3M dual-sided combat arms earplugs (CAEv2) were distributed to US armed servicemen and servicewomen. However, these combat earplugs have a serious defect proven to cause hearing injuries. People who wore them are entitled to justice and compensation for their injuries.
If you believe that you or a loved one were harmed by 3M Earplugs, you may be entitled to compensation.
To date, the only settlement amount from 3M has been the $9.1 million compensation paid to the Federal Government in July 2018. This was after a whistleblower within 3M alerted the Federal Government to the defective nature of the earplugs. However, more US troops and veterans are pursuing legal action against 3M, and the case is expected to go to trial in 2021. Because the case has been combined into a mass tort case, plaintiffs can expect settlements to be based on individual circumstances rather than a fixed sum for all combat troops injured by 3M defective earplugs. The biggest case against 3M is now pending in a Federal Court in Florida and includes more than 139,653 individual cases against the company that have been combined.
The 3M lawsuit settlement amounts will undoubtedly continue to be a major financial headache for the company as the 3M defective earplugs case is turning into one the biggest mass tort suits in history with many more military personnel expected to join. It’s difficult to work out the 3M earplug lawsuit settlement amounts per person. Mass tort cases are one where individual payouts are based on the particular circumstances of each claimant.
Hearing loss is but one facet of the damage caused by defective earplugs, and vets can also experience issues like depression linked to hearing problems. In short, each claimant will face unique issues, and that will have to be factored in when determining average payouts for 3M earplugs cases.
It is possible, of course, that 3M may decide to settle the case if it believes that going to trial will be ultimately too expensive. In that scenario, the 3M earplug lawsuit average payout per person would depend upon the settlement sum.
At the moment, there is not enough precedence to estimate what that settlement figure would be, but, given the number of military personnel with hearing issues (and other issues linked to their hearing problems) after using 3M Combat Arms, it would likely run into millions of dollars.
Judge Jeffrey Graham U.S. bankruptcy judge allowed Kirkland & Ellis (Novenber 10, 2022) to continue representing bankrupt 3M subsidiary Aearo Technologies. Judge Graham rejected calls to disqualify Aearo Technologies because it had defended 3M in a huge litigation over allegedly defective.
The 3M combat earplugs were designed to prevent hearing damage. They were used by the US Armed Forces and given to service members who were regularly subjected to noisy conditions in both training and combat conditions.
However, the product itself had fitting problems. Because the earplugs were too short to fill the ear canal properly, there wasn’t a proper seal. To work effectively, the earplugs need a 100% seal to block out the noise.
The result was damage to the inner ear and sensitive hairs of affected service members. Moreover, due to their defect, many users didn’t even realize they weren’t being properly protected at the time.
These 3M earplugs not only failed to prevent hearing damage but are responsible for hearing loss and painful tinnitus many service members and veterans suffer from.As a consequence, thousands of US troops and veterans are suing a government contractor, 3M,for supplying them with faulty defective earplugs during military tours of places like Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003 to 2015.
Many veterans suffer hearing problems after exposure to dangerous levels of noise, which is common in combat missions. However, 3M is accused of providing the military with defective Combat Arms earplugs and for covering up knowledge of the faulty equipment that was supposed to protect troops’ ears.
In light of that, many members and former members of the US Armed Forces have been in contact with 3M earplug lawsuit attorneys and have begun bringing personal injury claims against 3M after suffering ear problems.
If you believe that you or a loved one were harmed by 3M Earplugs, you may be entitled to compensation.
At the heart of the 3M faulty earplug lawsuit is the charge that the company knew its products, called 3M Combat Arms Hear-Through Earplugs, were not the right fit for troops’ ears, and that the earplugs could loosen in a way not known to the wearer that would render them ineffective. 3M settled a lawsuit with the Federal Government a couple of years ago, but many individual military personnel are contemplating joining the lawsuit against 3M if they believe they have suffered hearing loss or tinnitus after using the company’s earplugs while on duty. Currently 3m denies any wrongdoing on their part.
Ear damage is one of the most common injuries suffered by US military veterans. In fact, the Hearing Health Foundation cites tinnitus, ringing in the ear, and hearing loss as the two most common health complaints among veterans. Furthermore, the Military Health Systems has stated that hearing issues are the main disability in the veteran community Moreover, studies have linked hearing problems with other issues like depression and anxiety.
