The Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky Show – Episode 14
Joe Dougherty hosts Larry Cohan for the Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky show on WWDB Talk 860.
TRANSCRIPT
Joe Dougherty
Alright ladies and gentleman around the Delaware Valley, welcome everyone to the Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky hour on WWDB talk 860. We’ve got a fantastic show, certainly no stranger to the broadcast, glad to welcome in our co-host Larry Cohan, partner here at Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky. Larry, how are you, sir?
Larry Cohan
I’m doing well, Joe. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good to be here.
Joe Dougherty
Well, it’s fantastic to be here. And we’ve got a ton of things to talk about and you know, like I said beforehand, you prepared things like a world champ. No surprise the success here at the firm. If you would remind our listeners a little bit about yourself and the firm and what your team – so mass torts and toxic torts.
Larry Cohan
Yep.
Joe Dougherty
And, you know, talk a little bit about all those things.
Larry Cohan
Of course. My name is Larry Cohan. I’m a partner here at Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky. I chair our firm’s mass tort and toxic tort departments, mass torts are those cases where there are typically thousands, often tens of thousands of people that have a similar injury and they file their cases and their claims around the country, typically they’re consolidated into one big mass tort handled by one judge, but it is not a class action.
They’re handled as separate individual cases, but they use one courthouse to try to consolidate all of the discovery, the depositions and the litigation. A toxic tort can be a mass tort, but a toxic tort is that kind of case where somebody has been exposed to a chemical or a toxin. Usually in the environment or in a consumer product. And that has caused some kind of serious injury to a person. Those are called toxic torts.
Joe Dougherty
And so it is very, very interesting. Well, what is the difference between a class action and, you know, for example, a mass and tort or toxic tort?
Larry Cohan
That’s always a good question. And I neglected to mention that I’ve been doing these toxic torts for over 40 years, and everyone asks me that question. Even lawyers don’t quite get that distinction. A class action is when you have typically one person representing often tens or hundreds of thousands of people who have a similar complaint.
Usually class actions are in the commercial area where a bank overcharges, they put a fee on something they shouldn’t, and across the country, everybody has been taken advantage of. One victim can file a class action on behalf of everybody in the country and then everybody gets their small recovery. It’s typically a case where you couldn’t possibly have everybody file their own lawsuit because their damages aren’t big enough to merit an individual lawsuit.
Whereas a mass tort, all of the claims are handled individually. Every single person who’s been hurt or aggrieved has to file their own lawsuit, and they’re massed together in order to litigate more efficiently.
Joe Dougherty
How do – and we won’t stay on this long, but how do you determine – with the severity of the injuries, how do they determine settlements in regards to that many individuals? Some people obviously their conditions and their injuries may be more than others. Does the judge or do they actually look through these cases individually?
How do they determine who gets what damages?
Larry Cohan
Always a difficult thing to determine. What does each individual get? And yes, the court requires the plaintiffs in a mass tort or Mr. Toxic Tort to file medical records, you know, discovery responses and everything necessary so that either the court or a mediator or a special master can determine the damages that that individual has suffered. So that at the end of the day, in a typical mass tort, if there is a resolution and recently we had a $10 billion resolution in the roundup mass tort.
And that was a mass tort, toxic tort. Yep. So they established essentially a matrix which had all kinds of variables, the age of the plaintiff, the extent of their disease, did they have remission, etc., and different values would be applied depending on the severity of that individual’s case. And that’s how it was determined what to give each individual.
Joe Dougherty
And so, I mean, it’s a very, very interesting area. And how do people know if they’re eligible to be a part of the, you know, of the mass tort that, do they investigate everything individually?
Larry Cohan
Yes. So, you know, lawyers have learned to do a tremendous job today as I think we’ll talk more about as we go through some of these examples of advertising.
Joe Dougherty
Well I say that, because some people may be still, you know, some of the cases we’re going to talk about some people that may have suffered from injuries or situations related to them may not know.
Larry Cohan
That’s exactly right. I think historically before the modern era, many, many victims of chemical exposures didn’t know they had rights. They didn’t know they had a claim. Today with lawyer advertising in social media and television and radio, I think people are learning quickly when they’ve had an exposure that might give them legal rights and the right to file a claim.
Joe Dougherty
And so today we are going to talk about some pretty big time, huge cases. Okay. And so I’ll just go through them real quick. The J&J talcum powder case, which has been going on for some time, of course, the Camp Lejeune case and the PFAS case. We’re also going to talk about the court decision denying J&J Bank, the bankruptcy claim, which thank God for that, because I’ve been doing shows on the J&J case for years before they decided to, you know, to take the products off the market or even put a disclaimer on the bottle.
Joe Dougherty
That’s how big they are. And so it’s great that we’re going to talk about that. So, if you will Larry, and by the way, which order would you prefer to go in? We’re gonna talk about Camp Lejeune first or.
Larry Cohan
They’re all exciting to me. So, yeah. Let’s go with Camp Lejeune.
Joe Dougherty
Okay. So I’ve been seeing a ton of commercials. Okay. From plaintiff’s firms, you know, about Camp Lejeune. Okay. And so much going on right now, if you would, remind our listeners who may not know exactly what the situation is there.
Larry Cohan
Absolutely. It is a tragic situation. Camp Lejeune is a large military base in North Carolina in the early 50s It began to become contaminated with chemicals, lots of chemicals, tce, pce, vinyl chloride chemicals that are carcinogens. They cause cancer and a lot of other diseases.
Joe Dougherty
And they were coming from a lot of different, you know, places, you know, the chemicals.
Larry Cohan
Yeah, they were coming from places mostly on the base. Projects that were being used on the base, literally a gas station or gas pumps on the base that were leaking underground, a dry cleaner on the base where they were pouring the chemicals into the ground. And because of the unusual setting of the base and the nature of the water table there, these chemicals literally just went into the wells that were used to tap for drinking water.
Joe Dougherty
The water supply. Okay. And what types of issues did that cause? Because you’re talking about 1950s and through the 80s
Larry Cohan
Yep. Through 1987.
Joe Dougherty
And by the way, that was a military base, not only for the individuals, you know, the military personnel, but also for family members. Correct?
Larry Cohan
Correct. And for people who worked on the base, because, remember, they have to provide food and clothing and all kinds of services for folks who live there so that there were literally over a million people who lived and worked and served on that base from the fifties to the eighties that had exposure.
Joe Dougherty
And. Well, go ahead.
Larry Cohan
We anticipate Joe, potentially hundreds of thousands of people that have suffered severe injuries, probably well over 100,000 people who will have suffered what we call tier one injuries.
Joe Dougherty
Yeah. What types? Yeah.
Larry Cohan
Yeah. These are the injuries that medicine and science have already determined are directly caused by these chemicals on the base, things like birth defects, cancers, leukemia, cancers of the the liver, the lungs, all kinds of different birth defects in babies and a whole host of Parkinson’s disease, a whole host of other conditions that can be triggered by these chemicals. Brain cancers in particular, are caused by vinyl chloride, and we believe they’ll be over 100,000 of those.
Joe Dougherty
Yeah, when you think about it’s actually unimaginable. Okay. By the way, at what point did the Camp Lejeuene, you know, toxic tort, you know, case start to kind of amp up because from 50 to 80. And now, you know, we’re seeing a lot of the press on it right now. At what point were they initially filed? And is there a statute of limitations on it?
Larry Cohan
Good question. So there was an attempt back in the 90s and the early 2000s. Once the problem was recognized and essentially the basis water was shut off and people recognized that were chemical exposures that were potentially catastrophic. There were lawyers who filed cases on behalf of individuals. Unfortunately, the government has a partial immunity and the statute of limitations had expired.
So most of the claims were thrown out. Some very, very smart, ambitious and caring lawyers began to lobby Congress to pass legislation to give these people rights. And that fight took place from 2010 all the way up to last year, 2022.
Joe Dougherty
Wow.
Larry Cohan
Congress passed what’s called the Pact Act. And as a result of that, included in that was something called the Camp Lejeune Act. And the Camp Lejeune Act essentially created a two year brand new statute of limitations. And it said if you served on that base from the mid-fifties to mid-eighties and you have one of these diseases, you can file a claim and you’ve got two years to do it. After two years later, the door will close again.
Joe Dougherty
What about loved ones who may have lost somebody to one of those diseases?
Larry Cohan
They also have an opportunity to file. So even if you died ten years ago, when you left a spouse or children, those individuals under this new act have the right to file a claim.
Joe Dougherty
Okay, so and but and there’s no cause to file a claim or to come in to get legal representation, correct?
Larry Cohan
No cost. There are lawyers, and we’ll talk about advertising across the country. It is in all cases right now a contingency fee type case. Lawyers will represent folks and handle their claims.
Joe Dougherty
Okay. So one of the things that irks me more than anything in life is how we treat our military after they serve. Okay. You know, they serve our country. They protect it. And we see what happens when a lot of them get out. And it’s unbelievable, you know, and many obviously pay you know, they pay the ultimate price, you know, in our wars.
But this is paying the ultimate price. And it’s just another situation where we ask people to defend us under the most difficult situations. And yet here is what happens. And, you know, you talk about the contingency fee agreement, okay? To me, that’s what makes attorneys heroes. Let me just tell people what that is from a layman standpoint.
Instead of asking, Larry, you’re going in at no out-of-pocket costs at all. There’s no cost to retain the attorney and the fact of the matter is, is that they’re representing you throughout the entire case without taking a dime, unless they win the case and the reason that’s important is we could never afford attorneys at this level. So this could be years and doing this. I just wanted to get that out of the way. That’s where I’m going with that.
Larry Cohan
I couldn’t agree more. Two things based on what you just said, and I agree with you about the military, but I have to credit our Congress. Sure. And our leadership. Despite all the conflict and the inability to pass new laws, our Congress came together across the aisle to pass this bill to help the military and their families. This was one of those situations where they almost had to, because the beneficiary of this new bill is the military, the families and those who helped them.
Joe Dougherty
Right. And to clear something up and that’s a great point, Larry. And by the way, I’m sure you know that the people running the base were not chemists and didn’t know what was going on or at least, you know, they should have looked into it, but they didn’t. And so maybe they didn’t do it on purpose. I’m not sure.
