Mass Tort Cases
The Firm is evaluating claims that veterans and active-duty military personnel experienced major hearing damage because they wore defective 3M Combat Arms Earplugs (Version 2 — CAEv2). If you served in the U.S. military between 2003 and 2015 and used 3M earplugs, you may be entitled to compensation.
Multinational conglomerate based in Minnesota, The 3M Company, provided earplugs to the U.S. military for its soldiers to use in combat in order to protect the hearing of soldiers. 3M designed the plugs to block out loud blasts and noises associated with combat and testing on bases while allowing soldiers to hear crucial orders. However, 3M failed to notify the U.S. government that some of its plugs were faulty, which then may have caused partial or complete hearing loss to members of the military. We believe that veterans and active-duty military persons should be paid compensation because of their suffering after using the defective plugs
Why Do the Earplugs Allegedly Cause Harm?
From 2003 to 2015, thousands of military members in conflict zones, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, used 3M’s Dual-Ended Combat Arms Earplugs (Version 2 — CAEv2) that may have lead to partial or full hearing loss, or tinnitus. The plugs were intended to block loud noises and the sounds of explosions, while allowing soldiers to communicate freely with each other. Aearo Technologies, which was acquired by 3M in 2008, designed the plugs. A whistleblower stepped forward in 2018 and warned people of the design flaw. After the U.S. Department of Justice investigated the claims, 3M paid $9.1 million to the federal government to resolve the allegations that 3M knew there was a flaw in the plugs and supplied them anyway. The plugs have now been discontinued.
Important 3M Lawsuit Updates:
Internal 3M Documents Build A Case For Negligence
A presiding judge in one of the 3M lawsuits has unsealed documents and depositions that seem to paint a damning picture of the company’s safety efforts and sales tactics.
In a set of deposition records reviewed by Bloomberg Government, a 3M sales manager was asked if soldiers had a right to know that these earplugs were tested and rated for safety while they were being worn in a different configuration than the one service members were instructed to use. The sales manager said that he “didn’t believe so.” The sales manager also admitted that he had never personally instructed any service member on the proper way to use the earplugs.
The depositions also undercutted 3M’s claim that the U.S. military knew about the issue with the earplugs from the start. In the depositions, 3M could not point to any document or call transcript which would indicate that any representative of the military had been informed.
In a deposition record seen by ABC 3 WEAR-TV, an executive from Aero (the 3M-owned company that manufactures the earplugs) is recorded as answering “yes” to the question: “Is that okay, to sell a product and conceal information where it will have a negative effect on our soldiers?”The first 3M cases are expected to begin trial in early 2021.
3M Earplug Lawsuits Continue To Pile Up
As of January 2019, more than 1,000 defective earplug lawsuits have been filed against 3M. The lawsuits allege that 3M supplied the U.S. military with protective earplugs that were defective, and that 3M knew they were defective at the time.
Many of these lawsuits have since been combined into a multidistrict litigation (MDL). The purpose of this grouping is to speed the process along. MDLs also feature “bellwether” trials, essentially a sample trial that gives the attorneys on both sides an idea of what to expect, and which can help expedite settlement negotiations.
How Do the Plugs Cause Harm?
The product allegedly has a design flaw that centers on the fact that the earplugs are symmetrical in nature. The standard fitting instructions provided to military personnel could mean that the earplugs loosen and allow sound to enter the ear and ultimately exact damage on the wearer’s hearing. As a result, some military personnel and veterans may be experiencing ringing in their ears or hearing loss.
How Can I File a 3M Earplugs Lawsuit?
To become involved in the lawsuit, potential plaintiffs need to have a diagnosis from a doctor of tinnitus at or around the time of discharge from the military and/or hearing loss resulting in an impairment rating with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The relevant time of service is 2003 and 2015. Eligible servicemen and women may be entitled to compensation for their hearing loss.
What earplugs have been associated with hearing problems?
3M makes the dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs, Version 2. From 2003 to 2015, service members who wore the earplugs were exposed to the potential for partial or total hearing loss. According to an investigation and reports from soldiers, the earplugs were too short to maintain a tight fit inside the wearer’s ear, meaning that sounds could surpass the earplugs and put the user at risk for hearing damage.
Why did military members use the 3M earplugs, and how were they supposed to work?
Recognizing the serious danger of hearing loss, the armed forces issue earplugs to their personnel to protect against hearing damage.
The 3M dual-ended devices were intended to be inserted in one of two ways. Inserted in one direction, they were meant to protect a soldier’s hearing from sustained and very loud noises such as tanks, aircraft, gunfire, roadside bombs, and heavy equipment. Inserted the other way, the earplugs were supposed to muffle artillery fire or explosive ordnance sounds.
The earplugs were provided on contract with the general purpose of hearing protection, but now veterans are coming forward with the arguments that the company misrepresented the effectiveness of the devices, did not disclose their defects, and exposed military personnel to risks of severe hearing loss.
What problems have soldiers reported?
Combat Arms Earplugs made by 3M were purportedly too short to be able to effectively fit the human ear. This meant that over time, the device could become too loose to protect against hearing damage. Some of the long-term damage reported by users includes tinnitus, permanent hearing loss and problems with balance.
Many service members contend the manufacturer led the government and soldiers to believe their hearing was protected from most potential damage during training or service when it wasn’t.
What is tinnitus or military hearing loss?
Hearing loss is one of the most common problems reported by service members. The condition of tinnitus is marked by hissing, buzzing, or ringing sounds in the ears. It can be very hard for an affected person to hear someone speaking from even three feet away.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs says that 2.7 million veterans currently get military disability benefits for tinnitus or hearing loss associated with their service. Since tinnitus is such a common issue reported by those who have served, some people who have been diagnosed might not realize that their hearing loss may be tied to defective 3M earplugs.
How widespread is this issue among vets?
It’s unfortunately very common. The U.S. Veterans Administration estimates that 50% of veterans return with some degree of hearing loss or damage, ranging from often incurable tinnitus to even more severe conditions.
As of 2017, more than 2.7 million veterans were receiving disability benefits for some kind of hearing loss or damage, and more than 20% of all vets who served between 2003 and 2015 are receiving disability benefits for hearing loss or damage.
How many earplugs were sold under the contract?
Over 15,000 packages of Combat Arms Earplugs, with 50 pairs each, were provided per year under a 2006 contract with the Department of Defense.
Have any lawsuits been filed over defective 3M earplugs?
A company distributing the earplugs brought its concerns to the attention of the government in 2016. A qui tam lawsuit was filed over the earplugs, arguing that 3M had made misleading and false statements about the product and failed to disclose design flaws. In 2018, the Justice Department achieved a settlement with 3M, including an award to the government of $9.1 million.
Some individual service members could be entitled to compensation by choosing to participate in their own legal action. Hundreds of 3M earplug lawsuits have been filed in 2019.
Who could participate in a lawsuit over defective 3M earplugs?
The lawsuit mentioned above reimbursed only the government, not individual service members. Those who used Combat Arms Earplugs in the military between 2003 and 2015, and have been diagnosed with partial or total hearing loss, could still be eligible for benefits.
If you are curious about whether your hearing may have been damaged because of defective 3M earplugs, speak with one of our product liability lawyers about your options.
What wars were these earplugs issued to all military personnel?
- The Iraq War
- War in Afghanistan
- War in North-West Pakistan (part of War on Terror)
- War in Somalia
- Operation Ocean Shield in the Indian Ocean
- American-led intervention in Libya (2011- part of Libyan Crisis)
- American-led intervention in Iraq (2014 – 2017)
- American-led intervention in Syria (2014 to present)
- Yemeni Civil War (2015 to present)
- American Intervention in Libya (2015 to present)
Timothy Miles Law Offices’ attorneys are evaluating claims from individuals who were diagnosed with cancer after taking Belviq, Belviq XR, or another brand of lorcaserin.
About the Belviq Lawsuit
Belviq (generic name lorcaserin) is a popular prescription weight-loss drug made by Eisai Inc. to help people experiencing obesity and weight-related health issues curb their hunger. Alarmingly, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety trial concluded that the drug could increase the risk of several different types of cancer, including pancreatic, lung, and colorectal cancer. As a result, the FDA issued a full recall of Belviq in February 2020.
What Are the Risks of Taking Belviq?
Weight-loss drugs are not known for their safety; unfortunately, Belviq is no exception. In a five-year, double-blind study of 12,000 patients, those taking Belviq were more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than those taking a placebo (sugar pill). The FDA stated, “A range of cancer types was reported, with several different types of cancers occurring more frequently in the lorcaserin group,” including:
- Pancreatic cancer
- Colorectal cancer
- Lung cancer
This is a drug that probably should never have been on the market, and the manufacturers need to be held accountable. Those suffering from cancer caused by Belviq deserve compensation.
Fighting For You
If you or a loved one took Belviq and were diagnosed with cancer, you could be owed compensation for medical costs, pain and suffering, lost wages, and other damages. We want to fight to help you get it. Don’t wait. Call today.
Has the FDA Recalled Belviq?
Yes. In February 2020, the FDA requested that manufacturer Eisai pull all Belviq and Belviq XR products from the market. Eisai has complied with the request.
Should I Stop Taking Belviq?
Anyone taking Belviq should stop and talk to a healthcare professional about possible safer alternatives.
Who Is Eligible for a Belviq Lawsuit?
If you took Belviq or its generic equivalent and were diagnosed with cancer, you should consider taking legal action against the drug’s manufacturer. If you meet these criteria, you may have a case:
- Over the age of 18
- Diagnosed with cancer after taking Belviq, Belviq XR, or another brand of lorcaserin
- If a loved one took this weight loss drug and was diagnosed with cancer, you may also contact us on their behalf
What Can I Recover From a Belviq Lawsuit?
Every case is unique, but people who successfully file drug or medical device lawsuits can recover compensation for some or all of the following damages:
- Past and future medical bills (including medication, hospital stays, and in-home care)
- Pain and suffering
- Lost wages
- Loss of earning capacity
- Funeral expenses (in the event of a loved one’s death)
- Broadly speaking, a plaintiff may be entitled to compensation for any past and future costs associated with their cancer diagnosis
Timothy Miles Law Offices’ attorneys are evaluating claims from individuals who took Elmiron and were diagnosed with maculopathy.
About the Elmiron Eye Disease Lawsuit
Elmiron is a drug that has been prescribed to millions of patients since 1996 for interstitial cystitis (IC), otherwise known as painful bladder syndrome. Starting in 2015, researchers began to discover a potential link between the drug and a serious eye disease called maculopathy. However, even as the evidence has piled up, Elmiron’s manufacturer, Janssen Pharmaceutical, has failed to warn the public about these risks.
IC patients are typically prescribed 300 milligram daily doses of the drug. In more serious cases, doctors have been known to prescribe 800 or even 1500 milligrams. Millions of people are taking a drug that may one day rob them of their vision, and an untold number may have already suffered serious health consequences.
A Hidden Danger
The potential risks associated with Elmiron were unknown until 2015, when doctors at Atlanta’s Emory Eye Center encountered an eye condition they hadn’t seen before in six women. This form of maculopathy didn’t seem to have a cause. Further investigation revealed that all six women had been taking Elmiron for years.
Studies released in 2018 and 2019 further support the link between Elmiron and maculopathy. It is as yet unknown how Elmiron causes this condition.
Despite mounting evidence, eye disease is still not listed as a possible side effect by the manufacturer. There’s no telling how many people have already suffered a serious eye injury due to their use of Elmiron, and hundreds of thousands of people are at risk.
Fight for Compensation
If you or a loved one took Elmiron and were diagnosed with maculopathy, you could be owed compensation for medical costs, pain and suffering, lost wages, and other damages. We want to help you fight to get it.
Should I Stop Taking Elmiron?
Anyone taking this drug should talk to a healthcare professional about their options.
Who Is Eligible for an Elmiron Lawsuit?
If you took Elmiron and were diagnosed with maculopathy, you should consider taking legal action against the drug’s manufacturer. If you meet these criteria, you may have a case:
- Over the age of 18
- Diagnosed with maculopathy after taking Elmiron
- Filing on behalf of yourself, a minor, or another family member
What Can I Recover from an Elmiron Lawsuit?
Every case is unique, but people who successfully file drug or medical device lawsuits can recover compensation for some or all of the following damages:
- Past and future medical bills (including medication, hospital stays, and in-home care)
- Pain and suffering
- Lost wages
- Loss of earning capacity
Timothy Miles Law Offices’ attorneys are reviewing claims on behalf of Americans who used a JUUL vaporizer prior to November of 2018 and before turning 18 years of age, and who subsequently developed a nicotine addiction.
