If you or a loved one suffered injuries resulting from Roundup weed killer exposure, you may qualify to participate in a Roundup lawsuit.
Contact an experienced Roundup lawyer to discuss your legal options today, free of charge and no obligation required.
Your attorney will help you to gather evidence to prove that you were in fact exposed to Roundup.
Some evidence might include:
If you or a loved one was exposed to Roundup regularly and subsequently was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or another form of cancer – you may qualify to file a Roundup lawsuit.
The best way to determine if you qualify is to speak with an experienced Roundup lawyer.
The average payout for an individual who has been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or other cancers is between $5,000 to $250,000 in compensation.
One report stated that the average amount per client suffering from cancer is $160,000.
Exposure to Roundup has been linked to a number of adverse health effects, including cancer.
The active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, has been classified as a “probable human carcinogen” by the World Health Organization.
Bayer is still waiting for word from the Supreme Court on whether it will hear Bayer’s appeal in the Hardeman case.
The MDL judge and the Ninth Circuit previously rejected Bayer’s preemption argument.
In December, the Supreme Court declined to rule on Bayer’s cert. petition, instead requesting the Biden administration to submit a brief.
The court has not yet ruled, and so far, Biden’s Solicitor General has filed nothing.
There is no deadline for the court to make a decision.
Some people think that the Biden administration will respond in the near future.
The statute of limitations may vary depending on the state in which you live.
However, it is generally two to three years from the date of diagnosis or one year from the date of death.
You should speak with an experienced Roundup attorney to determine the applicable statute of limitations in your case.
Roundup lawyers typically take between 33-40% of the total amount recovered in a personal injury lawsuit.
Contingency fee agreements may vary depending on the circumstances of each case.
The attorneys’ fees in a Roundup lawsuit will be contingent upon whether the case is resolved through settlement or trial.
If the case settles, the attorney’s fees will generally be a percentage of the total settlement amount.
If the case goes to trial, the roundup attorneys fees will be charged hourly.
You should discuss this with your attorney prior to signing any legal documents.
It is important that you understand all of the terms of your agreement before moving forward.
Yes, there have been a number of people who have received money as part of a Roundup verdict or settlement.
Bayer/Monsanto reached an $11 billion settlement with most of the plaintiffs.
Approximately 80% of all filed Roundup claims have been settled.
Victims of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma received compensation in 2021 and 2022.
Yes, the Roundup lawsuits are legitimate.
There have been a number of people who have been diagnosed with cancer after being exposed to Roundup.
These individuals have filed lawsuits against Monsanto/Bayer, the manufacturer of Roundup.
The Roundup lawsuits claim that Bayer knew or should have known that Roundup was dangerous and failed to warn consumers of the risks associated with its use.
Bayer denies these claims and is currently appealing a number of Roundup verdicts.
The Roundup litigation is currently in the appeals process.
It is unclear how long the appeals will take or what the final outcome will be.
The lawsuit against Roundup is a class-action lawsuit that was filed in 2018.
The lawsuit claims that the herbicide Roundup causes cancer and that the company knew about this risk but did not warn consumers.
Approximately 80% of all filed Roundup claims have been settled.
The total amount of the roundup settlements is approximately $11 billion.
No, you do not have to pay taxes on Roundup settlement checks.
This is because the settlements are considered to be compensatory damages, which are not taxable.
It is unclear when the Roundup lawsuit will be settled.
The litigation is currently in the appeals process and it could take several years to resolve future roundup lawsuits.
Some people have received their settlement check within a few months, while others have had to wait over a year.
It is important to keep in mind that the amount of time it takes to settle a case can vary depending on the circumstances.
You can speak with an experienced Roundup attorney to get a better idea of when you can expect to receive your settlement check.
Attorney client relationship is confidential.
The Roundup Lawsuit is ongoing and lawyers across the country are still accepting cases.
Last month, news came out that spoke to how widespread Roundup contamination may be in the United States. A CDC study, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, found that Glyphosate, the chemical in Roundup linked to cancer, was present in 80% (1,885 of 2,310) of urine samples from test subjects.
The study included participants representative of the U.S. population, with around one third of participants being children aged 6 and older.
Cases are continually being added to the Roundup multidistrict litigation (MDL 2741).
Visit this page for more updates as they become available.
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Bayer in the most recent Roundup Bellwether Trial, a move that may have major implications on the remaining Roundup lawsuits that have yet to be tried.
Bayer’s appeal argued that an EPA filing that declared Roundup safe to use superseded California’s failure-to-warn law, where the lawsuits are consolidated. If the appeal was accepted, thousands of Roundup lawsuits would have likely been thrown out.
A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the EPA report and ordered the agency to reexamine its findings.The Supreme Court decision means that Bayer/Monsanto is liable to pay the $25 million settlement decided in the bellwether and preemption cannot be used as an argument by the defense.
