Paraquat Lawsuit Settlement Amounts

Our lawyers handle Paraquat lawsuits in all 50 states. This page provides the latest news and updates on Paraquat lawsuits in both state and federal courts. We also give our perspective on where this litigation is heading and provide projected settlement payouts for a viable Paraquat lawsuit.

People who have developed Parkinson’s disease from Paraquat want to better understand the range of settlement amounts they can expect in their Paraquat lawsuit.

It is still early in the Paraquat litigation, with a trial scheduled for April 2025. Settlement compensation payouts are speculative at this stage. However, if plaintiffs’ lawyers are successful in this litigation, as expected, we can look at similar injury cases to estimate a settlement range.

The expected Paraquat settlement amounts will fluctuate as the litigation progresses. Our lawyers will continue to update this page with revised payout projections.

If you have a potential claim, you want to have that claim prepared before any Paraquat settlement.  Call our law firm today at 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation.

Paraquat Lawsuit Updates 2024

Here are the developments in the still-growing Paraquat lawsuit:

November 12, 2024 – New Paraquat Lawsuit in MDL

We are starting to see more suit filed in the MDL.  In one wrongful death case filed yesterday, the family of a Virginia agricultural worker seeks damages from Syngenta alleging that repeated exposure to Paraquat caused the decedent to develop Parkinson’s disease, ultimately leading to his death.

According to the complaint, the decedent was regularly exposed to paraquat over a four-year period through agricultural use, during which time he was in contact with the herbicide as it was mixed, sprayed, and cleaned up in the fields. The lawsuit claims that Syngenta failed to adequately warn consumers or implement safety measures, even as scientific evidence mounted linking Paraquat to Parkinson’s and other neurological conditions.

November 7, 2024 – Replacement Potential Bellwethers

This summer, Judge Rosenstengel issued a selection order in the ongoing Paraquat MDL, identifying ten member cases for case-specific discovery.  These are the cases that are being prepped for the first Paraquat trials in the MDL.

Shortly afterward, two plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaints within two weeks of their selection. To maintain the planned timeline, the Court has now selected two replacement cases:

• Anderson v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, et al. (Case No. 3:23-pq-01712-NJR): The plaintiff operated multiple farms in Vergennes, Illinois and was regularly exposed to Paraquat from around 1980 to 2012 through inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. During this time, the pesticide was widely sold to farmers and businesses in Illinois and applied nearby using ground-based and aerial spraying methods. In 2010, the plaintiff was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
• Powrie v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, et al. (Case No. 3:21-pq-00710-NJR): The plaintiff, a resident of Port Jervis, New York, worked as a licensed Paraquat applicator in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. During this time, he frequently mixed, loaded, applied, and cleaned paraquat products manufactured and sold by the defendants. He was diagnosed with Parkinson’s four years ago.

These replacement cases are subject to the same discovery timelines and due dates as outlined in the original selection order so we should not lose any time.

November 1, 2024 – MDL Drops 65 Cases

The Paraquat class action MDL lost 65 cases in October, bringing the total number of pending cases down to 5,818. This is now the second month in a row that this MDL has decreased in size. Weak cases without evidence are being dismissed, and more cases are being filed in state court.

October 21, 2024 – Paraquat Settlement

The convention wisdom in this litigation is that there will be a global Paraquat settlement in the next six months. Is this a sure thing?  Hardly. And attorneys in mass torts always to underestimate how long settlement will take. But every Paraquat lawyer we talk to says the same thing: these cases will resolve before there is a trial.

If you have a potential injury or wrongful death claim and you have been waiting to act, now is the time to get moving.  Even setting aside what could be pressing statute of limitations issues, these cases will be harder to settle after the first wave of settlements.

October 19, 2024 – New Parkinson’s Disease Lawsuit

In a new Parkinson’s disease lawsuit filed yesterday in the MDL against Syngenta and Chevron, a New York man claims that prolonged exposure to Paraquat while working in New York from 1980 to 1984 led to the development of Parkinson’s disease.

The lawsuit asserts that the defendants, as manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of Paraquat, failed to provide adequate warnings about the risks of exposure, specifically its link to Parkinson’s disease. The complaint includes claims of strict liability for design defects, failure to warn, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for physical injuries, mental anguish, disability, and medical expenses.

October 9, 2o24 – Ban Paraquat

Forty-seven members of Congress have asked the EPA to ban Paraquat.

October 8, 2024 – New Lawsuit

In a new lawsuit filed in the MDL today,  a Nevada couple has brought claims against Syngenta and Chevron.  The husband, who was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2020, alleges that his condition was caused by decades of exposure to paraquat while working on farms in Indiana. The couple claims that between 1965 and 1998, the husband was repeatedly exposed to the herbicide through inhalation and skin absorption during routine farm operations, including mixing, loading, and applying paraquat to crops.

The wife, who is bringing a loss of consortium claim, asserts that she has suffered loss of companionship, services, and support as a direct result of her husband’s condition. The couple states that they were unaware of the link between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease until mid-2023, when the connection was brought to their attention through recent information and media coverage.

October 1, 2024 – MDL Shrinks

The Paraquat class action MDL actually decreased in size during the month of September, dropping eight cases and bringing the total number of pending cases down to 5,883. Again, this is a function of an increase in state court lawsuits, notably in Philadelphia.

September 7, 2024 – Syngenta’s Appeals to Kick Cases of Philadelphia Fails

Syngenta filed a motion in state court in Philadelphia arguing that most of the people suing for Paraquat injuries are not from Pennsylvania so they should not be permitted to file there.  It says that 600 our of 650 Paraquat lawsuits in Philadelphia are not connected to Philadelphia or Pennsylvania.

The issue revolves around a Pennsylvania law, called the “consent by registration” statute, which says that if a company registers to do business in Pennsylvania, it can be sued there—even by people from outside the state. Syngenta argued this law might be unconstitutional, conveniently ignoring the Supreme Court recently said otherwise.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court rejected Syngenta’s argument. This is good news for plaintiffs’ lawyers who can focus on gearing up for the first Paraquat trial in April.

September 3, 2024 – MDL Adds 200 Cases Over the Summer

The Paraquat MDL has grown by just over 200 cases over the summer. Another 50 new cases were added in August, bringing the current number of pending cases in the MDL very close to 6,000.

August 29, 2024 – Dismissals for Noncompliance

The Special Master, Randi S. Ellis, found that 137 cases be dismissed due to their failure to comply with Case Management Order No. 10. The plaintiffs challenged this decision in ten cases. Four of these cases were voluntarily dismissed later, anyway. But six were still under “dispute.”   Defendants did not actually contest these challenges.

The MDL judge found that the disputed cases had not met CMO 10’s deadline for submitting the required Plaintiff Assessment Questionnaires (PAQs). Nevertheless, several plaintiffs later submitted their PAQs, citing unforeseen issues like reductions in their legal teams. Notably, one case had been mistakenly recommended for dismissal despite the earlier submission of its PAQ. In light of these circumstances, the court determined that dismissing these cases would be inappropriate.

August 24, 2024 – Impact of Schaffner v. Monsanto

Last week in a Monsanto Roundup case, the 3rd Circuit ruling in Schaffner v. Monsanto that federal law could preclude certain state law claims if the federal agency, in this case, the Environmental Protection Agency had established specific guidelines that covered the issues in question. This ruling strengthens the argument that if a product’s labeling or safety warnings comply with federal regulations, those federal rules could shield manufacturers from liability under state law.

In the context of Paraquat litigation, this ruling could potentially limit the scope of claims plaintiffs can pursue. If courts apply the Third Circuit’s reasoning – and I don’t think they will but theoretically – defendants in Paraquat cases will argue that federal regulations governing herbicide labeling and safety preempt state law claims that challenge the sufficiency of those warnings.

This would not kill the litigation.  Plaintiffs would still have defective design, manufacturing defects, or inadequate testing, which may not be as easily preempted by federal law. But the failure to warn claim is a big deal in this litigation.

Ultimately, I think there is a consensus that this is an isolated opinion that contracts longtime and recent Supreme Court precedent.  But this development could impact settlement negotiations in the Paraquat litigation. If defendants believe they have a chance on preemption, they will leverage it to push for lower settlement amounts.

August 22, 2024 – Why Settlement Could Be Sooner Rather Than Later

Pennsylvania’s first bellwether trials are slated for early 2025 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, which alone has over 800 Paraquat lawsuits.

Believe me, the defendants do not want bellwether precedents for compensation levels from Philadelphia.  That is why we think settlement could happen before these trials.

August 12, 2024 – Update Letter From Plaintiffs’ Committee

The Paraquat Plaintiffs’ Committee sent out a status update letter to all Paraquat plaintiffs this week. Here are the main points from that letter:

• In the MDL, the Court has selected 10 new plaintiffs for bellwether trials following the dismissal of the previous cases, with case-specific discovery starting immediately.
• In the Pennsylvania state court MDL, the first pool of 10 bellwether cases has a discovery deadline of September 4, 2024, with the first trial tentatively set for April 2025. Work is ongoing for both the first and second pools of bellwether cases.
• Finally, in Delaware state court, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was partially granted, and we’re amending the pleadings to comply with the Court’s Order before beginning written discovery.

August 7, 2024 – 10 New Bellwether Cases Selected

Back in April, the Judge in the Paraquat MDL dismissed all of the cases that had originally been selected and prepared for the first round of bellwether test trials. This was a major setback because the parties had spend more than a year preparing these cases for potential trials.

Yesterday, the MDL Judge got things back on track by selecting 10 new Paraquat cases to serve as bellwether test cases. The parties will spend the next few months conducting case specific fact discovery in these 10 cases in preparation for possible jury trials. We strongly suspect that there will be global settlement in Paraquat long before we get to any bellwether trials, but this at least helps put pressure on the defendants to make that happen.

August 6, 2024 – New Paraquat Lawsuit

In a newly filed lawsuit a Washington man sued Syngenta  and Chevron for his prolonged exposure to Paraquat the he says caused him to develop Parkinson’s disease.

The plaintiff’s complaint alleges he was exposed to Paraquat from approximately 1966 through 1975 while working at a fish hatchery in Washington. He suit says that Paraquat was used near his workplace, applied through ground-based or aerial sprayers.

Diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2013, he only recently became aware that his condition could be linked to Paraquat exposure. He asserts that Paraquat is highly toxic and causes oxidative stress, leading to cell damage and death, particularly in dopamine-producing neurons, which are critical for motor function, and cites this as a major factor in the development of his Parkinson’s disease.

August 1, 2024 – Paraquat MDL Numbers

The Paraquat Products MDL-3044 experienced a slight percentage decrease in active cases from July to August 2024. The number of active cases decreased from 5,770 to 5,757.  Newly filed cases are mostly balancing out cases that are getting dismissed.

July 30, 2024 – Judge Quashes Subpoena on Texas State Agencies

A federal judge in Texas recently quashed a subpoena in which the Paraquat plaintiffs sought to obtain third-party discovery from several state agencies in Texas, including the Texas Department of Agriculture. The judge ruled that the state agencies were protected by the doctrine of “sovereign immunity,” which prevents third-party fact discovery from state agencies and officials.

July 25, 2024 – New Paraquat Lawsuit

In our last update, we talked about the Paraquat lawsuits being dismissed.  But there are also new claims being filed. Three new lawsuits were filed in the MDL yesterday.

One of those cases, Richardson v. Syngenta AG et al., a Pennsylvania farmer alleges that his exposure to the herbicide Paraquat caused him to develop Parkinson’s disease.

This man was exposed to Paraquat for twenty years – from 1976 to 1996. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for Richardson’s injuries, including his medical expenses, pain, and suffering.

July 23, 2024 – Paraquat Dismissals

In the last week, 74 Paraquat lawsuits have been dismissed in the MDL.

My take on this is a global Paraquat settlement is getting closer and getting rid of claims that are not viable helps the settlement process.

July 11, 2024 – Philadelphia State Court Trial

The first Paraquat case set for trial is April 2025 in Philadelphia in state court.

Our prediction is that this case will settle before trial, and more than half of the lawsuits pending in state court in Pennsylvania will settle long before that trial. Why? I think Chevron and Syngenta are too smart to let one of these lawsuits go to trial.

June 26, 2024 – 8 Cases Face Dismissal

The Special Master recommended dismissing eight complaints due to overdue Plaintiff Assessment Questionnaires (PAQs). Four plaintiffs —Farman, Ferguson, Miner, and Ohannessian— all from the same law firm, filed an objection yesterday.

They argued that they had completed their PAQs with necessary documentation, including medical records showing Parkinson’s diagnoses. The plaintiffs’ Paraquat lawyer explained the delays were due to staffing changes and efforts to diligently gather and verify the required information. The counsel requested the court reject the recommendation for dismissal, arguing the delays did not prejudice the defendants’ ability to defend the cases.

Another plaintiff also objected to the Special Master’s recommendation to dismiss his case due to the recent change in lawyers. The plaintiff requested that the undersigned counsel take over his case from the attorneys who initially filed the complaint.

Consequently, the new counsel, who filed a notice of appearance on June 6, 2024 (attached as Exhibit A), has not yet had the opportunity to gather and submit a Plaintiff Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ. The new attorney seeks thirty days from the court’s order to submit a PAQ.

June 13, 2024 – Paraquat Lawsuits in Philadelphia

The number of cases in Philadelphia’s mass tort litigation concerning the herbicide paraquat has surged by nearly 50% in the past six months. Judge Joshua Roberts, overseeing the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas’ complex litigation center, noted a steady increase in lawsuits, with the caseload rising from around 500 at the beginning of 2024 to 728.

There are two reasons for this. First, in the Elmiron eye injury lawsuits, the wisdom that came out of those cases was that cases filed in Philadelphia did better than cases filed in the MDL.

The second reason for the shift to state court in Philadelphia is Paraquat lawyers are a bit spooked by Judge Rosenstengel’s ruling that dismissed a key plaintiffs’ expert and four bellwether cases, causing a pause in trial scheduling.  Many of the same lawyers in these cases were in the Zantac MDL. The lesson from that Zantac MDL debacle is that if you are concerned about the judge dismissing the lawsuits before you ever get to trial, you might be better off in state court.

I think lawyers would have never guessed there would be problems with experts in the Paraquat MDL as recently as a year ago. But Judge Rosenstengel did not see it the same way. The reality is her opinion is the only opinion that matters in the MDL.

June 10, 2024 – New Paraquat Lawsuit

The number of Paraquat suits has slowed in recent months. But they will continue to come in because there is a long latency period between Paraquat exposure and the development of Parkinson’s disease. This period can span several years to decades, influenced by the cumulative effects of oxidative stress, biological aging, genetic susceptibility, and delayed symptom recognition.

In a new Paraquat lawsuit filed on Thursday, a Wisconsin man says he was exposed to Paraquat while spraying farms in Wisconsin from approximately 1990 to 1995 and now has  Parkinson’s disease. The exposure occurred through mixing and spraying paraquat on numerous farms, as well as contact with sprayed plants and spray drift.

From around 1990 to at least 1995, he says he routinely mixed and applied Paraquat, being exposed to it during the mixing, loading, application, and cleaning processes. His complaint says he did not become aware of the link between Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease until he saw a Paraquat lawyers’ advertisement on July 6, 2021.

June 6, 2024 – 137 Cases May Face Dismissal

Special Master Randi S. Ellis has recommended the dismissal of 137 cases due to plaintiffs’ failure to submit Plaintiff Assessment Questionnaires as mandated by Case Management Order #10.

CMO #10 requires plaintiffs to serve a PAQ within 30 days of filing a complaint. If plaintiffs fail to comply, they receive a Notice of Overdue PAQ from the defendants. Continued non-compliance, even after a second notice, leads to review by the Special Master. In these instances, plaintiffs must either submit the PAQ or provide a valid justification for their failure to do so within 10 days.

