Paraquat Parkinson’s Lawsuit MDL 3004
The use of paraquat has sparked controversy worldwide, and scientists have linked the popular herbicide paraquat to Parkinson’s disease. Paraquat is banned in many countries due to its ability to cause serious health issues, such as Parkinson’s disease, and has recently been subject to intense scientific scrutiny. Many studies have now established a connection between paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease.
As a result of the significant scientific evidence supporting a link between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease, over 5,000 paraquat lawsuits have been filed in the United States alleging that exposure to Paraquat caused the plaintiff to develop Parkinson’s disease. The large number paraquat Parkinson’s disease lawsuits in federal court were eventually consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL 3004) for efficiency purposes. NGRV attorney Marlene Goldenberg was then appointed by the paraquat Court to be one of a handful of attorneys in the United States to be on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (PEC) to lead the paraquat Parkinson’s Disease lawsuits that are consolidated in MDL 3004.
Paraquat Lawsuit MDL 3004 Updates / History
Below is a timeline of significant litigation events and the latest updates on the paraquat Parkinson’s disease lawsuits consolidated in MDL 3004 against Syngenta and Chevron. Bookmark this page to stay up to date on the latest paraquat lawsuit updates.
April 2024 – Expert Excluded & Bellwether Trials Dismissed
Paraquat Bellwether Trials Dismissed
After excluding Plaintiffs only general causation expert who linked paraquat exposure to the development of Parkinson’s disease, the Court then dismissed the 4 paraquat bellwether trial plaintiffs. While the Defendants moved to dismiss the paraquat bellwether Plaintiffs on numerous grounds, the Court did not consider those arguments, because the claims all fail due to “the inability to establish a causal link between occupational paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease without Dr. Wells’ testimony.” Even though the Court dismissed the first 4 paraquat bellwether trials, MDL 3004 is not over. The Court noted that it “intends to expeditiously identify a new set of trial cases and set a tight schedule for limited discovery and trial.” The Court then ordered the parties to select 16 more Paraquat – Parkinson’s disease lawsuits to work up for trial, with the Plaintiffs selecting 8 cases, Defendant Chevron selecting 4 cases, and Defendant Syngenta selecting 4 cases by May 10, 2024.
Dr. Wells’ Paraquat Opinions
On April 17, 2024, the Court issued its ruling on the admissibility of the opinions given by the Plaintiffs’ paraquat expert Dr. Martin Wells. The Court noted that Dr. Wells served “as Plaintiffs’ sole expert witness on the critical issue of general causation, offering an opinion that occupational exposure to paraquat can cause Parkinson’s disease.” A lawsuit must be able to establish general causation (that paraquat can cause Parkinson’s disease) to go to trial and argue specific causation (that paraquat caused a specific person to have Parkinson’s disease).
Dr. Wells was retained as an expert in MDL 3004 to “analyze the epidemiological evidence relating the association and causation of the occupational exposure of paraquat to the onset of Parkinson’s disease.” Dr. Wells then conducted a meta-analysis of 7 epidemiological studies that measured a potential association between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease. After reviewing the studies, it was Dr. Wells’ opinion that there was a near tripling of Parkinson’s disease in study participants occupationally exposed to paraquat. After establishing a positive correlation between occupational exposure to paraquat and Parkinson’s disease, Dr. Wells weighed the evidence to determine if the correlation was attributable to a causal relationship. Dr. Wells ultimately found that there was a causal relationship between paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease and drew the following conclusions:
- The available epidemiological evidence supports a causal relationship between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease;
- The paraquat trial selection plaintiffs fit the exposure and diagnostic criteria of the 7 studies, meaning they were at a 300% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.
