WEBINAR: Proof of Claim Process, Trust Process in the Bankruptcy World and the Boy Scouts of America Litigation

                Verus is pleased to announce its sponsorship of an upcoming Mass Torts Made Perfect Webinar: “Proof of Claim Process, Trust Process in the Bankruptcy World and the Boy Scouts of America Litigation” to be held on July 21 at 2:00 PM (EST). For more information about this session, visit the webinar’s page. SPEAKERS: Anne Andrews (Andrews Thornton) Dan Comunale (Verus LLC) Eric Pasternack (Cohen, Placitella & Roth) MODERATOR: Dan Myer (Verus LLC) To register for the webinar series, please visit their website. The post WEBINAR: Proof of Claim Process, Trust Process in the Bankruptcy World and the Boy Scouts of America Litigation appeared first on Verus.

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/webinar-proof-of-claim-process-trust-process-in-the-bankruptcy-world-and-the-boy-scouts-of-america-litigation/

EPA removes name of U.S. official from warning of glyphosate cancer links

In an unusual move, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has deleted the name of a high-ranking U.S.  health official from a public comment that warned of cancer links to the weed killing chemical glyphosate and called for a halt to industry manipulation of research. The public comment in question was submitted to the EPA and posted on the agency’s website under the name of Patrick Breysse, the director of the National Center for Environmental Health and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).  In that role, Breysse leads efforts to investigate the relationship between environmental factors and health. The comment under Breysse’s name was filed last year with the EPA in response to an updated agency review of glyphosate and urged the agency to review “documented evidence” that glyphosate was harmful and should be banned. For months the comment sat on the EPA website under Breysse’s name. It was only after U.S. Right to Know sought commentary last week from Breysse about his statement that the EPA removed his name. The comment now is attributed to “Anonymous.” Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup and other herbicides and was popularized by Monsanto, a unit of Bayer AG. It is considered the most widely used herbicide in the world. The EPA has steadfastly defended the safety of glyphosate despite findings by many independent scientists that glyphosate herbicides can cause a range of illness and disease, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The comment under Breysse’s name contradicted the EPA’s position: “Numerous studies have linked its use to an increase in lymphomas, and it’s time we stopped letting the chemical industry manipulate research to serve its own interest. U.S. citizens need to trust the Environmental Protection Agency to operate in our best interest, which means weighing evidence from neutral scientific sources not vested in the outcome.” Notably, Breysse is also the ATSDR official who was pressured by EPA officials in 2015 at the behest of Monsanto to put a halt to a review of glyphosate toxicity then just getting underway at the ATSDR. The push to delay the ATSDR review of glyphosate came because Monsanto feared the ATSDR would agree with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in finding cancer links to glyphosate, internal Monsanto correspondence shows. One internal Monsanto email said EPA official Jess Rowland told Monsanto he should “get a medal” if he was successful in killing the ATSDR glyphosate review. The ATSDR review was in fact delayed until 2019 after the pressure from Monsanto and EPA officials. When the report was finally released, it did confirm Monsanto’s fears, lending support to the 2015 IARC concerns about links between cancer and glyphosate. The ATSDR report was signed by Breysse. Breysse did not respond to a request to confirm or deny his authorship of the comment on the EPA website. The press office for the National Center for Environmental Health said an error occurred and Breysse did not submit the comment in question and so the EPA removed his name. The EPA did not immediately respond to questions about the matter. The original comment and the changed one are shown below: The post EPA removes name of U.S. official from warning of glyphosate cancer links appeared first on U.S. Right to Know.

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/epa-removes-name-of-u-s-official-from-warning-of-glyphosate-cancer-links/

Litigation Update: Bayer Delays Plan for Handling Future Roundup Cancer Claims

After the federal judge overseeing the multi-district litigation indicated in an order filed July 6 that he was skeptical of the proposed settlement, Bayer, owner of Monsanto, agreed to put the plan on handling future cancer claims on hold while negotiations to address the judge’s concerns are underway.  The $1.25 billion plan, filed last month in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, was intended to manage the company’s future liability and was separate from the settlement agreement that was reached for lawsuits already filed; it was intended to apply to all future claims brought “either by Roundup users who have developed cancer but have not yet sued, or by Roundup users who have not yet developed cancer at all” as of June 24, 2020. In the order, Judge Vince Chhabria commented on a number of the Court’s concerns, including the legality or constitutionality of the plan’s intent to “delegate the function of deciding the general causation question (that is, whether and at what dose Roundup is capable of causing cancer) from judges and juries to a panel of scientists”, the issue of “why….. a potential class member (would) want to replace a jury trial and the right to seek punitive damages with the process contemplated by the settlement agreement”, the appropriateness of binding all future cases to the science panel’s findings, and the fact that it was unlikely that most class members would get the kind of notification that would allow them to consider their options in a meaningful way.  The plan as drafted would delay the filing of cases for four years to allow for a five member “science panel” to conduct research into whether Monsanto’s glysophate-based weed killer, Roundup, causes non-Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL) and if so, at what minimum exposure levels. As a result of the judge’s order, on July 8 the group of lawyers who had structured the deal with Bayer filed a notice to withdraw their plan.  The group also issued a joint press release with Bayer stating that they intended to revise the plan to address the issues raised by Judge Chhabria in his July 6 order. It remains to be seen whether the withdrawal of the class action settlement plan will impact the proposed settlements of the existing claims. In response to multiple requests from potential class members to delay ruling on the preliminary approval of the settlement, Judge Chhabria states in his July 6 order that the hearing will take place, as originally scheduled, on July 24. In addition, he notes, “with respect to the filing deadline on July 13, the Court will only consider filings from potential class members titled ‘preliminary opposition’ or ‘preliminary objections.’” The Court will also not be considering amicus briefs at this time. Click on this link for information on Verus’ Roundup Litigation Support Services. To contact us, fill out this form or email us at info@verusllc.com and we will reply immediately. |CONTACT US| |REQUEST PROPOSAL| The post Litigation Update: Bayer Delays Plan for Handling Future Roundup Cancer Claims appeared first on Verus.

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/litigation-update-bayer-delays-plan-for-handling-future-roundup-cancer-claims/

Bayer backs away from plan to contain future Roundup cancer claims

Monsanto owner Bayer AG is backing away from a plan to contain future Roundup cancer claims after a federal judge made it clear he would not approve the scheme, which would delay new trials and limit jury decision-making. The plan concocted by Bayer and a small group of lawyers was filed last month in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as part of a effort by Bayer to put an end to sweeping litigation that has so far led to three losses in three jury trials, staggering punitive damage awards and shareholder discontent. More than 100,000 people in the United States claim exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup herbicides caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and that Monsanto long knew about and covered up the cancer risks. On Monday Judge Vince Chhabria issued an order setting a hearing on the matter for July 24 and making it clear he would not approve the settlement plan. He was “skeptical of the propriety and fairness of the proposed settlement,” Chhabria wrote in the order. Prior to the judge’s order, multiple parties filed notices of their own opposition to the Bayer plan; citing “major deviations from ordinary practices” called for in the proposed settlement. In response, on Wednesday the group of lawyers who had structured the deal with Bayer filed a notice of withdrawal of their plan. The proposed settlement plan for future class action litigation was separate from the settlement agreement Bayer made with lawyers for plaintiffs who have already filed cases and is designed to help Bayer contain and manage future liability.  Under the structure put together by Bayer and a small group of plaintiffs’ lawyers the class action settlement would have applied to anyone exposed to Roundup who had not filed a lawsuit or retained a lawyer as of June 24, 2020, regardless of whether or not that person already had been diagnosed with cancer they believe was due to Roundup exposure. The plan would have delayed the filing of new cases for four years, and called for the establishment of a five-member “science panel” that would take any future findings on cancer claims out of the hands of  juries. Instead, a “Class Science Panel” would be established to determine whether Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and if so, at what minimum exposure levels.  Bayer would get to appoint two of the five panel members. If the panel determined there was no causal connection between Roundup and non-Hodgkin lymphoma then the class members would be barred from future such claims. Judge Chhabria took issue with the whole idea of a science panel. In his order, the judge wrote: “In an area where the science may be evolving, how could it be appropriate to lock in a decision from a panel of scientists for all future cases? For examine, imagine the panel decides in 2023 that Roundup is not capable of causing cancer. Then imagine that a new, reliable study is published in 2028 which strongly undermines the panel’s conclusion. If a Roundup user is diagnosed with NHL in 2030, is it appropriate to tell them that they’re bound by the 2023 decision of the panel because they did not opt out of a settlement in 2020?” Bayer said it would set aside $1.25 billion for the arrangement. The money would be used to compensate class members diagnosed with NHL for the “effects of the delay” in litigation, and to fund research into the diagnosis and treatment of NHL, among other things. The plaintiffs’  attorneys who put the plan together with Bayer stood to make more than $150 million in fees payable by Bayer. They are not the same law firms that have led the litigation to date. This group of law firms include Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; Audet & Partners; The Dugan Law Firm; and lawyer Samuel Issacharoff, Reiss Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University School of Law. Several members of the lead law firms who won the three Roundup cancer trials oppose the proposed class action settlement plan, saying it would deprive future plaintiffs of their rights while enriching those other lawyers who have not previously been at the forefront of the Roundup litigation. It is not clear how the withdrawal of this proposed class action settlement plan might impact the larger settlement of existing claims. Bayer said last month it will pay up to $9.6 billion to resolve roughly 75 percent of the current claims and will continue working to settle the rest. That settlement does not require court approval. Bayer issued a statement Wednesday saying it remains “strongly committed to a resolution that simultaneously addresses both the current litigation on reasonable terms and a viable solution to manage and resolve potential future litigation.” The post Bayer backs away from plan to contain future Roundup cancer claims appeared first on U.S. Right to Know.

