North Carolina Product Liability Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Multidistrict Litigation

Zantac Master Complaint, Part 2: Invention of Ranitidine, Discovery of NDMA

Published on: September 1, 2020 | By Clay Hodges

In Part 1 I discussed the concept of the Master Complaint in product liability multi-district litigation, and we also set the table with the plaintiffs and the many defendant-companies involved in the Zantac litigation. Now let’s keep grinding through the Zantac Master Complaint. The story of Zantac, the presence of the carcinogen NDMA, and the links to cancer can be found in the Factual Allegations, beginning on page 39 of the Master Complaint. (Note that I use the brand-name Zantac and its actual name ranitidine mostly interchangeably in this post.)

These are the key elements of the story:

Inventing and Selling Ranitidine

Zantac Litigation Master Complaint Key Points, Part 1: The Parties Involved

Published on: August 27, 2020 | By Clay Hodges

If you truly want to learn about a particular litigation involving a defective product (such as Zantac), the best place to start is the Master Complaint. This is the lengthy comprehensive document filed by the plaintiffs in a multi-district litigation involving a defective product. This does not mean the case is a class action. Most product liability cases are not class action lawsuits but are rather individual lawsuits gathered together in a “multi-district litigation or MDL.” These cases are transferred from across the country in one court, where one federal court judge will oversee the litigation until either (1) a global settlement is reached or (2) the cases are ready to be returned to the their home courts for trial.

The multi-district litigation involving the drug Zantac is located in the Southern District of Florida (MDL No. 2924). On June 22, 2020 the plaintiffs filed their Master Personal Injury Complaint. It is a long and detailed document, and it is worth your time to read if you have taken Zantac over an extended period, and certainly if you have taken Zantac and later developed cancer.

Many people, understandably, are not thrilled to read a 158-page legal document. So today and in the days to follow I am going to write up key bullet points from the Zantac Master Complaint. First, a few general guidelines: a complaint is the document a plaintiff files in a court to start a civil case. It can be a single page, alleging that the neighbor’s dog bit the plaintiff and caused injuries, or it can be hundreds of pages long, involving many defendants and many claims. The key thing to remember is that the complaint involves allegations, not proven facts. It may well be that every word of a complaint is true and that the plaintiffs provide compelling evidence for every allegation at trial. But at the start of a civil case the complaint should be understood as a series of allegations, which the defendants are allowed to deny and which they often deny. And that’s where the courts and juries come in: to figure out which side has proven its case.

Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Litigation Delayed by COVID-19

Published on: July 3, 2020 | By Clay Hodges

COVID-19 has altered everyone’s schedule. Schools, colleges, and restaurants have closed. Even courts have shut down for non-urgent hearings and trials. In June, Judge Catherine Blake, overseeing the Smith & Nephew Birmingham hip litigation, issued an amended Case Management Order to extend discovery deadlines and bellwether trial dates for the multidistrict litigation.

Remember the Smith & Nephew Birmingham hip MDL is moving forward on two tracks: one set of cases involve the BHR components that were used in hip resurfacing procedures, and a second set of cases (“THA Track”) involve those individuals who received Birmingham hip components as part of a total hip arthroplasty (THA). Let’s breakdown the recent schedule changes for each track:

BHR (Resurfacing) Track:

OK to Conceal Information from Soldiers About Defective 3M Earplugs: Deposition

Published on: May 4, 2020 | By Clay Hodges

Litigation involving 3M Dual-Ended Combat Arms Earplugs (“3M Earplugs”) is advancing. Recently deposition testimony from 3M and Aearo employees was made public, and some of the answers are troubling. It brings me no joy to play the role of Chicken Little, but when companies are tempted by massive profits, too often those companies will cut corners on consumer safety. In this case, those consumers were millions of soldiers serving their country from 2003 to 2015.

First, in a recent deposition a 3M marketing manager confirmed that 3M was selling the dual-ended earplugs to the military for $7.63, even though it cost the company just $.85 to manufacture, a 900% markup. In an email the 3M employee remarked “LOL,” apparently about the hefty price increase for the 3M Earplugs.

