Blog

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Toxic Tort Claims After the Supreme Court Reversed John Durnell’s Missouri Jury Verdict — Attorney911 Pursues Bayer-Monsanto and Its Glyphosate Herbicide on Surviving Design-Defect, Fraud and Independent-Negligence Theories That May Outlast FIFRA Preemption, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, We Preserve Purchase Receipts, Product Containers and Two Decades of Exposure History Before the Evidence Fades, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Corporate Claims Machine Values and Denies Cancer Cases, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Missouri Roundup Ruling: What the Supreme Court’s 7-2 Monsanto Decision Means for Your Glyphosate Cancer Claim If you used Roundup for years and then heard the words “non-Hodgkin lymphoma” from an oncologist, you probably started looking into a lawsuit. And then you saw the news: the United States Supreme Court just handed Monsanto a 7-2 victory, ruling that the company cannot be sued in state court for failing to warn about cancer risks on its Roundup label. Your first thought was probably: is my case dead? We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are toxic tort lawyers who take Missouri cases, and we are writing this page for one person: the Missouri resident, farmer, groundskeeper, or homeowner who used Roundup, developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and now does not know whether they still have a legal path. The honest answer is more complicated than a headline — and more complicated than the chemical company’s victory lap suggests. The main road is blocked. But the main road was never the only road, and the people who tell you “it’s over” are the same people who wanted it over before you ever walked into a courtroom. The Supreme Court Just Ruled 7-2 for Monsanto — Here Is What That Actually Means The Supreme Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — known as FIFRA — preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims about pesticide labels when the Environmental Protection Agency has not required the warning the plaintiff is seeking. In plain…

40 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

St. Louis, Missouri Roundup Glyphosate Cancer & Product-Liability Attorneys — After the Supreme Court’s FIFRA Ruling Reversed John Durnell’s Verdict, Attorney911 Builds the Design-Defect and Negligent-Design Cases That Survive Preemption, We Pursue Bayer and the Monsanto Liability It Inherited Through Its $63 Billion Acquisition, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Claims Machine Values and Denies Toxic-Exposure Cases, We Move to Preserve Exposure Records, Oncology Charts and Internal Corporate Documents Before the Spoliation Clock Runs, Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma From Decades of Glyphosate Use, Missouri’s Comparative-Fault Doctrine in Product-Liability Actions, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

St. Louis, Missouri Roundup Lawsuit: The Supreme Court Ruled — But Your Case May Not Be Over You just heard the news. The Supreme Court ruled against Roundup plaintiffs. Bayer’s stock jumped nearly twenty percent. The headlines say Bayer won. And if you or someone you love used Roundup for years and then heard the words “non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma” from an oncologist, you are sitting at a kitchen table right now wondering whether the law just walked away from you. It did not. Not fully. Not even close to fully. And we are going to tell you exactly why — because the difference between what the ruling did and what Bayer wants you to think it did is the difference between walking away from a valid case and fighting one that can still be won. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle toxic tort and product liability cases in Missouri and nationwide. What follows is not a press release. It is the analysis we would give you if you were sitting across from us, at no cost, hearing the truth about what the Supreme Court actually held and what it left untouched. Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911 and we will give you that conversation for real, any hour, in English or in Spanish. What the Supreme Court Actually Ruled — and What It Did Not Touch Here is the single most important sentence in this entire analysis: the Supreme Court’s ruling is narrowly limited to failure-to-warn claims. It…

49 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Claims After the Supreme Court’s FIFRA Preemption Ruling: Missouri Plaintiff John Durnell’s $1.25 Million St. Louis Jury Verdict Jeopardized as the Court Holds EPA Labeling Preempts State Failure-to-Warn Suits — Attorney911 Pursues Bayer-Monsanto on Surviving Design Defect, Negligent Testing & Fraud Theories While Evaluating Claim Eligibility in the $7.25 Billion Settlement, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Claims Machine Values and Denies Toxic-Tort Cases, We Preserve Exposure Records, Pathology Reports & Monsanto Internal Research Before They Vanish, Missouri’s Pure Comparative-Fault Rule With No Damages Cap in Product-Liability Actions, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims & Millions in Catastrophic Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Missouri Roundup Cancer Claims After the Supreme Court’s FIFRA Preemption Ruling You heard the news and your stomach dropped. The Supreme Court ruled for Bayer. The headline said it — Roundup lawsuits are being reined in. And if you are one of the thousands of people in Missouri who used that weedkiller for years and then heard the words “non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma” from an oncologist, you probably thought your case just died on the steps of the Supreme Court. It did not. But the ground underneath it shifted, and how far it shifted depends on facts specific to your situation — the kind of facts that require a lawyer who has read the actual ruling, not the headline. Here is what we want you to understand before you read one more word of this page: the Supreme Court did not say Roundup is safe. It did not say glyphosate does not cause cancer. It did not say you cannot sue. It answered one narrow legal question — whether federal pesticide law blocks states from requiring a cancer warning on the label that the federal government never required — and seven of nine justices said yes to that one question. That answer closes one road. It does not close every road. And the $7.25 billion settlement Bayer announced is still on the table for many claimants, separate from anything the Supreme Court decided. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle toxic tort and product liability cases, and we…

