State Supreme Court Issues Significant Asbestos Ruling

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court last week issued a potentially highly significant decision in the long-standing asbestos mass tort. See Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC et al., No. J-87-2011 (Pa. May 23, 2012).

The issue is causation.  Readers know that a tort plaintiff has to establish cause in fact and proximate cause.  Cause in fact can mean "but for" the defendant's conduct, the plaintiff would not have been injured, or, in some cases, that the conduct was a "substantial factor" in causing the harm.  In toxic tort cases, cause in fact includes general causation (the product can cause this type of disease) and specific causation (the product did cause this plaintiff's disease). Often, epidemiological proof is used to establish causation in a toxic tort context, but there are strengths and limitations to that type of evidence, which can show an association between the product and the disease, and which typically demonstrates that there is some specific relationship between the amount of exposure to the product and the amount of disease seen in the exposed population (a dose-response relationship).  What may be unknown from the epidemiology (and other relevant scientific evidence) is whether there is a threshold of exposure below which there is no risk of disease, or whether any level of exposure carries a measurable increased risk of disease.  Plaintiffs' experts often assume there is no safe level of exposure, and regulatory agencies may assume the same as a matter of public health policy; these latter assumptions do not establish legal causation given their cautionary, prophylactic nature. But what proof a plaintiff has that an extremely low level of exposure to a given defendant's product can or did cause his disease is a crucial issue in many toxic tort contexts.

In asbestos, the grandfather of all mass torts, plaintiffs' experts often seek to testify that "one fiber can kill," meaning there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos, and from that to conclude that that any exposure to any amount of asbestos from any defendant was a substantial factor contributing to the asbestos disease the plaintiff has.  They say this even as they admit, as the epidemiology shows, that at all the measurable levels of exposure (no one can find a plaintiff exposed to just one fiber) asbestos-related disease demonstrates a clear dose-response relationship.

Back in 2005, plaintiff Simikian commenced a product liability action against several defendants, asserting causes of action grounded on multiple theories including strict liability. Mr. Simikian
alleged that, throughout a forty-four year career as an automotive mechanic, his exposure to asbestos-containing friction products, such as brake linings, caused his mesothelioma. Plaintiff indicated he would rely on expert opinion that each and every exposure to asbestos -- no
matter how small -- contributed substantially to the development of his asbestos-related
diseases: the the “any-exposure,” “any-breath,” or “any fiber” theory of legal (or substantial-factor) causation. See generally Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 606 Pa. 294, 316, 997 A.2d 1152, 1164-65 (2010) (discussing the requirement for a plaintiff to prove that a defendant’s product was a substantial factor in causing injury). Seeking to preclude such opinion testimony, defendants filed a motion under the Frye test (PA is a general acceptance jurisdiction), arguing that it barred this "novel" scientific evidence from the courtroom until it has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.

Plaintiffs relied on a Dr. Maddox, who provided for his opinion as to specific and proximate
causation that asbestos-related mesothelioma, like other diseases induced by toxic exposures, is a dose-response disease; that each inhalation of asbestos-containing dust from the use of
products has been shown to contribute to cause asbestos-related diseases, including  mesothelioma. Each of the exposures to asbestos allegedly contributes to the total dose that causes mesothelioma and, in so doing, shortens the period necessary for the mesothelioma to develop. Plaintiff further argued that each exposure to asbestos is therefore a substantial contributing factor in the development of the disease that actually occurs; a court need not look at individual exposures or the identity of the product or the manufacturer. "As a matter of law, you just say, hey, you breathed asbestos from a product, oh, you are going to the jury."

The trial court requested expert reports, and then held an evidentiary hearing. The Common Pleas court centered its focus on the use of extrapolation, from high doses down to a single finer, which it found to be a linchpin of Dr. Maddox’s methodology and opinion supporting a finding of proximate cause. The court expressed concern with an “analytical gap” between the scientific proofs and the expert's conclusion. At the hearing, the expert admitted he did not consider epidemiology appropriate to consult regarding low-dose exposures, offering an "analogy" that has been used in the example of a glass of water. One drops marbles into the glass of water until the water finally overflows from the glass; is it the first marble or the last marble that causes the glass
to overflow? Well, both, or all of them, said the plaintiff expert.