Second, as I wrote about a year ago, one of the central allegations in the soldiers’ claims against 3M is that the company did not adequately test the 3M Earplugs before selling millions of them to the military. Nevertheless, in deposition testimony 3M officials stated that they did not believe it was necessary for soldiers to know that the earplugs were tested under conditions that were different from the conditions the soldiers would experience in the field. In fact, a former vice-president at Aearo Technologies testified that he thought it was OK to conceal information from the government about potential defects in the earplugs. He also confirmed that it was acceptable to sell a product and conceal information that the product could have a negative effect on soldiers.

Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Lawsuits: Bellwether Trials Scheduled

Published on: November 6, 2019 | By Clay Hodges

Judge Catherine Blake, who is overseeing the Smith & Nephew Birmingham hip multi-district litigation in Baltimore, Maryland, recently issued an order setting out the bellwether trial schedule for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) cases.

Just to recap: there are two tracks of cases in the Smith & Nephew Birmingham hip litigation: BHR and THA. BHR refers to cases involving injured people who received Smith & Nephew Birmingham hip components as part of a resurfacing procedure. The BHR resurfacing system is a metal-on-metal (MoM) artificial hip, but in resurfacing procedures the hip “ball” bone is resurfaced with a metal covering and a metal acetabular shell is implanted into the hip socket, thus creating a MoM articulation. Smith & Nephew used cobalt and chromium to construct both of these resurfacing components. As with all metal-on-metal artificial hips, the Smith & Nephew BHR has been shown to wear down and leach metals into the blood and tissue of the patient, a condition called metallosis.

The second track of cases involves total hip arthroplasties (THA) using Smith & Nephew Birmingham components. These total hip replacements are constructed with Smith & Nephew BHR components and non-BHR components, but instead of resurfacing the “ball-bone” with a metal covering the bone is removed and replaced with a metal ball component (a femoral head).

Jury Awards $2 Billion to Roundup Users Diagnosed With Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Published on: May 23, 2019 | By Clay Hodges

The makers of Roundup just lost another big case, this time involving a couple who used the weedkiller and were later diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This month, a jury in California awarded Alva and Alberta Pilliod more than two billion dollars. The jury found that Monsanto and Bayer acted negligently and failed to warn the plaintiffs of the dangers of using Roundup. The key active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, has been shown in studies to increase the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The jury then awarded Mr. Pilliod $18 million in “compensatory damages,” which is a money award for actual injuries suffered. The jury awarded Ms. Pilliod $37 million in compensatory damages, for a total of $55 million in compensatory damages. Finally, the jury awarded the Pilliods $1 billion each in punitive damages. The final jury award was $2,055,000,000. A truly astonishing number, and a major rebuke to the makers of Roundup.

The Pilliods testified that they used Roundup on their property for more than thirty years, from 1975 and 2011. They were diagnosed with NHL in 2011 and 2015.

Punitive damages play an important role in consumer protection. Punitives are awarded by a jury to punish or deter a bad-acting company, and similarly situated companies, from engaging in similarly awful conduct. Punitive damages are not common, and are usually awarded when a jury decides that the defendants had prior knowledge of a serious issue or problem and ignored this knowledge to the serious injury or detriment of other people.

07: Defective Military Earplugs and Hearing Loss

Published on: April 29, 2019 | By Clay Hodges

While mild hearing loss can be a side effect of aging, often people suffer hearing loss from working in loud environments. Military service can be a loud environment. There are environmental factors that can be avoided to protect your hearing. Your ability to hear is important and it can be debilitating to suffer hearing loss.

Today, Product Liability Attorney Clay Hodges shares how noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) can occur, and the litigation emerging from defective earplugs used in the military. To hear more about the impact of noise induced hearing loss and the cases involving Dual-Ended Combat Arms Earplugs, tune in to this episode of Failed Hips and Harmed Drugs.

Defendants Knew 3M Earplugs Were Defective and Still Sold to Military: Lawsuits

Published on: March 1, 2019 | By Clay Hodges

In my last post I introduced the 3M Earplugs and the (alleged) defects that caused hearing loss in thousands of military service personnel. I thought it would be helpful to bullet point some of the key allegations made by injured soldiers in lawsuits filed against 3M related to these earplugs.

First, I refer to this product simply as the 3M Earplugs. However, the product’s official name is the Dual-Ended Combat Arms Earplugs (CAEv2). So if in your reading you see 3M Earplugs or Combat Arms Earplugs, it is most likely the same product.

Second, I need to provide some clarification on the defendants involved in this expanding litigation. The 3M Earplugs were originally developed and manufactured by Aearo Holding Corporation (which became Aearo Holding LLC) along with the involvement of Aearo Technologies LLC, Aearo Intermediate LLC, and Aearo LLC. It may be a bit confusing, but it’s not uncommon for a company to have subsidiary companies handling research, or development, or the manufacture of a product. In any case, 3M Company bought Aearo Holding LLC in 2008 and with the purchase acquired the Combat Arms Earplugs. The Earplugs were thus placed under the 3M brand, and 3M became entitled to the profits flowing from the earplugs but also became responsible for the liabilities of the product. Thus, 3M Company is the primary defendant in this litigation.

How Do I Know What Artificial Hip or Other Device Is Implanted in Me?

Published on: January 25, 2019 | By Clay Hodges

It’s a great question. And I’m glad I asked it for you. Now let me answer it. There are several ways to identify the specific medical device implanted in your body. (A medical device is any manufactured device–like an artificial hip–implanted in the body for the purpose of resolving an injury, curing disease, or improving a person’s health. Medical devices can be artificial joints like hips and knees and shoulders, heart stents and pacemakers, IVC filters, hernia mesh, and hundreds of other examples.) Some ways of identifying exact product components are better than others. Identifying the medical device several different ways is the best of all.

Product Stickers: The Gold Standard

It all sort of starts with “product stickers.” These are the identifying stickers that are attached to the box containing the medical device, and they can be peeled off and affixed to a nurse’s hospital note or to another page in the hospital or surgeon’s record for the implant surgery. It goes something like this: the representative for the device maker shows up with the artificial hip components (or other medical device). The surgical nurse or the surgeon will double check that the components are the precise ones needed for the surgery, scan them into the system and note them in the record. The nurse will then peel off the product stickers and attach them to the hospital record and include them with all the other pages of documents explaining details of the surgery. The image at right is an approximation of what the stickers will look like: a bar code, the name of the manufacturer, the specific product name, the Lot and Reference numbers, and other identifying information.

UPDATE: Smith & Nephew Birmingham Artificial Hip Lawsuits Advance

Published on: January 11, 2019 | By Clay Hodges

I have written about artificial hip litigation on this site more than any other area of product liability law, and for a very good reason: there is a lot to write about. Metal-on-metal hips have gravely injured tens of thousands of people, and new victims are undergoing revision surgeries each week to remove defective hips. One current active litigation involves Smith & Nephew “Birmingham” artificial hips. MDL 2775 is the multidistrict litigation court handling hundreds of lawsuits filed against medical device maker Smith & Nephew for these (allegedly) defective artificial hips. There are several artificial hip products involved in MDL 2775:

Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System (BHR). The multidistrict litigation court was first organized to handle these BHR lawsuits. The BHR system is a type of metal-on-metal artificial hip, but in resurfacing procedures the hip “ball” bone is shaped and resurfaced with a smooth metal covering and a metal shell is implanted into the hip socket, thus creating a metal-on-metal connection or “articulation.” As with most metal-on-metal artificial hips, Smith & Nephew uses cobalt and chromium to construct both of these resurfacing components. These metals have been shown to wear away and leach into the blood and tissue of the patient, causing all kinds of symptoms and problems, including metallosis.

BHR Hip Components Used in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). These hip implants are constructed with Smith & Nephew BHR components and non-BHR components, but instead of resurfacing the “ball-bone” with a metal covering the bone is removed and a metal ball component is implanted. MDL 2775 added these Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) cases to the litigation shortly after the MDL launched.

Initial Consultation919-546-8788

★★★★★

I was involved in a case for the faulty hip replacements. Clay Hodges represented me. I can't say enough about how much he has helped me. Clay was able to win multiple settlements on my behalf with most of them being the maximum amount able to be awarded. Matt J.

Clay, thank you sir for making a disheartening experience at least palatable, you and your staff were honest, caring and understanding through the entire process of my wife’s hip replacements, while monetary settlements never make the pain and suffering end, it sometimes is the only way people can fight back to right a wrong. J. V.

We are absolutely pleased with how Clay Hodges handled my husband’s hip replacement claim. He always kept us informed of the progress. And, his work resulted in a settlement which we are extremely pleased. Thank you, Clay! Carol L. & Norm L.