But I’m sure somebody knew what was going on. But the fact of the matter is, is that you got a great point. Our Congress is jumping in and they’re trying to right a wrong the best way possible. It’s just a shame that, you know.
Larry Cohan
You know, one of the things that’s fascinating about this new bill with respect to what you just said, is that we don’t have to prove that the government or the military was negligent back then. We do think that they knew the chemicals were there. They were building up, they were being released. But we don’t have to prove that.
What we have to prove is causation. This is not an easy task. It’s a very complex subject matter to prove that a specific chemical caused a specific disease in an individual. So we’re working with folks who think they should just be able to file a claim and get paid or missing something. We have to work with epidemiologists, oncologists, hydro geologists, certified industrial hygienists, teams of experts to establish where this person lived, what chemicals they were drinking, what quantities they ingested, what is required in the medicine and the science in terms of the nature and extent of exposure to cause that disease. So we have a battle on our hands to win these cases.
Joe Dougherty
It reminds me a little bit almost of the wrongful death in COVID cases. And I say that because if somebody is working on the front lines, okay, and you got to and you’ve had okay, you know, I mean, you’re a SEPTA bus driver and we lost some SEPTA bus drivers. Okay. You’re dealing with the public back when nobody really understood anything.
There were no masks or anything. Common sense. Now, I know this isn’t science, but common sense should prevail. If you were living on that base during the time period and you had 20 people around you with brain cancer, you know, a spade a spade, you know, I get it. Science is involved. Let me ask you an important question for the military veterans.
Okay? You know, a lot of people. Okay. Might think that they’re suing the Army or suing you know, and are apprehensive of doing it. But that’s not the case, right?
Larry Cohan
Absolutely not.
Joe Dougherty
Talk about that.
Larry Cohan
That. These claims are being filed in North Carolina, in the federal court in front of one group of judges. And the claim is actually being filed against the U.S. Treasury. So they’ve set aside a fund and I have to be very careful in saying that it’s not a specific number of dollars. Sure. Not a specific number of dollars per person.
But the government has said we are going to provide money out of the general fund to compensate these victims. The cases will be defended by the DOJ, the Department of Justice, and there is no lawsuit against any particular branch of government, government official or anything of that nature. You are making a claim to get compensation that our country has decided you deserve.
Joe Dougherty
Right. And, you know, I mean, that’s as clear as day. And certainly it’s important because if you’re a military veteran or a family member was affected, you know, you’re not suing your branch of the other of the service. And it’s great that the government, you know, that the government had started the fund. And it’s you know, they’re not trying to hide it at this point.
Obviously, due to the work of some great attorneys, I always, you know, change happens in the courts. And so to give people an idea and I bring this up so much, you know, so I live next to a contract order and every morning I don’t have to set my alarm because these trucks are backing up and you hear beep, beep, beep, beep.
Well, that beep, beep, beep, beep was created by an attorney who served justice on behalf of somebody who likely could have been, you know, represented an attorney at this firm. You’ve done so many huge cases. But who made who was representing somebody or a family of somebody who got tragically injured or maybe even killed? So not only was justice served as best as possible for that family, you’re never going to get the loved one back or you may never walk again, but you’re also making sure it doesn’t happen to somebody else.
And that is such a big deal. And in a sense, that’s what’s going on here. So it’s a big deal. Where are we in regards to the case itself and when it may come to fruition? And by the way, you know, you see a lot of individuals, you know, a lot of these commercials on where does Saltz Mongeluzzi fall in the representation? Because you typically take the lead on a lot of cases because you have the resources to win. Talk about that.
Larry Cohan
Correct. Everybody has seen a large number of television ads, radio, social media. And, you know, some were critical of that. In this situation it’s a good thing, you and I discussed this earlier. We want people to know they have rights. We want people who lived in Camp Lejeune to become aware. How else can we do that? And the social media, the television is a great way to get that word out.
So plaintiffs lawyers across the country – Two years ago,
Joe Dougherty
Is important because there’s a statute of limitations.
Larry Cohan
Right.
Joe Dougherty
When did it start?
Larry Cohan
August of 2000, 22. We’re already seven months into it. Wow. And the claims have to be filed. So some of the advertisers, you know, kind of get the cases they refer them to folks like me that litigate the cases.
Joe Dougherty
Right exactly.
Larry Cohan
And you are correct. We have resources. We litigate these cases. We intend to try these in front of the juries down in North Carolina, at least until we can establish the rights of individuals. The way you described who’ve been exposed to get paid fairly right now under the law, you have to file a notice with the government.
Government gets six months to respond and either make you an offer or say, let’s litigate. They’re going to say let’s litigate to everything because they can’t make offers so quickly. Right? And then we’re going to file lawsuits. So the first lawsuits are being filed right now. We’re filing our first lawsuits right now, meaning the six months have expired since we filed the claim forms.
Lawsuits are being filed, I suspect, and this is a bit of speculation that there won’t be any trials or settlements until the two years is up. Right. Think about it. Once the government knows exactly how many claims have been made, what types of claims, they’ll be in a much better position to decide. All right. Here’s the funding we need and here’s how we can handle all of these claims and compensate people fairly or fight in those cases where there’s a question about whether they’re legitimate or not.
Joe Dougherty
Okay. So we have a lot to talk about. But I do want people if somebody thinks they you know, they have a situation, a case like this, how do they get in touch and what do they do?
Larry Cohan
Well, they can reach out to us here at Saltz Mongeluzzi and Bendesky, I’m Larry Cohan at C O H A N, I’m the only Cohan in town.
Joe Dougherty
The four Cohans, we talked about this last time.
Larry Cohan
That’s right.
Joe Dougherty
One of the great movies of all time. But yea.
Larry Cohan
That’s right. And we’re here. We can be reached. Lcohan@smbb.com. You want a phone number 215-575-3887. Give us a holler. We’ll jump in and help anybody that’s been at Camp Lejeune and has these exposures.
Joe Dougherty
Absolutely. And that’s, you know, just an emotional case. It could actually do the entire show and three more on it. But we’re going to segway. Okay. Into the Jay and Jay talcum powder case. Okay. That’s a case when you think about it. Oh, my. You know, I mean, you know, you put talcum powder on babies and, you know, people utilize the products have been for years.
And yet there have been, you know, there’s amounts of asbestos that have obviously, you know, infused in the actual talcum powder. And it’s caused some horrible things, if you will Larry, elaborate.
Larry Cohan
Absolutely. You know, I’ve been doing mesothelioma cases from asbestos for over 40 years, representing, unfortunately.
Joe Dougherty
You know, Pat Eiding
Larry Cohan
Yes, absolutely.
Joe Dougherty
Okay.
Larry Cohan
Representing hundreds of individuals. And we knew back in the eighties and nineties that talc had asbestos in it. It had already been demonstrated. Johnson and Johnson kept denying it. The lawsuits that were filed, there were only a few of them, were extremely difficult to prove because the ability to detect tiny, tiny amounts of asbestos in talc has improved over the years.
So now, you know, our microscopes, our technology, we can see these tiny microscopic fibers that are causing these cancers. When talc is mined, there’s a certain percentage of those talc fibers that are mined that contain asbestos. And typically it’s tremolite which is a highly toxic type of asbestos. There are different types. So now when people use the baby powder and they put it on their bodies, they can either ingest it through their mouth by inhaling it or for women obviously who apply it in the genital area, yeah, it can internalize and get to the ovaries and we then are seeing ovarian cancers.
Joe Dougherty
So this has been going on for how long? You mention the eighties.
Larry Cohan
Unfortunately, talc was first. Hang on. Talc was first mined and sold as a consumer product by Jay and Jay. At the turn of the last century, 1900 talc products have been on the market for over 100 years, no doubt causing cancers that whole time.
Joe Dougherty
And so let me throw something out there to the listener, which as a layman and it’s just awesome to be here and being educated on this. Right. They didn’t even put a disclaimer on the bottle. Right. In other words, this thing has been on the shelf, you know, for decades, decades and decades.
And J&J is a massive corporation and, you know, they really for years, they didn’t even move on this. Right. I mean, they’re so big that, you know, I’m going to take a shot and say that they’re you know, they did the numbers on it and probably figured, you know what, it’s easier to fight it than it is to change.
How many people – are there records to say how many lives have been impacted by this? Has to be hundreds of thousands, right?
Larry Cohan
No one actually knows over time how many victims there have been. It’s almost impossible to calculate. But you are correct. J&J never put a warning on their package. They never advised people of the risks they were in denial for decades after being challenged, and it was only under the weight of the evidence and the lawsuits that they recently decided to pull talc off the shelves.
Joe Dougherty
And so at that point, they pulled it off the shelves. Okay. And when did they actually do that? How recent did they do that?
Larry Cohan
2021.
Joe Dougherty
- Okay. So, you know.
Larry Cohan
And just to give you some numbers, when they pulled it off the shelves, there were over 40,000 lawsuits already filed. Right. And we believe probably well over 100,000 lawsuits total. Some of them waiting to be filed across the country.
Joe Dougherty
And probably how many lives didn’t even make it to the you know, to the fruition of the lawsuit.
Larry Cohan
Hundreds of thousands.
Joe Dougherty
So when you talk to so people understand see, I mentioned Pat Eiding. He was the head of the Philadelphia Council, AFL-CIO, for years, but he was also the head of the Insulators Union Local 14. And they call it the asbestos workers, and they were in charge of either applying installation or removing it. Okay. And I’m sure there was some labor was also involved, but when you talk about mesothelioma, okay, by the way, that term, when I first learned that term, I couldn’t say it on air.
I would always screw it up. We’ve talked about it so many times. You can’t get through a Cheryl with Pat without ball and you know he doesn’t have, due to mesothelioma because they didn’t know back, Pat’s 80-82 I believe so when he actually came into you know the union insulators union local 14, they didn’t have all this research.
They were out there doing their thing. There was dust everywhere. He doesn’t have one person, one person left from his apprentice class. So when you talk about mesothelioma, once you have it, it’s you know, it’s almost if not a death sentence. And, you know, obviously, you talk about ovarian cancer. And so, you know, it’s an incredibly, you know, difficult and painful situation.
