Category: Toxic Torts

Paraquat MDL Lone Pine Order Creates New Hurdles for Nonsettling Plaintiffs

Share

The multidistrict litigation (MDL) concerning paraquat-based herbicides — In re: Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004 (S.D. Ill.) — has become a focal point in mass torts. Thousands of plaintiffs allege that exposure to paraquat caused them to develop Parkinson’s disease (PD). The litigation has featured high-stakes scientific disputes, key defense wins, a master settlement agreement, and now Case Management Order No. 25 (CMO 25, 2026 WL 1707147), a Lone Pine order with important implications for nonsettling plaintiffs and a potential roadmap for effective case management in other MDLs.

In April 2024, the MDL court excluded the plaintiffs’ sole expert on general causation. That ruling left the plaintiffs unable to establish general causation, and the court accordingly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. But that ruling only formally applied to the four bellwether cases; while the bellwether plaintiffs’ inability to establish general causation portended problems for every plaintiff in the MDL, the litigation continued.

Continue reading “Paraquat MDL Lone Pine Order Creates New Hurdles for Nonsettling Plaintiffs”

New York’s Beauty Justice Act: Sweeping Changes Proposed for Cosmetics and Personal Care Products

Share

New York lawmakers are advancing the Beauty Justice Act, one of the most comprehensive state-level efforts in the country to regulate cosmetics and personal care products. For in-house counsel at cosmetics and personal care companies, the bill is worth tracking now because it could affect product formulation, supplier oversight, labeling, and litigation risk well before any compliance deadline. The bill responds to growing concerns over consumer exposure to chemicals linked to cancer, hormone disruption, reproductive harm, allergies, and other health risks. Supporters argue that current federal law, including the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA), does not go far enough. Framed as both a public health and environmental justice measure, the legislation aims to protect consumers in vulnerable communities disproportionately exposed to these products.

  1. Background

    The Beauty Justice Act remains pending before the New York Legislature; if enacted, its core product restrictions would apply beginning January 1, 2029. The bill would prohibit cosmetics and personal care products sold in New York from containing intentionally added chemicals on the bill’s restricted substances list. It would also require companies to evaluate whether ingredients listed as “fragrance,” “flavor,” “colorant,” or other functional classifications contain restricted chemicals, comply with contaminant thresholds such as lead limits, and monitor Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) rulemaking that may add substances to the restricted list over time. The bill targets numerous chemicals that have already faced scrutiny in other jurisdictions and regulatory frameworks, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), parabens, phthalates, certain dyes, and preservatives.

    Continue reading “New York’s Beauty Justice Act: Sweeping Changes Proposed for Cosmetics and Personal Care Products”

Interplay Between Statutes of Repose and Statutes of Limitations in Latent Disease Exposure Claims

Share

As toxic tort claims alleging chronic illness from alleged chemical exposure continue to rise nationwide, the recent Kansas federal court decision in Jefferies v. Harcros Chemicals Inc., 2026 WL 958172, (April 9, 2026), highlights the power of statutes of repose, which can bar latent disease claims, even when the injury is discovered decades after exposure.

Case Background

In Jefferies, plaintiffs living near the defendant’s chemical manufacturing facility alleged that years of ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions caused cancer and miscarriages, some dating back decades. However, the Kansas statute of repose imposes a strict 10-year cutoff: No claim may proceed for exposures more than 10 years before suit, regardless of when the injury came to light. Seizing on this statute, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred. Agreeing with the defendants, the court rejected arguments that the discovery rule, ongoing emissions, and a continuing duty to warn tolled the statute of repose, emphasizing that the statute is a “general grant of immunity” that abolishes claims arising outside its window.

Continue reading “Interplay Between Statutes of Repose and Statutes of Limitations in Latent Disease Exposure Claims”

Significant Drug & Device Developments of 2025

Share

As we welcome the new year, it is time to reflect on some of the most significant legal developments in the drug and device space in 2025.

1. Navigating a New Skepticism in Science

Not long ago, the average American likely could not name the U.S. secretary of health and human services. Yet, following this year’s change in administration and major shakeup in the regulatory landscape, skepticism in science has become the elephant in the room for anyone working in the drug and device sphere. Practitioners should start thinking about how to present scientific evidence to juries in 2026 as the old norms may no longer apply.

Read the full article on the Faegre Drinker website.

Double Take: Fifth Circuit’s Dual BELO Rulings Show Both General and Specific Causation Are Essential

Share

We previously blogged about a decision in the In re Deepwater Horizon BELO litigation – Ruffin v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. – in which the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants in an alleged chemical exposure case based solely on exclusion of the plaintiff’s expert testimony on general causation without reaching the experts’ specific causation opinions.   As it turns out, in another BELO case argued before the same panel on the same day, the panel analyzed the plaintiff’s experts’ specific causation opinions and declined to reach their general causation opinions. Williams v. BP Exploration & Production, — F.4th —, 2025 WL 1904153 (5th Cir. July 10, 2025). Notwithstanding the concerns we previously expressed about the Ruffin panel’s approach to general causation in isolation from specific causation, the Ruffin and Williams decisions provide a potent couplet illustrating that general causation and specific causation are two distinct steps in the analysis. Both must be proven in order for a plaintiff to make a prima facie case.

Continue reading “Double Take: Fifth Circuit’s Dual BELO Rulings Show Both General and Specific Causation Are Essential”

Fifth Circuit Clouds Threshold Dose Analysis in Ruffin v. BP

Share

Plaintiffs in toxic tort cases must prove both general and specific causation, generally through the testimony of experts. Experts must establish that a specific chemical exposure can (and did) cause the specific injury at issue. In order to make that showing, the plaintiff’s exposure must at least have exceeded the minimum harmful level of the chemical — the “threshold dose.” As the Eleventh Circuit made clear last year in its handling of In re Deepwater Horizon BELO litigation (which we discussed here), threshold dose is a concept that straddles general and specific causation. A more recent BELO case, Ruffin v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., — F.4th —, 2025 WL 1367185 (5th Cir. May 12, 2025), shows how isolating an expert’s general causation opinion from its implications on specific causation can cloud the analysis.

In Ruffin, the plaintiff worked for five months as a clean-up worker following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer five years later and sued the defendant, claiming he was exposed to chemicals that caused his cancer. He described two instances of exposure: one when oil splashed onto his face while travelling by boat and another when he fell in the water. The plaintiff had a known genetic risk for prostate cancer, but his expert claimed the oil exposures were a “second and necessary hit to initiate his prostate cancer.” The defendant moved to exclude the plaintiff’s causation expert, a genetic and molecular epidemiologist, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The district court had excluded both the expert’s general and specific causation opinions as unreliable, largely for failure to specify a threshold dose, and then granted summary judgment for want of admissible expert evidence.

Continue reading “Fifth Circuit Clouds Threshold Dose Analysis in Ruffin v. BP“