Rucker said that comment reflected all Combat Arms earplugs, not just those that are the subject of litigation, known as CAEv2. It had two sides: One end was supposed to provide total hearing protection, while the other end allowed a user to hear conversations nearby.Ĭourt filings show that a military contractor responsible for reviewing hearing protection devices for the government asked Aearo if it could shorten the earplug by about a quarter of an inch, which the company did. Aearo, which made more than just earplugs, devised an initial version of the Combat Arms product in 1998. We protect you.”ģM didn’t invent the Combat Arms earplugs in 2008, it acquired the company that did, Aearo Technologies LLC, for $1.2 billion. The company’s tag line for the Combat Arms earplugs it sold to the U.S. military was “You protect us. Small things like that can happen, but they have a huge impact.”ģM vowed that its earplugs were up to this crucial job. It affects your ability to enjoy things that you used to enjoy, like music, or watching TV, or listening to a conversation or a story that your family is telling you. “What does that do? It affects your ability to connect with your family. They go back to their families, but there’s one slight difference: They’re not hearing,” Mattson said. ![]() Department of Veterans Affairs, given the noise associated with combat, training and other aspects of service jobs. Hearing problems - including the tinnitus Sigmon experiences - are the most pervasive service-connected disabilities among U.S. “When a soldier is fitted with the Combat Arms Earplugs Version 2, and trained how to use it properly, and does use it, it will protect their hearing,” Rucker said.Ī 3M spokesperson added that 3M has argued in court that the product “was safe and effective to use when properly fitted and that 3M provided instruction to the military on the proper fitting and use.” ‘We protect you’ In an interview with NBC News, Rucker said it is 3M’s position that the product works. The plaintiffs, however, contend the military did not provide design specifications for the earplugs, and 3M has conceded there was no traditional contract with the government.Įric Rucker, 3M’s associate general counsel, is managing the litigation. The company has argued that the service member cases should never have gone to trial and that the federal judge hearing them “wrongly rejected” 3M’s contention that any defects in the earplugs were based on a design mandated by the U.S. The service members who won their cases against 3M in court have been awarded $220 million, including punitive damages. 3M has not paid these awards, as it is appealing the verdicts and asking the court to address what it calls “legal and evidentiary errors” presented at the trials. So far, 3M has lost cases brought by 12 service members and has prevailed against six. The company contends the earplugs provided effective protection when used properly and did not cause the hearing damage the plaintiffs have experienced. Since 2018, 3M has been battling lawsuits brought by service members like Sigmon. ![]() “At the end of the day, your ears are still ringing, and when you wake up in the middle of the night, you’re aggravated because you can’t get it to quit.” Joseph Sigmon. “When I got back, when it was quiet, I noticed a low tone ringing in my ears all the time,” said Sigmon, who lives in Newton, North Carolina, with his wife and two young girls. military active-duty service members and veterans suing 3M over hearing problems they contend resulted from use of the company’s earplugs. Sigmon, 37, has been diagnosed with tinnitus, a persistent ringing in his ears he is one of about 290,000 U.S. Paul, Minnesota-based technology and manufacturing giant that supplied a version of Combat Arms earplugs to the U.S. ![]() While Sigmon did his part, the company that supplied the Army with earplugs to protect his hearing did not, he says.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |