Levin Papantonio Rafferty

$60 Million Verdict in Enfamil Baby Formula NEC Case Underscores Need for Transparency and Accountability

2024-03-22T14:35:00.005-05:00

An Illinois jury has awarded $60 million to the plaintiff in the first in a series of trials out of hundreds of baby formula necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) lawsuits claiming that various Enfamil and Abbott Laboratories' Similac formulas caused necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). Plaintiffs in this multidistrict litigation claim that the companies hid the information that their formula, including products designed for premature infants, posed a higher risk compared to alternatives such as donor milk.

According to a Reuters article on the verdict, the award in this first trial includes compensation for plaintiff Jasmine Watson's loss and grief, as well as for the pain and suffering of her baby, Chance Dean, who tragically passed away from an intestinal disease after consuming Mead Johnson's Enfamil baby formula.

The decision came after the jury found Mead Johnson negligent for failing to adequately warn consumers about the risks associated with NEC, a severe condition that primarily impacts premature infants. NEC can lead to the death of bowel tissue and carries a fatality rate ranging from 15% to 40%.

“This verdict underscores the significance of transparent communication and accountability in product safety, particularly when it comes to items intended for vulnerable populations like infants,” said Levin Papantonio Rafferty Attorney Sara Papantonio, who is representing families who have suffered from infant-formula-caused NEC in their pursuit of justice.

“It is crucial for parents and healthcare providers to understand these risks and so they can make informed decisions regarding infant feeding, and they should be able to rely on product makers and suppliers to convey the information to guide those decisions.”

A new study published by the U.S. National Institutes of Health in February 2024 states there is evidence that formula increases the risk of NEC in premature infants compared with breast milk.

The National Center for Biotechnology Information has published research stating that NEC is “the most common life-threatening emergency affecting the gastrointestinal tract of infants in the neonatal intensive care unit.” The study identifies several risk factors for NEC, with primary risks being prematurity, low birth weight, and formula feeding.

$20 Million Allocation for Dozier Survivors Is a Call to Action for Lawyers

2024-03-18T10:52:00.001-05:00

On Monday, March 4, 2024, the Florida Senate took a significant step towards justice for victims of abuse at the Dozier School for Boys and the Okeechobee School for Boys by unanimously approving a $20 million allocation for the Dozier School for Boys and Okeechobee School Victim Compensation Program (CS/HB 21).

Although this vital allocation represents a crucial milestone in addressing the harrowing experiences of those who, as children, endured beatings, rapes, and even death at these institutions, Levin Papantonio Rafferty (LPR) Attorney Mike Papantonio and Attorney Troy Rafferty say if lawyers had done things differently in the past, many of these abuses never would have happened.

"This long, ugly history of what happened at Dozier is a result of lawyers 50 years ago not using their licenses to accomplish some good," Papantonio said.

A New Directive for Lawyers

"It’s sad to me that a lawyer today dwells in a comfort zone, using their license for something as basic as '1-800-CARCRASH' when they could use that same license to accomplish some broad, basic good in this country," Papantonio said.

LPR attorneys practice what Papantonio preaches--and their efforts extend far beyond the walls of the Dozier School. The firm combines legal skills and investigative prowess with creative measures to tackle a myriad of modern-day wrongdoings, including those in today's "troubled-teen" industry.

Papantonio said the Dozier legislation should mark the beginning of an effort by lawyers in 2024 to not make the same mistakes attorneys made half a century ago: refusing to step up when abuse at the Florida state-run schools was still happening (the "schools" were shuttered in 2011).

Most recently, LPR has been working with Paris Hilton, an advocate for survivors of the troubled teen industry, to inform the legal community and the general public that abuses like Dozier are still happening today, all over the country. According to Papantonio, the firm is representing "8-10 serious cases" as a result of this effort.

LPR has also filed multiple lawsuits in Alabama, some against state agencies and officials for discrimination against and abuse of disabled children in residential childcare facilities, and another against the Laurel Oaks Behavioral Center for the sexual assault of an 8-year-old resident.

About the Dozier Legislation

The approval of Dozier School for Boys and Okeechobee School Victim Compensation Program, designated as #HB 21 and sponsored by Rep. Michelle Salzman, R-Pensacola, and Rep. Kiyan Michael, R-Jacksonville, marks a historic moment for survivors who have tirelessly fought for justice for over 16 years.

More than 30 Dozier victims and family members were at the Capitol Monday to witness this historical legislation. Many of them testified in House and Senate hearings in prior weeks to the horrific abuse and rapes they suffered as children at the state-run "reform schools."

How Lawyers Made a Difference

The unwavering commitment of Papantonio and Rafferty in advocating for these survivors and pushing for this essential restitution made all the difference between previous, unsuccessful efforts and Monday's triumph in the Florida legislature.

Upon taking on the mission to champion the rights of victims, Papantonio and Rafferty traveled to the Dozier School with survivors to hear firsthand about their experiences. The attorneys were accompanied by a film crew producing a documentary about the institutions.

Reflecting on the haunting legacy of the Dozier School, Rafferty expressed, "One of the saddest days of my life was the day I walked through the Dozier School grounds with men who survived the horrors of Dozier as young boys. The evil is still there. It is palpable. I felt it in the core of my being."

Papantonio and Rafferty recorded a Public Service Announcement about the Dozier compensation legislation, stressing to viewers that these funds are available for victims, and they do not need to hire an attorney to access the money to which they are entitled. If victims need assistance with forms, Levin Papantonio Rafferty will help at no charge.

Fighting for Legislation

For the last two years, Rafferty has been meeting with legislators to underscore the importance of compensating victims for the abuse they endured at Dozier and Okeechobee. A pivotal move in this effort was Rafferty convincing Rep. Salzman to sponsor the bill.

Rafferty shared with Salzman the gravity of the situation, highlighting that 183 children who were admitted to the Dozier School have never been located. He described the appalling conditions faced by these children, including the use of a 20-inch mallet with a leather strap and metal rivets--a weapon used repeatedly to inflict harm. He told her about the medical experiments conducted on kids. She was convinced something had to be done.

"I cannot overstate the role Representative Salzman played in Monday's outcome," Rafferty said. "She has been utterly fierce in her dedication to these victims."

Where Things Stand

The approved measure not only allocates funds for compensation but also establishes a process for survivors to apply for restitution. Additionally, it enables the Florida Department of Education to award high-school diplomas to former students who were unable to complete graduation requirements.

Now, as the measure awaits action from Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, survivors and advocates emphasize the urgency of ensuring restitution for decades of pain and suffering. This allocation is a significant step towards acknowledging and addressing the profound injustices inflicted upon the victims of abuse at the Dozier and Okeechobee Schools.

Additional Dozier Facts

In 2017, the Florida Legislature passed House Bill 7115, establishing the Dozier School for Boys Memorial. “The memorial in Marianna is designed to tell the story of the boys who lived and died while at the school,” stated a DMS press release.

In 2013, a team of anthropologists from the University of South Florida excavated the facility grounds. Over time, the team discovered 55 sets of human child remains.

Papantonio and Rafferty, along with other members of the LPR staff, are participating in “The Florida Boys,” a documentary about the atrocities that occurred at the Dozier School for Boys. The film is currently under production. It's yet another example of how the law firm goes above and beyond to bring public attention to the reality and aftermath of abuse at residential youth treatment facilities.

Plaintiffs' Attorneys Plan to Appeal Court Dismissal of Skanska Claims

2024-02-23T12:14:00.000-06:00

Today, Pensacola-based law firms Levin Papantonio Rafferty; Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz; and Beggs & Lane issued the following statement regarding yesterday's court decision granting Skanska's Motion to Dismiss:

"Late Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the Escambia County Circuit Court dismissed the claims of hundreds of regional businesses, wage earners, and municipalities when it granted Skanska's Motion to Dismiss based on a near-century old maritime case. The court's decision means unless the unsecured barges actually hit your property, Skanska gets off the hook no matter how badly it messed up by not securing the barges during Hurricane Sally or how much money Skanska caused our local businesses to lose.

"A federal court here in Pensacola already determined that Skanska negligently caused the release of 27 building-size barges across the Bay. That ruling was upheld by the federal court of appeals. However, the three-judge panel of local state court judges accepted Skanska's argument based on a 100-year-old loophole instead of following maritime law that permits the application of state court law to these local cases.

"We intend to appeal this disappointing decision and continue the fight on behalf of our community and its businesses to right this obvious wrong."

Attorneys at Levin Papantonio Rafferty; Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz; and Beggs & Lane have been championing the rights of businesses and commuters harmed after a breakaway of Skanska barges in Pensacola Bay during Hurricane Sally resulted in the Pensacola Bay Bridge's outage.

Mississippi Supreme Court Revives Case of Man Who Died From Acetaminophen-Induced Liver Failure

2024-02-23T12:13:00.001-06:00

Levin Papantonio Rafferty (LPR) law firm announced a 5-4 Mississippi Supreme Court decision affirming a Mississippi Court of Appeals ruling that reversed the dismissal of a wrongful death case related to acetaminophen-induced liver failure.

