MASS TORTS & PUBLIC IMPACT
When a drug, device, or course of corporate conduct harms many people, the evidence can be enormous: clinical studies, internal correspondence, regulatory records, and years of company decisions. Effective advocacy requires command of that shared record and attention to the people and communities whose claims depend on it.
Eric Lindenfeld’s experience includes nationwide pharmaceutical and medical-device litigation, Minnesota’s trial against JUUL and Altria, and state and federal opioid proceedings. Lindenfeld Law brings that background to substantial product-liability and public-impact cases, with a senior trial lawyer directly responsible for the evidence, strategy, and work.
The work
Drug cases bring scientific evidence, warnings, marketing, and individual medical histories together. Eric’s prior representations include patients in Abilify, Benicar, and Farxiga litigation. We examine how the evidence about a medicine connects with the alleged injury and with the decisions made by the companies involved.
A product claim can depend on technical evidence and corporate records that an injured person could never obtain alone. Eric’s experience includes defective hip-implant litigation and complex claims against 3M. We investigate the product, the company’s conduct, and the evidence needed to explain the connection to the harm.
Widespread harm can require a case that explains both individual decisions and a larger business strategy. Eric has represented government plaintiffs in opioid proceedings and Tribal Nations pursuing social-media claims. That experience informs our work examining the relationship between corporate conduct, public-health evidence, and community consequences.
Related claims may share company documents, scientific issues, and pretrial work while retaining important individual differences. Eric’s experience developing legal strategy in national mass-tort proceedings informs how we identify common evidence, coordinate complex litigation, and keep the facts of a particular claim visible within a much larger case.
Our approach
We start with the central questions: what conduct is challenged, what the evidence can establish, and how it connects to the claimed harm. We then build the record around those questions. Scientific and technical material must be assessed carefully and explained in language a court or jury can follow.
Eric personally directs the work. Advanced litigation tools help organize large records and locate connections across documents; legal judgment guides what those connections mean. Whether a matter proceeds individually or alongside related cases, the strategy should serve the client’s claim and the evidence needed to support it.
Our approach to advocacy and feesExperience
Selected experience of Eric Lindenfeld at prior firms, with other counsel.
View Eric’s experienceProsecuted Minnesota’s case against JUUL and Altria through three weeks of trial, culminating in a $60.5 million settlement.
Developed legal strategy for government plaintiffs in the first federal opioid MDL bellwether proceedings against major distributors and Teva, coordinating complex legal issues across the national litigation.
Represented patients in the Benicar litigation over severe intestinal injuries, which resolved through a $358 million global settlement.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Food and Drug Law Journal · 2020
The Supreme Court’s Albrecht decision and the evidence required to establish pharmaceutical preemption.
View publicationFood and Drug Law Journal · 2017
An examination of preemption disputes involving branded medicines, warning claims, and design defects.
View publicationUMKC Law Review · 2016
Responsibility for defective medical devices created through additive manufacturing.
View publicationDrake Law Review · 2016
Prescription-drug design liability and the policy arguments surrounding categorical immunity.
View publicationMarquette Benefits and Social Welfare Law Review · 2016
A proposed compensation framework addressing contraceptive innovation and unintended pregnancy.
View publicationSouthwestern Law Review · 2015
Generic-drug claims, federal preemption, and the consequences for injured consumers.
View publicationYale Journal of Law & Technology, The Record · 2015
Applying product-liability principles to medical-device designs and the emerging 3D-printing supply chain.
View publicationQuestions
They are different ways of handling related claims. In mass-tort litigation, injured people commonly pursue individual claims that may share coordinated pretrial work. A class action uses named plaintiffs to seek relief for a defined group. The appropriate structure depends on the claims and the differences among them.
Existing lawsuits can identify an issue worth examining, but each potential claim needs its own assessment. The product or exposure, medical history, injury, and relevant records all matter. An advertisement or report about a case does not establish what happened in an individual situation.
The product’s name, when it was used, and a summary of the injury and treatment are useful starting points. Prescriptions, device information, purchase records, and communications may also help. We can discuss what is available and which additional records would clarify the potential claim.
Your lawyer
A senior trial lawyer stays close to the facts and takes direct responsibility for the work. Discuss your dispute, your priorities, and the practical path forward with Eric.