- Over 250 million dollars in settlements recovered for victims of injuries linked to various anti-diabetic drugs
- Tens of millions of dollars in settlements recovered for victims of injuries linked to several anti-psychotic medications
- Hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements obtained for victims of injuries of diet drugs
July 2014: $8.68 billion dollar judgment on behalf of 567 Plaintiffs who suffered injuries in the 1998 Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
2012-present: Over $30 million recovered from manufacturers of artificial hip implants for those injured by metal on metal hips
April 2013: $6.5 million verdict against the makers of Actos, in favor of a retired telephone engineer with metastatic cancer
February 2015: $3.6 million dollar verdict against the makers of Actos, in favor of a retired math teacher, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
October 2014: $2.14 million verdict against the makers of Actos, in favor of elderly lady who developed bladder cancer, Superior Court of Los Angeles
October 2013: $1.7 million jury verdict against the makers of Actos, in favor of family of deceased custodian
2013: $1.7 million settlement resolving case against OB/GYN for birth injuries during delivery
2014: confidential settlement against the makers of an airplane cargo loader for the family of an airline worker who fell to his death
2010: $9.5 million recovered on behalf of the state of Montana against the manufacturers of Zyprexa for consumer protection violations and Medicaid fraud
1998: $2.5 million verdict, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, in a multi-plaintiff FenPhen diet drug injury trial; largest FenPhen verdict in Philadelphia
Nationwide class action settlements against Sam’s Club and Costco for the sale of counterfeit products resulting in consumers receiving a full refund of purchase price
THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT AND DISCLAIMER: SETTLEMENTS AND VERDICTS IN ALL CASES DEPEND ON VARIOUS FACTORS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. THEREFORE, PAST RESULTS IN CASES ARE NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION OF SIMILAR RESULTS IN FUTURE CASES WHICH THE MILLER FIRM AND ITS LAWYERS MAY UNDERTAKE