Depo-Provera MDL-3140 Daubert Hearing Proceeds Despite Pfizer's Partial Settlement
The July 27, 2026 general-causation Daubert hearing in In re Depo-Provera (Medroxyprogesterone Acetate) Prod. Liab. Litig., MDL-3140 (N.D. Fla., Judge M. Casey Rodgers), held as scheduled despite a tentative Pfizer global settlement announced June 15, 2026. That agreement covers approximately 3,400 of the 5,508 total plaintiffs in the MDL as of June 2026, but compensation amounts remain sealed. Judge Rodgers confirmed the hearing was 'vital' because the global deal will not resolve all pending cases.
Each side fielded five general causation experts on the question of whether Depo-Provera biologically causes meningioma brain tumors. Plaintiffs challenged Pfizer's defense experts as improperly minimizing the causal link. A ruling adverse to plaintiffs on general causation would threaten dismissal of unsettled claims regardless of individual case strength, making the outcome the single most consequential gatekeeping decision pending in pharmaceutical mass tort this season.
Firms holding meningioma cases outside the approximately 3,400 covered by the tentative settlement face a binary pressure point: evaluate causation evidence quality now, before any opt-in or opt-out deadline, or risk having a defense Daubert win preempt individual trials entirely.
Bar takeaway: Firms with unsettled Depo-Provera meningioma cases must audit expert witness quality against the MDL-3140 general causation record before any settlement opt-in or opt-out window closes.
Prince George's County Jury Returns $71.39 Million Verdict in Fire-Escape Injury Case
In Godlove Djapa v. [defendant], Prince George's County Circuit Court (Md.), a jury awarded $71.39 million to a plaintiff who suffered spinal fractures, broken ribs, permanent brain damage, and paralysis from the chest down after jumping from a second-floor apartment window during a fire. The damages block spanned future medical care, lost earning capacity, and noneconomic harm. DK Law's 2026 national verdict tracker lists this among the top single-plaintiff Maryland personal injury verdicts on record for the year.
The verdict illustrates two pressure points for defense counsel and carriers operating in Maryland: the state's lack of a statutory cap on noneconomic damages in standard personal injury actions, and the outsized exposure that results when catastrophic injury combines with young plaintiffs whose lost-earning-capacity calculations extend over a long actuarial period. Medical providers treating plaintiffs in similar catastrophic cases should note that liens on a $71M verdict are an entirely different collection calculus than liens on a mid-six-figure settlement.
Bar takeaway: Maryland's absence of a noneconomic damages cap in non-med-mal PI cases continues to produce eight-figure verdicts; carriers should benchmark reserve methodology against 2026 verdict data in the DK Law tracker.
California Appellate Court Enforces $3.28 Million Fee Award After Client Ratified Unauthorized Settlement
Chong v. Mardirossian Akaragian LLP, Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist., No. B341157 (decided January 8, 2026), resolved a fee dispute that will recalibrate how California firms document settlement authority. The court affirmed a $3,284,151.19 fee award to the terminated plaintiff firm: $2,761,380.29 representing a 45 percent contingency on a $6,015,000 settlement, plus $522,770.90 in prejudgment interest.
The key legal holding: a client's voluntary ratification of a settlement reached without express authorization retroactively validates the act and obligates the full contingency fee. Plaintiff Christopher Chong argued economic duress, but the court rejected that defense on the ground that Chong freely chose between accepting the settlement and proceeding to trial. Net recovery to Chong after the fee award: approximately $2,149,000.
The case turns on document hygiene. If the engagement letter or case file does not contain a signed, written grant of settlement authority at a specific floor amount, the firm is exposed to exactly this kind of post-settlement fee dispute, one that may survive even if the client claims the settlement was unauthorized. The 2d District's ratification analysis will be the primary authority California PI bar cites in fee-dispute arbitrations statewide.
Bar takeaway: California PI firms should add explicit, signed settlement-authority thresholds to every contingency engagement letter; verbal authority is insufficient protection under the Chong ratification framework.
Fourth Circuit Gatekeeping Standard in Near v. Enerco Group, Cert Petition Forthcoming
Near v. Enerco Group, Inc., 4th Cir., No. 25-1375 (decided July 17, 2026), involved a decedent who died from burns sustained when clothing ignited near an Enerco portable propane tank-top heater. The Fourth Circuit's ruling addressed expert admissibility in the product-liability personal injury context. Mealey's reported that in a companion case, the parties are preparing a cert petition arguing that the Fourth Circuit's expert admissibility framework requires Supreme Court resolution.
A separate but related development: Mealey's also flagged the Fourth Circuit reversing a district court that required a plaintiff expert to specifically link injuries to a fall, finding the lower court applied too strict a gatekeeping standard. Read together, the circuit is calibrating the gatekeeping threshold in both directions: too loose a standard opens the door to speculative causation; too strict a standard improperly excludes reliable methodology. Practitioners in Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia should treat the current Fourth Circuit framework as unsettled until either the circuit issues en banc clarification or the Supreme Court takes the companion case.
Bar takeaway: PI firms in the Fourth Circuit should build dual-track expert disclosure strategies that satisfy both the current circuit standard and a potentially tighter post-cert framework if SCOTUS grants review in the companion case.
MDL Lien Exposure and Provider-Side Considerations in Depo-Provera Settlements
The Depo-Provera MDL's split settlement pool creates a specific administrative wrinkle for medical providers holding treatment liens against plaintiffs. Approximately 3,400 plaintiffs are in the tentative global settlement; the remaining 2,100-plus are not. Compensation amounts on settling cases are sealed, which means lien holders cannot yet calculate recovery ratios or negotiate reductions with certainty.
Providers participating in the LawyersTrend lien directory who have treated meningioma patients referred from plaintiff firms in the MDL pipeline should take two steps now: confirm with referring counsel whether each patient's case is in the settling cohort or the unsettled cohort, and document current lien balances against the medical records that support general causation, because those records may become relevant to the Daubert dispute if the causation fight continues into 2027.
The Virginia defense verdict in Stuart v. The Cardiovascular Group, P.C., Fairfax County Circuit Court (decided July 6, 2026), provides a separate data point for providers. The plaintiff alleged coronary sinus vein perforation during cardiac catheterization requiring rescue open-heart surgery; the jury sided with the defense. Defense verdicts in complex procedure cases reduce lien recovery to zero when no alternative defendant remains. Providers extending credit to plaintiffs in high-defense-verdict states on complex procedure claims bear real collection risk.
Provider takeaway: Lien holders in the Depo-Provera MDL pipeline should confirm settlement cohort status per case and maintain complete medical records, as general causation documentation may be litigated into 2027 for unsettled plaintiffs.
Sixth Circuit Parens Patriae Test: State AGs Appeal MDL Pool Exclusion in RealPage Litigation
Five state attorneys general (Kentucky, Washington, New Jersey, Maryland, and the District of Columbia) filed an appeal on July 22, 2026 in the Sixth Circuit, challenging a district court order that blocked them from sharing in the MDL settlement pool alongside private plaintiffs in the RealPage rent-collusion litigation. The core question is a parens patriae standing test: whether a state AG, having joined a mass-tort MDL as a co-plaintiff, retains the right to participate in settlement proceeds structured primarily for individual claimants.
The outcome will affect mass-tort litigation strategy nationally. If the Sixth Circuit holds that AGs are entitled to a pool share, it incentivizes state AG offices to join MDLs at the earliest stage to secure allocation rights. If the court upholds the exclusion, plaintiff co-counsel will need to negotiate AG participation rights explicitly in any consolidation agreement, which would constitute a structural change to MDL formation practice. The Sixth Circuit has not yet set an argument date.
Bar takeaway: Firms co-counseling with state AG offices in MDL litigation should explicitly negotiate and memorialize AG pool-share rights in any consolidation or settlement agreement before the Sixth Circuit resolves the RealPage standing question.