41 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Cancer Lawsuits After the Supreme Court’s FIFRA Ruling — Attorney911 Fights for Missouri Glyphosate Victims with Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, We Pursue Bayer AG and the Agrochemical Manufacturers Behind the Weedkiller at the Center of the Durnell Litigation, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How Bayer’s Corporate Claims Team Values and Denies These Cases, We Preserve Exposure Records, Purchase Receipts and Oncology Files Before the Settlement Enrollment Window Closes, FIFRA Preemption Bars State Failure-to-Warn Claims but Design-Defect and Fraud Theories May Still Survive, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Missouri Roundup Lawsuit After the Supreme Court’s FIFRA Preemption Ruling: What 67,000 Cancer Claimants Need to Know Now If you used Roundup and later heard the words non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma from a doctor — or someone you love did — you are reading this at a specific, frightening moment. The Supreme Court of the United States just ruled 7-2 that the company that made Roundup is not legally liable for failing to warn you about cancer risks on its label. Your phone is probably already buzzing with conflicting information: someone saying the case is over, someone else saying there is still money, a settlement flyer in the mail with a number that looks far smaller than what you heard people were getting. You need straight answers, and you need them from someone who has spent a career in this fight, not someone reading a press release. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle toxic tort and catastrophic injury cases, and we are writing to you as the senior trial team that would evaluate a case exactly like yours. We are not counsel in the Supreme Court case you just read about. We have not been retained by its parties. What we are is a firm that has spent over two decades in courtrooms — including federal court — and we know what a ruling like this does to real people’s claims, and just as importantly, what it does not do. Because here is the first thing you…

36 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Cosmetic Talc Mesothelioma Lawsuit Attorneys — When Merck Won the First Cook County, Illinois Trial Over Dr. Scholl’s and Lotrimin Asbestos Claims in Under Two Hours, 600+ Cases Remained: Attorney911 Pursues Merck & Co. and the Talc Raw-Material Supply Chain, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Pharmaceutical Claims Machine Values and Denies These Cases, We Secure Retained Product Samples for TEM Asbestos Analysis and Pull Supplier Contracts and Internal Safety Communications Before They Are Destroyed, Asbestos-Contaminated Cosmetic Talc and the Mesothelioma Latency Window, FDA Cosmetic Talc Oversight Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and Illinois Strict Product Liability With No Statutory Damage Caps, Millions Recovered in Wrongful-Death and Catastrophic Injury Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Cook County, Illinois Talc Mesothelioma Lawsuit: What the First Merck Defense Verdict Means for You If you are reading this page, you or someone you love has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, and you used cosmetic talcum powder products — maybe Dr. Scholl’s foot powder, maybe Lotrimin for athlete’s foot, maybe baby powder — and you are trying to understand whether you have a case after hearing that a jury in Cook County just ruled for the company that made those products. You may be frightened, you may be angry, and you may be wondering whether this one verdict means the door is closed for everyone. We are going to tell you the truth about that — not a sales pitch, not false hope, but the honest, complete picture of what happened in that courtroom, what it means for the more than 600 remaining cases, and what it means for you specifically. Here is the first thing you need to hear: one defense verdict in one case does not determine the outcome of all cases. Each claim has its own exposure facts, its own product-usage timeline, and its own evidence profile. The case that went to trial in Cook County tested a specific set of facts against a specific corporate defendant during a specific five-year ownership window. Your facts may be different in ways that matter enormously. The second thing you need to hear is harder: this was not a long, deliberate jury struggle. The jury returned its verdict for the…

