Combat Arms Earplugs sold to the U.S. military by 3M Company have been found to feature a design defect that prevented the earplugs from working properly for some users, thereby increasing the risk of hearing loss, tinnitus and other hearing problems when the earplugs were used in combat or during training. Additionally, 3M is accused of knowingly selling the defective earplugs to the military without disclosing the problems with the earplugs’ effectiveness.
If you are a veteran or active duty military servicemember who was issued military combat earplugs between 2003 and 2015, and you suffered hearing loss or tinnitus despite wearing the earplugs, you may have grounds to file a defective combat earplugs lawsuit against 3M Company.
3M Company’s Combat Arms Earplugs, Version 2 (CAEv2) are dual-ended earplugs intended to be versatile enough to provide hearing protection while also allowing service members to communicate when necessary.
One side of the earplugs was designed to block all sound, including voices, just like traditional earplugs, while the other side was designed to block high-level combat noises that could damage users’ hearing, while still allowing low-level sounds like conversation and commands through. The now-discontinued earplugs were standard issue equipment for combat veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2015, as well as for reserve members who routinely fired weapons for training in the United States, and for Navy and Air Force personnel.
It has since been discovered that 3M’s selective attenuation earplugs were actually too short to be properly inserted into the ear canal, a design defect that prevented the earplugs from maintaining a tight fit. As a result, the earplugs could loosen imperceptibly in the ear, putting users at risk for hearing loss, tinnitus and other hearing problems from weapons fire, explosions and aircraft noise.
The defective earplugs were originally developed and manufactured by Aearo Technologies, Inc., beginning in the 1990s, and according to reports, the company became aware of the earplugs’ faulty design as early as 2000, when the earplugs tested with a noise reduction rating of zero, meaning they provided no noise reduction benefits for users.
Aearo Technologies has been accused of covering up the design flaw affecting its combat earplugs and falsifying test results to make it appear as though the earplugs complied with government safety standards. And in 2003, when the company won an exclusive contract with the U.S. government to supply the military with the combat earplugs, the company allegedly failed to disclose the problem to the military when the contract was finalized. When 3M acquired Aearo in 2008, it took over the government contract and continued supplying the military with the earplugs the Department of Justice claims the company knew or should have known were defective.
“The defective earplugs were originally developed and manufactured by Aearo Technologies, Inc., beginning in the 1990s, and according to reports, the company became aware of the earplugs’ faulty design as early as 2000, when the earplugs tested with a noise reduction rating of zero, meaning they provided no noise reduction benefits for users.”
According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, hearing loss and tinnitus are two of the most common service-related disabilities affecting U.S. military service members and veterans, and more than 2.7 million veterans currently receive disability benefits for these conditions.
Although hearing loss and tinnitus can be caused by any number of factors, military veterans and service members may suffer from noise-induced deafness and other hearing-related problems caused by exposure to high-level noises during combat and training. Military earplugs like 3M’s CAEv2 are designed to protect service members from potentially harmful noises from gunfire, aircraft, roadside bombs, tanks and heavy equipment, and when they fail to provide proper noise cancellation, the results can be devastating.
Tinnitus is another service-related hearing problem, characterized by the perception of noise or ringing in the ears when no external sound is present. Technically, tinnitus is not a condition itself. Rather, it is a symptom of an underlying medical condition, such as an ear injury, problems with the auditory nerves or hearing loss. For individuals who suffer from tinnitus, the sensation of a ringing, clicking, humming or buzzing sound in the ears is far more than just a nuisance. It can interfere with sleep and concentration and can make it difficult for them to interact socially and maintain meaningful relationships. For some people, suffering from tinnitus can lead to social isolation, depression and other debilitating, long-term health problems.
Between 2003 and 2015, thousands of U.S. military service members received defective earplugs from 3M Company that put them at risk for hearing loss, tinnitus and other hearing-related problems, and despite allegedly knowing about the design defect as early as 2000, Aearo Technologies and 3M deliberately withheld this information from the government.
