Marines, civilian residents, and employees at Camp Lejeune may have developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma from exposure to toxic chemicals in the drinking water for over three decades. Thanks to a new federal law, victims can now file Camp Lejeune non-Hodgkin lymphoma lawsuits against the government and get financial compensation for their injuries.
This page will examine Camp Lejeune NHL cases and their expected settlement value.
UPDATES:
Our attorneys are handling Camp Lejeune leukemia lawsuits in all 50 states. Our lawyers believe that the connection between leukemia and the toxic water at Lejeune is extremely strong and, as we discuss below, why recent developments lead us to believe that the leukemia claims may be among the first in line for a Camp Lejeune settlement.
Our lawyers also speculate on the potential settlement amounts Camp Lejeune leukemia victims and wrongful death family members might recover in these lawsuits.
When will my Camp Lejeune lawsuit settle? So far, we have 42 Camp Lejeune settlements out of over 230,000 claims.
There is no Camp Lejeune class action lawsuit. But these claims have many of the same features of a class action lawsuit, and lawyers work together as they do in an MDL class action. Famously, class action lawsuits can take up to a decade before settlement payouts are offered.
That will not happen here. Our lawyers explain below why we do not think it will be long before better Camp Lejeune settlement payouts are offered. But we need a better plan than the Elective Option because those offers will not get us far.
Our lawyers represent victims seeking to file a Camp Lejeune Parkinson’s disease lawsuit in all 50 states.
This post examines the evidence linking Parkinson’s disease to the Camp Lejeune water supply. We discuss the potential settlement amounts for a Camp Lejeune Parkinson’s disease lawsuit. Our lawyers believe the average per-person settlement payouts for Parkinson’s disease from Lejeune cases could exceed $1 million. We explain our thinking – with the appropriate caveats – below.
The new Lejeune settlement offer has Parkinson’s disease listed as a Tier 2 injury. So it is Track 1 for litigation (see below) but Tier 2 for settlement. This is completely ridiculous, but our lawyers do not think many Parkinson’s victims will be jumping on this offer even if it was listed as a Tier 1 injury (it is a $50,000 difference)
Last year, a new study by NIH revealed that regular use of chemical hair relaxer products can significantly increase the risk of uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, and other hormone-related diseases. The publication of this study has been followed by a growing wave of hair relaxer lawsuits by women who have used hair relaxer products for years and were diagnosed with one of these conditions.
This post will examine how the hair relaxer litigation has developed over the last six months. We will also explain the status of the hair relaxer class action as of July 2024 and give our predictions of what to expect from this mass tort moving forward.
The Bair Hugger is a medical device that is used to keep patients warm and regulate body temperature during surgery. New research has shown, however, that the Bair Hugger increases the risk of infections by pushing bacteria into the body during surgery. This has prompted thousands of Bair Hugger infection lawsuits which have been consolidated into a class action MDL.
July 1, 2024: There was a decent sized increase in the number of plaintiffs in the Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Devices Products Liability Litigation MDL. The number of filed lawsuits went up from 6,858 on June 1 to 7,187 in July 1, reflecting ongoing filings.
June 18, 2024: An Missouri appeals court upheld a defense verdict in a case where a woman alleged that 3M Co.’s Bair Hugger patient warming system was defectively designed and caused her postoperative infection. The court affirmed that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or abuse its discretion in limiting expert testimony.
The plaintiff had undergone knee surgery in November 2016, subsequently developed an infection, and underwent a second surgery in January 2017. She sued 3M for negligent and defective design, manufacturing, and marketing, claiming the device contaminated the air and caused her infection. A jury found in favor of 3M, and her motion for a new trial was denied.
Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly limited her cross-examination of 3M’s expert witnesses. She argued that this limitation prevented her from challenging the credibility of these experts. The appeals court shot down that argument, finding that her lawyers did not make necessary offers of proof to support her claims.
Additionally, the plaintiff contended that the trial court erred in allowing remote testimony from an expert due to their limited availability. Arguments like that are surefire losers.
May 1, 2024: The parties involved in the Bair Hugger multidistrict litigation are scheduled to bring six selected cases to trial in March 2025, according to a scheduling order by U.S. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz.
Over the past year, the parties have been engaged in settlement discussions with the help of Special Master and retired judge James M. Rosenbaum. But there is no Bair Hugger settlement. So additional trials may be necessary to aid in the settlement process. Consequently, six cases have been jointly selected for trial to ensure a prompt and efficient resolution.
