3M Co. will appeal the latest jury damages award in the ongoing military earplugs litigation in the Northern District of Florida, arguing that the defense was prevented from introducing key evidence in the case.
A jury in Pensacola on Friday sided with plaintiff Jonathan Vaughn, a military veteran who said the 3M combat arms earplugs (CAEv2) caused him hearing loss and tinnitus. The jurors awarded the Colorado resident $2 million for past and future pain and suffering, emotional stress and quality-of-life impairment, plus $200,000 for physical impairment, but the award was reduced to just over $668,000 plus interest under caps contained in a Colorado law.
“We are disappointed in today’s verdict and will appeal,” a 3M statement emailed to the Florida Record states. “We were prevented from presenting relevant evidence to the jury, and we will address that issue, among others, in our appeal of (Friday’s) verdict.”
3M pointed to six previous verdicts in favor of the defense and expressed confidence that the full record of evidence will show that its military earplugs were both safe and effective. In addition, plaintiffs’ attorneys dismissed eight military earplugs cases before they reached the trial stage.
“We look forward to the next and final trial in the bellwether process, where we will continue to defend our record,” the 3M statement says.
As of April 15, there were more than 290,000 cases pending in the 3M multi-district litigation, with potential plaintiffs alleging that they suffered hearing damage due to defectively designed earplugs that were in use for more than 10 years in the U.S. Army, according to the Law Offices of Miller & Zois LLC.
The bellwether, or test, trials in federal court are designed to provide defendants and plaintiffs with an idea of what trial outcomes might be generally expected, providing the parties with data that could help them reach an overall settlement, the law firm said.
The jury in the Vaughn case found 3M was negligent due to an earplug design defect and that the company made false representations, concealed important facts and engaged in deceptive trade practices. The jurors awarded compensatory damages but no punitive damages.