Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow
3.0K views | +0 today
Follow
 
Scooped by David Slepkow
onto Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Negligent Security in RI -Liability for Crimes on Property

Rhode island Negligent Security Attorney, David Slepkow 401-437-1100. Liability for criminal actions of others in RI. Providence injury lawyers.
David Slepkow's insight:
Was the Act Intentional?

If a criminal intentionally commits a crime, the property owner may not be held liable for the acts of that person. For instance, if an individual owns a commercial building where he or she operates a business, he or she would not  usually be responsible for intentional crimes committed by employees. Still, that employer would have to show that he or she conducted a background check or took other reasonable steps to ensure that an employee did not pose a higher risk of committing a crime.  There is also the possibility of a negligent hiring cause of action  in Rhode Island in which the victim alleges that the employer failed to properly screen candidates or do a proper background check on employees causing the victim injuries as a result.

What Was the Status of the Criminal While on the Property?

The law takes into consideration that some parties are allowed to be on a property while others are not. If a criminal was trespassing when he or she committed a crime, the property owner may not be liable if it was not reasonable to expect the trespasser to enter the property. However, if the individual was invited onto the property or had permission to use it in any way, the owner of the property would more likely be liable if that third-party committed a crime.

Whether or not a property owner is liable for a crime committed by a third-party largely depends on the facts in the case. If it was reasonable to believe that an action or failure to take action increased the odds that a crime could occur, a victim may have a chance at winning compensation from that person.

Citations and Resources

57 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 611 (2000)  Duty Not to Become a Victim: Assessing the Plaintiff’s Fault in Negligent Security Actions, http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/waslee57&div=22&id=&page=

No comment yet.
Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow
RI Divorce, Family Law, Child Custody, Personal Injury & Car Accident Lawyer
Curated by David Slepkow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by David Slepkow from Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Phillips CPAP Lawsuit Lawyers | Sleep Apnea Machine Attorneys

Phillips CPAP Lawsuit Lawyers | Sleep Apnea Machine Attorneys | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
CPAP machines are used to treat those who have obstructive sleep apnea disorder. The machine takes pressurized air from the room and delivers it to the patient through a mask that they wear over their face. The CPAP machine depends on clear air because this goes directly to the patient’s lungs. It is the most […]
David Slepkow's curator insight, October 21, 2021 1:04 PM

CPAP machines are used to treat those who have obstructive sleep apnea disorder. The machine takes pressurized air from the room and delivers it to the patient through a mask that they wear over their face. The CPAP machine depends on clear air because this goes directly to the patient’s lungs. It is the most common way of treating sleep apnea.  

 Philips is a major manufacturer of CPAP machines. It has recently recalled several models of machines because of defects that make the air that patients breathe dangerous. Specifically, patients have been inhaling chemicals that can cause cancer while they sleep. The device itself has a foam in it that breaks down over time. The particles find their way into the air that users breathe and end up in their lungs.  

 

Phillips cpap lawsuit

 

 THE PHILIPS MACHINES THAT HAVE BEEN RECALLED 

 This particular problem affects the following types of Philips machines: 

  • CPAP machines 
  • BiPAP machines 
  • Ventilators 

Not all models of Philips machines were recalled. Particularly, this recall affects four million machines, spread over 18 products. You should check the recall list to see if your particular product is on the list.  

Update 9-15-21-  In the beginning of September, Phillips drafted  an important press release stating that they have FDA approval to fix Dreamstation, which was  previously recalled. They also have clearance from the FDA to repair other CPAC machines that they manufacture. 

HOW CPAP MACHINES TREAT SLEEP APNEA 

 Sleep apnea is a potentially dangerous condition in which the throat muscles relax while the person is sleeping. Breathing will repeatedly stop and start during sleep. The danger is that the person may not start breathing again. Even still, sleep apnea causes poor sleep, and it can have various other health effects. Patients will first visit a sleep lab, and a doctor who specializes in sleep may recommend a number of treatment options. They can range from oral appliances to machines like a CPAP.  