The scheduling order outlines that all fact discovery must be completed by September 3, 2024. Plaintiffs are required to disclose their expert witnesses by September 3, with the defense’s disclosures due by October 1. Depositions must be completed by November 1, and all dispositive motions filed by November 29. Additionally, a status conference with Judge Joan N. Ericksen is set for March 19, 2025.
April 17, 2024: Judge Ericksen remanded 28 cases to the districts where they would have originally been filed.
February 6, 2024: The MDL judge granted a motion to remand a case to a Texas court after determining that 3M Co. failed to prove that certain defendants were fraudulently joined. This decision moves the case back to the Harris County, Texas, District Court.
The case involves allegations that the Bair Hugger patient warming system caused a postoperative infection. 3M had initially removed the case to federal court and sought to stay proceedings pending its transfer to the MDL. However, the court found that 3M did not demonstrate that the plaintiff lacked a viable cause of action against the nondiverse defendants and thus granted the remand.
October 28, 2023: As we talked about in the July 14th update, The plaintiffs attempted to have Judge Ericksen recused, claiming bias due to the judge’s newly hired law clerk, a retired defense lawyer. The plaintiffs argued that the law clerk’s background and the judge’s rulings showed partiality.
The appellate court rejected the recusal effort. The court clarified that hiring decisions and the identities of law clerks do not require disclosure to the parties. The judge emphasized that the law clerk had no conflicts of interest and maintained confidentiality as required.
The plaintiffs also complained about the judge’s past rulings, but the court noted that dissatisfaction with judicial decisions does not justify claims of bias.
July 27, 2023: The latest update on the 3m Bair Hugger cases found 5,251 pending claims in the MDL. This quiet MDL is the 8th largest in the country.
We have opened up the comments section below if you want to share your experiences.
July 14, 2023: While 3M is unhappy with every judge within ten feet of the 3M earplug lawsuits, it has a different take on the Bair Hugger lawsuits. The plaintiffs’ lawyers have raised objections about a potential conflict of interest, as the magistrate judge had previously owned 3M shares and his wife had an association with the company. 3M wants to keep the judge in place.
The Bair Hugger plaintiffs’ lawyers have also tried to disqualify the main MDL judge, too. Why? The reasons for this remain confidential. But confidential or not, that motion was rejected as this new one will likely be as well. The reality is it is not comforting to return to the same judge that tried to dismiss your cases and was overturned on appeal.
June 1, 2023: The Supreme Court has rejected 3M’s petition for review concerning the re-establishment of consolidated litigation over its Bair Hugger surgical warming blankets. 3M had argued that the Eighth Circuit had employed an excessively lenient standard in allowing expert witnesses for patients who underwent joint-replacement procedures. But the Supreme Court has no interest in even hearing the case.
Despite the court’s decision, there is honestly not abundant enthusiasm regarding these lawsuits. Nonetheless, the possibility of settlement remains. Not long ago, the presiding judge in the MDL appointed retired Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan as a mediator. Renowned for his ability to navigate complex legal disputes through mediation, Boylan’s involvement offers a glimmer of hope. His role is to guide negotiations and dialogue among the parties, aiming to find a solution that everyone finds acceptable.
April 17, 2023: As of today, the latest update is there are 5,173 plaintiffs are in this warming blanket class action lawsuit.
April 17, 2023 Update: Plaintiffs in a case against 3M have filed a disqualification motion against US District Judge Joan Ericksen of Minneapolis and Judge David Schultz, the federal magistrate in the multidistrict litigation (MDL). The motion alleges that Ericksen engaged a retired products liability defense attorney as an adviser while considering a critical 3M motion and relied on his legal theories in her decision, which was later overturned by the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs also claim that Schultz’s financial adviser bought and sold 3M shares during the MDL. 3M opposes the disqualification of Ericksen and Schultz and refutes the plaintiffs’ causation claims.
March 13, 2023 Update: a new Bair Hugger infection lawsuit (Jones v. 3M Co., et al., 23-cv-603) was filed in the MDL in the District of Minnesota today. The plaintiff, Cheryl Jones, is an Alabama resident who underwent knee replacement surgery in April 2021 during which the Bair Hugger device was used. She subsequently developed a deep joint infection which required her to undergo multiple additional surgeries on her knee.
February 12, 2023 Update: the first status conference in the newly reopened Bair Hugger class action MDL was held this week before Judge Joan Ericksen.
December 16, 2022 Update: the Bair Hugger class action MDL has formally been reopened. On December 14, 2022, 3M sent a letter to MDL Judge Joan Ericksen asking that the MDL proceedings be reopened and resumed. In the letter, 3M claimed that nothing has really changed and urged Judge Ericksen to fast-track a new round of bellwether trials for the start of 2024. Today, the plaintiffs responded with their own letter saying that new evidence has emerged (specifically a new study published in JAMA in 2022) that strengthens their position on causation.