LPR Attorney Tim O'Brien represents the widow of Marcus D. Smith, who in 2013 suffered cervical fracture and multiple rib fractures in a multi-vehicle accident in Jackson County, Mississippi. When released from the hospital, Smith was prescribed Lortab, a pain medication containing hydrocodone and acetaminophen. Acetaminophen is the active ingredient in the over-the-counter pain medication, Tylenol.

Days later, Smith developed symptoms of mental impairment and combativeness and was diagnosed with acute liver failure due to acetaminophen toxicity. He died on September 24, 2013, from liver failure.

LPR filed a wrongful-death action in Jackson County Circuit Court on behalf of Leslie Smith, the widow of the deceased and personal representative of Smith's estate, against defendants Rosalinde Minier, who operated a personal vehicle in the collision, and Werner Enterprises, owner of a tractor trailer involved in the wreck.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Minier and Werner Enterprises and dismissed the wrongful death case, ruling Smith's acetaminophen-induced liver failure was not a legally foreseeable injury from the automobile accident. A final judgment was entered.

O’Brien appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by applying a subjective standard of foreseeability and resolving a factual issue as a matter of law. The Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment (Smith v. Minier, No. 2021-CA-01284-COA, 2023 WL 2381726).

In its Opinion, the Court of Appeals pointed out expert testimony presented by Dr. Neil Julie, a gastroenterologist who cited volumes of medical and regulatory evidence establishing objective knowledge of acetaminophen’s ability to cause liver failure.

"While the Defendants may not have foreseen the manner of Marcus’[s] death, a reasonable juror could determine that the Defendants should have foreseen that an injury would require medication and that an adverse reaction to that medication could occur. Accordingly, the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants," the Court of Appeals stated in its ruling.

Defendants Werner Enterprises and Minier then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Mississippi Supreme Court, which accepted the case for review. The Mississippi Supreme Court, sitting en banc, affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, and thereby reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

Writing for the majority, Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Chamberlin Chamberlin wrote that the grant of summary judgment must be reversed: "While duty and causation both involve foreseeability, duty is an issue of law, and causation is generally a matter for the jury.

O'Brien applauded the Court's ruling, saying, "This is a huge victory that upholds the important role of juries on determining issues of cause in Mississippi. The law rewards neither the careless nor the ignorant, and now, Mrs. Smith can have her day in court."

JPML Centralizes Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuits

2024-02-06T12:12:00.001-06:00

The JPML issued a Transfer Order on Friday, February 2, 2024, to centralize lawsuits in which claimants allege they were prescribed and used sublingual film Suboxone for opioid addiction or pain management and experienced cavities, tooth loss, tooth fractures, tooth decay, tongue injuries, and/or gum injuries.

Over 20 pending actions and future tag-along cases will be transferred to the Northern District of Ohio for the purpose of consolidating pretrial hearings. Thirteen actions are pending in this district. The MDL has been assigned to the Honorable J. Philip Calabrese. This will be the first MDL over which Judge Calabrese will have presided.

This is the rare MDL where every party asked for the same district and same judge.

As stated in one Plaintiffs' Brief: "Although this would be Judge Calabrese’s first MDL as a judge, his qualifications and complex-civil-litigation experience cannot be doubted. Further, he will be able to draw on his district colleagues’ experience in managing such matters, including Judge Polster’s handling of the opioid MDL."

The Transfer Order renamed the litigation, with no objection from involved parties, "because the litigation does not currently encompass marketing or sales practices claims."

LPR Attorney Sara Papantonio is representing claimants in Suboxone lawsuits on behalf of the law firm.

"We have a company taking advantage of people who have already been victimized by the manufacturers of opiates," Papantonio said. "And now, when these people are taking steps to correct their addiction and get their lives back using this drug called Suboxone, they’re facing an increased risk of severe dental disorders."

The Defendant in these actions is Indivior, maker of Suboxone.

About the Alleged Suboxone Injuries

In 2022, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) warned about the risk of dental problems linked to medications with the active ingredient buprenorphine, and the key ingredient in Suboxone.

Suboxone is a buprenorphine and naloxone opioid addiction treatment drug made by pharma company Indivior. By taking this drug, an opioid partial agonist, people suffering from addiction or opioid use disorder (OUD) can help reduce their physical dependency on opioids. However, partial agonists reduce saliva production, which can prompt tooth decay as a side effect of usage.

This is particularly true of Suboxone, which comes in film form. Patients tuck the film under their tongues or inside their cheeks until the film dissolves.

“The film is incredibly acidic,” Papantonio explained, “and as it sits in the mouth, it’s causing terrible tooth decay. In some cases, people are losing teeth in an entire half of their mouths.”

LPR Named One of the Best Law Firms to Work For!

2024-01-30T12:11:00.001-06:00

According to U.S. News, “This list helps [employees] decide which law firm is the best fit for what’s most important to them and their career goals.” Read the full press release published this morning: U.S. News & World Report Reveals the 2024 Best Companies to Work For: Law Firms.

U.S News & World Report reaches over 40 million people monthly, providing consumers, business leaders, and policy officials with expert advice through their popular “Best” rankings, including “Best Jobs,” “Best Places to Live in the U.S.,” and more.

Using data-driven analysis, U.S. News ranked law firms based on six factors that are important to job satisfaction:

Quality of pay and benefits
Work/life balance and flexibility
Job and company stability
Physical and psychological comfort
Belongingness and esteem
Career opportunities and professional development

LPR scored 5 out of 5 in Work-Life Balance and Professional Development. Take a look at our page on U.S. News & World Report: LPR on US News.

Millions of people across the country will learn what we already know: that Levin Papantonio Rafferty is an amazing place to work!

Attorneys for Sex Trafficking Survivors Seek Consolidation of Cases Against Brand Hotel Defendants

2024-01-12T12:09:00.001-06:00

On January 9, 2024, law firms representing victims of human trafficking filed a brief with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) seeking to consolidate and transfer cases against the Brand-Hotel Defendants to the Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
According to the plaintiffs' memorandum, 53 civil actions are currently pending in 12 different U.S. District Courts, and counsel represents around 1,700 sex trafficking survivors.

On February 5, 2020, the JPML denied a request for centralization of sex trafficking claims filed against 45 defendants in In re Hotel Industry Sex Trafficking Litigation, MDL 2928. On December 6, 2023, in the In re Hotel TVPRA Litigation, Judge Marbley directed counsel to file a Motion for Reconsideration with the JPML, given significant changes in the litigation. Judge Marbley also stated his wish to serve as the transferee judge in the consolidated litigation, according to the brief.

The Motion for Reconsideration was submitted by law firms Levin Papantonio Rafferty (LPR); Babin Law, LLC; and The Zarzaur Law Firm.

"We believe that centralization provides trafficking survivors a solid path to move forward in their fight for justice," said LPR Attorney Kim Adams, who represents sex trafficking victims for the firm. "It will ensure that hotels across the U.S. are no longer a preferred venue for sex trafficking."

Hotel industry sex trafficking litigation has been plagued by "a constant re-litigation of common issues," Adams said.

As with any MDL, the benefit of centralization is getting consistent, solid decisions and setting the expectations of litigation. "I think every plaintiff deserves that," Adams said.
The trafficking cases claim that the defendants who operate hotel ventures benefited from trafficking, in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.

No Rest for the Weary: Plaintiffs Attorney Comments on J&J’s $700 Million Deal to Resolve States’ Talc Baby Powder Claims

2024-01-09T18:54:00.007-06:00

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and representatives for more than 40 states attorneys general are thrashing out terms for an agreement that would settle states’ talc-based baby powder claims, Bloomberg Law reported Monday.

Forty-two states have launched a joint investigation into J&J’s marketing practices—specifically, the company’s alleged failure to warn about possible health risks linked to the use of talc products. If the pact passes muster from all parties, it will ward off potential lawsuits from these states (Mississippi and New Mexico have already filed marketing lawsuits against J&J for allegedly failing to disclose talc products’ health risks).

Bloomberg underscored that a settlement agreement has not yet been reached with the 42 state claimants, per Florida AG Spokesperson Ashley Moody.

Besides these state claims, the multinational pharmaceutical and medical technologies corporation is battling more than 50,000 talcum powder lawsuits from women who allege J&J’s talc products caused claimants to develop ovarian cancer or mesothelioma.

According to these lawsuits, corporate executives have known since the early ‘70s that the talc used in J&J products contained asbestos, a known carcinogen.

Levin Papantonio Rafferty Attorney Chris Tisi is a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the national talc MDL (MDL 2738, In Re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation) and a committee representative of the Official Committee of Talc Claimants (TCC).

He expressed mixed feelings about the tentative J&J settlement agreement with state claimants.

“We are glad to see that J&J is finally starting to take responsibility for its failure to protect the public for decades,” Tisi said. “We cannot rest, however, until all the women who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer after using Johnson’s Baby Powder have been taken care of. J&J needs to be accountable for all the damage it has caused.”