Dr. Wells’ Methodology
Meta-Analysis
The Court noted that Dr. Wells identified 26 studies that were responsive to the question of whether paraquat exposure was associated with Parkinson’s disease. However, Dr. Wells’ meta-analysis only included seven studies. The Court noted that Dr. Wells’ meta-analysis only represented “a subset of the available epidemiological literature, meaning that Dr. Wells excluded a significant amount of relevant information from his meta-analysis.” In deposition, Dr. Wells explained that he excluded certain studies for various reasons, such as the study not being restricted to agricultural workers, unreliable exposure and diagnostic criteria, low participation rate, relied on Parkinsonism instead of Parkinson’s disease to identify cases, or because case identification procedures were insufficiently reliable. The Court criticized Dr. Wells for not detailing his exclusion criteria in his first expert report and also not detailing in his deposition what made the exposure and diagnostic criteria in certain studies “unreliable.”
Based on how Dr. Wells weighted the 7 studies in his meta-analysis, 2 studies ended up accounting for 90% of the weight of the resulting pooled odds ratio (meaning the other 5 studies negligibly impacted his meta-analysis). Simply put, Dr. Wells’ opinion that paraquat increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease by 300% was essentially based on 2 studies.
Bradford Hill Analysis
The Court next examined Dr. Wells’ Bradford Hill analysis, which is used to determine whether occupational exposure to paraquat was casually related to Parkinson’s disease. In conducting a Bradford Hill analysis an expert is to evaluate the following 9 factors:
- Strength of Association
- Consistency
- Temporality
- Dose-Response
- Experimental Evidence Regarding the Cessation of Exposure
- Specificity
- Biological Plausibility
- Coherence
- Analogy
The Court found that Dr. Wells made several assumptions in his Bradford Hill analysis. First, Dr. Wells assumed that biological plausibility, coherence, and analogy were satisfied based on the report of Dr. Vanessa Fitsanakis, the Plaintiffs’ toxicology expert. Second, Dr. Wells assumed that the four paraquat bellwether trial plaintiffs met the exposure and diagnostic criteria of his meta-analysis, leading him to conclude that the 4 paraquat bellwether plaintiffs were at approximately a 300% increased risk of Parkinson’s disease due to their paraquat exposure.
Unclear Study Inclusion Criteria
Occupational Studies
Dr. Wells testified in his deposition that he was only investigating a relationship between occupational paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease. However, Dr. Wells failed to provide a clear definition of what qualified as “occupational” exposure in his expert report. Further compounding the problem, Dr. Wells testified that he relied on each individual study’s definition of the concept to determine whether it was sufficiently relevant to his assignment. Dr. Wells eventually gave the following definition of occupational paraquat exposure during his deposition, “primarily focused on… people’s work and, you know, exposure because of their workplace.” Dr. Wells then admitted in deposition that the study that carried the most weight (74%) in his meta-analysis, “did not meet [his] own stated criteria for occupational exposure” because it “included residential exposure as well.” Dr. Wells attempted to justify his decision to include a study that included residential exposure into his occupational exposure meta-analysis because it had “good recruitment, good diagnoses, and a – seemed to follow the patients well.”
In-Person Evaluations
Dr. Wells’ expert report also claimed that his meta-analysis was limited to studies in which the subjects had “in-person” Parkinson’s evaluations by a movement disorder specialist. However, at deposition, Dr. Wells conceded that he deviated from his criteria because he included a study that only identified Parkinson’s disease cases through a review of medical records. Dr. Wells then admitted that instead of selecting studies for his meta-analysis based on well-defined criteria, he selected the studies based on a “holistic assessment of whether or not that study was reliable enough for inclusion.” The Court noted that “Dr. Wells never reduced his ‘holistic’ review process to writing and as a result, appeared to concede that his process was not objectively replicable.”