In July 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it had reached a $9.1 million settlement with 3M in a whistleblower lawsuit filed on behalf of the U.S. government, resolving allegations that the defense contractor knew about the defective design of the earplugs and sold them to the military anyway. The whistleblower settlement effectively reimburses the government for the public funds paid to 3M and Aearo for the combat earplugs, but military service members and veterans who allegedly suffered hearing loss or tinnitus as a result of using the defective earplugs may also be entitled to compensation.
Affected service members can now file individual lawsuits against 3M and Aearo for their medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of future earning capacity, and other related damages.
]]>
For decades there have been significant concerns about the potential link between talcum powder products and cancer, and a growing body of evidence suggests that Johnson & Johnson has spent years covering up the potential link between its widely-used talc-based baby powder and body powder products and potentially life-threatening side effects like ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. Thousands of consumers are now suing Johnson & Johnson, alleging that they developed cancer either from being exposed to asbestos-laced talc in the company’s baby powder and body powder products, or from using talcum powder products on their genitals for feminine hygiene purposes. To date, the company faces nearly 12,000 claims that its celebrated baby powder and body powder products cause cancer.
Talcum powder is a popular consumer product made from a mineral called talc, which is ground into a fine powder. Because it absorbs moisture well and helps cut down on friction, talc has been widely used in cosmetic products such as baby and body powders marketed as a means of keeping skin dry, preventing rashes and minimizing odors. Unfortunately, a growing body of evidence suggests that when talcum powder products are used for feminine hygiene purposes, as they were for decades by women across the country, talc particles can be absorbed by the reproductive system and cause inflammation in the ovaries, possibly leading to ovarian cancer. In fact, dozens of studies involving thousands of women have shown that regular perineal use of talcum powder can increase the risk of ovarian cancer by as much as 40%.
Additionally, in its natural form, some talc contains asbestos, a mineral used in thousands of domestic, industrial and commercial products that is known to cause mesothelioma and other cancers in and around the lungs when inhaled. Asbestos exposure was originally primarily a concern for workers in construction, factories and shipyards where asbestos was prevalent. When workers exposed to asbestos on the job inhaled or ingested microscopic asbestos fibers, they faced a risk of the fibers becoming lodged in the lining of the lungs, heart and abdomen, where they could cause inflammation and scarring. This could damage their cells’ DNA and cause changes resulting in uncontrolled cell growth, possibly leading to mesothelioma or other forms of cancer. Today, because talc and asbestos often occur together in the earth, some mined talc may be contaminated with the carcinogen, and any consumer who uses the contaminated talc could be at risk for cancer from inhaling the talc or applying it to the genital region
In fact, dozens of studies involving thousands of women have shown that regular perineal use of talcum powder can increase the risk of ovarian cancer by as much as 40%.
The potential link between Johnson & Johnson talcum powder and asbestos dates back to 1957 and 1958, when a lab J&J hired to analyze the quality of its talc found contaminants in the talc that, in their naturally occurring fibrous form, are classified as asbestos. Asbestos use in the United States was heavily restricted in the 1970s, and in 1976, the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association issued voluntary guidelines indicating that all talc-based cosmetic products in the United States should be free from detectable amounts of asbestos. Still, Johnson & Johnson continued selling talcum powder products that tested positive for asbestos, while assuring regulators that its talc was asbestos-free. Not only that, the company is also accused of manipulating research on the safety of its talcum powder products and successfully influencing plans by U.S. regulators to limit asbestos in cosmetic talc products.
The American Cancer Society has stated that “Talc that has asbestos is generally accepted as being able to cause cancer if it is inhaled,” and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified talc that contains asbestos as carcinogenic to humans. The World Health Organization recognizes no safe level of asbestos exposure, but most asbestos-related problems occur after years of repeated exposure to the carcinogen, which may be the case for many women who regularly used talcum powder for feminine hygiene purposes. Unfortunately, cancers related to asbestos exposure typically have a long latency period, and while most people exposed to asbestos never develop cancer, some exposed to just small amounts of the substance can develop the disease years later.
