Persons with hemophilia in the United States, Latin
America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa were
infected with contaminated blood products. Lieff Cabraser
is representing clients from around the world in lawsuits
filed in U.S. courts against American blood companies
that sold in the U.S. and exported contaminated blood
worldwide.
Blood
Factor Lawsuit Update - November 2004
September
17, 2004 was the initial deadline the court set for plaintiffs
to submit their Preliminary Patient Profile Forms (PPFs),
which are summaries of each individual claim, listing blood
factor concentrate product use and the source of those products,
among other information. [For more information regarding the
PPF process, see "August 2004 Update, on this site.]
We are pleased to announce that we submitted over 1,400 PPFs
for our clients worldwide by the deadline. In addition, we
are continuing to produce more PPFs on a rolling basis for
new clients and those who could not meet the initial deadline.
An additional approximately 1,000 persons submitted PPFs through
other counsel prosecuting cases in the MDL, primarily from
Latin America.
At
the hearing in federal court the Northern District of Illinois
on October 13, the honorable Judge Grady orderedupon
our request and over defendants strong objectionsthat
defendants promptly provide us with additional documents and
witnesses, including records of shipments to foreign countries
(HIV and/or HCV contaminated product dumping).
The Court also ordered plaintiffs for whom we have already
submitted PPFs, but who did not have answers to all of the
PPF questions at that time, to supplement their PPFs as new
information is obtained; so if you previously finalized a
PPF through our firm, you may still be contacted again for
purposes of filling in any gaps in your prior PPF.
The
next step in the litigation will be to resolve the issue of
the procedural basis on which the lawsuit will proceed: as
a class action, or as individual cases. We submitted our papers
in support of class certification on October 8. Although the
hearing on October 13 was not to address class certification,
the Judge announced that he had read our papers, and indicated
that he was open to considering our request that he certify
a class for a trial of factual questions that apply to many
of our clients. Under this approach, the jury would decide
such key facts as when defendants knew their product was contaminated
and whether they continued to sell untreated product after
safer, treated product was available. The jurys findings
would determine these common fact questions as to all members
of the class. We are optimistic that if a jury found in our
favor, the case could be resolved at that point, depending
on defendants' willingness to settle. If the case continues
on, issues of causation and damages would then be dealt with
on an individual basis, using the class jury findings as a
basis to proceed.
The
Judge asked us to submit ten common questions regarding defendants
misconduct for the proposed class trial, and asked defendants
to state their position as to the use of such questions. We
expect that the defendants will oppose a common questions
trial. We believe, however, that such a trial is a fair and
efficient approach to adjudicating the new allegations of
fraudulent and intentional misconduct raised by this case.
The case will continue regardless of the courts decision
on class certification, and we do not expect denial of certification
to negatively affect the case as a whole or on any individual
claim. The judges decision to grant or deny a motion
for certification is not a ruling on the merits of this case.
Individual claims can proceed even if a class is not certified.
In fact, in many mass tort cases, individual claims are litigated
without certification of any class on any issue.
New
clients may continue to join the lawsuit. The time for joining
the lawsuit (the statute of limitations) will
begin running for new clients if class certification is denied,
therefore interested persons should contact us or seek alternative
representation as soon as possible. If certification is not
granted, injured persons must be individually represented
in order to benefit from any potential settlement or judgment;
they will not be included merely by fitting within the class
definition we alleged in our class action complaint.
Please
feel free to contact us, or our
local co-counsel in your country, by phone should you have any questions or concerns. Also, we will post
any further developments of significance on the web site,
which you can check at your convenience.