Dr. Wells’ Rebuttal Expert Report
Redefining Occupational Exposure
Dr. Wells submitted his first expert report on October 12, 2022. After his deposition testimony (outlined above) and after the defense submitted their epidemiology expert report from Dr. Dominik Alexander, Dr. Wells then submitted a rebuttal report on April 19, 2023. The Court noted that Dr. Wells’ rebuttal report had a “methodological sea change” in his expert analysis, providing much more granular and even previously undisclosed explanations of his study selection methodology.” While Dr. Wells still claimed to be examining “occupational” exposure to paraquat, his expert report claimed he analyzed, “epidemiological evidence of an association between Parkinson’s disease and occupational or direct exposure to paraquat in the course of work, agricultural, or residential applications – in other words, individuals who used or had potential dermal contact with paraquat – as opposed to indirect community exposure through, e.g. drift.” Even more problematic, Dr. Wells’ changed his definition of “occupational exposure” to “related to the use of paraquat, or contact with paraquat where there is the risk of dermal exposure.” The Court made the following comments regarding Dr. Wells redefining “occupational exposure”: “Of course, this revised objective no longer distinguished between studies that evaluated workplace-related paraquat exposure and residential exposure studies. Instead, studies that investigated paraquat exposure in the form of ‘potential dermal contact’ now qualified as ‘occupational’ exposure studies.” At his second deposition, Dr. Wells redefined “occupational exposure” again to mean “direct contact with a person, not occupational, not drift or anything like that.”
Redefining Study Quality Factors
Dr. Wells’ rebuttal expert report also now claimed that Dr. Wells judged the quality of the eligible studies according to 5 quality factors and assigned each eligible study a “higher quality” or “lower quality” rating for each of the 5 quality factors. The Court commented that “Dr. Wells’ methodology appeared to shift from the ‘holistic’ selection process he had described at his deposition. Most notably, studies in which more than 60% of cases and controls agreed to participate received a ‘higher quality’ rating for participation rate, whereas studies that did not meet this threshold were assigned a ‘lower quality’ rating.” The Court found this troubling, because during Dr. Wells’ prior deposition, he testified, “I don’t have a number” when asked whether there was a “clear requirement regarding participation rates for inclusion in [his] analysis.”
The Court found that “the quality factor of a study’s exposure assessment underwent a similar metamorphosis from the general to the specific.” Dr. Wells had previously testified that he evaluated a study’s exposure assessment to determine whether it “was done well” and “reliable.” Dr. Wells’ rebuttal report added the specification “that to qualify for a ‘higher quality’ rating on this criterion, a study had to conduct ‘personal interview[s] using detailed exposure questionnaires.'” The Court held that “at a minimum, the rebuttal expert report exposes the lack of a systematic selection of studies in Dr. Wells’ first report.”
Adding Exposure Duration Criteria
Dr. Wells also added a new limitation on the scope of his expert opinions when he was deposed a second time. Dr. Wells testified that for there to be a nearly 300% increased risk of Parkinson’s disease, the person had to be exposed to paraquat for 25 days or more. Dr. Wells justified his minimum 25-day paraquat exposure restriction on the basis that “it’s harder to attain,” and therefore more reliable than an ever / never exposure classification. The Court found Dr. Wells’ 25 days or greater of paraquat exposure to be a “nebulous definition” that would leave the Court and jury to figure out the precise contours of his opinions
Unreliable Expert Opinion
The Court first examined Dr. Wells’ methodology and held, “it is unclear from the record whether Dr. Wells’ general causation opinion requires workplace exposure to paraquat, the ‘risk of dermal contact,’ ‘direct exposure,’ ‘direct use,’ or ‘direct contact.’ The meaning of his opinion is therefore ‘impossible to discern.'” The Court noted that unclear methodology warrants exclusion of expert testimony and that this was the first strike against the reliability of Dr. Wells’ expert opinions.
The Court then discussed Dr. Wells’ methodology for searching for relevant paraqaut – Parkinson’s disease epidemiological studies. The Court noted, “Dr. Wells’ violations of the rules of meta-analysis are evident from the very beginning of his process. One of the initial steps in a meta-analysis involves the search for relevant studies that are then further analyzed for potential inclusion in the analysis. Dr. Wells’ first report is entirely devoid of a search narrative that would allow other researchers to validate his process.” The Court added that there was a “systemic failure to adhere to the rules of his chosen methodology.”
The Court then continued identifying Dr. Wells’ methodological red flags, noting that “until he submitted his rebuttal report, he failed to clearly articulate the inclusion/exclusion criteria that purportedly governed a study’s eligibility for his analysis.” The Court also noted that, “Dr. Wells relied on an evolving set of quality criteria to determine which studies ultimately warranted inclusion in his meta-analysis. This alone undermines the methodological soundness of his qualitative evaluation of the literature. But that is not the only problem with this step in Dr. Wells’ meta-analysis. In addition to modifying certain quality criteria, Dr. Wells inconsistently applied them in a thinly veiled attempt to ensure the inclusion of the studies that made it into his meta-analysis”. The Court also found, “Dr. Wells’ definition and evaluation of participation rates in the eligible studies offers an even more blatant example of methodological shapeshifting.”
Paraquat Expert Excluded
The Court ultimately found that “Dr. Wells’ meta-analysis does not pass muster under Rule 702 because its methodology was unclear, inconsistently applied, not replicable, and at times transparently reverse-engineered.” Because Dr. Wells’ methodology was found unreliable, the Court held that Dr. Wells’ meta-analysis failed to meet the threshold articulated in Daubert, and therefore any testimony based on Dr. Wells’ meta-analysis and the resulting 300% increased risk of Parkinson’s disease in people who are occupationally exposed to paraquat is excluded. However, the Court was clear that “nothing in this order should be construed as the Court’s independent, substantive evaluation of the epidemiological literature.” The Court reiterated its position that “the Court is ultimately concerned with the methodological soundness of Dr. Wells’ analyses, not the correctness of the data he analyzed or the conclusions he drew.”
February 2024 – Paraquat 3rd Party Discovery
On February 26, 2024, the Court entered paraquat case management order #21 allowing limited discovery of third-parties in the paraquat lawsuits. The Paraquat Court entered this order after the Special Master advised the Court that many paraquat Plaintiffs had not produced any documentary evidence to support that they were exposed to Paraquat. The paraquat judge noted that it could be because such proof of paraquat exposure does not exist, or that the proof of paraquat exposure is in the control of a third-party. CMO 21 directs each Paraquat Plaintiff in MDL 3004 to serve third-party subpoenas seeking evidence providing proof of paraquat use or paraquat exposure. The paraquat Plaintiff attorneys have until March 11, 2024, to serve their subpoenas on the paraquat third-parties.
January 2024 – Additional Paraquat Discovery
On January 22, 2024, the Court issued paraquat case management order #20 relating to additional limited discovery for the paraquat lawsuits. The Court noted that it “remains concerned that a significant number of plaintiffs in the MDL – which now total over 5,000 – do not plausibly allege exposure to paraquat.” The Court then selected 25 Paraquat plaintiffs to undergo additional limited discovery. The Court then noted that it “believes additional discovery regarding these individuals will provide representative data about Plaintiffs, determine where Plaintiffs’ claims are plausible and substantiated, and expose non-meritorious claims.” The Court also commented that it believed the additional information would also assist the Court in facilitating the expeditious, economical, and just settlement of the paraquat Parkinson’s disease lawsuits, which the Court noted had “been the Court’s goal since the MDL’s inception.” Depositions of the 25 Paraquat Parkinson’s disease Plaintiffs were to be completed on or before March 22, 2024.
July 2023 – Paraquat Expert Hearing
On July 28, 2023, the Court entered paraquat case management order #19 relating to hearing on Daubert motions, which are motions to exclude the other side’s expert. The Court noted that each side had completed their Daubert motions on the four remaining Paraquat Parkinson’s disease bellwether trials. The Court ordered Plaintiffs’ paraquat expert, Dr. Martin Wells to appear and provide testimony regarding his opinions on August 21, 2023. The Court will allow each side to question Dr. Wells for two hours.