The Roundup litigation is ongoing, and lawyers are still accepting cases across the country.
On June 13, 2022, the Supreme Court took no action on Bayer’s bid to dismiss Roundup legal claims. It was expected that the Supreme Court would dismiss Bayer’s appeal, but it instead took no action.
It’s difficult to tell what may happen next with the Roundup Litigation. The Supreme Court may even decide to rule on the case.
Visit this page for further updates as they come available.
Most recently, Monsanto appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to dismiss Roundup Lawsuits based on the argument that legal action for injuries caused by Roundup are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
Agricultural groups across America reacted to the rejection: 54 agricultural groups want President Biden to “withdraw a brief to the Supreme Court over Bayer AG’s petition for the court to review a verdict in a Roundup cancer lawsuit.”
An Ex-Monsanto CEO has been ordered to testify in the trial of a suit filed in Missouri State Court by a former Roundup user. The suit alleges that the herbicide is responsible for his Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma diagnosis.
Many cases have been consolidated into MDL 2741 in the US District Court: Northern District of California, which is still in progress.
Bayer is still dealing with tens of thousands of lawsuits filed in both state and federal courts over claims that Roundup, the discontinued weed killer, is linked to cancer.
In 2018 Bayer acquired Monsanto, which developed and patented Roundup, and has assumed the legal responsibilities tied to the weed killer.
On April 7th, Bayer reached a settlement with a number of claims that were scheduled to go to trial in front of a St. Louis court. The cases, filed in 2017, join the nearly 100,000 others settled by Bayer.
Over 4,000 cases are still pending in the Roundup Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2741). There has been a push by plaintiffs’ attorneys to file Roundup cases in state court, as many people have been waiting far too long for a trial or settlement.
Roundup Lawsuits concern the links between chronic exposure to the weed killer and cancer, specifically Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. A 2015 report from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) showed that there was “sufficient evidence” glyphosate causes cancer in animals as well as damaging effects on human cells.
A 2015 report from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) bridged the potential link between the chemical component, glyphosate, and cancer.
The report referenced studies that showed that there was “sufficient evidence” glyphosate causes cancer in animals as well as damaging effects on human cells.
Recent studies suggest that the popular Roundup weedkiller could be deadly to more than just unwanted plants.
In relation to these studies and IARC’s findings, lawsuits were filed against Roundup manufacturer, Monsanto.
The Roundup lawsuit claims that exposure to a chemical component of the herbicide, glyphosate, causes Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.
Glyphosate, a common agent in herbicides, targets specific enzymes in weeds to eradicate them without damaging other plants.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto Co.’s Roundup weed killer.
On a yearly average, American farmers spray nearly a pound of glyphosate on every acre of cropland.
Farmers and landscapers who use Roundup regularly are often exposed to high levels of glyphosate.
Because of the herbicide’s popularity in the agricultural industry, trace amounts of glyphosate have been found in corn, soy, and wheat-based products.
Alarmingly, the chemical has also been detected in human urine samples and women’s breast milk.
Monsanto claims that the chemical is completely harmless to humans, citing years of in-house studies conducted on glyphosate.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has backed up Monsanto’s claim, citing their own findings which show no link between glyphosate and increased risk of cancer for humans.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s long-standing position is that glyphosate exposure and low-level consumption does not pose any risk to humans.
According to their website, Monsanto supports these claims with their own in-house studies, which have found glyphosate to be “more than 10 times less toxic than caffeine.”
Despite Monsanto’s statements, a number of U.S. agricultural workers and landscapers are currently suing Monsanto, claiming that by using Roundup they were exposed to high levels of glyphosate which caused them to develop Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.
Monsanto stands by their safety claims, stating “in more than 700 studies, no one has associated cancer with the use of glyphosate.”
However, information obtained through the first cases against Monsanto shows that the EPA reports are likely compromised.
Within the documents lies a chain of Monsanto internal emails, and email communications between the company and EPA staff, suggesting that the EPA research had been ghostwritten by Monsanto, and later signed off by EPA academics.
In one such email, Monsanto executive William F. Heydens wrote, “we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they [EPA] would just edit & sign their names so to speak.”
There is also evidence that one EPA senior official had worked directly with Monsanto directors to put a halt to further investigations by other federal health agencies into the potential adverse effects of glyphosate.
Other documents indicate that an EPA senior officials had worked with Monsanto to hide a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study reviewing glyphosate, which suggested the herbicide could be a carcinogen.
A series of EPA internal emails revealed a great level of dispute among employees about the safety of glyphosate.
Even within the EPA, there seems to be a polarizing disagreement of whether glyphosate is hazardous for humans.
The agency is currently conducting a scheduled evaluation of the chemical though there is no indication of when the results of the evaluation will be published.
Roundup weed killers have been banned in:
On April 11, 2019, Vietnam removed herbicides containing glyphosate from the market because of the damaging effects it has on the environment and severe health consequences for the population.
“The decision to remove herbicides containing glyphosate from the list of plant protection chemicals permitted for use in Vietnam is in accordance with the current law, international regulations and in line with Vietnam’s socio-economic conditions,” Hoang Trung, head of the Plant Protection Department under Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development said in the statement.
The herbicide is Monsanto’s flagship product.
Being sold internationally for both mass agricultural purposes and as an at-home gardening applicant, it is the most widely used herbicide in the world.
There are currently more than 700 roundup cancer lawsuits filed against Monsanto related to Roundup weedkillers.
The people claiming injuries are made up of agricultural labourers, lawn care workers, and gardeners who have developed Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma because of their high levels of exposure to glyphosate.
Monsanto continues to assert that Roundoff is safe for consumers.
In December 2016, the EPA constructed a panel to review the possible health effects of glyphosate.
The panel consisted of 15 outside experts, composed of:
The review was not a consequence of the lawsuits, but rather the EPA is required to review health-effects for every pesticide once every 15 years.
Glyphosate had not been reviewed since 1991.
At that time, the EPA determined that the herbicide did not pose a threat to consumers.
In a puzzling move, the December conference began with the Chief of the Office of Pesticides Programs, Jack Housenger, laying out an array of evidence – in the form of a 227-page issue paper –explaining why glyphosate is an unlikely carcinogen.
Housenger then requested the panel review the analysis.
More than half of the expert panelists were concerned with the EPA’s findings.
During the conference, panelist Eric Johnson, an epidemiologist at the University of Arkansas, expressed his concerns.
Johnson said that if any study suggested a positive connection between glyphosate and Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, the EPA would quickly minimize the findings, citing alleged flaws in the study.
Panelist Lianne Sheppard, a biostatistician at the University of Washington-Seattle, explained that there was a “consensus” on the panel that “the available evidence did not fit with the conclusions drawn in the issue paper, particularly when put in the context of guidelines.”
Three of the experts even expressed concern regarding the Office of Pesticides Programs’ integrity and ability to conduct unbiased studies.
These concerns are genuine.
In 2016, approximately 30% of the Office of Pesticides Programs operating budget was funded by the pesticide manufacturing industry.
The office relies on studies and tests conducted by the pesticide manufacturers for much of their data.
After the conference, the EPA publicly released the issue paper.
By law, the EPA had to include any concerns expressed by the panelists.
Using ambiguous language and vague information, the EPA downplayed the severity of the panel’s concerns.
When a majority of the panelists disagreed with the EPA’s findings, the release paper would simply state “some panelists expressed doubt.”
If the panelists denied the data, the release would only explain that “panelists had some concerns.”
The issue paper did not distinguish how many or which panelists were concerned with which specific data sets.
Following the conference, a group of environmental health scientists came together to voice their concerns in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
The researchers argued that more unbiased safety reviews of glyphosate are needed for market approval.
“It is incongruous that safety assessments of the most widely used herbicide on the planet rely largely on fewer than 300 unpublished, non-peer-reviewed studies while excluding the vast modern literature on glyphosate effects,” the study’s authors write.
On July 7, California was the first state to list glyphosate as a known carcinogen, contrasting the EPA’s federal approval of the herbicide.
The chances of a federal glyphosate ban are slim.
The 2016 election cycle brought a change in bureaucratic leadership, including a new EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt.
Pruitt previously served as Oklahoma’s Attorney General.
During his tenure as Attorney General, Pruitt sued the EPA on 13 separate occasions, all of which were attempts to end federal regulations on behalf of corporations.
Since taking over the EPA, Pruitt has already reversed a ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide similar to glyphosate, which is believed to cause brain damage in agricultural workers and children.
A national group of pediatricians said that they were “deeply alarmed by EPA’s decision not to finalize the proposed rule to end chlorpyrifos uses on food,” saying it puts children at significant risk.
Despite this, Pruitt took the side of chlorpyrifos manufacturer, DOW Chemical, arguing that the data did not directly link chlorpyrifos exposure to brain damage.
Pruitt is in a position now to decide whether to increase regulations on or completely ban glyphosate.
Based on Pruitt’s past history and aggressive attitude towards deregulation, it is unlikely that the new EPA administrator will go against corporate interest.
A lot rides on the EPA’s market approval of glyphosate.
Last September, Bayer AG agreed to buy Monsanto for $66 billion, pending regulatory approvals.
Since 2015, Monsanto has spent more than $10.3 million in lobbying, developing advantageous relationships with political heads and bureaucrats that control agricultural policies and regulations.
With political influence and financial power, as well as a new EPA head administrator favoring environmental deregulation, there is little to hinder Monsanto’s merger with Bayer AG.
The corporate giant will see to it that Roundup stays on the market, even if it is at the expense of the thousands of agricultural workers who are exposed to its dangerous product every day.
As research on the effects of glyphosate continues to indicate that the chemical is a carcinogen, more product liability Roundup lawsuit cases will be filed across federal and state courts.
Federal multidistrict litigation is proceeding under the direction of U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria.
The first bellwether trial is currently underway.
During the trial, Judge Chhabria made the following comment relating to Monsanto’s carelessness.
“Although the evidence that Roundup causes cancer is quite equivocal, there is strong evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is, in fact, giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue,” Judge Chhabria said.
Participation is not limited to just farmworkers.
Any individual who has been consistently exposed to Roundup weed killer may be eligible to participate in a Roundup lawsuit.
If you have been exposed to Roundup weed killers and have developed Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, contact a knowledgeable Roundup injury lawyer to explore your options.
TorHoerman Law offers free, no-obligation case consultations for any potential Roundup lawsuit case.
Call today to speak to an experienced Roundup injury lawyer from our law firm.
Amarelo, Monica. “Jury Slams Monsanto for Corporate Malfeasance in Roundup Cancer Trial, Awards $80 Million in Damages.” EWG, Environmental Working Group, 27 Mar. 2019, www.ewg.org/release/second-time-8-months-bayer-monsanto-s-roundup-liable-cancer-lawsuit
Baer, Stephanie K. “A Jury Says Monsanto’s Weed Killer Caused A Man’s Cancer And Awarded Him $80 Million.” BuzzFeed News, BuzzFeed News, 27 Mar. 2019, www.buzzfeednews.com/article/skbaer/hardeman-roundup-cancer-damages
Bellon, Tina. “California Jury Says Bayer Must Pay $2 Billion to Couple in Roundup Cancer Trial.” Stltoday.com, Reuters, 13 May 2019, www.stltoday.com/business/local/california-jury-says-bayer-must-pay-billion-to-couple-in/article_88180ff7-79ad-5c10-8ee1-46ecfddf2789.html
Cohen, P. (2020, July 07). Judge Puts Cloud Over Settlement of Roundup Cancer Claims. Retrieved July 16, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/roundup-lawsuit-settlement.html
Curley, M. (n.d.). Bayer Budgets $2B To Settle Future Roundup Cancer Claims. Retrieved November 04, 2020, from https://www.law360.com/productliability/articles/1325454/bayer-budgets-2b-to-settle-future-roundup-cancer-claims?nl_pk=4ea5443d-d995-4317-90cc-b8209e697bbb
“Monsanto Loses Cancer Liability Fight In 1st Roundup Appeal.” Law360, www.law360.com/productliability/articles/1293810/monsanto-loses-cancer-liability-fight-in-1st-roundup-appeal?nl_pk=4ea5443d-d995-4317-90cc-b8209e697bbb&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=productliability
Polansek, Tom, and Khanh Vu. “U.S. Criticizes Vietnam Ban of Glyphosate Herbicide Imports.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 11 Apr. 2019, www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-vietnam-glyphosate/us-criticizes-vietnam-ban-of-glyphosate-herbicide-imports-idUSKCN1RN2F4
Reports, S. (2020, June 24). Bayer settles Roundup cancer lawsuits for up to $10.9 billion. Retrieved June 24, 2020, from https://www.stltoday.com/business/local/bayer-settles-roundup-cancer-lawsuits-for-up-to-10-9-billion/article_4370b5ba-2d97-5206-85bf-cebf56426872.html
Zaveri, Mihir. “Monsanto Weedkiller Roundup Was ‘Substantial Factor’ in Causing Man’s Cancer, Jury Says.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Mar. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/business/monsanto-roundup-cancer.html
TorHoerman Law was responsible for handling a medical case for our family. I was extremely impressed with their professionalism and ability to react quickly. They also did a nice job keeping us updated with the case throughout the process. This was the first time experiencing a situation like this and Tor Hoerman law did an excellent job from start to finish.
TorHoerman Law is an extraordinary law firm – a firm that truly makes the client’s best interests the primary concern. Their team of personal injury lawyers are experienced, personable, and well versed in a range of litigation areas. They are supported by a dedicated team of staff that are as equally friendly and helpful. I would recommend TorHoerman Law for any personal injury litigation needs.
All of my questions were answered quickly and in a way I could understand. Steve and the entire staff were friendly and professional.
I highly recommend this law firm! The attorneys and staff at THL worked hard, communicated every step of the process, kept me well informed at all times, and exceeded all expectations! The staff is kind, considerate, professional, and very experienced. Look no further, call now!
Top-notch, hardworking attorneys!
A wonderful and professional legal team. They helped me when I needed expert legal representation! Thank you TorHoerman Law!