Let’s talk about so evidently, J&J was they were hit with, you know, a ton of verdicts for hundreds of millions of dollars. And they recently, you know, withdraw all their talcum powder products from the shelves. Okay. Just recently. Okay. And but they did something and you call it the Texas Two-Step. What did they do in response? Can I take a shot at this? They opened up the coffers and gave the families exactly what they deserved because people died or. No, if you would.
Larry Cohan
I think the answer’s no.
Joe Dougherty
Okay.
Larry Cohan
And, you know, unfortunately, what they tried to do is what some of the other asbestos companies have done, which is declare bankruptcy. And there is a specific piece of legislation designed for asbestos sellers to declare bankruptcy to protect them and allow them to survive if their liabilities exceed their potential ability to pay. So what J&J did was they were in Texas and they filed what’s called the Texas two step filing for bankruptcy in order to that’s a real term.
It is.
Joe Dougherty
Wow.
Larry Cohan
So in order to do it, they take two steps. First, they spin off a small company and they put all their talc products in that company. Step one. Step two, that company then declares bankruptcy. All of a sudden you have a little company declaring bankruptcy, saying, we can’t afford these liabilities. We’re just a little talc company, even though they’re part of the multinational JNJ enterprise
What happened after they did that was the bankruptcy case was transferred from North Carolina up to New Jersey, which is the hub of talc litigation. The bankruptcy judge in New Jersey said, You know what, they should be in bankruptcy court. I can get these cases resolved. The plaintiffs bar wasn’t so happy because on behalf of victims, those victims have now been denied the right to a jury trial and they’re being denied that right by a company that’s worth hundreds of billions of dollars that has more than enough money to satisfy their obligations.
It went up to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and very recently the Third Circuit said, no, this company has sufficient assets. They can meet their obligations. We’re not going to allow them to file for bankruptcy. And the bankruptcy was thrown out. They appealed that. They asked for reconsideration. And just yesterday, wow. Literally one day ago, the court said, nope, we’re not letting you reconsider. We’re not reconsidering. And they’re throwing it back to the trial court.
Joe Dougherty
So having said that, is there any higher courts then than there that they can take it to?
Larry Cohan
There’s always a potential that you can petition for cert to the Supreme Court of the United States. It would be my belief and the belief of most of us doing this litigation that they are not going to hear this case. This is a discretionary decision not only by the Third Circuit, but also by the lower courts. Why would you give somebody who has hundreds of billions of dollars the right to protect themselves from pain victims by being in the bankruptcy court?
Joe Dougherty
Okay. So that is great news. Now, they’re not still on the – In other words, you said they pulled the products. Okay. They’re still not on the shelf, correct? – Okay.
Larry Cohan
Correct – you can’t buy.
Joe Dougherty
So how come? How would people know? Okay. Because this is a real how does somebody and how do you prove but just say my wife. And you know what’s interesting and by the way, I just want to let everybody know you’re listening to the Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky on WWDB. We’re talking to Larry Cohan.
Who’s a partner here at the firm and we’re talking toxic torts. We talked Camp Lejeune and now we’re talking about the JNJ talcum powder case and, you know what happens here what to me when I start thinking about these situations, I think about the essence of the people that we love. Okay. And our own children and our own families and and people who are, you know, really paying the highest sacrifice in Camp Lejeune.
And then our children you know, you think that you’re safe and yet we’re in a sense, rubbing up poison on our children’s bodies and our and by the way, I mean and mostly women and their genital area, but also, you know, men as well. I mean, we’ve all used a JNJ talcum powder at one point in time and it’s actually in Syria and in their situation.’
Okay. They’ve been – these cases have been filed for a long time. And so it’s infuriating. But how do you prove and what’s the statute of limitations? How do you prove that that is what caused your cancer?
Larry Cohan
Yup. Good questions. And I am with you 100%. When we think about our families and our children, you know, you mentioned Pat Eiding and Local 14. Yeah. In 1981, 42 years ago, I tried my first case of mesothelioma in front of a jury and it was a local 14 insulator.
Joe Dougherty
Wow.
Larry Cohan
And I will not till the day I die forget that man, his wife and their whole family. They were fighting and they fought. We got some good compensation. But as you said, mesothelioma is a vicious disease. And his life was not long after I met him.
Joe Dougherty
Absolutely.
Larry Cohan
So how do you prove it? Interestingly, even though the law is tough and you have to have lawyers to fight these fights in the world of asbestos and talc, it’s the individual, him or herself, who has to testify and say, I worked with those asbestos products. I’ll never forget that gentleman sitting in the – he wasn’t even in the courtroom.
We had him videotape in a hospital bed because he was dying. Who testified about the products that he worked with. Women can testify about having used health products. Unfortunately, if people pass before they seek a lawyer, we have to rely on family members, friends and coworkers, and that’s how we do it. If we can’t get that, we can’t prove the case.
Joe Dougherty
And as it come down to often, you know, a credibility like, in other words, that somebody need receipts. I mean, who saves the receipts from years and years and years worth of, you know, use of different products that we use every day?
