When an individual suffers harm due to another person or company’s negligent actions, they can make a personal injury claim. Examples would include a driver responsible for an accident, a medical professional for malpractice, or a product manufacturer.
When a large group of people file similar claims, the litigation has to be clubbed or consolidated into a multi-district litigation or MDL. One such famous and active litigation in the Federal court would be the firefighting foam lawsuit.
Hundreds and thousands of cases were consolidated in this litigation, and for good reasons. In this article, we will discuss the impact of such grouping on individual lawsuits. Does an MDL help the process of settlement or hurt it? Let’s find out.
Background of the Litigation
Before we discuss MDLs in the context of the firefighting foam lawsuit, let’s talk about the litigation itself in detail. Firefighters and other military personnel have filed personal injury claims against the manufacturers of chemicals found in Class B firefighting foam or Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF).
This foam has been a major part of the firefighting industry to limit the spread of liquid-fuel fires. It is manufactured using per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS. These chemicals are a group of over 12,000, each sharing a strong carbon-fluorine bond.
TorHoerman Law states that there is another side to this litigation, filed by municipalities across the US. As for the former, firefighters suffered from life-threatening injuries like cancer of the bladder, testicles, and kidneys. Such allegations are consistent with scientific findings that expose these chemicals as human carcinogens.
As for the municipalities, the PFAS lawsuit has to do with the fact that these chemicals do not easily degrade, thereby bioaccumulating and contaminating the water supply. Though this category of the lawsuit has been settled, attorneys are still awaiting resolutions for personal injury cases.
Why Does an MDL Make Sense for This Lawsuit?
The AFFF lawsuit started back in 2017. At the time, only a small group of firefighters filed the allegations. Within a year, a multi-district litigation (MDL) was formed as the number of cases grew. So, was there a need for an MDL, and if yes, what are the reasons supporting such a consolidation? Let’s find out.
The Discovery Process Becomes Efficient
The purpose of the discovery process is to allow each party their chance to prepare for trial. They get to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses to understand case outcomes. This process becomes efficient with an MDL.
For instance – there may be a reduction in the number of times a witness must be deposed. Plus, travel trips for testimony are also reduced. If this proceeding was held in multiple districts, the courts would end up deposing the same witnesses or reviewing the same documents repeatedly.
A Reduction in Case Numbers
This is not to suggest that the number of filings in the litigation may decrease. However, the possibility of consolidated motions for general issues means that the MDL culls cases to manageable numbers.
If summary judgment is used, multiple cases involving similar injuries or scope can be resolved at once. Resources can be directed toward the stronger cases instead of the weaker ones.
Consistent Rulings
This is something that fast-tracked the trial for water contamination cases in the AFFF litigation. In an MDL, the jury would be selected by the Judicial Panel based on each judge’s expertise. The good news is that everyone does not have to be a subject matter expert on PFAS.
The consolidation offers attorneys the opportunity to educate every judge on the matter. It would have been cumbersome to do so for multiple judges across different districts. This way, it is possible that the verdicts given for identical cases may differ across different courts. With the MDL, the presiding judge’s verdict and rulings will remain consistent for all cases.
Decreased Costs
This benefit of an MDL is directly taken from the fact that the discovery process becomes more efficient. Otherwise, there may be unexpected glitches in the pretrial proceedings, thereby dragging the lawsuit further.
The more cases circulate in court, the more they drill a hole in one’s pockets. As the suits proceed more quickly and efficiently, the total cost of the litigation reduces.
Since we discussed the benefits of an MDL for the AFFF litigation, it is only fair to talk about any cons, if applicable. In most cases, there may be multiple presiding judges involved.
The MDL judge usually only handles the pre-trial phase, allowing others to take over the succeeding aspects. This can cause unforeseen delays. Finally, it is also possible that the MDL judge is not very familiar with the state-specific laws due to a lack of connection with the original jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding the cons, they fade in comparison to the benefits of multi-district litigation. Such consolidation is the hope of thousands of plaintiffs still waiting for justice to be served in the AFFF lawsuit.
