While we've been busy on pro bono litigation involving asylum seekers (and families of the same) held inside the ICE center in the city of big shoulders, a few developments transpired, on Matters Merck this week:
First, along with co-venturer Eisai, a new drug FDA I-O approval -- as first line therapy in a subset of hepatocellular (i.e., liver) carcinomas. That's great news.
Next, the tallies of open cases continue to decline, in the Propecia®/Proscar® MDL/MCL (backgrounder, from September 2015). Here is that four page status report, and a bit, from it:
. . . .Thus far, the Parties can report the following with respect to the MDL proceedings, which currently has a total of 436 active cases:
405 Plaintiffs have submitted executed Releases;
2 Plaintiffs have been granted an extension (as provided in the Master Settlement Agreement) to submit a release on or before August 21, 2018;
1 Plaintiff is expected to be dismissed on or before September 5, 2018;
3 Plaintiffs have been excluded from the Master Settlement Agreement;
19 Plaintiffs are not participating in the Master Settlement Agreement: i.e., they have either determined they would not participate or have not executed a release (please see discussion, below, regarding these 19 Plaintiffs); and
6 cases involve pro se Plaintiffs and are not subject to the Master Settlement Agreement. . . .
Now you know -- onward, now to court, and then a wonderful barbeque infused Air & Water show weekend with my grown son, and his girl.
नमस्ते
6 comments:
Do you know why 3 plaintiffs could have been excluded from the master settlement agreement? Does that mean that they reached a separate agreement or they weren't offered anything and their cases were thrown out?
Also, do you know if the MSA should be available to plaintiffs or the public?
The easy one first — yes a master settlement agreement will be made available to the lawyer for each Plaintiff. When I get one, I’ll post it as a PDF.
Now, as to the three, they are likely suing individually — outside the class.
We shall see.
Namaste....
I should clarify here. Some (or maybe all) of the plaintiffs lawyers are not giving the MSA out to plaintiffs because they say it is confidential. Does it make sense that the lawyers can reach an agreement on behalf of their clients and not actually fully disclose the terms of the settlement to their clients?
We should start with the notion that some things — in the law — don’t make much sense. Smile.
However, as an injured plaintiff you absolutely have the right to see the financial terms, in full, and anything that binds you or your attorney NOT to pursue future actions.
I’d simply tell your lawyer that you intend to contact others (via this blog), if you cannot review those terms.
Good luck!
Let me see if I'm following this correctly. Dr. Imperato-McGinley reiterated that finasteride creates a "virtual surrogacy" of 5 alpha reductase syndrome, and that this is evidence that it's fine and nothing to see here? It actually creates a virtual surrogacy of the pseudo-hermaphrodites she studied in the Dominican Republic and this is evidence that it's no big deal if people have 5 alpha reductace deficiency syndrome? - Mr. I
Nevermind - I think I'm seeing now that this Imperato-McGinley one is an older one and not necessarily some coup de grace for the defense (I think?) - Mr. I
Post a Comment