In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation

597 F. Supp. 740, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23337
District Court, E.D. New York·Decided September 25, 1984·No. MDL 381·Published·Cited by 213 cases

Opinion

WEINSTEIN, Chief Judge.

*744 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface and Summary ......................................................................................746

Introduction ____________________________________________________________________________________________________748

I. Procedural History .................................................................................750

A. Jurisdiction .....................................................................................754

B. Conflict of Laws............................................................................... 755

C. Class Action .......................................... 755

D. Status of Third Party Complaints .....................................................757

II. Fairness Hearings ..................................................................................758

A. Legal Requirements ............................................................. 758

B. Reaction of Class Members ..............................................................764

1. Hearings ............................................................................■_......764

a. Need for Medical Help for Veterans and Financial Help for Those Too 111 to Work ..................................................................765

b. Need for Medical and Financial Aid for Children Born with Birth Defects ...............................................................................765

c. Need for Information on Possible Genetic Damage to Veterans and Their Children ..............................................................766

d. Dissatisfaction with the Veterans Administration and the Treatment Received in its Hospitals .............................................766

e. Inadequacy of the Settlement Amount to Pay Adequate Damages 767

f. Failure of Chemical Companies to Admit Fault ..................... 768

g. Failure of Government to Admit Fault, Participate in Settlement and Accept its Responsibility for Caring for Veterans and their Children ............................................................ 768

h. Possibility of a Coverup of Information with Sealed Files and Return of Documents to Defendants ....................................769

i. Need for a Full Open Trial to Vindicate the Plaintiffs and Protect Their Rights to Individual Justice ........................................770

j. Inability to Decide Whether to Accept Settlement Without Knowing How it Would be Distributed and How Much would be Spent in Attorneys’ Fees ................................................................771

k. Inadequate Payment by Defendants Relative to Their Resources 771

l. Inadequate Time to File Claims ...........................................771

m. Need to Settle Now to Get on with Life ..............................771

n. Need for Further Research and Reassurances .......................772

2. Written Communications .............................................................773

III. Factual Problems with Claims ...............................................................775

A. Use of Agent Orange in Vietnam ....................................................775

B. Claimed Effects of Contact with Agent Orange in Vietnam ............... 777

1. General Considerations ..............................‘............................!___777

2. Plaintiffs’ Evidence of Causality .................................................782

C. Scientific Studies on Causality .........................................................787

D. Knowledge of Government and Defendants .......................................795

IV. Legal Problems with Claims ...................................................................799

A. Statutes of Limitations ............................................ 800

1. Introduction ...............................................................................800

2. Standard Multijurisdictional Approach ..........................................800

a. CPLR 202 ........................................................................... 800

b. Application of CPLR 202 to Agent Orange Litigation ............802

c. CPLR 214 ...........................................................................804

*745 3. Single Time-bar Period Based Upon Federal or National Consensus Law ..........................................................................................804

a. Federal Substantive Law .....................................................804

b. National Consensus Law .................................................:____ 804

4. Single Time-bar Period for Class Actions ....................................805

a. General Theory ...................................................................805

b. Federal ...............................................................................806

c. New York .......................................................................... 808

5. Single Time-bar Period for American Veterans Based Upon Interpretation of New York Statute ......................................................... 810

a. Constitutionality ..................................................................811

b. Construing Provisions to Apply to Nonresidents ....................813

6. Wivesland Children ....................................................................815

7. Vietnam Veterans Living Abroad ................................................816

8. Conclusion on Statutes of Limitations .................................... 816

B. Failure to Determine Who Was Harmed and Who Caused Harm ............. 816

1. Facts ........................................................................................817

2. Law ..........................................................................................819

a. The Problem of the Indeterminate Defendant........................ 819

(1) Introduction .................................................................. 819

(2) Applicable Law ............................................................. 820

(a) Enterprise Liability .................................................820

(i) Legal Theory .............................................. 820

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, 597 F. Supp. 740, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23337 (E.D.N.Y. 1984).

597 F. Supp. 740 (In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Pacer International, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2017
Avila v. Abatement Professionals
66 F. Supp. 3d 466 (S.D. New York, 2014)
Boykin v. 1 Prospect Park ALF, LLC
292 F.R.D. 161 (E.D. New York, 2013)
Felix v. Northstar Location Services, LLC
290 F.R.D. 397 (W.D. New York, 2013)
Ehrenhaus v. Baker
717 S.E.2d 9 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2011)
City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
643 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Massachusetts v. Mylan Laboratories
608 F. Supp. 2d 127 (D. Massachusetts, 2008)
Baystate Medical Center v. Leavitt
545 F. Supp. 2d 20 (District of Columbia, 2008)
In Re WorldCom, Inc.
347 B.R. 123 (S.D. New York, 2006)
Isaacson v. Dow Chemical Co.
304 F. Supp. 2d 404 (E.D. New York, 2004)
In Re" Agent Orange" Product Liability Lit.
304 F. Supp. 2d 404 (E.D. New York, 2004)
In re Simon II Litigation
211 F.R.D. 86 (E.D. New York, 2002)
Muhammad v. Warithu-Deen Umar
98 F. Supp. 2d 337 (W.D. New York, 2000)
Hamilton v. Accu-Tek
62 F. Supp. 2d 802 (E.D. New York, 1999)