The expert testified, however, that individual exposures differ in the potency of the fiber to
which an individual is exposed, to the concentration or intensity of the fibers to which one is exposed, and to the duration of the exposure to that particular material. Dr. Maddox agreed that scientists presently do not know the mechanism by which asbestos causes mesothelioma. Additionally, he recognized that his opinions were not based on any sort of direct attribution, but rather, were grounded entirely upon an assessment of increased risk.

The trial court sustained the Frye challenge and precluded the plaintiffs from adducing the any-exposure opinion. Overall, Judge Colville could find no credible explanation for how it was that Dr.
Maddox was able to determine if it was exposure to a particular defendant’s friction product that
caused a plaintiff’s mesothelioma, and not some other exposure to asbestos material. Even if one accepts that a single fiber may possibly increase the risk of developing disease, it did not accept that an unquantified (and potentially infinitesimal) increase in risk could serve as proof that a defendant’s product was a substantial cause of a plaintiff’s or decedent’s disease. Generally accepted scientific methodology may well establish that certain “high dose” asbestos exposure causes, or contributes to, a specific hypothetical plaintiff’s disease, but the plaintiffs had not proffered any generally accepted methodology to support the contention that a single exposure or an otherwise vanishingly small exposure has, in fact, in any case, ever caused or contributed to any specific individual’s disease, or even less so, that in this case such a small exposure did, in fact, contribute to this specific plaintiff’s disease.

Plaintiff appealed, and the Superior Court reversed, basically disagreeing with every aspect of the trial court's analysis. It relied on Ferebee v. Chevron Chemical Co., 736 F.2d 1529 (D.C. Cir. 1984), essentially for the proposition that, so long as an expert is willing to testify to an extrapolation, courts should permit its admission. (The notion that courts have no screening function is at odds with the last couple decades of federal court evidence law, just as it was at odds with most federal circuits at the time the DC CIrcuit opinion was written, and with states that have adopted Daubert and also those that still adhere to Frye.) Defendants then appealed.

Appellants (and their amici) offered extensive critiques of Dr. Maddox’s methodology from both scientific and logical perspectives, with the bottom line that the any-exposure opinion remains a hypothesis or assumption, and stressing Dr. Maddox’s inability to identify any peer-reviewed scientific support undergirding the opinion. While plaintiffs offered much argument on the effects of high doses of asbestos, they did not squarely address appellants’ arguments concerning differences in potency among asbestos fibers, or the potential that exposure to asbestos from a defendant’s product might be minimal in comparison to others.

The state Supreme Court noted that this case was selected among test cases for the any-exposure opinion as a means, in and of itself, to establish substantial-factor causation. The plaintiff's efforts to invoke case reports, animal studies, and regulatory standards to support the theory were ineffectual in terms of substantial-factor causation, since the most these can do is suggest that there is underlying risk from the defendants’ products, a proposition with which the trial court did not disagree.  What was more of concern was the assessment of substantiality.
In this regard, Dr. Maddox’s any-exposure opinion was in irreconcilable conflict with itself. Simply put, one cannot simultaneously maintain that a single fiber among millions is substantially causative, while also conceding that a disease is dose-responsive. The any-exposure opinion, as
applied to substantial-factor causation, did not consider the three factors which Dr. Maddox himself explained needed to be considered in trying to estimate the relative effects of different exposures: potency, intensity, duration.

The court took on directly the analogy offered by Dr. Maddox in support of his position: the marbles-in-a-glass illustration changes materially upon the recognition that to be a fair comparison one must include the factors that the marbles are all non-uniform in size and shape, and microscopic so that millions are needed to fill the glass. From this frame of reference, it is very difficult to say that a single one of the smallest of microscopic marbles is a substantial factor in causing a glass of water to overflow.  

Superior Court reversed; trial court affirmed.

Federal Circuit to Rehear Judges' Pay Raise Issue

While our usual focus is mass torts, product liability, class actions, and complex commercial litigation, readers know we always keep an eye on issues affecting the judiciary.

Now comes word that the Federal Circuit has agreed to rehear en banc a panel decision to deny cost-of-living pay raises to a class of federal judges. Peter H. Beer,et al. v. U.S., No. 10-5012 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2012).

Federal judges had filed a class action challenging the government's conduct in blocking duly passed and scheduled pay raises for judges, arguing this violated the Constitution's Compensation Clause, which holds that judges' pay “shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” The judges argued that denying the planned salary increases in essence amounted to an unconstitutional decrease.

Earlier this year, a panel of the appeals court affirmed the dismissal of the proposed class action, relying in part on a prior case in which the court said Congress hadn't violated the Constitution's bar on judicial pay decreases by stopping automatic raises required by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.

Plaintiffs sought rehearing, and a number of amici weighed in; for example the brief filed by the ABA noted that while partners at law firms have had average salaries rise 75% in real terms from 1969 to 2006, federal judges' pay actually fell in real terms. They are underpaid and overworked.

The court requested the parties to file new briefs addressing whether the Compensation Clause of Article III of the Constitution prohibit Congress from withholding the periodic salary adjustments for Article III judges provided for in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, and whether the 2001 amendment to the act makes a difference.

 

 

 

Consumer Fraud Claim on "All Natural" Beverage Rejected

One trend we are keeping an eye on here at MassTortDefense is plaintiffs' aggressive and excessive use of consumer fraud act claims, micro-analyzing every ad, turning traditional puffing into some kind of nefarious marketing scheme.  Class certification in such cases can trigger the need to think about "blackmail settlements."

So all victories are worth noting, and last week South Beach Beverage Co. Inc., maker of SoBe drinks, garnered dismissal of a California putative class action alleging false claims about their "0 Calories Lifewater" drinks. See Charles Hairston v. South Beach Beverage Co. Inc,. et al., No. 2:12-cv-01429 (C.D. Cal. 5/18/12).

SoBe manufactures a diverse range of beverages, including teas and enhanced waters, that are characterized by exotic flavor combinations and added vitamins. In his First Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleged that during the last three to four years, he regularly purchased SoBe 0 Calorie Lifewater beverages (“Lifewater”), which are no-calorie, vitamin-enhanced, flavored water drinks. Plaintiff raised three challenges to Lifewater’s labeling, which he claimed he “read and relied on.” First, plaintiff alleged that the “all natural” label was potentially deceptive because Lifewater contains “deceptively labeled ingredients” that are “synthetic or created via chemical processing.” Second, plaintiff alleged that Lifewater’s labels are potentially misleading because the names of various fruits are used to describe the different flavors of Lifewater even though Lifewater allegedly does not contain any actual fruit or fruit juice. Third, plaintiff alleged that the use of the common vitamin name (e.g., B12) on the product labels is misleading because the vitamins added to Lifewater are "synthetic" or created via chemical processing.

As is typical, plaintiffs alleged causes of action including for: (1) California Consumers Legal Remedies Act – California Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq. (“CLRA”); (2) California False Advertising Law – California Business & Professions Code §§ 17500, et seq. (“FAL”); (3) California Unfair Competition Law – California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (“UCL”).

Defendants argued first that the claims alleged related to the use of fruit names to describe the various flavors of Lifewater and their use of common vitamin names were preempted by the express preemption provisions in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and by the specific labeling regulations promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). The court concluded that plaintiff’s claims related to defendants’ use of the names of various fruits to describe the different flavors of Lifewater were indeed preempted. See, e.g., Dvora v.
General Mills, Inc., 2011 WL 1897349 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2011) (holding that CLRA and UCL claims
were preempted where the plaintiff was challenging the use of the words “Blueberry Pomegranate”
in labeling a cereal not containing any blueberries or pomegranates because FDA regulations
explicitly permit manufacturers “to use the name and images of a fruit on a product’s packaging to
describe the characterizing flavor of the product even where the product does not contain any of
that fruit, or contains no fruit at all”); McKinnis v. General Mills, Inc., 2007 WL 4762172 (C.D. Cal.
Sept. 18, 2007) (holding that use of “Strawberry Kiwi” to designate the flavor of yogurt containing
no fruit ingredients was “permissible to demonstrate the ‘characterizing flavor’ of the product”).

The court also concluded that plaintiff’s claims related to defendants’ use of the common names
of vitamins were preempted. See, e.g., 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(8)(v) (recognizing that “Vitamin C” and
“Ascorbic acid” are “synonym[s]” that may be used in the alternative in a product’s nutritional
information labeling); 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(k)(4) (stating that the FDA will consider a food
“misbranded” if its “label or labeling represents, suggests, or implies” that “a natural vitamin in food is superior to an added or synthetic vitamin”).

Significantly, the court concluded that plaintiff could not avoid preemption of these claims by arguing that his claim related solely to defendants’ “all natural” representations and that he included his fruit name and vitamin name claims only as support for his “all natural” claim. Such an argument would effectively allow a plaintiff to always avoid preemption of those claims, and would undermine the purpose of the federal labeling standards which includes avoiding
a patchwork of different state standards.  These claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff also alleged that the “all natural” labeling on defendants’ products was potentially deceptive because the product contains “deceptively labeled ingredients” that are
“synthetic or created via chemical processing.” However, plaintiff could not state a claim under the
CLRA, FAL, or UCL regarding defendants’ allegedly deceptive “all natural” labeling because once
the preempted statements regarding fruit names and vitamin labeling were removed, plaintiff’s claim is based on a single out-of-context phrase found in one component of Lifewater’s label.

The court concluded that plaintiff’s selective interpretation of individual words or phrases from a product’s labeling could not support a CLRA, FAL, or UCL claim. See, e.g., Carrea v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, 2012 WL 1131526 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2012).  Lifewater’s label did not simply state that it is “all natural” without elaboration or explanation. Instead, the “all natural” language was immediately followed by additional statements, like “with vitamins” or “with B vitamins.”  Lifewater did not use the “all natural” language in a vacuum. Thus, it was impossible for plaintiff to allege how the “all natural” language would be deceptive without relying on the preempted statements regarding fruit names and vitamins.

In addition, the court concluded that no reasonable consumer would read the “all natural”
language as modifying the “with vitamins” language and somehow believe that the added vitamins are suppose to be “all natural vitamins.”  Moreover, to the extent there was any ambiguity, it was  clarified by the detailed information contained in the ingredient list, which explained the exact contents of Lifewater. In this case, the ingredient list was consistent with the front label statement of “all natural with vitamins.”

The court concluded that the challenge to the “all natural” language on Lifewater was not deceptive as a matter of law.

 

Court of Appeals Rejects RICO Claim in Drug Case

One of the things we like to do here at MassTortDefense is keep an eye on the non-traditional claims plaintiffs concoct -- to evade the requirements of traditional torts, or to expand the group of "injured" plaintiffs.  Earlier this month the Third Circuit knocked down just such an attempt. See In Re: Schering Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action, Nos. 10-3046 and 10-3047 (3d Cir. May 16, 2012).

The issue here was an attempt by two groups of plaintiffs to hold a drug manufacturer liable for violating the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by allegedly marketing drugs for off-label uses. The court of appeals affirmed that neither had standing to maintain this cause of action, primarily for failure to allege a plausible nexus between the assailed marketing campaign and the physicians‘ decisions to prescribe certain drugs for off-label use.

While off-label marketing is prohibited, prescription drugs frequently have therapeutic uses other than their FDA-approved indications. The FDCAct does not regulate the practice of medicine, and so physicians may lawfully prescribe drugs for off-label uses. See Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 350 (2001) (recognizing off-label usage as an accepted and necessary corollary of the FDA‘s mission to regulate in this area without directly interfering with the practice of medicine); Wash. Legal Found. v. Henney, 202 F.3d 331, 333 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (physician may prescribe a legal drug to serve any purpose that he or she deems appropriate, regardless of whether the drug has been approved for that use by the FDA).

Plaintiffs' claims, as is so common, attempted to piggy-back off of prior government investigations. They alleged that Schering‘s marketing practices caused physicians to prescribe the drugs for off-label uses instead of equally effective alternative treatments that were approved for the prescribed uses or no medication at all. They assert that these marketing techniques led to a significant increase in prescriptions of the drugs for off-label uses, and contend that this caused the plaintiffs an "ascertainable loss" (key concept) because they supposedly paid millions of dollars for the drugs that they otherwise would not have paid.

The district court granted a motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs appealed.

A motion to dismiss for lack of standing implicates Rule 12(b)(1) because standing is a jurisdictional matter, and 12(b)(6) with the Twombly/Iqbal guidance.  While the plausibility standard of those cases does not impose a probability requirement, it does demand more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. The plausibility determination is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense; and some claims require more factual explication than others to state a plausible claim for relief.

The Constitution imposes a requirement that there be an actual case or controversy. Federal courts have developed several justiceability doctrines to enforce the case-or-controversy requirement, and perhaps the most important of these doctrines is the requirement that a litigant have standing to invoke the power of a federal court. The standing question is whether the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf. The plaintiff bears the burden of meeting the irreducible constitutional minimum of Article III standing by establishing three elements: First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court. Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

In addition to meeting the constitutional standing requirements, plaintiffs seeking recovery under RICO must satisfy additional standing criterion set forth in section 1964(c) of the statute: that the plaintiff suffered an injury to business or property; and that the plaintiff‘s injury was proximately caused by the defendant‘s violation.

The Union plaintiff on behalf of a proposed class of third-party payors alleged economic loss based on paying for ineffective drugs. Accordingly, to establish standing, it must allege facts showing a causal relationship between the alleged injury—payments for a specific drug that was ineffective or unsafe for the use for which it was prescribed—and Schering‘s alleged wrongful conduct. However, there were no averments that came close to satisfying this standard. It was pure conjecture to conclude that because Schering‘s misconduct supposedly caused other doctors to write prescriptions for ineffective off-label uses for other products, the Union ended up paying for prescriptions for a different drug due to the same kind of alleged misconduct. (Again, attempted piggy-backing on government allegations.)

The court of appeals spent considerable effort reviewing claims of a proposed class of plaintiff consumers, who tried to prove standing by incorporating materials from the government investigation and concocting a series of purported links between drug trials, marketing activities and prescribing doctors' behavior.  The district court rejected this, and plaintiffs' focus on appeal on the pleading standards for each of these claims was secondary to the threshold issue that the consumers did not adequately allege an injury fairly traceable to Schering‘s alleged misconduct. Although the complaint was replete with factual allegations and indeed asserted them with somewhat greater specificity than the third-party payor complaint, they do not present a plausible allegation actually linking the injuries to any type of miscommunication or false claim about the drugs that were actually prescribed.

No standing. Dismissal affirmed. 

Sunscreen Label Rules Deadlines Extended by FDA

Next weekend marks the unofficial start of the summer season, and readers will be heading out to the lake or beach, picnics and barbecues.  All the while taking time to reflect on the brave men and women who gave their lives for our freedom serving in the United States armed forces.  (Memorial Day was originally known as Decoration Day, a day to put flowers and flags on the graves of fallen Civil War soldiers.)

Those summer activities may call for sunscreen. On that topic, we note that the FDA recently announced a six-month delay on implementing new labeling rules for sunscreen.  The rules call for additional testing regarding ultraviolet A and ultraviolet B ray protection, and restrict use of certain "waterproof," "sweat-proof" and "sunblock" claims, also regulating claims for ‘‘instant
protection’’ or protection immediately upon application, or claims for ‘‘all-day’’ protection or extended wear claims.

The new rules were set to go into effect June 18, but industry groups like the Personal Care Products Council and the Consumer Healthcare Products Association noted the need for more time. FDA agreed that allowing adequate time for the 2011 final rule requirements to be
fully implemented is in the interest of public health.  Complex label redesign issues and the required broad spectrum testing just is going to take more time.

For example, sunscreens that pass the FDA's new broad-spectrum test procedure can be labeled as "Broad Spectrum" on the front label. And such products will be extremely valuable to consumers concerned about skin cancer risks. If the timeline for implementation discourages manufacturers from conducting broad spectrum testing, and instead prompts them to apply the labeling that the final rule establishes for products that have not been established to offer broad spectrum  protection, a major public health goal of the rule will be undermined.

FDA still encouraged manufacturers to introduce individual products bearing the new labeling as it becomes available, even in advance of the revised compliance date, which ranges from December 2012 to December 2013 depending on the product.

Readers, enjoy your holiday weekend.

 
 

Fracking Toxic Tort Case Dismissed Per Lone Pine Order

Readers will recall our earlier postings on "fracking"; natural gas from shale rock promises to provide cleaner, abundant energy for the U.S.  New drilling methods allow companies to tap into huge quantities of gas from shale rock. New estimates show that we have enough of this natural gas to last 100 years at current consumption rates.

The second biggest natural gas field in the world -- the Marcellus -- runs through your humble blogger's home state of Pennsylvania. The energy, jobs, taxes, and independence that tapping into this domestic resource will bring has spurred much interest and anticipation. The method to extract the gas from the rock is called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which like any technology, carries potential risks.

However, the potential drilling into the Marcellus Shale has caught the attention of the plaintiffs' bar, including personal injury and environmental class action lawyers. Plaintiffs lawyers are openly speculating about everything from gas leaks and fires, to environmental groundwater impacts, to the problems of large tanker trucks on small rural roadways.

We posted before about one such case already filed regarding another deposit, out West. See Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., No. 2011CV2218 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Denver Cty., 3/24/11). Plaintiffs sued the gas exploration company and drilling equipment contractor, alleging that the hyrdrofracking contaminated their well water.

Earlier this month, the Colorado court dismissed the claim, relying on a  Lone Pine order, 2012 WL 1932470. The case arose from drilling and completing three natural gas wells in Silt, Colorado known as the Diemoz A well, the Fenno Ranch A well, and the Three Siblings A well. Construction of the Wells allegedly began on August 9, 2010. By January 10, 2011, plaintiffs had moved out of their home and away from Silt.

The central issue was whether defendants caused plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, which
plaintiffs vaguely described as “health injuries” from exposure to air and water contaminated by
defendants with “hazardous gases, chemicals and industrial wastes." Plaintiffs also alleged that
defendants had caused loss of use and enjoyment of their property, diminution in value of
property, loss of quality of life, and other damages. 

Cognizant of the significant discovery and cost burdens presented by a case of this nature, the court endeavored to invoke a more efficient procedure than we see in the standard case management order. The court required plaintiffs, before opening full two-way discovery, to make a prima facie showing of exposure and causation, a form of a Lone Pine order. See Lore v. Lone Pine Corp., No. L-33606-85 1986 WL 635707 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Nov. 18, 1986). The court further
determined that the prima facie showing requirement should  not prejudice plaintiffs because
ultimately they would need to come forward with this data and expert opinion on exposure and causation in order to establish their claims anyway.

The court also seemed influenced by the fact that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“COGCC”) had conducted an investigation of the plaintiffs’ well water and had concluded that the water supply was not affected by oil and gas operations in the vicinity. Defendants also provided evidence to support their contention that the air emission-control
equipment at the Wells and prevailing wind patterns made it unlikely that plaintiffs or their
property were exposed to harmful levels of chemicals from defendants’ activities.

Specifically, the CMO required plaintiffs to identify the identity of each hazardous substance from defendants’ activities to which he or she was exposed and which caused him or
her injury;  evidence whether any and each of these substances can cause the type(s) of disease or illness that plaintiffs claimed (general causation);  the dose or other quantitative measurement of the concentration, timing and duration of his/her exposure to each substance; a medically recognized diagnosis of the specific disease or illness from which each plaintiff allegedly suffers or is at risk for such that medical monitoring is purportedly necessary; and a conclusion that such illness was in fact caused by such exposure (specific causation).

Plaintiffs were given 105 days to comply with the CMO. After that time, all plaintiff's expert could opine was that “sufficient environmental and health information exists to merit further substantive discovery.” Significantly, he offered no opinion as to whether exposure was a contributing factor to plaintiffs’ alleged injuries or illness. And the requested march towards further discovery
without some adequate proof of causation of injury is precisely what the CMO was meant to
curtail. The expert  suggested, at best, a very weak circumstantial causal connection between the Wells and plaintiffs’ injuries. In fact, he merely temporally associated plaintiff’s symptoms with the Wells being brought into production.

While the proffered evidence showed existence of certain low level gases and compounds in both the air and water of plaintiffs’ Silt home, there was neither sufficient data nor expert analysis stating with any level of probability that a causal connection does in fact exist between the alleged injuries and exposure to defendants drilling activities.  This is particularly telling, since Mr. Strudley complained of “nasal sinus congestion, nose bleeds at inconvenient times” and “an aversion to odors,” while he owns a painting business, and was frequently exposed to paint vapors -- offering a ready alternative explanation for his alleged respiratory symptoms.

The expert did not opine on whether any and each of the substances present in the air and water samples (taken after plaintiffs had moved out) can cause the type(s) of disease or illness that plaintiffs claimed (general causation). He did not discuss the dose or other quantitative measurement of the concentration, timing and duration of the alleged exposure to each substance. Finally, and perhaps most significantly,the expert did not even attempt to draw a conclusion that plaintiffs’ alleged injuries or illnesses were in fact caused by such exposure (specific causation).

The case reflects an effective, but also appropriate, use of the Lone Pine order. It may be a useful model for other fracking toxic tort suits, and is important as an illustration of a method to avoid long, expensive, and unnecessary discovery in such cases. 

