Published July 23, 2026
In a case management order issued February 18, 2026, the judge overseeing the federal hair relaxer cancer litigation put in place formal procedures for a difficult but increasingly common reality of this litigation: plaintiffs dying while their cases are still pending. Because the MDL centers on uterine, ovarian, and endometrial cancer diagnoses — some caught at advanced stages — the court acknowledged that a meaningful number of women filing these claims will not live to see their case resolved.
Under the order, once the court is notified that a plaintiff has died, her family or estate has 90 days to file a motion formally substituting into the case and continuing to pursue the claim on her behalf. Missing that window can put a case at risk of dismissal, which is part of why the court built a clear, standardized procedure rather than leaving each instance to be handled case by case as it arose.
This kind of order is common in mass tort litigation involving cancer diagnoses, but it's also a concrete acknowledgment of how serious the underlying injuries in this case are. A death doesn't erase the claim — wrongful death and survival claims can generally continue through an estate representative — but it does add a procedural step that families need to navigate at an already difficult time.
If someone you love was diagnosed with uterine, ovarian, or endometrial cancer after years of chemical hair relaxer use and has since passed away, this order is directly relevant: it's the mechanism that allows their case to continue under your name as their representative. Missing the 90-day window is one of the more avoidable ways a valid claim can be lost, which is why prompt legal guidance matters here. See Atumio's hair relaxer case page for a free review, or start your case review directly.