Defendants brought 317 cases to the Special Master for review. After removing cases where plaintiffs are finalizing PAQs, the Special Master found 137 cases still in violation. Despite multiple notices, these plaintiffs failed to submit their PAQs or show good cause for the delay.

It is important to underscore that this is not a systemic problem. Of the 137 Paraquat lawsuits recommended for dismissal, 101 are with one law firm that was clearly extremely aggressive in filing lawsuits.

May 16, 2024 – New Case Filed

A Texas man filed a new Paraquat Parkinson’s Disease lawsuit yesterday, claiming that his Parkinson’s was caused by exposure to Paraquat. The plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to Paraquat between approximately 1983 and 1990 while in California.

This exposure occurred during the mixing, loading, application, and cleaning of the herbicide through spray drift and contact with sprayed plants. The plaintiff claims that Paraquat entered his body through various means, including skin absorption, inhalation, and ingestion, leading to his nervous system being attacked and resulting in Parkinson’s disease. He was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in May 2022.

May 15, 2024 – Case Selection Extension

The MDL judge granted an extension for the case selection deadline following an unopposed motion from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had initially been directed to identify 16 member cases for limited fact discovery by May 10, 2024, as per the Court’s order on April 17, 2024. However, plaintiffs reported experiencing “various technical issues” with the portal containing relevant case information, hindering their ability to meet the deadline.

In response, the Court has extended the case selection deadline for all parties to June 10, 2024. The parties are required to submit their case selections in accordance with the Court’s original instructions by this new deadline.

April 17, 2024 – Four Bellwether Trials Dismissed/Expert Stricken

April 3, 2024 – Dismissal of Meritless Cases in MDL

Over 5,000 plaintiffs are in the MDL. Another Paraquat lawsuit was recently dismissed voluntarily in an apparent effort to avoid a deposition. This decision came shortly after the judge overseeing the Paraquat MDL ordered the plaintiff’s deposition. This individual was among ten of 34 cases selected for closer examination this year that have been voluntarily dismissed.

If this person did not have a viable claim, would they have eventually gotten a good settlement? No.

Why? There will likely be a points system to calculate settlements. When a point system is in place to determine settlements, plaintiffs with cases that lack merit—meaning those that are weak or unsupported by sufficient evidence—will receive poor outcomes. Eventually. This is because the point system is designed to allocate settlement amounts based on the strength and specifics of each claim.

Factors such as the severity of the injury, the extent of exposure, and the strength of evidence play a crucial role in this assessment. Plaintiffs with cases that do not meet these criteria or are deemed not meritorious end up receiving lower settlement amounts or are excluded from compensation altogether.

So it is not like weeding out these plaintiffs is helping avoid some great injustice. But if there is a global settlement—as opposed to picking off individual plaintiffs one by one—then the defendants need a sense of the quality of claims.

My take is that a small number of lawyers are bringing in cases that are not properly vetted and lack merit.  This happens in any MDL. If the judge wants to sort this out now, all good.

Still, we have to remember that no one is making defendants settle claims that they cannot prove. So, bigger picture, people who have meritorious cases may not have that much time left. So, let’s schedule trial dates and push this litigation forward.

March 26, 2024 – Why Getting Rid of Bad Paraquat Lawsuits Helps You

There is a lot of talk in the litigation and in the media now about how many poorly vetted Paraquat lawsuits have been filed in the MDL.  This is a story that reflects poorly on some Paraquat lawyers, not the merits of the lawsuit.  Everything is working as it should.  The judge is taking proactive steps to get rid of the lawsuits that should have never been filed.

This is good for plaintiffs with viable claims.  If you have a strong case, you do not want to be grouped into weaker cases.  You want a strong docket with a smaller number of Paraquat lawsuits.  This will make a Paraquat level easier to achieve on a number of levels.

March 22, 2024 – Old Illinois State Court  Paraquat Settlement

In 2017, Syngenta faced lawsuits in state court from victims diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. The litigation was very under the radar.  Syngeneta was trying to avoid precisely what ended up happening and quietly settled these lawsuits confidentially.  We now know those settlements totaled $187.5 million.

March 19, 2024 – New Lawsuit Filed

A new Paraquat lawsuit was filed yesterday.  The plaintiff, a 53-year-old resident of Colorado, was born around May 13, 1960, and has encountered prolonged exposure to Paraquat. His significant contact with Paraquat occurred between 1996 and 1999 in Abilene, Texas, during his employment activities which involved applying Paraquat. Over three years, he was in direct contact with Paraquat through various means such as touching, absorbing, inhaling, or inadvertently ingesting it, especially while mixing, loading, spraying, handling, or otherwise interacting with the product.

This exposure to Paraquat is alleged to have contributed to the plaintiff’s development of Parkinson’s disease, diagnosed around 2022. The plaintiff believes that the extended exposure initiated a long-term process where oxidative stress, amplified by Paraquat’s redox cycling, harmed the dopaminergic neurons in his brain, leading to their gradual degeneration and death.

This has the making of a strong lawsuit.  This is a young plaintiff with direct contact with Paraquat.

March 12, 2024 – Still Waiting on the Daubert Ruling

The Daubert hearing in this case was in August. There is still no ruling. But, maddeningly, the initial trials, initially slated for the fall of 2023, are currently on hold, with no rescheduled dates announced.

Judge Rosenstengel has expressed concerns multiple times regarding the number of cases with seemingly unlikely theories of liability.  We can all be confident she does not like what we call “drifter” cases where the exposure to Paraquat was not direct.

Last month, she issued an order compelling each plaintiff in the MDL to issue third-party subpoenas by March 11, 2024, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. These subpoenas gather documents as evidence of use and/or exposure to Paraquat.

So what can you make of all of this? It is virtually impossible to imagine a scenario in which the judge dismisses all the cases on Daubert. But there is no question that the court wants a docket of viable claims.

March 7, 2024 – New Paraquat Study

A new Paraquat study supports the premise of this litigation: Paraquat exposure can cause Parkinson’s disease.  The study found that those with Parkinson’s disease lived and worked closer to areas where Paraquat was used compared to those without Parkinson’s. Working near Paraquat every year significantly increased the risk of developing PD.

So called “drifter” cases of people living near areas with heavy Paraquat use are the red-headed stepchild of this litigation. But the study show that similar results were found for those living near Paraquat use.

February 28, 2024 – Editorial on Paraquat

Over six decades after highlighting the dangers of pesticide use, farmlands and lawns continue to be heavily treated with these chemicals, amounting to about a billion pounds per year. Despite advancements in environmental regulation, including the establishment of the EPA and the strengthening of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, pesticides like Paraquat, known for its severe health risks, are still approved and widely used as we just talked about in the last update.

A new editorial in the New Republic argues that this situation underscores a persistent failure to fully apply and enforce anti-abuse protocols. The EPA is facing criticism for not utilizing its full authority to protect endangered species and for its lenient stance on products like Roundup and Paraquat.

The author points to the influence of agribusiness lobbying and the dilution of regulatory efforts through extensive legal challenges, which highlight the ongoing struggle to mitigate pesticides’ environmental and health impacts.

February 13, 2024 – EPA Reaffirms Paraquat

Overlooking scientific evidence, the EPA has reaffirmed its approval of Paraquat. After a reassessment, the EPA upheld its prior stance in a new draft report, ignoring numerous peer-reviewed studies that underscored the risks.

Does this hurt the Paraquat lawsuits?  Well, it certainly does not help. But I do not think it changes the litigation all that much.

February 12, 2024 – Dismissal of Paraquat Claims for Discovery Violations

The Special Master has recommended that the court dismiss 60 Paraquat lawsuits for failure to comply and fill out a Plaintiff Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ).  Most of the plaintiffs on this list are from the same law firm.

Again, if you have a viable Paraquat Parkinson’s disease lawsuit, you are well served when cases like this get dismissed. To get to a Paraquat settlement, you must figure out which claims are viable.

January 23, 2024 – Cleaning Up the Docket

On May 15, 2023, the Court issued Case Management Order No. 18 (CMO 18), which addressed issues related to Deceased Plaintiffs’ Submissions and Cases Based on Implausible Theories of Proof.

