Gadolinium Litigation Judge May Not Preside Over First Trials
The federal judge overseeing the consolidated Gadolinium litigation involving cases filed on behalf of those who have developed Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis after receiving an MRI with contrast, has indicated that he will not preside over any of the first trials unless he is permitted to preside over an equal, or near equal, number of cases chosen by the plaintiffs and defendants.
Over 250 Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis lawsuits filed in federal courts throughout the United States have been consolidated and centralized for pretrial litigation in an MDL, or multidistrict litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio before Judge Dan Polster.
The are being coordinated under a federal procedure which allows the courts to transfer cases from different districts throughout the country to one judge for discovery and pretrial proceedings where there are common issues in the cases.
Did You Know?
Millions of Philips CPAP Machines Recalled
Philips DreamStation, CPAP and BiPAP machines sold in recent years may pose a risk of cancer, lung damage and other injuries.
Learn MoreAll of the gadolinium lawsuits involve allegations that the makers of five different types of MRI contrast agents that contain gadolinium failed to adequately test their products or warn that individuals could face a risk of developing nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, a rare progressive condition which leads to the hardening and thickening of the skin, severely restricting movements and ultimately resulting in death in many cases.
The purpose of the MDL is to prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, avoid duplicative discovery and serve the convenience of the parties, witnesses and the Court.
Under the MDL rules, if the cases do not settle or otherwise resolve during pretrial litigation, they are to be returned to the court in which they were filed. The MDL judge is only able to preside over a trial if the case was filed in the court where the judge sits or if all parties to the lawsuit waive personal jurisdiction and venue, known as a Lexecon waiver.
As part of the pretrial proceedings in the litigation, Judge Polster has established a Case Management Order which calls for gadolinium lawyers on each side to select 10 NSF lawsuits which will go through case-specific discovery in preparation for trial.
The parties will later be able to narrow the 20 cases down to a total of 10 which will be scheduled for early trials, known as bellwether trials since they are designed to litigate issues that will come up throughout other pending cases. The Case Management Order indicates that each side will select five of the 10 and the first trial will be scheduled with the plaintiffs’ highest ranked case, followed by the defendants’ highest ranked case.
The bellwether gadolinium trails are currently on track to begin towards the end of 2009 or early 2010.
Out of the 20 cases selected as eligible trial pool cases, the plaintiffs have executed Lexecon waivers in all cases, but the defendants have only agreed to have the 10 cases they selected go to trial before Judge Polster.
During an unscheduled telephone conference with liaison counsel on February 3, 2009, the Court notified the parties that, while they are under no obligation to waive personal jurisdiction and venue, unless both sides have the same, or close to the same, number of cases selected in which Judge Polster can preside, he will not hear any of the bellweather trials in his Court.
Judge Polster’s position will help ensure that the defendants are not able to circumvent the Court’s Case Management Order and hand-pick which of the plaintiffs’ cases will be the first to go to trial by only executing Lexecon waivers in the cases they favor.
Get more articles like this sent directly to your inbox.
"*" indicates required fields
2 Comments
JFebruary 18, 2022 at 12:59 pm
The Arizona rule and expert witness pertains to Gadolinium deposition disease of which there is NO ICD code. Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis is a recognized disease by PoM social security. To deny a true NSF case is a miscarriage of justice. It's cruel and inhumane and extreme indifference to deny a person justice about there disease. Conspiracy theorists and lay persons who self diagnose and ref[Show More]The Arizona rule and expert witness pertains to Gadolinium deposition disease of which there is NO ICD code. Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis is a recognized disease by PoM social security. To deny a true NSF case is a miscarriage of justice. It's cruel and inhumane and extreme indifference to deny a person justice about there disease. Conspiracy theorists and lay persons who self diagnose and refuse to use credentialed and board certified physicians deserve nothing. But they have hurt those with documented renal, lung, visual and other organs damages. Attorneys should know the difference and not deny everyone due process. Check you MDs state license, avoid pseudo providers, Naturo paths, and other charlatans who are not experts at anything but disinformation and not in the professional scientific pathways. Yes, the 4 th Annual NSF Symposium 2010 conference at Yale and subsequent symposiums support and identify actual Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis , cited by FDA and other experts on the field of medicine. Mayo medical laboratories identifies this devastating and painful disease also. Not all NSF has been eliminated. Clinical trials . gov has over 400 trials . For those of us who have been recently diagnosed we need the legal pathway to go forward. Please review that 85 page "exert witness" for GDD which clearly states NSF is an actual identified disease process. I would say those who claim GDD you are lucky that you indenture early exposure which will most likely self resolve unless you stupidly and knowingly continue to allow contrasted MrI scans.
Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis Settlements Being Negotiated on Bayer Magnevist Lawsuits - AboutLawsuits.comMarch 16, 2009 at 5:04 pm
[...] federal gadolinium litigation has been consolidated before Judge Polster in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for purposes of pretrial [...]