FAQ

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved semaglutide (generic for Ozempic) in 2017 as a treatment for type 2 diabetes. Ozempic works by mimicking a hormone that our bodies naturally produce called “glucagon-like peptide-1,” or GLP-1, which can cause the pancreas to release insulin and block the liver from releasing sugar. By regulating insulin, the drug also keeps food in the stomach for longer, making people feel fuller longer.

There are several types of semaglutide medications, including:

• Ozempic: Injection that comes in 0.25mg, 0.5mg, 1mg, or 2mg dose pens. Patients typically receive weekly Ozempic injections.
• Wegovy: Injection that comes in 0.25mg, 0.5mg, 1mg, 1.7mg, or 2.4mg dose pens. Patients typically receive weekly Wegovy injections.
• Rybelsus: A tablet that comes in 3mg, 7mg, or 14mg doses. Patients take Rybelsus tablets daily.

Lawsuits over semaglutide are being brought against Novo Nordisk, a Danish multinational pharmaceutical company that manufactures Ozempic, Wegovy, and Rybelsus. Mounjaro (tripeptide), another medication commonly used off-label for weight loss that has been implicated in lawsuits, is manufactured by Eli Lilly & Co.

Without insurance coverage, Ozempic and Wegovy can cost from $1,000 to $1,700 per month.

The real cost, however, is the significant side effects that some people continue to feel after they stop taking Ozempic. Emily Wright, a schoolteacher in Toronto, took Ozempic for over a year and lost 80 pounds. But according to Wright, she now vomits so frequently that she was forced to take a leave of absence from her job. “I’ve almost been off Ozempic for a year, but I’m still not back to my normal,” she said.

A growing body of medical research has connected Ozempic to side effects that can lead to severe and distressing injuries. Novo Nordisk lists the most common Ozempic side effects as nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, stomach pain, and constipation. Other reported side effects include pancreatitis, changes in vision, low blood sugar, kidney problems, serious allergic reactions, and gallbladder problems.

Ozempic lawsuits against Novo Nordisk allege the following side effects:

Gastroparesis: Commonly known as stomach paralysis, gastroparesis is a condition characterized by abnormal stomach muscle function, resulting in impaired contraction, and grinding of food. This dysfunction hinders the stomach's ability to efficiently empty its contents.

Gastroenteritis: Inflammation of the stomach and intestines. While viral gastroenteritis is also known as stomach flu, gastroenteritis may also be caused by ingesting certain medication, including Ozempic. Gastroenteritis symptoms include vomiting, nausea, diarrhea, stomach cramps, muscle aches, headaches, and fever. Vomiting and diarrhea can lead to dehydration, the main complication of gastroenteritis, which can lead to death.

While the delayed gastric emptying caused by Ozempic may aid weight loss, long-term usage may lead to a chronic condition. Indeed, the plaintiff in an Ozempic lawsuit alleges her teeth fell out due to the excessive vomiting caused by the medication.

What Is Stomach Paralysis?

Stomach paralysis, also known as gastroparesis, is a condition where muscles of the stomach don't work properly, leading to delayed emptying of food into the small intestine. This can cause symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, bloating, and feeling full quickly when eating.

Can Ozempic Cause Permanent Gastroparesis?

There have been reports of Ozempic (semaglutide) being associated with gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, but there is limited evidence suggesting a link to permanent gastroparesis.

While current research does not indicate that individuals are likely to experience continued gastroparesis after stopping the medication, research does show that cases of post-Ozempic gastroparesis can be severe enough to warrant gastric bypass surgery.

Does Ozempic Cause Liver Damage?

There is limited evidence that Ozempic causes liver damage. In fact, a 2024 study from Sweden found that Ozempic and other GLP1 agonists are associated with a reduced risk of developing cirrhosis and liver cancer in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic liver disease. Liver damage is currently not a qualifying health condition for the Ozempic lawsuit.

The compensation you could recover in an Ozempic lawsuit depends on your claims for damages, whether the case resolves in a settlement, and other variables. Generally, an Ozempic settlement may cover several types of damages, including (but not limited to):

• Medical Care (past and future): Covers a variety of medical expenses, including hospitals stays, medications, and more.
• Lost Income and Wages (past and future): If your injuries rendered you incapable of carrying out your professional duties or required you to miss a significant amount of time off work.
• Pain and Suffering (past and future): Compensation for the physical and emotional anguish endured as a result of Ozempic side effects.
• Loss of Enjoyment of Life (past and future): If your injuries impede your ability to participate in activities that previously brought you joy and fulfillment.
• Punitive Damages: Also known as exemplary damages, punitive damages are designed to punish negligent corporations for committing willful, malicious, and intentional acts, and to deter others from similar wrongdoing. While they are not always awarded, punitive damages can be substantial.

No. Ozempic lawsuits have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL), which is similar to a class action but notably different in important ways. An Ozempic class action would likely aim to secure medical monitoring for individuals who may face future risks after using these diet drugs or seek compensation from the drug manufacturers for insufficiently disclosing the serious risks associated with their medications.

However, it is important to note that individual personal injury lawsuits stemming from gastroparesis or gastroenteritis will involve distinct damages for each plaintiff and will not be consolidated into a class action lawsuit involving Ozempic, Wegovy, or Rybelsus users.

Given that over 1 in 10 Americans have reportedly used Ozempic for weight loss purposes at some point, it is anticipated that thousands of lawsuits against Ozempic will be filed in the coming years.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated Ozempic side effect lawsuits in Pennsylvania in 2024. An MDL (or a state court version of an MDL) streamlines discovery and pretrial proceedings and functions similarly to a class action but the individual cases are tried separately. However, it should be emphasized that if the drug manufacturer fails to reach a global Ozempic settlement agreement or any other resolution during an MDL, individual claims may subsequently be remanded to courts where they were filed, paving the way for separate trials in the future.

Ozempic (semaglutide) and Mounjaro (tirzepatide) are both prescription medications commonly used in conjunction with diet and exercise to regulate blood sugar levels in adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

Both medications are:

• In a class of drugs known as incretin mimetics.
• Administered through subcutaneous injections on a weekly basis.
• Costly if you are paying for them out-of-pocket.
• Widely used for weight loss even though neither is FDA-approved specifically for this purpose.
• Implicated in lawsuits alleging gastroparesis, gastroenteritis, and other side effects.

Manufactured by Eli Lilly, Mounjaro (tirzepatide) functions as a dual-acting agonist for GIP and GLP-1 receptors. GIP and GLP-1 are natural incretin hormones. Mounjaro aids in reducing fasting and postprandial glucose levels, curbs food intake, and can lead to weight reduction in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

Ozempic (semaglutide), manufactured by Novo Nordisk, acts exclusively as a GLP-1 receptor agonist. By binding to GLP-1 receptors, it stimulates insulin release from the pancreas when necessary and slows down the rate at which food moves through the digestive system. This mechanism can contribute to a feeling of satiety, reduced food consumption, and subsequent weight loss.

According to Dr. Akshaya Srikanth Bhagavathula, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Arkansas who has studied tirzepatide, Mounjaro may cause more severe side effects when compared to Ozempic.

Rybelsus and Ozempic contain the active ingredient semaglutide and are used to treat type 2 diabetes. Ozempic is an injectable formulation of semaglutide that is given once a week. Rybelsus comes in pill form and is taken daily. Novo Nordisk manufactures both medications.

Wegovy (semaglutide 2.4 mg) and Ozempic (semaglutide 1 mg) are similar medications manufactured by Novo Nordisk. They contain the same active ingredient. However, they are used for different purposes. Ozempic is approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, while Wegovy is approved for chronic weight management in adults with obesity or who have at least one weight-related comorbidity.

Ozempic and Saxenda are both injectable GLP-1 receptors. However, the drugs are different in that Ozempic is approved for type 2 diabetes and given once a week. Saxenda is approved for chronic weight management and given once a day.

Both drugs are implicated in ongoing lawsuits alleging stomach paralysis and other harmful side effects.

While Ozempic and Trulicity belong to the same class of medications (GLP-1 receptor agonists) and are taken once weekly, there are important distinctions:

Trulicity’s active ingredient is dulaglutide. The initial dosage is .75 mg weekly.

Ozempic’s active ingredient is semaglutide. The initial dosage is .25 mg weekly.

A PowerPort device, also known as a BardPort, is a type of central venous catheter that is surgically implanted under the skin to help deliver medication or fluids directly into the bloodstream. Healthcare providers often use PowerPort devices on patients requiring repeated vascular system access during chemotherapy, surgery, and other treatments. Some examples of how PowerPorts are used include:

• Infusion of medications
• Infusion of I.V. fluids
• Infusion of parenteral nutrition solutions
• Infusion of blood products
• Withdrawal of blood samples

Port catheters like the Bard PowerPort have two main components: the injection port with a self-sealing silicone septum and a polyurethane catheter. The injection port has a raised center, which is where the needle is inserted to deliver medication. The medication is then carried from the port into the bloodstream through the catheter, which is a small, flexible tube that is inserted into a blood vessel. The catheter allows for direct delivery of treatments into the bloodstream.

According to Bard Power Port lawsuits, Bard port catheters are not safe because of design and manufacturing defects. According to the lawsuits, the BardPort catheter is made of a polymeric mixture of polyurethane and barium sulfate. Barium sulfate is known to diminish the mechanical integrity of polyurethane over time, which can create fractures and other degradations to the catheter. These small fractures can migrate to other places in the body, potentially leading to serious injuries. Lawyers who have filed Power Port lawsuits allege Bard failed to warn people that the Power Port was prone to surface degradation and resulting failures capable of causing serious injuries or death.

Lawsuits against the PowerPort allege C.R. Bard (Becton, Dickinson and Company) failed to warn about known design and manufacturing defects associated with the device.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the Bard PowerPort in 2000. But shortly after the Bard PowerPort was released, the company received numerous adverse event reports from doctors and other healthcare practitioners detailing fractures and perforations. C.R. Bard received adverse event reports detailing the following PowerPort side effects:

• Hemorrhage
• Infection
• Sepsis
• Cardiac/pericardial tamponade
• Cardiac arrhythmia
• Symptoms similar to myocardial infarction
• Severe and persistent pain
• Perforations of tissue, vessels and organs
• Death

These reports indicated a higher failure rate compared to similar products, with issues rooted in the material used to make the device.

Despite the growing number of adverse event reports, Bard continued to market and sell the PowerPort without warning people about the potential risk of fractures. The company “intentionally concealed the severity of complications caused by the PowerPort and the likelihood of these events occurring,” lawsuits allege.

The PowerPort lawsuits accuse Bard of prioritizing profits over people by failing to address known issues with the PowerPort's design and manufacturing. Patients who received the device had no idea about the dangers.

The following port catheters are named in lawsuits:

• Bard PowerPort ClearVUE Implantable Port
• Bard PowerPort ClearVUE ISP Implantable Port
• Bard PowerPort ClearVUE Slim Implantable Port
• Bard PowerPort isp MRI Implantable Port
• Bard PowerPort MRI Implantable Port
• BardPort Implanted Port
• Power-Injectable Implantable Ports with Chronoflex Polyurethane Catheters
• SlimPort Implanted Port
• X-Port Implanted Port

Bard PowerPort lawyers are now pursuing cases on behalf of individuals who sustained the following:

• Blood clots
• Cardiac punctures
• Deep vein thrombosis
• Hemorrhage or hematoma (bleeding)
• Infection
• Necrosis (tissue death)
• Pericardial effusion (buildup of fluid around the heart)
• Pulmonary embolism
• Severe or long-lasting pain
• Tearing or perforating of blood vessels, organs or tissue

Other side effects associated with the Bard port catheter include:

• Abnormal heart rhythms
• Breathing difficulty
• Confusion
• Drainage at the port site
• Fever
• Inflammation
• Kidney problems
• Ruptured blood vessels
• Swelling

Yes, there was a Bard PowerPort recall years ago, but the reason for the recall does not have to do with the allegations in the Power Port lawsuits. The FDA issued a Class 2 recall notice in March of 2020 for multiple models of the Bard PowerPort due to a concerning issue that could extend surgical procedures. The agency advised all healthcare facilities to return the affected devices promptly.

While Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) downplayed the severity of the issue, claiming it was "unlikely to lead to serious injury," growing concerns have been raised about potential defects with various BardPort products. Attorneys believe that based on the allegations, the company should recall affected port catheters to ensure they are safe.

We have an updated case count in the Gardasil MDL. As of today, 143 claims are pending in the Gardasil Products Liability Litigation before Judge Kenneth D. Bell in North Carolina. Our vaccine attorneys have several cases making their way through Vaccine Court, so we anticipate this number to increase steadily in the next few months.

Last month, our attorneys filed two new Gardasil death cases on behalf of two mothers who allege the HPV vaccine caused severe autoimmune and neurological dysfunction, ultimately resulting in the deaths of their daughters.

January is cervical cancer awareness month, which means HPV vaccination will be broadcast as a “primary prevention” mechanism against cervical cancer. As attorneys litigating cases for those harmed by the Gardasil vaccine, we wanted to take a moment to provide some important information on the HPV vaccine and cervical cancer.

Merck has previously marketed Gardasil as a “cervical cancer vaccine” and asserted that Gardasil provides lifetime immunity to cervical, anal, and other HPV-associated cancers. Our lawsuits allege Merck does not have any scientifically reliable basis to make these claims. The question of whether the HPV vaccine prevents cancer is unproven, and evidence exists that Gardasil may actually increase the risk of cervical cancer in those previously exposed to HPV rather than prevent it.

We filed a case last year on behalf of a young woman who alleges Gardasil caused her cervical cancer. “Because most of her treatment was directed at her cervix,” the complaint states, “her ovaries were also affected, putting her into menopause in her 20s…She will never be able to have children of her own because her eggs are no longer viable due to the cancer treatment.”

Our complaint accuses Merck of falsely advertising and overstating Gardasil’s safety and effectiveness, which not only failed to prevent our client’s cervical cancer, it potentially caused her to develop cancer.

Raising awareness about cervical cancer is important. But the public deserves to be fully informed about the potential for harm that comes with HPV vaccination.

The federal Gardasil MDL continues to grow with new cases added each month. As of today, there are 104 cases pending in the MDL. Our firm has 140 cases that have made their way through Vaccine Court and will soon be filed in the MDL, so the number of cases will increase significantly over the next few months.

As for the California Gardasil litigation, we have seven cases pending with more to be filed in the coming months.

We recently received some requests for data on the number of Gardasil claims in Vaccine Court. Since February 2007, there have been 844 Gardasil petitions filed in the VICP, including 22 for wrongful death as of October 1, 2023. More than 200 HPV vaccine claims are still pending.

As for the ongoing Gardasil MDL, there are now 110 cases consolidated in federal court. The cases considered for bellwether trials allege two serious Gardasil side effects:

Premature Ovarian Insufficiency (POI) / Premature Ovarian Failure (POF): A debilitating condition that manifests when a woman's ovaries do not function properly before the age of 40. POI / POF may result in irregular or absent menstrual periods and infertility. Numerous factors contribute to the onset of POI / POF, including genetic predispositions, the presence of autoimmune diseases, and specific medical treatments. You can read more about Gardasil and ovarian failure in our blog – Gardasil HPV Vaccine Studies.

Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS): A condition characterized by an abnormal escalation in heart rate upon transitioning from a reclining or seated position to an upright stance. This physiological anomaly elicits distressing symptoms ranging from dizziness and lightheadedness to debilitating fatigue and, at times, episodes of fainting. You can learn more about POTS symptoms and the link between Gardasil and POTS in our blog – Can Gardasil Cause POTS?

We can also report that there are several cases filed in California state court as the litigation is starting to grow.

If you are curious to know more about the scientific research linking the HPV vaccine to autoimmune disorders like POTS, dysautonomia, CRPS, POF, and several other health issues, we recently posted a blog detailing findings from dozens of studies, as well as links to the studies themselves.

The Gardasil MDL will soon include more than 100 claims. As of the latest MDL statistics report, there are 96 active cases in the Gardasil MDL.

The federal Judge overseeing the Gardasil MDL has indicated that the litigation will be bifurcated into two phases. The first phase will address the issue of general causation (whether the HPV vaccine is capable of causing the alleged side effects). The second phase will address all remaining liability and damage issues.

Thirteen of the 16 plaintiffs selected as bellwether candidates have filed amended complaints, per the latest case management conference on August 29. Additionally, one of the cases Merck chose as a bellwether candidate was dismissed with prejudice. The company will soon select a replacement.

With nearly 100 cases in the MDL, there are currently hundreds of additional claims making their way through Vaccine Court. We believe many of these cases will enter the MDL in the coming months.

As of today, there are 92 Gardasil lawsuits pending in the MDL. In September, our firm and colleagues with cases in the MDL will start conducting depositions. A deposition is an important part of the discovery process where attorneys question experts, company representatives, and other parties under oath. In these depositions, we plan to gather testimony and facts about what Merck knew about Gardasil and its potential to cause injuries, and more.

Other upcoming events in the Gardasil MDL: Plaintiff Expert reports are due in March of 2024, and we anticipate an order on summary judgment in the fall of 2024. This order will determine the next phase of the litigation. If Judge Conrad denies Merck’s motion for summary judgment, the litigation will move toward trial.

Gardasil lawyers at Wisner Baum and colleagues in the federal MDL recently submitted a joint report to the judge overseeing the litigation. The report detailed progress as attorneys prepare the initial group of bellwether cases. Bellwether trials are essentially test cases that indicate potential results for the pool of similar lawsuits.

A total of 16 claims were selected as bellwether cases; the plaintiffs selected five cases, Merck selected five cases, four were selected at random, and U.S. District Judge Robert J. Conrad selected the remaining two. The first Gardasil trial in the federal MDL will likely occur in late 2024 or early 2025.

Although the outcomes of the bellwether trials will not be binding on other claims, they will be closely monitored to assess how juries respond to the evidence and expert testimony. The average payouts in these cases may influence settlement offers from Merck to avoid individual cases going before juries.

As of this writing, there are at least 89 cases in the Gardasil MDL, though we expect this number to increase significantly in the coming months as hundreds of claims are pending in Vaccine Court. Those who allege HPV vaccine side effects must first bring their claims to Vaccine Court before they can file a lawsuit against Merck in civil court.

Gardasil lawsuits are progressing in the federal MDL. As of this date, there are 86 cases in the Gardasil MDL, many of which were filed on behalf of our clients. We have 88 other Gardasil cases that have gone through Vaccine Court and are being worked up for filing in civil court. Over 100 cases are pending in Vaccine Court with 32 others that are being prepared to file.

While the Gardasil MDL is where federal cases are consolidated, there are Gardasil cases filed in California state court as well. As of this date, seven are pending in California.

We are pleased to report that the judge overseeing the federal Gardasil MDL in North Carolina recently ordered Merck to produce its entire database of Gardasil adverse events to attorneys representing women and men suing the company over Gardasil-induced autoimmune conditions. With the order, plaintiffs’ attorneys and their experts will have access to Merck’s adverse event database under a protective order.

U.S. District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr. wrote in his order, “[p]laintiffs’ and their experts should have the same opportunity as Merck to review and analyze the entirety of the data.”

“Gaining access to the entire Gardasil adverse event database enables expert scientists who have been demanding this information for years to finally research the patterns of complex autoimmune conditions, not just the sequestered view Merck had been imposing,” says Wisner Baum Gardasil lawyer, Michael L. Baum.

Learn more in our press release.

There are now approximately 65 cases currently part of the Gardasil MDL. Another 80 cases, which have already gone through the mandatory Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, are expected to be filed in the MDL in the coming year.

At least 115 cases are currently pending in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), the majority of which are expected to end up in the MDL. Another 150 cases are under review, and new cases are coming in and being evaluated every day.

Additionally, there are seven Gardasil cases pending in various California state courts.

The federal judge who oversees the federal Gardasil multidistrict litigation (or Gardasil MDL) has appointed Wisner Baum senior shareholder Bijan Esfandiari to serve as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. Esfandiari is among four attorneys who will serve on the litigation leadership for plaintiffs throughout the country who allege in lawsuits against Merck that the Gardasil HPV vaccine causes severe side effects.

The Gardasil lawyer team that will serve on the plaintiff’s leadership include:

• Bijan Esfandiari – Wisner Baum
• Rachel Lanier – The Lanier Law Firm
• Paul Pennock – Morgan & Morgan
• Allison Mullins – Turning Point Litigation (Liaison Counsel)

"We are pleased that the judge appointed an alliance of proven litigators to represent Gardasil survivors," Gardasil lawyer Bijan Esfandiari said following a status conference. "We look forward to giving our clients the chance to finally be heard in court backed by a group of lawyers with proven success in high-stakes litigation. We will work together to seek justice for people who have seen their lives destroyed by a defective and dangerous product."

Wisner Baum has filed the first Gardasil lawsuit to allege wrongful death in civil court. The firm’s attorneys filed the case on behalf of a couple from North Carolina who allege the Gardasil HPV vaccine killed their 13-year-old son. Clifton and Kelli Foley allege Merck “engaged in a relentless propaganda campaign aimed at frightening and guilting parents” who did not vaccinate their children with the HPV vaccine, and that the company refused to warn the public of the risk of serious side effects, according to the complaint. The Foley’s son, Noah, passed away at age 13 of encephalitis. The Gardasil lawsuit alleges Noah’s death stemmed from an autoimmune/autoinflammatory dysregulation process, which was caused-in-fact by the Gardasil shot received in 2018.

Watch Video: 13-Year-Old Noah Foley’s Untimely Death After Gardasil

Gardasil lawyers representing plaintiffs who suffer from serious health disorders after receiving the HPV vaccine filed a position statement today outlining the allegations they plan to pursue against Gardasil’s manufacturer, Merck & Co. Filed on behalf of plaintiffs who suffer from various injuries (most prominently, neurological, autonomic and autoimmune injuries, including Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome or Orthostatic Intolerance), the position statement alleges Merck failed to warn consumers about Gardasil's risks of inducing certain autoimmune and neurological injuries. The position statement further alleges Merck took steps to mask and downplay these risks.

“Merck was also negligent in the way it conducted its clinical trials and post-marketing pharmacovigilance,” the position statement reads. “Plaintiffs further allege that, in its direct-to-consumer advertising to patients and parents, Merck misrepresented and overemphasized Gardasil's efficacy while concealing Gardasil's serious risks."

You can read the position statement in its entirety here: Gardasil MDL Plaintiffs Position Statement

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued an order today consolidating Gardasil vaccine lawsuit claims before U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr. of the Western District of North Carolina. With the establishment of the Gardasil MDL, "In re: Gardasil Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 3036," HPV vaccine cases can move into coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

"We are very pleased the JPML decided to centralize the Gardasil litigation. Efficient coordination of the multidistrict litigation makes the most sense and gives the plaintiffs the best path for seeking and obtaining justice. Our clients are looking forward to getting their day in court." – Gardasil Attorney Bijan Esfandiari

Judge Conrad has scheduled an initial conference for October 11, 2022 during which the parties and the Court will discuss “procedures that will facilitate the expeditious, economical, and just resolution of this litigation.” During the initial conference, scheduling, discovery, appointments of lead counsel and liaison counsel, a Plaintiff’s Steering Committee, and a plan for alternative dispute resolution, among other things, will be discussed.

1. Surviving spouse - The surviving spouse of the deceased person has the first right to bring a wrongful death claim.
2. Domestic partner - If the deceased person had a registered domestic partner, the domestic partner may bring a wrongful death claim.
3. Children - If the deceased person had children, the children may bring a wrongful death claim.
4. Grandchildren - If the deceased person's spouse, domestic partner, or children are no longer living, the deceased person's grandchildren may bring a wrongful death claim.
5. Other dependents - If the deceased person had other dependents who relied on them for financial support, such as stepchildren or parents, those individuals may bring a wrongful death claim.
6. Personal representative - If there are no surviving family members who can bring a wrongful death claim, the personal representative of the deceased person's estate may bring the claim.

It's important to note that under California law, only one wrongful death claim can be filed for each deceased person. If multiple individuals have the right to bring a wrongful death claim, they must either join together in a single claim or file separate claims and coordinate their efforts.

In California, the representative of the estate of a decedent may recover compensation for damages beginning at the time the negligence took place up until the actual time of death, such as medical expenses, funeral bills, and punitive damages where appropriate. In addition, wrongful death claimants may recover damages including lost wages, mental suffering, and for the loss of the comfort, society, companionship, and guidance they would have received from their loved one.

Different states have different laws governing who may file a wrongful death lawsuit. In the state of California, widows, widowers, or registered domestic partners, and children of a decedent may be able to seek compensation in a wrongful death claim. Parents or siblings may also be able to file wrongful death lawsuit under certain circumstances.

If you are unsure if you are eligible to file a claim, consult with a Los Angeles wrongful death lawyer as soon as you are able. Some cases may be governed by a statute of limitations, which specifies how long plaintiffs have to pursue a claim, so it is in your best interest to contact an attorney quickly.

In California, the statute of limitations allows wrongful death claimants two years from the date of death to file a claim. One common mistake that claimants make is waiting too long to begin legal action, believing the statute of limitations seems to extend far into the future and they will have time to address the matter later. It takes time to build a case and file a complaint, so the sooner your wrongful death lawyer can begin work, the better.

There could be additional deadlines you are required to meet as well. For example, an administrative claim must be filed in order to pursue legal action if your loved one died in an accident involving a government entity. You must file these claims six months from the date of the injury.

The statute of limitations for filing a truck accident lawsuit in Los Angeles is two years from the date of the accident. It's important to consult with an experienced truck accident attorney as soon as possible after a truck accident to ensure that your lawsuit is filed within the deadline. Certain factors may affect the statute of limitations, and an attorney can help you determine if any exceptions apply in your case.

It's not advisable to talk to the trucking company's insurance adjuster after a truck accident without consulting with an experienced injury attorney first. The adjuster's job is to protect the interests of the trucking company and their insurer, not yours. Anything you say to the adjuster could be used against you to deny or minimize your claim.

You should also keep in mind that insurance adjusters are skilled negotiators and may try to pressure you into accepting a low settlement offer. A truck accident lawyer can help you evaluate any settlement offers and negotiate on your behalf to seek the maximum compensation you deserve for your injuries and losses.

When you hire a professional truck accident lawyer, they can help you gather evidence to support your injury claim. Some types of evidence that can be useful include:

• Photos or videos of the accident scene, the vehicles involved, and any injuries sustained.
• Eyewitness statements and contact information.
• Police report and other official accident reports.
• Medical records and bills related to your injuries.
• Repair estimates or receipts for any property damage.
• Logbooks, maintenance records, and other records related to the truck and driver's history and qualifications.

An experienced attorney can help you gather and analyze the evidence to build a strong case and seek the compensation you deserve.

If you have been involved in a car accident with an uninsured or underinsured driver, you may still be able to recover damages for your injuries and losses. Here are some options you may have:

• Uninsured Motorist Coverage: If you have uninsured motorist (UM) coverage as part of your auto insurance policy, you may be able to file a claim with your own insurance company. UM coverage can help cover your medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages resulting from the accident, up to your policy limits.
• Underinsured Motorist Coverage: If the other driver has insurance, but their policy limits are not enough to cover your damages, you may be able to file a claim under your own underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. UIM coverage can provide additional compensation beyond what the other driver's insurance policy covers, up to your policy limits.
• Lawsuit against the at-fault driver: If the other driver was at fault for the accident and does not have insurance, you may be able to file a lawsuit against them to recover damages. However, collecting damages from an uninsured driver can be challenging, as they may not have the assets or income to pay the damages.
• Personal injury lawsuit against a third party: In some cases, a third party may be liable for the accident. For example, if the accident was caused by a defective car part, you may be able to file a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer

Yes, you may be able to recover damages for pain and suffering after a car accident in Los Angeles. Pain and suffering damages are considered non-economic damages and are intended to compensate you for the physical and emotional pain and suffering you experienced as a result of the crash.

In California, pain and suffering damages are calculated based on several factors, including the severity of your injuries, the impact they have on your daily life and activities, and how long it is expected to take for you to fully recover. Your attorney may use medical records, expert testimony, and other evidence to help establish the extent of your pain and suffering and calculate an appropriate amount of damages.

How do insurance companies measure pain and suffering? Generally speaking, insurance adjusters often use the following approaches:

• Multiplier Method: Your economic losses, including medical care, lost wages, and other damages, are compiled and then a multiplier is chosen. If your car accident claim is evaluated with $50,000 in economic damages and a multiplier of '2' is selected for pain and suffering, $100,000 will be awarded.
• Per Diem Method: Once you are completely recovered from your injuries after a car crash, the insurance company will assign a dollar figure for pain and suffering for each day you were recovering. If a per diem sum of $200 was chosen, and it took you 100 days to achieve a full recovery, $20,000 would be awarded for pain and suffering.

The 2021 U.S. House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy report found heavy metals in foods from:

• Beech-Nut
• Campbell Soup – Plum Organics
• Gerber
• Hain Celestial Group – Earth’s Best Organic
• Nurture – Happy Family Organics and HappyBABY
• Sprout Foods – Sprout Organic Food
• Walmart – Parent’s Choice

Before the 2021 House report on baby food, other independent testing found heavy metals in infant formula and baby foods from:

• Baby Mum-Mum
• Comforts (Kroger)
• Cream of Wheat
• Cuétara
• Deluxe Pasta
• Ella’s Kitchen
• Enfamil
• Harvest Hill
• Healthy Times
• Kitchdee Organic
• Kraft
• Lil’ Dutch Maid
• Little Duck Organics
• Meijer
• Nosh!
• Nostalgia
• NurturMe
• Organics (Albertson’s)
• Simple Truth Organic (Kroeger)
• SOBISK

Check out our blog for more information on baby foods to avoid.

Baby foods safe from heavy metals exclude ingredients like rice, fruit juices, sweet potatoes, or additives like premade vitamin mixes, all of which routinely test at high levels of heavy metals. If you are worried about heavy metals in the food products you serve your child, try substituting rice-based puffs for snacks made with other grains. Instead of fruit juices, try giving your child water.

If you want to evaluate your baby food for safety, we recommend the following resources:

• Clean Label Project: Lists many baby food products using a star ranking system (one star for worst foods that tested high in contaminants to five stars for the best foods that tested low for contaminants).
• Healthy Babies Bright Futures: Conducted testing on hundreds of baby food products and listed their findings.
• Puremarket: Evaluates foods based on a grading system (F for foods that rank low for purity and nutrition, A for foods that rank high for purity and nutrition). You can also search for the products you regularly buy at the market to ensure they are safe from heavy metals.

Check out our blog for more information on baby foods without heavy metals.

Arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury are environmental pollutants in the air, water, and soil that enter the food supply when plants take them up. According to the FDA, these toxic elements are “unavoidable in the general food supply.”

We do not believe this tells the whole story. Our baby food lawsuits maintain that companies are able to manufacture baby foods that are not high in dangerous heavy metals by using alternative ingredients, not adding certain pre-mix minerals and vitamins high in toxic metals, or sampling their ingredients from other sources.

Companies that manufacture baby food products should regularly test for toxic heavy metals to avoid their presence in the foods parents buy for their children. At the very least, baby food companies should warn unsuspecting parents of the existence of toxic metals in baby foods. Without robust safety standards, children are at risk for neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism and ADHD.

Yes. Walmart and Beech-Nut have issued baby food recalls for certain products.

The Beech-Nut baby food recall issued in June of 2021 was for Single Grain Rice Cereal item (UPC 52200034705) with expiration date 01MAY2022 and product codes 103470XXXX and 093470XXXX. Beech-Nut recalled the products because heavy metals testing indicated arsenic levels in excess of the FDA’s maximum allowable limit of 100 parts per billion.

The Walmart baby food recall was issued in October of 2021 for Parent’s Choice (Walmart brand) Rice Baby Cereal 8 oz. The products include:

• Lot 21083 | UPC Code #00681131082907 | Best if Used by Date: JUN 24 2022
• Lot 21084 | UPC Code #00681131082907 | Best if Used by Date: JUN 25 2022
• Lot 21242 | UPC Code #00681131082907 | Best if Used by Date: NOV 30 2022

The Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy Committee on Oversight and Reform’s second baby food report issued in September of 2021 noted that public health officials in Alaska tested Gerber and Beech-Nut products and found high levels of arsenic in both brands. Gerber infant rice food tested at 116ppb arsenic, an amount that surpassed the levels detected in Beech-Nut infant rice cereal. But while Beech-Nut issued a recall, Gerber did not. According to the report, Gerber “has taken no such actions to protect consumers” from the heavy metals detected by Alaska public health officials.

With little to no FDA restrictions, baby food manufacturers are free to set their own heavy metals standards for baby food. Until the FDA enacts robust rules for heavy metals in baby foods, government-imposed recalls are unlikely.

To stay updated on company-issued baby food recalls, Very Well Family maintains a recall list that is updated frequently. You can also review the FDA’s alerts and advisories for infant formula and other baby food products.

Some infant formula testing has revealed high levels of heavy metals. The two metals most commonly found in baby formulas are lead and cadmium.

In 2019, Healthy Babies Bright Futures (HBBF) conducted testing on several leading baby formulas. According to the data, all formulas contained detectible arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and lead. Of the 13 formulas tested, 12 had at least 1 ppb lead, and 6 of the 13 had at least 1 ppb cadmium.

There is no safe level of heavy metals exposure for babies and young children. The FDA has set the maximum contaminant levels (MCL) in bottled water at 10 ppb inorganic arsenic, 5 ppb lead, and 5 ppb cadmium. The EPA has capped the allowable level of mercury in drinking water at 2 ppb.

The testing results of baby foods and their ingredients outlined in the 2021 House baby food report significantly exceed those levels. The report cited arsenic levels up to 91 times greater, lead levels up to 177 times greater, cadmium levels up to 69 times greater, and mercury levels up to 5 times greater.

