Preview Newsletter
Cosmetic Talc Litigation Media Coverage 12/19/2016
-
Plaintiffs Lawyers Fighting to Keep Talc Cases Out of MDL, In State Courts
Dec 19, 2016 | The National Law Journal
By Amanda Bronstad
Plaintiffs lawyers are fighting to keep their talcum powder cases against Johnson & Johnson out of multidistrict litigation in New Jersey federal court; aiming to return them to state courts, where juries in Missouri have awarded megaverdicts to women who said the products caused them to get ovarian cancer. -
Plaintiffs attorneys argue tort reform group’s ‘judicial hellholes’ report is ‘rigged’
Dec 19, 2016 | Legal Newsline
By Jessica Karmasek
Plaintiffs attorneys who have worked on some of the verdicts cited in an annual report released by the American Tort Reform Association Thursday took issue with the tort reform group’s findings, arguing they are “paid for” and “rigged.” -
$70M Verdict Makes Johnson & Johnson Seek A Friendlier Frye Venue
Dec 16, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Annie Dike
With a $70 million-dollar verdict facing Johnson & Johnson in Missouri, any venue will likely seem better than St. Louis, where the court recently entered a judgment finding Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder caused the plaintiff’s ovarian cancer. -
‘Show Me Your Lawsuit State’ tops ATRA’s Judicial Hellholes list; Cook, Madison, St. Clair rank sixth
Dec 16, 2016 | Madison County Record
By Heather Isringhausen Gvillo
...The Hellholes report outlines the newest “trap, trash and trick” tactics used by plaintiff’s lawyers to bring roughly 2,100 individual talcum powder claims, which were grouped into about 260 separate lawsuits nationwide. -
St. Louis takes top spot on 'judicial hellholes' list
Dec 16, 2016 | St. Louis Business Journal
By Diana Barr
... "The local trial court hosted three gigantic verdicts this year, totaling $197 million, in cases asserting that talcum powder causes ovarian cancer, plus other multimillion-dollar awards."
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
-
Plaintiffs Lawyers Fighting to Keep Talc Cases Out of MDL, In State Courts
Dec 19, 2016 | The National Law Journal
By Amanda Bronstad
Plaintiffs lawyers are fighting to keep their talcum powder cases against Johnson & Johnson out of multidistrict litigation in New Jersey federal court; aiming to return them to state courts, where juries in Missouri have awarded megaverdicts to women who said the products caused them to get ovarian cancer.
The bulk of the 1,700 plaintiffs suing Johnson & Johnson brought cases in state courts. But Johnson & Johnson has removed many of the cases, particularly in Missouri, where juries have awarded verdicts of $55 million, $70 million and $72 million this year. Once removed, the cases would most likely get transferred to the MDL in New Jersey.
But plaintiffs lawyers are resisting, filing motions to remand several cases and opposing transfer of cases to the MDL. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is set to take up 12 of those cases at its Jan. 26 hearing in Miami.
"We chose to file cases in certain state courts for different reasons, and a big part of that reason is they're already moving," said Ted Meadows, principal of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, Alabama, lead plaintiffs attorney in the Missouri trials who has opposed MDL transfer of seven cases. His firm colleague, Leigh O'Dell, is co-lead counsel in the MDL. "We feel like we can move the cases much more quickly there and will continue to file cases there."
But it's not just the speed of trials that's at issue. Johnson & Johnson has attacked the science allowed by state judges into the cases, particularly evidence that was allowed in Missouri, where the rules are different from those in federal court. On Dec. 6, U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson, the MDL judge, ordered a "science day" to be held on Jan. 23. A "science day," common in mass tort litigation, is a tutorial designed to educate the judge on the science and medical evidence in the litigation.
But lawyers in California filed a motion this month for Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson, who is overseeing dozens of cases in California state courts, to have her own "science day," citing differences in the state's law and scientific evidentiary standards.