 The CPAP machine consists of a mask and hose that is connected to a unit. Patients will also connect a humidifier to keep them from inhaling dry air that could cause runny nose or other reactions. The machine will come with a preset pressure based on what the doctor has recommended. The patient will connect the mask to the hose (which is connected to the unit). They will then place the mask over their face. Air will come through the mask directly to the patient’s nose. 

 WHY PHILIPS CPAP AND BIPAP MACHINES HAVE BEEN RECALLED 

 The problem with the Philips CPAP machine is that the air that users breathe is not always pure. Although the problem does not affect every single machine, a number of the Philips units have had issues that put users in potential danger.  

 Here, the issue specifically relates to foam that was used in the unit itself. Philips designed the machine with foam to cut down on sound and vibration while the machine was in use. Specifically, this is called polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) sound abatement foam. 

 The problem is that the foam can break down over time. The issue is even more pronounced when there is any humidity in the room. The foam degrades into small particles, and users end up breathing them in as part of the air that comes through the CPAP. People who use CPAP machines breathe this air for hours every single night. Over time, foam made out of chemicals can build up in the lungs. This can sicken CPAP machine users. There are risks that patients can develop lung cancer because of the toxins contained in these chemicals. There are also reports of other lung problems associated with the use of Philips CPAP machines. 

 OTHER PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH PHILIPS MACHINES 

 In addition, users of Philips machines have reported the following problems: 

  •  Respiratory tract problems 
  • Kidney and liver cancer 
  • Headaches 
  • Asthma  

 The FDA issued a Safety Communication about the problem in June 2021. This detailed the voluntary recall of the products that Philips initiated. The Safety Communication described the issue that machine users could breathe in or swallow particles of foam, causing lung problems. Patients were advised to consult with their healthcare providers about whether they should continue to use the machines pending the recall.  

 Philips will begin the recall work in October 2021. It may take the company up to a year to finish repairing the defective machines. In the meantime, patients will need to figure out another option to treat their sleep apnea.  

 CONTACT A PHILIPS CPAP LAWSUIT ATTORNEY NOW 

 If you or a loved one have been using an affected version of the Philips CPAP or BiPAP machine, you should seek out an attorney immediately. In addition, you should also visit a doctor to have your lungs examined. If you are diagnosed with any type of cancer or other lung ailment, you have the legal right to file a lawsuit. 

 At this stage, product liability attorneys are still investigating the defects in this product. They are exploring the possibility of filing lawsuits against Philips for the defective machines. Already, consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against Phillips, but this seeks compensation for the amount of money that they spent to purchase the CPAP machine as opposed to for personal injury that they suffered. 

 However, we expect this to grow to be a large lawsuit. Hundreds of thousands of people have used the affected CPAP machines over the years, and the universe of possible plaintiffs is large. It may take some time for patients to realize that they have been sickened by these machines. They should seek a medical examination now, so that they do not have any issues with a statute of limitations.  

 Right now, Phillips’ role in the product defects (besides allegedly designing and selling a dangerous product is still to be learned. If these cases proceed to discovery, attorneys may learn what Philips knew about these possible defects and whether the company continued selling the product after it knew of the dangers. 

 DAMAGES IN PHILIPS CPAP LAWSUITS 

 If plaintiffs are successful in these lawsuits, they may receive the following damages: 

  • The cost of all of their medical bills 
  • Lost wages for time missed from work 
  • Pain and suffering 
  • Loss of enjoyment of life 
  • Wrongful death damages if a family member died from cancer 
  • Possible punitive damages, depending on what Philips did 

 You should contact an attorney today to discuss your case. They will advise you what you need to do to prepare your possible lawsuit against Phillips. You have a limited amount of time after you learned that you have been sickened to file a lawsuit.  

Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Asbestos Information- Malignant Mesothelioma is a Very Rare Cancer

Asbestos Information- Malignant Mesothelioma is a Very Rare Cancer | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
Malignant mesothelioma is a very rare cancer of the lining of the lung (pleural mesothelioma) or the lining of the abdomen (peritoneal mesothelioma). The only known cause of mesothelioma in North Amer |
AlignedChoices's comment, January 25, 2022 5:24 AM
nice
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Baby Formula Lawsuits | Enfamil & Similac Baby Formula Linked To NEC

Baby Formula Lawsuits | Enfamil & Similac Baby Formula Linked To NEC | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
Baby Formula Lawsuits | Similac Baby Formula Linked To NEC Parents are sold baby formula from practically the first moment they seek out prenatal care. The baby formula companies make a fortune on these products, and they want parents hooked on using them. They sell the idea of an easy way to feed the baby, […]
No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

All About Mesothelioma Trust Funds and Asbestos Lawsuits

Asbestos was perhaps the largest mass tort of all-time, and the damage is still being realized. Just by the end of 2000, over $54 billion had been paid out in asbestos claims, and the number has multi |
David Slepkow's insight:

Asbestos was perhaps the largest mass tort of all-time, and the damage is still being realized. Just by the end of 2000, over $54 billion had been paid out in asbestos claims, and the number has multiplied exponentially since then. Tens of billions of dollars more will likely be paid out in the future. In the end, the total tab  for mesothelioma lawsuits will reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

If you or a loved one have been sickened by asbestos exposure, you are wondering how this all impacts you. The short story is that you have a right to financial compensation. How you get it all depends on who the defendant is and how your family is impacted by your situation. The first thing you need to do is contact a mesothelioma lawsuit lawyer.

Liability Is Pretty Much Settled in Most Asbestos Claims

Filing a lawsuit after being diagnosed with mesothelioma can be difficult, even when liability is pretty well settled. The court process can take its toll on a family that is dealing with the illness or death of a loved one. If you have been diagnosed with this aggressive disease, you may not want to spend what may be your remaining time dealing with the court process. In addition, while most mesothelioma cases are successful, there is always a chance that the lawsuit may be fruitless.

There are some defendants who have already established mesothelioma trust funds. They have either entered into a global settlement of all their mesothelioma claims or had transferred assets to these trusts as a condition for their bankruptcy. These trusts are already funded to pay mesothelioma claims without the need for a lawsuit.

Many Companies Went Bankrupt Under the Weight of Asbestos Claims

When the general public learned how bad the asbestos crisis was, it caused an outpouring of lawsuits. Families who saw their loved one sickened or die from mesothelioma immediately looked to be compensated, as was their legal right. The rush to file lawsuits took down many old-line companies that simply did not have the money to pay mass torts. Not only were they inundated with present lawsuits, but they had no idea of the extent of their future liability. Mesothelioma is a disease that takes decades to develop, so these companies had no idea what they would be facing far into the future.

Congress wanted to act to protect both the companies and potential plaintiffs, especially when businesses were declaring bankruptcy because of asbestos liability. Without a solution, families with sickened loved ones could be left holding the bag. In turn, companies would not be able to continue operating, and the bankruptcy would mean that families have to fight for their limited share of the corporate assets.

Trust Funds Were Established as Part of Bankruptcy Proceedings

Mesothelioma trust funds are created through the bankruptcy court. They are used when a company is filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy. There are two types of bankruptcies that companies go through:

  • Chapter 7, which involves a complete liquidation of the company
  • Chapter 11, which is a reorganization that allows the company to keep operating

In Chapter 7 bankruptcies, there is a mad scramble for all of the creditors to get their hands on the companies assets because there is no company after the process is complete. Chapter 11 involves a lessening of the debt load. However, Congress recognized that plaintiffs who have been sickened deserved to be taken care of as a condition for giving these companies bankruptcy protection.

