Risperdal Case “Short-Form” Plaintiff’s Fact Sheet (PFS)

By Buck Daniel

Recent developments in the Risperdal litigation include court-approved “short-form” plaintiff’s fact sheets (PFS) and a renewed push for the first bellwether trial in California. If we have filed your case, then attorney Buck Daniel has been trying to reach out to you in order to discuss the upcoming process and we have sent out a short-form PFS for you to complete and return. If you have not spoken with our office, or if you have not yet received a short-form PFS, please reach out to us immediately. It is the hope of plaintiff’s leadership that the first Risperdal case in California will be brought to trial by summer 2016, and as developments occur, we will keep you up to date.

ASR PROPOSED SETTLEMENT – Preliminary Info

By Howard Nations –

November 20, 2013 – Recent activity in the DePuy ASR litigation increases the possibility of a settlement for ASR users who were required to have a revision or replacement of their implanted ASR hip device. Let me be clear up front that this is the beginning of a proposed settlement and we are still a long way from the end.

On November 19, 2013 at a conference in the Ohio federal court where the ASR litigation is pending , Johnson and Johnson  and the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee announced preliminary information regarding a proposed global settlement, limited to ASR hip cases which involve a revision.  At this time, the detailed information has not been finalized and there is a lot of misinformation in the press that is based on leaks and speculation, most of which is inaccurate. There is no set amount offered as a settlement for each case. Instead, there is a very complicated formula which is based on individual case facts and on what evidence each Plaintiff can offer which will determine the final value of each proposed settlement offer from Johnson and Johnson.

This is a PROPOSED settlement rather than a completed settlement because Johnson and Johnson has the right to refuse to proceed with the settlement unless 94% of the potential claimants agree to the global settlement terms.

There remains a lot of work in this case and this proposal for a global settlement will not generate any settlement funds to any Plaintiff before the Summer of 2014, at the earliest. It could be much later that that. There is also the possibility that the entire proposed settlement may collapse if it is not supported by a sufficient number of Plaintiffs.

There are numerous elements that will be considered before qualification and amounts of settlement can be determined.  Once specific qualification criteria and details regarding this proposed settlement are available, we will contact our clients individually to discuss their options. For those of you who do not have a revision, we will  evaluate your alternatives with you also.

It is our policy to review the proposed settlement individually, as it applies to each of our clients and assist each client with a personal evaluation of the precise bottom line for you, if you choose to participate in this settlement. As soon as the details of the settlement proposal are finalized to the point that we can help you make an intelligent evaluation as to the alternatives that are available to you, we will contact you and begin the evaluation process.

Thanks for your patience.

ASR Trial Verdict

Posted by Kim Truongle

March 8, 2013 – A California jury has awarded the Plaintiff $8.34 million in the first trial regarding a defective ASR hip implant.

More information on the verdict and what this means for your ASR case to come…

TVM Jury Verdict: What Does It Mean?

Posted by Kim Truongle

February 27, 2013 – Yesterday, a jury in New Jersey found in favor of a mesh implant Plaintiff, awarding her a $3.35 million verdict. What does this mean for your mesh implant case?

This does NOT mean that all mesh cases will gross millions, nor that they will resolve for anywhere near that much. It is important to remember that trials involve specific facts; some of them may be applicable to you, and some may not. Also keep in mind that despite this verdict, the odds of this Plaintiff receiving her funds any time soon are quite low. The likelihood that this case will be appealed by the Defendants to therefore keep the case tangled in further litigation is high. Furthermore, case expenses are usually borne by the client, meaning that the costs of bringing this Plaintiff’s case to trial will most likely come out of the funds she ultimately receives – trying a case against Johnson & Johnson or any pharmaceutical company is not cheap.

The jury in the New Jersey case unanimously found that there was no design defect and instead put the blame on the Defendants for other failures. Defective design is one key cause of action in these cases, so this shows that juries may not always side with the Plaintiffs regarding every issue alleged. In other words, despite some seemingly large dollar verdicts, in no way are mesh cases “slam dunk cases”.

This does NOT mean the cases are close to resolution or settlement. There is still more work to do before we can sit across the table from Defendants and negotiate a settlement that is fair. Valuation of a case involves both personal and legal facts, as we take into account what each client has and will go through, as well as the facts that help shape the legal framework. The latter may involve things like additional development of the science, finding out more about what the companies did or should have done, etc.

We are optimistic about the verdict out of New Jersey, but there is still a road ahead. Sometimes, that road will run smoothly, but there may also be a few bumps we will have to navigate around as we move ahead. As a national pharmaceutical litigation firm, we use our experience to stay the course towards a resolution that is fair for our clients. If you have any questions, please phone our office at (800) 269-3050.

ASR Update

By Kim Truongle –

January 18, 2013 – Today, it was reported in the media that settlement discussions are occurring with regard to ASR cases.  This information is speculative and unconfirmed.  Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel nationwide are focusing on trial preparation, with the first case set to begin in Los Angeles on Tuesday.  Next month, another trial is set to start in Illinois.  Plaintiffs’ counsel for these two state trial cases are cooperating and working in conjunction with counsel in the Ohio MDL, whose first two cases are set for start in May and July.  Again, any “news” about settlements or settlement discussions is, at this point, purely speculative.  We believe there is still a lot of work and progress to be made before fruitful settlement discussions can occur.

The Nations Law Firm

Judge Sets Trial Dates in Actos MDL

Posted by Buck Daniel

November 7, 2012 – A scheduling order issued by Judge Rebecca Doherty has set the first Actos lawsuit trial to begin on November 3, 2014 with a second trial scheduled for July 8, 2015. The judge also stated in the scheduling order that the attorneys for plaintiffs and defendants must select these potential trial cases by June 3, 2013 so that a definitive order and roster of parties can be finalized. The parties will have until September 30, 2013 to complete core discovery in these cases.

Judge Doherty stated in the scheduling order that even though these court cases are more than two years from now, the large scope of the litigation, the number of plaintiffs who have already filed Actos bladder cancer claims and the number of additional plaintiffs who could join the litigation that these deadlines need to be met in order for the case to avoid potentially long delays.