Fracking, damages, ed kramer, attorney, Baton Rouge

$4.2 Million Fracking Award For Groundwater Contamination Overturned by Judge.

Fracking Allegedly Caused Groundwater Contamination

Dimock, Pennsylvania has been called ground zero in the fight against fracking. It’s the location that became the basis for the movie Gasland by anti-fracking activist Josh Fox. Last March, a federal jury awarded $4.2 million to a pair of Dimock families that had sued over alleged pollution of their drinking water. Today that award was reversed on appeal. The $4 million award was given to just two families who refused to settle with the company.

Only two families out of the original 44 plaintiffs in the case against Cabot Oil and Gas went to trial after years of delays, lack of representation, and legal setbacks. Lead plaintiff Scott Ely worked for the driller before becoming a whistleblower.  Full Story.

“I saw so much on these job sites,” he said after the verdict. “I’m not only working for them I’m also a resident and as I’m working for them, I end up becoming a victim of it.”

Judge Martin Carlson wrote that the evidence presented at last year’s jury trial by a pair of families in Dimock, Pa., “was spare, sometimes contradictory, frequently rebutted by other scientific expert testimony, and relied in some measure upon tenuous inferences.”

He said there were multiple “weaknesses” in the case, along with “serious and troubling irregularities in the testimony and presentation of the plaintiffs’ case — including repeated and regrettable missteps by counsel in the jury’s presence,” necessitating that Carlson vacate the jury award against Cabot Oil and Gas Co….

“We do not take this step lightly, and we recognize the significance of voiding the judgment of a panel of jurors who sat through nearly three weeks of trial and reached a unanimous verdict,” he wrote. Personal Injury Law Firm has written postals about groundwater contamination before.  Here and Here.

You generally get one chance to chose the right lawyer for you.  Attorney Ed Kramer is happy to discuss your options.  (225) 933-1500 Big Pharma Liability

New Pharmaceutical Rules Restrict Injured Plaintiff’s Rights

Rules Endorsed by Pharmaceutical Drug Makers

This article, by The Collective Evolution, aptly describes new Congressional Bills that are adverse to those injured by legal drugs, but also might create a windfall for Big Pharma.  Read the story HERE.

If you’re hurt by a pharmaceutical, you can sue the company that made the drug, and be compensated for your losses, right? Most people assume that is the way the justice system works, but the reality is that it’s difficult, and in many cases impossible, for victims of pharmaceutical companies (and other big corporations/industries) to gain compensation or justice.

There are many aspects of the current U.S. legal system that make getting compensation and justice for injuries caused by pharmaceutical drugs difficult, and there are two bills that are currently going through the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 985, the 2017 Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act and H.R. 1215, the Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017) that will make justice for victims of pharmaceuticals nearly impossible.

They Can Hurt You as Long as You Were Warned

Currently, people who are hurt by pharmaceuticals are in a legal catch-22 because victims of pharmaceuticals can’t sue drug companies for hurting them, they can only sue for failure to warn. So, if a pharmaceutical drug gives you cancer, you can’t sue the company that made the drug for the fact that it gave you cancer, you can only sue them for failing to warn you IF the warning label doesn’t contain information about the drug causing cancer. If the warning label says that the drug can cause cancer, you can’t sue, because “you were warned.” Even if you were never given the drug warning label, you “were warned” as far as the justice system is concerned — because the learned intermediary doctrine states that pharmaceutical manufacturers aren’t obligated to inform you, the consumer/patient/victim, they’re only obligated to inform the doctor, the “learned intermediary,” about the potential harm that the drug can cause.

If a pharmaceutical drug causes your cancer, but that isn’t noted on the pharmaceutical warning label, you’re not much better off, because proving that a pharmaceutical caused your cancer is near-impossible for a regular person. The only situation in which a person can sue a pharmaceutical drug company for the harm done by their products is when a drug warning label changes. If a pharmaceutical drug warning label changes, there is enough evidence that the drug did the harm, but people who took the drug prior to the warning label change weren’t properly warned, so there is a short window of opportunity for victims to sue and gain recourse/justice for the harm done to them. The inherently dangerous nature of pharmaceutical drugs, the warning labels that accompany them, and the way our justice system is structured, make it so that the vast majority of those who suffer harm from pharmaceutical drugs are unable to sue the maker of the drug(s) that hurt them.

Victims of Generic Pharmaceuticals Can’t Sue

On top of that, victims of generic pharmaceuticals are completely unable to sue the manufacturer of the pharmaceutical drug that hurt them. This is an absurd situation that is an extreme miscarriage of justice. You can read more about the inability of victims to sue makers of generic pharmaceuticals in the New York Times article “In 5-4 Ruling, Justices Say Generic Makers Are Not Liable for Design of Drugs” and the posts on, “SCOTUS Decision on Medication Safety: No Product Liability” and “Hurt by a Generic Drug? Victims have no Recourse unless the FDA Changes Rules.” Basically, if you are hurt by a generic drug, you have no recourse because cannot sue a generic drug manufacturer. The FDA has the power to change this situation, but they have failed to do so over the 3+ years that they have been deliberating how they might address it.

The Law Firm wants to help you in medical products liability cases, and other products liability cases.  Call (225) 933-1500 or contact us today.

soil contamination Louisiana damages

Pennsylvania Judge Throws Out $4 Million Jury Verdict Over Water Contamination

Jury Awarded $4 Million: Judge Says ‘No.’

Its not over ’til its over.  Even when a jury verdict is rendered, the case might not be closed.  There was a bomb-shell decision today by a federal judge involving a water contamination trial from Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania.

In a 58-page ruling, Judge Martin Carlson threw out the jury verdict, and a $4 million dollar award for two families from the Dimock Township area.  Last year, a federal jury found Cabot Oil and Gas was a nuisance — after the families said the company contaminated their groundwater.  Cabot has denied any wrong-doing. Contaminated drinking water is becoming more and more of an issue.  We have written about it before, here.

The judge said he did not make this decision lightly — and says a new trial is needed.  Read the decision Here.

Soil contamination from underground gas storage tanks, old oilfield ‘legacy’ sites, leaking pipes of all sorts is real.  Often it will damage no only drinking water, but require expensive cleanup on the part of the landowner.  But, if you can tract the source of the pollution and contamination, there may be a claim.

In Louisiana, ‘orphan’ wells, old dump sites, and other sources of pollution are common.

Call Ed Kramer at (225) 933-1500 or visit and we are happy to discuss, for free, any potential claim that you may have.