Larry Cohan
I see receipts are not required. Oh, they’re helpful. If you, you know, shopped at Rite Aid for the last 20 years, remember in the era of computers. You can actually produce, because most of us use our credit cards or we have accounts with these drug stores. You could produce receipts and you could prove that you purchased the product not required.
Joe Dougherty
Okay. Well, that’s and where are we, you know, at that point with this particular case? And how can people if they feel like they’ve been impacted by it or a loved one has, how can they, you know, find out?
Larry Cohan
So, you know, we’re not seeing the ads on TV that we were a few years.
Joe Dougherty
What’s the statute of limitations on this?
Larry Cohan
It’s two years in Pennsylvania and in most states it’s a year to three years. Most states have a very clear statute for these things, but something called the discovery rule applies. So until you get the disease, even if you had exposure for decades, you don’t have a statute of limitations running on you. You get two years from diagnosis.
But if you had no way of knowing the connection, if you saw an ad on TV and it said Talc causes ovarian cancer. If no doctor ever told you and you had no reason to know that you may be able to collect and have a statute of limitations, hold out and protect you under this discovery rule.
Joe Dougherty
And again, if they have any questions about that, they can contact the firm.
Larry Cohan
Contact us here at Saltz Mongeluzzi and Bendesky. Larry Cohan heads up the team. We’re here and ready and willing to help.
Joe Dougherty
And there’s no cost out-of-pocket costs for that?
Larry Cohan
Not at all.
Joe Dougherty
Before we move forward to the PFAS conversation, is that the same with the Camp Lejeune situation, with the statute of limitations? Imagine if somebody was a young person and ended up getting that you know those forms of diseases, now let’s just say that they served in the military in 1980 they spent time there. What’s it from in the 50s to the 80s. Is it 81 or is it?
Larry Cohan
87
Joe Dougherty
Okay. So let’s just say that could be that’s right in my wheelhouse. So imagine I get out of high school in 82, I end up going into the service and that’s where I am. But I don’t get cancer. And, you know, the type of cancers that are, you know, obviously people are getting until recently this despite statute of limitations.
Does it start when I get that disease or does it start in August of 2022 and it’s over 20 August two, 2024, no matter what?
Larry Cohan
Yep, good question. It starts in August of 2022, right. Congress only created a two year window.
Joe Dougherty
Right. So that’s why these commercials are important to everybody, right? Because awareness needs to be out there.
Larry Cohan
Yeah. We would have liked to have seen an open ended if you ever develop a problem.
Joe Dougherty
Right.
Larry Cohan
We’re hoping that perhaps someday there is a fund created for people who develop cancers down the road years and years down the road. But remember, we’re 40 to 70 years out from those exposures. Most individuals under the concept of latency have had their exposures. They’ve had plenty of time to develop those diseases, and most of them have.
Joe Dougherty
Right.
Larry Cohan
There will be some folks who develop disease ten or 20 years from now. They may not have rights.
Joe Dougherty
Got you. No it makes sense. Okay, so let’s segway powerful discussion and conversation. Let’s talk about PFAS, which is a chemical in a large series of chemicals which have varying applications in an industry, a creation of products and in the development of other chemicals used and variety of products are talk about it. Where are we would it talk about the cases?
Larry Cohan
Yep. You know, it’s interesting. We’re talking about other major topics that people are now familiar with Camp Lejeune, talc specialties, other chemical exposures, PFAS is something that most people hear it and they’re like, What is that? You don’t know what that is
Joe Dougherty
I’ve not Only not heard it, I didn’t even know how to say it for crying out loud.
Larry Cohan
Exactly. It’s P F A S or P F O S either one. The technical chemical terms are not particularly important for the average person. However, I have a couple predictions. One, everybody in America will know the word PFAS in a couple of years, just like they know the word asbestos and they’re worried about it. Everybody’s going to know about PFAS.
Joe Dougherty
Well, it’s interesting, though, because I’ll tell you, you’re right about that. And I know because the information you sent me. Okay, preparing. Okay. In a paper recently, you saw about the Phillies, that, you know, Tug McGraw and a lot of the other Phillies had died of cancer that played at the vet. And this may be related.
Larry Cohan
It might be. And we can talk about that specifically. It’s a fascinating article that I do want to comment on. Sure. But before I do, PFAS is a chemical that was created many, many years ago, back in the sixties by our chemical industry that is trying and was trying to make products to serve people to use in plastics and solvents and foams.
And it has good uses. What we didn’t bother to stop and study is what happens to it in the environment, what happens to it when people drink it, get it on their skin, inhale it. And what we now know is that PFAS is a forever chemical. That’s the phrase that’s being applied. It lasts in the environment. It’s not biodegradable.
It gets in the body and it stays there for a long time. It disrupts the system, it creates mutation. It leads to cancer. We now know this. It’s one of those chemicals that is now considered to be ubiquitous. Pervasive. It’s everywhere and unfortunately people will learn this soon. Not only was it used in the firefighting foam, which is the big part of the case today.
