IMPORTANT: Dow Corning claimants request for a Motion

[Guest guest]

Ilena Rose <ilena.rose@...> wrote: Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:30:51 -0600From: "Ilena Rose" <ilena.rose@...>Subject: Dow Corning claimants request for a Motion SUBJECT: Dow Corning claimants request for a Motion Dear fellow Dow Corning claimants: Almost two weeks ago, I have contacted some attorneys to rally interest in submitting a motion to Judge Hood requesting for her to make a ruling, or else allow those of us whose

claims are adversely affected by the lack of a ruling, to be placed on hold, if we choose for our own claim to wait for the judge to rule. I am still waiting for this to occur, and yet some attorneys are quite interested and in agreement with the idea of such a motion. Judge Hood has not ruled on one of our motions about claims for TWO YEARS! For this reason, you might want to contact your attorney if you are a claimant in the Dow Corning settlement who would be, in any way, adversely affected by having the following types of claims: Option 2 disease claims if your claim would be denied because of the bankruptcy "tolling" hindering the time in which your medical evidence must fall within the "24 month / 5 year" period (as described in the Settlement Agreement and as argued about in the Pending Motions), listed below, by the Claimants Advisory Committee (CAC), or Option 1, Level A disability if you believe it is unfair to require that you absolutely, must be so disabled that you are incapable of doing at least two of these self-care items - bathing, toileting, dressing, grooming and feeding herself.

These claims are continually being processed by the Dow Corning Claims Administration to our disadvantage , even while motions are pending before Judge Hood in protest of such harsh and unfair claims processing. Judge Hood has not ruled for TWO YEARS on the motions submitted to her on July 19, 2004! The Dow Corning Settlement Agreement indicates that the Judge should rule within 30 days on issues regarding the processing of claims, yet she has not ruled, allowing the claims to be processed as Dow Corning would want. Now we also have the motions pending regarding disability, level A where the last motion submitted was June 29, 2006 and we want her to rule on this as well. After all, it was marked for an "expedited ruling." As only a thought, the lack of a motion for two years on one of these issues, while the judge knows claims are being processed as Dow Corning wishes, could be interpreted to mean, in effect, that Judge Hood has ruled by not ruling. Technically, the lack of a ruling could be something to appeal because it did not occur within 30 days … one of them for so long, not for two years. But, there is a better way to ASK the Judge to Rule:

Because the Claimants Advisory Committee has not received a ruling for two years, it seems that we need to contact our attorneys, as I have done, and ask them to file their own motions regarding their Dow claimants, or, ask our attorneys to ask the Claimants Advisory Committee to file a motion on behalf of all of us. This motion would, of course, bring up the issue of how much time has elapsed on both motions and ask for an immediate ruling. But, particularly, this motion should include an

option if the judge determines that she will not immediately rule on both matters, then she would make an order to, at least, provide that all claims, which are affected by these motions shall be held in abeyance/suspended as long as the claimant wishes to wait for the ruling regarding her desired disease category. This motion should also include a request that the judge allow reconsideration on all claims, which were processed adversely in these two categories. Please read the clippings from CAC newsletters below for more understanding of what motions were submitted, and please contact your attorneys and ask them to press for such a motion to be submitted asking for an immediate ruling on these motions, or that the Dow Corning Claims Administration must suspend any claims where the claimant wishes to wait for ruling on the particular affected categories. If you wish to sign a petition, which is attached to a letter to Judge Hood regarding Option 1, Level A disability, please go to : www.Breastimplantawareness.org/judgehood.htm Please take action with your attorneys, but if you want to contact anyone about this message or the letter/petition to Judge Hood, write Mira -- mirabai@... THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ARE EXCERPTS TAKEN FROM THE NEWSLETTERS AND WEBSITE OF THE CLAIMANTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDING THESE PENDING MOTIONS PER CAC ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER – July 7, 2006 there is an update of Pending Motions, including this one about DISABILITY LEVELS – STATUS OF DISABILITY A MOTIONS On June 9, 2006, the Claims Administrator issued a Memorandum to the parties, at

their request, detailing the history of the Disability A claims processing by the MDL and SF-DCT. The Memorandum confirmed that 99% of all Current Disease claims in the Revised Settlement Program had their Disability A claims processed under the standard of "vocation or self-care." The CAC filed the Memorandum with the Court in advance of oral argument on June 20, 2006, and Dow Corning filed a Response and Objection asking the Court to disregard the Memorandum from the Claims Administrator. Despite all evidence to the contrary including the plain language used in the definition itself, Dow Corning asserts that the standard for Disability A should be "vocation and self-care." Following oral argument, the Court took the matter under advisement. The CAC filed a Reply brief on June 29, 2006 responding to Dow Corning' Objection that the Claims Administrator's report should not be considered. A copy of the Reply brief (which has a good summary of the issue) is available on the CAC website ( www.tortcomm.org ) under

"Pending Motions." [However, as of August 21, 2006, the briefs are not posted at the website] Pending Motions can be seen at http://www.tortcomm.org/pendingmotions.shtml CAC Motion regarding Tolling of 24 Month/5 Year Requirement for Disease Option 2 claims CAC's Motion regarding the tolling language in Disease Option 2

regarding the "24 month / 5 year" provision, filed on July 19, 2004 Dow Corning's Motion seeking to limit the tolling language in Disease Option 2 to just the 5 year part of the 24 month / 5 year requirement, filed July 19, 2004 CAC's Response to Dow Corning's Motion on the Tolling Language Dispute (with exhibit)Exhibit 1 MORE EXCERPTS FROM CAC NEWSLETTERS – UPDATES ON MOTIONS REGARDING INTERPRETATION OF 24-MONTH/5 YEAR TOLLING FOR DISEASE OPTIOIN 2 NEWSLETTER July 1,