Both sides are scheduled to appear in Nelson's court Jan. 12.
"We must have a separate process from the other litigations," said lead plaintiffs attorney Mark Robinson, senior partner at Robinson Calcagnie Inc. in Newport Beach, California.
Robinson said the two sides had reached an agreement, but Johnson & Johnson attorney Gene Williams, a Houston partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, wrote in an email that his client supported such efforts "in coordination with the MDL court."
Back in Missouri, Johnson & Johnson has removed 11 cases totaling more than 680 plaintiffs. Unlike other states, attorneys can file a single lawsuit in Missouri on behalf of dozens of people, but Johnson & Johnson asserts in court filings that those cases are improper.
"We believe many of the cases brought by plaintiffs in Missouri state court were fraudulently misjoined in an effort to avoid federal court, where they belong," wrote Johnson & Johnson attorney John Beisner, leader of the mass torts, insurance and consumer litigation group at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
Meadows acknowledged the likelihood that the MDL panel would transfer his cases despite opposition. But he anticipated a remand fight before Wolfson.
"It's our position she would not have jurisdiction over those cases," he said. "All she can do is remand those back to state court, where they were properly filed."
http://www.nationallawjournal.com/home/id=1202774911168/Plaintiffs-Lawyers-Fighting-to-Keep-Talc-Cases-Out-of-MDL-In-State-Courts?slreturn=20161119021330
-
Plaintiffs attorneys argue tort reform group’s ‘judicial hellholes’ report is ‘rigged’
Dec 19, 2016 | Legal Newsline
By Jessica Karmasek
ST. LOUIS (Legal Newsline) - Plaintiffs attorneys who have worked on some of the verdicts cited in an annual report released by the American Tort Reform Association Thursday took issue with the tort reform group’s findings, arguing they are “paid for” and “rigged.”
“These reports are trumpeted each year by organizations bought and paid for by corporate interests,” said Ted Meadows, principal at the Beasley Allen law firm based in Montgomery, Ala. The firm has represented thousands of plaintiffs against Johnson & Johnson over allegations that perineal talc use by women is linked to ovarian cancer.
“But we all know it’s to those corporations’ benefit to fight against the rights of innocent victims in the court of public opinion. That’s what this is all about.”
The Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis is the nation’s No. 1 “judicial hellhole,” according to ATRA’s 2016-17 report, meaning it is the “most unfair” in the nation in terms of handling civil litigation.
California, New York City’s asbestos court, Florida’s Supreme Court and South Florida, and New Jersey ranked second, third, fourth and fifth, respectively.
According to the ATRA report, the St. Louis court is a “magnet” for product liability lawsuits and consumer class actions.
“This year, thanks to the Show Me Your Lawsuits State’s lax standard for expert testimony, ‘junk science’ is driving groundless lawsuits and monstrous verdicts that have made the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis the No. 1 ranked Judicial Hellhole,” ATRA President Tiger Joyce said in a statement. “The overwhelming majority of plaintiffs filing these suits are not from St. Louis, or even from Missouri. They travel from across the country to exploit a weak venue law as their lawyers spend heavily on television advertising that works to prejudice potential jurors against defendants.”
The Missouri trial court hosted three huge verdicts this year in cases asserting that talcum powder causes ovarian cancer.
“Using what some defense counsel have come to call ‘trap, trash and trick’ tactics, plaintiffs’ lawyers through the summer of 2016 had engineered about 2,100 individual claims, grouped in roughly 260 separate lawsuits nationwide, alleging with no scientifically sound evidence that talcum powder causes ovarian cancer,” according to the ATRA report. “Noteworthy is the fact that two-thirds of these claims have been filed in the City of St. Louis Circuit Court. And three gigantic talc verdicts there this year, totaling $197 million, were for plaintiffs from Alabama, South Dakota and California.”
