Zantac - Update Q2 2023
Update Q4 2022
As this litigation approaches its first bellwether trials, is shrinking in term of the kinds of cancers that are being pursued and the numbers of cases still in the MDL. Nonqualifying “designated” cancers had the option to proceed in the MDL on their own fast track or be dismissed and could be refiled in state courts across the county.
The November 2021 Pretrial Order #69 set forth the initial bellwether selection process and set he first bellwether trial for July 17, 2023. The Court indicated in that Order that it would be setting a date for the second through fourth bellwether trials and addressing bellwether selection with respect to any cancers remaining. Experts for both sides have been designated and their reports exchanged, and challenges to their qualifications and opinions (Daubert Motions) have been heard by the Court. The Court expects to rule on the parties’ case-specific dispositive and Daubert motions by May 19, 2023. On May 23, 2023, the Court will decide which Plaintiffs shall be tried in the first bellwether trial, and which Plaintiffs in the second bellwether trial.
We will keep our clients updated on the outcomes of these important motions and how trial preparation is proceeding.
The November 2021 Pretrial Order #69 set forth the initial bellwether selection process and set he first bellwether trial for July 17, 2023. The Court indicated in that Order that it would be setting a date for the second through fourth bellwether trials and addressing bellwether selection with respect to any cancers remaining. Experts for both sides have been designated and their reports exchanged, and challenges to their qualifications and opinions (Daubert Motions) have been heard by the Court. The Court expects to rule on the parties’ case-specific dispositive and Daubert motions by May 19, 2023. On May 23, 2023, the Court will decide which Plaintiffs shall be tried in the first bellwether trial, and which Plaintiffs in the second bellwether trial.
We will keep our clients updated on the outcomes of these important motions and how trial preparation is proceeding.
Zantac - Update 09/28/22
Q3 2022 Update
The litigation is shrinking in term of the kinds of cancers that are being pursued. Cases we initially believe would be supported by the scientific evidence have turned out to be weak. When planning on bringing a case such as this one to trial, expert testimony is an essential element in proving claims against the manufacturers of Zantac. Without such expert testimony, potential product liability suits cannot be successful. These testifying experts must meet certain legal standards that are required by both state and federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court. In addition, all experts must be able to provide their opinions regarding the scientific and medical effects of exposure to Zantac to a reasonable degree of certainty. If this standard is not met, the expert testimony is without value and any potential product liability claim will fail.
Over the last two years, members of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, have spoken to numerous experts both in person and on the telephone about this case. Collectively, they have spent thousands of hours analyzing the medical literature and scientific literature and working up this case for litigation. Ultimately, the experts concluded that they cannot offer expert opinions affirming that the use of Zantac can cause certain types of cancers to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. As such, the individuals suffering from cancers other than bladder, esophageal, gastric, liver and pancreatic will not be able to meet their burden of proof and proceed with litigating their claims in Court. This is obviously a major setback for all of us.
This does not mean that our clients who have been diagnosed with cancers other than bladder, esophageal, gastric, liver and pancreatic were not caused by Zantac. It simply means that the scientific literature and evidence does not create a strong enough connection between Zantac and those cancers to be able to prove a case against the manufacturer.
We have sent letters to our clients who had cancers other than bladder, esophageal, gastric, liver and pancreatic advising them of this issue and making recommendations on how they can proceed.
Over the last two years, members of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, have spoken to numerous experts both in person and on the telephone about this case. Collectively, they have spent thousands of hours analyzing the medical literature and scientific literature and working up this case for litigation. Ultimately, the experts concluded that they cannot offer expert opinions affirming that the use of Zantac can cause certain types of cancers to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. As such, the individuals suffering from cancers other than bladder, esophageal, gastric, liver and pancreatic will not be able to meet their burden of proof and proceed with litigating their claims in Court. This is obviously a major setback for all of us.
This does not mean that our clients who have been diagnosed with cancers other than bladder, esophageal, gastric, liver and pancreatic were not caused by Zantac. It simply means that the scientific literature and evidence does not create a strong enough connection between Zantac and those cancers to be able to prove a case against the manufacturer.