CMO 18 expressed concerns about cases on the docket presenting implausible or far-fetched theories of liability, specifically those related to paraquat exposure. The Court identified four categories of cases that raised such concerns, including cases where plaintiffs had no information regarding their exposure to paraquat or lacked medical evidence to support a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease.

The judge does not want to keep cases on the docket that are not cases, which is understandable.  So, the defendants found 25 causes, which, according to what they say, are implausible claims. The court ordered limited discovery for those 25 plaintiffs, including depositions and third-party discovery, to determine the viability of their claims. Keep in mind – this is 25 cases out of 5,000.

The Court set a deadline for completing plaintiffs’ depositions by March 22, 2024, and required the parties to provide a joint summary report of each plaintiff’s testimony.

January 15, 2024 – Paraquat MDL Case Count and New Lawsuits

 The size of the Paraquat class action MDL actually decreased by 21 cases over the last month from 5,072 to 5,051. This is probably just a reflection of non-active cases getting dismissed, with few new cases being filed over the holidays.

Despite the slowdown, plaintiffs’ Paraquat lawyers are still high on these lawsuits and are continuing to file them.  In a newly filed case last week, Weaver v. Syngenta, a Texas woman came into contact with Paraquat over a period spanning from around 1965 to roughly 1975 in California through various means:

1. during the processes of mixing, loading, applying, or cleaning the herbicide;
2. due to spray drift, which refers to the unintentional movement of herbicide spray particles from the intended target area to unintended locations, often caused by wind; and/or
3. by coming into contact with plants that had been treated with the herbicide.

She was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2018.

Paraquat Lawsuit Updates 2023

• December 18, 2023: Only 86 new cases were added to the Paraquat class action MDL over the last 30 days. That is the lowest monthly volume of new cases we have seen in Paraquat in the last 2 years and it marks the second month in a row that we have seen a notable down tick in new case volume. There are now 5,072 total cases.
• December 1, 2023: Still waiting for a trial date (and a Daubert ruling).
• November 16, 2023: Another 200 new cases were added to the Paraquat class action MDL over the last month. That brings the current total number of pending cases up to 4,986. It also suggest that the drop in new case volume last month was likely just an aberration.
• November 1, 2023:  Dr. Douglas Weed has filed a motion to quash a subpoena from the plaintiffs’ lawyers related to his article about paraquat and its potential link to Parkinson’s disease. His article, titled “Does Paraquat Cause Parkinson’s Disease? A Review of Reviews,” was published in the scientific journal NeuroToxicology in September 2021. Dr. Weed’s article concludes that “A consensus exists in the scientific community that the available evidence does not warrant a claim that paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease.”  So plaintiffs have an interest in how he got to that conclusion.  His funding disclosure in his article – he says there is no “specific” grant for the article – raises questions.Dr. Weed asserts he has no direct connection to the case and argues that the extensive document requests are burdensome, pertain to ongoing research, and surpass geographical limits set by Rule 45. The motion emphasizes protections for non-parties and seeks to have the subpoena quashed due to its undue demands and violations of Rule 45. Plaintiff’s Paraquat lawyers have until the end of this week to respond.
• October 17, 2023: Over the last 2 years, the Paraquat class action MDL has been one of the fastest growing mass torts. This MDL has averaged 300 new cases per month consistently and over 1,000 new cases were added in July and August alone. Over the last month, however, just 30 new Paraquat cases were added to the MDL. That is by far the lowest monthly volume this MDL has ever posted and it could be a signal of things to come.
• October 2, 2023: October was supposed to be the month that the first Paraquat bellwether case went to trial. Instead, however, the fate of the Paraquat lawsuits seems very unclear right now as we await a major decision from the MDL on the Daubert challenges. How long will that wait be? We might not get a decision until 2024. Daubert rulings are typically very long and very complicated. With nothing else on the schedule, it would be surprising to see we have an opinion and ruling before the holidays.
• September 27, 2023: The final supplement Daubert briefs have now been filed, and we are simply awaiting a ruling. Last month, Judge Rosenstengel postponed the first bellwether trial to allow additional time for briefing and consideration on the Daubert motions. She did this after a full week of hearings. The fact that Judge Rosenstengel is taking so much time on this is somewhat concerning for the plaintiffs. It suggests that she is seriously considering a ruling that would exclude the plaintiffs’ experts and basically end the Paraquat class action MDL.
• September 18, 2023: Summer is typically a slow time for mass tort filings, but the Paraquat class action MDL has added over 1,000 new cases since Memorial Day. There are now over 4,700 plaintiffs in the Paraquat MDL, making it one of the biggest mass tort currently pending in the federal courts.
• September 6, 2023: Closing briefs, summarizing their respective stances post the Daubert hearing, must be submitted by the parties on or before September 8, 2023.
• September 2, 2023:  Syngenta has accused Dr. Earl Ray Dorsey, a New York neurologist, of collaborating with plaintiffs’ lawyers and journalists to produce a scientific article linking Syngenta’s paraquat weed killer to Parkinson’s disease. Syngenta alleges in new legal pleadings that the lawyers improperly influenced Dorsey’s research. They argue that tainted scientific evidence should be presented in court. Dr. Amit Ray, co-author of the article, provided documents pursuant to a subpoena, but Dorsey refused. Dorsey’s lawyers counter that the document request was late and irrelevant. They claim Syngenta aims to discredit Dorsey’s work and emphasize his lack of involvement with the litigation. The article, titled “Paraquat, Parkinson’s Disease, and Agnotology,” used information from a plaintiffs’ lawyer via The Guardian. Syngenta questions the article’s conclusions against established science. Syngenta’s motion sought drafts and Dorsey’s communications with writers, editors, and plaintiff attorneys. Dorsey shared the article with a journalist but, importantly, denies sharing it with plaintiffs’ attorneys.   It is hard to understand why asking people in the media for opinions on an article could be a bad thing.
• September 1, 2023: After four full days of Daubert hearings last week, the Paraquat MDL issued an Order requesting additional briefing from both sides. The Order asked the parties to address how the case of Manpower, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of Pa., 732 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2013), applied to the reliability of the plaintiff’s key expert, Dr. Martin Wells. The Order also canceled the upcoming bellwether trial date in October, which marks a significant setback for the plaintiffs. The fact that we are still having a conversation about whether Paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease is ridiculous.
• August 21, 2023:Yesterday marked the beginning of the pivotal Daubert hearing in the Paraquat MDL. Plaintiffs assert that Paraquat causes particular cell death and tissue damage characteristic of Parkinson’s disease. The science on this seems extremely clear. But the defendants are pushing back.

The spotlight is on the expert epidemiologist, Dr. Martin Wells. His scientific credibility is under scrutiny. Dr. Wells, central to the victims’ case, has analyzed previous studies and concluded that Paraquat likely plays a significant role in causing Parkinson’s, more so than other factors.

However, Chevron and Syngenta contest this. They criticize not only Dr. Wells but also experts Anthony Lang and Peter Spencer for their approach. They highlight that Dr. Wells has been excluded by prior courts in some cases. The believe that Parkinson’s primarily results from genetic factors, nothing that some of the plaintiffs’ experts have said in the past. The hearing will resume today and is scheduled until the 24th.

From the outset, we’ve believed this hearing to be a linchpin in the litigation. Neither Chevron nor Syngenta would risk these lawsuits progressing to trial. A victory in this hearing could lead to reasonable settlements, while a defeat would spell disaster. There is that much riding on this hearing.

• August 18, 2023: A new Paraquat lawsuit –  Thomas v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC – was filed yesterday by an Illinois man who claims that was exposed to Paraquat for a sustained period of time and suffered permanent physical injury and pain (presumably Parkinson’s disease) as a result.

• August 15, 2023: The Paraquat class action lawsuit will have a hearing next Monday on the scientific merit of these claims.  This is the biggest event in the history of this litigation.  If plaintiffs win as expected, this could be the driving force behind a Paraquat settlement.

