Supreme Court Rejects Roundup Appeal

Bayer decided to rest its legal defense strategy and convince the U.S. Supreme Court not to dismiss the lawsuits. The U.S. Supreme Court thwarted Bayer’s efforts to end the litigation this week. The U.S. Solicitor General urged this week’s highest appeals court to reject a Roundup appeals petition. This petition argued that the approval by the EPA of Roundup should preempt any failure to warn claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether it will even consider Bayer’s appeal against the Roundup verdict of a federal jury, which was $25 million. Bayer argued that Bayer’s favorable decision, in this case, would prevent others from filing future claims regarding the failure to warn of the connection between Roundup and cancer.

Roundup may increase the risk of non-Hodgkins Lymphoma or other cancers. All Lawsuits Have Been Reviewed.

Bayer told investors that it was possible for the U.S. Supreme Court, if successful on appeal, to review a civil verdict. It is not common for them to accept to consider less than 1 percent of all claims. However, Roundup could be ended by Bayer.

The Supreme Court asked the U.S. The Supreme Court asked the U.S. Solicitor General to give its opinion on whether the Justices should review the Roundup appeal. Bayer responded to the request by announcing that it was suspending Roundup settlement discussions in litigation.

Roundup Supreme Court Appeal could have a widespread impact

Edwin Hardeman brought the appeal. He claimed that he developed non-Hodgkins from having Roundup sprayed around his house for many decades. A federal jury in California ordered Bayer $80,000,000. This amount was later reduced to $25 million by a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The liability finding was not altered.

Bayer filed a petition for a Supreme Court Roundup appeal in August 2021. He argued that Roundup’s warning label had been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This should protect the company from claims of failure to warn made by Hardeman and others who claim that the warning labels were inadequate. Hardeman’s legal team also challenged some of the expert testimony that was used during the trial.

U.S. On May 10, U.S.

The brief states that although some aspects of EPA-approved labeling may be preemptive to certain state-law requirements in some cases, EPA’s approval for labeling that doesn’t warn about particular chronic risk does not preempt a state law requirement to provide such warnings.

It points out that the Court of Appeals determined that California’s common law was compatible with federal laws that prohibit misbranding of products. The Supreme Court should confirm Bayer’s assertion that California’s inability to require a warning from EPA for Roundup’s approval to be placed on shelves without a cancer warning by the Ninth Circuit.

California, the EPA, Bayer, and Monsanto have fought for years over Roundup’s inclusion on California’s Prop 65 toxic chemical list. Different judges have argued the issue. A federal judge issued a permanent injunction that in 2020 prevented the state’s ability to force Roundup products to bear cancer warning labels.

Bayer also petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse a verdict in another case. This resulted in an $87 million verdict for Alva Pillid and Alberta Pillid, who are both from California, and claim they have developed cancer as a result of years of Roundup usage.

Roundup Settlements while Appeals are pursued

Bayer announced in early 2020 that it would pay billions of dollars in Roundup settlements for approximately 75% of the litigation that was pending. It will also continue to appeal from early jury verdicts which found Bayer withheld information regarding Roundup non-Hodgkins lymphoma risk.

Many of the settlements reported did not materialize and some plaintiffs rejected the offer and chose to pursue their claims through the U.S. courts. A steady stream of lawsuits has been filed as Roundup users are still being diagnosed with non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.

Bayer told investors that if Roundup Supreme Court appeals fail, it will continue with claims administration programs to address future lawsuits.

The company also announced it would remove the active ingredient glyphosate in Roundup products sold to residential customers in the United States by 2023 to reduce its future liability.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/supreme-court-rejects-roundup-appeal/
via IFTTT