ILNews

Gibson: Managing drug and medical device mass-tort litigation

November 20, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus
Gibson Gibson

A common mistake is the belief that a mass tort and a class action are interchangeable terms. While the paths of class actions and mass torts may cross, they are separate and distinct legal proceedings. A class action is a single lawsuit where one person brings a claim for many people who have suffered the same damage from a single product. A “class representative” brings the lawsuit not only for herself, but also for everybody in the group who may be similarly affected. A mass tort involves multiple people injured by the same product, but damages for each plaintiff can be vastly different. Like most personal injury cases, every person’s medical history is relevant in mass torts and that history is relevant to the extent of the damages caused by the defective product. So unlike a class action, a firm represents each person individually in a mass tort, and each case is worked up like a traditional personal injury case.

An example of a mass tort could involve a pharmaceutical company that manufactures and sells a bad drug that injures people. Because not everyone will suffer the same extent of injury, the cases are best handled as mass torts. A defectively designed drug, or a drug with insufficient warnings, can cause an epidemic of harm. When that occurs, the injured person will need his or her own lawyer to bring an individual lawsuit. Class actions are simply not good mechanisms to get personal injury damages in a drug case.

How to manage a mass tort

Litigating a mass tort for a plaintiff’s firm can be daunting. The amount of hours, money and manpower expended on one case can be a potential pitfall. It is not uncommon for mass-tort cases to be hotly litigated for three or four years, and some drag on for nearly a decade. Because these cases drag on for so long, they are also extremely risky, since science often changes during the pendency of a case. A case that looked extremely promising four years earlier becomes virtually worthless after the latest study showing the risk of the product isn’t nearly as great as once was thought. The number of plaintiffs’ firms that have filed for bankruptcy or shut their doors as a result of mass-tort litigation is staggering. In all mass-tort cases, the defendants are well funded and have a seemingly endless supply of resources. So how can a plaintiff’s firm thrive in the world of mass torts?

Multidistrict litigation is a mechanism that has created efficiencies in litigating mass-tort cases. In 1968, Congress enacted the Multidistrict Litigation statute 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The statute created a legal procedure to assist with the processing of complex litigation such as pharmaceutical or medical device lawsuits. Prior to its enactment, a defendant could be subject to hundreds of cases around the country involving common issues. The creation of MDL addressed that issue by consolidating cases to one transferee court that oversees all pretrial proceedings and discovery. At the completion of discovery, if a case is not resolved it is remanded to the transferor court for further proceedings, such as a trial.

A mass tort will cost a firm millions of dollars in expenses and overhead during the pendency of a case. While multiple plaintiffs’ firms will share in common benefit expenses such as corporate depositions and document production – the screening of a case, ordering medical records and having a qualified staff to handle day-to-day responsibilities is expensive. In a typical mass tort, a firm could easily screen 3,000 to 4,000 cases to end up with 200 to 300 filed cases. For example, in a recent mass tort involving a medical device, our firm screened more than 4,000 cases and ended up with only 150 legitimate cases. Obviously, such a screening process is expensive and time-consuming, but it ensures the cases you are filing are consistent with current scientific and medical literature.

The screening process is the most significant cost on the front-end, but the expenses don’t end there. For this reason, some firms gather cases, and then refer the cases out to larger firms to handle the litigation and the additional expense. Other firms are involved in the day-to-day litigation and will dedicate resources and manpower to common benefit work. In a mass tort, the court will appoint a steering committee which is a collection of plaintiffs’ counsel that is responsible for managing the progress of the litigation. Because there is significant cost with general causation experts, document production and depositions, members of a steering committee often make substantial capital contributions to a common benefit fund as a means of pooling resources.

Internally, a firm will also spend significant resources. For example, the defendant and plaintiff’s steering committee will often agree to a fact sheet that provides detailed information for each claimant. Fact sheets can often be 30 to 40 pages long and require detailed information that can take weeks to complete. With 300 to 400 cases, a knowledgeable and dedicated staff is mandatory for such a daunting project. In addition to the fact sheet, the staff and lawyers will field calls and questions from clients daily. Accordingly, the cost and overhead needed to manage a mass-tort inventory is not insignificant.

In the end, the risks of litigating a mass tort from a plaintiff’s perspective are real and substantial. The unknowns of a mass tort at the beginning are numerous as a mass tort could ultimately fail under Daubert, the science may evolve during the litigation making causation more difficult, or case-specific issues could make it difficult to prove. That’s why a firm needs to be intelligent and strategic when deciding when and where to dedicate their resources.•

__________

Jeff Gibson is a partner at Cohen & Malad LLP. His practice is focused on nationwide mass-tort litigation involving dangerous drugs and defective medical devices. Gibson has held leadership positions and served on steering committees fighting against manufacturers on behalf of his injured clients. He can be reached via email at jgibson@cohenandmalad.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT