Photo of Audrey Allen

Audrey Allen

Subscribe to Audrey Allen's Posts

Audrey focuses her legal practice on resolving mass toxic tort and product liability litigation for clients.

As a member of the firm’s Toxic Tort team, Audrey concentrates her practice on the defense of oil refineries and premises defendants involved in asbestos exposure claims nationwide. She also focuses on products liability and complex commercial litigation matters. Audrey works closely with clients throughout all stages of litigation, including drafting motions and pleadings, completing discovery, taking and defending depositions, arguing motions and negotiating settlements. She is also experienced in analyzing and summarizing medical records and conducting research to retain experts.

Contact:Read more about Audrey Allen

In February 2025, the United States Environmental Protection Agency announced it will delay the addition of nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) to its Toxics Release Inventory Report for the 2025 reporting year. “PFAS” is a term used to describe a diverse group of chemicals contained in many consumer products and industrial processes. The EPA’s announcement followed President Trump’s January 2025 memorandum “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” which, among other things, requested a 60-day postponement “to the effective date memorandum for any rules that have been published in the Federal Register, or any rules that have been issued in any manner but have not taken effect, so that the administration may review any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise.” Accordingly, impacted industries now have additional time to prepare for new PFAS reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”) and the Pollution Prevention Act (“PPA”) following the addition of nine PFAS chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (“TRI”).

A jury in St. Louis, Missouri was recently asked to award over $6 billion in damages against baby formula manufacturers defendants in a lawsuit that alleged the defendants’ specialized infant formulas for premature babies caused the development of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a potentially fatal condition. NEC is a severe gastrointestinal condition that primarily affects premature babies, leading to inflammation and bacterial invasion of the intestine, which can cause significant health issues and lead to death. After three hours of deliberations, the jury found the defendants not liable for Plaintiffs’ product defect, failure to warn and negligence claims.

FDA

In April, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released the results of its 2023 sampling assignment, testing for asbestos in talc-containing products. The results confirmed the absence of asbestos in all 50 samples tested, marking the third consecutive year of asbestos-free talc products in the United States. While this news is reassuring for industry participants, the legal landscape remains complex due to ongoing litigation. This article explores the legal implications, potential risks, and regulatory changes related to asbestos detection in cosmetic talc products.

New York’s Court of Appeals recently reversed a $16,500,000 asbestos jury verdict in a case brought by decedent Florence Nemeth and her husband, who alleged that Mrs. Nemeth’s cancer was caused by her use of Desert Flower Talcum Powder. In Nemeth v. Brenntag North America, et al., 2022 WL 1217464 (Ct. App. NY Apr. 26, 2022), the state’s highest court overturned the decision on the grounds that the plaintiff’s experts failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the talc-based cosmetic powder caused decedent’s peritoneal mesothelioma.