December 2022 – Paraquat Bellwether Trials Postponed
The paraquat judge once again postponed the date of the initial paraquat bellwether trials, this time from July 2023 to October 2023. As 2022 draws to a close, over 2,000 paraquat lawsuits are now pending in MDL 3004.
September 2022 – Paraquat Parkinson Lawsuit Filings Continue Increasing
The number of paraquat lawsuits continues to increase, with 1,925 paraquat lawsuits now pending in MDL 3004.
August 2022 – Filed Paraquat Parkinson Lawsuits Double!
The number of paraquat lawsuits on file ballooned to 1,749 – more than doubling the number of paraquat lawsuits on file in just 5 months. On August 17, 2022, the paraquat judge issued Paraquat case management order #15, postponing the first paraquat bellwether trial from November 2022 to July 2023. The nine-month trial delay was upsetting to the paraquat attorneys and plaintiffs, as the significant trial delay benefits the defendants and delays any potential paraquat settlement.
March 2022 – Paraquat Bellwether Ranking
In approximately 1 month, nearly 200 additional paraquat lawsuits were filed in MDL 3004, bringing the total number of paraquat lawsuits on file in MDL 3004 to 875. Via amended case management order #12, the paraquat court ordered the parties to rank the 16 paraquat bellwether lawsuits in order of preference.
February 2022 – Steady Filing of Paraquat Lawsuits
680 paraquat lawsuits are now pending in MDL 3004. At this time, nearly 100 paraquat lawsuits are being filed every month.
December 2021 – Paraquat Fact Discovery
482 paraquat lawsuits are pending in federal courts– a substantial growth from the 14 paraquat lawsuits that were on file when MDL 3004 was requested just a few months earlier. On December 3, 2021, the paraquat MDL judge entered case management order # 12, directing the paraquat lawyers to complete a fact discovery check on the paraquat plaintiffs’ claims to proceed with the final pretrial conference of the chosen trial dates.
November 2021 – Paraquat Motion to Dismiss
In an attempt to get rid of lawsuits of those injured by paraquat, the paraquat defendants requested to dismiss particular claims that suggest paraquat exposure causes Parkinson’s disease. The paraquat defendants requested the dismissal due to time restrictions known as statutes of limitations.
In response, paraquat attorneys for the plaintiffs claim that the defendants’ motions violate the fundamental purpose of an MDL, which is to ensure pretrial proceedings lead to the efficient, just, and expeditious resolution of all actions. The paraquat judge denied that proposal, and the paraquat plaintiffs were ordered to respond by December 2021.
September 2021 – Paraquat Plaintiff’s Assessment Questionnaire
On September 3, 2021, the paraquat judge entered case management order #7 in MDL 3004, requiring all plaintiffs that have filed a paraquat lawsuit to complete a Plaintiff’s Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ). The PAQ’s goal is to assess paraquat lawsuits relating disease to paraquat exposure.
July 2021 – NGRV Appointed to Paraquat Leadership
174 paraquat lawsuits are now pending MDL 3004. On July 6, 2021, the paraquat judge entered case management order (CMO) #2 appointing which attorneys around the nation would lead the paraquat litigation. Marlene Goldenberg of Nigh Goldenberg Raso & Vaughn was court appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (PEC) for the paraquat lawsuits pending in MDL 3004. Marlene was one of 13 paraquat attorneys around the United States that were selected to be on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee for MDL 3004. The Court noted that, “The Court carefully considered the applicants’ written submissions and oral statements in light of the criteria set forth in Case Management Order No. 1, the Manual for Complex Litigation, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). In addition, given the prior efforts of counsel in the Illinois and California state court Paraquat litigation, the Court was particularly interested in appointing a small, diverse, inclusive, and experienced leadership group that is fully committed to coordinating efforts and sharing information and research to advance these [paraquat] claims in an efficient and cost-effective manner.” Marlene Goldenberg and her associate Sam Hoefs continue to play an active role in the paraquat Parkinson lawsuits to this day.