November 26, 2022 Update: 3M will get some insurance coverage for Bair Hugger claims. A federal court in Minnesota ruled this week that 3M must only pay a single deductible for more than 5,000 Bar Hugger lawsuits. But the insurance company – Federal Insurance Co. is not on the hook for all of 3M’s attorneys’ fees and other defense costs in the warming device lawsuits because only a fraction of the claims fall within the insurance policy period.
May 18, 2022 Update: The Supreme Court rejected 3M’s appeal.
August 23, 2021 Update: Last week a federal appeals court reinstated 5,000 claims that had been dismissed and this litigation is back on. But few lawyers are taking new claims.
Should you bring a Bair Hugger lawsuit if you believe you suffered an infection from a Bair Hugger during surgery? Decide for yourself. But despite some early punches to the face for plaintiffs, there is still a reasonable chance these cases end well for plaintiffs. Let’s talk about these cases, what there are, where they are going, and what are the prospects that the 3M Bair Hugger cases reach a settlement.
A Bair Hugger device is a temperature management system that is used during surgery. The purpose of the invention is to help the body regulate the appropriate temperature. Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Device is designed, manufactured, and marketed by Defendants 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc. There are more than 50,000 Bair Hugger FAWs in the United States.How does it work? The Bair Hugger is a portable heater/blower connected by a flexible hose to a blanket, typically positioned for the patient getting surgery. The Bair Hugger pushed hot air through a hose into a blanket specially made to work with the device. The hot air produced by Bair Hugger accumulates under the surgical drape covering the patient. This hot air escapes under the surgical drape below the level of the surgical table or over top of it.
So the Bair Hugger is designed to keep a patient’s body temperature normal during surgery by blowing hot air through a blanket. Keeping a patient warm is particularly useful during knee and hip replacement surgery because the procedures tend to be very long. The body loses heat increasingly throughout the surgery.
Another thing about metal hip and knee replacement surgery is that your body is particularly prone to infection. Why? The metal helps spread the infection.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuits argue that the device disrupts the air ventilation in the operating room, leading to infections, particularly in hip and knee surgeries, which have resulted in amputations and multiple surgeries. They also allege that 3M has been aware of the contamination issue since 2009.
Beech-Nut brand baby foods contained excessively high levels of toxic heavy metals. Consuming these products may have caused some children to develop neurologic disorders such as autism or ADHD. Parents who feed their children Beech-Nut and other toxic baby food products are now filing product liability lawsuits.
Our lawyers are handling toxic baby food autism lawsuits for families who have a child who has autism as a result of baby food products contaminated with harmful heavy metals. Our law firm handles these toxic baby food lawsuits in all 50 states.
Paraquat is a commercial-grade herbicide used in the agriculture industry. Over the last decade, new scientific research has shown that frequent use or exposure to Paraquat can increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease. This discovery has prompted thousands of Paraquat lawsuits by individuals who used or were around Paraquat in an occupation setting and subsequently developed Parkinson’s disease.
The Paraquat lawsuits were consolidated into a class action MDL in the Southern District of Illinois (In re: Paraquat Prod. Liab. Lit. – 3:21-MD-3004). The Paraquat MDL is now heading into its 3rd year and 2024 could potentially be a pivotal year for this mass tort. The first round of bellwether test trials were basically canceled after the MDL Judge excluded most of the plaintiffs’ key expert witness testimony. Now the parties are quickly preparing a new group of test cases for bellwether trials, which probably won’t happen until early 2025 (or even later).
This page talks about where this litigation is in June 2024, and what we can expect moving forward.
Our lawyers are reviewing EzriCare lawsuits in all 50 states after artificial tears eye drops have been linked to an outbreak of bacterial infections. Our lawyers have handled many vision loss and infection lawsuits so we are jumping on this litigation.
One person has died from the infection, and other victims have suffered blindness, vision loss and disturbances, and other complications from an infection. There have been more than 55 reports of adverse events.
How did this happen? We don’t know. But we think an investigation will show negligence. These eye drops lawsuits could bring large settlement payouts because the injuries for many will be very significant.
The Zantac litigation continues to move forward in state court. The Zantac state court litigation will have a slightly more narrowed focus compared to the initial class action MDL in federal court. The Zantac litigation will focus more on specific types of cancer that have the strongest evidence linking them to NDMA and Zantac use.
Lawsuit Information Center