J&J, a $500 billion company, has filed two bankruptcy petitions in efforts to resolve talc lawsuits in bankruptcy court. Both petitions failed.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have remarked the bankruptcy tactics aimed to avert jury trials and succeeded in stalling justice for claimants. "In the last few years, there has been an effort by Corporate America to hide from their responsibilities in bankruptcy court after doing untold damage to American consumers," said LPR Attorney Mike Papantonio in a July statement following U.S. Chief Bankruptcy Judge Michael Kaplan’s dismissal of the J&J’s second bankruptcy petition.

In October 2023, Papantonio penned a letter to the legal community urging plaintiffs’ attorneys to stand up against J&J’s “abuse of bankruptcy.”

“Had J&J's bankruptcy ploy succeeded, our clients would have been victimized yet again—not only by suffering from a deadly cancer at the hands of its product—but also by being denied their right to a trial by jury and being forced to accept pitifully inadequate compensation through the bankruptcy plan,” Papantonio said.

Alabama Faces Expanded Lawsuits for Discrimination Against Disabled Children in State Care

2023-12-13T16:17:00.003-06:00

A series of lawsuits alleging systemic discrimination of children with disabilities in childcare facilities across Alabama has been broadened to hold several key state agencies accountable. The Alabama Department of Human Resources, the Alabama Department of Education, the Alabama State Board of Education, of which Governor Ivey is a member, and several county DHR offices and directors were added as new defendants in the lawsuits.

Birmingham attorneys Tommy James of Tommy James Law, Jeremy Knowles of Morris Haynes, and Pensacola attorney Caleb Cunningham of Levin Papantonio Rafferty represent the plaintiffs.

"These lawsuits are long overdue," said Caleb Cunningham. "These children, like thousands of others, were entrusted to the custody of the State and, instead of learning and growing, were warehoused and stunted. Every child has the right to an education, and to deprive them of that is not only shameful, but also in violation of the law."

DOJ Report Highlighted Discrimination

Much of the basis of the federal lawsuits, discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, was publicly chronicled in an October 12, 2022, Department of Justice (DOJ) report. The DOJ clearly concluded the Alabama Foster Care System violates the Americans with Disabilities Act by discriminating against students with disabilities. It also cited a 2020 document by the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP).

At least one high-ranking official with the Department of Education was quoted as saying the department was unaware if the facilities were doing good work with these kids or providing adequate learning materials.

The ADAP noted children sleeping on concrete slabs in dilapidated facilities, with blood and feces smeared on surfaces. The ADAP also indicated that there was no tutoring, a lack of grade-level schoolwork and instruction, a lack of credit recovery to remain on grade level, a lack of computer access for school work, and a lack of job and/or career training.

Attorneys Expect More Children

Six lawsuits were filed earlier this year on behalf of children whom DHR had placed in facilities like those highlighted in the DOJ and ADAP reports. The attorneys representing the children expect more children to come forward.

"I am proud to represent these children," said Tommy James. "Giving voice to the voiceless, these lawsuits are about bringing systemic change. So many children are locked away and never given the tools to succeed. It is time for Alabama to do the right thing.”

"Our goal is for thousands of other children to come forward to demand the state honor its legal and moral obligation," said Jeremy Knowles.

How Defendants Are Responding

All 6 cases currently pending in the United States Middle District of Alabama are awaiting answers from the defendants. In preliminary filings, attorneys for Alabama Department of Human Resources Commissioner Nancy Buckner stated, in part, that she has no authority to act as to education in Alabama and that DHR has no authority to administer education programs in Alabama. The filing by Buckner did not address the fact that DHR licenses facilities like the ones these children were placed in, nor did it address the fact the children were placed there by Buckner’s DHR.

In their initial filing, attorneys for Defendant State Superintendent Eric Mackey stated, among other things, that Mackey was unaware of the specific suffering of each child and, therefore, the cases should be dismissed. Attorneys for both Mackey and Buckner also claim that the cases should be dismissed because of the age of the discrimination which forms the basis of the allegations. Mackey and Buckner claim this despite the fact almost all the children in the lawsuit are still too young to vote. The Court has not ruled on any filings yet.

Since the filing of these original documents, Defendant Buckner has hired outside private counsel. “Rather than working with us to find a solution to these problems, the State has regrettably chosen to hire private lawyers, which will waste tremendous amounts of taxpayer dollars,” James said.

Judge Appoints 2 LPR Attorneys to Leadership Roles in Insulin Pricing Multidistrict Litigation

2023-12-07T08:00:00.002-06:00

The nationally recognized mass tort law firm Levin Papantonio Rafferty (LPR) announces that LPR Attorney Troy Rafferty has been appointed as Co-Lead Counsel for the State AG Track, and LPR Attorney Brandon Bogle has been appointed as Co-Lead Counsel for the Self-Funded Payer Track in the Insulin Pricing multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 3080).

Recommendations for the appointment of Lead Counsel, Executive and Steering Committees, and Liaison Counsel were submitted on November 27, 2023, by all parties in the MDL.

The State Attorney General Track will include lawsuits brought on behalf of states.

"People assume insulin prices are high because the drug is costly to make. Really, the only thing driving up prices is greed," Rafferty said. "It's costing just about every State, which rains down on taxpayers. Most importantly, it costs lives."

The Self-Funder Payer Track will comprise actions brought individually on behalf of self-funded payers or self-funded payer groups. This includes local governments, like counties, cities, schools, and non-profit organizations (among others) that pay for prescription drugs provided to health plan members who have prescription drug coverage.

Bogle said it's high time for these entities to recover decades of exorbitant costs.

“Cities and counties across this country have been paying outsized premiums from their dwindling budgets on insulin and other type 2 diabetes drugs for their employees," Bogle said. "I personally look forward to recouping those ill gotten gains from the defendants in this case.”

About the Insulin Pricing MDL

On August 4, 2023, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) created an MDL for insulin pricing lawsuits. The JPML issued a Transfer Order to centralize lawsuits alleging that drug manufacturers and pharmacy benefit manufacturers (PBMs) engaged in an unfair and deceptive conspiracy to orchestrate an insulin pricing scheme.

Defendants in these actions include insulin manufacturers Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, and, on the PBM side, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Optum Rx, and their various corporate affiliates.

LPR law firm has filed insulin pricing lawsuits against insulin manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) on behalf of the Arizona Attorney General; Lake County, Illinois; City of Cleveland; Monmouth County, New Jersey; Albany County, New York; Pinellas County, FL; Arlington County, VA; City of Alexandria, VA; Washington County, MD; St. Mary’s County, MD; and Henrico County, VA.

$1.56 Billion Jury Verdict in Roundup Trials for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

2023-11-25T10:20:00.003-06:00

Last week, Bayer AG learned it must pay four plaintiffs $1.56 billion after a jury decided Monsanto was liable for Roundup-caused injuries, including cancer. Complaints claimed negligence, design defects, and failure to warn of the potential dangers of using the popular herbicide.

Plaintiffs Valorie Gunter, Jimmy Draeger, and Daniel Anderson were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, allegedly caused from using Roundup.

The Missouri jury awarded a total of $61.1 million in compensatory damages to reimburse them for illness-related losses, such as out-of-pocket medical expenses, lost wages, medical care, pain and suffering, and others.

In addition, each plaintiff is to receive $500 million in punitive damages, aimed at deterring Bayer and others from repeating their conduct in the future.

“Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is recognized as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization,” said Levin Papantonio Rafferty Attorney Becca Timmons. “Roundup was Monsanto’s flagship product before it was acquired by Bayer, and its use has exploded globally over the last 30 years.”

“These plaintiffs were able to prove that their exposure to Roundup caused their lymphoma, and they deserve every penny awarded to them by the jury,” Timmons continued. “Bayer continues to sell Roundup without a warning label and is continuing to expose millions of people to Roundup through direct application and through its residues in the foods we eat. No dollar amount could even begin to make whole the people who have suffered from Monsanto and Bayer’s conduct.”

Introduced to the market by Monsanto in 1974, glyphosate landed an important role in the agricultural industry for controlling weeds, eradicating undesirable vegetation, and quickly drying crops prior to harvest.

The chemical destroys most plants, and reems of research have shown the herbicide seriously hurts humans, causing cancer, neurological diseases, endocrine disruption, and birth defects. This is the list of human harms we know about, but scientists still have not charted the full extent of adverse health outcomes from glyphosate exposure.

Things really took off for Roundup makers in the mid ‘90s, when genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” crops were introduced. Thanks to this breakthrough, farmers could spray Roundup Ready corn, cotton, soybeans, and alfalfa with Roundup. This would accomplish their objectives of efficient weed control without harming their crops.

In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) labelled glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The Environmental Working Group (EWG) followed with a call to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asking the agency to require mandatory GMO labeling. EWG President Ken Cook said, “Consumers have the right to know how their food is grown and whether their food dollars are driving up the use of a probable carcinogen.”

By 2016, the “Roundup Ready” innovation had led to a 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate, according to Environmental Sciences Europe. Around 19% of the world’s use of glyphosate has occurred in the U.S., at over 1.6 billion kilograms, the journal reported.

In 2018, Bayer bought Monsanto and inherited the thousands of lawsuits tied to the alleged harm from exposure to glyphosate. Bayer announced in 2020 it would pay up to $10.9 billion to settle approximately 125,000 filed and unfiled claims.

Roundup herbicide lawsuits claim that significant exposure to Roundup caused individuals to suffer B cell or T cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, including the range of subtypes, like follicular lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, mantle cell lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and hairy cell leukemia.

The most at-risk populations include farm workers, landscapers, garden center and nursery employees. Exposure includes inhaling glyphosate while spraying, mixing, or cleaning up, as well as through eating food and drinking water that’s been contaminated with weedkiller products like Roundup.

1.689MM Verdict in First Skanska Damages Trial

2023-11-17T08:17:00.001-06:00

Pensacola law firms Levin Papantonio Rafferty (LPR) and Vernis & Bowling obtained a $1.689 million verdict in the first Skanska damages trial, DELUNA OYSTER COMPANY INC A FLORIDA FOR PROFIT CORPORATION vs. SKANSKA USA CIVIL SOUTHEAST INC. A FOREIGN PROFIT CORPORATION (2020 CA 001679). Plaintiff Travis Gill, the owner, operator, and sole employee of the oyster farm, claimed that a crop of 800,000 oysters was destroyed when two Skanska barges became unmoored in Pensacola Bay during Hurricane Sally in 2020.

The jury found that Skanska had to compensate Gill for $445,016 in property damages and $1,244,761 in lost revenue for 2020 and 2021.

"We are grateful for a jury that thoughtfully listened to the attorneys' arguments and witnesses' testimonies and carefully studied the evidence," said LPR Attorney Brian Barr. This is how they were able to see through Skanska's attempts to frame this hardworking, local businessman as a liar."

Jeff Gill, an attorney at Vernis & Bowling law firm, is Travis Gill's father. He and Barr both represented the plaintiff at trial. Gill spoke of his son's response to the verdict.

“Travis is very grateful that today, for the first time, Skanska is held accountable for the destruction it caused thanks to a jury of Escambia County Citizens,” Gill said.

The DeLuna case was the first of hundreds of Skanska damages cases to be tried in civil court. The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals gave these cases the green light after rejecting Skanska's ability to limit liability for damages under maritime law.

Attorneys at Levin Papantonio Rafferty; Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz; and Beggs & Lane have been working together to champion the rights of businesses and commuters harmed by the Pensacola Bay Bridge outage, which lasted 8 months.

"We joined forces in the Skanska litigation for the sake of the community. We are unified by a single mission--to hold Skanska accountable for causing widespread destruction in the lives of local business owners and residents," said LPR Attorney Brian Barr.

$500K Awarded to Man Whose Hernia Mesh Stuck to Tissue in a Giant Ball

2023-11-10T08:17:00.002-06:00

Levin Papantonio Rafferty (LPR) law firm announces a hernia mesh bellwether trial victory after a jury found in favor of Plaintiff Aaron Stinson. According to Stinson's Complaint, the polypropylene hernia mesh he had implanted in 2015 stuck to his tissues, causing lifelong injuries, pain, suffering, emotional distress, and lost wages. An Ohio jury awarded Stinson $500,000.

The bellwether trial concerned Bard’s top-selling hernia mesh product for sports hernias: the Perfix® Plug. The verdict came after a trial that lasted around two weeks in the Southern District of Ohio.

Stinson is represented by Timothy M. O'Brien of Levin Papantonio Rafferty, Kelsey L. Stokes of Fleming Nolen & Jez LLP, and Jeff Grand of Seeger Weiss LLP.

Stinson's trial was the fourth bellwether trial in (MDL) < ahref=https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/multidistrict-litigation-2846>MDL 2846 IN RE: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation. As of October 16, 2023, this multidistrict litigation (MDL) has 20,369 pending cases, making it the third largest multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S.

In September 2018, O’Brien was appointed by the United States Southern District of Ohio as Co-Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs Steering Committee in MDL No. 2846.

“There have been a total of four Bard hernia mesh bellwether cases tried in the federal and state court jurisdictions. Three of those four have been plaintiff’s verdicts," O'Brien said.

"This verdict is very significant because it concerns Bard’s best-selling mesh ever, the PerFix Plug, and it revealed how Bard misled American surgeons about the problems with the product, which put American patients at risk.”

The victory occurred despite Defendants' twice-failed motions for judgment, claiming Stinson had failed to provide enough evidence to support claims stemming from his injuries.

Stinson emerged the winner on several claims, including those of negligence, negligence for failure to warn, and strict liability for failure to warn.

The Plaintiff's PerFix Plug, which was implanted in 2015 to repair a hernia, failed and stuck to tissues around the implant area. In 2017, he had no choice but to have the medical device removed. The surgery uncoverd a massive ball--"approximately 2.5 cm in diameter of rolled up mesh"--adhered to his insides, the removal of which posed a tremendous challenge for doctors.

About the Bard Hernia Mesh MDL

Plaintiffs in this MDL allege that upon implantation in patients, the Defendants' defective polypropylene hernia mesh devices cause serious medical complications, including bowel obstruction, testicular injury, and other damage to organs.

In less than five years, more than twenty-thousand patients have filed suit in the MDL alleging a range of bowel and testicular injuries resulting from the hernia mesh products. Behind only the 3M Earplugs MDL and the Johnson & Johnson Talc Ovarian Cancer MDL, the Bard Hernia Mesh MDL currently is the third-largest MDL in the country in terms of number of pending cases.

Defendant C.R. Bard is the largest hernia mesh manufacturer in the U.S. and manufactures numerous hernia mesh devices containing polypropylene. Bard uses a polypropylene, the manufacturers of which expressly have warned should not be used in human implants.

About Tim O'Brien

Attorney Tim O'Brien is a board-certified civil trial attorney who concentrates his practice in the areas of mass tort litigation, product liability, personal injury, wrongful death, and transactional liability. He has been appointed Lead or Co-Lead counsel in numerous product liability MDLs and has tried more than sixty civil cases around the country.

O'Brien has been interviewed by and extensively quoted in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Pink Sheet, Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg News, and by National Public Radio, CBS Radio, and Air America Radio, as well as several European national news organizations in other product liability litigations where he was the lead counsel.

Plaintiffs' Attorneys Launch Groundbreaking Strategy to Negate J&J's Third Bankruptcy Attempt in Talc Litigation

2023-11-07T10:18:00.002-06:00

Heavy-hitter mass tort law firms Levin Papantonio Rafferty (LPR) and Beasley Allen Law Firm announced they are training 60 seasoned trial attorneys from across the U.S. in a Johnson & Johnson (J&J) Trial Package Bootcamp.

The training will unleash an army of lawyers trained and equipped to handle coordinated J&J talcum powder trials taking place simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions from coast to coast in 2024 and beyond. At least 18 talc-ovarian cancer trials are scheduled to be heard in state courts next year.

The talc litigation bootcamp precedes J&J's LTL Management subsidiary's anticipated third bankruptcy filing through which the pharmaceutical giant aims to further delay all current and future talc trials in the talcum powder products liability litigation. Currently, more than 50,000 plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) allege that J&J's talc products caused claimants to develop ovarian cancer.

LPR Attorney Mike Papantonio and Attorney Andy Birchfield, of Beasley Allen Law Firm, see J&J's bankruptcy strategy for what it is: a stall tactic that stops the wheels of justice in these talc-cancer lawsuits and promises to underpay plaintiffs.

"Johnson & Johnson has its strategy, and we have ours, too," Papantonio said. "We're building a massive law firm. A machine that will put 60 seasoned, trained trial lawyers, schooled on J&J's disastrous history, in courtrooms on the same day anywhere in America.

"It's a trial strategy that will spread J&J thin. It will also show J&J shareholders again how badly J&J management is squandering billions with billable time payments to slick defense firms," Papantonio added.

Birchfield stressed the importance of talc plaintiffs' attorneys learning from J&J's twice-failed bankruptcy efforts (Case No. 21-30589 and Case No. 23-12825).

"Bankruptcy is too powerful a tool to be used responsibly by corporate giants like Johnson & Johnson," Birchfield said. "We must be in a place where we can stand up as a Plaintiffs' bar on behalf of our clients against J&J's sinister tactics like bankruptcy. That’s what this bootcamp is all about. Equipping plaintiffs' lawyers to do right by their clients."

Both attorneys are committed to a central idea--that attorneys representing cancer victims can turn back J&J’s abusive tactics and get fair and reasonable compensation for clients in the tort system if the lawyers band together and equip themselves with knowledge and expertise.

The attorneys also added specific praise for Leigh O’Dell, Michelle Parfitt, and the MDL leadership team for their hard work and commitment in keeping the talc case moving forward in spite of several years’ delay.

"It’s now time to return to the tort system. We are ready, and we will not be deterred," Birchfield said.

The talc litigation bootcamp is taking place today, November 6, through Wednesday, November 8, at the law offices of Levin Papantonio Rafferty in Pensacola, Florida. Faculty includes top-flight litigators and lawyers with deep, comprehensive understanding of talc-ovarian cancer claims and the J&J MDL (MDL 2738, IN RE: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation).

Why Chemical Hair Relaxers Might Be Banned—and Should Have Been Decades Ago

2023-10-28T08:55:00.005-05:00

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) might ban some hair-straightening chemicals present in both salon-grade and at-home hair relaxer products. The proposed rule, announced in early October, would prohibit the use of formaldehyde, as well as methylene, glycol, and other formaldehyde-releasing chemicals, in the making of hair smoothing or straightening products marketed in the U.S. The proposed ban stems from these chemicals having been linked to adverse health effects, including certain cancers.

According to U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, the agency’s action marks a “win for public health—especially the health of Black women.” Pressley joined U.S. Rep. Shontel Brown of Ohio in requesting the FDA investigate straightener products.

In their petition to the FDA, the lawmakers wrote:

“As a result of anti-Black hair sentiment, Black women have been unfairly subjected to scrutiny and forced to navigate the extreme politicization of hair. Hence, generations of Black women have adapted by straightening hair in an attempt to achieve social and economic advancement.

“Manufacturers of chemical straighteners have gained enormous profits, but recent findings unveil potentially significant negative health consequences associated with these products,” the letter stated.

Understanding the FDA Rule Process

According to FDA Rules and Regulations, the next step in this type of agency action is to accept public comments, typically via the Federal Government’s electronic docket site (Regulations.gov). The comments will help the FDA determine whether to terminate the rulemaking process, issue a new proposed rule, or issue a final rule.

Other areas of the federal government may review the rule before it gets published in the Federal Register.

“This move by the FDA further shows why our litigation and the mass tort practice is so important,” said Levin Papantonio Rafferty (LPR) Attorney Chelsie Green, who was appointed to the Leadership Development Committee in the multidistrict litigation (MDL 3060) In Re: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation.

“Good lawyering brings about real change in our society and that is exactly what we are doing in the hair relaxer multi-district litigation,” Green added.

“This isn’t just about hair, we are advocating for Black and Brown women’s health, and now we can say our voices are being heard. Banning these products is one step in right direction and we will continue our work fighting for what is right.”

Use and Exposure That Spans a Lifetime

Green explained that typically a hair relaxer is applied once every four to six weeks. “Some consumers or women will use that product a lot more, depending on how quickly their hair grows,” she told Farron Cousins during an October 2023 interview on America’s Lawyer. “So, if your hair grows faster than the average, then you could be using this product every two weeks.

Exposure for any given user would amount to decades.

Compounding the horror of this story, it should be noted that hair relaxer use dates back to times of slavery. “Black women weren’t seen as beautiful, or their hair wasn’t seen as professional. So, this has been lineage, generations of use. And it’s typically starting at about age five into adulthood,” Green said.

The Study That Started a Conversation

U.S. Reps. Pressley and Brown penned their letter to the FDA in March 2023 in response to a 2022 study published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) linking relaxers to a heightened risk of uterine cancer.

The NIH study was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. It included data from 33,497 women aged 35-74 in the United States and revealed that women who used chemical hair straightening products were at a higher risk for uterine cancer compared to women who did not use these products.

According to the researchers, among women who did not use hair-straightening chemical products in the past 12 months, 1.6% developed uterine cancer by age 70, but about 4% of the women who frequently use such hair-straightening products developed uterine cancer by age 70.

Hair products containing certain types of chemicals are advertised to Black women at a rate of about 50%, compared to only 7% for White women, according to the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.”

The Lawsuits That Followed

The manner in which chemical hair relaxers work, combined with the historical, perpetuated bias toward a European standard of beauty, means that use of these products typically starts in youth and last a lifetime. "There’s going to be generational use of hair relaxers. There’s going to be grandmother use, great-grandmother use," said Green, who is handling hair relaxer cases for LPR.

On February 6, 2023, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order, creating MDL 3060: In Re: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The order transfers cases pending in district courts to the Northern District of Illinois to be heard before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland.

LPR has filed multiple cases on behalf of women who used chemical hair straighteners, starting with the following three women.

Terrice Aikens

On January 23, 2023, Case 2:23-cv-00095 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of Terrice Aikens.

Aikens, a 48-year-old resident of the State of Washington, received her uterine cancer diagnosis on July 15, 2021. The plaintiff alleges her diagnosis resulted from her regular and prolonged exposure to phthalates and other endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) contained in the defendants' hair relaxer products, including Dark & Lovely, Just For Me, Motions, Affirm, Crème of Nature, Optimum, and Olive Oil ORS.

Dorothy J. May

On January 31, 2023, another lawsuit (Case 3:23-cv-00056-BAJ-EWD) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle district of Louisiana on behalf of Louisiana resident Dorothy May. The 63-year-old plaintiff was diagnosed with uterine cancer on or around February 15, 2022, after regular use of the Defendants' products.

Hermania Bates

Hermania Bates received her uterine cancer diagnosis on February 22, 2023. Her lawsuit, like May's and Aikens' complaints, allege that the Defendants' hair care products caused the illness. Attorneys filed Bates' complaint (Case 3:23-cv-00057-DJH) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

A Staggering Growth in Filed Complaints

The number of filed hair relaxer lawsuits continues to grow at an alarming rate. According to Green, a Revlon, one of the defendants in the hair relaxer litigation, is coming out of bankruptcy, and this event has impacted the numbers Green had been seeing.

“They had a deadline for us to file all complaints against Revlon by September 14th,” Green told Cousins. “As of September 14th, over 7,000 cases are filed in the Northern District of Illinois,” she added.

Defendants in the multidistrict litigation include L’Oreal, makers of Dark and Lovely brands, as well as Motions, another hair relaxer, and Revlon products.

“There’s going to be some smaller, salon-based hair relaxers also, where they’re not typically sold over the shelf,” Green told Cousins.

Facts About Hair Relaxers

According to the Complaints filed by LPR:

The 2020 global Black Hair care market was estimated at $2.5 billion. The hair relaxer market alone was estimated at $718 million in 2021, with the expectation to grow to $854 million annually by 2028.
Of 1,177 personal care products marketed to Black women, hair relaxers, hair colors, and bleaching products were the worst-scoring products in terms of analyzed ingredients. The average product score for these types of products indicated "high potential hazard."
The success of the hair relaxer products industry ties to a centuries-old issue of texturism: "The idea that 'good hair' is equated with a straighter hair texture was cemented into American culture during its period of chattel slavery."
Centuries later, Defendants market their hair relaxer products to Black customers across the across the globe, reinforcing the same Eurocentric standards of beauty. "Defendant’s marketing scheme relies heavily on branding and slogans that reinforce straight hair as the standard."
Some studies show that up to 90% of Black and Brown women have used hair relaxants and straighteners.
The first relaxer product marketed to young Black girls, Just for Me ™, entered the marketplace in the 1990s.
Once relaxer use begins in childhood, it typically becomes a lifetime habit. "The frequency of scalp burns with relaxer application can increase the risk of permanent and debilitating diseases associated with long-term exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals."
Uterine cancer is associated with phthalate metabolites found in hair care products.

Paris Hilton's Accounts of Being Forced to Take Daily Medications in Various "Troubled Teen" Facilities Pave the Way for Medical Malpractice Lawsuits, Lawyers Say.

2023-10-17T12:58:00.005-05:00

Global celebrity, entrepreneur, and advocate Paris Hilton joined renowned Levin Papantonio Rafferty (LPR) Attorney Mike Papantonio and Oregon State Senator Sara Gelser for a candid and driven discussion about egregious abuse within hundreds of facilities in the so-called "troubled-teen" industry. The session marked the opening of the Mass Torts Made Perfect (MTMP) seminar in Las Vegas last week, and drew an audience of nearly 2,000 mass tort attorneys from across the U.S.

The audience viewed a segment of Hilton's 2020 documentary, "This Is Paris," where she recounted being taken from her bed in the middle of the night by two strangers, thinking she was being kidnapped. Instead, the arrival of these "transporters" flagged the start of months of abuse in multiple behavioral modification programs, where teen residents were isolated from family, abused, and ordered not to share what was happening under threat of punishment in solitary confinement.

"No child should be taken from their bed like that...and treated like a criminal," Hilton said.

For Papantonio, one aspect of Hilton's narrative surfaced as an avenue for legal recourse against these institutions.

"One thing I'm really looking at, the strip searches, the cavity searches, the being put in solitary confinement naked, the showers where the counselors are all watching what's going on...at the top of that hierarchy is somebody with a medical license," Papantonio said.

According to Papantonio, this structure paves the way for cases of medical malpractice.