Now, as a result, the court is being flooded with product liability claims from out-of-state plaintiffs who are “eager” to take advantage of Missouri’s lax standard for expert testimony and laws allowing easy forum shopping, the report explained.
Missouri is one of a minority of states that have yet to adopt the Daubert standard for expert testimony.
Named for a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Daubert is the standard now used in all federal courts and about 40 state court systems. It effectively requires judges to act as gatekeepers in reviewing the substance of expert testimony before it is presented to a jury to weed out evidentiary theories that haven’t passed peer-review muster.
Personal injury law firms also have made “sizeable” investments in local television advertising to trash defendants and their products, the tort reform group found.
Meadows contends venue has nothing to do with it.
“I think we could try these cases in any number of jurisdictions across the country, and jurors would reach the same conclusion,” he said in a statement to Legal Newsline. “It’s not the location that makes a venue difficult for corporations like Johnson & Johnson; it’s the facts.”
He also takes issue with the group’s continued use of the term “judicial hellhole.”
“Frankly, I don’t believe the ‘judicial hellhole’ term shows the proper respect to the judiciary in these courts,” Meadows said. “And if anyone is going through hell, it’s the women and their families I’m working with who are dealing with life-threatening cancers based on using a product that Johnson & Johnson knew to be unsafe.”
The Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys also called out ATRA for its findings -- and the Missouri Chamber of Commerce for promoting it.
MATA, in a news release, described the ATRA report as “fake news” and “rigged.”
“The explicit goal [of the Hellhole Report] is to scare state politicians into making anti-consumer changes in the law in order to make the label go away,” MATA President Jay Benson said. “The fake ranking is not based on research into the actual conditions in the courts.”
According to the MATA release, citing the Center for Justice and Democracy at New York Law School, ATRA consists of largely “Fortune 500 companies with direct financial stake in restricting lawsuits” including “the tobacco, insurance, chemical, auto and pharmaceutical industries.”
The Missouri Chamber said in a statement Thursday that it was “dismayed” by the report’s findings but not surprised.
“The facts cited in ATRA’s report are all too familiar to those of us who see the impact of Missouri’s unbalanced tort system on our state’s job creators, while politicians funded by the trial bar turn a blind eye,” Missouri Chamber President and CEO Dan Mehan.
“Trial attorneys have poured millions into Missouri’s politicians to maintain their grip on our state courts and it is costing Missouri jobs. However, we believe that stalemate is about to come to an end with a new administration.”
Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon was term-limited and could not run for reelection. Eric Greitens, a former U.S. Navy SEAL and Republican, bested state Attorney General Chris Koster, a Democrat, in the November election.
“The Chamber tying their legislative initiatives to this transparently fake news report should frighten Missourians,” said Benson, of the trial attorneys association.
“The Chamber likes to talk about making Missouri's business climate better for employers, which is an admirable goal, but one that shouldn't come at the expense of worker, consumer or patient safety.”
http://legalnewsline.com/stories/511058992-plaintiffs-attorneys-argue-tort-reform-group-s-judicial-hellholes-report-is-rigged
-
$70M Verdict Makes Johnson & Johnson Seek A Friendlier Frye Venue
Dec 16, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Annie Dike
With a $70 million-dollar verdict facing Johnson & Johnson in Missouri, any venue will likely seem better than St. Louis, where the court recently entered a judgment finding Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder caused the plaintiff’s ovarian cancer. Where does J&J want to go? New Jersey. Why? Because when it comes to admitting scientific testimony in the Garden State, the courts like to put experts’ feet to the Frye-er.
“Made-for-litigation,” “highly speculative,” “seriously deficient,” and “narrow and shallow,” were just a few of the phrases Judge Nelson Johnson used to describe the plaintiff’s expert’s opinions in the J&J talc powder cases before the Superior Court of New Jersey (Case No. ATL-L-6546-14). The suits filed by Brandi Carl and Diana Balderrama were going to be the first J&J powder cases to go to trial in New Jersey. They will not be going anywhere now, following the court’s very staunch finding that “there was no articulation of a plausible hypothesis because it is unlikely that one can be made.”
In other words, the expert’s opinion that J&J’s baby powder caused the plaintiff’s ovarian cancer is not only implausible, in the court’s opinion, it is likely impossible. So, Missouri finds J&J’s powder causes cancer, New Jersey finds such a finding cannot be made. What’s the difference? Experts - which is why finding the right one is so important, particularly in New Jersey or states like it where the expert admission standards lean more toward Frye than Daubert.The Hypothesis
New Jersey uses a modification of the typical Frye analysis, developed in Landrigan v. Celotex Corp., 127 N.J. 404 (1992) and Kemp v. State of New Jersey, 174 N.J. 412 (2002), to assess expert testimony. Judge Johnson explained it as the “intersection of the scientific method and the rule of law” where a problem is formulated—i.e., what caused the plaintiff’s cancer? — a hypothesis is articulated — i.e., it was caused by J&J’s baby powder — then tested to resolve the problem and hopefully gain new knowledge for the general benefit of society. Determining the plausibility of the hypothesis requires a detailed understanding of the science behind itJ&J's Strategy
One great takeaway from Judge Nelson’s ruling was the defense’s use of their own expert to educate the judge at the gate-keeping stage. In other words, J&J did not put its expert on the stand to convince the judge its powder did not cause plaintiff’s cancer, but rather to teach the judge how cancer causes can be tested, studied and determined. Judge Johnson couched this tactic as “turning on the light in a dark room,” and it proved to be a very favorable strategy for J&J.
J&J did not put its expert on the stand to convince the judge its powder did not cause plaintiff’s cancer, but rather to teach the judge how cancer causes can be tested, studied and determined.
Once the plaintiff’s expert’s reasoning was illuminated, Judge Johnson saw right through it, couching it as an attempt to prove ovarian cancer “by the numbers” through re-analyzing old studies, adding in various risk factors and purported ‘synergy’ between talc and other health conditions to find not only general causation—i.e., that talc powder can cause ovarian cancer—but specific causation in the case—i.e., that J&J’s powder caused the plaintiff’s ovarian cancer. Once this determination was made, Judge Johnson threw both baby powder cases out - a solid win for J&J.
While the plaintiff’s expert’s methodology in the New Jersey case was plainly litigation-driven, the depth and breadth of Judge Johnson’s opinion excluding both plaintiffs’ experts was a sign to J&J that it had found its champion in Judge Johnson and his brethren and that the expert admission process in New Jersey was going to be more favorable.
With more and more baby powder class action advertisements cropping up and more powder suits being filed in both Missouri, New Jersey and elsewhere, J&J needs to make a smart move fast. Some of its baby powder cases are consolidated in New Jersey, as well as California and Missouri, but it will likely be impossible to get all cases transferred to the more Frye-friendly state of New Jersey.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/70m-verdict-makes-johnson-johnson-seek-friendlier-frye-venue
-
Dec 16, 2016 | Madison County Record
By Heather Isringhausen Gvillo
The Metro-East St. Louis region joined the ranks yet again as this year’s worst jurisdictions, with St. Louis topping the American Tort Reform Association’s Judicial Hellholes list and Madison and St. Clair Counties ranking sixth in the nation.
St. Louis is ranked as the worst Judicial Hellhole with courts in California; the New York City Asbestos Litigation; Florida Supreme Court and South Florida; courts in New Jersey; Cook, Madison and St. Clair Counties; courts in Louisiana; Newport News, Va.; and Hidalgo County, Texas, completing this year’s list of top nine Judicial Hellholes.
“Christmas comes but once a year for most of us, but for the personal injury lawyers who have turned the Madison and St. Clair County courthouse into their own personally profitable playground, it’s Christmas every day,” stated Travis Akin, executive director of Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch (I-LAW).
St. Louis
The City of St. Louis climbed its way to the top of the Judicial Hellholes list for the first time this year. The entire state of Missouri ranked fourth in last year’s Judicial Hellholes report.
Calling Missouri the “Show Me Your Lawsuits” State, ATRA notes that St. Louis managed to knock California out of its usual number one place with “’fast trials, favorable rulings and big awards.’”
In fact, four of the top six product liability verdicts in the country this year came out of the St. Louis Circuit Court.
ATRA says St. Louis is a hotspot for out-of-state plaintiffs thanks to Missouri’s “lax standard for expert testimony” and laws allowing forum shopping.
The Hellholes report outlines the newest “trap, trash and trick” tactics used by plaintiff’s lawyers to bring roughly 2,100 individual talcum powder claims, which were grouped into about 260 separate lawsuits nationwide.
These cases allege that use of talcum powder causes ovarian cancer. However, the Hellholes report states that no scientifically sound evidence exists.
Approximately two-thirds of the talcum powder claims have been filed in St. Louis, and just three huge verdicts this year total $197 million in awards for plaintiffs form Alabama, South Dakota and California.
ATRA explains that the trap tactic involves plaintiff’s attorneys trapping talc defendants in St. Louis because Missouri “is one of a shrinking minority of holdout states that have yet to adopt the more exacting Daubert standard for expert testimony.”
Daubert provides a standard requiring “judges to act as gatekeepers in reviewing the substance of expert testimony before it is presented to a jury in order to weed out fanciful evidentiary theories that haven’t passed peer-review muster.”
ATRA also credits the state’s venue laws for enabling plaintiff’s attorneys to trap talc cases in St. Louis, which “allows lawsuits to be filed in any county where at least one individual claimant – among the scores comprising a typical talc lawsuit – resided [where] her alleged injury occurred.”
Further, a local “anchor-claimant” can be added for the sole purpose of keeping a litigation in state court.
Plaintiff’s lawyers also avoid the federal Class Action Fairness Act’s threshold for removal to federal court by keeping the plaintiff count under 100.
The tactic involves plaintiff’s firms investing in local TV advertising to “trash” defendants and their products.
“Ostensibly packaged as client solicitations, the incessant ads more practically function as a means to influence potential jurors,” the report states.
For example, Johnson & Johnson talc defendants in plaintiff Tiffany Hogans’ lawsuit filed a motion to change venue in July, seeking to transfer the case to a jurisdiction that is “outside the St. Louis media market and at least 100 miles away in order to minimize the jury taint” from the ads.
The report states that in March alone, 23 percent of all talcum powder litigation ads aired in St. Louis even though the market comprises 1 percent of the national television audience.
What gets lost on the public is that the scientific, medical and regulatory communities say that no relationship between talcum powder and ovarian cancer exists.
ATRA points out that two experts who testified in St. Louis were deemed unqualified to testify in New Jersey, where two talc cases were dismissed in September.
“Nevertheless, defendants’ pleadings to have those so-called experts excluded from St. Louis trials fall on deaf ears. Judges there invariably allow the introduction of this junk science and, with visibly ill women or their surviving loved ones as sympathetic clients, practiced injury lawyers then pluck jurors’ heartstrings and persuade them to come back with outlier verdicts that fly in the face of genuine science,” the report states.
In late June, lame-duck Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed legislation that would have adopted the Daubert standard for expert evidence in Missouri.
“But lawmakers are expected to try again in 2017, and with a newly elected governor who’s less dependent on plaintiff’s bar cash, hope springs eternal,” the report states.
ATRA notes in its report that “junk science” in Missouri courts extends beyond talc suits.
In May 2016, a St. Louis jury returned a $46.5 million verdict against Monsanto in a case alleging three plaintiffs developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma by eating foods contaminated with PCBs. The plaintiffs were residents of Alaska, Michigan and Oklahoma.
Nearly 100 plaintiffs have similar cases pending in St. Louis, with only three from Missouri.
The American Cancer Society argues that most forms of non-Hodgkin lymphoma have no known cause, and lymphomas typically develop as people age.
The Hellholes report states that the “Show Me Your Lawsuits State” became a “litigation tourism hot spot” following a unanimous decision by the state’s Supreme Court in October that “effectively rolls out a welcome mat for out-of-state plaintiffs suing out-of-state defendants over alleged out-of-state injuries.”
In that case, Heartland Title Services and James Day asked the Missouri Supreme Court to prohibit Jackson County Judge Kevin Harrell form dismissing one of the plaintiff’s claims in the circuit court for lack of venue.
The Supreme Court held that venue was proper in any Missouri county when personal and subject matter jurisdiction are established.
“It adopted the plaintiff’s argument that, as long as personal jurisdiction is not improper, and the state venue statute doesn’t dictate a particular forum for the lawsuit, a plaintiff’s lawyer can pursue the case anywhere he chooses,” the report states.
St. Louis also has become a recent hotspot for asbestos litigation as its docket continues to grow.
The report notes that just 67 asbestos lawsuits were filed in 2010. But by 2014 and 2015, St. Louis had the fifth largest asbestos docket in the country with about 230 cases filed per year.
The court saw approximately 133 new asbestos lawsuits filed in the first half of 2016.
What stands out more than the number of cases filed are the multi-million-dollar asbestos verdicts.
The report states that a 2014 Supreme Court decision striking down a reform statute that would have limited punitive damages may be the link to a recent $4.1 million asbestos award in January and an $11.5 million asbestos award in July.
In comparison, while the Madison County Circuit Court is considered the nation’s busiest asbestos docket, the jurisdiction hasn’t seen a plaintiff’s verdict in years.
However, St. Louis did see one defense verdict in September after a month-long asbestos trial against Ford Motor Company, Volkswagen Group of America Inc. and Honeywell International.
The report also considers St. Louis as the worst Judicial Hellhole based on “meritless consumer class actions.”
Citing a study by Emory Univeristy law professor Joanna Shepherd, ATRA argues that St. Louis is also a Judicial Hellhole because local lawyers use the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act to file meritless class actions, “hoping to avoid potentially less sympathetic federal courts” by seeking less than the $5 million standard for triggering federal jurisdiction.
These cases include allegations of misleading labels on food products.
ATRA is hopeful that a new Missouri Supreme Court ruling limiting damages in wrongful death claims and newly elected governor Eric Greitens could bring reform to Missouri courts, including St. Louis.
Cook, Madison and St. Clair Counties
Maintaining a yearly spot on the Judicial Hellholes list, Cook, Madison and St. Clair Counties were combined this year to make up the sixth Judicial Hellhole
“For far too long, Madison and St. Clair Counties have been a magnet for personal injury lawyers and plaintiffs from all over the country who clog our courts with junk lawsuits that have nothing to do with the Metro-East, all in the hopes of striking it rich playing our region’s plaintiff-friendly lawsuit lottery,” Akin stated. “Greedy personal injury lawyers have turned the ‘Land of Lincoln’ into the ‘Land of Lawsuits,’ and that is hurting job creation efforts in the Metro-East and throughout Illinois.”
According to the report, Cook County hosts roughly two-thirds of the state’s major civil litigation while only 40 percent of Illinoisans live within the county.
ATRA notes that the county’s medical malpractice litigation data shows that Illinois led its Midwest neighbors with $258 million medical liability payouts in 2015, which was up $49.7 million from its 2014 total payouts.
In June, Cook County saw its largest medical liability verdict in history when a jury entered a $53 million verdict against the University of Chicago Medical Center in a suit involving a child’s cerebral palsy.
Chicago also is seeing a spike in “drive-by lawsuits,” which often involve claims alleging technical violations of disability access requirements. These suits are typically brought against small business that opt to settle the claims rather than pay the money it would take to fight the suit.
ATRA also took issue with Cook County’s judges.
“The latest major embarrassment came this past Election Day when county voters elected Rhonda Crawford to the bench,” the report states. “Crawford is under indictment for posing as a judge and presiding over traffic cases while she was employed as a law clerk. Her license to practice law has been suspended. Yet Crawford still defeated a sitting judge who launched a write-in campaign. While Crawford was the certified winner of the election, the state supreme court has barred her from taking the bench.”
The report states that expert witnesses allowed to testify in Cook County are worse than its judicial selection.
“Judges perform little to no gatekeeping, and juries are often intentionally missed by litigants,” the report states.
However, ATRA praised Cook County Judge Daniel Lynch’s decision to throw out a $25 million personal injury settlement this year after a courthouse intern reported that she’d overheard a law clerk tipping off a plaintiff’s lawyer about the contents of a jury note, which suggested jurors were poised to come back with a defense verdict.
The intern then heard a clerk for the judge presiding over the case tell one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers about what the note said, but waited 27 minutes before informing the defense counsel about the note. By that time, the settlement had been reached between the plaintiffs’ attorneys and the defendant’s insurer.
Shortly after, the jury did return a defense verdict, but the judge found it moot in light of the settlement.
The intern also reportedly told Lynch that the clerk told her that she likes to give an advantage to plaintiffs.
In Madison County, its popular asbestos docket secured its position as a Judicial Hellholes once again.
Asbestos lawsuits accounted for 72 percent of the civil cases filed in Madison County’s courthouse in 2015, with Madison County residents comprising of less than 1 percent of the plaintiffs.
Illinois residents filed roughly 75 of Madison County’s 1,224 asbestos cases in 2015 with just six cases filed on behalf of claimants residing locally in Madison County.
At mid-year, asbestos filings this year were up 10 percent when compared to last year.
“It’s just common sense to require lawsuits filed in Illinois to have an actual connection to Illinois, and yet in Madison County, 99 percent of the asbestos lawsuits filed there are for plaintiffs who do not live in that county,” Akin stated in response. “That is an absurd misuse of our courts and our tax dollars, and it victimizes all of us.”
Madison County judges’ close ties with the plaintiffs’ bar also played a role in the county’s Hellholes ranking.
Specifically, Associate Judge Donald Flack, a former plaintiffs’ asbestos attorney, disclosed relationships with two national asbestos law firms that had developed after he became a judge. And at least 30 cases he filed are active today.
However, ATRA praised Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs’ recent revised case management order governing the Madison County asbestos docket.
“It is the first significant change in more than five years,” the report states.
The revised order limits the number of cases set for trial each year to 780 cases and requires plaintiffs to show proof of an asbestos-related injury before a case can be set for trial.
“These are welcome changes that could increase fairness in asbestos litigation and reduce the incentive for plaintiffs’ lawyers from across the country to pile into Madison County.”
Calling St. Clair County “Madison’s troublesome neighbor,” the report notes that St. Clair County was the nation’s fastest-growing asbestos jurisdiction between 2014 and 2015.
St. Clair County also earned its place as a Judicial Hellhole after Chief Judge John Baricevic and Circuit Judges Robert Haida and Robert LeChien sought election rather than retention. LeChien, whose judicial ability has been challenged in several recent substitution requests, “squeaked” by with a 51 percent win, which earned him the seat but would not have won a bid for retention.
Haida ran unopposed and won his seat, but Baricevic lost to Republican Ron Duebbert.
“Chief Judge Baricevic wanted to change the rules mid-game for his own personal benefit, but like a football referee who blows the whistle on a penalty in a game, voters blew the whistle on this judge for unsportsmanlike judicial conduct and for transparently trying to game the system to his advantage. Voters made a statement on Election Day,” Akin stated. “They are tired of personal injury lawyers and judges gaming the system. They want reform.”