For its part, J&J claims that any potential links between talc and cancer are based on inconclusive research. At the same time, internal reports, company memos and other confidential documents Johnson & Johnson has been compelled to share throughout the ongoing litigation suggest that company officials have known since the 1970s that some of the talc used in baby powder and body powder contained asbestos. According to these documents, from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, J&J’s raw talc and finished talcum powder products sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, a finding that the company deliberately withheld from regulators and the public. In light of these findings, thousands of plaintiffs are now accusing J&J of intentionally concealing the potential risk of cancer from talcum powder to protect the company’s image.
The first talcum powder ovarian cancer lawsuit was won against Johnson & Johnson in 2013, and in the years since, the company has been dealt a number of blows in the courtroom totaling more than $5 billion in plaintiff awards. In 2018, Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay $4.69 billion in damages to 22 women and their families in a lawsuit filed over ovarian cancer side effects allegedly tied to the company’s talcum powder products. Several other talcum powder lawsuits have involved sizable jury awards against J&J, including a $417 million verdict delivered by a Los Angeles jury in a 2017 lawsuit, and a $117 million verdict delivered by a New Jersey jury in 2018. The bulk of the litigation against J&J in recent years has been due to the potential link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer side effects in women, but the company now faces a whole new wave of lawsuits filed by consumers diagnosed with mesothelioma and lung cancer allegedly caused by asbestos in Johnson & Johnson talcum powder products.
]]>
Roundup, one of the most widely used weed killers in the world, has been linked to an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and other types of cancer, and research shows that individuals exposed to the herbicide sprayed on crops, in parks, on school grounds and on lawns and home gardens may face a 40% increased risk of developing cancer. This includes not only agricultural workers, farmers, farm workers, commercial nursery workers, landscapers and commercial spray applicators, but also at-home users and other individuals who regularly come in contact with Roundup.
Roundup is a broad-spectrum weed killer commonly sprayed on corn, cotton, soybean and other crops, as well as on home gardens, parks, orchards and backyard lawns, to kill weeds and grasses that are unsightly or that damage crops. The potential issue with Roundup is the weed killer’s active ingredient, glyphosate, which was developed by Monsanto in the 1970s and quickly became the go-to weed killer globally. Glyphosate is applied to the leaves of plants and works by blocking the enzymatic production of certain amino acids that are needed for plant growth. Potentially dangerous exposure to glyphosate can occur from breathing in the chemical while spraying, mixing or cleaning up Roundup, or from eating food or drinking water contaminated with the chemical.
Glyphosate is currently sold in more than 160 countries and is used liberally on nearly every acre of soy, cotton and corn in the United States. In addition to developing the most popular weed killer in the world, Monsanto is also a leading producer of seeds. In the 1990s, Monsanto began developing genetically-modified (GMO) “Roundup Ready” corn, soy and cotton seeds designed to withstand the application of Roundup, which allowed farmers to spray their fields with the herbicide without worrying about harming the crops. What Monsanto failed to disclose is that this abundant application of and/or exposure to Roundup may have put farmers and nearby residents at risk for developing NHL and other potentially life-threatening cancers.
The potential issue with Roundup is the weed killer’s active ingredient, glyphosate, which was developed by Monsanto in the 1970s and quickly became the go-to weed killer globally.
A growing body of scientific research suggests that Roundup may be toxic to human health and individuals exposed to the weed killer through inhalation or direct skin contact run the risk of serious health consequences, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and its various subtypes, such as chronic lymphocytic lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, hairy cell leukemia and other types of cancer. Additionally, trace amounts of glyphosate have been found in oats, honey, wheat, organic eggs, soy coffee creamer and other foods. In 2016, FDA researchers tested 10 samples of American honey and found that all 10 tested positive for glyphosate, some at twice the legal limit.