Sen. Gelser agreed that at residential youth facilities like Provo Canyon School in Utah, where Hilton spent 11 months, someone with a medical degree sits at the top of the organizational pyramid. "[At] Many of these places, there is nobody with any medical credential whatsoever. But they sell that. They sell that. They sell that."

Gelser said she introduced a bill last session that she thought was "really simple."

"It said you cannot advertise that you provide treatment if you're a facility unless you are licensed by the state health authority, and you can't advertise that you provide treatment as an individual unless you're a licensed healthcare professional," Gelser explained. "I couldn't run the bill because the Department of Justice told me it was unconstitutional and that we had to go through the licensing boards.

"But the one wilderness program that's left in Oregon went bananas over this, saying it would completely shut them down. And I said, 'Why? Just tell the truth about what you're doing. But that isn't what they do.'"

Hilton said before she entered into the "troubled teen" system, she never had taken any medication, aside from a Tylenol or Advil. "But when I got there, every single morning and every single afternoon and night, they would have us all line up and give us a cup full of all these pills. I had no idea what anything was. I didn't even talk to a proper doctor there, so I don't even know how they came up with it. And I just immediately would feel so dizzy, and everybody around me was just like zombies and falling asleep everywhere, and then you would get punished for falling asleep. And I just started not remembering things."

One day, Hilton began hiding the pills she was given under her tongue, and then put it into a Kleenex and put it in the trash.

"One of the kids found it and told on me because they reward the childen for telling on each other, and from that moment, they locked me in solitary confinement," Hilton explained.

"Everybody sees the connection here, right?" Papantonio asked the room of attorneys. "If there's any medication being given to these kids, I don't care if there's a doctor on the facility. If there's any medication being given this kid, you have a lead. The lead goes all the way back to malpractice. Somebody, somebody in the pecking order, made the decision it was okay to give these kids medication."

Hilton added another layer to the issue of medical malpractice.

"When you talk to a therapist, it's supposed to be someone that you can trust who is going to keep confidential, and that's not the case at all. Anything you would tell them, they would then say in the group in front of all the other kids, humiliate you, and even to this day, I've had so many calls, emails, people reaching out to me, that the people who work at these places are talking about me all the time, which again is a violation of HIPAA," Hilton said.

Hilton entered the "troubled teen" industry system as a teen when she was sneaking out of the house, going to clubs, and getting bad grades.

"I had undiagnosed ADHD at the time, which no one was talking about. So they couldn’t understand why I couldn't focus in school, but nobody knew the reason why," Hilton said. "And I was punished for that. And I didn’t deserve to be there. None of these kids deserve to be in these places."

Papantonio said his sights are set on bringing the "troubled teen" industry down.

"It won't be business as usual," Papantonio said. "The medical malpractice of this hasn’t even been touched. I've developed novel legal attacks on some of the biggest projects of the country all the way from tobacco, to opioids, to human trafficking…each one, we’ve always gone in with an unusual, novel approach," Papantonio said.

"Once we unlock that methodology, we're all going to be able to use it in every state," Papantonio added.

About Paris Hilton's Advocacy Efforts

Paris' advocacy efforts have led to widespread public awareness of this industry, policy changes at the state level, philanthropic endeavors, and media projects like "Trapped in Treatment." Currently, she is actively advocating for the passage of the Federal Accountability for Congregate Care Act. As a natural extension of these efforts, Paris is taking her passion to end "troubled teen" industry abuse to the legal community.

Levin Papantonio Rafferty Is Combatting the “Troubled Teen” Industry

The Levin Papantonio Rafferty law firm, founder and host of Mass Torts Made Perfect, has developed a "troubled teen" industry division within its practice to hold accountable facilities that abuse, neglect, and exploit vulnerable children and teens who have been put under their care. In September 2023, LPR Attorney Caleb Cunningham and two other attorneys filed multiple lawsuits against Alabama state officials, alleging they discriminate against children with disabilities by placing them in residential centers where they were segregated and abused.

"We are excited to have Paris Hilton help us shine a light on this industry and these abuses," Cunningham said. "We are also joined by Unsilenced, a national advocacy group of survivors of this industry. Together we can hit these companies where it hurts."

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR MORE BACKGROUND:

Paris' YouTube Originals documentary, "This is Paris," with more than 77 million views

Press release (July 20, 2023) announcing Paris' opening talk at MTMP Fall 2023 in Las Vegas

"America's Lawyer" Mike Papantonio talks to Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins about teaming up with Paris Hilton to fight systemic abuse within the "troubled teen" industry.

Meg Appelgate's personal story of institutional child abuse, told on IndoctriNation

Plaintiffs’ Attorneys in Heartburn Drugs Lawsuits Announce $425M AstraZeneca Settlement But Say the Fight Is Not Over

2023-10-05T08:21:00.003-05:00

Levin Papantonio Rafferty (LPR) Attorneys Troy Rafferty and Cameron Stephenson announced a settlement victory involving thousands of lawsuits claiming AstraZeneca's heartburn drugs, Nexium and Prilosec, caused chronic kidney injuries. The settlement came after years of litigation contending that AstraZeneca knew of these risks, dating all the way back to the clinical trial phase, yet failed to warn patients and their healthcare providers.

Rafferty, a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (PEC) in the PPI multidistrict litigation (MDL), said he and Stephenson are thrilled for their clients but noted litigation continues against another PPI manufacturer, Takeda.

The settlement represents partial closure in a continuing, larger litigation against manufacturers of PPI-class drugs in a New Jersey federal court before U.S. District Judge Claire C. Cecchi [MDL -2789 IN RE: Proton-Pump Inhibitor Products Liability Litigation (No. II)].

"Today's settlement announcement marks an unbelievable result for plaintiffs and victims," Rafferty said, "but this isn't over."

Rafferty referred to the fact that PPI claims against pharmaceutical giant Takeda, maker of the drugs Prevacid and Dexilant, are still pending.

Stephenson applauded the efforts of all of the PEC and PSC law firms, noting that successful litigation against Big Pharma takes a team of lawyers who are willing to stand up to corporations in the name of what is right. The PPI MDL-2789 has been pending since 2017, costing the law firms millions of dollars and requiring thousands of litigation hours to bring about this outcome.

"I have been involved in this litigation for years," Stephenson added. "To see this result on behalf of our clients is why I do this. But now, all eyes turn to Takeda. I can guarantee the PSC--this whole team of law firms--will fight even harder until Takeda pays for the damages they caused. We are more motivated now than ever.”

Kroger Will Pay $1.4 Billion to Resolve its Opioid Cases

2023-09-08T13:59:00.001-05:00

Levin Papantonio Rafferty (LPR), the trailblazing mass torts law firm that has marched at the forefront of the national prescription opiates addiction litigation, is pleased to announce a nationwide opioid settlement agreement with Kroger. The American retail company will pay $1.28 billion in abatement and $1.4 billion total to state and local governments across the country to help communities recover from the opioid crisis.

LPR attorney Jeff Gaddy led the prosecution of the case against Kroger and managed the multi-year litigation that culminated in today’s settlement announcement. “Today’s announcement is another step toward fulfilling our commitment to hold responsible all entities that contributed to the opioid epidemic that has taken so many lives and impacted far too many,” Gaddy said.

The total national settlement value for this litigation, when combined with earlier settlements by opioids distributors and manufacturers, as well as pharma companies Walgreens, CVS, Walmart, Teva, and Allergan, approaches $61.4 billion.

LPR attorney Peter Mougey, who serves as a member of the court-appointed leadership and negotiating team in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation multidistrict litigation (MDL), commented:

"One by one, the dominoes are falling. It's beyond rewarding to know that with a mission-driven dedication, we have been able to bring about the financial resources to help opioid-addiction-ravaged communities through settlements with the corporations who caused this crisis."

The national prescription opiates addiction litigation was brought by a consortium of law firms nationwide. The agreement took years of negotiations, according to Mougey, who was one of the lead negotiators on the deal. Mougey, along with other members of the PEC’s Negotiation Committee, led the settlement negotiations on behalf of more than 35 states and their communities that comprised the federal opioid litigation.

Not Just a Grocery Store

Unlike the national pharmacy chains that previously entered into opioid settlements, Kroger is the first settling defendant that is primarily in the grocery business. However, Kroger has more than 2,000 pharmacies within its stores across the country, and discovery into Kroger’s pharmacy operations produced evidence that Kroger failed to adequately train and equip its pharmacists to identify and react to red flags on opioid prescriptions.

“Kroger claimed that its pharmacy was offered as a mere convenience to its grocery customers, but this settlement makes clear that if you are dispensing dangerous and addictive opioid drugs, you must do so responsibly,” Gaddy commented.

Injunctive Terms of the Kroger Settlement Agreement

Funds from government opioid lawsuit settlements are earmarked for battling the opioid crisis through treatment, education, and prevention.

However, the injunctive measures the plaintiffs' counsel drafted and attached to settlement negotiations play an equally important role in this litigation, and such relief will be imposed in the future, according to Gaddy.

"Financial settlements resolve the past. Injunctive relief protects the future," he said.

New Mexico Opioids Trial Set the Stage

In June 2023, LPR announced a $500-million settlement agreement with Walgreens, the pharmaceutical giant accused of recklessly dispensing opioids and, in so doing, facilitating the State of New Mexico's opioid crisis.

The settlement news came after a two-month trial against pharmacy powerhouses Walgreens, Walmart, and Kroger. The three pharmacy giants are said to be responsible for over half the opioid pills in New Mexico, according to New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas, who opened the bench trial in September 2022. During the course of the trial, Walmart and Kroger paid settlements of $150 million and $85 million, respectively.

"This national settlement with Kroger would not have been possible without the trial pressure LPR and other leading firms applied," said Gaddy, who, along with Mougey was Co-Lead Counsel for the State of New Mexico in the trial against Walgreens.

Landmark $6B+ Settlement Secured for US Servicemembers and Veterans in 3M Earplug Litigation

2023-08-29T15:28:00.001-05:00

Court-appointed lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2885) today secured a landmark $6.01 billion settlement with 3M Company and subsidiary Aearo Technologies on behalf of current and former servicemembers and civilians who suffered hearing damage while using 3M’s Combat Arms Earplug version 2 (CAEv2) and other dual-ended non-linear earplugs.

This settlement comes after more than four years of litigation against 3M, including 16 bellwether trials. The master settlement agreement covers the claims of all plaintiffs in MDL No. 2885 and Minnesota state court. The lawsuits alleged that from 1999 to 2015, 3M knowingly marketed, manufactured, and sold defective CAEv2 earplugs to the United States Military and consumers, resulting in tens of thousands of people to suffer from hearing loss and tinnitus.

"This historic agreement represents a tremendous victory for the thousands of men and women who bravely served our country and returned home with life-altering hearing injuries,” said plaintiffs’ lead counsel Bryan F. Aylstock of Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC, and liaison counsel Brian Barr of Levin, Papantonio Rafferty. “We are proud to have obtained this settlement, which holds 3M accountable and ensures that those who suffered hearing damage will receive the justice and compensation they so rightly deserve.”

Upon registration, each claimant will be given the option to enroll in a payment program based on their specific needs and proof of hearing damage. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has confirmed that no veteran will lose health or disability benefits or have their disability rating adversely adjusted directly as a result of participating in the settlement, and no VA facility will be able to recover or subrogate any portion of a plaintiff’s award. It is anticipated that Judge M. Casey Rodgers of the Northern District of Florida, who is overseeing the MDL, will hold a hearing on the settlement, which will have an independent administrator and be overseen by a Special Master appointed by the court.

More information about the settlement will be available at http://www.3mearplugmdl.com.
For more LPR News articles about the 3M Military Earplugs litigation, visit the LPR News Page.

Defective Catheter Device Lawsuits to Be Centralized

2023-08-10T18:53:00.002-05:00

The nationally recognized mass tort law firm Levin Papantonio Rafferty (LPR) announces that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) created a multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 3081 In Re: Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation) for Bard PowerPort lawsuits. The JPML issued a Transfer Order to centralize lawsuits alleging that the implantable catheter devices are defective, creating possible infections and catheter failures that can lead to thrombosis, stroke, and death.

Plaintiffs in eight pending actions filed a motion to centralize these lawsuits for the purpose of discovery and pretrial hearings. The MDL has been assigned to the Honorable David G. Campbell, who currently presides over MDL 2641 - In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, in the District of Arizona.

Defendants in the newly formed MDL include Becton, Dickinson & Co., C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Access Systems.

"We are confident in Judge Campbell's ability to streamline pretrial proceedings, and we appreciate that those who have suffered injuries from these medical devices will benefit from an efficient and fair judicial process," said LPR Attorney Alex Taylor, who is investigating PowerPort cases on behalf of potential clients.

Bard PowerPort product liability complaints allege that the defendants make the port's catheter components with an excessive concentration of barium sulfate, which can compromise the catheter's structure. Possible injuries from the damaged catheter include infection, catheter fracture, catheter migration, and thrombosis.

JPML Centralizes Lawsuits Over Insulin Pricing Scheme

2023-08-07T08:01:00.005-05:00

The nationally recognized mass tort law firm Levin Papantonio Rafferty (LPR) announces that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) today created a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for insulin price-fixing lawsuits. The JPML issued a Transfer Order to centralize lawsuits alleging that drug manufacturers and pharmacy benefit manufacturers (PBMs) engaged in an unfair and deceptive conspiracy to orchestrate an insulin pricing scheme.

Thirteen pending actions and future tag-along cases from states, counties, and private entities will be transferred to the District of New Jersey for the purpose of consolidating pretrial hearings. The MDL has been assigned to the Honorable Brian R. Martinotti, who presides over the three most advanced actions related to the alleged insulin pricing scheme.

The newly formed Insulin Price-Fixing MDL (No. 3080) will serve to "avoid duplication of discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and to conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary," the panel explains on its website.

"Three insulin manufacturers and three pharmacy benefit manufacturers who dominate their respective markets all got together and increased the price of this life-saving drug 1,000% over the last 20 years," said LPR attorney Troy Rafferty. "This is a drug that costs $2 a vial to make, and they are selling it for hundreds of dollars a vial. This must stop."

LPR law firm has filed insulin price-fixing lawsuits against insulin manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) on behalf of Lake County, Illinois; City of Cleveland; Monmouth County, New Jersey; and Albany County, New York.

"The insulin pricing scheme is an example of companies putting their profits above patient safety, which is all the worse here given the life-saving nature of insulin," said LPR attorney Brandon Bogle. "These market giants have priced insulin beyond the financial reach of many Americans and driven families to resort to rationing the medication. We are eager to see these cases move forward toward justice."

Sample Case: Lake County, Illinois

Lake County (Case No. 1:23-cv-2402) alleges that Defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, among other claims. The County moved for injunctive relief against the Defendants to prevent future such violations. The County also seeks restitution, damages, disgorgement, and penalties, as well as punitive damages because "Defendants knowingly, willfully, wantonly, and intentionally harmed the health, well-being, and financial interests of Plaintiff Lake County and its Beneficiaries," the Complaint states.

Skanska Can't Use Limitation Act to Limit Its Liability in Pensacola Bay Bridge Disaster

2023-08-02T16:24:00.003-05:00

Today, Pensacola-based law firms Levin Papantonio Rafferty; Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz; and Beggs & Lane announce the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the Northern District of Florida court's dismissal of the Limitation Act proceedings and its sanctions order related to lawsuits filed by nearly 1,000 commuters and business owners against Skanska. Complaints were filed after a breakaway of Skanska barges in Pensacola Bay during Hurricane Sally resulted in the Pensacola Bay Bridge's outage.

The Court's opinion stated, "Skanska’s approach would turn the Limitation Act on its head, and our precedents have already rejected it. We have been clear that the purpose of the Act is limitation, not exoneration."

Attorneys at Levin Papantonio Rafferty; Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz; and Beggs & Lane, who have been championing the rights of businesses and commuters harmed by the Pensacola Bay Bridge outage, issued the following joint statement:

"We are pleased to announce that the Federal Appellate Court dismissed Skanska’s arguments in their entirety—delivering a win both for accountability and the region. The 40-page opinion expresses a clear acknowledgment not only of the disastrousness of Skanska’s judgment but also how it impacted the property, lives, and livelihood of our neighbors' and friends' homes, businesses, and livelihoods. It also upheld the lower court’s order requiring Skanska pay sanctions for destroying evidence.”

"In essence, the Appellate Court found that Judge Collier protected Skanska’s right to seek a limitation of its liability. It likewise found that Skanska’s attempt was a failure. The Court further found that Skanska could not deny the rights of local homeowners, business owners, and wage earners to seek justice in state court.”

"As from the beginning, our firms will continue to work hard to hold accountable the world’s fifth largest construction company for wreaking havoc on the region’s economy."

Limitation Act Would Have Seriously Undercut Skanska's Liability

According to the Limitation Act, a court may either absolve a maritime vessel owner of liability in a negligence suit or limit that liability to the vessel's value at the end of the journey. If the Act were applied in this case, it would reduce Skanska's liability for damages in the state court lawsuits to the value of the five barges that damaged the bridge, for a total liability of about $1.5 million.

The Limitation Act, however, does not apply to reduce a vessel owner's liability if the owner of the vessel: (1) participated in the negligent conduct that caused the injury; (2) had "privity and knowledge" of the negligent act that caused the injury; or (3) knew or should have known of the acts or omissions that caused the injury.

Attorneys Reflect on the Monumental Court Opinion

Attorneys at the three Pensacola law firms that have been fighting for the rights of those harmed by Skanska's negligence offered their thoughts on the appellate court's opinion.

