Before taking up a product liability case, attorneys carefully review the plaintiff’s medical records to determine the legitimacy of the case.

1. Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling
Holds New Hope for Tobacco Victims
Before taking up a product liability case, attorneys carefully review the
plaintiff’s medical records to determine the legitimacy of the case.

2. Tobacco use is a dangerous tendency that leads to the development of diseases like lung
cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, periodontal disease and so on. Tobacco is one
of the leading causes of preventable death and disease across the world. It is estimated that it
kills thrice the number of people who fall victims to drugs, alcohol, suicide, homicide and car
crashes. It is through a comprehensive medical record review that evidence is obtained
regarding the specific disease condition of the injured person. Once they develop a serious
condition like lung cancer, smokers can sue the tobacco industry. Before taking up such a case,
product liability attorneys carefully review the plaintiff’s medical records to determine the
legitimacy of the case. Medical record review for attorneys is a valuable service many of them
make use of in this regard to save the time and resources they would have to invest if this task
is done in-house. If the case has solid grounds, they file a lawsuit on the plaintiff’s behalf for
damages for medical and other economic costs and pain and suffering.
A Recent Development
Ctlawtribune.com recently highlighted the case of a Norwich woman who developed cancer
after years of smoking Salem cigarettes. As the report says, she is one step closer to collecting
a $28 million judgment against the tobacco manufacturer R.J Reynolds. The Connecticut
Supreme Court ruled that lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers are not prohibited by an
exemption in Connecticut’s tort liability law. Legal experts see this as a welcome move on the
part of the Supreme Court that wanted to ensure that the courthouse doors remained open to
plaintiffs who can prove their case. Moreover, this ruling also makes sure that manufacturers
don’t escape from liability.
The Norwich woman started smoking Salem cigarettes from her early teens and smoked
heavily for more than 20 years. At age 36, she was diagnosed with larynx cancer, following
which she underwent total laryngectomy, radiation and chemotherapy treatments. Now she
cannot breathe through her nose or mouth, and uses a tube in her throat. She can consume
only soft foods. This case is very significant because it is the first smoker’s lawsuit against a
tobacco company to go to trial in Connecticut, and the first jury verdict against a tobacco
company in New England. A main characteristic of this lawsuit is that it is a strict liability claim
under the Connecticut Product Liability Act, to prove which the plaintiff must demonstrate
that a product was in a defective condition and unreasonably dangerous to the user.
(800) 670 2809 www.mosmedicalrecordreview.com info@managedoutsource.com

3. The case sequence is as follows.
 After a month long trial in April and May 2010, the jury awarded the woman $13.6
million in damages, maintaining that Salem cigarettes were “unreasonably dangerous”
and defectively designed. The company had acted with reckless disregard for the safety
of users.
 The jurors however attributed 42% of the responsibility to the Norwich woman, and this
reduced the initial award to $8 million.
 Seven months later, a U.S. District Judge awarded $4 million in punitive damages.
 In 2011, the above mentioned judge added $15.7 million in offer of compromise
interest, following which the defendant’s attorney said his side had offered to settle for
$400, 000 in 1999, the year the lawsuit was filed.
After the 2010 verdict, R.J Reynolds had appealed to the Second Circuit arguing that
Connecticut law excludes strict product liability claims against cigarette manufacturers when
evidence is absent that the cigarettes were adulterated or contaminated. The Second Circuit,
which is considering the tobacco company’s appeal of the award, determined that the issue
should be certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court since there was no Connecticut
appellate precedent that addressed the “good tobacco” provision. At the trial, the plaintiff
presented evidence that the tobacco company manufactured Salem Kings to specifications
intended to get nonsmokers addicted to nicotine, and to get addicted smokers to smoke more
cigarettes without satisfying their addiction.
This ruling by the Supreme Court shows that cigarette companies don’t really have any
immunity. The case is before the Second Circuit and it is yet to be seen what the final results
will be.
Medical Record Review—an Important First Step
A product liability case such as the above relies heavily on medical record review. Attorneys
will be looking for proof of the medical diagnosis, and whether the product use had led to the
disease condition. Tobacco manufacturers are sued typically against aspects such as the
following.
(800) 670 2809 www.mosmedicalrecordreview.com info@managedoutsource.com

4. Giving misleading information about the dangers and the addictive property of tobacco.
Failing to warn the public about the dangers of smoking
Did not take all steps possible to reduce the risks caused by their products
Promoted teens and children to smoke cigarettes.
Tobacco litigation involves complex legal aspects and theories. Detailed and intricate scientific
analyses may be required, which makes it very challenging.
(800) 670 2809 www.mosmedicalrecordreview.com info@managedoutsource.com