2004 – Announcement of Motion Submitted 7. Pending Plan Interpretations. There are two Plan interpretations which have been presented to the Claims Administrator for a decision. They are: Whether Dow Corning tissue expanders implanted in the breast are eligible as Class 5, 6.1 or 6.2 Breast Implant Claimants or whether they are considered not-Covered Other Products in Class 9, 10.1 or 10.2. The CAC

believes that they should be considered as Breast Implants and eligible for compensation. Dow Corning has objected to this proposed interpretation; Whether the 24 month /5 year period requirement for Disease Option 2 claims is tolled during the pendency of the bankruptcy (May 15, 1995 to June 1, 2004) or whether the tolling only applies to the "5 year" requirement. The CAC believes that the tolling applies to the 24 month/5 year period. Dow Corning has objected to this proposed interpretation. NEWSLETTER July 13, 2004 – Claims Administrator will not decide, so CAC must now file a motion with Judge Hood by July 19 -à 5. Tissue Expander and Tolling Plan Interpretations Update. As reported in the July 1, 2004 e-newsletter, two Plan interpretation disputes - whether tissue expanders are breast implants and the

applicability of the tolling language in Disease Option 2 claims -- were briefed and argued to the Claims Administrator at a hearing on June 22, 2004. On June 28, the Claims Administrator issued a statement that "she does not intend to issue a decision" on either of these matters. Accordingly, the CAC must now file a motion with Judge Hood by July 19 for a determination . We intend to file a motion on both issues. We are also working with the Debtor's Representatives to resolve this issue as quickly as possible so that these claims will not be on hold any longer. Newsletter July 27, 2004 -- The Settlement Facility will keep "REVIEWING" the Disease Option 2 claims even though there is NO DECISION FROM HOOD (but they'll NOT REVIEW Tissue Expanders until Hood Rules. 9. Tissue Expander and Tolling Plan Interpretations Update. The Claimants' Advisory Committee and Dow Corning both filed cross motions with the District Court on July 19, 2004 on the pending Plan interpretation disputes involving tissue expanders and the tolling language in Disease Option 2. You may read a copy of the motions on the CAC website. We are preparing responses to Dow Corning's motions which are due August 9, 2004 . Until these issues are resolved, the Settlement Facility is not processing tissue expander claims. They have advised us, however, that they are reviewing Disease Option 2 claims. Newsletter August 17, 2004 indicated September 2004 Hearing --- CAC filed response to Dow Corning Tissue Expander and Tolling Plan Interpretation Update. The CAC filed responses to Dow Corning's motions regarding whether tissue expanders implanted in the breast are eligible as breast implants and whether the tolling language in Disease Option 2 applies to the "24 month/5 year" criteria. The responses are available on the CAC website under "Other Downloads." The Court has set a hearing for September 9th on both motions. Newsletter September 21, 2004 – Hearing was held Sept. 9, Judge Hood should rule in 30 days from the date of the Hearing according to Plan Procedures. Update on Pending Plan Interpretation Issues: Tissue Expander Eligibility and Tolling of "24 month/5 year" time frame for Disease Option 2 Claims. Oral argument for the two Plan interpretation disputes was held in Detroit on September 9th before U.S. District Court Judge Page Hood. Under the Plan interpretation procedures, rulings on both motions are expected

within 30 days of oral argument. For more information about what these Plan interpretation disputes involve we urge you to read the motions that have been filed. They are available on the CAC website under "Other Downloads." Newsletter October 29, 2004 – Tissue Expanders and Tolling Plan Interpretation DisputesThese Plan interpretation disputes have been briefed and argued to the Court;

they are pending with the Court for a determination. As soon as we receive information about the Court's decision, we will post it on the CAC website and include it in the CAC newsletter. (You can read a copy of the briefs submitted by the CAC on the CAC website under "Other Downloads.") Newsletter December 14, 2004 – 9. UPDATES ON PENDING MATTERS Tissue Expanders and Tolling Plan Interpretation DisputesThese Plan interpretation disputes remain pending with the Court. As soon as we receive an order from the court, we will post it on the CAC website and include it in the next CAC newsletter. (You can read a copy of the briefs submitted by the CAC on the CAC website under "Other Downloads.") Newsletter January 5, 2005 – 3. MOTIONS FILED WITH THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Motion for Disclosure of Substantive Criteria - this motion was filed by the CAC on December 8, 2004 (as reported in our last e-newsletter). The CAC agreed to extend the response time of the Debtor's Representatives (Dow Corning) until January 20, 2005 so that the two parties could continue to discuss potential agreement and proposed resolution of the issue to the District Court. A similar motion was filed with the District Court supervising the MDL 926 Revised Settlement Program. Motion of Korean Claimants - on December 14, 2004, counsel representing Korean claimants filed a motion with the District Court

asking that the Settlement Facility locate and pay for Qualified Medical Doctors in Korea to conduct disease evaluations for Korean claimants. A copy of the motion is on the CAC's website under "Other Downloads" along with the response of Dow Corning. The CAC has requested an extension until January 11, 2005 to respond to the motion. Tissue Expanders and Tolling - these motions remain pending with the District Court. Substantial

Contribution Claims - the deadline to file a claim for "substantial contribution" was January 3, 2005. We will update you on this issue in future newsletters. According to the Order entered by the District Court, various parties have until February 18, 2005 to respond with comments and/or objections on the applications. After the newsletter dated January 5, 2005, CAC does not mention again to us the status of the Disease Option 2 Tolling 24-months/5year, when Judge Hood was supposed to rule within 30 days of the September 9, 2004 hearing.