FDA Warns: STAR Ankle Device Prone to Break

FDA Issues Safety Alert for the STAR Ankle

On March 15, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety communication regarding the STAR Ankle. The STAR Ankle (Scandinavian Total Ankle Replacement) devices, the FDA warns, have a “higher than expected risk of the polyethylene (plastic) component of the device breaking (fracture), as early as three to four years after implantation.”

The FDA communication is directed to healthcare providers, patients, and caregivers, and warns that fracture of the STAR Ankle could lead to surgery to replace or repair the device.

What is the STAR Ankle?

The STAR Ankle, manufactured by Stryker, is a “non-cemented” prosthetic ankle joint used to replace the painful joint in patients with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and post-traumatic arthritis. It was one of the first flexible ankle implants designed for this purpose.

It consists of several parts:

• A tibial plate
• A mobile-bearing polyethylene component
• A talar component

The STAR Ankle is designed to allow the patient to experience some normal mobility and function. It is the plastic, mobile-bearing component that is the basis for the FDA warning.

STAR Ankle Plastic Breaks More Than Anticipated

Since 2009, the FDA has received approximately 2,000 adverse reports about the STAR Ankle fracturing.

Since then, the FDA has expressed concerns about the long-term durability and strength of the plastic component of the STAR Ankle. The concern led to Stryker making some changes to the pre-implementation packaging of the component, which was supposed to help protect the plastic from unnecessary degradation.

This packaging change was made in 2014. About 300 of the 2,000 adverse event complaints were about STAR Ankle devices produced after the packaging change.

The FDA has now determined that the plastic component of the STAR Ankle fractures far more than expected – regardless of the packaging. One study indicates that the fracture rate is nearly 14% over eight years. Some fractured within as soon as 3-4 years after implantation.

The fracturing of the plastic joint in the STAR Ankle leads to pain and, for many, the need for additional surgery.

Why Does the STAR Ankle Break?

According to the FDA, there are several factors affecting the higher than expected breakage rate of the STAR Ankle. They include:

Device Design – the thickness of the STAR Ankle’s plastic component is a factor in the likelihood of breakage. Devices with a smaller thickness (6mm) are most likely to fracture compared with those that are 7-9mm. Only one fracture was reported in the STAR Ankle with the thickest plastic component (11-14mm).

Patient Factors – STAR Ankle implants in patients with higher levels of activity and those under 55 are more likely to fracture than others.

Material – the plastic used in STAR Ankle’s mobile bearing component degrades, increasing the likelihood of fracture.

The FDA wants doctors to share these risks with patients, help them understand what they imply, and together arrive at an informed decision about whether to proceed with the implantation of a STAR Ankle device.

What Should You Do If You Already Have a STAR Ankle Implant?

The FDA is not recommending the removal of the STAR Ankle device at this time. They insist that it remains an appropriate solution for many patients including those who are older with less active lifestyles.

Instead, the FDA suggests the following if you have a STAR Ankle implant:

• Talk to your doctor if you experience new or worsening instability, grinding or other noises, pain, or inability to bear your weight
• You might have to undergo tests such as X-rays or CT scans so your doctor can evaluate the integrity of your STAR Ankle
• Contact the FDA if you suspect there is a problem with your STAR Ankle device

What Happens Now? Will the FDA Recall the STAR Ankle?

The FDA has not recalled the STAR Ankle device. The agency wants the public and health care providers to understand the risks and dangers of the STAR Ankle. In the agency’s own words, They “will continue to work with Stryker to ensure that patients and providers are aware of the potential risk of plastic component fracture, to identify any potential mitigation measures, and to ensure that the product labeling addresses the concern.”

Call our Dangerous Medical Device Lawyers

Call Alonso Krangle, LLP, if you have been injured by a dangerous medical device.
Our lawyers have experience helping victims of defective medical devices collect compensation for their injuries.

Call us today at 516-350-5555 or 800-403-6191 for a free case evaluation.

 

Source:

• https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/risk-device-component-breaking-patients-strykers-star-ankle-fda-safety-communication
• https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/fda-issues-safety-alert-for-plastic-breaks-stryker-made-star-ankle-replacements

Cook Medial Recalls Thousands Of Defective Medical Devices

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that Cook Medical issued an immediate recall of two commonly used medical devices. The recall involves Cook Medical’s Flexor Check-Flo Introducers and the Flexor Tuohy-Borst Side-Arm Introducers. Cook says they have an increased risk of separating during use.

According to the FDA, on November 24, 2020, Cook Medical sent an Urgent Medical Device Recall notification letter to customers. In this letter, Cook let them know the company is removing all devices potentially affected from the market.

The FDA considers places this recall into the Class 1 category, the most serious type of recall. In its announcement the agency stated that “use of these devices may cause serious injuries or death.”

What Are the Flexor Check-Flo Introducers and the Flexor Tuohy-Borst Side-Arm Introducers Used For?

Both devices made by Cook Medical are introducers, also known as catheters. They are made up of various parts including a coated shaft, dilator, valve, and markers which allow them to be seen on x-rays. The introducers are used to help guide doctors as they insert other diagnostic medical devices into the body’s vessels during surgery. These devices are not used in brain or heart vessels.

Why Are Cook Medical’s Introducers Being Recalled?

Cook Medical is recalling the devices because there is an increased risk of separation at what it calls the “proximal bond site.” If it does separate, the results can lead to life-threatening adverse events. Adverse events can include:

• longer procedure time
• another procedure to take out a separated piece
• blocking blood flow to vital organs
• vessel injury
• bleeding

There have been nearly 60 complaints about these devices and 14 reports of serious adverse events/injuries. No deaths have been reported as of the announcement of the recall.

More than 37,000 devices in the US are part of this class 1 recall. This recall can have serious implications for patients who received the affected medical devices as well as medical centers and doctors who use them. For more specifics about the recall and contact information go to:

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-device-recalls/cook-medical-recalls-flexor-check-flo-introducers-and-flexor-tuohy-borst-side-arm-introducers-due

Call Alonso Krangle If You Have Been Injured by a Cook Medical Catheter

At Alonso Krangle, LLP, our lawyers have been helping victims fight for their legal rights when negligence causes them to suffer serious injuries. Our practice includes filing claims for victims related to dangerous medical devices, as well as motor vehicle accidents, nursing home abuse and neglect, slip and fall injuries, and other accidents that result in injuries.

Call us today at 800-403-6191 or 516-350-5555 if you have been injured and want to learn more about how we can help you collect the damages you deserve.

Paragard IUD Claims – Alonso Krangle, LLP is Reviewing Claims By Women Injured by the IUD

Paragard is now a well-known medical device that is the subject of litigation and controversy. If you have received a Paragard copper IUD implant and suffered injuries, call our experienced dangerous medical device lawyers at Alonso Krangle, LLP.

We are reviewing claims for women who have had complications and surgery because of Paragard to determine if they are eligible to seek compensation from the makers of this defective device.

Paragard is The First Approved Non-Hormonal IUD

Paragard is an IUD – intrauterine device- designed to prevent pregnancy. It is marketed as safe and effective to use as birth control for years and designed to be removed when the patient no longer wants it.

Paragard is the first non-hormonal IUD, something that makes it very attractive to many of its users. Paragard is made from copper. The copper makes the uterus inhospitable to fertilization, preventing unintended pregnancy.

The Paragard IUD Can Cause Injuries to Women, Lawsuits Claim

Women across the country, however, claim that the Paragard IUD implant has caused more harm than good and that Teva Pharmaceuticals, its maker, owes them compensation for their injuries caused by the IUD.

Many of these injured victims have filed lawsuits alleging that the Paragard IUD can migrate or break upon removal, resulting in severe injuries to the uterus and nearby organs. In many of these cases, surgery was required to both repair the damage caused by the IUD, to remove broken pieces or to remove the entire IUD.