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/bayer-backs-away-from-plan-to-contain-future-roundup-cancer-claims/

Litigation Update: Pharmacies Seek to Disqualify Federal Judge in Opioid MDL

On June 30, several major pharmacy chains, including CVS Health Corp., Walmart Inc., Rite-Aid Corp. and Walgreen Co. asked the Sixth Circuit to disqualify the judge overseeing the sprawling opioid litigation, Ohio U.S. District Judge Dan Aaron Polster, accusing him of bias. In April, Judge Polster scheduled a new bellwether trial quickly after issues involving the addition of dispensing allegations against the pharmacy defendants were eliminated by the Sixth Circuit in a previously scheduled bellwether.  The appellate court in that instance ruled that the dispensing allegations were added too late to the amended complaints filed in those cases.  In response to the scope being limited, Judge Polster selected new bellwether cases and again included the dispensing allegations, assigning a 2021 trial date. In their current motion, the pharmacies argue that in so doing, the judge has exhibited blatant bias and is essentially directing the plaintiffs’ trial strategy by restructuring the plaintiffs’ case and acting to request a new trial without being directed to by the plaintiffs.  They also object to a public nuisance theory of liability being the sole focus of the new case which would enable Judge Polster to determine the remedy. This is the defendants’ second attempt to have the judge removed.  On October 10, 2019, the Sixth Circuit rejected attempts by the Ohio attorney general and drug companies to disqualify the judge based on his statements in support of a settlement that they viewed as improper. At that time, the pharmacies accused Judge Polster of “prejudgment of the merits” and the “pursuit of a personal mission” to handle the opioid crisis by targeting the large drug companies. In response to the most recent attempt to oust him, Judge Polster told the Sixth Circuit that any allegations of bias are reckless and false, writing in a letter filed with the court “To state it plainly: the assertion by that any of my decisions are ‘tainted’ by ‘partiality,’ and particularly that I have ‘maneuvered’ the litigation so that I can force a preordained result … is dangerous fiction.”  He also added that the pharmacies should have anticipated the scheduling of new bellwether trials that included the dispensing claims. Click on this link for information on Verus’ Mass Tort Services. To contact us, fill out this form or email us at info@verusllc.com and we will reply immediately. |CONTACT US| |REQUEST PROPOSAL| The post Litigation Update: Pharmacies Seek to Disqualify Federal Judge in Opioid MDL appeared first on Verus.

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/litigation-update-pharmacies-seek-to-disqualify-federal-judge-in-opioid-mdl/

Litigation Update: JUUL MDL Developments

On June 29, 2020, the defendants JUUL Labs, Inc. and Altria Group, Inc. filed motions to dismiss the class action complaint filed in the federal multi-district litigation against three non-management director defendants, arguing the plaintiffs failed to prove that non-management directors participated in any fraudulent business practices, that the claims are pre-empted by federal law, and that the plaintiffs lacked jurisdiction. Consumers argued to the presiding California judge that federal law does not bar their claims that JUUL and Altria deceptively offered e-cigarettes as a method by which consumers could quit smoking when in fact the product simply offered an alternative way to deliver nicotine and encourage addiction.  They contend, in fact, that when Congress gave the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authority over tobacco products, it was well aware of the ongoing chance of private litigation being pursued under state law and yet still crafted the Tobacco Control Act with a very narrow provision that clearly sought to limit federal pre-emption. In earlier motions filed on June 22, JUUL and Altria asked the California court managing the federal MDL to throw out claims from seven government entities, in particular the Tucson Unified School District; the School Board of Broward County, Florida; Central Bucks School District; the School Board of Escambia County, Florida; Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District; the County of Santa Cruz; and Three Village Central School District, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to link their public nuisance claims to any actions of the two companies. Altria contended that many of the claims at issue were initiated before Altria bought its stake in JULL.  JUUL also stated that it owed the plaintiffs no duty of care since they never purchased JUUL’s products and that municipalities were precluded from recovering the costs of providing public services to the public – one aspect of the damages the plaintiffs are seeking. Arguments on the motions are scheduled to be heard in September. Click on this link for information on Verus’ Mass Tort Services. To contact us, fill out this form or email us at info@verusllc.com and we will reply immediately. |CONTACT US| |REQUEST PROPOSAL| The post Litigation Update: JUUL MDL Developments appeared first on Verus.

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/litigation-update-juul-mdl-developments/

U.S. regulators relied for years on flawed pesticide data provided by Dow Chemical

For years, U.S. regulators relied on falsified data provided by Dow Chemical to allow unsafe levels of the chemical chlorpyrifos into American homes, according to a new analysis from University of Washington researchers. The analysis reexamines work from the 1970s sponsored by Dow and submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to guide the agency in establishing what scientists refer to as a “no-observed-adverse-effect-level” or NOAEL. Such thresholds are used to determine what types of use and at what level a chemical exposure can be allowed and still be considered “safe.” According to the new analysis, published online July 3 in the journal Environmental International, the inaccurate findings were the result of a chlorpyrifos dosing study conducted by researcher Frederick Coulston and colleagues from the Albany Medical College in the early 1970s for Dow. The authors of the new paper reexamining that prior work are Lianne Sheppard, Seth McGrew and Richard Fenske of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, School of Public Health at the University of Washington. While the study was authored by the Coulston group, the analysis was completed by a Dow statistician and concluded that 0.03 mg/kg-day was the chronic NOAEL level for chlorpyrifos in humans. But the new analysis by the University of Washington researchers found that wildly overstated the margin of safety. Had the data been properly analyzed a lower NOAEL of 0.014 mg/kg-day would have been found, they said. The Coulston study did not undergo peer review but still was used by the EPA for risk assessments throughout much of the 1980′s and 1990′s, the University of Washington researchers reported. The researchers concluded: “During that period, EPA allowed chlorpyrifos to be registered for multiple residential uses that were later cancelled to reduce potential health impacts to children and infants. Had appropriate analyses been employed in the evaluation of this study, it is likely that many of those registered uses of chlorpyrifos would not have been authorized by EPA. This work demonstrates that reliance by pesticide regulators on research results that have not been properly peer-reviewed may needlessly endanger the public.” Widely used Commonly known as the active ingredient in the brand name Lorsban, chlorpyrifos insecticides were introduced by Dow Chemical in 1965 and have been used widely in agricultural settings. The largest agricultural market for chlorpyrifos is corn but the pesticide is also used by farmers growing soybeans, fruit and nut trees, Brussels sprouts, cranberries, and cauliflower, as well as other row crops. Residues of the chemical are commonly found in food. Non-agricultural uses include golf courses, turf, green houses, and utilities. Despite the science promoted by Dow, independent scientific research has shown mounting evidence of the dangers of chlorpyrifos, particularly to young children. Scientists have found that prenatal exposures to chlorpyrifos are associated with lower birth weight, reduced IQ, the loss of working memory, attention disorders, and delayed motor development. The American Academy for Pediatrics, which represents more than 66,000 pediatricians and pediatric surgeons, has warned that continued use of the chemical puts developing fetuses, infants, children and pregnant women at great risk. Chlorpyrifos is so dangerous that the European Food Safety Authority has stated that there is no safe exposure level. The EPA reached an agreement with Dow in 2000 to phase out all residential uses of the chemical because of research showing the chemical is dangerous to the developing brains of babies and young children. In 2012, chlorpyrifos was banned from use around schools. In February 2020, after pressure from consumer, medical, scientific groups and in face of growing calls for bans around the world, Corteva AgriScience, a successor corporation to a merger of Dow and DuPont, said it would phase out production of chlorpyrifos. The chemical, however, remains legal for other companies to make and sell. Human subjects The study that is the subject of the new paper by the University of Washington researchers was overseen in 1971 by the Albany Medical College’s Institute of Experimental Pathology and Toxicology. The study included 16 healthy adult male inmates from a pool of volunteers at Clinton Correctional Facility, a maximum-security prison in Dannemora, New York. The volunteers were randomized into four experimental groups, including one control group, whose members received a daily placebo. The members of the three other groups received daily chlorpyrifos treatments at three different doses.  The study took place over 63 days. The new analysis found several problems with the study, including the omission of eight valid baseline measurements for one of the three treatment groups. “Such an omission of valid data without justification is a form of data falsification that violates all standard codes of ethical research practice and is classified as outright research misconduct,” the University of Washington researchers concluded. The researchers said that chlorpyrifos “passed through the regulatory process without much debate,” even though there was “growing evidence that it might pose a health hazard in residential environments.” “The Coulston Study misled regulators by omitting valid data,” and “may have adversely impacted public health” for several years, the University of Washington paper concludes. The post U.S. regulators relied for years on flawed pesticide data provided by Dow Chemical appeared first on U.S. Right to Know.

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/u-s-regulators-relied-for-years-on-flawed-pesticide-data-provided-by-dow-chemical-2/

Court frowns on Bayer’s proposed Roundup class-action settlement

A federal judge on Monday had harsh words for Bayer AG’s plan to delay potential future Roundup cancer lawsuits and block jury trials, criticizing the highly unusual proposal crafted by Bayer and a small group of plaintiffs’ attorneys as potentially unconstitutional. The “Court is skeptical of the propriety and fairness of the proposed settlement, and is tentatively inclined to deny the motion,” reads the preliminary order issued by Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The judge’s position appears to be a sharp blow to Bayer and the company’s efforts to resolve a legacy of litigation attached to Monsanto, which Bayer bought two years ago. More than 100,000 people in the United States claim exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup herbicides caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and that Monsanto long knew about and covered up the cancer risks. Three jury trials have been held in the last two years and Monsanto lost all three with juries awarding more than $2 billion in damages. All the cases are now on appeal and Bayer has been scrambling to avoid future jury trials. Last month Bayer said it had reached agreements to settle the majority of lawsuits currently filed and had crafted a plan for handling cases that likely would be filed in the future. To handle the current litigation Bayer said it will pay up to $9.6 billion to resolve roughly 75 percent of the current claims and will continue working to settle the rest. In the plan for handling potential future cases, Bayer said it was working with a small group of plaintiffs’  attorneys who stand to make more than $150 million in fees in exchange for agreeing to a four-year “standstill” in filing cases. This plan would apply to people who may be diagnosed in the future with NHL they believe is due to Roundup exposure. In contrast to Monsanto’s settlement of the pending cases against it, settlement of this new “futures” class action requires court approval. In addition to delaying more trials, the deal calls for the establishment of a five-member “science panel” that would take any future findings on cancer claims out of the hands of  juries. Instead, a “Class Science Panel” would be established to determine whether Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and if so, at what minimum exposure levels.  Bayer would get to appoint two of the five panel members. If the panel determined there was no causal connection between Roundup and non-Hodgkin lymphoma then the class members would be barred from future such claims. Several members of the lead law firms who won the three Roundup cancer trials oppose the proposed class action settlement plan, saying it would deprive future plaintiffs of their rights while enriching a handful of lawyers who have not previously been at the forefront of the Roundup litigation. The plan requires the approval of Judge Chhabria, but the order issued Monday indicated he does not plan to grant approval. “In an area where the science may be evolving, how could it be appropriate to lock in a decision from a panel of scientists for all future cases?” the judge asked in his order. The judge said he will hold a hearing on July 24 on the motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. “Given the Court’s current skepticism, it could be contrary to everyone’s interest to delay the hearing on preliminary approval,” he wrote in his order. Below is an excerpt of the judge’s order: The post Court frowns on Bayer’s proposed Roundup class-action settlement appeared first on U.S. Right to Know.

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/court-frowns-on-bayers-proposed-roundup-class-action-settlement/

Litigation Update: Adverse Findings for Pharma Giant Johnson & Johnson in Two Talc Cases

On June 23, in a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District reduced the damages awarded by the jury in a 2018 trial that linked Johnson & Johnson talc products to cancer, by more than half from $4.7 billion to $2.12 billion, even as it upheld the verdict itself. J&J had appealed the massive verdict in favor of 22 women suffering from ovarian cancer and continues to maintain its product is safe and asbestos-free. In its appeal, J&J offered a number of arguments, including the contention that its due process rights were violated when the circuit court allowed the matter to proceed with 22 plaintiffs instead of breaking them up into individual trials.  The company also attacked the plaintiffs’ scientists, arguing that it was improper to allow out-of-state plaintiffs to pursue the cases in Missouri. On this last issue, the court found that 15 of the 17 out-of-state plaintiffs had proven a connection to Missouri through their use of Shower to Shower Shimmer, a talc product manufactured for J&J Consumer by Missouri corporation Pharma Tech. The court clarified that their claims would be limited to those against the Missouri company; both the compensatory and punitive damage awards were subsequently reduced accordingly. The court’s findings on several legal issues may present a difficult challenge to J&J in future claims and could make it harder for the company to argue that its rights are violated in multi-plaintiff trials or that punitive damages are improper or unconstitutionally high. In upholding the compensatory to punitive damages ratio allocated by the jury, the judge noted that the award was reasonable given J&J’s “outrageous conduct”. The court also refused to exclude some of the plaintiffs’ experts, noting that the witnesses’ credibility should be an issue for the defendant to raise at trial; this may make it difficult for J&J to argue for their exclusion in future trials. J&J immediately announced it would appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court. In another talc trial, this one based in New Jersey state court, the company’s motion to set aside or reduce a $186 million combined punitive damages award made back in February, was denied by Superior Court Judge Ana C. Viscomi.  The original punitive damages amount of $750 million had been reduced subject to the state’s statutory cap. In the motion, J&J argued, among other things, that it was improper for the plaintiffs to have questioned CEO Alex Gorsky about why he allegedly exercised stock options the same day a damaging Reuter’s article about the company was published.  In response, the judge said that J&J’s conduct had been “reprehensible” and that the company had engaged in a series of misdeeds, including selling baby powder containing talc that it knew was contaminated with asbestos. The judge also denied J&J’s motion for a mistrial which was based on the judge’s striking of J&J attorney Diane Sullivan’s closing argument. Judge Viscomi noted that she had repeatedly admonished Ms. Sullivan regarding her allegations that plaintiffs’ attorneys had created evidence to support their claims. Click on this link for information on Verus’ Mass Tort Services. To contact us, fill out this form or email us at info@verusllc.com and we will reply immediately. |CONTACT US| |REQUEST PROPOSAL| The post Litigation Update: Adverse Findings for Pharma Giant Johnson & Johnson in Two Talc Cases appeared first on Verus.

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/litigation-update-adverse-findings-for-pharma-giant-johnson-johnson-in-two-talc-cases/