The hearing will begin at 2 p.m. CST on August 21, 2023, and will run until August 24, 2023.

• August 4, 2023: There are about 350 Paraquat lawsuits pending in state court in Pennsylvania.  The defendants maintain that out-of-state plaintiffs cannot sue them in Pennsylvania, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding the state’s consent by registration statute. Switzerland-based agriculture company Syngenta, one of two key defendants in this litigation, contends that the high court’s decision might bolster its argument that the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas does not have general personal jurisdiction over it.

  Their argument rests on the uncertainty left by the ruling regarding Pennsylvania law, which stipulates that companies subject themselves to state jurisdiction when registering to do business there. Some believe that the statute may violate the dormant Commerce Clause, a concern the state Supreme Court is expected to address.

  The court will have the parties brief and argue the issue.  The bet here is that Additional briefings over jurisdictional issues have been requested, and in the case of jurisdiction being found lacking, discovery is already underway to establish specific personal jurisdiction for out-of-state plaintiffs.

• August 1, 2023:  The Daubert challenges contesting the admissibility of scientific evidence in the Paraquat MDL will likely be decided within the next two months. The Daubert motions on both sides were fully briefed and submitted as of last week. On Friday, Judge Rosenstengel issued an Order explaining that she will hold a major Daubert hearing on August 21, 2023. At that time, she will hear testimony from the plaintiffs’ most important expert witness, Dr. Martin Wells. Following the hearing, the parties will get to submit one final brief before Judge Rosenstengel considers the matter. A ruling could come soon after.

More 2023 Paraquat Lawsuit Updates

• June 12, 2023: Last week, Chevron and Syngenta AG took action by filing for summary judgment in the MDL. Their argument is that the plaintiffs’ claims, connecting Paraquat to Parkinson’s disease, are unsupported by scientific evidence, as no peer-reviewed studies are confirming this link. If granted, this motion would result in the dismissal of 3,700 claims in the Paraquat class action lawsuit. However, the likelihood of this motion succeeding is exceedingly slim.
• June 1, 2023: After a brief slowdown in new case volume at the start of the year, the Paraquat class action has quickly gone back to being one of the fastest-growing mass torts. Last month we saw 511 new cases added to the MDL, a record high. However, that record could get eclipsed this month, as several hundred new cases have already been transferred into the MDL in just the last ten days.
• May 15, 2023:  The Paraquat class action MDL continues to be one of the hottest mass torts in the country. Over 500 new Paraquat Parkinson’s disease lawsuits were added to the MDL over the last 30 days. That is the highest monthly total in over a year, and it comes on the heels of back-to-back months of over 200 new cases. Since the start of this year, 1,300 new cases have been added to the MDL. If this continues, there will be over 5,000 pending cases by the end of the year.
• May 12, 2023:  We sometimes forget about the Paraquat state court litigation. There are 260 Paraquat lawsuits in the Complex Litigation Center in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
• May 10, 2023:  Defense counsel has accused plaintiffs’ lawyers of filing pleadings on behalf of dead clients.  This happens in mass tort litigation, where lawyers are taking action on behalf of a large number of clients.  Lawyers often do not reach out to verify one last time the client is still living before taking action.  It is not something that should happen.  But it hardly causes prejudice to the defendants who want to court to issue an order to address this problem.
• May 1, 2023: As we reported on March 27, Syngenta and Chevron filed a motion to strike Martin Wells’ rebuttal expert report. The court has ruled, finding that the report sufficiently addresses the opinions and criticisms of the Defendants’ expert. So the motion to strike is denied. The order said that any further objections from the Defendants should be raised through a Daubert motion. Judge Rosenstengel has also ordered all parties to propose a Case Management Order by April 19, 2023, outlining agreed-upon deadlines for submitting summary judgment and Daubert motions and any guidelines or limitations for these motions.
• April 18, 2023: As Paraquat settlement rumors continue, these Parkinson’s disease class action continues to be one of the most active mass torts in the country. The MDL added 221 cases over the last 30 days. The total number of pending cases now stands at 3,389; if this trend continues, it could reach over 5,000 by the end of the year. To put this in context, less than 1,000 cases were pending at this time last year.
• March 27, 2023: As the date for the first bellwether test trial approaches, Syngenta’s defense team continues to take aim at the team of expert witnesses assembled by the plaintiffs. No surprise. This is what defense lawyers do. Most recently, Syngenta filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Martin Wells, an expert statistician for the plaintiffs. Wells would testify that the results of his metanalysis (examining prior epidemiological studies) supports the conclusion that there is a link between Paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease. Syngenta’s motion to exclude argues that Wells deliberately cherry-picked studies with favorable results to include in his analysis and, therefore, his results are unreliable.  This is a tough road for Syngenta because the science in this litigation is so strong for plaintiffs.
• March 1, 2023: With the first bellwether test trial this summer, both sides are battling over what evidence will be permitted at trial. In the most recent dispute, the defense team has moved to strike a supplemental expert witness report submitted by plaintiff expert David Mortensen. Mortensen is a Plant Ecology Professor at Penn State and a key expert for the plaintiffs. After Mortensen’s deposition (and several months after the deadline for expert reports), the plaintiffs submitted a supplemental expert report from Mortensen which sought to clarify specific issues raised during his deposition. The defense lawyers immediately moved to strike the supplemental report, and they appear to have a valid argument. The Court will likely rule on the motion in the next week.
• February 4, 2023: The Paraquat MDL plaintiffs are fighting to obtain critical documents from Exponent Inc. This third-party scientific consulting company worked for Syngenta on Paraquat’s potential safety hazards. Exponent has refused to produce documents in response to a subpoena from the plaintiffs, and last month, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel. Both Syngenta and Exponent have filed separate response briefs in opposition to the motion to compel. The amount of pushback on producing these documents indicates that they contain key evidence that could be very harmful to the defense’s position.
• January 17, 2023: According to the most recent report from the JPML that came out today, there are a total of 2,352 cases pending in the Paraquat class action lawsuit.  That is only an increase of 69 cases from last month. This is somewhat misleading, however, because the MDL docket shows that well over 200 new member cases have been opened over the last month, and these were presumably not included in the most recent total.
• January 6, 2023:  New claims continue and are transferred into the Paraquat class action lawsuit in Illinois.  The latest Paraquat lawsuit that has been filed is a wrongful death action brought by the surviving spouse and two sons of a Louisiana man who died after battling Parkinson’s disease.  The suit in Scafidel et al. v. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC alleges that Chevron and Syngenta are responsible for a man developing Parkinson’s disease after repeated exposure to Paraquat.
• January 5, 2023: Does anyone believe that Paraquat, a poison, only causes Parkinson’s disease?  With Paraquat now in focus on this litigation, interest in the harm this pesticide can cause is on the rise.  A new study published in December 2022 tells us that victims who experience Paraquat poisoning can develop organ damage that includes acute kidney injury (AKI). The study also finds that chronic Paraquat exposure affects renal function and can lead to chronic renal disease.
• January 2, 2023: The Paraquat class action lawsuit grew a great deal in 2023. The litigation averaged over 200 new cases per month, growing by almost 400% since the start of the year. So will this trend continue in 2023, or will the Paraquat class action see an inevitable slowdown?  Our prediction is the litigation continues to grow as awareness of the connection between Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease grows.  But 2023 is unlikely to match the pace of Paraquat suits we saw in 2022.
• December 19, 2022: The first bellwether test trial in the Paraquat MDL has been postponed again. In an Order issued at the end of last week, Judge Rosentengel ruled that the opening trial will now be set for October 2023.
• November 7, 2022: Over the last two weeks, nearly 100 new Paraquat Parkinson’s disease lawsuits have been transferred into the MDL. This continues the flood of new Paraquat lawsuits we have seen over the last six months. In the meantime, both sides have filed responses to the recently issued report and recommendation of the Special Master regarding certain discovery disputes. The final briefing on that is due this week.
• September 15, 2022: Since the start of 2022, Paraquat has been the fastest-growing mass tort MDL. Over the last month (8/15/22 to 9/15/22), the number of pending Paraquat lawsuits in the Paraquat MDL went from 1,702 to 1,925. That’s an increase of 222 cases, but around 15 cases were either remanded back to state court or dismissed so the actual number of newly filed Paraquat Parkinson’s disease cases is even higher. Under the rules of the Paraquat MDL, new cases can be filed directly in the MDL in the Southern District of Illinois using the master pleading forms. This makes it hard to track where the new cases are coming from geographically. But the biggest numbers appear to be from California. The explosive growth of the Paraquat litigation recently forced the MDL class action judge to push back the bellwether trial dates and expand the discovery pool.
• September 5, 2022: The Paraquat MDL Judge has selected a group of 20 additional cases from the MDL for limited fact discovery.   The list was randomly generated out of more than 1,700 currently pending cases.  This is a good development because it will help the defendants’ attorneys better understand how strong these claims are. This will be helpful when the lawyers sit down to negotiate settlement compensation payouts.  The judge’s order requires that depositions of the plaintiffs in each of these cases must be concluded within 60 days and a report summarizing the plaintiff’s testimony must be provided to the Court. Meanwhile, the recent flood of new incoming Paraquat cases continues. Over the last 2 weeks, around 200 new Paraquat plaintiffs have been added to the MDL. The rising number of cases was cited by the MDL Judge as one of the reasons for the order requiring additional plaintiff depositions..
• July 4th, 2022: The Paraquat class action lawsuit has been adding about 130 new plaintiffs each month to the MDL for the last year. During the last 30 days, 142 new Paraquat lawsuits were transferred into the federal class action. This brings the total number of pending cases up to 1,292.   The question continues to be whether Syngenta and Chevron intend to offer fair Paraquat settlement amounts or whether they want to roll the dice and let a jury decide whether a compensation payout is appropriate.  The bet here is they will look to settle most Paraquat lawsuits before taking a verdict. We will see.
• May 16, 2022: The first half of May shows record numbers of new Paraquat lawsuits being filed and added to the Paraquat MDL class action. Fifty-seven new Paraquat Parkinson’s disease cases were filed and transferred into the MDL during the first week of May. This is the highest weekly total to date. The second week of May saw another 35 new Paraquat lawsuits added to the MDL, making it the second-highest volume week.  Overall, there are over 1,150 Paraquat plaintiffs in the Paraquat class action lawsuit.  These Parkinson’s disease lawsuits have been consolidated from around the country before one federal judge in Illinois.
• May 11, 2022: Maybe the best thing to happen in the Paraquat class action lawsuit occurred in another piece of mass tort litigation. Bayer has been pursuing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the Roundup lawsuits are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”).  The premise of the appeal is that if the EPA is allowing these pesticides to remain on the market, the federal law preempts any state law injury or wrongful death claims.  The Supreme Court sought the Biden administration’s position on whether it should hear the appeal.  The Biden administration filed a brief in the case arguing that FIFRA should not be interpreted to preempt Roundup product liability claims under state law. The appeal was always a long shot for Bayer. But Bayer had been using preemption as a sword in settlement negotiations and you can bet the Paraquat defendants would do the same.  If the Supreme Court rejects Bayer’s FIFRA preemption argument as is now expected (why would they ask if the answer was not of consequence?), it will effectively prevent Syngenta and Chevron from making the same preemption argument in the Paraquat lawsuit.

Paraquat Lawsuit

Hundreds of farmworkers and people who worked near oil tanks and railroads have filed lawsuits alleging that occupational exposure to the industrial herbicide paraquat (grameoxone) caused or contributed to cause Plaintiff’s development of Parkinson’s disease.

There are now nearly 6,000 Paraquat lawsuits in the MDL and many more are being filed in state court (see the June 13, 2024 update above).  A Parkinson’s disease class action MDL has already been established to accommodate them. In this post, we will look at how much a Paraquat lawsuit might end up being worth by comparing them to settlements in prior mass product cases involving similar claims and in prior tort lawsuits in which the plaintiff developed Parkinson’s.

About the Paraquat Lawsuits

Paraquat is an industrial-strength herbicide that has been around since the 1960s. It is used to control of weeds and grasses in agricultural areas. It is also used as a defoliant, removing leaves from trees and plants.  Some farmers will use Paraquat as a desiccant, too, to keep the crops dry and stable.  Chevron started selling Paraquat in the U.S. in 1964.

This chemical is highly toxic.  A teaspoon will kill you. This has led most European countries to ban it outright. In the United States, however, Paraquat is not banned and is widely utilized by large commercial farmers.

Evidence has emerged that prolonged Paraquat exposure can lead to early-onset Parkinson’s disease. Studies have found that agricultural workers who are exposed to Paraquat over long periods have a significantly higher rate of developing Parkinson’s disease. People who live near farms where Paraquat is applied also showed increased rates of Parkinson’s disease.

Paraquat is manufactured by Syngenta, a Swiss agrochemical company. There is evidence indicating that Syngenta was aware of the causal link between paraquat and Parkinson’s for years but deliberately concealed it. Now farm workers exposed to Paraquat and subsequently diagnosed with Parkinson’s are filing product liability lawsuits against Syngenta and its U.S. distributors.

Thousands of Paraquat Parkinson’s lawsuits have been filed and a new paraquat MDL (Paraquat Prod. Liab. Lit., MDL 3004) has been created in the Southern District of Illinois for consolidated handling of the paraquat claims. The Paraquat lawsuit is still in its early stages and is expected to grow rapidly as hundreds and thousands of additional cases get filed.

• New calls to ban Paraquat in the UK over Parkinson’s disease risk

Paraquat Litigation Should Result in a “Global Settlement”

At this early phase of the Paraquat Parkinson’s disease litigation, it is impossible to know how much Paraquat lawsuit settlements might be worth. Because an MDL has already been created for the Paraquat claims, our Paraquat lawyers expect this litigation to follow a familiar course in other class action lawsuits we have seen.

The Parkinson’s Disease Paraquat exposure MDL oversees a consolidated fact discovery process. This will focus on the scientific evidence for both sides. During this phase, newly filed paraquat cases will be added to the MDL.

At the end of the consolidated civil discovery phase, the MDL judge will work with lawyers for both sides to select a handful of representative cases for jury trials.

These are known as “bellwether trials” and the results of these trials are generally used to facilitate global settlement negotiations with the defendants.

If the bellwether trials result in major victories for the plaintiffs, Syngenta may be forced to agree to pay large settlement amounts for the remaining Paraquat claims. In consolidated mass torts, this is called a “global settlement.”

Key Variables for a Paraquat Lawsuit Settlement

The battlefield in the Paraquat Parkinson’s disease lawsuits is over how much the settlement compensation payouts should be.  Syngenta, Chevron, and other co-defendants are fighting to pay the smallest settlement amounts possible.

The individual Paraquat settlement amounts will depend on several things, including:

1. how many Paraquat claims get filed and consolidated into the MDL,
2. how strong the scientific causation evidence is for the plaintiffs between Paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease, and
3. the results of the initial bellwether trials.

Estimated Paraquat Lawsuit Settlement Payout Amount

Despite all these variables that will impact the eventual payout value on Paraquat cases, our lawyers can estimate – or at least try to estimate –  reasonable individual Parkinson’s disease settlement payouts. Our lawyers do this by looking at settlement payouts in prior mass torts and an assessment of the likelihood a jury would find the Paraquat defendants responsible.  Our attorneys also look at the settlement compensation for Parkinson’s disease in tort cases generally.

Based on these points of comparison, our Paraquat lawyers think that the likely settlement payout on Paraquat claims will be as follows:

Settlement Tier                                             Estimated Settlement

Tier I                                                               $400,000- $1,000,000+

Tier II                                                              $150,000 – $300,000

Tier III                                                             $20,000 – $150,000

 

Remember, we are talking about expected Paraquat settlement amounts, not trial value.  The average successful verdict in an individual Paraquat lawsuit would likely be more than $10 million with the possibility of much more in punitive damages.   Does that sound too high?

