Destiny Clark v. Monsanto et al

No description
Final judgment
United States, County of Los Angeles

Destiny Clark, on behalf of her son Ezra Clark, minor
Paul R. Kiesel, Melanie Palmer, Fletcher V. Trammel, Melissa Binstock Ephron, William D. Shapiro, Brian D. Shapiro, Matthew D. Shapiro

Civil court
Herbicide, Roundup, Glyphosate
Compensatory damages, economic damages in the form of medical expenses, punitive and/or exemplary damages for the wanton, willful, fraudulent, and reckless acts of the defendants, plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees, the costs of these proceedings.
Superior Court of the State of California of County of Los Angeles, United States

October 5, 2021
In a 9 to 3 decision, the jury found that the child’s personal exposure to Roundup was not enough to be a “substantial factor” in the development of his Burkitt’s lymphoma.
No description

Minor Ezra Clark has been directly exposed to Roundup when accompanying his mother, Destiny Clark, as she sprayed Roundup to control weeds at the family’s residence and when he played in areas that had been freshly sprayed by family members. On February 29, 2016 at the age of 4, Plaintiff was diagnosed with Burkitt’s lymphoma, a rare and aggressive form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (“NHL”). After performing a differential diagnosis following a review of Ezra’s medical history, Plaintiff’s experts have concluded, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Ezra’s exposure to Roundup was a substantial factor in causing his NHL. Had Plaintiff known of the risk of NHL associated with the use of Roundup at the time she read the Roundup label prior to starting to use Roundup, she would not have used it. Trial begins on Sept. 13, 2021. Unlike previous Roundup cases, this one was subject to a bifurcation order that organized the case into two phases. The first phase was limited to presenting evidence that focused on the child’s personal exposure to Roundup and whether or not it was enough to be a “substantial factor” in his development of Burkitt’s lymphoma. In a 9 to 3 decision, the jury found that it was not. The case would have proceeded to a second phase had the plaintiff won the first phase, but the loss in the first phases ends the trial. The plaintiff’s lawyers may decide to appeal the judgement.