Monsanto/Bayer Wants Damages Reduced Because Plaintiff Is Near Death
Bayer/Monsanto is expected to appeal the trial verdicts.
What’s shocking is the company’s argument for significantly reducing the damage amount further.
In its appellate brief, Bayer/Monsanto asks for reversal of the damages awarded based on the fact that claimants are near death.
On page 87, the appeal states:
“A jury may award future noneconomic damages only for pain and suffering that a plaintiff is reasonably certain to experience based on his ‘projected life span at the time of trial’.
Damages for future pain and suffering are based upon plaintiff’s probable life expectancy in his or her injured condition.
Compensation for pain and suffering is recompense for pain and suffering actually experienced, and to the extent that premature death terminates the pain and suffering, compensation should be terminated’.
An award is excessive if it ‘suggests the jury was influenced by improper considerations’. At closing argument, Plaintiff’s counsel ignored these principles.
He implored the jury to award $1 million per year for both past and future noneconomic damages, and asserted that Plaintiff ‘will live between two more to 33 years.’
In so doing, Plaintiff’s counsel urged the jury to disregard the evidence presented through his medical expert, Dr. Nabhan, that Plaintiff would not live past December 2019, or roughly one and a half years after the trial.
He then asked for $33 million in future noneconomic damages:
‘If he lives for only two years, then the remaining years that he doesn’t get to live is also a million dollars. So it doesn’t matter if he dies in two years or dies in 20.
He deserves that money asking a jury to award $33 million in future noneconomic damages based on Plaintiff’s ‘potential life expectancy over the years he won’t live’.
And the jury awarded Plaintiff exactly what his lawyer requested:
$33 million in future noneconomic damages. The court posed two questions for the parties to address at argument:
‘Is the $33 million award for future non- economic damages based on Plaintiff’s argument to award $1 million for each year of lost life expectancy?
If so, is this award improper as a matter of law?’ Yet the trial court declined to follow this line of inquiry to its inevitable conclusion.
Dr. Kuzel also suggested that Plaintiff ‘could be cured of this disease and live his normal life expectancy.’
But even under this hypothetical the jury had no basis to award damages for pain and suffering occurring after Plaintiff was cured.
In sum, the court should reverse the award of future noneconomic damages because that award is not supported by the evidence of Plaintiff’s projected life expectancy at the time of trial.”
The company is essentially guilty of killing Johnson 33 years before his time if you assume he’d have a normal life span of 79, and now Bayer wants reduced damages because he’s only got less than two years to live!
It’s a new low even for Bayer/Monsanto, and clear proof of the company’s callous disregard for human life.
Second Lawsuit Ends in Guilty Verdict and $80 Million in Damages
March 19, 2019, a U.S. jury ruled Roundup was a substantial causative factor in the cancer of a second plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman.
Judge Vince Chhabria had approved the Bayer/Monsanto motion to divide the trial into two phases, the first phase limiting evidence to that relating to causation only.
In the second phase, jurors heard evidence related to liability.
March 27, 2019, the jury found Bayer/Monsanto had acted with negligence and awarded Hardeman $80 million in damages, including $75 million in punitive damages.
A third case against Bayer/Monsanto (Stevick et al v. Monsanto) was originally slated to go to trial May 20, 2019.
However, Chhabria recently vacated the trial date and ordered Monsanto/Bayer to begin mediation with all remaining plaintiffs in the federal multidistrict litigation overseen by him — some 800 in all.
I had a great experience with Daniel
I had a great experience with Daniel. He not only fought my case, but was a support system when I was going through the hardest time of my life.Irum Zaidi
Dan Weltin was invaluable to me and helped me through a very difficult time.
Dan Weltin was invaluable to me and helped me through a very difficult time. My ex-employer was taking advantage of me and not paying me for extra hours worked. Mr. Weltin helped me right this wrong and was able to acquire the funds owed to me, including interest and hardship costs. Mr. Weltin and his office were always very attentive to my needs and always available when I had questions needed to be answered.s.Mitchell Rios
Entrusting Mr. Weltin with legal matters I find his professionalism, respect, and confidentiality exemplary.
Legal situations arise in life where one seeks diligence, effective resolution and guidance. Entrusting Mr. Weltin with legal matters I find his professionalism, respect, and confidentiality exemplary. Quite a dilemma to find these traits elsewhere!Leticia Garcia