June 2021 – Paraquat MDL 3004 Formed
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) of the United States ordered that all federally filed paraquat lawsuits be centralized in the Southern District of Illinois, creating MDL 3004. The JPML noted that Illinois ranks in the top five states in paraquat usage. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel was assigned to preside over the paraquat lawsuits in MDL 3004. At the time MDL 3004 was formed, the JPML noted that there were 77 paraquat lawsuits filed in sixteen different federal district courts in the United States. Judge Nancy Rosenstengel already presided over 20 of the filed paraquat lawsuits.
April 2021 – Paraquat Motion to Transfer
Because of the growing number of paraquat lawsuits filed throughout the United States in federal court, on April 7, 2021, a paraquat Motion of Transfer was filed to centralize the paraquat lawsuits into a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). At the time the motion to transfer was filed, it was noted that there were fourteen paraquat Parkinson lawsuits filed in six different federal courts across the country.
September 2017 – First Paraquat Parkinson Lawsuit Filed
A paraquat lawsuit was filed in St. Clair County, Illinois, against paraquat manufacturers Syngenta and Growmark. The paraquat lawsuit claimed that the plaintiff was exposed to paraquat at a young age and subsequently developed Parkinson’s disease as a result.
Paraquat is an herbicide used to eliminate weeds and vegetation. Paraquat has existed since the 1960s and is one of the world’s most widely used herbicides. Paraquat is a non-selective, systemic herbicide, meaning it kills any plant it comes in contact with.
Paraquat has a wide range of applications, with the most common being the elimination of invasive weeds and grass. Paraquat is sold in liquid, granular, and wettable powder forms. In the United States, Paraquat is sold in a blue dye, and the product incorporates a vomiting agent so that it can be easily distinguished and not mixed with food. The ingestion of Paraquat can be fatal to humans and other animals.
Paraquat Frequently Asked Questions
Is Paraquat Legal in The US?
In the US, paraquat is legal, but paraquat is categorized as a “restricted use” product by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In other words, paraquat is only available to licensed applicators – paraquat is not available to the general public. Due to significant health and environmental concerns, paraquat has been banned in many countries around the world, such as the entire European Union, Brazil, and even China. To make matters even worse, several paraquat manufacturers are headquartered in a country where paraquat is banned, yet still export the paraquat to other parts of the world, including the United States.
What Are the Paraquat Herbicide Lawsuits About?
If you have been following the news about paraquat, you may have heard about the thousands of lawsuits filed related to the product.
The Paraquat Parkinson lawsuits are not a class action. Each person who developed Parkinson’s Disease from exposure to paraquat has a case that is prosecuted separately. The cases have all been centralized in the Southern District of Illinois before Judge Nancy Rosenstengel. All pretrial matters, such as depositions of the manufacturers’ witnesses, expert reports common to all cases, and other issues that relate to all cases equally, are handled in this consolidated proceeding, but each plaintiff has their own case.
These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the manufacturers failed to warn about the potential health risks of using paraquat. They seek damages for pain and suffering, medical expenses, economic losses, and emotional distress.
Who Manufactures Paraquat?
The primary defendants in the paraquat lawsuits are Syngenta and Chevron. Syngenta is a Swiss-based and China-owned agribusiness firm and one of the largest producers of herbicides in the world. Paraquat is banned in both China and Switzerland, but the company still exports paraquat to other countries under the name Gramoxone.
Chevron and Phillips66 are also in a joint venture operating under Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LLC. The company is another major producer of paraquat.
What Are the Symptoms of Paraquat Poisoning?