We have sent letters to our clients who had cancers other than bladder, esophageal, gastric, liver and pancreatic advising them of this issue and making recommendations on how they can proceed.
Q1 2022 Update
This litigation, like all other pharmaceutical litigation, is against the brand name manufacturers of Zantac only. It is not against the generic manufacturers for the reasons described above in the valsartan-losartan-and-irbesartan update. After 1.5 years of discovery, one hundred fifty depositions, and the review of 15 million pages of documents produced by the Defendants, this case is moving to the stage where Judge Robin Rosenberg will hear evidence regarding the scientific link between cancer and Zantac. That hearing will be on February 24, 2022.
On January 8, 2021, pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 30, Plaintiffs’ Leadership did file its initial disclosure identifying ten types of cancer for which they intended to provide general causation expert reports. That list was pared down in its November 17, 2021, filing of the amended disclosure identifying the list of eight types of cancer for which they intended to provide general causation expert reports. Then on January 25, 2022, pursuant to the Court’s directives, Plaintiffs’ Leadership filed its final disclosure of the following five types of cancer for which they have served general causation expert reports: (i) bladder; (ii) esophageal; (iii) gastric; (iv) liver; and (v) pancreatic. This one-year process of elimination is based on the scientific literature supporting the causal link between Zantac exposure and cancers.
Over the past two years, much has learned about this causal connection and how strong it is with all earlier identified cancers. The five cancers in the final designation are those with the strongest causal relationship with Zantac. Those deleted cancers have weaker links that will not pass the threshold required for that causal relationship and along with any cancers that Judge Rosenberg finds are not supported by the scientific evidence will be subject to dismissal. When Judge Rosenberg issues her Order regarding the cases that will not be prosecuted, we will let you know.
This does not mean that one of the deleted or eliminated cancers may not have been caused by Zantac. It does mean that those cases will not be part of the Plaintiff’s Leadership work and trials in the Zantac MDL.
The first bellwether trial will occur in the summer of 2023.
On January 8, 2021, pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 30, Plaintiffs’ Leadership did file its initial disclosure identifying ten types of cancer for which they intended to provide general causation expert reports. That list was pared down in its November 17, 2021, filing of the amended disclosure identifying the list of eight types of cancer for which they intended to provide general causation expert reports. Then on January 25, 2022, pursuant to the Court’s directives, Plaintiffs’ Leadership filed its final disclosure of the following five types of cancer for which they have served general causation expert reports: (i) bladder; (ii) esophageal; (iii) gastric; (iv) liver; and (v) pancreatic. This one-year process of elimination is based on the scientific literature supporting the causal link between Zantac exposure and cancers.
Over the past two years, much has learned about this causal connection and how strong it is with all earlier identified cancers. The five cancers in the final designation are those with the strongest causal relationship with Zantac. Those deleted cancers have weaker links that will not pass the threshold required for that causal relationship and along with any cancers that Judge Rosenberg finds are not supported by the scientific evidence will be subject to dismissal. When Judge Rosenberg issues her Order regarding the cases that will not be prosecuted, we will let you know.
This does not mean that one of the deleted or eliminated cancers may not have been caused by Zantac. It does mean that those cases will not be part of the Plaintiff’s Leadership work and trials in the Zantac MDL.
The first bellwether trial will occur in the summer of 2023.
Q4 2021 Update
This MDL is moving along. The parties met on or about July 1, 2021, to begin discussions regarding process for selection of potential bellwether personal injury cases. This past October 1, 2021, those discussions were completed, and the focus then turned to Plaintiffs’ disclosures of disciplines and specializations of general causation experts, and areas of expertise relevant to each expert’s general causation expert report. By November 1, 2021, the Defendants shall make disclosures of disciplines and specializations of general causation experts, and areas of expertise relevant to each expert’s general causation expert report.
The general causation phase will proceed for the next year, after which cases will be selected for trial and their individual case development and preparation.
The general causation phase will proceed for the next year, after which cases will be selected for trial and their individual case development and preparation.