Citing a report by the Illinois Civil Justice League, which questioned if Illinois justice is for sale, the report said wealthy plaintiffs’ attorneys “wield incredible political power” in Illinois. The ICJL report found:
- While the Illinois Trial Lawyers Assocation claims more than 2,000 members in Illinois, its PAC received all of its major contributions from attorneys and firms in the Cook, Madison and St. Clair County areas
- Plaintiffs’ lawyers donated $35.25 million to state politicians over the past 15 years. The top personal injury firms gave more than $7 million to Illinois judicial candidates alone.
- Judicial race spending in Cook, Madison and St. Clair Counties was “significantly higher” than other areas of the state. “Plaintiff-lawyer contributions to county officials’ campaigns also were heaviest in these three counties.”
“It is shenanigans like this that have cemented Madison County’s reputation as a haven for personal injury lawyers and a hell for local businesses who are frequently the targets of these junk lawsuits,” Akin stated. “The Metro-East’s lawsuit abuse epidemic is making it extremely hard to attract new employers and the badly-needed jobs they would bring. We need Governor Rauner’s common sense lawsuit reforms now more than ever.”
The Judicial Hellholes report also states that Gov. Bruce Rauner offers a chance for change as he has “consistently advocated civil justice reforms, including limits on forum shopping, strengthening the reliability of expert testimony, reducing the opportunity for fraud and double-dipping in asbestos litigation, and providing jurors with more information to ensure that damage awards accurately reflect a plaintiff’s medical expenses.”
McLean County
McLean County, Ill., was included on the Judicial Hellholes watch list this year, which stated that the Bloomington jurisdiction “developed a reputation for lopsided rulings that favor plaintiffs in asbestos cases …”
“McLean County verdicts ranging from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars are often reversed by the Fourth District Court of Appeals,” the report states. “The appellate court has tossed out multiple McLean asbestos verdicts that sensationally assert conspiracies with no evidentiary support.”
McLean County’s asbestos docket is growing, but has not yet reached the nation’s top 15 asbestos magnet jurisdictions. However, it is still recognized for its jury verdicts.
http://madisonrecord.com/stories/511058458-show-me-your-lawsuit-state-tops-atra-s-judicial-hellholes-list-cook-madison-st-clair-rank-sixth
-
St. Louis takes top spot on 'judicial hellholes' list
Dec 16, 2016 | St. Louis Business Journal
By Diana Barr
St. Louis appears atop an annual list of "judicial hellholes" according to the American Tort Reform Foundation, which cited the city circuit court for standards it says led to "monstrous verdicts."
"The City of St. Louis is a magnet for product liability lawsuits and consumer class actions," the foundation said in its 2016-2017 Judicial Hellholes report, released Thursday. "The local trial court hosted three gigantic verdicts this year, totaling $197 million, in cases asserting that talcum powder causes ovarian cancer, plus other multimillion-dollar awards."
The recipients of those awards, and most of those filing these types of suits, are not from the city or Missouri, but rather travel across the country to sue in the St. Louis court because of the state's "weak venue law and a lenient standard for expert testimony that allows 'junk science,'" according to the report.
The foundation said that plaintiffs' law firms have tainted the local jury pool by "inundating St. Louis residents" with TV ads.
Ranked behind St. Louis in the report are California; New York City's asbestos litigation court; Florida's Supreme Court and South Florida; New Jersey; and Cook, Madison and St. Clair counties in Illinois.
The report also took aim at the federal False Claims Act, which allows individuals to sue on behalf of the federal government and has morphed into "a trial lawyers' dream" according to the foundation.
The American Tort Reform Foundation has set up a website to track civil litigation year-round.
To see the entire 2016-2017 Judicial Hellholes report, go here.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2016/12/16/st-louis-takes-top-spot-on-judicial-hellholes-list.html
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
Add recipients
Suggested