In 2015, drawing on years of peer-reviewed scientific studies and government reports, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen,” which sparked concerns about the potential health consequences of exposure to Roundup. In 2017, a branch of California’s Environmental Protection Agency added glyphosate to a list of cancer-causing chemicals. The World Health Organization has also classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic.” Despite these findings, Monsanto continues to aggressively market Roundup as effective and safe for human use, vehemently rejecting any link between glyphosate and cancer.
Prior to the IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen,” there was no way commercial and residential Roundup users could have been aware of the potential link between Roundup and cancer. Yet, there is evidence that Monsanto has known for decades that Roundup’s active ingredient increases the risk of cancer, and not only is the company accused of withholding this critical information from the public, but it is also suspected of falsifying data, conspiring with the EPA to contest the link between Roundup and cancer, and engaging in a deceptive campaign to systematically undermine legitimate scientific studies exposing the dangers of Roundup.
Monsanto now faces a growing number of product liability lawsuits in state and federal courts across the country, all of which involve similar allegations that glyphosate causes cancer and that Monsanto knew for years about the potential risk of cancer from Roundup exposure, yet failed to warn consumers. In 2018, one of the first Roundup lawsuits to go to trial resulted in a landmark $289 million verdict for a California man who alleged that Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
The award was later reduced to $78 million, but at the time of the original verdict, the judge overseeing the trial stated that Monsanto “acted with malice, oppression or fraud and should be punished for its conduct.” More than 9,000 Roundup lawsuits are currently pending against Monsanto in courts across the country, and nearly 800 of these lawsuits have been consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings in San Francisco, as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL).
]]>
Pesticides have long been known to have neurotoxic effects on individuals exposed to high quantities of the chemicals, and there have been increasing concerns about the potential delayed effects of chlorpyrifos exposure on the brains of children exposed to the organophosphate pesticide in utero.
Most birth defects that we know of are linked to genetic or environmental causes, including exposure of pregnant women to pesticides, and chlorpyrifos exposure has been linked to serious birth defects like developmental delays, reduced brain function, brain damage, lower IQs, ADHD and autism spectrum disorder.
Chlorpyrifos has been one of the most widely used pesticides in the United States for decades, despite the potential for the organophosphateto damage the nervous system of a developing fetus. If your child was born with brain damage or another serious birth defect, and you believe chlorpyrifos exposure to be the cause, your family may have grounds to file a birth defect lawsuit against Dow Chemical Co.
Chlorpyrifos is the active ingredient in Dursban and Lorsban, broad-spectrum organophosphate insecticides widely used on a number of food and feed crops to control foliage and soil-borne insects.
Chlorpyrifos has both agricultural uses – commonly sprayed on corn, soybeans, fruit and nut trees, cranberries, broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts and other row crops – and non-agricultural uses – sprayed on everything from golf courses, turf and Christmas trees to utility poles and fence posts. Categorized as an organophosphate, chlorpyrifos kills insects by interfering with an enzyme that is essential to the function of the nervous system. Chlorpyrifos attacks the nervous system of insects in the same way that sarin gas kills humans, and despite claims that exposure to the pesticide is safe in small doses, chlorpyrifos has been linked to serious birth defects in babies born to mothers exposed to the pesticide during pregnancy, including brain damage, loss of intellect, lowered IQ and developmental delays.
Since chlorpyrifos, marketed by Dow Chemical Co., became the most widely used insect killer in the United States, there have been a number of measures to eliminate, phase out and modify certain uses of the pesticide. In 1996, more stringent safety standards were enacted to address certain health and environmental risks from exposure to the pesticide, especially among children. In 2000, most home uses of chlorpyrifos were discontinued, and in 2002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) updated the chlorpyrifos label to include improved safety measures to protect the environment and individuals applying the pesticide. In 2014, the EPA completed a revised human health risk assessment for chlorpyrifos use, factoring in exposures from inhaling the pesticide, direct contact with skin and exposures from food and water among all populations, including women of childbearing age.
“In 1995, the EPA fined Dow Chemical $732,000 for withholding information about more than 200 reports of poisonings related to chlorpyrifos, and five years later, the company eliminated the use of chlorpyrifos in household products. Then, in 2003, Dow was ordered to pay a $2 million penalty for illegally making false safety claims about its pesticide products in advertisements that aired between 1995 and 2003.”
Chlorpyrifos has been used as a pesticide in the United States since 1965, and the current chlorpyrifos label requires workers handling and applying the pesticide to wear additional protective equipment and avoid entering treated fields for between 24 hours and five days. According to the EPA, chlorpyrifos can cause cholinesterase inhibition in humans, meaning the pesticide can overstimulate the nervous system and cause symptoms like dizziness, nausea, confusion, and at exceptionally high exposures, possibly even respiratory paralysis and death.
Although in-home use of chlorpyrifos has been restricted since 2000, the pesticide is still widely used in agriculture and poses a serious risk for individuals who work in or live in close proximity to fields sprayed with chlorpyrifos. Perhaps most concerning is the potential for women exposed to chlorpyrifos during pregnancy to give birth to babies with inhibited fetal brain development. According to reports, chlorpyrifos exposure in utero can result in the following birth defects:
In one study published in 2012, researchers wrote that “Prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos (CPF), an organophosphate insecticide, is associated with neurobehavioral deficits in humans and animal models.” According to the findings of that study, there were “significant associations of prenatal exposure to a widely used environmental neurotoxicant, at standard use levels, with structural changes in the developing human brain.”
In 2014, an article published in The Atlantic wrote, “Forty-one million IQ points. That’s what Dr. David Bellinger determined Americans have collectively forfeited as a result of exposure to lead, mercury, and organophosphate pesticides.” According to the article, which quoted a 2012 paper comparing intelligence quotients (IQs) among children whose mothers were exposed to these neurotoxins during pregnancy, exposure to organophosphates like chlorpyrifos account for a total loss of 16.9 million IQ points.
Despite significant efforts in recent years to ban the potentially hazardous pesticide in the United States, chlorpyrifos is still allowed in agriculture, even though the pesticide is classified as “very highly toxic” to freshwater fish and birds, “moderately toxic” to mammals, and capable of causing “structural changes in the developing human brain.”
And while farmworkers and families living in close proximity to fields sprayed with chlorpyrifos are just now learning about the potential for the pesticide to cause birth defects in babies exposed to chlorpyrifos in utero, Dow Chemical has known for decades about the health risks of chlorpyrifos exposure. In 1995, the EPA fined Dow Chemical $732,000 for withholding information about more than 200 reports of poisonings related to chlorpyrifos, and five years later, the company eliminated the use of chlorpyrifos in household products. Then, in 2003, Dow was ordered to pay a $2 million penalty for illegally making false safety claims about its pesticide products in advertisements that aired between 1995 and 2003.
Still, chlorpyrifos continued to be heavily applied in agricultural and commercial uses in the United States for years, exposing adults, children and developing fetuses alike to adverse side effects. In 2018, a three-judge panel finally ordered the EPA to ban chlorpyrifos use in the United States within 60 days. However, the EPA appealed the decision and the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is now reconsidering the ruling.
]]>
Factory workers, shipyard workers, construction workers, railroad and automotive workers, manufacturers of asbestos products, mine workers and other workers exposed to asbestos on the job may be at risk for mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer and other potentially life-threatening health problems caused by the hazardous material. And while the use of asbestos in the United States has been heavily restricted since the 1970s, estimates put the number of individuals exposed to asbestos since its first use in the U.S. in the millions.
If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos, you may have grounds to file a mesothelioma lawsuit against the person or party responsible for your asbestos exposure.
Asbestos is a natural mineral found in rock and soil, and because of its flexibility and resistance to heat, electricity and corrosion, asbestos was commonly used to make construction materials, textiles and automotive parts across the United States. Health regulations in the last 50 or 60 years have significantly reduced asbestos exposure among workers, though some workers in construction and other industries still face workplace exposure to asbestos. Some commercial materials asbestos can still be found in include the following:
Asbestos is a known carcinogen and the only known cause of mesothelioma, a deadly type of cancer that affects the lining of the lungs and abdomen. Asbestos is made up of fibers that separate very easily into microscopic pieces when they are handled or damaged, and when these asbestos fibers are released into the air, they can be inhaled and build up in the lungs.
Asbestos exposure that occurs over a long period of time, which may have been the case for millions of workers in the asbestos mining, railroad, automotive and construction industries, can increase the risk of potentially life-threatening diseases like mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer.
Unfortunately, many of the companies that produced, distributed or used asbestos products knew about the dangers associated with the material and failed to warn workers of the hazards they could face by being exposed to it.
“Asbestos is no longer mined or processed in the United States, but it can still be found in commercial products, such as brake pads, floor tiles, clothing and cement pipes, and an estimated 30 million homes, schools and workplaces in the United States are still contaminated with asbestos.”
Asbestos is no longer mined or processed in the United States, but it can still be found in commercial products, such as brake pads, floor tiles, clothing and cement pipes, and an estimated 30 million homes, schools and workplaces in the United States are still contaminated with asbestos.
Unless you are exposed to asbestos on a regular basis, your chances of suffering side effects from exposure are low. However, workers in mining, construction, railroad, automotive and other industries who worked directly with asbestos on the job for years could be at risk for diseases like mesothelioma or asbestosis.
Mesothelioma is an aggressive and deadly cancer affecting the tissue that lines the lungs, heart, stomach and other organs. Caused by the inhalation of asbestos dust or fibers, mesothelioma is typically diagnosed in older individuals who worked with asbestos products or were otherwise exposed to asbestos at work.
The loved ones of these individuals may also be at risk for mesothelioma from breathing in asbestos fibers brought home on workers’ clothing. Unfortunately, mesothelioma has a long latency period and many people don’t begin to develop symptoms of the disease until decades after their exposure to asbestos, which typically results in a poor prognosis and may also make it difficult to connect the two events.
Asbestos is a chronic lung disease resulting from prolonged exposure to asbestos particles in the air. When asbestos dust or fibers are inhaled, they can cause inflammation and scarring in the lungs, which is known as fibrosis. Asbestos is is characterized by symptoms like chest pain, shortness of breath, a persistent dry cough, a crackling sound in the lungs when breathing in, and clubbing of the fingertips and/or toes.
Asbestos litigation is considered the longest-running mass tort in the history of the United States, with asbestos exposure lawsuits dating back to the late 1960s. Most people diagnosed with mesothelioma or asbestosis were exposed to asbestos before the late 1970s, when asbestos mining, production and use became heavily restricted in the U.S., though some workers continue to be exposed to asbestos today.
From the early 1970s through the end of 2002, roughly 730,000 plaintiffs in the United States had already filed claims for asbestos-related injuries against thousands of defendants. And as more workers and their families learn about the risk of mesothelioma from asbestos exposure, personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits continue to be filed in courts across the country. To date, hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs have filed mesothelioma lawsuits against companies they allege were negligent in exposing them to hazardous asbestos.
The asbestos litigation has resulted in a number of significant jury awards and settlements. In 1998, 21 steelworkers who developed asbestosis after being exposed to asbestos at an Alabama steel mill were awarded $115 million in damages. In 2005, U.S. Steel was ordered to pay $250 million in damages to the wife of a former steel worker who died of mesothelioma, though U.S. Steel ended up reaching a post-verdict settlement for an undisclosed amount.
After it was discovered that the vermiculite mines in Libby, Montana resulted in mass asbestos exposure, there were two major payouts – the first a $43 million settlement in 2011 that covered more than 1,300 miners and their families, and the second a $25 million settlement in 2017 that covered more than 1,000 more.
In 2012, a $48 million jury verdict was awarded to a construction worker diagnosed with mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos on construction sites during the 1960s and 1970s. In what is believed to be one of the largest consolidated asbestos verdicts in the history of New York, a jury awarded $190 million in a 2013 lawsuit filed by five men exposed to asbestos-tainted products and equipment while working as plumbers, steamfitters and construction workers.
]]>