To find a good lawyer to represent your case it is important to first fill out the free evaluation form to make sure you have the necessary requirements to qualify for the case. Once your case has been evaluated if you have the necessary qualifications we will be in contact with you to explain the process to you and connect you with the most experienced 3M lawsuit lawyers to handle your case.
Injured service members and veterans who served between the years 2003-2015 and suffer from resulting hearing damage after wearing 3M combat earplugs are potentially eligible for compensation.
Hearing damage victims that served in the US armed forces and wore these dual-sided 3M earplugs are entitled to fight back against 3M for injuries suffered while using this defective product.
These combat earplugs were designed to be dual-sided, allowing service members to quickly change sides depending on noise conditions. However, 3M’s combat earplugs are proven to be a defective product, entitling affected service members and veterans to take action against the company and exercise their rights.
To see if you or a loved one qualify to fight against the injustice of hearing loss and damage due to 3M’s defective earplugs, start by taking a free evaluation to check eligibility for compensation.
As the trials get underway we will begin to get an idea of how much each claimant will get from the 3M case. Some law firms have cited other hearing loss cases paying from $50,000 to $300,000 and held those up as an example of what could be paid by 3M. However, this is from a very small sample size of non-military cases, and it is possible that the 3M case average payout could be greater.
Again, most estimates for individual settlement payouts in the 3M combat arms case tend to look at previous cases with similar injuries. As such, law firms are suggesting that payout amounts to each claimant could range from five to six figure sums depending on the severity of hearing loss and other circumstances. But we should again reiterate that the 3M case is unprecedented in scope, not to mention the fact it mostly involves U.S military personnel. Furthermore, as the case unfolds, it’s possible that more information could come to light about what 3M knew about the defectiveness of the earplugs, or whether there are other long-term medical issues for combat veterans after wearing the earplugs.
When considering the payout per person in the 3M lawsuit, it’s worth stressing that this is not a class action lawsuit. With a class action, the case is considered as an individual one and any settlement would be split among those bringing the case. The 3M lawsuit is a mass tort case, meaning each claimant is treated separately. The upshot of that means the average payout per person for this 3M Combat Arms earplugs case will depend on the individual injuries and circumstances. So, for example, you would expect to receive a larger payout if you had severe hearing loss compared to someone in the case who had mild loss or tinnitus
Many people wonder, Is the 3M Earplug lawsuit a class action lawsuit? The answer is no. The 3M Lawsuit is a mass tort lawsuit and many people do not understand that there is a difference between the 2 types of lawsuits.
Class Action Lawsuits involve a large number of people pursuing one lawsuit after suffering the same damage. Mass Tort Lawsuits also involve a large number of people however in a Mass Tort case each person is considered a separate plaintiff in the lawsuit and actually has their own case.
In addition, each person’s injuries may vary and although they will be similar they will not all have the exact same injury or harm. All of the separate lawsuits get consolidated together into a large Mass Tort Lawsuit.
To understand more about the difference between Class Action and Mass Tort Lawsuits you can visit our page here.
Case # | Case Title | Plaintiffs |
---|---|---|
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Bob Bacon |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Kevin Bebee |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Victoria Bebee |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | John Castro |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Luis Chacon |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Felix Diaz |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Frank Diaz |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Paul Eden |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | John Laurent |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Teresa Mauldin |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Larry Noon |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Kathy Piper |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Rob Piper |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Steve Pizzo |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Moses Salas |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Mike Sanchez |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Ed Solano |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Todd Spellman |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | William Staples |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Dan Stapp |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Marc Stelling |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Mike Tallerico |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Bridget Tapia |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Mike Tapia |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Eunico Trinidad |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | George Vega |
20-7212 | Mauldin et al v. 3M Company et al | Gary Weekley |
14-2044 | Johnson v. 3M Company et al | Timothy Johnson |
20-1765 | Martin v. 3M Company et al | Gary Martin |
20-1753 | Wasylyna v. 3M Company et al | Jay Wasylyna |
20-019 | Thomas v. 3M Company et al | Rasheem Thomas |
04-1388 | Albert v. 3M Company, et al | Winton A. Albert |
18-11211 | Casey, Jr. v. 3M Company, et al. | James T. Casey, Jr. |
17-573 | Menkes et al v. 3M Company et al | Jacquelyn Menkes |
17-573 | Menkes et al v. 3M Company et al | Larry Menkes |
15-2275 | Hayden et al v. 3M Company et al | Thomas H. Hayden |
15-2275 | Hayden et al v. 3M Company et al | Jacqueline S. Hayden |
21-1313 | Lestenkof et al v. 3M Company et al | Albert Lestenkof |
21-1313 | Lestenkof et al v. 3M Company et al | Robert Lewis |
21-1313 | Lestenkof et al v. 3M Company et al | Travis Pogue |
21-1313 | Lestenkof et al v. 3M Company et al | Philip York |
18-4186 | Farris et al v. 3M Company et al | Gary Farris |
18-4186 | Farris et al v. 3M Company et al | Melva Farris |
18-009 | Hall et al v. 3M Company et al | Judith A. Erickson, Intervenor Plaintiff |
18-009 | Hall et al v. 3M Company et al | McCray Amburgey |
18-009 | Hall et al v. 3M Company et al | Leslie Cox |
18-009 | Hall et al v. 3M Company et al | Michael Cox |
18-009 | Hall et al v. 3M Company et al | Eugene Day |
18-009 | Hall et al v. 3M Company et al | Burnis Hall |
18-009 | Hall et al v. 3M Company et al | Kermit Leon Hall |
18-009 | Hall et al v. 3M Company et al | T.J. Hoover |
18-009 | Hall et al v. 3M Company et al | Jimmy Hubbard |
18-009 | Hall et al v. 3M Company et al | Dennis Lafferty |
18-009 | Hall et al v. 3M Company et al | Rainor Short |
18-009 | Hall et al v. 3M Company et al | Stanley Short |
14-2044 | Johnson v. 3M Company et al | Timothy Johnson |
20-001 | Sloan v. 3M Company et al | Ronald Elliot Sloan |
09-70104 | Travis v. 3M Company et al | Francis Bruce Travis |
20-131 | Hacker v. 3M Company et al | Stephen Hacker |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Mark Bliven |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Jessica Bowden |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Anthony Boykins |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | William Brickhouse |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Travis Brookshire |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Vincent Bruccheri |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Dwayne Burrow |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Brett Burrows |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Craig Callaway |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Michael Carlisle |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Higinio Casiano |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Dennis Chilcote |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Stephen Crane |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Cade Dixon |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Henry Fernandez |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Bobby Fulton |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Jose Gonzales |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Robert Green |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Vicente Griego |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Virgil Harris |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Matthew Hill |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Thomas Hues |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Charles Johnson |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Robert Johnson |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Kyle Kennedy |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | William Khazaal |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Jerome Lauzon |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Juan Luciow |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Luis Maciel |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Michael Mansisidor |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Nicholas Miller |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Jose Moran |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Larry Moreno |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Usbaldo Munoz |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Charles Nazarene |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Christopher Passmore |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Felicia Ramirez |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Starlin Rogers |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Ector Saldias |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Jeremy Smith |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Tyler Stricker |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Shawn Thackrah |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Robert Tidwell |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Manuel Vargas |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Dallas Wicker |
21-908 | Bliven et al v. 3M Company et al | Justin Wilcox |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Kimberly Ahrens |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Jerry Anguiano |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Martin Cisneros |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Thomas Colvin |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Kevin Ervine |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Douglas Goedert |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Shawn Gourdine |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Carlo Henao |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Craig Hernandez |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Osmanis Hernandez |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Todd Jackson |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Thomas Kessler |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Wilbert Lee |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Justin Muehlich |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Marco Padilla |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Justin Staley |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Richard Swartz |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Anthony Waters |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Paul Wonder |
21-1546 | Ahrens et al v. 3M Company et al | Kenneth Zepeda |
Source: GovInfo
If you believe that you or a loved one were harmed by 3M Earplugs, you may be entitled to compensation.
We are here to help you and loved ones advocate for justice. Feel free to send us any questions you might have, either about an injury or the process for pursuing justice so we can help you exercise your rights.
© Copyright Jazz Media Ltd. 2023. All rights reserved
We are here to help you and loved ones advocate for justice. Feel free to send us any questions you might have, either about an injury or the process for pursuing justice so we can help you exercise your rights.
© Copyright Jazz Media Ltd. 2020. All rights reserved