How Do You Know if You Can File a Paragard IUD Claim for Damages?

Speaking with our experienced medical device lawyers is a good first step to determine if you might have a claim. We have seen thousands of cases in which women and men have been injured by defective medical devices. If you have been injured by a medical device, you are not alone.

There are a few steps you can take to ensure you have information that can help with the legal review and claim process.

Get The Operative Report

Obtain your operative report to confirm that you have a Paragard IUD implant. There are many different IUDs on the market. Be sure yours is the brand you believe it to be.

Ask your doctor for the operative report to learn the specific make, model and serial number of your IUD implant to be certain you received what you believe you did.

Your report should have a sticker that came on the box with your IUD. It should give all the information about your IUD and confirm that it was a Paragard IUD. If you cannot get this information, seek help from our lawyers at Alonso Krangle, LLP.

Identify the Nature of Your Injury

You will need to identify your injury. How did the Paragard IUD harm you? Despite being marketed as safe and effective, lawsuits claim it can cause serious complications and injuries to unsuspecting women.

Some women claim the Paragard IUD can migrate away from the implant site and embed in other parts of the uterus and body.

Others allege that the Paragard IUD can break and perforate or tear nearby tissue and organs. This can make the device impossible to retrieve without surgery. Surgery can also be necessary to repair the damage it causes to vital organs.

There are also women who have reported needing to have hysterectomies because of Paragard IUD injuries. It may also be linked to ectopic pregnancies, which can be extremely dangerous to women and can cause permanent infertility.

Ask for your medical records to obtain additional details about complications, injuries, and any treatment you received because of your IUD.

Contact Our Lawyers to Determine Your Eligibility for a Paragard Claim

If you think you are eligible to file a claim because of injuries from a Paragard IUD, call our dangerous medical device lawyers at Alonso Krangle, LLP.

You want to ensure that you hire experienced, knowledgeable lawyers who understand the complexities of medical device cases. Alonso Krangle, LLP has those lawyers.

You can call at any step in the process to determine if you qualify to file a Paragard IUD lawsuit. There are time limits to file claims, and you don’t want to miss your window. Call our experienced dangerous medical device lawyers at Alonso Krangle, LLP today at 800-403-6191 to find out if you can file a claim for compensation against the makers of the Paragard IUD.

More Women File Lawsuits Over Paragard IUD Complications

Four women in Missouri are the latest to file lawsuits alleging they suffered complications from the Paragard IUD. They join women around the country who claim Paragard IUDs are defective and that the manufacturers failed to warn them of the risks and dangers of Paragard.

These individual lawsuits filed in federal court in Kansas City, name Teva Pharmaceuticals (Teva) and The Cooper Companies, Inc. (Cooper) as defendants. Teva created Paragard and sold it to Cooper in 2017 for more than $1 billion.

What is Paragard?

Paragard is an IUD, also called an intrauterine device, that prevents pregnancy. It is the first IUD that does not prevent pregnancy by releasing hormones into the uterus. Instead, it releases small amounts of copper, which interferes with fertilization.

Paragard is marketed as the first non-hormonal IUD that can prevent pregnancy for up to 12 years. Because it does not contain hormones, women can avoid some of the more common side effects of many birth control methods, such as weight gain and mood swings. Marketing materials also claim that it can be easily removed if you decide it is time to get pregnant.

Women Report Dangerous Complications from Paragard IUD

The most significant reported complication reported by women filing Paragard IUD lawsuits is that it breaks upon removal. When this occurs, it can embed in the uterus, migrate, become expelled, and cause the need to have the IUD surgically removed.

Some women reported that failed Paragard IUD removal resulted in hysterectomies, exploratory surgeries, and infertility.

Paragard copper IUD lawsuits allege that although Paragard comes with some warnings about possible side-effects, it has been aggressively marketed as safe and effective when it is, they claim, defective. The lawsuits also allege that patients were never adequately warned about the risks of breakage.

Paragard Has Other Dangerous Side Effects

Paragard has been linked to a number of side effects, some of which can be extremely dangerous. Paragard IUD side effects can include:

• Anemia or low iron
• Lower back pain
• Expulsion of the Paragard IUD
• Prolonged menstrual flow
• Bleeding, spotting
• Pain and cramping
• Vaginitis
• Ectopic pregnancy
• Sepsis
• Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID)
• Embedment of the Paragard IUD
• Perforation of the uterus
• Perforation of the cervix
• Perforation of other organs

Call Our Defective Medical Device Lawyers if You Were Injured by Paragard

If you were injured by the Paragard copper IUD, call our lawyers today to find out if you can file a Paragard injury lawsuit. Our defective medical device lawyers at Alonso Krangle, LLP, are interviewing women who experienced Paragard IUD breakage during removal and needed surgery or had other serious complications.

Ask yourself:

• Why did I choose the Paragard copper IUD as my form of birth control?
• Did it have to be removed earlier than anticipated?
• When I wanted it removed, did it break?
• Did I need surgery to remove the IUD or to repair damage from Paragard?
• Did I suffer from an infection?
• Has the Paragard IUD been recalled?
• Has the company or FDA issued any new warnings about Paragard IUD?

If you were injured by Paragard IUD, you might be able to collect compensation from the makers of this defective medical device. You might be entitled to lost income, medical costs, and pain and suffering.

At Alonso Krangle, LLP, our lawyers have experience handling all types of defective medical device cases. Call us today at 800-403-6191 for a free evaluation of your Paragard IUD claim.

 

Sources:

• https://www.kbia.org/post/lawsuits-missouri-women-claim-iud-broke-during-removal#stream/0
• https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2020/04/07/why-lawyers-are-talking-about-the-paragard-iud/

Our Allergan Breast Implant Lawyers Are Reviewing Lawsuits

At Alonso Krangle, LLP, our lawyers know that when pharmaceutical companies make and sell medical devices, they are obligated to ensure a reasonable level of safety. They are also obligated to warn doctors and patients about the risk associated with their products. When medical devices harm patients who receive them, patients might be able to collect monetary damages from the pharmaceutical companies.

Some of the medical devices that harm patients or increase the risk of injury include hernia mesh, Paragard IUDs, and breast implants. Several patients have filed lawsuits against the makers of these devices. Breast implants made by Allergan are currently at the center of a controversial debate about their safety. Our lawyers at Alonso Krangle, LLP, are reviewing breast implant lawsuits now.

Thirty-Six Deaths Linked to Recalled Allergan Breast Implants

On August 24, 2020, Fortune reported that more women than initially thought have died from cancers related to Allergan breast implants. Maria Aspan confirmed in her article that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) added three additional names to the list of fatalities caused by breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), directly linked to Allergan recalled breast implants.

Aspan writes, “At least 36 women have now died of a cancer known as BIA-ALCL, or “breast implant–¬associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma,” according to data the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”

BIA-ALCL-is not breast cancer. It is a type of lymphoma that has been directly linked to the use of textured breast implants.

The cancer has been particularly prevalent in women who have received Allergan’s textured implants.

Allergan Recalled Textured Implants After Dozens Died From Cancer

In July 2019, Allergan recalled its textured implants after 33 women died of BIA ALCL. The FDA report from August stated that three additional women died during the months leading up to the recall. Despite the recall, the textured implants continue to affect women across the nation and world, some of whom may still not realize they are in danger.

Current only as of January 2020, FDA data states that “it recorded160 new cases of BIA-ALCL in the six months ending early January, including 139 cases linked to Allergan implants. More than 733 women worldwide have now developed the disease, including 620 with Allergan implants and 384 women in the United States.” Based on these numbers, it seems that more breast implant-related deaths are inevitable.

Allergan is One of Several Manufacturers of Dangerous Breast Implants

While most cases of BIA-ALCL are linked to the textured implants made specifically by Allergan, Aspan writes that there are other manufacturers of breast implants that might also be responsible for some of the BIA-ALCL cancer cases. Johnson & Johnson and Sientra are two such companies.

The FDA is allegedly working with all manufacturers to assess the safety of their breast implants. The FDA has also sent warning letters to the companies about their “breast implant operations.”

FDA Recognizes Other Illnesses Associated With Breast Implants

For years, women have asserted that breast implants have led to various aches, pains, and problems that they did not anticipate or know about before receiving their implants.
Many of these women have opted for breast implant removal.

The FDA has recently recognized 2500 new cases of what is called BII or “breast implant illness,” which is a collection of symptoms related to breast implants. BII has been controversial over the years and has no real definitive diagnosis. However, many women report that their breast implants have caused chronic fatigue, memory loss, and joint pain. Perhaps the FDA’s official recognition of these cases means that someone is taking the dangers of breast implants seriously.

Contact Alonso Krangle, LLP for a Free Evaluation of Your Allergan Breast Implant Case

If you or someone you love had or have Allergan textured breast implants and was diagnosed with BIA-ALCL, call our lawyers today. You might be entitled to compensation from the manufacturer of your breast implants.

Call 800-403-6191 for your free case evaluation.

Source:

• https://fortune.com/2020/08/24/fda-allergan-recall-breast-implants-new-deaths/

Hernia Mesh Litigation Is Going Strong

Law 360 reported on August 12, 2019, that a New Hampshire federal judge refused to dismiss one bellwether case in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) against Atrium Medical Corp and other makers of surgical hernia mesh.

The MDL, which began in 2016, includes more than 1,400 cases. All of the cases involve surgical mesh used to repair hernias. The plaintiffs involved in these lawsuits claim to have experienced severe injuries from hernia mesh. Patients have allegedly suffered through perforated organs, bowel obstructions, infections, internal bleeding, recurrence of hernias, damaged tissue, additional surgical procedures, and the pain and suffering that accompany such complications. Many of these patients filed lawsuits against the manufacturers of hernia mesh, like Atrium Medical Corp, C.R. Bard, and Ethicon.

Although the specific injuries and details of each lawsuit differ somewhat, all of the suits in the MDL involve similar allegations including:

• Whether the mesh was defectively designed
• Whether the makers of hernia mesh knew about the dangers and risks of the mesh
• Whether the hernia mesh contain sufficient warnings

Atrium Filed Motion to Dismiss

Atrium’s lawyers filed a motion to dismiss Felicia Blackwood’s lawsuit against Atrium. The lawsuit stems from injuries she received from Atrium’s C-QUR hernia mesh. Blackwood’s bellwether suit contends that C-QUR Mesh was defective and that patients who had it placed as part of hernia repair suffered significant injuries. Blackwood herself says she’s experienced pain, nerve damage, chronic infections, and constipation.

Judge Rejects Atrium’s Motion to Dismiss

In an order rejecting Atrium’s motion to dismiss, Judge Landya B. McCafferty determined that Blackwood’s allegations sufficiently supported her claim that Atrium violated consumer protection laws. Judge McCafferty’s order states the details at this stage adequately support Blackwood’s allegations that Atrium and its affiliates “intentionally misled physicians about the specific dangers of their products” and “manipulated clinical studies” to misrepresent the efficacy and safety of surgical mesh.”

For now, this Bellwether case remains on the docket. Atrium’s lawyers also tried to convince the judge to dismiss some of Blackwood’s claims because the suit was filed after the statute of limitations expired. Product liability cases, including ones that allege defective medical devices, have a three-year statute of limitations. Blackwood went to the hospital in February of 2013 with abdominal pain, and it was then that the hernia mesh was used to repair her problem. Blackwood alleges that the statute of limitations did not begin until later when she had to return to the hospital to have the hernia mesh removed.

Atrium Argued Statute of Limitations Prevents Litigation: Judge Leaves Issue Open

Judge McCafferty did not rule on the statute of limitations issue, deciding instead that “are sufficient to leave doubt as to the timeliness” of the claims the companies tried to get thrown out. Mc Cafferty stated in her order, “If, as the case develops through discovery, defendants find facts that support the statute-of-limitations defense, they may raise that defense at an appropriate time, such as in a motion for summary judgment.”

One of Blackwood’s attorneys told Law 360 that they were pleased with the ruling against Atrium and that they hope to proceed with the trial portion of Blackwood’s case soon.

Contact Our Injury Attorneys if You Are Suffering with a Hernia Mesh Injury

If you have suffered injuries because of hernia mesh, you might be eligible to file a lawsuit against the manufacturer of this dangerous medical device. Call Alonso Krangle, LLP today and speak to our lawyers handling hernia mesh claims. Call 800-403-6191 for a free evaluation of your hernia mesh claim.

 

Source:

• https://www.law360.com/articles/1187723

Do You Qualify for a Hernia Mesh Claim?

The safety of surgical mesh used to repair hernias is the central issue in hundreds of lawsuits against various manufacturers of the medical device. Ethicon, Covidien, Bard, and Atrium Medical have been accused of making dangerous, defective mesh, which has resulted in injuries to patients.

A Hernia occurs when a piece of internal tissue pushes through an opening in the surrounding area because there is a hole or weak spot. Surgical mesh is used to provide support to the vulnerable area or plug the hole to keep the tissue where it belongs.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that the mesh fails to work as intended, migrates to other parts of the body, fails to incorporate into the body, or frays/clumps. Injuries alleged to have resulted: pain, infection, recurrence of hernias, adhesions, intestinal obstruction, bleeding, fistulas, fluid, perforation of organs, and more. Some plaintiffs required additional surgeries. Others were unable to have the injuries fixed because of other medical issues.

If you had a hernia treated with surgery, ask yourself some initial questions:

• Did my doctor use hernia mesh?
• Did the hernia mesh fix the problem?
• Did the hernia mesh cause complications?
• Did you get a severe infection after receiving a hernia mesh implant?
• Did you require additional surgery to remove hernia mesh?

If the answer to any of these is yes, you should think about whether you have a legal claim against the manufacturer of the dangerous device. If so, you might be able to collect compensation for your injuries, pain, and suffering.

What to do if You Think You Might Have a Hernia Mesh Lawsuit

The National Law Review published an article on July 2019 to help individuals begin the process of analyzing whether or not they have a claim against the maker of hernia mesh. Consider the following steps you can take to see if you have a potential hernia mesh lawsuit.

Get Your Medical Records

To know if you have a hernia mesh claim you must know what type of mesh was used in your surgery. All medical devices and implants come with precise information. Your operative report must have a record of the exact make, model, and manufacturer of the medical device implanted in your body. There is often a sticker containing all of this information that comes with the equipment and gets transferred directly onto your operative report.

Identify the Mesh Used by Your Surgeon

Most of the hernia mesh involved in the current litigation is synthetic. It is made from polypropylene. It might be coated with fish oil. Some synthetic mesh is “not that bad.” Others have been pulled from the market because they perform poorly. It is essential to understand the nature of your mesh so you can determine whether it is one that is involved in the litigation.

Do You Need Revision Surgery?

If you have identified that your hernia mesh is one of the types of meshes involved in national litigation, consider your injuries. You have to have injuries to collect damages. Did your doctor have to go back in to fix a problem? Did you have another hernia that required surgery? Did you have to have the mesh removed or replaced? Did the doctor have to go into another area of your body to repair damage caused by the mesh? These types of procedures are called revision surgeries and can help demonstrate that you suffered injuries from defective hernia mesh.

Call an Experienced Hernia Mesh Lawyer

If you think you have identified your mesh as defective and you have had or think you will need revision surgery or other medical treatment, don’t wait to speak to a lawyer. Lawyers with experience handling hernia mesh cases can help you pursue legal remedies. If you are unsure whether or not you have a claim, present your information to a lawyer who handles hernia mesh cases and can determine if you qualify for a lawsuit.