45 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Talc-Based Powder Cancer Lawsuit Attorneys: Asbestos-Contaminated Body and Cosmetic Powders Linked to Mesothelioma and Ovarian Cancer After IARC Classified Talc as Probably Carcinogenic, Attorney911 Pursues the Manufacturers and Mining Companies That Sold Asbestos-Contaminated Products for Decades Without Warning, MassTort-National Claims With Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Claims Machine Values and Denies Toxic-Tort Cases, We Preserve Product Containers, Purchase Records and Pathology Tissue Blocks for Forensic Asbestos Fiber Analysis Before Institutional Retention Clocks Expire, the Discovery Rule Starts Your Filing Deadline at Cancer Diagnosis Not at Decades-Past Talc Use, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ and Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Talcum Powder, Asbestos Contamination, and Cancer: What the Oncologists’ Warning Means for Your Legal Rights You used a product that was supposed to be gentle. Baby powder. Body powder. Maybe a face powder or a blush. You used it for years — maybe decades — because it was on the shelf at every grocery store and pharmacy, because it was marketed as safe, because nobody told you there was anything to worry about. And now you have a cancer diagnosis, or someone you love does, and you just read that three oncologists at major US cancer centers are telling people to throw those products away. You are sitting with a question that is half medical and half legal, and you do not know which half is more frightening: did this cause my cancer, and if it did, what can I do about it? We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm. We handle toxic tort cases and the catastrophic injuries and wrongful deaths that come out of them. What we are going to do on this page is give you the straight information: what the science actually says, what the law allows you to do, what evidence you need to preserve before it disappears, what these cases are worth, and what the manufacturers’ lawyers will try to do to keep you from getting answers. We will not tell you your cancer was definitely caused by talc — that is a question that can only be answered case by case, with…

37 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Cancer & Product Liability Attorneys: Bayer’s Supreme Court FIFRA Preemption Win Does Not End Every Glyphosate Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Claim — Attorney911 Brings Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice to the National Roundup Mass Tort, We Pursue Bayer AG and Monsanto on Design-Defect, Fraudulent-Concealment and Negligent-Testing Theories That Survive the Preemption Ruling, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Corporate Claims Machine Values and Denies These Cases, We Secure the Monsanto Internal Documents, IARC’s Probably-Carcinogenic Classification and Plaintiff Exposure Histories Before the Statute of Limitations Runs and Purchase Records Degrade, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims and Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

What the Supreme Court’s Roundup Ruling Means for Your Cancer Claim If you or someone you love used Roundup and later heard the words “non-Hodgkin lymphoma,” you already know what the floor dropping feels like. And now you have heard that the United States Supreme Court just ruled in favor of the company that made the weedkiller. Your first thought is probably simple and frightening: Is my case over? We are going to answer that question honestly. Not with false comfort, and not with surrender. The ruling is significant — there is no point pretending otherwise. But “Bayer won” does not automatically mean “you lost.” The opinion’s exact scope is still being analyzed by lawyers across the country, and what it covers, what it does not cover, and which claims survive are questions that turn on the specific theory your case was filed under, the state you live in, and how your lawyer pleads what comes next. What we can tell you right now is this: the ruling centers on a legal doctrine called preemption — the idea that when the federal government approves a pesticide label through the Environmental Protection Agency, that federal approval may override state lawsuits claiming the label should have carried a cancer warning. If the Court held that FIFRA — the federal pesticide law — preempts those state-law failure-to-warn claims, then the single most common theory in Roundup litigation has been narrowed, possibly significantly. But failure-to-warn is not the only theory. Design defect claims, fraudulent-concealment…

51 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Talc Powder Ovarian Cancer & Wrongful Death — A Los Angeles, California Jury Found Johnson & Johnson Not Negligent in Three Fatal Ovarian Cancer Wrongful Death Claims, but One Verdict Does Not Close the Talc Litigation: Attorney911 Brings Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice to Product Liability Cases Against the Manufacturers Behind Talc-Based Cosmetic Powder, We Pursue the Internal Corporate Documents Showing What They Knew About Cancer Risk and When, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Claims Machine Values and Denies These Cases, California’s Strict Product Liability Doctrine With No Non-Economic Damage Caps in Wrongful Death Actions, FDA Post-Market Cosmetic Oversight That Leaves Safety Testing to Manufacturers, We Move to Preserve Medical Records and Product Usage Evidence Before the Retention Clock Expires and the Statute of Limitations Runs, the Firm Has Recovered Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

