|
April 2009 Update
On April 21, 2009 Judge Nielsen held a Status Conference in Spokane. The Court directed the parties to group all of the plaintiffs, using various factors, such as disease, age, sex, and radiation dose estimate. Each plaintiff will be assigned to one of these groups. This process is intended to facilitate resolution of the claims of the plaintiffs in each of these groups. Some groups may be the subject of settlement discussions and others may be the focus of further litigation, including trials.
There has been sharp disagreement about the merits of certain groups of claims. Defendants have indicated that they intend to make settlement offers to some plaintiffs with diagnoses of thyroid cancer or hypothroidism who received doses of Iodine 131 exceeding certain thresholds. They have signaled their intention to litigate claims in other low dose groups. There is ongoing dispute regarding the proper statistical model for calculation of doses. Each group of plaintiffs has its own model. Some are similar to the defendants' model (known as HEDR) and others generate higher doses than HEDR. One of the groups, the Evenson plaintiffs, is now moving to challenge a component of the HEDR model and the results it yields. That motion will be heard in July and decision is expected later in the summer.
The Court did not establish any trial dates for retrial of the cases reversed by the Ninth Circuit or any of the remaining cases. As the current grouping is completed and the HEDR motion is decided, the parties expect that the Court will decide how the case should proceed.
General Information
The Hanford Downwinders Litigation website is a general information resource for our clients in the In re Berg (CY-96-3151-WFN) and Lumpkin, et al. v. DuPont, et al. (CT-00-5052-WFN) cases. The lawsuits arise from the environmental radiation releases caused by operation of the Hanford Nuclear Facility. Located in south central Washington State, Hanford produced plutonium for U.S. nuclear weapons from 1944 until 1990. All of the Hanford downwinder cases have been consolidated. The consolidated case is known as In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation (CV-91-3015-WFN).
Thousands of people who were exposed to Hanford's radiation filed suit in 1990 against former contractors, such as DuPont and GE, which operated Hanford for the U.S. government. DuPont operated Hanford from 1943 to 1946. General Electric ran Hanford from 1946 to 1965.
Summary of Hanford Downwinder Trials During 2005
Judge Wm. Fremming Nielsen presided over the trial that began on April 25, 2005, and went to the jury on May 13. It was a bellwether trial, comprised of 6 plaintiffs with thyroid disease and lasted 3 weeks.
After deliberating more than three days, a 12-member jury returned verdicts for two of the six bellwether plaintiffs in the first Hanford downwinder trial. Gloria Wise was awarded $317,251 and Steve Stanton $227,508 for their thyroid cancers. The jury failed to reach a verdict for the third thyroid cancer plaintiff, Shannon Rhodes. Judge Nielsen declared a mistrial in her case and a retrial was held during November 2005.
The first jury also returned defense verdicts for the three plaintiffs with hypothyroidism. In June 2005, the plaintiffs appealed these three verdicts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In August 2005, the defendants appealed the verdict for Mr. Stanton and Ms.Wise.
A different jury sat through a two-week retrial for Ms. Rhodes in November 2005. The 12-member jury deliberated a little more than a day before deciding 11-1 in favor of DuPont and General Electric. In early 2006, Ms. Rhodes' case joined the others on appeal.
Court of Appeals Issues Important Rulings
On August 14, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion on the appeals of the bellwether decisions in 2005. Generally, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge's instructions to the jury regarding the law of the case. This means that the court made important decisions agreeing with the Downwinder Plaintiffs that the government contractor defense did not apply and that principles of strict liability did apply.
The Court of Appeals also agreed with the trial court that the "but for" standard of causation would be applied. This was a setback because it sets a higher standard than the "substantial factor" test that the Downwinder Plaintiffs had proposed. If it stands, it will limit the number of Downwinder Plaintiffs who may recover in the case.
The court considered questions specific to the individual cases that were on appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed the decisions in three cases that were decided against Downwinder Plaintiffs on the grounds that the jury was improperly instructed about specific issues raised in those cases. These cases must now be retried.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision against Shannon Rhodes, rejecting her challenges to certain evidentiary rulings and claims of juror misconduct.
In its amended opinion, the Ninth Circuit panel reconsidered its decision that plaintiffs who had filed individual suits while the class action suit was pending did not have the benefit of the tolling of the statute of limitations while the class action claim was pending. The court elected to follow a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and concluded that tolling principles did apply to individuals who filed individual suits while the class action suit was pending. Thus, the court's earlier comments on this question no longer apply and tolling principles will be available. In its amended opinion, the court denied all the parties' motions for rehearing and advised that the Ninth Circuit had denied the request for en banc review by a larger panel of judges.
COPYRIGHT/DISCLAIMER
| 
