Where scientific expertise meets cloud-based power:
Integrated collaboration, information storage, and sharing at your fingertips
Last week, the FDA finalized a rule which affects e-cigarettes and other products including hookahs, cigars, and pipe tobacco marketed after February 15, 2007. Essentially, most e-cigarette products currently on the market will not be grandfathered in, and will have to go through the FDA approval process retrospectively. Some have expressed concern that the new regulations are too onerous and costly, and will force many small shops and manufacturers out of business.
Last week, another jury verdict ordered Johnson & Johnson (J&J) to pay $55 million in a suit that linked the use of talcum powder to ovarian cancer. This is the second suit of its kind for 2016, and the second loss for J&J. The combined defeat from these two suits brings the awards to a total of $127 million for J&J’s talc cases.
When it comes to litigation involving complex scientific issues, the success of your case is highly dependent on the quality of your testifying experts. Over the past 25 years, we have identified and recruited hundreds of testifying experts for cases of all types, including toxic torts, pharmaceutical and medical device litigation, patent disputes, and consumer fraud actions.
Silicone wristbands are being sold as personal exposure monitors to measure the so-called exposome – i.e., every chemical a person is exposed to over the course of a lifetime. Advances in genomic science are transforming our understanding of lung cancer, differentiating lung cancers in asbestos-exposed patients from lung cancer in asbestos unexposed patients. Genomic information is heavily influencing the types of warnings being made for pharmaceutical products.
Consumer fraud cases have been on the rise over the last decade, including cosmetics, dietary supplements, over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, among others, and have all been under scrutiny of the courts based on the lack of data supporting marketing claims.
Recently, the evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathic therapies has come under increased scrutiny, making them a perfect target for consumer fraud.
About five years ago, scientists began trying to explain why different individuals seem to have variable susceptibilities to mesothelioma (i.e., why do some individuals develop cancer when exposed to very low levels of asbestos, while others who have been exposed to very high levels of asbestos do not develop cancer?).
Asbestos litigation has now entered the modern era. Namely, the first case involving testimony related to BAP1 mutations has gone to trial in California: the Ortwein case. The trial involved a 50-year-old woman with pleural mesothelioma, represented by the Kazan firm. The defendant at trial was CertainTeed, a building manufacturer, and the case settled shortly before it would have gone to the jury.