The claims of occupational exposures of landscapers and groundskeepers to herbicides such as Roundup were received further support by a recent decision by the California Court of Appeals. The Court affirmed the verdict of the trial court upholding the finding causal relationship between the product and cancer.
Showing posts with label Monsanto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Monsanto. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 11, 2021
Tuesday, June 1, 2021
Court Rejects Roundup Settlement
The proposed class action settlement in the Bayer Roundup Products Liability Litigation has been rejected by a Federal District Court overseeing the Multi District Litigation (MDL). The Court concluded that the potential future claims group, those who have not yet been diagnosed with Non-Hodgins Lymphoma (NHL) but used Roundup before February 2021, was unreasonable. Bayer purchased Roundup from Monsanto.
Monday, May 13, 2019
Verdict: $2 Billion -- Herbicide Occupational Exposures - The Next Wave of Serious Compensation Claims
A jury in California has awarded a couple $2 Billion as a result of cancer contracted after using RoundUp manufactured by Monsanto. This is the 3rd verdict in a row in a series of trials against the pesticide manufacturer.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Exporting Illness Worldwide: Heavy Metal Contamination From a U.S. Owned Smelter in Peru
 |
| English: The La Oroya train station 1921 (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
The town of La Oroya, Peru - the site of an American owned smelter - is suffering from decades of unregulated emissions from the plant which continue to this day. According to the Peruvian Ministry of Health, blood lead levels among local children are dangerously high averaging 33.6 micrograms/deciliter, triple the World Health Organization limit of 10 micrograms/deciliter, while the vegetation in the surrounding area has been destroyed by acid rain. Limited environmental sampling has revealed lead levels exceeding public health standards in almost 90 percent of the homes, extensive soil contamination, and excessive airborne emissions throughout the town.
Lead causes a range of health effects, but primarily effects neurological development in children resulting in reduced school performance, lower scores on standardized tests (such as IQ), mental retardation and can even cause death. A significant portion of those tested by the Ministry of health should have received immediate medical attention to remove lead from the body, but no follow-up was ever initiated.
To plan for remediation and to examine the potential for ongoing exposure from the lead and other metals already deposited in La Oroya, further testing of dust lead levels inside homes was required. We therefore brought the equipment and supplies and trained our partners at the Asociación Civil Labor to collect dust wipe samples. We then arranged for half the samples to be analyzed at a laboratory in the U.S. as a donated service. After obtaining the results, we worked with our Peruvian partners to prepare a report, and conduct education and outreach about the health risks associated with the exposure to lead and other pollutants.
Full report in PDF format: [English] [Spanish]
….
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author of NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Monsanto guilty of chemical poisoning in France
See: Thomson Reuters News & Insight
"It is a historic decision in so far as it is the first time that a (pesticide) maker is found guilty of such a poisoning," François Lafforgue, Francois's lawyer, told Reuters.
Friday, October 1, 2010
CMS Has 6 Year Statute of Limitations-Court Dismisses MSP Recovery Claim
A Federal District Court in Alabama has declared that the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS) is limited to a 6 year statute of limitations in asserting as recovery / reimbursement claims under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP).
The case stems from a toxic-tort claim against Monsanto Company alleging harms flowing from the use of PCBs. A global, nationally publicized, settlement was reached in the amount of $300 Million in 2003 involving more than 20,500 people. More than 14 years after the settlement CMS initiated a recovery action under the MSP.
"Because the MSPA is silent as to a deadline for filing a claim for recovery, the parties agree
that the relevant statute of limitations for the Government’s claims, if any, is governed by the Federal Claims Collection Act (“FCCA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2415 (2008); see also In re Dow Corning, 250 B.R. 298, 350-51 (Bktrpcy. E.D. Mich. 2000) (stating the universal recognition of FCCA’s applicability to the Government’s MSPA claims). The parties disagree, however, as to whether the FCAA’s six year or three-year statute of limitations applies."
The Court rejected the Government's "implied-at-law contract theory as applicable to the Corporate Defendants," because "it stretches too far beyond the bounds of logic and reason to adopt absent precedent." The Court held that the claim was based in tort and applied a 3 year statute of limitations and determined that Government had filed its claim against the Corporate Defendants "too late."
As to the Attorney Defendants, the Court held was based on contract law.
