electrical signal activity.  The scalp sensors are wired to a machine that records the brain’s electrical signals and displays the brain activity on a monitor or printout so that medical specialists are able to observe and interpret any brain seizure activity.

There are several additional tests that can be run to determine if a newborn baby’s seizures are being caused by a hypoxic, or hypoxic-ischemic (HIE) injury to the brain. In addition to EEG monitoring, a newborn baby suffering from seizures will have lab tests to check the blood oxygen level (pulse oximetry) and various blood, urine and spinal fluid tests to check glucose, potassium, bicarbonate and other chemical levels.  Also, brain imaging studies (ultrasound, CT and MRI) will be performed.

If your child has suffered from seizures as a result of an injury at birth, contact The Yost Legal Group today at 1-800-YOST-LAW (800-403-7259). The attorneys at Yost Legal Group are experienced, caring professionals ready to investigate your claim with compassion and determination. Call us today to receive a free, confidential consultation about your possible case.

We handle all cases on a contingency fee basis. This means you will never pay an attorney’s fee up front, and you owe us nothing unless we win your case.