About the JUUL Addiction Lawsuit
JUUL Labs, the makers of JUUL e-cigarettes and vapor pods, are facing lawsuits alleging that they didn’t adequately warn users of the risks associated with using their products. JUUL markets its products as a safer alternative to regular cigarettes, but they still contain nicotine. In fact, JUUL products contain significantly more nicotine than their leading competitors—and nicotine is an addictive and potentially seriously harmful substance.
Nicotine can be harmful to anyone at any age, but it has been shown to be significantly more harmful to children and teens, who are also much more likely to become addicted to it. JUUL didn’t do enough to warn users of these risks, and it may have even directly marketed to children and teens.
Regularly smoking cigarettes has never been less popular among teens and children, so for them, JUUL usually isn’t a replacement for a dangerous habit. Rather, it’s a brand new hobby that they take up because it seems “cool” and because it comes in flavors that appeal to them.
Minors who became addicted to nicotine after using a JUUL vape have suffered serious harm. [Insert Law Firm] wants to hold JUUL accountable, and get compensation for those victims. If you or a loved one became addicted to nicotine after using a JUUL vape while still a minor, you may be eligible for compensation.
Irresponsible Corporate Behavior
So far, JUUL has been the most recognized name in the race to dominate the exploding e-cigarette market. A recent valuation pegged the company as worth more than $38 billion, and it has received a major round of investment from a tobacco products conglomerate.
But there is evidence that much of this success can be attributed to its popularity among young people, including children and teens. The company certainly thought so, as significant attention was paid in the early days to making JUUL appear young, hip, and appealing to younger consumers. The company allegedly directly and intentionally advertised to children and teens, even going so far as to do presentations in schools under the guise of mental health and anti-addiction seminars.
JUUL didn’t quit this behavior until federal and state governments started investigations and threatening the company with fines and legislation. And they only started putting sufficient nicotine warnings on their products when forced to by law. But millions of people have already used JUUL products without knowing the dangers, including an untold number of teens. Many of whom now have a nicotine addiction.
Fighting for Justice
JUUL is busy trying to clean up its act now, but the damage has been done. If you’re one of the tens of thousands of people who used JUUL products as a minor and then acquired a nicotine addiction, you may be facing health damage from nicotine in the future, as well the pain, discomfort, and cost of trying to quit. We think you should be compensated for that and JUUL should be held accountable for that harm.
Don’t wait. Call today.
What about other kinds of damage besides nicotine addiction?
We Fight For The People whenever a corporation or manufacturer fails to keep products sold to the public safe. There have been multiple incidents of e-cigarettes exploding or catching on fire and causing injury, as well as scores of reports of cancer or other lung-related illnesses linked to e-cigarette use. If you or a family member has suffered an injury or illness related to a JUUL or another e-cigarette device, please contact us right away for a free consultation. We want to pursue justice and the potential for compensation on your behalf.
Is there an age limit for a JUUL lawsuit?
At this time, we are only filing claims filed on behalf of JUUL users who became addicted before they turned 18.
Can I file a claim on behalf of my child?
You can. If you are the parent or legal guardian of a child or teen who has become addicted to nicotine because of their JUUL use, you have the right to file a lawsuit on their behalf. We want to help you potentially recover compensation that could be used towards the treatment of that addiction, as well as other associated costs.
Timothy Miles Law Offices’ attorneys are reviewing cases on behalf of women who developed ovarian cancer or mesothelioma after using talc powder or other talc products.
About the Talcum Powder Lawsuit
Since 1971, more than 20 studies have linked talcum (talc) powder to ovarian cancer, and, in 2003, an analysis of 16 of these studies found that ** women using talcum powder were 33 percent more likely to develop ovarian cancer.** It has been alleged that Johnson & Johnson, the maker of popular talc-based products, knew about the risk of ovarian cancer since at least 1982, but failed to warn women using these products.
In addition, recently unearthed information reported by The New York Times showed that Johnson & Johnson knew of the possible link of asbestos to their talc products. According to the article, the company spent decades trying to keep this negative information from reaching the public
Does Talcum Powder Cause Cancer?
For decades, researchers have been studying the potential link between ovarian cancer and talcum powder. It is believed that talc powder, when used near the genitals, can travel to the ovaries and become embedded in ovarian tissue. While talc is a natural mineral, it is very difficult for the body to remove the particles, and, as a result, inflammation may occur and cancerous tumors may form.