Remember, the average successful verdict in the Roundup lawsuits was well over $500 million.  In the 3M earplug lawsuit where the claim is a hearing-related injury, the average individual jury payout is well over $10 million.   Parkinson’s disease is a far more serious injury.  So an average jury compensation payout estimate of $10 million might be on the low side.

What do we expect the average Paraquat settlement will be?  We think the average settlement will be in the $600,000 to $900,000 range.  Where our attorneys think it will fall within that range depends in large measure on what the floor cutoff is in terms of viability.  The defendants might want a settlement that covers all plaintiffs or it might just want to settle the strongest cases.  Our best guess is that it will be the latter which will decrease the average payout.

Settlement Amounts in Mass Torts Similar to Paraquat

Our first point of comparison for the estimated settlement values above is the settlement payouts in prior consolidated mass torts that have similarities to the Paraquat litigation. Our most recent example to draw from is the Roundup settlement.

In the Roundup litigation, Bayer is paying around $10 billion to settle about 100,000 cases and setting aside another $6 billion for future Roundup claims. Individual Roundup plaintiffs are getting payouts of around $100,000 to $150,000. But lawsuits in the highest tier are getting much larger settlement amounts than the average.

The Roundup litigation has some obvious similarities with Paraquat to the extent that both involve herbicide products. The alleged injuries are different because Roundup involves cancer claims, whereas Paraquat plaintiffs are alleging Parkinson’s.

Between the two, cancer is a higher-value injury. Despite this difference, Roundup is probably the best comp for the Paraquat litigation, although our lawyers predict higher settlement amounts for Paraquat because we believe the case’s merits are even stronger in the Paraquat class action. (And, frankly, the smaller number of plaintiffs and multiple defendants grease the wheels of a larger settlement.)

---

RELATED POSTS:

• Big Win in Paraquat Class Action 
• Example of Paraquat Lawsuit
• Mass Torts to Watch in 2024

---

Settlement Amounts in Lawsuits Involving Parkinson’s Disease

Our other comparative point for valuing the paraquat cases is the settlement value of other tort cases in which Parkinson’s disease was the plaintiff’s primary injury.

Parkinson’s is difficult to value because it is not a common injury in personal injury claims.  Camp Lejeune Parkinson’s disease lawsuits are now also being filed But there are only two settlement amounts (average settlement: $$325,000) so far in that litigation.

So the next question is there a stand-in injury for Parkinson’s disease because it is an uncommon injury in tort cases that we can use as a settlement marker?  I think there is: tardive dyskinesia is similar enough that settlement amounts in those lawsuits might give us a lens to Parkinson’s disease settlement amounts.  Our lawyers have had some experience in those cases.  So let’s look at settlement amounts and jury payouts for tardive dyskinesia because it is a similar injury to Parkinson’s disease.

• Watters v Qin (Arizona 2024) $335,669 Verdict: The defendant allegedly was stalking the plaintiff (a justice of the peace). The defendant slashed the plaintiff’s tires, drove by her house and shouted threats 2 or 3 times per day, trespassed on the her property, and other types of harassment. The plaintiff alleged that the stress of this harassment exacerbated her pre-existing Parkinson’s disease conditions. This gives us an idea of how a jury values “Parkinson’s symptoms aggravation.”
• Axe v Spring Meadows (Pennsylvania 2018) $215,000 Settlement: The plaintiff was 73 years old and alleged that he developed tardive dyskinesia from medications given to him by a nursing home. Why was the settlement payout so low? I don’t know.
• Plaintiff v Defendant (New York 2017) $1,400,000 Settlement: Plaintiff (mid-30s) develops tardive dyskinesia from antipsychotic medication used to treat her bipolar and sues the doctor who prescribed it.
• Soref v Agresti (Florida 2017) $569,000 Verdict: A female in her mid-20s with a history of drug abuse claims bipolar drugs cause her to develop tardive dyskinesia.
• Tamaraz v Lincoln Electric (Ohio 2007) $20,500,000 Verdict: This is a rare jury payout involving a Parkinson’s disease case. The plaintiff filed a welding rod product liability lawsuit alleging he developed Parkinson’s disease from exposure to manganese in welding rods. A jury awarded $17.5 million to him and another $3 million to his wife.  This verdict underscores the high potential compensation payouts a jury might give in Parkinson’s disease case.

These cases (particularly the welding rod case) are suggestive of the type of verdict we might expect to see in Paraquat bellwether trials. These compensation awards support the settlement payout valuation estimates above.

Paraquat Lawsuits Can be Filed Decades After the Plaintiff’s Exposure

If you were recently diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease that may be related to paraquat,  you can still file a paraquat lawsuit today, even if your exposure to Paraquat occurred years or even decades ago. All states have a statute of limitations that imposes a deadline for filing a civil tort action for things such as product liability. The applicable statute of limitations period for a tort claim ranges from 1 to 7 years depending on the state.

The applicable SOL period does not begin to run, however, until the plaintiff either knew or had reason to know that they had a claim. For a paraquat lawsuit, this means that the SOL period would not begin to run until the plaintiff knew or “should have known” that they had Parkinson’s disease and that it might have been caused by exposure to paraquat.

The connection between paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease is something that a reasonable person would not be expected to know. This is particularly true because the companies that made and sold paraquat deliberately failed to warn about the link between paraquat and Parkinson’s. Most of the plaintiffs in the Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease litigation are bringing their claims based on exposure that occurred a very long time ago.

Link Between Paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease

Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder of the brain that affects primarily the motor system, the part of the central nervous system that controls movement.

The characteristic symptoms of Parkinson’s disease are its “primary” motor symptoms: resting tremor; bradykinesia (slowness in voluntary movement and reflexes); rigidity; and postural instability. There is currently no cure for Parkinson’s disease. Existing treatments do not slow or stop their progression; such treatments are capable only of temporarily and partially relieving the motor symptoms. These treatments also have unwelcome side effects the longer they are used.

Paraquat is a toxic chemical that is a highly effective plant killer. Unfortunately, the same properties that make paraquat toxic to plant cells also make it highly damaging to human nerve cells and create a substantial risk to anyone who uses it.

Oxidative stress is a major factor in—if not the precipitating cause of—the degermation and death of dopaminergic neurons which is the primary pathophysiological cause of Parkinson’s disease. Paraquat is designed to injure and kill plants by creating oxidative stress, which causes or contributes to causing the degeneration and death of plant cells. Similarly, Paraquat injures and kills animals by creating oxidative stress, which causes the degeneration and death of animal cells.

The causal link between Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease is well established.  Hundreds of animal studies involving various routes of exposure have found that paraquat creates oxidative stress that results in pathophysiology consistent with that seen in human Parkinson’s disease.

Many epidemiological studies have also found an association between Paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease, including multiple studies finding a two- to five-fold or greater increase in the risk of Parkinson’s disease in populations with occupational exposure to paraquat compared to populations without such exposure.

You do not have to work on a farm to have a viable Paraquat lawsuit. Researchers in an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that exposure to Paraquat or Maneb within 1600 feet of your home causes a 75% increase in the risk of getting Parkinson’s disease.

Here are the key articles on Paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease with a summary of the findings:

• Berry, C., La Vecchia, C., & Nicotera, P. (2010). Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease. Cell Death & Differentiation, 17(7), 1115-1125. This study looked at pesticides’ role in causing Parkinson’s disease. The researchers report that acute chemical exposure was “sufficient” enough to cause Parkinson’s.
• Costello, S., et al. (2009). Parkinson’s disease and residential exposure to maneb and paraquat from agricultural applications in the central valley of California. American journal of epidemiology, 169(8), 919-926.  This study looked at whether living near pesticide-using farms was associated with Parkinson’s. The researchers found that living within 500 feet of farms that used paraquat and maneb increased one’s Parkinson’s risk by 75 percent. They also found that people younger than 60 were at significantly higher risk. The researchers concluded that their findings show that exposure to paraquat and maneb, whether alone or combined, significantly increased the Parkinson’s risk.
• Di Monte, D.A. (2003). The environment and Parkinson’s disease: is the nigrostriatal system preferentially targeted by neurotoxins? The Lancet Neurology, 2(9), 531-538. This report concluded that a multidisciplinary approach to Parkinson’s etiology would help determine whether environmental exposure may cause the disease.
• Firestone, J. A., et al. (2005). Pesticides and Risk of Parkinson’s Disease: a population-based case-control study. Archives of Neurology, 62(1), 91-95.  This study looked at whether pesticides were associated with Parkinson’s. The researchers interviewed 250 Parkinson’s patients and 388 non-Parkinson’s patients. They assessed their self-reported pesticide exposures. The researchers also categorized the patients by occupation. They found that pesticide workers were more likely to develop Parkinson’s compared to crop, animal and crop, and dairy farmers. The researchers concluded that their findings were consistent with other studies that found an association between pesticides and Parkinson’s.
• Mandel, J. S., Adami, H. O., & Cole, P. (2012). Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease: an overview of the epidemiology and a review of two recent studies. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 62(2), 385-392. The report evaluated two studies that evaluated pesticide exposure’s association with Parkinson’s. The researchers found that the researchers created inadequately designed studies that examined very few exposed patients. They also reported that their results were inconsistent. The researchers concluded that these two studies fail to prove an association between pesticides and Parkinson’s. They also concluded that more rigorous studies were needed for confirmation.
• McCormack, A. L., et al. (2002). Environmental risk factors and Parkinson’s disease: selective degeneration of nigral dopaminergic neurons caused by the herbicide paraquat. Neurobiology of Disease, 10(2), 119-127.  This study looked at whether Paraquat exposure caused Parkinson’s disease symptoms in mice. The researchers injected mice with the herbicide. They found that this caused dopaminergic neuron death, a Parkinson’s disease symptom. The researchers concluded that the findings show that Paraquat neurotoxicity caused a prominent physiological response to Parkinson’s.
• Stephenson, J. (2000). Exposure to home pesticides linked to Parkinson’s disease. JAMA, 283(23), 3055-3056. This article reported on the association between home or garden exposures to pesticides and Parkinson’s.
• Stykel, M.G., et al. (2018). Nitration of microtubules blocks axonal mitochondrial transport in a human pluripotent stem cell model of Parkinson’s disease. The FASEB Journal, 32(10), 5350-5364. This study looked at mechanisms showing that pesticide exposure disrupted cells in a manner that mimicked Parkinson’s-associated mutations. The researchers concluded that their results were the first to demonstrate a gene that triggered mitochondrial transport deficits during pesticide exposure.  Here is the money quote from one of the authors: “People exposed to these chemicals are at about a 250-percent higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease than the rest of the population.”  So most people who have Parkinson’s disease from Paraquat would not have had Parkinson’s disease without Paraquat exposure.
• Tanner, C. M., et al. (2011). Rotenone, Paraquat, and Parkinson’s disease. Environmental health perspectives, 119(6), 866-872. This study looked at whether pesticides that caused oxidative stress or mitochondrial dysfunction were associated with Parkinson’s in humans. The researchers found that paraquat and rotenone were associated with Parkinson’s.
• Uversky, V.N., et al. (2002). Synergistic effects of pesticides and metals on the fibrillation of α-synuclein: implications for Parkinson’s disease. Neurotoxicology, 23(4-5), 527-536. This study looked at a novel model that determined environmental factors and genetic susceptibility that formed idiopathic Parkinson’s underlying molecular basis. The researchers found that some pesticides and metals caused conformational alpha-synuclein changes and accelerated the alpha-synuclein fibrils rate.
• Vaccari, C., et al. (2019). Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 22(5-6), 172-202. This systematic review looked at literature and meta-analysis involving paraquat’s exposure to Parkinson’s. The researchers found that the current data suggest a positive association between Paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s. However, they concluded that the evidence was insufficient to indicate a causal association. The researchers reported that better-designed studies were needed.

Paraquat and Kidney Damage

In addition to causing Parkinson’s disease, new evidence has also shown that chronic exposure to Paraquat can also cause permanent damage to the kidneys. The kidney is the main organ responsible for Paraquat excretion and Paraquat is known to be highly nephrotoxic.

Dermal exposure to Paraquat has revealed inflammatory cell infiltration, tubular necrosis, and diffuse interstitial fibrosis.  Paraquat exposure causes toxic chemical reactions to occur in the kidneys, and long-term effects, including kidney failure, are possible.

Paraquat lawyers have not focused on these cases because there are so many more Parkinson’s disease lawsuits.  But these injuries are very real to victims.

Paraquat Defense Lawyers Lost an Arrow in Their Quiver

Paraquat exposure to Parkinson’s disease lawsuits is considered by mass tort lawyers to be strong cases.  Victims’ attorneys believe proving the defendant’s responsibility will be as easy as any major class action lawsuit in 2024.  That is why Paraquat lawyers are spending a fortune online trying to market for Paraquat lawsuits.

The last time a Paraquat lawsuit was set for trial, the defendants quickly settled those lawsuits.  The speculation is the settlement compensation payouts in those claims were very high.  That fueled many Paraquat lawyers to jump into this Parkinson’s disease pesticide exposure cases.  So I expect that any solid Paraquat lawsuit heading towards trial will be settled by the defendants.

The defendants’ only hope in my mind of getting out of this litigation without paying huge jury payouts of settlement compensation is by these lawsuits never seeing a jury.  The path to that outcome was for Bayer to win its appeal in the Roundup litigation.

Bayer argued Roundup lawsuits should be preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.  Bayer lost.  This verdict makes the Paraquat class action lawsuit that much stronger.

FAQs: Paraquat Lawsuit Payouts

What are the expected settlement amounts for Paraquat lawsuits?

Paraquat lawsuits in the highest settlement tier could have a settlement payout value between $400,000 and $1,000,000. Cases with lower settlement tiers will have lower values.  Our lawyers have high expectations for the settlement value of Parkinson’s Paraquat lawsuits.

Keep in mind speculation about settlement compensation payouts or when these Paraquat lawsuits might settle is purely speculative.  You might also be disheartened by how fluid our settlement projections are.   Our projections rise and fall day to day. But there is one thread that runs through all our Paraquat lawsuit settlement amount projections: our lawyers think these are great cases and will ultimately resolve for good settlements.

When will the Paraquat lawsuits settle?

A global settlement in the paraquat litigation is not expected until the late 2024 at the earliest.  But our lawyers predict the pressure of a trial date in state court in April 2025 will lead to a settlement before that date. 

What is the deadline for filing a Paraquat lawsuit?

Most Paraquat lawsuits are filed years or decades after the plaintiff was actually exposed to Paraquat.

So how do Paraquat plaintiffs get around the statute of limitations?  Here is how it works.

Every Paraquat lawsuit alleges that this weed killer was manufactured and distributed by the defendants and did not provide a warning label, so people using it knew of the risk of latent neurological damage, most notably, Parkinson’s disease.

When Plaintiffs were diagnosed with Parkinson’s, they could not connect the dots between Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease. Courts often apply the discovery rule in these cases. So, the clock on the deadline to sue cannot start until the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the connection between their exposure to Paraquat and their neurological disease.

So what is your deadline to file a Paraquat lawsuit?  It is possible your statute of limitations for filing a Paraquat claim in 2024 is closing (or is closed) in 2024.  Do yourself a favor and ask a lawyer today if you are not sure. Calculating the exact deadline for filing your claim can be complicated and you should consult with a lawyer.

Defendants in the Paraquat Class Action Lawsuit

The main defendants in any Paraquat lawsuit are:

1. Syngenta AG: This Swiss company owns Syngenta Corp. and Syngenta Crop Protection LLC.
2. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co:  Chevron Phillips makes and sells Gramoxone in the U.S.

Getting a Paraquat Lawyer

If you have a potential Paraquat Parkinson’s disease lawsuit, let’s talk about your claim and your options.  Call our toxic exposure lawyers at 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation.