Our lawyers are handling Round-up cancer lawsuits. As virtually anyone reading this knows, Bayer has reached an approximately $11 billion settlement with many plaintiffs in these cases. So the question really is where this litigation goes from here. Because the cases will not stop coming in because Bayer is still, inexplicably, selling the product. Can you still find a Roundup cancer lawyer after the settlement? Why have many Roundup lawyers stopped taking these cases? We address this issue on this page.
First, why did Bayer agree to a settlement? Bayer sought to settle these cases because juries were loudly telling them that Monsanto Roundup weed killer is a carcinogen that can cause cancer. So much so that these cases put the very existence of Bayer AG, a huge company, at risk. Bayer stuck its chest out too long and probably trusted its outside lawyers too much. But, eventually, reason prevailed.
The problem with Roundup is glyphosate, the main ingredient of this pesticide. Many scientists believe glyphosate causes an increased risk for the development of certain forms of cancer, including non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and hairy cell leukemia.
At first, the science on all of this was unclear. Many lawyers thought the Roundup lawsuits might be a coin toss between Monsanto/Bayer and the victims. It has not turned out that way as the $2 billion jury verdict against Montsanto showed. Jurors are screaming that these pesticides cause cancer. Their punitive damage awards show they are mad the weed killer is even on the market.
The speculation about a Roundup settlement is running wild in May 2020. Many lawyers are projecting a settlement in a matter of weeks or months. Fortune printed an article on Memorial Day that has probably raised hopes of an imminent settlement in the middle of this COVID-19 mess who are looking for economic relief. But if there is a Roundup settlement coming any day now, you want to bring a claim as soon as possible because there could be problems with the statute of limitations.
If you or someone you loved had/have cancer and have been exposed to glyphosate, which is one of the active ingredients in Roundup, you still may be eligible to bring a lawsuit for money damages for the needless harm that has been done to you. As we discuss in greater detail below, not many lawyers are will be considering Roundup cases where the cancer diagnosis was not recent. But there still may be a path to compensation for newly diagnosed cases. If you have a legal right to bring a claim for compensation, you don't want to sleep on it. Call the lawyers Miller & Zois at 800-553-8082 or get a free, no-obligation online case review.What Is Roundup?
Roundup is the most widely used herbicide in the world as a weed-killer. It is used on lawns, gardens, parks, playgrounds, and more. More than $6 billion in revenue is generated every year for its manufacturer, Monsanto. Over 250 million pounds are sprayed each year. Yet, in 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it a "probable human carcinogen" due to the ingredient glyphosate.
The most serious side effect of the exposure to glyphosate is cancer - non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL), Leukemia, and B-cell lymphoma. Farmworkers are said to be the most at-risk class for developing NHL, which is cancer that can start anywhere in the body from white blood cells in the immune system. (For context, the American Cancer Society expects 74,000 Americans to be diagnosed with NHL in 2019.)
Symptoms include anemia, chest pain, enlarged lymph nodes, and shortness of breath. Garden center employees are most at risk for developing leukemia after exposure, and symptoms of leukemia include chills, bleeding or easy bruising, fatigue, fever, severe infections, and recurring nose bleeds. Those at high risk for developing B-cell lymphoma are nursery employees, and the symptoms can include chills, an enlarged spleen, night sweats, pain/swelling in the head, and fever.
Certainly, anyone using this product is potentially at risk. But landscapers, gardeners, and farmers are most likely to have the most significant exposure to these pesticides.
In September 2003, researchers conducted a study of 3,400 farmworkers in the Midwest. The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine published an article questioning the safety of glyphosate, finding that higher rates of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are associated with glyphosate exposure. That was 17 years ago.
A research article published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health focuses on systematic reviews and analysis of over 30 years of research on the relationship between NHL and occupational exposure to an agricultural pesticide. It found a "striking increase" in the incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphomas in the last 30 years. Further, the article finds that farmers tend to have low overall mortality rates but high rates of some cancers, which the agrochemical exposure may explain. Most importantly, it confirms that glyphosate exposure, in particular, is positively associated with a common sub-type of NHL, B-cell lymphoma.
In 2015, a report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the WHO, finds glyphosate to be "probably carcinogenic" and causing cancer in lab tests on animals and damage to DNA in human cells. Now keep in mind that source here. This is the WHO. It is not some plaintiffs' lawyers with a financial incentive to blame these pesticides for cancer. The WHO is one of the most respected health organizations in the world.
In response to this, Monsanto/Bayer has trotted out Dr. Donna Farmer to the media. Dr. Farmer has studied chemicals at Monsanto for over 20 years. She disagrees with these new findings of a cancer risk and says that the chemical is safe (or at least there is no data to support an association). She accuses the WHO of cherry-picking the data and interpreting scientific studies differently than researchers who actually did the study.
Dr. Farmer says that glyphosate targets a particular enzyme in plants, which humans and animals don't have. Her long-term study shows that the chemical doesn't cause cancer.
Jurors will eventually need to decide whether Dr. Farmer or whether they believe these scientists that claim these pesticides cause.
The Environmental Protection Agency is currently in the process of evaluating glyphosate, as part of the standard procedure for chemicals every 15 years. There have also been regulation concerns about Roundup, including a bill introduced in Hawaii to ban it from public roads and parks. A bill passed in France banning it from home-gardening centers. There has also been a declaration by Denmark's Working Environmental Authority warning gardeners not to use it to control weeds. Time will tell but these actions appear to presage to a new movement to restrain the use of these pesticides for the public health.
The biggest news is the $11 billion Roundup settlement. This much anticipated and much delayed settlement was over a year in the making. But what happens now? Let's start from the beginning of the pesticide litigation until we get to the 2020 settlement. In April 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles, accusing Monsanto of false advertising for its claim that Roundup is harmless to human health. An individual claim was filed in October 2015 in Delaware, for three victims, and more claims in New York and California.
Also in April, a federal judge in California refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a man who blamed Roundup for his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. His lawsuit alleges that he used Roundup to kill weeds and poison oak and that Monsanto failed to warn that glyphosate is a known human carcinogen. This lawsuit will open the door to more suits if the history of mass tort litigation is any guide.
In May 2016, three Nebraska farmers and an agronomist were diagnosed with cancer and sue Monsanto over Roundup. They claim that Monsanto misled consumers about the chemical's safety and that they developed cancer because of it. They further allege that Monsanto "concealed or systematically sought to discredit" the dangers of the product.
One mystery in these cases has always been why the FDA was always soft-pedaling the risk associated with Roundup. In March 2017, we may have gotten an answer. We got a closer look at the relationship between the FDA and Monsanto when documents were released indicating Jess Rowland, a former deputy director of the EPA’s pesticide program, had offered to kill an FDA study of the association between Roundup and cancer.
One piece of big news is the MDL trial judge ruled that evidence that Monsanto’s sought to ghostwrite medical studies to downplay the risks of Roundup were “super relevant” to the victims' clams.
Rowland obviously wanted to please Roundup and claim credit for suppressing the study. “If I can kill this I should get a medal,” Rowland told a regulatory affairs manager at Monsanto. How awful is that? When this call came to light, Rowland quickly retired. What is he doing now? You guessed it. He is a consultant for chemical companies.
Monsanto/Bayer consistently defends itself by claiming that the product is safe for people. They have fought against being required to put cancer warnings on their products since the 1980s. There is no question that there is more research to be done to solidify the HMO's opinion. But, the position that these pesticides are becoming harder and harder to defend.
Since the 1970s, millions of agricultural workers have been exposed to Roundup, and further, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is one of the most common cancers according to the American Cancer Society.
The first wave of roundup lawsuits against Monsanto started getting filed in 2015. The litigation started to build momentum very quickly as it became clear that there would be hundreds or even thousands more cases filed against the company. In October 2016 a federal judiciary panel created a new Multi-District Litigation (MDL) for the roundup cases (the "Roundup MDL"). This meant that all pending and future roundup lawsuits filed against Monsanto in the federal courts would be consolidated in the Northern District of California under Judge Vince Chhabria.
Creation of the Roundup MDL marked a huge step forward for people who had lost a loved one or had terminal cancer or other injuries. Class action MDLs allow victims' lawyers to share resources to further investigate these cases. The Roundup MDL also made it easier for victims across the country to file lawsuits and participate in future settlements, often with minimal effort required on behalf of the claimants.
Will the Roundup MDL disband after these settlements? That remains to be seen. But if the MDL disappears, that does not mean victim cannot still bring claim.
