Paraquat is a widely used pesticide that has been shown to be highly toxic to human beings. Ingesting just a small amount of this chemical can be fatal, and credible scientific studies have linked paraquat exposure to a heightened risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. Although paraquat has been deployed in many agricultural and non-agricultural settings since the 1960s, significant legal action against the manufacturers of the pesticide is a relatively recent phenomenon.
To date, thousands of lawsuits have been filed across the U.S. by individuals who have been harmed by the toxicity of paraquat. These lawsuits accuse manufacturers of paraquat—Syngenta, Growmark Inc., and Chevron Phillips Chemical Company—of intentionally concealing evidence of its toxicity to human beings.
A major milestone for these suits was reached in June 2021 when a Washington judicial panel ordered various paraquat lawsuits to be consolidated and reassigned to Chief U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel of the Southern District of Illinois. Rosenstengel is overseeing the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) for these cases.
2023 has seen a considerable amount of progress in the journey of these paraquat lawsuits through the courts. In the following section we outline the developments in paraquat suits through the year.
January
More cases continued to be added to the Paraquat Products Liability Litigation MDL adjudicated by Judge Nancy Rosenstengel. As of January 17th, there were 2421 cases listed in the MDL. This is a substantial increase over the 589 cases that were listed a year earlier.
On January 24th, Judge Rosenstengel ordered the defendants to disclose to the plaintiffs all expert materials produced in Hoffmann v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, et al., No. 17-L-517 (Ill. Cir. Ct., 20th Jud. Cir.). The defendants were permitted to redact all materials containing privileged personal information and given a deadline of January 31st to effect this action.
February
Three hundred cases were added to the MDL, for a new total of 2721. This figure indicates a sudden surge of lawsuit activity, as only 69 cases were added during the entire month of January.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to force the consulting company Exponent Inc. to hand over files relating to its work for Syngenta (one of the defendants in the MDL) about the health risks associated with exposure to paraquat. Syngena and Exponent Inc. filed separate responses to oppose this motion.
The defendants attempted to strike a report filed by David Mortensen, Ph.D., Professor of Weed and Applied Plant Ecology at the Pennsylvania State University, who is an expert witness for the plaintiffs. Mortensen’s report was intended to demonstrate a link between exposure to paraquat and the later development of Parkinson’s disease. In their motion to strike, the defendants claimed that the report had been filed three months after the deadline.
Furthermore, a defense attorney representing Chevron alleged in court that dozens of plaintiffs in the MDL were deceased, although this fact was not properly disclosed in filings. The defendants uncovered this issue after finding various obituaries online for persons represented in the MDL.
March
An additional 277 cases were added to the MDL, bringing the total to 2998. This was nearly as many cases as were added in the previous month, suggesting that strong public interest in the case remained unabated.
Internal documents submitted to the court by Syngenta revealed that the company might have been aware of the health risks of paraquat as far back as the 1970s.
The defense team representing Syngenta attempted to counter the testimony of another expert witness for the plaintiffs: Martin Wells, a statistician who was scheduled to testify that his analysis of multiple scientific studies justified belief in a link between exposure to paraquat and a heightened risk of Parkinson’s disease. Holding that Wells’ analysis was biased and unreliable, the Syngenta lawyers moved to exclude his testimony altogether.
April
As the MDL at the Southern District of Illinois continued to progress, various paraquat lawsuits were filed in other jurisdictions as well. In Pennsylvania, more than 200 cases were consolidated into another MDL, with more expected to be filed shortly.
Meanwhile, in Illinois, Judge Rosenstengel set a briefing schedule, as follows:
- June 6, 2023 – Deadline for filing summary judgment and Daubert motions
- July 10, 2023 – Deadline for filing responses to summary judgment and Daubert motions
- July 28, 2023 – Deadline for filing replies regarding summary judgment and Daubert motions
- August 21, 2023 – Start date for hearing on Daubert and summary judgment motions; (The purpose of a Daubert hearing is to determine whether expert testimony is admissible.)
In addition, Syngenta’s motion to exclude the testimony of expert witness Martin Wells was denied by the court.
May
In the largest single-month surge to date, 511 lawsuits were added to the MDL being litigated at the Southern District of Illinois courtroom. That pushed the total number of lawsuits to over 3700.
Meanwhile, Judge Rosenstengel, in response to a defense motion from February, ordered the plaintiffs to determine how many persons with claims in the MDL were deceased. Issuing the order on May 15th, she gave the plaintiffs 31 days to certify the living or deceased status of each individual who has filed a suit.
This is how matters stand to date in the ongoing paraquat class-action lawsuit. Please visit this page periodically for further paraquat/Parkinson’s lawsuit updates throughout the year.
Contact a Paraquat Attorney Today
The lawsuits enumerated on this page are hardly the last actions that the public will bring against the manufacturers of paraquat. As awareness of the link between paraquat and Parkinson’s diseases continues to spread among the general public, more and more suits will surely be filed in an effort to obtain financial compensation for the suffering inflicted by this hazardous pesticide.
Although states typically have a statute of limitations for product liability claims, this term often does not commence until the victim learns about, or should reasonably have learned about, the health risks associated with exposure to the product in question. Therefore, it is possible to sue a manufacturer even many years after the victim experienced paraquat poisoning.
If you or someone close to you has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s and has a history of being exposed to paraquat, your best option is to contact an experienced paraquat lawyer to explore your options. You can call Saunders & Walker P.A. at (727) 579-4500 for a free consultation with a paraquat litigation lawyer. We have years of experience with paraquat cases and can determine whether you have proper cause to pursue the matter in the courts.