However, it is important to note that the FDA and EPA created those limits in reference to adult exposure, not infants, which is why the high levels of heavy metals exposed in the government report are so alarming.

Not nearly enough, though we hope that will change. In 2021, the FDA announced its “Closer to Zero” action plan to reduce heavy metals in baby foods to levels “as low as possible.” While the plan is a positive step toward protecting children from exposure to heavy metals, it will likely take more than what is in the current version of the plan to truly meet the challenge of reducing heavy metal levels in food closer to zero.

This issue has been around for years, and the FDA has done very little to protect children from heavy metals in their food. Baby food manufacturers are not required to test finished products for toxic heavy metals. No valid explanation exists for this absurd and dangerous policy except to ensure that manufacturers can freely do business without considering the risk to unknowing infants. Baby food companies do not even warn of the substantial presence of toxic heavy metals in their food. We are determined to change this via litigation.

Read food labels before you buy: Pay close attention to the first couple of ingredients in the foods you buy. Ingredients are listed in order of predominance in the product. Some baby food pouches or blends may say “kale and pear” or “pumpkin and spinach,” but in reality, the first couple of ingredients are sweet potatoes, which should be avoided as they typically test high in heavy metals.

Foods with a long list of ingredients should be avoided, as should rice-based foods or foods that include additives like premade vitamin mixes. If you are unsure, check Puremarket to see how your foods rate for heavy metals.

Breastfeed if you can: Some infant formulas test high for heavy metals, so avoid formula feeding if you can. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about six months, then continued breastfeeding for one year or longer as complementary foods are introduced and as mutually desired by mother and infant.

Serve water, not fruit juice: Some fruit juices for kids test for heavy metals at high levels. Sweeten your child’s water with lemon or give them sliced whole fruits rather than packaged fruit juices.

Try making your own purees and baby foods: While most people may not have time to do this, the benefits of making your child’s food at home can help your child avoid heavy metals and other contaminants from packaging and manufacturing. Making baby food can be cost-effective as well, as you can choose which ingredients fit your budget and your child’s taste. If you want more information on getting started making your own organic baby food, we recommend checking out this book.

Unfortunately, serving certified organic baby food products from some manufacturers does not necessarily help your child avoid heavy metals. While organic foods are lower in pesticide levels and have less impact on the environment, testing has shown that some organic baby foods are no safer than conventional foods when it comes to heavy metals.

In 2018, Consumer Reports analyzed 50 nationally distributed packaged foods manufactured for babies and toddlers. Twenty of those products labeled organic were just as likely to contain heavy metals as non-organic products.

No. The type of cases we file are called mass torts. These lawsuits are filed on behalf of parents whose children were diagnosed with autism or ADHD after being exposed to baby foods from several leading brands.

In class action lawsuits, everyone has the same or significantly similar injuries. Therefore, all participants (aside from class representatives) will receive similar amounts of compensation at the end of the case.

A mass tort groups together individual claims or lawsuits before the same court and judge to avoid duplicative discovery and ensure consistent application of laws and procedures. Because the cases are still individual lawsuits, the amount received will not necessarily be uniform. The amount of compensation is based on the actual damages (physical, emotional, and economic) that you have as an individual.

We believe that mass torts offer the best of both worlds when it comes to litigation. By grouping many cases before the same judge, costs are kept down, as any expert testimony, travel, and expenses incurred during discovery can be divided across the whole group. The compensation you receive will more accurately reflect your level of harm instead of being doled out equally to a person who potentially suffered less. Class action lawsuits serve a good purpose. In the baby food litigation, an individualized claim is in parents' best interest.

The easiest way to determine if you have a baby food lawsuit is to fill out our contact form for a free and fast case evaluation. We will review your case immediately and contact you within a matter of days if you are eligible to pursue a lawsuit.

You may have a case if your child developed autism or ADHD after consistently eating baby foods from the following brands:

• Beech-Nut
• Campbell Soup – Plum Organics
• Gerber
• Hain Celestial Group – Earth’s Best Organic
• Nurture – Happy Family Organics and HappyBABY
• Sprout Foods – Sprout Organic Food
• Walmart – Parent’s Choice

It is impossible to predict how much money you could receive from a successful baby food lawsuit. Each case has different damages associated with it, and the extent of a company’s wrongdoing is often not fully discovered until our attorneys get deeper into the litigation process.

Victims generally may be eligible to receive compensation for:

• Past and future medical expenses
• Past and future lost income
• Physical and emotional pain and suffering
• Punitive damages
• Other damages

Roundup is a non-selective herbicide used to kill weeds that compete with agricultural crops. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, works by inhibiting a specific enzyme required for plant growth.

By 2001, Roundup weed killer was the most-used active ingredient in American agriculture, with an estimated 85-90 million pounds used each year. In 2007, that number reached 185 million pounds annually and today, Roundup remains the most widely used herbicide in the United States and worldwide.

Yes, and Monsanto has known about the link between Roundup and cancer for decades.

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.” Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup.

IARC, widely considered the gold standard in the field of cancer research, analyzed all published, peer-reviewed data to come to this conclusion. Per the report, the cancer most associated with glyphosate exposure is non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The link between Roundup and cancer is not just about glyphosate. Roundup is made up of other ingredients that are toxic in and of themselves, and they also work synergistically to increase the toxicity of glyphosate. Monsanto has known this for many years but still refuses to study the link between cancer and the formulated Roundup product people actually use.

Various studies have shown that exposure to glyphosate can cause DNA damage and DNA strand breaks, which is an important precursor to cancer. Indeed, the IARC specifically assessed the genotoxicity of Roundup (the property of chemical agents that damages the genetic information within a cell causing mutations, which may lead to cancer) and concluded that “[t]here is strong evidence that glyphosate causes genotoxicity.”

Additionally, the glyphosate herbicide studies have shown that glyphosate exposure can induce oxidative stress, which is thought to be involved in the development of numerous conditions, including cancer, autism and Parkinson’s disease. When the IARC evaluated whether glyphosate was associated with oxidative stress, the agency concluded that “strong evidence exists that glyphosate . . . can induce oxidative stress.” This could be an important mechanism by which Roundup causes cancer.

In addition to DNA damage and oxidative stress, some scientists have suggested Roundup’s association with various serious health conditions is linked to the effect that Roundup has on the digestive system. Specifically, some scientists believe the same mechanism that makes Roundup toxic to weeds also makes it toxic to the microbes within the human gut. When humans are exposed to Roundup, it leads to a chronic inflammatory state in the gut, as well an impaired gut barrier, which can lead to many long-term health effects, including an increased risk of cancer.

In the IARC Monograph on glyphosate, the researchers conducted a systematic review of over 15 studies designed to assess whether there was an association between Roundup exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

The researchers reviewed each study, identified the results and assessed each study’s strengths and weaknesses. After the evaluation, the IARC concluded that despite the limited evidence concerning the carcinogenicity of glyphosate in humans, a “positive association has been observed for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

In addition to the IARC’s assessment, in 2014, scientists published a systematic review and meta-analysis on the relationship between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticides, including glyphosate, in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. The study showed a statistically significant association between farm workers exposed to Roundup and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The glyphosate study confirmed two smaller studies from 2002 and 2008, published in the journal Leukemia & Lymphoma (2002) and the International Journal on Cancer (2008), both of which also showed a statistically significant increase in non-Hodgkin lymphoma among agricultural workers exposed to glyphosate.

Collectively, these studies suggest that Monsanto Roundup causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma, especially in agricultural workers.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), one of the foremost cancer research authorities in the world, classified glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as a “probable human carcinogen.”

IARC Monograph 112 further concluded that the cancer most associated with glyphosate exposure is non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Additionally, IARC found strong evidence that glyphosate and commercial formulations can be genotoxic and produce oxidative damage.

According to the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), glyphosate is a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer and should be labeled as such under the terms of Proposition 65.

In addition to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, exposure to Roundup weed killer has been linked to the following:

• ADHD
• Alzheimer’s
• Anencephaly
• Autism
• Birth Defects
• Brain Cancer
• Breast Cancer
• Celiac Disease
• Chronic Kidney Disease
• Colitis
• Depression
• Diabetes
• Gluten Intolerance
• Heart Disease
• Hypothyroidism
• Infertility
• Inflammatory Bowel Disease
• Liver disease
• Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS)
• Miscarriage
• Multiple Sclerosis
• Obesity
• Parkinson’s Disease
• Reproductive Issues
• Respiratory Illness

No.

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. The Roundup formulated product sold to consumers is glyphosate plus other ingredients like surfactants, which increase the absorption of glyphosate on the leaves of plants and in human skin. Monsanto is well aware of this fact, as evidenced by a company report from 2001:

“Surfactants are able to increase glyphosate absorption through the skin by (1) removal of lipids (sebum) from the epidermal surface due to surfactant action, (2) increase of the hydration state of the skin (under closed exposure conditions), (3) increase of skin contact (spreading of water droplets by surfactant action), (4) increase of contact time with the skin due to decrease of evaporation of water from the droplets containing surfactant (surfactant monolayer at surface of droplets slows down passage to vapour phase, (5) increase of sub epidermal blood flow due to irritant action of surfactant, (6) intra-epidermal and sub epidermal intercellular water accumulation due to the irritant action of the surfactant.”

The Roundup formulated product you use has not been studied as much as glyphosate. In fact, internal Monsanto emails we obtained in the discovery phase of litigation show that Monsanto has not conducted any carcinogenicity studies on the Roundup formulated product.

In one email exchange, Monsanto executive Richard Garnett noted that studying the Roundup formulation “was not likely to help us.” Another Monsanto executive noted in the same email chain that after abandoning this kind of scientific inquiry, “[w]e are left behind with too many questions…”

“…the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.” – Dr. William Heydens, Monsanto Executive

Yes. According to a U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) spokesperson, Roundup “is much more toxic” than glyphosate in isolation.

This question is arguably more important than the toxicity of glyphosate because the formulated Roundup product is what people, animals and the environment are actually exposed to. Industry testing underlying the regulatory authorizations for Roundup have always been conducted on glyphosate by itself, even though the Roundup product contains other ingredients called surfactants and adjuvants.

According to various studies, other ingredients in Roundup may increase the toxicity of glyphosate by enabling the chemical to become more bioavailable and penetrate plant and animal cells with greater ease than glyphosate alone.

Monsanto is acutely aware of this. According to internal company documents from 2003, a top company scientist said:

“You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.” – Donna Farmer, Monsanto

In May of 2018, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) issued a preliminary report on its evaluation of glyphosate formulations. According to Mike DeVito, acting chief of the NTP Laboratory, “[w]e see the formulations are much more toxic. The formulations were killing the cells.”

The following list details the percentage of glyphosate in specific Roundup products:

• Roundup QuikPRO is 73.3% glyphosate
• Roundup Custom is 53.8% glyphosate
• Roundup PRO Concentrate is 50.2% glyphosate
• Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate is 50.2% glyphosate
• Roundup ProMAX is 48.7% glyphosate
• Roundup Original is 41% glyphosate
• Roundup Max Control 365 Concentrate is 18% glyphosate
• Roundup Poison Ivy Concentrate Plus is 18% glyphosate
• Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate Plus is 18% glyphosate
• Roundup Extended Control Concentrate is 18% glyphosate
• Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass Killer is 2% glyphosate
• Roundup Precision Gel is 1% glyphosate
• Roundup Extended Control is 1% glyphosate
• Roundup Ready-to-Use Poison Ivy is 1% glyphosate

• Monsanto:
  • Aquamaster®
  • Bronco®
  • Campaign®
  • Expedite®
  • Fallow Master®
  • Honcho®
  • Landmaster®
  • Pondmaster®
  • Protocol®
  • Ranger®
  • Roundup®
  • RT 3®
• Dow AgroSciences:
  • Accord®
  • Durango®
  • Duramax®
  • Glyphomax®
  • Glypro®
  • Rodeo®
• DuPont:
  • Abundit Extra®
• Cenex / Land O’Lakes:
  • Silhouette®
• Helena:
  • Rattler®
  • Hoss Ultra®
  • Showdown®
• Loveland:
  • Mirage®
  • KleenUp®
  • Makaze®
  • Mad Dog®
• Riverside/Terra:
  • Jury®
• Syngenta:
  • Touchdown®

In 1985, the eight members of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicology branch signed a consensus review classifying glyphosate as a possible carcinogen based on studies that showed tumor growth among rodents treated with glyphosate. According to the EPA scientists who reviewed the studies, glyphosate appeared to cause testicular tumors in male rats, thyroid tumors in female rats and a rare form of kidney tumor in mice.

The mice finding was what led EPA to classify glyphosate as a “possible” carcinogen. At the time of this classification, Roundup had already been on the market for over a decade.

However, documents obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests by Carey Gillam from U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) show that a Monsanto manager responded to the EPA’s glyphosate classification by arranging for the kidney tumor slides to be reexamined by an academic pathologist — a man who could “persuade the agency that the observed tumors are not related to glyphosate.”

The pathologist did exactly that and found a tumor among the control mice that nobody else (including the EPA scientists) could find, which effectively called into question the scientific conclusions gleaned from the tumors among the mice treated with glyphosate.

Monsanto argued that in lieu of the single observed control group tumor, it should be given another opportunity to test glyphosate. But when the agency asked Monsanto to repeat the rodent study (it was, in fact, Monsanto’s study to begin with), Monsanto declined. (A “control group” is the group in an experiment or clinical trial that does not receive the same treatment as the experiment group(s).)

In the end, Monsanto’s stonewalling and influence allowed glyphosate to be downgraded from a Group C carcinogen (“possibly” carcinogenic to humans) in 1985 to a Group D carcinogen (“not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity”) in 1986. The EPA reviewed the data on glyphosate again in 1991 and downgraded the chemical yet again to Group E (“evidence of noncarcinogenicity in humans”).

Not all of the EPA scientists on the 1991 panel agreed with the conclusion. In fact, two of the scientists would not even sign the paper that classified glyphosate to Group E.

After six years of pressure from Monsanto to change the EPA’s glyphosate classification from possible carcinogen to no evidence of carcinogenicity, the agency has stuck with the Group E classification ever since.

IARC is widely considered the worldwide gold standard in the field of cancer research. As an independent agency, its sole mission is human health.

Seventeen world-renowned scholars came to a unanimous determination on glyphosate in IARC’s 2015 Monograph. Dr. Aaron Blair, who only recently retired from the U.S. National Cancer Institute after a career spanning decades, led the IARC Working Group in drafting the glyphosate Monograph.

IARC’s glyphosate Monograph is up-to-date. After reviewing all relevant and available research, the Working Group considered a broad range of evidence, including human epidemiology and other peer-reviewed studies.

The EPA’s last assessment of glyphosate was conducted in 1993, though the agency is expected to release a new report on glyphosate sometime in 2019. In its 1993 assessment, the EPA relied almost entirely on industry-funded studies and did not analyze epidemiological data.

While the EPA is also charged with protecting human health, the agency’s ties to Monsanto have become a cause for concern. A trove of documents that are now a part of The Monsanto Papers show that EPA officials may have colluded with Monsanto to quash another U.S. agency’s review of glyphosate. According to the documents, Monsanto was worried about the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) becoming “a domestic IARC…” with its review of glyphosate.

“I think it’s very clear… that EPA officials and Monsanto employees worked together to accomplish a goal of stopping that analysis at ATSDR. That is collusion. I don’t know what else you’d call that,” says Wisner Baum attorney R. Brent Wisner.

Our firm represents a wide range of individuals who were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) after using Roundup. Most of our clients are individuals who sprayed Roundup around their home or business. We also represent government workers, farmers, agricultural workers, gardeners, landscapers and others.

For years, Monsanto has claimed (and continues to claim) that Roundup is safe. However, numerous studies have found statistically significant links between Roundup and a host of serious health issues, including cancer. Even Monsanto’s own studies on Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, have shown that Roundup is not as safe as Monsanto claims.

In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), one of the foremost cancer research authorities in the world, classified the active ingredient in Roundup (glyphosate) as a probable human carcinogen. The IARC report further concluded that the cancer most associated with exposure to glyphosate is non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The Roundup cancer litigation seeks to hold Monsanto accountable for failing to warn the public about the link between Roundup exposure and cancer. Monsanto has known for decades about the link between Roundup and cancer, but has continued to market its product as safe, putting profit over human safety.

There have been three Roundup cancer trials against Monsanto, all of them successful for the plaintiffs. Our law firm served on all three trial teams for these cases.

1. Johnson v. Monsanto – $289M verdict on 8/10/2018
2. Hardeman v. Monsanto – $80M verdict on 3/27/2019
3. Pilliod et al., v. Monsanto – $2.055 billion verdict on 5/13/2019

Monsanto (now Bayer) announced a settlement on June 24, 2020. Our law firm issued the following statement:

Wisner Baum Statement regarding Roundup Litigation Settlement: Wisner Baum is pleased with the settlement. It is a big first step in correcting the forty years of harm caused by glyphosate. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is devastating. Over the last four years, as we have pressed this litigation forward despite innumerable obstacles, we have had tremendous success in a few important cases. But, those successes have been tempered with the fact that many of our clients continue to suffer from the consequences of cancer. This settlement is for everyone and should help our clients rebuild and move forward in a meaningful way. Actual settlement amounts are yet to be determined, and each of our clients will be made an individual offer based on the facts of their case. For now, however, this is an important and historic day in the fight to protect consumers from harmful pesticides. And, while the story of glyphosate is not over-- there are likely many fights surrounding cancer, food safety, and GMOs to be had-- this chapter of the glyphosate litigation is over.

Only a governmental entity can ban a chemical. The purpose of the Johnson case and others like it is to hold Monsanto accountable for failing to warn that Roundup can cause cancer and to compensate individuals for the damages (cancer) caused by Roundup use.

California’s EPA, known as The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), added glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer, to the state’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer on July 2, 2017. Within about a year of OEHHA’s decision, a warning label would normally be added to the Roundup label, however Monsanto sued OEHHA to stop this from happening. In June 2020 the judge overseeing the case decided in favor of Monsanto and said that it would violate the company’s right to free speech if they were required to include a cancer warning on its Roundup products.

While an outright ban is not likely in the short term, some communities in California have banned glyphosate (Roundup). To see a comprehensive list of many cities, states and countries restricting and banning Roundup, view our Where is Glyphosate Banned page.

The Monsanto Papers are a collection of internal Monsanto documents unearthed during the discovery phase of the federal Monsanto Roundup litigation. The documents consist of internal Monsanto emails, text messages, reports, reviews, studies, and other memoranda.

A judge overseeing the federal Monsanto Roundup litigation declassified the first batch of documents and published them on the website of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 14 and 15, 2017. Wisner Baum released the second batch of Monsanto secret documents on August 1, 2017. We have released more and more declassified documents since that time with December 2, 2019 being our most recent batch.

The Monsanto Papers tell an alarming story of ghostwriting, scientific manipulation, collusion with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and previously undisclosed information about how the human body absorbs glyphosate. These documents provide a deeper understanding of the serious public health consequences associated with Monsanto’s conduct in marketing Roundup.

Some key revelations in the Monsanto Papers:

• Monsanto hardly tested the toxicity of the Roundup formulated product.
• Monsanto actively avoided conducting studies on glyphosate and the Roundup formulation that might cast doubt as to the safety of its products.
• Monsanto ghostwrote studies that were supposed to be conducted by independent scientists.
• Monsanto implemented a PR strategy to attack scientists who called into question the safety of its products.

The Roundup cancer litigation is not about getting rid of Roundup; it is about Monsanto’s failure to warn people that exposure to Roundup can lead to cancer, something Monsanto has known for decades.

Monsanto should warn consumers about the cancer link so that people have the opportunity to know what they are consuming and at what cost. Instead, Monsanto continues to tout Roundup as safe and attacks scientists or anyone else who says anything to the contrary. Meanwhile, many men, women, and children exposed to Roundup are getting sick.

In essence, this litigation is about Monsanto being held to account for depriving consumers of information needed to make an educated decision on whether or not to purchase and use a product that can cause harm. Monsanto has robbed them of this choice.

If Monsanto had put a warning label on Roundup when it first learned of the cancer link, there would not be any litigation to speak of.

Monsanto continues to keep consumers in the dark about the dangers surrounding Roundup. Our firm will continue to fight for and on behalf of consumers to bring those dangers to light and hold Monsanto accountable for failing to warn.

On June 20, 2017, six individuals from Wisconsin, Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey, and Florida filed a class action lawsuit against Monsanto alleging the company falsely promoted Roundup as interfering with an enzyme found only in plants, but not “in people or pets.”

According to the complaint, Monsanto’s marketing claim that Roundup is safe—because it targets an enzyme that is not found in people or pets—is “false, misleading, and deceptive, as the enzyme that glyphosate targets is found in people and pets—specifically, in beneficial gut bacteria.”

Glyphosate kills weeds by interfering with the “shikimate pathway,” a metabolic sequence that synthesizes vital amino acids. Glyphosate disrupts the shikimate pathway by interfering with 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP), an enzyme that governs aromatic amino acid formation.

Beneficial bacteria in the human gut (and the guts of other mammals) produces and utilizes EPSP synthase. Our immune systems depend on this beneficial gut bacteria.

Plaintiffs in the case are seeking compensation for themselves and class members equal to the amount they paid for Roundup products, which they would never have purchased had they been adequately informed that glyphosate targets an enzyme that exists in both humans and animals, contrary to Roundup’s marketing.

On Aug. 10, 2018, a San Francisco, California jury awarded $289.2 million to Dewayne “Lee” Johnson in the first Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial. The jury verdict included $39.2 million for compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages.

Claims for damages and future verdicts and settlements in each Roundup lawsuit will vary in accordance with each individual situation and the rules of the court where a particular case is filed. These are some of the most common damages pursued by claimants:

• Medical Expenses
• Lost Wages or Income
• Reduced Earning Capacity
• Personal Injury
• Pain and Suffering
• Wrongful Death (if a loved one passed away from NHL)

Glyphosate (or N-phosphonomethyl-glycine) is one of the world’s most widely used broad-spectrum herbicides, accounting for roughly 25 percent of the world herbicide market. Glyphosate herbicide is widely utilized in agriculture because it is a cost-effective, easy to use compound that kills weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses competing with crops. While it is true that glyphosate products are mostly used in agriculture, some countries also use glyphosate herbicide to control unwanted weed growth in forestry, gardening and in non-cultivated places, like industrial areas and along highways.