Contact Us

Alonso Krangle, LLP can give you the help you need if you think defective hernia mesh caused you to suffer severe injuries and complications. Call our office now for a free evaluation of your hernia mesh lawsuit. You can reach our hernia mesh lawyers at 800-403-6191.

 

Sources:

• https://www.natlawreview.com/article/simple-guide-to-hernia-mesh-lawsuits-and-settlements

Bayer Settling Roundup Claims

After losing three cases, Bayer AG is allegedly in talks to settle current and future roundup cancer claims. Bloomberg.com reported August 9, 2019, that sources close to the negotiations said they have “advanced to the point that Bayer and plaintiffs’ lawyers asked two judges in St. Louis to push back cases set for trial starting soon.” The sources asked not to reveal their identities because the talks are private.

Litigation is Pending Across the Country

There are currently more than 18,000 lawsuits filed in the United States against Monsanto Co., the maker of Roundup. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits claim that exposure to the chemicals in the weed killer caused their cancers. Bayer AG’s purchase of Monsanto became official in June 2018. With its acquisition, Bayer acquired massive Roundup litigation.

Court officials reported that the Roundup trials set for August and September would probably get rescheduled. Is this a sign that settlement negotiations are underway?

Sources Say Bayer Might Pay Billions to Victims of Roundup Cancers

In negotiations, Bayer is allegedly proposing to pay up to $8 billion to settle the lawsuits. Sources say that the plaintiff’s lawyers want $10 billion. They claim the parties reached an impasse over the issue of compensating “consumers who have yet to be diagnosed with illness.”

Tino Andersen, a spokesman for Bayer, has not commented on any settlement discussions. Kenneth Feinberg is a mediator overseeing the consolidated federal court cases. He stated that “there have been absolutely no discussions to date of dollars or what the compensation would be for a global resolution” of the Roundup cases.

Roundup Verdicts Have Been Tremendous

The cases that have already been through litigation resulted in some of the most significant verdicts in history. In May, a jury in California awarded $2 billion to a couple who blamed their cancers on Roundup. A judge changed the verdict to $86 million, claiming the initial amount “it was beyond the legal limits allowed by legal precedent.” According to data compiled by Bloomberg, this verdict is the 8th largest ever awarded in a defective product claim.

Bayer and the Current Environmental Protection Agency Claim Roundup is Safe but Many Disagree.

Bayer, whose spokesman has not commented on settlement discussions, insists that Roundup is safe. Its ingredient Glyphosate is listed as a possible carcinogen in California under its toxic warnings law-Proposition 65. The current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, however, does not agree that Glyphosate leads to cancer. CBS News reported August 9 that “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it will no longer approve labels warning glyphosate is known to cause cancer.” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said such labels are “irresponsible” in light of the EPA’s conclusions that “the chemical does not pose a cancer risk.” It remains to be seen whether California will be permitted to enforce proposition 65 for items containing Glyphosate.

Glyphosate is one of the most commonly used herbicides across the globe. Farmers, field workers, and others who work closely with the weed killer may be most at risk for adverse effects. The chemical is also, however, found in many foods, including cookies, cereals, and juices. It is particularly prevalent in processed foods containing corn, soy, oats, and wheat. While the EPA concluded that it is not a known carcinogen, many other organizations strongly disagree.

Contact Us

If you have cancer and have been exposed to Roundup or other Glyphosate-containing products, call our lawyers at Alonso Krangle, LLP today. You might be entitled to compensation for your injuries. Call 800-403-6191 for a free evaluation of your Roundup lawsuit.

 

Sources:

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-09/bayer-is-said-to-seek-8-billion-roundup-cancer-claim-settlement
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roundup-labels-trump-administration-says-it-wont-approve-glyphosate-warning-labels/
• https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/02/glyphosate-contamination-food-goes-far-beyond-oat-products