If the Roundup cases had settled before these trials the victims would have gotten a lot less in the Roundup settlement. The settlement value of the Roundup cases surged because the first few Roundup test cases to go to trial resulted in massive verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs. The first big Roundup verdict came in August 2018 when a jury in one of the Roundup cases in the California State courts awarded the plaintiff $289 million in damages (later reduced by the judge to $78.5 million). In March 2019, another trial in California state court resulting in a staggering verdict of $2 billion, which included $1 billion in punitive damages. The results in these 2 states court cases were soon followed by the first case to go to trial in federal court which resulted in a jury awarding $80 million to a man who claimed the weed killer gave him non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
- Johnson v Monsanto (August 2018) $289.2 million: 46-year-old plaintiff was the former groundskeeper for a school district in the San Francisco Bay Area. As part of his job duties, plaintiff applied Roundup products to school properties on a regular basis for years. In 2015, he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with large cell transformation and he became one of the first plaintiffs to file a product liability suit against Monsanto. Following an 8-week trial in San Francisco County, the jury found that Monsanto was liable and awarded $289 million in total damages, which included $250 million in punitive damages. The judge later capped the punitive damage award, reducing the total jury award down to $78.5 million.
- Hardeman v Monsanto (February 2019) $80.2 million: This was the first Federal Court case from the Roundup MDL to go to trial. Plaintiff, 70-year-old male, and his wife lived Sonoma County, California, on 56 acres that was once used as an exotic animal refuge. Plaintiff began using Roundup products to treat poison oak, weeds and overgrowth on his property in the 1980s and continued heavy spray activity through 2012. Three years later, he got a cancer diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The jury found that popular weed killer was defective and awarded $80 million which included $75 million in punitive damages.
- Pilliod v Monsanto (May 2019) $2.055 billion: Plaintiffs were a husband and wife in their 70s from Livermore, California who used regularly used Roundup products on their home and occasionally at other properties. The husband developed large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and the wife was diagnosed with central nervous system lymphoma which later progressed to NHL. After weeks of trial in Alameda County, the jury entered a staggering verdict of $2,055,206,173, which included $2 billion in punitive damages against Monsanto.
Anytime you get a class action MDL involving a product like Roundup, the outcome of the first initial cases to go to trial are generally used to negotiate a global settlement of all future cases. As described above, the initial Roundup trials resulted in a series of massive verdicts for the plaintiffs. This doesn’t mean that all future Roundup plaintiffs are going to get similarly massive settlements. However, it does mean that the global settlement package is going to be huge and valid Roundup cases will likely have a settlement value higher than any other previous class action MDLs.
We have not seen the list of Roundup lawsuits filed in May. In April, 2020, 52,500 suits had been filed. But there real number is closer to 125,000 because there are cases are being held that have not been filed or served. The global settlement will have a tiered system to determine value. At the top tier are those cases where the plaintiffs had extensive exposure to Roundup (e.g., landscapers, agricultural workers, and others who used Roundup every day for years) and were diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. At the lower end of the tiers will be cases where the plaintiffs has less exposure (e.g., homeowners who did not use Roundup everyday) and other types of lymphona or cancers less directly linked to Roundup.
The average Roundup lawsuit payout was less than we once hoped. COVID-19 did not help. The average Roundup settlement will end up being in the $100,000 range. The more better cases will still have much great value than $100,000.
So let's get to the big question for many reading this. Can you still file a Roundup lawsuit after the settlement? It will be hard to find a lawyer for the cases that were diagnosed long ago.
But new diagnosed cancer cases? Not only are these still viable cases, they will probably have a much higher value than the cases that settled. Why? Because Bayer paid $11 billion to settle the case and then just kept on selling the product. The settlement won't be admissible. But we all know the score here and the optics are terrible for Bayer. The sad reality is that Bayer probably makes more money continuing to sell Roundup and just paying off new claims.
Another question people want to know is whether there is a settlement value to multiple mylomona cases. Our lawyers have gotten so many calls on these cases.
Our law firm is not taking multiple myeloma cases. It is not that we believe that this product cannot cause multiple myeloma. But the science is much stronger correlating glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
If you or a loved one has been newly diagnosed with cancer from these pesticides, call our lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or get a free, no-obligation online case review. We can give you the legal advice you need and we will help you any way that we can.