Carson v. Monsanto

4:17-cv-00237-RSB-CLR // 21- 10994
December 5, 2017
Final judgment
United States

Individuals
John D. Carson
Monsanto
Ashleigh R. Madison

Civil court
Herbicide, Glyphosate, Roundup
Acknowledgement of Monsanto's responsibility for the plaintiff's MFH; damages to be determined by a fair and impartial jury.
United-States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, United States
Appellate (Appeal) Court

July 12, 2022
Positive
The appellate court reversed the portion of the trial court's ruling that Carson's claim was preempted because the EPA had approved the product's label. It considers, among other issues, that Congress has left a great deal of latitude for state regulation in the FIFRA context, and that EPA's "registration process is not formal enough to have the force of law."
National law

John Carson filed a lawsuit against Monsanto in 2017 after contracting malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) due to his exposure to Roundup for 30 years. His case was treated outside of the other Roundup cases because there is less scientific data regarding the link between Roundup and MFH than between Roundup and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. On December 21, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia ruled in favor of Monsanto, recognizing that Carson's complaint was preempted because the EPA had approved the product's label and that the company had no duty to warn of a cancer risk, but in Carson's favor on allegations of Monsanto's negligence and defective design of Roundup products. Carson appeals. On April 22, 2021, plaintiffs' attorneys in the other Monsanto Roundup lawsuits write to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to inform them that Carson's appeal against Monsanto is being argued in bad faith and warrants an immediate dismissal. Indeed, Monsanto is paying Carson to appeal a decision that Monsanto won in district court because it wants to set a precedent on appeal. On July 12, 2022, the Court of Appeals finds that the requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA") do not preclude the claim of failure to warn, as alleged by the company. It concluded that the requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA") do not bar the failure-to-warn claim. Among other things, the judge argues that Congress has left wide latitude for state regulation in the context of FIFRA, and that EPA's "registration process is not formal enough to have the force of law."