Levin Papantonio Rafferty attorney and shareholder Brian Barr made the following statement:

"The justice that has been served by both the trial court and the appellate court in this case is monumental. People now have a chance to be compensated for the senseless harm that was caused by Skanska's remarkably indifferent negligence.”

Sam Geisler, Partner at Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz PLLC, stated the following:

“The Federal Judiciary continues to affirm what we have all long known—that Skanska failed the region completely. We will continue to meet every effort Skanska puts forth to avoid accountability.”

Tom Gonzalez, Partner at Beggs & Lane, said:

"This is a victory for the residents and businesses of the Pensacola Bay region. The claimants represent a cross-section of businesses and homeowners alike. Skanska’s barges damaged private property, public property, and local businesses. Our clients are local shops and businesses, hotels, hospitals, local governments, and residents whose sea walls, which had protected their homes since the early 1900s, were destroyed. This impacted the lives of people who enjoyed the fishing pier and who depended on the bridge traffic for their livelihood. This is a good day for the people of the Pensacola Bay Region."

City of Cleveland Files Insulin Price Fixing Lawsuit

2023-07-28T10:26:00.001-05:00

On Monday, July 24, 2023, the City of Cleveland filed a lawsuit against drug manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMS). The City alleges the defendants artificially inflated the price of insulin at the expense of self-funded health plans and their members and beneficiaries.

According to a release from the Cleveland Office of the Mayor, defendants exploit diabetics’ dependency on insulin to guarantee a price-fixing scheme. People who need insulin to stay alive find themselves unable to afford the medicine. As a prescription benefit sponsor, the City of Cleveland literally pays the price for the defendants’ greed.

“Diabetic medications are among the highest costs under the City’s prescription benefit plan provided to its employees,” states an article on the Office of the Mayor’s website. “The lawsuit seeks to recover those costs.”

The City of Cleveland is the first U.S. city to file an insulin pricing scheme lawsuit. However, it follows a similar action filed in May by Lake County, Illinois in which the County accuses Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Express Scripts, and OptumRx are accused of violating the state's Consumer Fraud Act and the RICO Act.

“The mystery of how this country's exorbitant insulin prices persist in a climate of cheaper production and minimal R&D can be explained in a single word: greed,” said Levin Papantonio attorney Brandon Bogle in a press release announcing the Lake County lawsuit.

Levin Papantonio Rafferty law firm is working with a consortium of nationally recognized law firms to investigate insulin overpricing lawsuits.

Insulin Overpricing Affects Over 1 Million People

A 2022 Yale study reported the disturbingly high cost of treating diabetes in the U.S. According to the study, 1.2 million Americans (14% of the country’s insulin users) spend “catastrophic” amounts—40% of their post-subsistence income—on this life-saving medication.

Self-funded healthcare plans and their plan holders carry the financial burden of shocking list prices for the drug, which have mushroomed to more than 1000% of their 2003 values. These price increases are unjustifiable, as they do not reflect any substantial improvements to the drug or changes in production or distribution costs.

List Price Per Milliliter of Insulin in the U.S.

Late ‘90s: $25-$40
2015: $260
2022: $500+

For two years, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee investigated rising insulin prices. In January 2021, the committee released its 90-page report, which highlighted alarming findings, including:

In 2018, two insulin manufacturers considered lowering the drug’s list prices but decided against the decrease because of its calculated effect on business profits.

Increasing list prices are driven by profits for insulin manufacturers and PBMs, and the PBM practice of pressuring manufacturers for rebates, on top of threatening to drop manufacturers’ products from insurance formularies.
By insulin manufacturers’ own admissions, an 89% drop in rebates would still result in a profitable business.

Report authors stated, “…the opaque business practices of pharmaceutical manufacturers and PBMs have huge implications for patients, payers, and the Federal government, with respect to insulin and therapies for other diseases.”

As LPR attorney Troy Rafferty explained in a recent video on the topic, “Insulin costs around $2 a vial. They’re selling it for hundreds of dollars a vial. When insulin was created, the patent holder, a doctor, sold the patent—the right to make insulin--to the University of Toronto for one dollar. And he wrote a letter that said, insulin belongs to the world—not one person, not one company—because it is a life-saving drug.”

J&J Files Lawsuit Against Doctors Who Linked Talc to Cancer

2023-07-21T17:59:00.003-05:00

Junk science. That’s what Johnson & Johnson is calling scientific studies that link talc-based personal care products with cancer. The multinational corporation, which has worldwide sales of over $93 billion, is suing four researchers who published the studies, demanding a retraction or correction to conclusions that talc products contaminated with asbestos could cause mesothelioma, Reuters reported.

According to Levin Papantonio Rafferty Attorney Chris Tisi, who is a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the national talc litigation (In Re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2738 ), J&J’s move is just the latest in a new wave of defense tactics.

“By suing doctors and scientists, J&J hopes to silence researchers who expose their unsafe and defective products,” Tisi said. “Consumers should be very concerned about what it would mean for public safety if J&J is successful in canceling scientists who challenge false claims of safety.”

J&J made its move days before a jury ruled in favor of a man who claimed to develop mesothelioma after a lifetime of using Johnson’s talc-based baby powder. Plaintiff Emory Hernandez Valadez testified during trial that he would have avoided using J&J’s baby powder had the company warned him its product contained asbestos. The California man was awarded $18.8 million on Tuesday.

Unfortunately, Valadez will have to wait to collect the judgment, thanks to another J&J defense tactic: the Texas Two-Step Bankruptcy. In October 2021, J&J created subsidiary LTL Management, LLC, to carry J&J’s liabilities related to talc litigation. LTL then filed for Ch. 11 bankruptcy protection, despite its parent company having more than $400 billion and holding $31 billion in cash and marketable securities. The bankruptcy claim resulted in a bankruptcy court order freezing most of the company’s talc litigation.

On April 4, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit instructed Bankruptcy Court Judge Kaplan to dismiss LTL’s Chapter 11 petition saying it breached Bankruptcy Code section 1112(b)’s good-faith standard: “At base level, LTL, whose employees are all J&J employees, is essentially a shell company ‘formed,’ almost exclusively, ‘to manage and defend thousands of talc-related claims....'"

Judge Kaplan officially dismissed the case that day. Two hours and 11 minutes later, LTL filed its second bankruptcy motion, prompting a statement from the Ad Hoc Committee of Certain Talc Claimants accusing J&J of making "a mockery of the Third Circuit’s Opinion, Judgment, and Mandate, and of our justice system."

Tisi and LPR Attorney Cameron Stephenson represent hundreds of plaintiffs in talcum powder lawsuits who developed ovarian cancer after decades of using Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder with talc.

As of July 17, 2023, there are 37,543 cases pending in MDL 2738.

Almost Half of U.S. Tap Water Tainted by Forever Chemicals

2023-07-07T19:24:00.003-05:00

They’re commonly called “forever chemicals”—a collection of 12,000 chemicals that resist degradation in the environment and build up in the body. But mounting research could support someday changing the term to “forever and ubiquitous chemicals.”

A new study released by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have contaminated close to half of the country’s tap water.

“Millions of people have been drinking a toxic forever chemical linked to cancer all their lives and are only discovering it today,” Scott Farber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, told The Washington Post.

This would explain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2015 findings that PFAS dwell in the blood of more than 95 percent of Americans—and they are far from friendly residents. Studies have found that high levels of PFAS link to multiple adverse health outcomes, including kidney cancer, testicular cancer, low birth weights, and increased cholesterol levels, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).

In March 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the first national drinking water standard for PFAS: 4 ppt (parts per trillion). This is the equivalent of a single drop of water in five Olympic-sized Swimming pools.

Water providers are now suing chemical companies like 3M, DuPont, and Chemours, among others to cover the costs of remediation to make water safe for consumers.

On Tuesday, June 27, 2023, Levin Papantonio Rafferty (LPR) attorneys announced that talks with 3M, a defendant in the national litigation Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2873, resulted in a $12.5 billion settlement agreement with the chemical manufacturer.

According to a press release issued by the law firm, 3M will pay a minimum of $10.5 billion and a maximum of $12.5 billion to settle lawsuits over the contamination of drinking water systems across the country with harmful per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Water providers will receive compensation to help fund water testing and infrastructure to immediately clean up drinking water supplies and fund ongoing maintenance to ensure drinking water safety. The settlement will be paid out over 13 years.

"This settlement provides the critical funding needed to protect Americans and remove these toxic substances from our nation’s drinking water," said LPR Attorney Wes Bowden, who serves on the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee in the national AFFF litigation.

LPR Attorney Ned McWilliams, who is a member of the Science and Discovery Committees in the AFFF MDL, underscored the staggering costs associated with remediation of water supplies.

“Municipalities need to know they can still join this litigation to recover these costs, and time is of the essence for taking legal action,” McWilliams said.

Days prior to the national PFAS litigation’s first bellwether trial, (City of Stuart, Florida, vs 3M Co., et al), Dupont, Chemours, and Corteva, also Defendants in the national PFAS litigation, announced they agreed to pay $1.185 billion in the first major settlement in MDL 2873.