Legal Memorandum: Consolidated Gadolinium Lawsuits

Issue: Nationwide, what is the status of consolidated Gadolinium lawsuits currently in the courts?

Many gadolinium lawsuits have been filed, and a large number have been consolidated in the Northern District of Ohio.  See In re Gadolinium Contrast Dyes Prods. Liab. Litig., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2008); In re Gadolinium Contrast Dyes Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1909 (U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Apr. 16, 2012).  The cases listed therein do not appear to include any Virgin Islands cases.  The earlier decisions deal with the jurisdictional and centralization aspects of the many lawsuits, and not the substance of the plaintiffs’ claims.  Later, however, the court considered evidentiary issues in the gadolinium cases, as well as the defendants’ motions for summary judgment (which were denied), in Decker v. GE Healthcare, Inc. (In re Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents Prods. Liab. Litig.), Nos. 1:08 GD 50000, 1:12 GD 50004, MDL No. 1909, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20706 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 13, 2013) (Polster, J.).  A review of the particulars of that decision may be helpful.  The court also denied the defendant’s motion for an evidentiary hearing in In re Gadolinium Contrast Dyes Prods. Liab. Litig., Nos. 1:08 GD 50000, MDL No. 1909, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43444 (N.D. Ohio May 4, 2010), but it granted the defendant’s motion for reconsideration in part.  See In re Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents Prods. Liab. Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122797 (N.D. Ohio June 18, 2010).

For a brief discussion of the facts surrounding one of the gadolinium lawsuits (but not the outcome), […]