"Logic suggests that the Attorney Defendants who represented the tort plaintiffs in the
Abernathy case, the alleged Medicare beneficiaries in the instant case, essentially acted as agents pursuant to the contractual relationship between the Government and the Medicare beneficiaries. More specifically, the Attorney Defendants’ obligation to pay their clients any monies allegedly owed to the Government for Medicare reimbursement, unlike that of the Corporate Defendants, arose not from any tortious conduct on behalf of the Attorney Defendants themselves but from an express contractual relationship with the Medicare beneficiaries—namely, any fee agreement or attorney client agreement between them. From that perspective, the Attorney Defendants’ MSPA obligation is essentially founded upon a contractual obligation."
"For these reasons, the grounds for statute of limitations determination as applied to the
Attorney Defendants is more reasonably founded upon contract rather than tort. The contractual nexus is clearer in this instance than as alleged against the Corporate Defendants, whose MSPA obligations ultimately arose from, and cannot be divorced from, allegations of tortious conduct. The court, therefore, concurs that the six-year statute of limitations applies as to the Attorney Defendants."
The accural of the Government's MSP action was held to be different for the two groups of defendants. As to the Corporate Defendants the action arise no later than the point of execution and court approval of the settlement. As to the Attorney Defendants the cause of action arose when payment was made.
The Court noted the the Government could have intervened in the underlying action but chose not to do so. Perhaps the Government will now seek to intervene in all underlying claims. Additionally the Court rejected a statute tolling argument based a fraudulent concealment.
United States of America v James J. Stricker, et al., CV 09-BE-2423-E (USDCT ND Alabama) Filed September 30, 2010 3:59pm.
The case stems from a toxic-tort claim against Monsanto Company alleging harms flowing from the use of PCBs. A global, nationally publicized, settlement was reached in the amount of $300 Million in 2003 involving more than 20,500 people. More than 14 years after the settlement CMS initiated a recovery action under the MSP.
"Because the MSPA is silent as to a deadline for filing a claim for recovery, the parties agree
that the relevant statute of limitations for the Government’s claims, if any, is governed by the Federal Claims Collection Act (“FCCA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2415 (2008); see also In re Dow Corning, 250 B.R. 298, 350-51 (Bktrpcy. E.D. Mich. 2000) (stating the universal recognition of FCCA’s applicability to the Government’s MSPA claims). The parties disagree, however, as to whether the FCAA’s six year or three-year statute of limitations applies."
The Court rejected the Government's "implied-at-law contract theory as applicable to the Corporate Defendants," because "it stretches too far beyond the bounds of logic and reason to adopt absent precedent." The Court held that the claim was based in tort and applied a 3 year statute of limitations and determined that Government had filed its claim against the Corporate Defendants "too late."
As to the Attorney Defendants, the Court held was based on contract law.
"Logic suggests that the Attorney Defendants who represented the tort plaintiffs in the
Abernathy case, the alleged Medicare beneficiaries in the instant case, essentially acted as agents pursuant to the contractual relationship between the Government and the Medicare beneficiaries. More specifically, the Attorney Defendants’ obligation to pay their clients any monies allegedly owed to the Government for Medicare reimbursement, unlike that of the Corporate Defendants, arose not from any tortious conduct on behalf of the Attorney Defendants themselves but from an express contractual relationship with the Medicare beneficiaries—namely, any fee agreement or attorney client agreement between them. From that perspective, the Attorney Defendants’ MSPA obligation is essentially founded upon a contractual obligation."
"For these reasons, the grounds for statute of limitations determination as applied to the
Attorney Defendants is more reasonably founded upon contract rather than tort. The contractual nexus is clearer in this instance than as alleged against the Corporate Defendants, whose MSPA obligations ultimately arose from, and cannot be divorced from, allegations of tortious conduct. The court, therefore, concurs that the six-year statute of limitations applies as to the Attorney Defendants."
The accural of the Government's MSP action was held to be different for the two groups of defendants. As to the Corporate Defendants the action arise no later than the point of execution and court approval of the settlement. As to the Attorney Defendants the cause of action arose when payment was made.
The Court noted the the Government could have intervened in the underlying action but chose not to do so. Perhaps the Government will now seek to intervene in all underlying claims. Additionally the Court rejected a statute tolling argument based a fraudulent concealment.
United States of America v James J. Stricker, et al., CV 09-BE-2423-E (USDCT ND Alabama) Filed September 30, 2010 3:59pm.
For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered work related accident and injuries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)