One of the Zicam lawsuits, filed on behalf of Sherrin Dawn King on July 31, claims King purchased and used Zicam’s Allergy Relief Nasal Gel Swabs to treat a cold in January 2008. The Zicam lawsuit alleges that she used the product several days in a row and that by March she had lost all sense of smell. King claims that she still has not regained her sense of smell, and that her sense of taste has also been severely impaired.

The other Zicam lawsuit, filed in the same court on August 4, claims that Maria E. Head began using Zicam nasal swabs in the late spring of 2008. The complaint alleges that after using the swabs as directed, Head experienced “a significant burning and/or stinging sensation inside her nose.”   However, because that was “followed by a slight sense of relief from her symptoms,” Head continued to use the product for several days, according to the suit.   By the third day, Head alleges that she realized she could not smell and sought medical attention.  Both plaintiffs are seeking damages for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, physical injuries, medical expenses, attorney fees, pre-and post judgment interest.

Since the Zicam recall and FDA warning about Zicam, Matrixx Initiatives has also been named in several class action lawsuits filed by plaintiffs who blame the nasal remedies for their loss of smell.  Matrixx Initiatives also faces a class action lawsuit filed by investors relating to the Zicam recall.

There were at least 18 individual cases consolidated in the multidistrict litigation, including 14 denture cream lawsuits against GlaxoSmithKline PLC who manufactures Super PoliGrip and four lawsuits against Proctor & Gamble who manufactures Fixodent. If the Fixodent and Poligrip lawsuits consolidated in the MDL are not settled during the pretrial litigation, the Fixodent and Poligrip cases will be transferred back to the court where they were originally filed to be tried individually.

The JPML concluded that transfer under “Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” The court highlighted that “[t]hese actions share questions of fact arising out of the allegation that the levels of zinc contained in certain brands of denture cream can cause copper deficiency and neurological injuries.”

Multidistrict litgation is litigation comprised of multiple civil cases involving one or more common questions of fact, but the cases are pending in different districts. Such actions may be transferred to any single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. These transfers are made by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1407.  Actions are transferred for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and to promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions. More information on multidistrict litigationor MDLs can be obtained from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.