Paraquat can cause serious problems to humans and animals if ingested or even inhaled and exposed to the skin. Due to paraquat’s high toxicity, individuals who have worked closely with the chemical are susceptible to health complications, even years after their last exposure to paraquat.
The most common and immediate symptom associated with paraquat poisoning is severe abdominal pain. Abdominal pain caused by paraquat exposure can last for several days and may be accompanied by fever, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. In rare cases, abdominal pain due to paraquat exposure may be accompanied by jaundice or yellowing of the skin and eyes. Other symptoms of paraquat poisoning may include confusion, drowsiness, dizziness, difficulty breathing, and chest pain.
In cases where the individual has been exposed to paraquat for a longer duration or ingested a considerable amount of paraquat, severe complications can occur quickly, such as kidney or lung failure, respiratory problems, paralysis, or even death. While the Paraquat label warns consumers that drinking it can cause serious harm or death, the label contains no warnings about the link between Paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease.
Can Paraquat Exposure Cause Parkinson’s Disease?
Numerous studies suggest that exposure to paraquat may increase the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, particularly in individuals who have been exposed to high levels of paraquat over an extended period of time. There have even been allegations that prominent manufacturers of paraquat have tried to suppress scientific research, which showed a link between paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease.
How Much Are Paraquat Lawsuit Settlement Amounts?
Trying to give an answer as to the amount a paraquat lawsuit will settle for in general is not possible, but the below are factors that will likely influence the settlement amount of any paraquat lawsuit:
Paraquat Exposure: If you were exposed to large amounts of paraquat over a long period, you might be entitled to more compensation than someone exposed to small amounts over a short period.
Medical Expenses: Following the same logic, considerable treatment expenses may lead to bigger compensation. A settlement or verdict will compensate both current and future medical bills.
Pain and Suffering: Proof of emotional distress, such as depression or anxiety caused by paraquat exposure, may increase the compensation.
Link to Parkinson’s Disease or Other Medical Conditions: As the scientific evidence linking the two is starting to consolidate, if you have been exposed to paraquat over a long period and have been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, this will potentially lead to more significant compensation.
The Outcome of the Bellwether Trials: After postponements and frustration among the plaintiffs, the bellwether trials are set to commence on October 2023. The outcome of the bellwether trials will set the tone for the individual cases moving forward and the amount that can be received after the settlement.
Ultimately, the compensation you are entitled to will depend on many factors. If you or your loved ones have been exposed to paraquat, contact our experienced attorneys, who will review the details of your case and help you seek the compensation you deserve.
When Should I Expect My Paraquat Lawsuit to Settle?
We understand that this question is in every plaintiff’s mind, especially with how long the paraquat litigation has taken and how quickly Parkinson’s disease can progress. Mass tort lawsuits, such as the paraquat litigation frequently settle after the litigation has passed the expert admissibility phase, right as a trial is scheduled to begin, or after large jury verdicts. The general causation expert in the paraquat litigation did not make it through the admissibility phase. Currently, additional general causation experts are being worked up in the paraquat litigation. It is unknown how long until we might see a settlement for lawsuits that alleged paraquat caused Parkinson’s disease. Even if a settlement is reached, the claims administration process for a litigation this size typically takes a year or longer to administer. Simply put, even if a settlement is reached, it will take over a year until a paraquat settlement check is received.
Paraquat Parkinson’s Disease Attorney
Marlene Goldenberg of Nigh Goldenberg Raso & Vaughn was court-appointed by the judge in the Paraquat lawsuit MDL 3004 to the Plaintiffs’ executive committee (PEC). For a free Paraquat lawsuit case consultation, please call 202-792-7927. Call today if you or a loved one have been exposed to Paraquat and developed Parkinson’s disease. At this time, Nigh Goldenberg Raso & Vaughn are still accepting new Paraquat cases and filing Paraquat lawsuits. Various statutes of limitations could apply to any Paraquat lawsuit – don’t delay.
