In a recent development from the 6th Circuit, the court has decided not to relieve a Special Master from an opioid case, despite their inadvertent ‘reply all’ email. This event initiated when Special Master David R. Cohen unintentionally shared his personal remarks with all those involved in the case. Cohen’s act led to the lawyers of the pharmacy benefit master, upon interpreting Cohen’s private notes, asserting that Cohen might lack impartiality in their case. However, the 6th Circuit declared that the lawyers would need to endure possible biases. To quote from the ABA Journal, a federal appeals court declined to dismiss a special master from the opioid lawsuit due to a mistaken ‘reply all’ email that contained his personal notes.
The court claimed that Cohen’s email had mildly criticized the strategy implemented by the pharmacy benefit managers. Nonetheless, his comments didn’t display any biased attitude or partiality according to the directive issued by the appeals court on November 14.
For the defense of Cohen, he seemed to maintain his fairness although negative comments were made about the manager’s lawyers. While his private notes insinuated that they were strategically delaying, Cohen still demonstrated a readiness to let them introduce third parties in response to plaintiffs modifying their allegations. This situation demonstrates that it is possible to maintain impartiality despite indulging in minor criticism
You can read more on the subject in the ABA Journal.