• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

D A V I S / N O R R I S

Our Most Important Case is Yours

  • About Us
    • Our History
    • Our Attorneys
      • D. Frank Davis
      • John E. Norris
      • Wesley W. Barnett
      • Karl E. Dover
      • Dargan Ware
      • Andrew Wheeler-Berliner
  • What We Are Working On
    • Illegal Fees Added to Car Lease Buyouts
    • Cash App (Zelle, Venmo) and Debit Card Scams
    • Data Breach Investigations
    • Slots App Investigation
    • Personal Injury and Workers Compensation
  • How Can We Help You?
You are here: Home / Archives for Current Investigations

Current Investigations

Update – 3M Combat Arms Earplug Litigation

Two out of the Three Bellweather Trials Ended in Favor of Plaintiffs – current and former U.S. service members who suffered hearing loss and tinnitus

As reported by JDSupra, this is good news for the for the plaintiffs whose 3M earplug lawsuits are still in progress. The verdicts in these two cases resulted in awards of $1.7M and $7.1M to the individual plaintiffs in these cases.

These cases have now become the largest mass tort matter in the United States.

What is a Bellweather Trial?

A bellweather trial is selected by a judge from a pool of cases that have common questions of fact, that have been temporarily consolidated and transferred to a single district court for pretrial proceedings, though they remain separate cases.

Bellweather trials serve as tests to see how juries will rule on the facts of a case and help parties involved in this pool of cases to assess whether to continue with trial or settle the remaining claims.

If I was deployed between 2003-2015, why should these results matter to me?

Service members suffering from hearing loss and/or tinnitus that used 3M Dual-Ended Combat Earplugs (CAEv.2) may have a compensable claim, but might not understand what they may be entitled to or how to file a claim.

Unlike a class action, each of our clients’ cases are filed as individual claims. Each individual’s case facts are evaluated on its own merits, including exposure, causation, injuries, and damages.

If you are (1) experiencing hearing loss, (2) were a deployed service member between 2003-2015, and (3) used 3M Dual-Ended Combat Earplugs (CAEv.2), but waited to pursue a claim or get more information about your eligibility, answer a few questions below and a member of our firm will answer all questions you have about this litigation.

This basic contact information is used by our firm to ensure that we evaluate your potential claim adequately and can contact you with relevant followup information. Your information is kept in our database and we never provide it to third parties for solicitation purposes.

3M Dual-Ended Combat Earplugs (CAEv.2) and Hearing Loss

In July of 2018, the Department of Justice announced that 3M agreed to pay $9.1 million to resolve allegations that it knowingly supplied the United States with defective dual-ended combat earplugs. The US alleged that Version 2 of the earplugs (CAEv.2) were too short for proper insertion into users’ ears and that the earplugs could imperceptibly loosen. Because of this design defect, the government argued the health and welfare of service members were directly impacted.

Who may have been issued these Earplugs?

These defective 3M Dual-Ended Combat Earplugs (CAEv.2) earplugs were issued to thousands of service members deployed from 2003 to 2015. Veterans and active service members that suffer from hearing loss may have a claim against against 3M. If you questions about this investigation or any of our firm’s other investigation, please contact us or call 800-667-6759.

Personal Injury and Workers Compensation

The personal injury and workers compensation attorneys at Davis & Norris LLP are former Big Law, Insurance, and Healthcare lawyers. We will use our experience to fight for the compensation you are entitled to from your case.

At Davis & Norris, our most important case is yours.


Why Davis & Norris for your Personal Injury or Workers Compensation case?

When deciding on representation for your personal injury case, find an attorney that meets your expectations. An article titled “Run-of-the-Mill Justice,” published in The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, discusses the emergence of “settlement mills” in personal injury law:

Over the past three decades, no development in the legal services industry has been more widely observed and less carefully scrutinized than the emergence of… “settlement mills”—high-volume personal injury law practices that aggressively advertise and mass produce the resolution of claims, typically with little client interaction and without initiating lawsuits, much less taking claims to trial. Settlement mills process tens of thousands of claims each year. Their ads are fixtures on late-night television and big-city billboards. 

Nora Freeman Engstrom, Run-of-the-Mill Justice , 22 The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 1485 (2009)

The article suggests that these “settlement mills” have “higher claim volumes, advertise more aggressively, tout a different fee structure, settle claims more quickly and with less effort, file fewer lawsuits, and delegate more duties to para-professionals.”

The value of each case is not determined by the merits of the case but are “simply and systematically settled for formulaic going rates worked out over time by repeat players,” which are the settlement mills and the insurance companies.

Contact Davis & Norris for a free case consultation with one of our personal injury attorneys. If you have another matter that you would like our attorneys to investigate, you can give us that information here. 

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3

Lawyers of Davis & Norris, LLP are admitted in Alabama, California, and Tennessee. Where necessary, Davis & Norris, LLP may associate attorneys licensed in your jurisdiction, or refer your potential claim to a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction at no added cost to you. Davis & Norris, LLP does not take cases in all jurisdictions. This is an attorney advertisement. Contacting an attorney, especially by insecure electronic means, does not by itself create an attorney-client relationship and may not be confidential. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Images contained in advertisements or our website (except those on attorney pages) are stock footage obtained from internet sources, and do not depict actual lawyers or clients. At least one attorney on any advertisement is responsible for its content. No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.