Large Companies Funded the Trusts with Billions of Dollars to Pay Claims

As part of the bankruptcy process, large companies began trust funds of billions of dollars that they set aside to pay future claims. First, the bankruptcy court and the companies were required to rigorously estimate their approximate present and future claims. They were not allowed to just haphazardly estimate how much money they may owe. Here are some of the major trusts that were established and the amount of money that was in them at the beginning:

  • S. Gypsum – $3.9 billion
  • Pittsburgh Corning – $3.5 billion
  • Owens Corning – $3.4 billion
  • R. Grace – $2.9 billion
  • DII Industries – $2.5 billion

These trust funds are not administered and managed by the companies. The companies have nothing to do with the process once the money is placed in the trust. Instead, the trusts are managed by the Department of Justice. There is a trustee appointed who both manages the assets and pays out claims. The trustee may invest the money, but must ensure that there is enough money to pay the claims.

Asbestos injuries are complicated in that they gradually develop over time. They almost never happen immediately. Instead, they take decades to materialize. Plaintiffs diagnosed with mesothelioma today may have been exposed in the 1970s and 1980s, and the asbestos fibers remained in their bodies for decades, gradually inflaming and irritating their lung linings.

Types of Injuries that Could Be Paid By These Trust Funds

Note that, while we are referring to these as mesothelioma, these trust funds cover all asbestos-related injuries. Mesothelioma is just the most common asbestos injury. These trusts funds could also cover:

  • Lung cancer
  • Ovarian cancer
  • COPD
  • Asbestosis
  • Pleural plaques
  • Pleural thickening

With a mesothelioma trust fund, the money is already set aside. Most mesothelioma plaintiffs have to go through the lawsuit process to get the money that they legally deserve. Even though an overwhelming percentage of the cases will settle before trial (mesothelioma trials are extremely rare), plaintiffs must still go through the effort of drafting a complaint and entering into settlement negotiations with the defendant. These negotiations can be lengthy. When a plaintiff files the case when they are living, they do not want to spend their remaining quality time worrying too much about the legal process.

There is still money available in these funds, and there will need to be for some time. Claimants are still being sickened now from asbestos exposure that happened decades ago. There is still over $30 billion left in the 60 existing trust funds. This is after these funds have paid out over $20 billion of claims since they have been established.

The mesothelioma trust funds spare plaintiffs from having to engage in the lawsuit process. The companies are not fighting the issue of liability. In fact, they are completely out of the picture. They have funded the trust fund as a condition of their bankruptcy and have left it entirely to the administrator.

To make it perfectly clear, if the company has declared bankruptcy and established a trust fund, you cannot sue the company. You must file a claim with the trust fund. That is your only way of being compensated.

How to File a Claim

The first thing to know is that you do not have an unlimited amount of time to file your claim. Each trust has its own timeframes that function like a statute of limitations. As soon as you or a loved one have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, you should contact an attorney to explore the possibility of filing a claim.

Even though liability is not an issue, you still need to gather and present evidence. You need to show both your eligibility for payment and your damages. You should look at this like any other personal injury claim in terms of presenting documentation. Here, you would need the following for your claim:

  • Proof of your mesothelioma diagnosis
  • A statement from your doctor confirming your diagnosis
  • A medical opinion that asbestos exposure was the cause of your mesothelioma
  • Evidence about your employment history connecting you to asbestos exposure

Damages You Can Receive from a Trust Fund Claim

Your entitlement to damages is the same as it would be in any other personal injury case. You would still be allowed to recover for economic and non-economic damages. Here are some of the elements of damages in mesothelioma trust fund claims:

  • Your past and future medical bills – in a mesothelioma case, these can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars
  • Pain and suffering
  • Lost wages for the victim and family that must take time off from work to care for them
  • Emotional distress
  • Loss of enjoyment of life

There are a number of other factors that would impact what the claim is worth. Essentially, since mesothelioma is almost always fatal, the claims administrator is valuing a human life. This means that they will consider things like age, marital status and the number of dependents. After considering everything, the claims administrator will come up with a number.

