Fifty-five Nevada women bringing claims against Dow Chemical, the parent company of the now-bankrupt silicone breast implant manufacturer Dow Corning, won a major victory last week. But in the miry battleground of appeals courts, even a big victory can leave the victors feeling uncertain.
The case, Nevada Claimants v. Dow Chemical, has been trudging its way through the courts for the last six years. Originally, thousands of women—400,000, in fact—claimed that they suffered from a multitude of symptoms stemming from their silicone breast implants. They sued Dow Corning, but before any money changed hands Dow Corning declared bankruptcy. This left the women two choices: take the settlement allotted by Dow Corning’s Plan of Reorganization—much less than they had been seeking—or fight Dow Corning’s gigantic, non-bankrupt parent company, Dow Chemical. A group of Nevada women chose to fight under the representation of Reno law firm White and Meany.
Years passed. After a district court decision limited the women to the recovery provided in Dow Corning’s plan, the women appealed to the 6th Circuit Court, which reinstated their suit against Dow Chemical on Jan. 29, says Reno attorney John White.
But not unconditionally. The recent decision stands only if the bankruptcy court finds that Dow Corning’s bankruptcy reorganization plan will not be affected, and that Dow Chemical contributed a substantial amount of money to the reorganization plan.
White says that if the bankruptcy court does determine that this reinstatement will interfere with Dow Corning’s reorganization plan—which will in turn prevent the women from continuing with the suit—they will appeal once again, taking the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“We’re very pleased with the decision of the 6th Circuit Court, because it rests against Dow Chemical,” White says. “It’s a necessary victory. It’s been six years, and we don’t think we should have to [take this further].”
But White says that his clients certainly will take it further, if they must.
“Some think that the women brought it on themselves,” White says. “We think they have been grievously injured by callous corporations.”
He adds that the significance of the case reaches far beyond the dollar signs involved. It’s a matter of states’ rights—a matter of Nevada’s right to have its own cause-of-action laws.
“For me, the most important thing is not the litigation, one way or another,” he says. “The real issue is whether Nevada, as a sovereign state, can have its own rules, or whether the federal government can come in and make one rule for everybody. It’s the rights that poor people have against multi-national corporations that are really at issue.”