A lawsuit over the safety of 3M® Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ earplugs usually starts after a servicemember (active duty or veteran) learns that he or she has developed tinnitus, hearing loss, or a similar hearing-related health problem after using this product during deployment. A medical diagnosis is typically crucial to these kinds of cases, helping show that the plaintiff (the servicemember who is suing) is entitled to financial compensation.
3M® Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ earplugs were standard-issue equipment for U.S. soldiers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2002 and 2015.
In 2018, without admitting any wrongdoing, 3M (manufacturer of the earplugs) paid the U.S. government over $9 million to settle claims that the company knew it was selling the military a defective product. And in hundreds of lawsuits filed against 3M in recent years, active and veteran servicemembers make similar claims, saying the earplugs often failed to form a proper seal in the ear canal, leading to hearing loss, related health problems, and corresponding emotional and cognitive struggles.
3M has discontinued the Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ product line, but since the earplugs were never officially recalled, they may still be in use by active duty servicemembers.
Lawsuits over the safety of Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ earplugs rely on a legal concept called "product liability," in which the plaintiff tries to show that a product is unreasonably dangerous or that the manufacturer failed to properly warn of health risks associated with the product.
In any personal injury or product liability case, including lawsuits over Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ earplugs, the specifics of the plaintiff’s health problems are critical. They shape the value of the case, making an accurate diagnosis essential.
Diagnosis goes straight to the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s losses ("damages" in legalese). A Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ earplugs case almost always includes both "economic" damages (covering the cost of medical treatment, lost income, and other quantifiable losses) and "non-economic" damages (applying to pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and similar, more subjective consequences of the servicemember's health problems). Learn more about damages in an injury case.
When faced with a lawsuit over the safety of their products, manufacturers like 3M typically argue that the plaintiff doesn't actually have any injury, or that the plaintiff’s injuries are attributable to some other cause. That’s part of why diagnosis is so important to any case—an undiagnosed injury or an inaccurate diagnosis makes it much easier for the defense to argue that the plaintiff hasn’t proven that the claimed injuries came from use of the product. Indeed, it's a good idea to see a doctor at the first sign of any hearing-related problems—to protect not only any lawsuit you decide to file, but also your health.
Laws called "statutes of limitations" set time limits on the right to file a lawsuit.
Since hearing problems (and related issues like cognitive decline) linked to Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ earplugs can progress gradually, it's not always clear when the servicemember's "injury" actually occurred for purposes of the filing deadline. In some states (like California), the date the person knew (or should have known in the eyes of the law) that their injuries were related to a defective product is typically the start of the statutory time period. In Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ earplug cases, this could be the date on which the plaintiff was diagnosed with tinnitus or hearing loss (or some other related condition). But other factors can influence when the statute of limitations "clock" is said to start. In some jurisdictions, that the plaintiff became or should have become aware of the injury is what matters, not their potential or actual knowledge of the cause of that harm. Product manufacturers have also been known to argue that the onset of symptoms (not necessarily a clear diagnosis) is enough to start the statute of limitations "clock" in certain cases, and some courts have agreed.
Bottom line: If you wait too long to file your lawsuit, you might be barred from pursuing a lawsuit over Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ earplugs. An extension of the deadline might be possible, but you should consult a lawyer as soon as you begin to think about whether you have a viable case.
Many states have a specific statute of limitations for product liability lawsuits, while in other jurisdictions the limitations period for general personal injury lawsuits will apply. Either way, the filing deadline in most states ranges from one to six years for a lawsuit over health problems caused by Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ earplugs. For details on how the statute of limitations affects your situation, talk to a lawyer.
Most lawyers will not start a lawsuit over the safety of Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ earplugs until they have confirmed that a possible client has a specific hearing-related health problem that could be linked to use of the product during deployment.
Some attorneys will arrange for a health assessment for potential clients whose service history includes use of Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ earplugs. Other times attorneys will order medical records from the potential client’s doctor or hospital and send the material to medical experts for evaluation of the nature and extent of the injuries.
If your doctor does not think you have a hearing-related health issue, but a lawyer's medical expert thinks you do, you can take the expert’s report to your own doctor for a follow-up exam, or seek a second opinion from a different doctor.
A lawyer who has decided to take your Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ earplugs case will determine which defendant(s) to sue and then file a "complaint" in court. The complaint is the legal document that starts the lawsuit and asks for damages from the defendant. (Note that a lawsuit doesn't always need to be filed; any product liability lawsuit can settle out of court, at any time. See the timeline of a typical personal injury claim.)
Next, the case moves into the "discovery" phase, when both sides gather evidence. Your lawyer might need to order additional medical documentation for retained experts to review. Your lawyer's medical experts might also examine you.
Defendants are usually entitled to see whatever medical information the plaintiff’s lawyer has that’s relevant to the case. If you have a case, your lawyer will probably need to provide the defense with a list of facilities where you've been examined or treated. The plaintiff’s lawyer usually hands over this kind of information as "answers to interrogatories," part of the discovery phase.
When the defense attorneys decide they want to look at specific medical records the plaintiff’s lawyer hasn’t already provided, the plaintiff often has to give authorization allowing the release of further medical information. Because of privacy regulations, each authorization must be specific to the facility, so the plaintiff might have to sign a lot of forms.
Sometimes the defense asks for medical information by issuing a subpoena to a facility. If they take this route, they have to notify the plaintiff’s attorney. If the request is for something inappropriate or irrelevant, the attorney can try to block the subpoena or review records first to protect the plaintiff’s privacy.
Normally, the defense can also have its own medical expert examine the plaintiff (this step is called an "independent medical examination"). The plaintiff’s attorney helps arrange such an exam and should protect the client from any improprieties, such as medical tests that aren’t related to the plaintiff’s claims.
If you have a Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ earplugs case, and it gets to the point of a deposition (or even trial), the defense will ask you about your health generally, your hearing problems in particular, your diagnosis, and your treatment. Sometimes plaintiffs’ deposition (and trial) answers differ from their written answers to interrogatories because of a mistake in memory. These small discrepancies are normal and extremely unlikely to affect the plaintiff’s case. If you have a case, you don't need to prove that your diagnosis is correct or even understand the medical details; expert witnesses will weigh in on those subjects.
If you’re considering filing a Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ earplugs lawsuit, you should consult an attorney as soon as reasonably possible. An experienced lawyer will be able to explain the law as it applies to your situation.