The first study to suggest that talc may cause ovarian cancer was published in 1971 in the medical journal The Lancet. In the study, researchers discovered that a majority of ovarian tumors had talc particles “deeply embedded” in them. Then, in 1982, researchers found that women using talcum powder during ovulation were at a 92 percent increased risk of developing ovarian cancer. During the next three decades, an additional 21 studies were performed on talc powder, and almost all of these studies found that women using these products near their genitals were at an increased risk for developing ovarian cancer.
To date, both the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society consider talc use near the genitals as a “risk factor” for ovarian cancer. Despite this possible link, Johnson & Johnson and other talc powder manufacturers have not placed warnings about this risk on their products.
What is talc?
Talc is a soft, naturally occurring mineral made of oxygen, silicon, and magnesium. After talc is mined and processed, the resulting fine powder is used in a variety of cosmetic products.
What is talc used for?
Talc appears in a wide range of products, including talcum powder (baby powder), feminine hygiene products, makeup, lotions, and deodorant. As talcum powder is known for its odor-and-moisture-absorbing properties, some women use it in their genital area. Genital exposure to the mineral can also occur during condom, menstrual pad, or diaphragm use.
Why is talc harmful?
In nature, talc deposits are often found near dangerous accumulations of the carcinogenic mineral asbestos. Asbestos has been linked to many types of cancer, including ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, a rare disease of the lungs. Even trace amounts of asbestos have the potential to cause cancer, and diagnoses are often made decades after a talc-containing product was used.
Although the federal government required talc-based wares to be asbestos-free starting in the 1970s, scientists have noted that it is difficult to comply. In addition, there is evidence that companies continued to sell talc products that tested positive for asbestos long after regulations went into effect. A recent Reuters report showed that Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder contained asbestos from 1971 through the early 2000s, exposing consumers to serious risks for decades.
The International Journal of Gynecological Cancer states that women who use talcum powder on their genital area have a 30% to 60% increased risk of cancer. Researchers believe that talc causes the disease by provoking chronic inflammation of the fallopian tubes, uterus, and ovaries, and potentially suppressing cancer-fighting antibodies.
Talcum powder also has been connected to mesothelioma, a rare lung cancer. When the small airborne particles enter the lungs, they can cause irritation, chronic inflammation, and the eventual formation of cancerous tumors.
Why are people filing lawsuits?
Thousands of people who have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer and mesothelioma have filed lawsuits against companies that use talc in their products. Johnson & Johnson has been at the center of many recent lawsuits, with victims claiming that they developed cancer after using the company’s talc-based items consistently for years.
Another key aspect of the lawsuits involves prosecuting attorneys’ claims that manufacturers like Johnson & Johnson knew for over 40 years that their products contained asbestos. According to internal J&J documents, the company concealed this information from the public and refused to put safety warnings on its items or remove them from sales shelves.
How many lawsuits have been filed?
As of March 2019, more than 13,000 lawsuits were pending against Johnson & Johnson. Lawsuits are also pending against other talc product manufacturers.
Have there been any settlements or verdicts?
There have been several settlements and verdicts against Johnson & Johnson, Colgate-Palmolive, and other manufacturers for cases involving ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. Settlements are on the rise in 2019.
The largest verdict against J&J was in July 2018, when a St. Louis jury awarded 22 ovarian cancer victims $4.6 billion after concluding that their use of the company’s baby powder caused their ovarian cancer. In May 2018, $25 million was awarded to Joanne Anderson by a jury concluding that her mesothelioma was caused by her use of talcum powder. In June 2019, Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive were ordered to pay $10 million to Patricia Schmitz, who was diagnosed with terminal mesothelioma after using their talc products.
These are just a few recent examples of verdicts against companies. From 2016 to today, manufacturers of talc products have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to victims.
How are companies responding to lawsuits?
Despite many losing verdicts and settlements, companies continue to claim that their products are safe and do not contain asbestos or cause cancer.
Who can file a lawsuit?
If you have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or ovarian cancer after using talc-based products, you may be eligible to file an individual lawsuit, especially if you have a consistent history of using such wares over a significant time period.
The more frequently you used the product and the longer the duration, the more likely it is that your cancer could have been caused by one containing talc. Because statutes of limitation for filing a lawsuit vary by state, it is in your best interest to speak with a lawyer as soon as possible after your diagnosis.
What can I win in a talc lawsuit?
What you can recover depends on the type of lawsuit you file. For example, there is a class action lawsuit filed against Johnson & Johnson where many consumers are suing for damages related to the cost of the product. However, it is important to understand that class actions do not cover individual health-related costs.
If, on the other hand, you file an individual lawsuit, you may be able to receive compensation for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other expenses. Each case is different, and depending on the cost of your medical bills, the symptoms you experienced, and how much work you missed, the final settlement amount will vary.
What can an attorney do for me?
A good lawyer will ensure that your best interests are taken into account. They will make sure you meet important deadlines, give you a clear understanding of your legal rights, and supply trusted expert witnesses to bolster your case.
Timothy Miles Law Offices’ attorneys are evaluating claims from Americans who took Zantac and have been diagnosed with Cancer.
About the Zantac Lawsuit
Zantac is one of the most popular over-the-counter medications in the country, with millions of people using it to relieve heartburn symptoms and chest pain. It’s also a potential cancer risk.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced a recall of Zantac along with all other medications using its active ingredient, Ranitidine. This recall follows new research that found that the Ranitidine found in Zantac was too often contaminated by N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a chemical classified as a probable carcinogen by the FDA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the World Health Organization. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), NDMA has been linked to a variety of diseases, including severe liver disease, liver cancer, testicular cancer, and lung cancer.
Millions of people used Zantac for years oblivious to the risks, and some users are now suffering from cancer that may have been caused by the drug. Zantac’s manufacturer, Sanofi, had a responsibility to ensure that their customers wouldn’t suffer injury from using their product, and they failed to meet that responsibility.
A Hidden Danger
The investigation into NDMA contamination of Ranitidine began in 2019. After Valisure, an independent lab, found some evidence of contamination, the FDA and the sellers of Zantac announced a voluntary recall. Zantac was taken off the shelves in many places, and people were advised to stop using it until further notice.
But as the evidence mounted, the FDA was forced to issue a full recall in April 2020. Researchers observed that as the stock of Ranitidine sat in storage, the NDMA contamination only increased. The longer it sat, and the hotter the temperature it was stored in, the worse the contamination got.
At this time, we don’t know for how long this dangerous chemical has been contaminating a product that millions of people used every day. Nor do we know how many people have suffered severe health problems as a result.
Holding Them Accountable
Zantac’s manufacturers didn’t do enough to keep their customers safe, and they need to be held accountable for their negligence and the damage they’ve caused. If you or a loved one was diagnosed with cancer after using Zantac, justice and compensation could be within reach. Call us today for a free consultation. You don’t pay anything unless we win your case.
What Can I Recover From a Zantac Lawsuit?
From a Zantac lawsuit, an individual could potentially win economic damages—including past and future medical bills, and lost earnings—as well as non-economic damages for losses such as mental pain and suffering. The actual compensation a plaintiff is eligible to receive depends on the specific details of their case.
How Can a Lawyer Help?
Pharmaceutical companies have virtually endless resources to spend on legal defense.
To have the best chance at being fairly compensated, you should work with a law firm that has the experience and resources needed to stand up to Big Pharma.
How Do I Know if I Have a Case?
If you were diagnosed with cancer after using Zantac OTC or a generic equivalent, our attorneys may be able to help you.
Paraquat is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. It is also one of the most dangerous.
Scientists have long known that paraquat, often referred to as Gramoxone, is acutely toxic. Paraquat is so toxic, in fact, that a single sip of the herbicide can kill an adult. But in recent years, evidence has accumulated showing that repeated exposure to paraquat in low doses may be linked to the development of Parkinson’s disease. According to one study, exposure to paraquat increases the risk of Parkinson’s by 150 percent.
More than 60 countries have banned the use of paraquat. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has done little to restrict its use, despite growing health concerns and legal challenges over the herbicide’s connection to Parkinson’s. Syngenta, the main producer of paraquat, denies that there is a definitive link between paraquat and Parkinson’s.
But with paraquat use increasing in the U.S., agricultural workers and farmers continue to face exposure risks. Many have already filed lawsuits claiming that they developed Parkinson’s disease as a result of exposure to paraquat, and that Syngenta failed to warn about this serious risk.
How Is Paraquat Used?
Paraquat is widely used by farmers in the production of crops, including corn, soy, cotton, peanuts, wheat, almonds, strawberries, grapes, sweet potatoes, and others. Its use has doubled over the past decade and is expected to grow due to its effectiveness on “superweeds” that have developed resistance to glyphosate (i.e. Roundup). It can also be used for the desiccation of crops, such as cotton, prior to harvest. In total, farmers apply more than 10 million pounds of paraquat each year.
Because of its toxicity, the EPA classifies paraquat as a “restricted use pesticide.” Only certified applicators who undergo EPA-approved training are able to use paraquat products. There are no homeowner uses for paraquat and the herbicide may not be applied in residential areas or around schools, parks, golf courses, or playgrounds.
Is There a Link Between Parkinson’s Disease and Paraquat Exposure?
Scientific research has concluded that those who use paraquat are twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s disease in the future. Not only that, but those who live in an area where paraquat is used are also at risk, as the wind can carry the airborne chemical into neighborhoods and other populated areas. Despite numerous scientific studies into paraquat’s safety, the company responsible for the pesticide refused to acknowledge the potential risks and exposed thousands of innocent individuals to a hazardous chemical for over a decade.
What is the Scientific Link Between Paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease?
Numerous scientific studies have linked paraquat to Parkinson’s. A large 2011 study of U.S. farmers found that those who used paraquat were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s disease as those who didn’t use the chemical. Other research has found that cumulative exposure over long periods increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s. Data published by Louisiana State University shows that a person’s zip code and proximity to cropland where paraquat is applied correlates with the risk of developing Parkinson’s.
Scientists believe that a deficit of the neurotransmitter dopamine causes Parkinson’s. Studies have demonstrated that paraquat can kill dopamine-producing nerve cells in the brain. Inhaling paraquat, which could happen if workers come into contact with aerosolized droplets during crop spraying, gives it a direct pathway to the brain, say researchers at the University of Rochester. However, paraquat could also end up in the brain after ingestion or skin exposure. The CDC notes that, once paraquat enters the body, it is distributed to all areas of the body.
Who Is at Risk of Developing Parkinson’s From Paraquat Exposure?
Farmers and agricultural workers who work directly with and around paraquat are at the greatest risk of being exposed to paraquat. Exposure is most likely to occur in the following ways:
- Mixing or loading paraquat
- Spraying paraquat
- Maintaining tanks and equipment used to spray paraquat
- Spending time in fields where paraquat was sprayed
Exposure risks are not limited to people involved in agriculture, though. Evidence also suggests that paraquat can drift from the application site to nearby communities. Thus, people living in agricultural areas may be exposed to paraquat that is applied to crops. Paraquat may contaminate ground or well water and even contaminate fruits, vegetables, nuts, and grains that are sold to the public.
Is There a Paraquat Lawsuit?
Unfortunately, many individuals have developed Parkinson’s disease as a result of paraquat exposure, including those who live near agricultural areas where the harmful chemical is used. The widespread use of the substance makes it especially unsettling, as many farmers heavily rely on paraquat without understanding its destructive effects. If you or a loved one were diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease due to pesticide exposure, we can help you secure the compensation you’re entitled to.
What Is the Paraquat Settlement?
Syngenta knew the risk of their product yet failed to disclose it to the public, which allowed thousands of agricultural workers to expose themselves and their families to the risk of a life-altering condition. Those who suffer from Parkinson’s require consistent treatment to increase their quality of life, which is a significant expense to endure without proper compensation. However, by holding Syngenta responsible for their negligence, you can recover the medical costs, lost wages, and suffering damages warranted by your situation.
Do I Qualify for a Paraquat Lawsuit?
Plaintiffs across the country have filed lawsuits claiming that they were diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, and that Syngenta’s paraquat weed killers are to blame. If you suffer from Parkinson’s and believe you were exposed to paraquat as a farmer or licensed pesticide applicator, you may be able to file a lawsuit. A successful lawsuit can provide compensation for medical bills, lost income, pain and suffering, and other losses or hardships.
Contact us and schedule a free case review.
Does Roundup Contain Paraquat?
While Roundup does contain dangerous chemicals, it doesn’t contain paraquat. Crop resistance has lessened the effectiveness of Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, which has led to the widespread use of paraquat in the agricultural industry.