What the Los Angeles Talc Verdict Means for Your Family You read the headline. A jury in Los Angeles cleared Johnson & Johnson of negligence in the deaths of three women who used talc-based cosmetic powder and later died of ovarian cancer. And your stomach dropped — because if you are on this page, you or someone you love used that same powder, for years, the way millions of women did. And now you are staring at a diagnosis, or a death certificate, and wondering whether this verdict just closed the door on your family. It did not. But we owe you honesty about why it happened, what it means, and what it does not mean — because the difference between this defense verdict and a verdict that holds a corporation accountable is not luck. It is proof, preparation, and a theory of the case built to survive the one attack Johnson & Johnson’s lawyers run in every talc trial: the argument that ovarian cancer has so many causes that no one can say talc was the reason. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle toxic tort and wrongful death cases. We are writing to you as the trial team that takes California product liability cases, and behind every section of this page stands a specialist — the appellate attorney who knows California’s strict-liability doctrine, the toxicologist who understands the exposure pathway, the gynecologic oncologist who can bridge general causation and specific causation, the corporate-structure analyst…

46 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

AFFF & PFAS Firefighting Foam Cancer Lawsuits: New Jersey’s Collection of 150,000 Gallons of Cancer-Causing Foam From 400+ Fire Departments Confirms What Firefighters Know — Attorney911 Pursues the Fluorochemical Manufacturers Behind the Design Defect and Failure-to-Warn Claims in the MassTort-National AFFF Litigation, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider, We Secure Serum PFAS Blood Testing and AFFF Usage Records Before the 2027 Transition Erases the Evidence, PFAS Forever Chemicals Persist in the Body for Decades — the Discovery Rule May Govern Your Filing Window, the Firm Has Recovered Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

New Jersey Is Pulling 150,000 Gallons of Cancer-Causing Foam From Its Firehouses — If You Used It, You Need to Read This You spent years pulling on turnout gear and hauling lines of aqueous film-forming foam into training burns, fuel-fire calls, and hazmat scenes. Nobody told you the foam was loaded with chemicals that never leave the body. Nobody told you it was designed with fluorosurfactants — the same “forever chemicals” that the federal government has now classified as hazardous substances. Nobody told you that the state of New Jersey would eventually call what you were spraying “cancer-causing” and spend $16.6 million to collect and destroy it. Now you have a diagnosis, or someone you served with has one, and you are reading this at a kitchen table at 2 a.m. trying to understand whether the foam and the cancer are connected — and whether anyone can be held accountable for what was done to you. We are Attorney911. We are a trial firm that handles toxic exposure and mass tort cases for people who were given a dangerous product and told it was safety equipment. Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court, and before he was a lawyer he was a journalist — he learned to find the documents people do not want found. Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm, in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims from people exactly like you —…

49 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Florida PFAS Firefighting Foam Cancer Claims: Attorney911 Holds the Chemical Manufacturers Behind AFFF Toxic Exposure Nationwide, We Pursue the Foam Makers and the Military Bases, Airports and Fire-Training Facilities Where PFAS Leached Into Florida’s Porous Karst Aquifer and Drinking Water, PFAS Bioaccumulation in Human Serum with Half-Lives Measured in Years Linked to Kidney and Testicular Cancers, We Secure Blood-Serum PFAS Tests, Facility Usage Records and Groundwater Monitoring Data Before the Evidence Fades, EPA Drinking-Water Standards and CERCLA Hazardous-Substance Designations Set the Federal Framework Alongside Florida’s New PFAS Ban, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims, Florida’s Discovery Rule Starts the Limitations Clock When You Learn Your Cancer Connects to PFAS — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Florida Bans Cancer-Linked Firefighting Foam: What the New PFAS Law Means for Your Legal Rights You may have spent years standing inside a cloud of white foam at the fire-training academy, never told that the foam was loaded with chemicals designed never to break down — chemicals that would stay in your blood for years, silently raising your risk of kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and more. Or you may have spent decades drinking tap water a mile from a military base or an airport, never knowing that the foam they sprayed on training fires for decades had seeped into the aquifer beneath your kitchen. Florida’s new law banning cancer-linked firefighting foam and ordering water testing for PFAS contamination is the state finally catching up to what the science has shown for years — and what the manufacturers of that foam have been accused of knowing for far longer. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle toxic tort cases and the catastrophic-injury and wrongful-death claims that flow from them. This page is for the firefighter who was never warned, the family whose water was never tested, and the cancer patient wondering whether the foam they trained with for decades is the reason they are sitting in an oncology waiting room right now. What follows is everything we know about how these cases are built, what the law allows, what the evidence looks like, and what your rights are — in plain language, from the trial…

39 min read Read Article