Yeah, we have big federal mass tort toxic tort litigation called an MDL, a MULTI DISTRICT litigation. And I’m on the steering committee nationally for that litigation. That’s about the firefighting foam used all over the country and the PFAS in the foam. And what it does is it smothers a fire. So if there’s a fuel fire, an airplane, a refinery, and you need to put it out, this is great foam.
Unfortunately, the foam then sinks into the earth, goes right into the water table, and it stays there forever and people drink it. So regular filtration systems in municipal water supplies don’t get rid of PFAS. Right here in Bucks and Montgomery County, Horsham, Warminster, Warrington, communities we know here in the Philadelphia area their water supplies were contaminated heavily with PFAS because these communities all border the military bases in Horsham and Willow Grove where they used firefighting foam to train and to teach people how to put out fuel fires.
Joe Dougherty
Well, I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but there’s a case, we did several labor shows on this, but there’s a fireman dying right now. Okay. And the city was – we got a call that they were denying his worker’s compensation or I think the insurance – you know and the whole situation – I got a call from Councilman David but I don’t want it.
We also got obviously the firefighters union they’re actually, you know, going through cases in regards to the foam that they’re using right now. I’m wondering, obviously, if they should also be in touch with you guys, because this is a massive situation here.
Larry Cohan
Well, as you probably could see from the materials I gave you., we represent hundreds of firefighters, okay. Absolutely. Yeah. You know, the water authorities that provide the water to people have and I represent Warrington, Warminster and Horsham water authorities because they’ve spent tens of millions of dollars trying to clean up the mess from these chemical companies. Foam. We also represent local residents who have cancers that we believe are traced to this and the firefighters themselves use the foam who, you know, firefighters are great public servants.
They take great risk. And so they expose themselves to chemicals and carcinogens and almost everything they do unknown things in the homes and buildings where they’re fighting fires. We now know that the very product they’re using to put out some of these fires contains a deadly chemical.
Joe Dougherty
Incredible. And are they still using it?
Larry Cohan
Well, essentially, no. What they’ve done is they’ve taken out what is the most dangerous type of PFAS there are many, many forms of PFAS. There are some that are far less dangerous, less carcinogenic. They’re still using some of them, but the one is called a C8, which is the most carcinogenic has been pulled. Nobody is really using it in America.
Joe Dougherty
Have you spoken to local 22 here?
Larry Cohan
I am sure that we represent many of their members.
Joe Dougherty
Okay. I was going to say that’s a call, by the way I’m making the second I leave here. We’ve done a lot of shows with them and the fight to get benefits. You know, we’re cop, I believe, or forget exactly what they were. But you know Richie Lazer, I don’t know if you know Richie, but Richie was the city’s deputy mayor and he jumped in there and really helped out a lot.
But so, you know, absolutely, you know, it was infuriating. We were actually going to dedicate a two hour show to it and bring in firefighters and family members. And so it’s just incredible.
Larry Cohan
You know, the thing, Joe, we can’t underestimate, though, the difficulty of making the proofs. Establishing –
Joe Dougherty
How do you do that? What’s that process like?
Larry Cohan
You know, firefighters in a worker’s comp context have I don’t want to say it’s an easy road. It is not. Yeah, but we know that they’ve had exposures to multiple carcinogens and a firefighter who gets a cancer that we know is caused by carcinogens in the environment or in their workplace where they’re putting fires out. Can have experts establish that connection for them.
Joe Dougherty
Kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid cancer and other conditions.
Larry Cohan
But relating their cancers to PFAS specifically because there’s so many other chemicals that can cause those things, is very difficult.
Joe Dougherty
And the insurance companies that you’re going after are not going to just sit there and-
Larry Cohan
Exactly
Joe Dougherty
We all know that.
Larry Cohan
They’re not lying down, they want to fight.
Joe Dougherty
Right. You know, as obvious as it seems, okay, even in places where you can make a direct connection, something fell off a building and hit somebody and broke off or something. You know, they’re fighting to the death for it, you know, for lack of a better term. This obviously is. Well, how do you represent them and what do you do, you know, obviously, to win those cases?
Larry Cohan
Well, like I said, with respect to some of the other chemical cases, we have to have a team of experts. We not only have to have all their medical records evaluated by our medical professionals, but we also have to have epidemiologists, people who measure the statistics of science and medicine exposures and what they cause and how often they cause it.
We have to get certified industrial hygienists to measure the route of exposure and the magnitude of exposure in each occupation, whether it be firefighter or resident. Drinking water. Yeah. How much water do you drink? How much PFAS is in your water? What are the readings in your well or in your public source? Catch this. Just a few years ago, when we started in the PFAS litigation, there was no government measure of how much force you could be exposed to.
In 2016, the EPA said, We’re going to publish a health advisory level, a HAL of 70 parts per billion, and if the levels exceed that, you have to shut down the water. And then our suppliers in Bucks County, Montgomery County up here found levels exceeding 70 parts per billion, shut down their water and they’re piping it into 100,000 homes.
Joe Dougherty
Now, I understand, toxic torts.
Larry Cohan
You know what – Exactly.
Joe Dougherty
The expertise that I was going to say. I mean, understanding, obviously, the chemistry and the medicine.
Larry Cohan
You know, what 70 parts per billion is.
Joe Dougherty
I can not.
Larry Cohan
Take an Olympic swimming pool in an eyedropper and put it drop it. And that’s how little quantity of this PFAS stuff it takes to cause contamination.
Joe Dougherty
I can only imagine how many calls you get from other attorneys and other firms, you know, asking about that, you know, I mean, I know that one of the things about the firm, about Saltz, Mongeluzzi Bendesky is a year ago too from for so many other firms to refer cases because you have the resources to fight the big the J&J’s the big companies where and people by the way, listeners don’t all know that.
Joe Dougherty
In other words so you go to a you know, the term lawyers is, you know, there’s a wide array of lawyers and firms but having that resource to do that research and I’m assuming that I mean, you’ve been doing this so long that at the beginning it was you know, I mean, you, Larry, sitting there going, okay, that’s where’s the science to any of this?
Larry Cohan
Exactly.
Joe Dougherty
I mean, and how many, 30, 30 some years. I mean.
Larry Cohan
I’m afraid to say 43 years.
Joe Dougherty
40 well you look so darn good.
Larry Cohan
Thank you. Thank you.
Joe Dougherty
You look like a kid for crying out loud Oh, hey.
Larry Cohan
Now, just recently, the EPA, the federal government, said we’re going to lower that limit from 70 down to four parts per billion, meaning we’ve now decided that even less exposure can cause cancer. That’s why I say to you that America is going to be getting a wakeup call, slowly but surely, and recognizing that this PFAS at that level is in water across the country.
Joe Dougherty
So we only have a couple of minutes left.
Larry Cohan
Yeah.
Joe Dougherty
Can we touch base on that on Astroturf thing and, A couple of minutes on that.
Larry Cohan
Yeah, yeah.
Joe Dougherty
And I say that because I’m wondering because you see all the Phillies that have died, you know, Vukovic obviously a Tug McGraw. Yeah. How does that relate?
Larry Cohan
Five Phillies passed away as a result of brain cancers. They’ve established that there was some PFAS in that Astroturf which by the way PFAS is in – you know, those boxes you get your take out food in those cardboard boxes, you can have nice greasy food in those boxes and the grease doesn’t go through the box. Think about it. You know what prevents it from going through PFAS?
PFAS is like that seal that seals the fire, seals the grease going through the box. You’re eating PFAS when you get those takeout boxes. So it’s everywhere. And, you know.
Joe Dougherty
Why aren’t they taking it off the market for crying out loud?
Larry Cohan
Well, they are. They are. But it’s now coming out of these commercial products as people are becoming aware of it. They have them in stock. You know, they’ve got to get rid of them. And they didn’t recognize the dangers until recently. And I say they, you know, you’re McDonald’s or whoever you’re buying your food. Didn’t recognize that the chemical companies did.
That’s why they’re being sued. Unfortunately, the five individuals that had brain cancer, that’s a stretch, because right now the medical literature doesn’t establish a connection between deafness and brain cancer. Sure, the connections have already been established in connection with mostly drinking water and dermal exposures, which lead to the kidney cancers, testis testicular cancer. We don’t know about any connection yet to brain cancer.
We also haven’t established, like I told you we need to, the root of exposure and the quantity of exposure. How much exposure does a baseball player have? Right, running across Astroturf, standing on a dirt pitcher’s mound? Yeah. You know, and even when they slide, baseball players are sliding on the dirt. You know, the outfielder might dive onto the grass. What’s the amount of exposure they’re getting?
Joe Dougherty
Right
Larry Cohan
It hasn’t been measured yet. Let alone tested and proven.
Joe Dougherty
Exactly, So we have about a minute and a half left. I want to make sure, did we know that we cover everything?
Larry Cohan
I recommend everybody. A movie called Dark Waters. It’s available on demand. It was on HBO last month. I don’t know if I can advertise for HBO here. People should watch it. It’s highly entertaining. It’s a two hour – It’s not a documentary. This is a fun, little depressing movie that talks about the history of the PFAS litigation. Wow. And the guy who discovered the claim out in West Virginia, a guy named Rob Bilott, is a lawyer who I’m working with now on the litigation.
And the movie tells the story of how DuPont dumped PFAS and it began to affect local farms and produce and cows. And then people began to get sick. You know, watch the movie. You’ll learn about PFAS. It’ll get you a little worried.
Joe Dougherty
It’s called Dark Waters?
Larry Cohan
Yeah. And by the way, it’s Mark Ruffalo and Anne Hathaway. So there’s great actors it’s entertaining. Yep.
Joe Dougherty
It’s a big time movie. Reminds me a little bit of Erin Brockovich, you know, not obviously the same thing. But I’m saying that was a really good movie. It’s one of my favorite movies and it’s another situation where drinking water was compromised by chemicals and all that. Yup. Larry Awesome show, man.
Larry Cohan
Joe my pleasure, man.
Joe Dougherty
Man fantastic. You know, you set me up the interview basically did itself. I want to thank everybody for tuning into the Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky hour here on WWDB talk 860. We want to thank our co-host Larry Cohan partner here at Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky. On behalf of Larry on behalf of everybody at the firm, I’m Joe Daugherty.
Thanks for listening, everybody.