Glyphosate herbicide exposure is most common among farm workers and those living near farmland. Exposure to glyphosate herbicide can happen in a number of ways, including:

• Contact with skin
• Contact with eyes
• Inhaling during usage
• Swallowing (if you have not properly washed your hands after usage)

Roundup (glyphosate) is a Monsanto herbicide used by farmers, gardeners, maintenance workers, agricultural workers, and many others as an all-purpose weed killer. Since Roundup first entered the market in the 1970s, Monsanto has denied claims that Roundup causes cancer, insisting that Roundup is safe. A Monsanto advertisement once noted that Roundup is “safer than table salt.”

But according to internal Monsanto emails now known throughout the world as The Monsanto Papers, Monsanto has known for several decades that Roundup (glyphosate) causes cancer. Rather than informing consumers about the glyphosate cancer risk, Monsanto buried the risks as sales of Roundup continued to skyrocket.

In March of 2015, IARC surveyed the published research on Roundup cancer links and concluded the blockbuster herbicide is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The cancer agency further concluded that the cancer most associated with exposure to glyphosate is non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Outraged by Monsanto’s deception, more than 100,000 people have made the decision to file a Roundup lawsuit alleging exposure to Roundup causes cancer.

No, the individual Roundup lawsuits over the link to non-Hodgkin lymphoma are not part of a Monsanto class action. The individual Roundup cancer lawsuits seek remedy for injuries (non-Hodgkin lymphoma) sustained as a result of being exposed to Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate.

Roundup class actions against Monsanto are related to allegations of false and misleading information on the Roundup label and don’t involve personal injury or wrongful death claims. According to the class actions, Monsanto continues to mislead consumers by representing glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as targeting an enzyme that is “found in plants but not in people or pets.”

The Monsanto class actions (filed in multiple states) allege that the enzyme glyphosate targets exist in people and pets. Per the class actions:

“Glyphosate functions as a biocide by inhibiting the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (“EPSP”) synthase, disrupting the fifth of six enzymatic steps in the shikimate pathway, which processes aromatic amino acids in certain organisms. Although humans and other mammals themselves do not have a shikimate pathway, the shikimate pathway is present in bacteria, including beneficial bacteria that inhabit the mammalian gut and are essential to overall health. EPSP is therefore “found in . . . people [and] pets. Just like it inhibits EPSP synthase in weeds, the active ingredient in Roundup inhibits EPSP synthase in these human and pet gut bacteria, and just like it targets weeds, the active ingredient in Roundup targets the human and pet gut bacteria.”

Individual lawsuits against Monsanto seek remedy for personal injuries (non-Hodgkin lymphoma) sustained as a result of exposure to Roundup. Farmers, farm workers, horticulturalists, landscapers, gardeners, government employees, and a host of other people have filed individual lawsuits against Monsanto based on allegations that Monsanto knew about the link between exposure to Roundup and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but failed to warn consumers.

The Monsanto Roundup class action, on the other hand, involves consumers who say they would never have purchased Roundup products had they known that glyphosate targets an enzyme that exists in the human body and the bodies of certain mammals, contrary to Monsanto’s marketing.

Anyone who purchased certain Roundup products and are not participating in a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit can participate in the Monsanto class action over the misbranding of Roundup. Claimants are not required to prove that they suffered personal injuries as a result of using the product, only that they purchased the product.

Wisner Baumare not only amazing attorneys, but more importantly they are activists. They are about changing the systems which got us into trouble in the first place. They understand their role in the process of making change. Attorneys have the fortunate ability to go into the company files during the investigative process. They see the companies’ behaviors and work hard at getting confidential documents declassified that have true public health benefit. — Kim Witczak.

Read more from our clients

Yes. According to numerous studies, exposure to Roundup increases the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Below are some of the studies demonstrating the link between Roundup exposure and NHL:

• Genotoxic activity of glyphosate and its technical formulation Roundup
• Systematic review and meta-analysis of glyphosate exposure and risk of lymphohematopoietic cancers
• Integrative assessment of multiple pesticides as risk factors for non-Hodgkin lymphoma among men
• Exposure to pesticides as risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia: pooled analysis of two Swedish case-control studies
• Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and specific pesticide exposures in men: cross-Canada study of pesticides and health
• Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Studies show that exposure to Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, can cause DNA damage and DNA strand breaks, an important precursor to cancer. IARC specifically assessed the genotoxicity of Roundup (the property of chemical agents that damages the genetic information within a cell causing mutations, which may lead to cancer) and concluded that “[t]here is strong evidence that glyphosate causes genotoxicity.”

Roundup exposure can also induce oxidative stress, which is thought to be involved in the development of numerous conditions, including cancer, autism, and Parkinson’s disease. In addition to DNA damage and oxidative stress, some scientists have suggested Roundup exposure can lead to a chronic inflammatory state in the gut, as well an impaired gut barrier, which can increase the risk of cancer.

The False Claims Act (FCA) is a law that rewards whistleblowers who come forward to report fraud against the government. The whistleblower may receive a large financial reward based on the amount of money the government recovers. The FCA and related statutes also provide protection to legitimate whistleblowers that face retaliation from their employers because they reported fraud or improper conduct.

Do not discuss this information with anyone, as people you talk to may decide to file the case themselves. Unfortunately, in these cases, it’s a “race to the courthouse” and the person who files the case with the government first usually wins. Write down everything you know about the corporate misconduct involved. What laws, regulations, or safety procedures were violated? What are the potential financial, health, and safety consequences of this misconduct? Be as specific as possible and do not exaggerate. You will need to help us quantify, as accurately as possible, the amount of money your company fraudulently obtained from the government.

No. In many cases, it is helpful if you continue working at your company and can collect more evidence. If circumstances compel you to leave, however, you should do so. We can still make a strong case on your behalf.

Unfortunately, whistleblowers are sometimes fired. In addition to the financial rewards available to someone who reports fraud against the government, whistleblower laws also provide protection to employees who face retaliation from their employer for filing a complaint. That can mean being reinstated to your job, double back pay and reimbursement for all legal expenses.

Filing a whistleblower lawsuit with Wisner Baum as your legal representation will not cost you anything.

That’s a decision only you can make. Although it is not easy to come forward, you have an opportunity to do the right thing – to say “No” to corporate fraud and wrongdoing. Blowing the whistle on fraud will help put a stop to such conduct, protect the health and safety of the public and prevent this type of behavior from happening again.

No, you will not be alone. Filing a whistleblower lawsuit can be a long journey, but we’ll be there to help and guide you through the entire process. You will be able to contact Mark at any time, and he will be there to protect your rights and support you every step of the way. When Mark represents whistleblowers, they are both a client and a friend.

CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) machines are medical devices used to treat people with obstructive sleep apnea. CPAP sleep machines send a steady flow of oxygen to the nose and mouth, keeping the airway open and allowing the patient to breathe normally. CPAP machines have motors that generate oxygen, which travels through a filter and a flexible tube before reaching the mask, sealed around the patient’s nose and mouth.

Sleep apnea is a serious sleeping disorder where a person’s breathing repeatedly starts and stops. It is the most common sleeping disorder in the U.S.

There are three types of sleep apnea:

• Obstructive Sleep Apnea – Obstructive sleep apnea happens when an individual’s throat muscles intermittently relax, blocking the airway during sleep. It is the most common type of sleep apnea, affecting an estimated one in 15 people in the U.S.
• Central Sleep Apnea – Central sleep apnea happens when an individual’s brain does not send the proper messages to the muscles that control breathing. This study estimates that .9% of people over 40 have central sleep apnea.
• Complex Sleep Apnea Syndrome – Complex sleep apnea, also known as treatment-emergent central sleep apnea, occurs when a person presents with both obstructive sleep apnea and central sleep apnea.

The polyester-based polyurethane foam used in the recalled Philips breathing machines may degrade over time. This degradation may allow particles to flow into the affected CPAP, BiPAP, and ventilator air pathways, which then causes the person using the device to breathe in the particles. As Philips said in its clinical information, the “absence of visible particles does not mean that foam breakdown has not already begun.” This means that even if you can’t see foam degradation on your sleeping machine, you still may be inhaling toxic particles. Philips has already admitted the presence of the following:

• Toluene Diamine: According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in animal studies, toluene-2,4-diamine was found to be a carcinogen following dietary administration. EPA noted a significant increase in the incidence of a many different tumor types, including liver, mammary gland, subcutaneous fibromas, lung lymphomas, and leukemia.
• Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI): The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the gold standard for carcinogenicity testing, classifies TDI as a possible human carcinogen. IARC came to its conclusion based on sufficient evidence in experimental animals and inadequate evidence in humans. This study notes that TDI is a “well-known sensitizer and cause of occupational asthma.”
• Diethylene Glycol: Associated with renal failure (acute kidney injury).
• Dimethyl Diazene: Also known as azomethane. The oxide derivative of this compound is azoxymethane, a known carcinogen.
• Phenol, 2,6-bis (1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-(1-methylpropyl): According to EPA, Phenol is considered toxic to humans via oral exposure. Anorexia, a dark coloration of the urine, diarrhea, progressive weight loss, salivation, vertigo, and blood and liver effects have been reported in chronically (long-term) exposed humans. Animal studies have shown reduced fetal body weights, growth retardation, and abnormal development in the offspring among animals exposed to phenol by the oral route.

If you were diagnosed with cancer after using one of the affected Philips recall products above, you may be eligible to pursue compensation in a CPAP lawsuit. The fastest way to find out more about your eligibility is to contact our firm as soon as you are able. Our legal team will evaluate your case and let you know if you can proceed with a claim.

According to Bloomberg, researchers discovered the possibility of a link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer about 45 years ago. Johnson & Johnson, which brought in an estimated $374 million in 2014 from talcum product sales, has denied this link for decades despite the growing body of peer-reviewed research underscoring the ovarian cancer and talcum powder link.

Below are some of the major talcum powder cancer studies:

• 1971 – Researchers found talc particles while studying the ovarian cellular tissues of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer. The study, which was published in The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British Commonwealth, warned that the “potentially harmful effects of talc…in the ovary…should not be ignored.” This is when the medical community first became aware that talc particles can easily migrate from the vagina into the reproductive organs when baby powder is used for feminine hygiene.
• 1982 – A study published in the medical journal Cancer showed the first statistical link between feminine hygiene talcum powder use and ovarian cancer. This study found that women who used sanitary napkins with talcum powder were three times more likely to develop ovarian cancer when compared to those who didn’t use sanitary napkins with talcum powder.
• 1992 – A Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology study which found that frequent use of baby powder increases a woman’s risk of developing ovarian cancer threefold. The same year, an internal Johnson & Johnson memo stated that “negative publicity from the health community on talc (inhalation, dust, negative doctor endorsement, cancer linkage) continues.” While acknowledging this negative publicity surrounding reported health risks, the memo also made a recommendation to “investigate ethnic (African-American, Hispanic) opportunities to grow the franchise,” noting that African-American and Hispanic women account for a large proportion of J&J’s baby powder sales.
• 1997 – An American Journal of Epidemiology study affirmed that perineal talcum powder use contributes to the risk of developing cancer. The baby powder cancer study further suggested that the use of talcum genital deodorant sprays also contribute to cancer growth.
• 2003 – Anticancer Research performed a meta-analysis of 16 talcum powder studies and found “statistically significant” data suggesting that feminine hygiene use of talcum powder increased the risk developing ovarian cancer by 33 percent. Nonetheless, the study reported no causal relationship.
• 2008 – In a study published by Cancer Epidemiology, researchers from Harvard University compared approximately 1,400 women, who had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer, to 1,800 healthy women. The baby powder cancer study found that the use of talcum powder was associated with a 36 percent increased risk of developing ovarian cancer.
• 2013 – A Cancer Prevention Research study found that feminine hygiene use of talcum powder was associated with a 20 to 30 percent increased risk in developing ovarian cancer.

The results of the last three studies prompted the World Health Organization (WHO) to classify talc as a “possible human carcinogen.” It should be noted that the studies listed above are not the only ones to find a link between baby powder and ovarian cancer. Since 1982, there have been at least 20 other epidemiological studies finding that long-term use of baby powder for feminine hygiene increases one’s risk of developing ovarian cancer.

Research on asbestos-contaminated talc has shown that higher levels of contamination increase the risk of mesothelioma. Talc of different grades can contain varying levels of asbestos, with industrial talc having the highest, reaching up to 70%. Testing of cosmetic talc since the late 1960s has revealed contamination levels ranging from zero to 30% asbestos.

Below is some of the research linking asbestos-contaminated talcum powder to mesothelioma:

• In 2023, researchers reported 166 cases of mesothelioma linked to exposure to cosmetic talc products. In 122 of these cases, cosmetic talc was the sole source of asbestos exposure.
• A review published in May 2021 by Italian researchers focused on primary ovarian mesothelioma and included a case study of a patient who used talcum powder on their perineal area from 1933 to 1980.
• In April 2021, a review on talc inhalation toxicity highlighted an increase in mesothelioma and lung cancer cases among talc miners and millers. The study also reported instances of mesothelioma and asbestosis in metal casting workers using asbestos-contaminated talc.
• In March 2021, a case series documented 75 patients with pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma. The only known exposure to asbestos came from contaminated talcum powder.
• A study from 2019 published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine examined 33 mesothelioma cases where asbestos exposure was solely due to the use of talcum powder contaminated with asbestos.
• A 2002 exposure study identified a higher prevalence of mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung diseases among talc miners in upstate New York, specifically in St. Lawrence and Jefferson counties.

Baby powder is made from talc, which is a mineral primarily comprised of magnesium, silicon and oxygen. Plaintiffs in the litigation against Johnson & Johnson allege talcum powder products contain asbestos, which is a highly carcinogenic mineral often found next to talc underground. Additionally, when talcum powder is used on the genitals, talc particles can easily migrate from the vagina into the ovaries, where they remain trapped. These trapped talc particles cause inflammation, which can lead to the growth of cancer cells.

Despite the volume of studies pointing to the connection between baby powder and ovarian cancer, neither Johnson & Johnson nor the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ever warned consumers in the United States about the health risks.

Even after scientists with the National Toxicology Program (an arm of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) voted 13-2 to list feminine hygiene use of talcum powder as a possible human carcinogen, Johnson & Johnson has continued to deny the link to ovarian cancer and refused to put a warning label on its baby powder products – although in May 2020, the company made the extraordinary decision to pull its talc-based Baby Powder from North American markets.

Time and time again, Johnson & Johnson has referred to the volume of studies finding a link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer as inconclusive or “junk science.” This stance, as well as the company’s failure to inform the public about the link between baby powder and cancer, has compelled over 1,000 women to file baby powder cancer lawsuits over the last eight years.

This period is especially risky because:

• Vegetation has dried out after the summer heat
• Fall winds are the strongest
• There has been little to no rainfall for several months

Yes. Northern California's fire season often peaks slightly earlier (July-September) than Southern California's (August-November) due to different climate patterns and wind conditions.

Most standard homeowner's insurance policies in California cover wildfire damage. Typical homeowner’s policies include coverage for:

• Home or dwelling
• Other structures (detached garage, storage shed, and more)
• Personal belongings (appliances, electronics, and other furnishings)
• Additional living expenses if the home becomes uninhabitable
• Landscaping

However, homeowners must carefully review their specific policy details, as coverage limits can vary. We recommend homeowners periodically review their insurance needs to ensure they have adequate coverage.

The California FAIR Plan provides an alternative for homeowners who find it challenging to secure a suitable policy for their home. The FAIR Plan is a state-mandated program designed to offer basic fire insurance for high-risk properties that cannot obtain coverage through the traditional market. Although Fair Plan policies offer some coverage, it is often the case that they do not offer enough to allow a homeowner to rebuild what they lost. With the increased frequency and severity of wildfires throughout California, some insurance companies have unfortunately become more selective about providing coverage in areas deemed “high-risk.” This forces more and more homeowners to secure a Fair Plan policy and are placed at risk of being underinsured in the event of a disaster.

No. Wildfire lawyers typically file every case individually, and all the victims of a wildfire will generally be coordinated in one court in front of one judge. This is generally called a “mass action.” A mass action generally allows for greater compensation for each wildfire victim who elects to pursue their rights and lowers overall costs for each individual plaintiff as they can share the costs in pursuing the utility company for damages.

Mass actions share similarities with class actions:

• Both involve many claimants (hundreds or even thousands) who were harmed.
• Both are filed against common defendants that allegedly caused harm.
• All claims are consolidated into one courtroom with one judge rather than individual lawsuits.
• Procedurally, this optimizes a large number of similar court cases against the same defendant(s).

The critical difference between the two is how the plaintiffs are treated. In a class action, the class representative stands for the large group of plaintiffs known as “the class.” All class members suffered similar harm as a result of the defendant’s actions or inactions. The class representative sues the defendant(s) on behalf of the entire class, which means all class members are treated as one individual plaintiff; the fate of the class representative determines the fate of the class.

In a mass action, each plaintiff is treated individually, even though their claim is part of a large group. As such, each individual can establish how, and to what extent, they were harmed by the defendant(s) conduct based on the facts of their unique case. In this way, each plaintiff can seek and recover fully for his or her losses regardless of the amount of loss of any other plaintiff.

If you are uninsured or underinsured (your policy lacks fire coverage) and your home or property was destroyed or damaged, you still have the right to pursue compensation for your losses in a lawsuit against any entities responsible for causing the wildfire. For the uninsured, a wildfire lawsuit is likely your best option for recovering any losses incurred as a result of the fire (though not the only option, as some victims may receive relief from FEMA, for example). Wisner Baum will work to obtain maximum compensation for our clients whether they have homeowner’s insurance or not.

Pursuing a legal remedy against a utility company for damages stemming from a California wildfire requires a complex inquiry. Victims must establish that one or more of the following can be proved with legally sufficient evidence:

• The utility company’s equipment caused the wildfire.
• The actions or inactions of utility company personnel caused the wildfire.
• The utility company’s policies or procedures were negligent or otherwise violated the law, leading to the cause of the fire.
• Another entity caused or contributed to the start or the spread of the fire.

To properly handle your case, you need an experienced California wildfire lawyer to investigate and advocate on your behalf.

At the start of your wildfire claim, our legal team will ask questions and gather information from you, such as a list of property losses and any other relevant documents to help get your claim(s) filed quickly and accurately. We will thoroughly explore with you the full extent of the losses you suffered so as to be able to fully advise you of your rights.

If you do, we then swing into action on your behalf. We will help you answer any questions from your insurance company or parties named in the litigation as they arise. In addition to written questions, some plaintiffs may be asked to sit for depositions. These are opportunities for the defense to find out more about the claims being made in your case. We will draw on any number of experts we have used for years to help adequately evaluate your loss, such as a general contractor to determine your home’s value, or an arborist to determine the value of your landscaping. Again, we will help make this process as streamlined, comfortable, and simple as possible.

Choose an experienced attorney to represent you. The first thing you will need to do is choose an experienced Gardasil attorney to handle your case. Vaccine claims are complex, so hiring a law firm with a proven track record of success in litigating defective pharmaceutical product cases is a must. We have extensive experience in this field.

We will help you file your claim with the Vaccine Court. Individuals who were harmed after receiving the Gardasil 4 or Gardasil 9 HPV vaccine must file a claim against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), also known as “Vaccine Court.” The VICP provides compensation to individuals who file a claim and are found to have been injured by a VICP-covered vaccine (Gardasil is a covered vaccine). After filing a claim in vaccine court, however, it is possible to file a lawsuit in civil court against the manufacturer.

If you do not get approved for a settlement or choose not to accept the settlement, we are prepared to file a lawsuit on your behalf in civil court. In the event the VICP court decides that, in its opinion, a petitioner has not been harmed by the VICP-covered vaccine and a settlement is not reached, the petitioner may file a Gardasil lawsuit in civil court to seek compensation for their injuries from the manufacturer. Rest assured, we will guide you to help you understand your options and help you determine what is the right next step for you.

The deception surrounding Gardasil applies to both consumers and the medical community alike. Merck & Co. manipulated people by “repeatedly stating, representing, urging and implying” that it was necessary for girls and young women to take the Gardasil vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, according to allegations in lawsuits filed in civil court. Doctors were also allegedly manipulated by Merck’s claims of safety and efficacy.

No. Wisner Baum represents individuals who were harmed by HPV vaccine side effects in personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. Some individual lawsuits against Merck have been consolidated in a Gardasil multidistrict litigation (MDL) in North Carolina federal court, but these cases are not part of a Gardasil class action.

Multidistrict litigation is a legal process that simplifies complex litigation involving numerous cases of individuals who have suffered harm from the same product or incident. Unlike class action lawsuits, which consolidate multiple plaintiffs into one case, an MDL involves grouping similar cases and hearing them in a single court. MDLs typically involve numerous personal injury cases related to physical injuries caused by a defective product, in this case, Gardasil.

The primary aim of an MDL is to centralize civil lawsuits filed across the country that have common liability claims against the same defendant(s). The MDL process avoids duplication of discovery, and other legal proceedings, reducing the burden of federal district courts and improving efficiency. The MDL court ensures multiple plaintiffs' cases are handled fairly and effectively while protecting each individual's rights and ensuring justice is served.

The two main autoimmune side effects currently being prepared for trial in the Gardasil MDL are postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and premature ovarian failure (POF), also known as primary ovarian insufficiency. See the detailed list of alleged side effects.

In a 2020 peer-reviewed study, Dr. Jørgensen and other researchers analyzed the available clinical trial data for all HPV vaccines, including Gardasil. The researchers found that the HPV vaccines were associated with a nearly two-fold increased risk of POTS. The study authors further reported that "HPV vaccines increased serious nervous disorders."

One lawsuit alleged Gardasil contains "dangerous and undisclosed ingredients”. Gardasil contains various ingredients including amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS), polysorbate 80, and other components that are capable of causing adverse reactions. See detailed information about Gardasil ingredients and their potential effects.

Evidence that Gardasil prevents cancer is remarkably weak. Cervical cancer causes 1 death in 43,500 Americans, with a median age of cervical cancer diagnosis at 50. Merck tested Gardasil against lesions (CIN2 and CIN3), not cancer itself. Only a small fraction of these lesions ever progress to cancer. See detailed effectiveness information and statistics.

No. Individuals may only file a Gardasil lawsuit against Merck if their VICP petition does not result in acceptable compensation. Because Gardasil is a covered vaccine, all claims must first go through petition under VICP (Vaccine Court). If your case is rejected, you may file a Gardasil lawsuit against Merck & Co. in civil court.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act provides that an individual may bring a civil lawsuit under certain circumstances, and if such a lawsuit is in accordance with the provisions of the Act, including:

1. File a petition with The United States Court of Federal Claims (Vaccine Court);
2. Either wait the required 240 days for the petition to be resolved in Vaccine Court or await receipt of a Judgment from the Vaccine Court; and,
3. Elect to opt-out from the Vaccine Court after the passage of 240 days, or reject the Judgment from the Vaccine Court and file a lawsuit in civil court directly against the vaccine manufacturer.

1. An individual files a petition with the Court against HHS under the VICP. The Court sends both the Department of Justice (DOJ) and HHS notification of the petition.
2. HHS reviews the petition and determines if the petitioner's claims meet its medical criteria for compensation. HHS then makes a preliminary recommendation to DOJ. HHS includes its position in a DOJ report, which is submitted to the Court.
3. The report is presented to a court-appointed special master who decides whether the petitioner should be compensated. The petitioner may appeal the decision.
4. If the special master does not allow for compensation, the petitioner may reject the decision of the Court (or withdraw their claims after certain timelines are met) and file a lawsuit against Merck & Co. in civil court. Wisner Baum will file this lawsuit on your behalf.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services created the VICP to compensate individuals and families of individuals who were injured by covered vaccines. Gardasil is one of many covered vaccines.

Instead of filing a lawsuit against a vaccine maker in civil court, individuals who allege they were harmed by a covered vaccine file a petition for compensation against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Those who are eligible may recover compensation for vaccine injury-related medical and rehabilitative expenses, for pain and suffering, and lost earnings.

Absolutely not. We believe that vaccines have the potential to eradicate disease and save millions of lives. We are, however, against intentional efforts to mislead consumers about the safety and effectiveness of a drug or vaccine. Our firm has always fought—and will continue to fight—for the rights of consumers to be fully and honestly informed about risks associated with any drug, vaccine, medical device, or consumer product. We will work tirelessly to ensure those rights are defended and victims of injustice are compensated for their injuries.

Zantac is the brand name for ranitidine. Chemically known as ranitidine hydrochloride (or ranitidine Hcl), Zantac belongs to a class of drugs called histamine H2-receptor antagonists (or H2 blockers), which decrease the amount of acid produced by the stomach.

Common uses for Zantac include the treatment of acid reflux, heartburn, and a host of other stomach, throat, and gastrointestinal issues. Others use Zantac for allergies to supplement their treatment regimen.

Zantac dosage varies between 75 and 150 mg tablets, though some patients take a once daily Zantac 300 mg dosage. Some common Zantac and generic ranitidine products include:

• Zantac 150 Tablets
• Zantac 150 Maximum Strength
• Zantac 150 Maximum Strength Cool Mint
• Zantac 75 Tablets
• Wal-Zan 150
• Wal-Zan 75
• Heartburn Relief (ranitidine)
• Acid Reducer (ranitidine)
• Acid Control (ranitidine)

Unsure if you took Zantac (ranitidine)? You can use this pill identification app or you can look through this series of Zantac and ranitidine pill images.

Zantac (ranitidine) was taken off the market because the drug contains unacceptable levels of N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which is a substance known to cause cancer. Testing of ranitidine drugs showed levels of NDMA above the FDA’s acceptable daily intake limit of 96 nanograms (ng) per day. For example, testing from Connecticut-based online pharmacy Valisure detected NDMA in excess of 3,000,000 ng per tablet when analyzing ranitidine products.

Valisure tests medications for consistency and quality issues. During testing, the company discovered extremely high levels of NDMA “in every lot tested, across multiple manufacturers and dosage forms of the drug ranitidine.”

Valisure’s finding was consistent with studies from Stanford University and elsewhere, which found that NDMA in Zantac was likely due to the “inherent instability” of the ranitidine molecule.

“There’s no acceptable cancer risk for a drug like this,” said David Light, CEO of Valisure.

Ranitidine is a very unstable molecule. On one side, you have the N (Nitroso). On the other side, you have the DMA (Dimethylamine). When the molecule is exposed to heat, various biological processes in the stomach, and enzymatic reactions throughout the body, it shears apart and reconstitutes as NDMA. But the formation of NDMA is not limited to the reaction in human stomach. Ranitidine can turn into NDMA in the pill bottle itself. In fact, our Zantac lawsuits allege that the drug manufacturers for decades had this problem where ranitidine turned yellow in storage. If it’s yellow, that’s NDMA. They claim they had no idea why this was the case, but our lawsuits say otherwise—they knew.” – Ranitidine Cancer Attorney R. Brent Wisner

Deciding on a safe Zantac replacement is something you should discuss with your doctor. The FDA recommends the following Zantac alternatives:

• Prilosec (omeprazole) – A proton pump inhibitor (PPI) medication commonly used to treat stomach acid-related conditions, including gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
• Nexium (esomeprazole) – A proton pump inhibitor (PPI) that reduces stomach acid production and treats GERD, ulcers, and other conditions.
• Prevacid (lansoprazole) – A proton pump inhibitor (PPI) recommended for short-term ulcer and acid reflux treatment.
• Pepcid (famotidine) – An H2 blocker that treats ulcers, GERD, and conditions that cause excess stomach acid.
• Tagamet (cimetidine) – An H2 blocker that reduces acid in the stomach to treat ulcers and acid reflux.

Most Zantac lawsuit cases were initially consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation (Zantac MDL) before U.S. District Court Judge Robin L. Rosenberg for the Southern District of Florida. However, Judge Rosenberg issued an order granting Zantac defendants’ motion for summary judgment, effectively dismissing all federal cases. Attorneys for the plaintiffs are appealing that decision, and rightfully so, but until those dismissals are resolved, the case is effectively over in the federal system.

The Zantac lawyers at Wisner Baum didn’t have any cases filed in the MDL. Rather, we filed our cases in California and Delaware state courts—indeed, we formed consolidated proceedings in California and Delaware. Wisner Baum’s managing partner, R. Brent Wisner, serves as co-lead trial counsel in both states.

The primary state courts with Zantac cases include:

• California
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Illinois
• Pennslyvania

Many people have the instinct to hire a local attorney to handle their case. In a nationwide mass tort litigation like Zantac, your lawyer’s location is not as important as their experience and track record in successfully resolving cases similar to yours.

Here’s what you should be looking for in a Zantac lawyer:

• Proven track record in similar cases
• Resources needed to take on major corporate defendants
• Trial-ready litigation team that prepares cases to go before juries to maximize your compensation
• Compassionate, friendly representation that puts your needs first
• Availability if and when you have questions about your claim

Yes. One of the first Zantac cases scheduled for trial culminated in a settlement worth $500,000. This lawsuit (not our case) alleged generic OTC Zantac caused a man’s esophageal cancer. Additionally, our law firm has helped negotiate several confidential Zantac settlements. While these settlements do not directly affect other cases, they may help set some precedent for the future.

The Zantac cancer litigation is a mass tort, which shares similarities with a class action but differs in important ways.

In a class action, individual plaintiffs are consolidated into a lawsuit seeking economic damages (money paid for a defective or falsely advertised product) rather than personal injury claims.

A mass tort involves a court (federal or state) grouping similar individual cases and adjudicating them in a single court. Instead of having each lawsuit proceed to trial separately, the cases are transferred to a single court to consolidate pretrial proceedings.

The general criteria listed below for Zantac lawsuit eligibility is based predominantly on court orders and prevailing scientific research. Please note that Zantac case criteria can change at any time.

Zantac Use for a Year or More Before Cancer Diagnosis

Potential Zantac claimants must have taken Zantac or generic ranitidine:

• With some regularity;
• Within 10 years of their cancer diagnosis;
• For a period of at least 12 months.

Eligible Zantac Cancer Types

Lawyers are filing heartburn lawsuits for claimants diagnosed with the following types of cancer:

• Bladder cancer
• Esophageal cancer
• Gastric cancer / stomach cancer
• Liver cancer
• Pancreatic cancer
• Prostate cancer
• Breast cancer
• Lung cancer
• Colon cancer

Those who are eligible and meet certain requirements must submit their claim within a time limit called the statute of limitations. We advise anyone considering a Zantac lawsuit to speak with a ranitidine cancer attorney as soon as possible to ensure they are not time-barred from pursuing a claim.

• 2021 Report on Baby Food
• Baby Food Court Documents
• Baby Food Lawsuits
• Baby Food Lawyer Q & A
• Baby Foods Without Heavy Metals
• Heavy Metals and ADHD
• Heavy Metals and Autism

• Actos RICO Class Actions
• Benzoyl Peroxide Acne Products
• Celexa-Lexapro Consumer Fraud
• Class Actions
• H&R Block Class Action Lawsuit
• Roundup Class Action Lawsuit

• Bard PowerPort Lawsuit
• Defective Medical Device Injuries
• ECT- Electroconvulsive Therapy
• IVC Filter Lawsuit
• Philips CPAP Lawsuit

• Gardasil Deaths
• Gardasil Injury Cases
• Gardasil Lawsuit
• Gardasil Side Effects
• How to File an HPV Vaccine Lawsuit

• Black Hawk Helicopter Crashes
• Military Accidents
• Military Aircraft Crashes

• Bus Crashes
• Personal Injury Rights
• Train Accidents

• Depo-Provera Lawsuit
• Gardasil Vaccine Lawsuit
• Medication- Induced Violence
• Ozempic Lawsuit
• Prescription Drugs
• Suboxone Lawsuit
• Zantac Lawsuit

• California Glyphosate Warning
• Monsanto Court Papers
• Monsanto Papers
• Monsanto Roundup Settlement
• Paraquat Parkinson's Lawsuit
• Roundup Cancer Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
• Roundup Class Action Lawsuit
• Roundup Lawsuit
• Talcum Powder Lawsuit
• Toxic Torts

• FedEx Truck Accident
• J.B. Hunt Truck Accident
• Knight-Swift Truck Accident
• Landstar System Truck Accident
• Old Dominion Freight Line Accident
• Schneider National Truck Accident
• TFI International Truck Accident
• Truck Accidents
• UPS Truck Accident
• XPO Logistics Truck Accident
• YRC Worldwide Truck Accident

• Aerospace Fraud
• Defense Contractor Fraud
• Dodd-Frank Act
• False Claims Act
• FCPA Bribery Act
• Government Healthcare Fraud
• Hospice Care Fraud
• Medicare Medicaid Fraud
• Mortgage Fraud Whistleblower
• Pharmaceutical Fraud
• Qui Tam Whistleblowers
• Securities Fraud
• Tax Fraud
• Whistleblower
• Whistleblower Protection Act

• California Wildfires
• Camp Fire Lawsuit
• Eaton Fire Lawsuit
• Woolsey Fire Lawsuit

• NDMA In Zantac
• Ranitidine
• What Kind of Cancer Does Zantac Cause?
• Zantac Lawsuit
• Zantac Trial Schedule

• Wrongful Death

• Abilify Gambling Compulsive Behavior
• Actos Bladder Cancer
• Actos RICO Class Action Lawsuit
• Antidepressant Birth Defects
• Avandia Injuries
• BPA Injuries
• Celexa-Lexapro Consumer Fraud
• Continental Airlines Accidents
• Cymbalta Withdrawal Lawsuit
• Effexor
• Hemophilia AIDS
• Historical Litigation
• Hydroxycut Lawsuit
• Medicare Secondary Payer Lawsuit
• Medtronic Infuse Bone Craft Device Lawsuit
• Off-Label Use of Stryker OP-1 Putty and Calstrux
• Paxil Suicide Lawsuit
• Prozac
• Risperdal Lawsuit
• SSRI Documents
• US Airways Crashes
• Zoloft Class Action Lawsuit