Kat Frazier

Prior to joining Kirkland, Kat was involved in the following matters:

• Counsel for hair relaxer product manufacturer in multidistrict litigation in which multiple manufacturers’ products were alleged to have caused plaintiffs’ cancers.
• Counsel of social media company sued by multiple state attorneys’ general for losses allegedly due to teen mental health harms.
• Counsel for talc-based product manufacturer in nationwide litigation in which plaintiffs alleged development of cancer as a result of exposure to consumer talc products.
• Counsel for hormone therapy product manufacturer in multidistrict litigation in which plaintiffs alleged development of cancer as a result of exposure to the product.
• Counsel for pelvic mesh product manufacturer in multidistrict litigation in which plaintiffs alleged injuries due to implantation with the product.
• Counsel for gadolinium manufacturer in which plaintiffs alleged kidney injuries as a result of exposure to the product.
• Counsel for monoclonal antibody manufacturer in multiple individual cases in which plaintiffs alleged a variety of injuries as a result of exposure to the product. Appeal of a plaintiff verdict to the Texas Supreme Court resulted in the landmark case establishing the Learned Intermediary Doctrine in Texas (and a reverse and render in favor of the manufacturer).
• Counsel for atypical antipsychotic medication manufacturer in individual and multidistrict cases. Won summary judgment in district court, which was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
• Counsel for defibrillator and pacemaker manufacturer in multidistrict litigation and individual cases in which the manufacturer’s products were alleged to have resulted in the plaintiffs’ injuries or death.
• Counsel for diet drug manufacturer in multidistrict litigation and intermediate opt-out cases in which heart injuries or primary pulmonary hypertension was alleged to have been caused by the products.
• Counsel for thimerosol manufacturer in which the manufacturer’s vaccine preservative was alleged to have caused plaintiffs’ autism.