Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling Holds New Hope for Tobacco Victims

Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling Holds New Hope for Tobacco Victims

Before taking up a product liability case, attorneys carefully review the plaintiff’s medical records to determine the legitimacy of the case.

Tobacco use is a dangerous tendency that leads to the development of diseases like lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, periodontal disease and so on. Tobacco is one of the leading causes of preventable death and disease across the world. It is estimated that it kills thrice the number of people who fall victims to drugs, alcohol, suicide, homicide and car crashes. It is through a comprehensive medical record review that evidence is obtained regarding the specific disease condition of the injured person. Once they develop a serious condition like lung cancer, smokers can sue the tobacco industry. Before taking up such a case, product liability attorneys carefully review the plaintiff’s medical records to determine the legitimacy of the case. Medical record review for attorneys is a valuable service many of them make use of in this regard to save the time and resources they would have to invest if this task is done in-house. If the case has solid grounds, they file a lawsuit on the plaintiff’s behalf for damages for medical and other economic costs and pain and suffering.

A Recent Development Ctlawtribune.com recently highlighted the case of a Norwich woman who developed cancer after years of smoking Salem cigarettes. As the report says, she is one step closer to collecting a $28 million judgment against the tobacco manufacturer R.J Reynolds. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers are not prohibited by an exemption in Connecticut’s tort liability law. Legal experts see this as a welcome move on the part of the Supreme Court that wanted to ensure that the courthouse doors remained open to plaintiffs who can prove their case. Moreover, this ruling also makes sure that manufacturers don’t escape from liability.

The Norwich woman started smoking Salem cigarettes from her early teens and smoked heavily for more than 20 years. At age 36, she was diagnosed with larynx cancer, following which she underwent total laryngectomy, radiation and chemotherapy treatments. Now she cannot breathe through her nose or mouth, and uses a tube in her throat. She can consume only soft foods. This case is very significant because it is the first smoker’s lawsuit against a tobacco company to go to trial in Connecticut, and the first jury verdict against a tobacco company in New England. A main characteristic of this lawsuit is that it is a strict liability claim under the Connecticut Product Liability Act, to prove which the plaintiff must demonstrate that a product was in a defective condition and unreasonably dangerous to the user.

(800) 670 2809

www.mosmedicalrecordreview.com

info@managedoutsource.com

The case sequence is as follows.  After a month long trial in April and May 2010, the jury awarded the woman $13.6 million in damages, maintaining that Salem cigarettes were “unreasonably dangerous” and defectively designed. The company had acted with reckless disregard for the safety of users.  The jurors however attributed 42% of the responsibility to the Norwich woman, and this reduced the initial award to $8 million.  Seven months later, a U.S. District Judge awarded $4 million in punitive damages.  In 2011, the above mentioned judge added $15.7 million in offer of compromise interest, following which the defendant’s attorney said his side had offered to settle for $400, 000 in 1999, the year the lawsuit was filed.

After the 2010 verdict, R.J Reynolds had appealed to the Second Circuit arguing that Connecticut law excludes strict product liability claims against cigarette manufacturers when evidence is absent that the cigarettes were adulterated or contaminated. The Second Circuit, which is considering the tobacco company’s appeal of the award, determined that the issue should be certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court since there was no Connecticut appellate precedent that addressed the “good tobacco” provision. At the trial, the plaintiff presented evidence that the tobacco company manufactured Salem Kings to specifications intended to get nonsmokers addicted to nicotine, and to get addicted smokers to smoke more cigarettes without satisfying their addiction.

This ruling by the Supreme Court shows that cigarette companies don’t really have any immunity. The case is before the Second Circuit and it is yet to be seen what the final results will be.

Medical Record Review—an Important First Step A product liability case such as the above relies heavily on medical record review. Attorneys will be looking for proof of the medical diagnosis, and whether the product use had led to the disease condition. Tobacco manufacturers are sued typically against aspects such as the following.

(800) 670 2809

www.mosmedicalrecordreview.com

info@managedoutsource.com

Giving misleading information about the dangers and the addictive property of tobacco.

Failing to warn the public about the dangers of smoking Did not take all steps possible to reduce the risks caused by their products Promoted teens and children to smoke cigarettes.

Tobacco litigation involves complex legal aspects and theories. Detailed and intricate scientific analyses may be required, which makes it very challenging.

(800) 670 2809

www.mosmedicalrecordreview.com

info@managedoutsource.com