 

Update BUT SEE Strudley v. Antero, Colo. Ct. App., No. 12CA1251, 7/3/13.

Tort Reform Continues in Arizona

As always at MassTortDefense we are happy to note tort reform victories.

Earlier this month Arizona Governor Brewer signed legislation limiting punitive damage awards in product liability defect suits in the state.

The bill, H.B. 2503, was passed by wide margins in both chambers of the state legislature earlier in the Spring.  It states that punitive damages generally cannot be awarded in a civil suit in Arizona when a product is designed, manufactured, packaged, labeled, sold, or represented in relevant and material respects in accordance with a federal agency's approval, clearance, or determination.

The legislation does not exempt punitive damages if the company that sells a product does so after a final order is given from a government agency to withdraw or recall the item from the market.

Supporters had indicated that the measure was important to discourage the practice of seeking punitive damages simply as a lever to force a defendant to settle, as insurance typically does not cover punitives. Businesses that manufacture products in compliance with all relevant health and safety standards should not be held liable for punitive damages in product liability cases. Laws like this one give clients the security to be innovative. When creating new products, businesses can be assured that by complying with mandated guidelines they will not be subject to unjust punitive sanctions. 

 

State Committee Misses Opportunity for Class Action Reform

Readers of MassTortDefense recognize that one of the most challenging jurisdictions for potential class actions defendants is California, given the substantive law, some state courts' take on certification issues, and the aggressive plaintiffs' bar.  It is no surprise that advocates of a balanced and appropriate role for class actions have from time to time attempted legislative reform in this state.

One idea that has been proposed is a requirement that class action advertisements (and there are plenty) include appropriate disclosures that potential plaintiffs could be liable for attorneys’ fees if a defendant prevails.

Unfortunately, the state Assembly's Judiciary Committee last week rejected such a proposal in a vote along party lines.  Proposed A.B. 1954 would have required ads soliciting plaintiffs for a class action to disclose that they might be held responsible for part of a defendant's legal fees if the defendant prevails under certain conditions. The legislation also would have permitted the state's Department of Consumer Affairs to impose a fine of up to $2,000 for an ad that failed to include the notice provision.

Supporters of the bill expressed concern about what they see as a flood of class action solicitations, which are seen as a serious impediment to doing business in California.  The bill was supported by the Civil Justice Association of California and the California Building Industry Association, as well as the California Chamber of Commerce.  Our readers know that some potential plaintiffs see class actions like purchasing a lottery ticket - no risk, high reward.  Opponents argued that in the state, orders directing named plaintiffs of a class to pay for a prevailing defendant’s fees happens only in rare cases. But it can and does happen, and what's wrong with letting potential plaintiffs know this? Such a bill would increases transparency and thus protect consumers; it might cut down on the number of "shakedown" class actions that only disclose promises of huge settlements without the potential other side of the coin. 

 

A New Beginning

I am very excited to announce to our faithful readers that your humble blogger has joined a new law firm.  As of today, I am a partner in the national litigation practice of Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (The transition process is why you may have noticed fewer posts recently.)  Many of our readers know Shook is an international law firm with a legacy spanning more than a century. The firm has nearly 500 attorneys supported by more than 230 analysts and para-professionals, serving a diverse client base from nine offices in Geneva, Houston, Kansas City, London, Miami, Orange County, San Francisco, Tampa, and Washington, D.C.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon was recently listed on The American Lawyer’s Litigation Power Rankings as one of the top 25 litigation practices in the nation, and The American Lawyer also named the firm its 2012 Product Liability Litigation Department of the Year. Additionally, Shook, Hardy & Bacon was selected by the International Law Office as its 2012 Client Choice Award recipient for the United States, and BTI Consulting Group recognized the firm as one of the top four firms in the country for providing value to clients. BTI based its findings on the results of a corporate counsel survey that measured law firm performance “through the eyes of the client.”  In 2011 Chambers USA ranked Shook, Hardy & Bacon’s product liability practice in the top tier (Band One) of all firms nationwide.

Shook, Hardy’s reputation in litigation stands on its own, but my long-standing relationship with Shook was part of what attracted me to the firm. I have been working as co-counsel with many of SHB’s attorneys for more than 15 years, and we share a passion for both litigation and client service that simply cannot be found anywhere else, in my experience.
 

Tags: