While Poligrip denture cream manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline has reportedly paid out over $120 million in denture cream lawsuit settlements, Fixodent manufacturer Proctor & Gamble just recently won its first bellwether trial, after a Florida federal judge threw out the plaintiff’s expert testimony. The question facing denture cream lawyers now is: Will GlaxoSmithKline change their tactics and stop offering denture cream lawsuit settlements?

Plaintiffs seeking zinc poisoning damages

All denture cream lawsuits so far have sought zinc poisoning damages. Plaintiffs allege that after using denture cream—oftentimes in larger-than-recommended amounts to keep ill-fitting dentures in place—they experienced numbness, weakness, loss of balance, memory issues, neuropathy, pain, chills, low blood pressure, anemia, weakness, and other symptoms related to zinc poisoning.

A study published in General Dentistry found that when patients use too much denture cream, they may be exposed to high levels of zinc, sometimes up to 1,700 mg a day, while the recommended daily allowance is only around 10 mg. That much zinc in the body can cause numerous neurological problems, including a depletion of copper, which can cause neurological disorders. Proving the connection between these health issues and denture cream, however, has been a challenge for denture cream lawyers.

Denture cream lawyers challenged to find the science

When denture cream lawsuits were first filed against GlaxoSmithKline, they seemed to decide not to fight the issue. They removed the zinc from their formulas, and proceeded to settle an estimated 100 cases out of court. Proctor & Gamble, however, has maintained from the beginning that their product is safe when used as recommended, and that they have adequate warnings on the label.

Plaintiffs seeking zinc poisoning damages against Proctor & Gamble do not agree, but the burden is on denture cream lawyers to provide the solid scientific evidence proving that denture cream was the cause of their plaintiff’s health problems. In the first Fixodent bellwether trial, the court asked five questions: 1) was there a dose-response relationship, 2) was there supporting epidemiology, 3) what was the background risk of this type of injury, 4) was there a plausible physiological mechanism, and 5) what type of clinical tests supported the claimed diagnosis?

In response, the plaintiffs proved no dose-response relationship. In other words, they couldn’t establish how much zinc for what length of exposure caused the zinc poisoning. Second, there was no epidemiology (study of similar patterns in society), only descriptive case reports. Third, plaintiff’s experts admitted they didn’t know the background risk. Fourth, they couldn’t prove the biological model for neurologic damage, and there were no supportive clinical studies.

Denture cream lawsuit settlements may be delayed

Some Poligrip cases are still in court, awaiting denture cream lawsuit settlements. Will the decision in the Fixodent case discourage GlaxoSmithKline from negotiating additional settlements? It seems likely. At the very least, it will probably delay any future settlements until the verdict in the next denture cream bellwether trial.