The Three Different Basis of Review of Your Claim

Before they get to that point, there are a number of ways in which they could consider your claim. They are:

  • Expedited – How much time it takes could depend on your diagnosis. If your situation is particularly bad, the claim can be reviewed on an expedited basis. The considerations above do not apply to expedited claims. Instead, there is a fixed amount available from each trust fund. The amount depends on the trust fund and the amount of money available. You will have your money faster, but the amount may be more or less than your actual damages.
  • Individual – This level of review is the process described above. The claims administrator will consider your own specific situation in setting the dollar value of the total damages. Then, they will adjust it as described below to reach your total payment.
  • Extraordinary – This is a rare form of review for those who meet the requirements for an expedited review, and they have a more direct sort of claim against one trust fund or product. Extraordinary review allows you to challenge the amount that you receive if you do not feel that it is enough. If no agreement can be reached with the trust fund, you may file for arbitration.

How the Payout Percentage Affects Your Claim

Unfortunately, you will not receive the full amount that you are due for your injury. Mesothelioma cases usually involve wrongful death claims. Even though the plaintiff is older, these cases would have damages reaching into the seven figures if the case went to court. This does not happen in mesothelioma claims.

Instead, there is a payout percentage, recognizing that you will get a part of what you are due. We understand that this is disappointing for families who expected and deserve more. This is the tradeoff for ensuring that companies that went bankrupt did not completely get out of their obligation to pay legal compensation to people that they harmed with their negligence by exposing people to asbestos.

The payout percentage depends on the trust fund against which you are filing a claim. They vary widely based on the amount of money that was deposited into the trust fund in the first place. Obviously, the better endowed trust funds will have higher payout percentages.

Companies like Halliburton have payout percentages of 60%, while others have payout percentages under 5%. The average is around 15-25%.

However, if you meet certain criteria, you may qualify for an expedited review of your case.

Average Payouts for a Mesothelioma Claim

Because the payout percentages vary widely, the average mesothelioma trust fund payment also can vary. If you are filing a claim with one of the better funded trusts, your payout may reach into the six figures. You may be able to file claims with multiple trusts. The law gives you that right and ability.

Mesothelioma trust fund payouts can vary greatly. Payouts have been as low as $10,000 and have reached higher than $1 million. One study placed the average trust fund payout at $180,000.

Should You Sue or File a Claim?

In some cases, you have no choice but to file a claim with the relevant trust fund because the company has been through bankruptcy, and they cannot be sued. In other cases, you may have a choice whether to file a claim against a trust fund or pursue a lawsuit against another company. If you receive a trust fund award and then later win a lawsuit, your verdict will be reduced by the amount that you receive from the fund.

Many families want to get their money more quickly because their loved one is dying, and they need it. Trust funds offer a quicker route to the money. Then, your lawyer could determine whether you have a possible lawsuit against someone else too. They could also review your history of exposure to see if you have a claim against another of the 60 trust funds. If you get money from one fund, it does not impact your claim against another fund.

Why You Need a Lawyer

Many people question why they need an attorney if liability is already decided. How you present your claim to the trust fund matters. The trustee will evaluate the information that you present in order to decide your compensation. As you see above, it is not as simple as filling out a claim form and submitting it.

In addition, you may be eligible for funds from more than one trust. Your lawyer would help you figure out where else you may have a claim to maximize your recovery.

In addition, there is a possibility that your initial claim may be denied. Perhaps you did not meet the qualifications or did not present the right documentation. Your lawyer will submit the information the right way to minimize denials for failure to meet technical requirements. If, for some reason, your claim is denied, your lawyer would represent you at an individual review of your claim.

Do You Have to File a Claim, or Can You Still Sue?

If the company that would be legally responsible for your mesothelioma claim has gone through bankruptcy and established a trust fund, you are obligated to file a claim if you wish to receive compensation. Even though a trust fund claim will pay less than lawsuit damages, it is the only way that you can be compensated. The companies were relieved of liability for future claims in exchange for setting aside the money in the trust fund.

Families can still file a claim if their loved one has already died, provided that they fall within the statute of limitations provided by the trust fund operating procedures. Then, they can add wrongful death damages to the list for which they are seeking compensation.

When you or a loved one have been exposed to asbestos and have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, you must go through an entire legal process. The first thing is to figure out exactly where you have been exposed. Everywhere you were exposed could be a possible defendant in your case. You should review your entire work history with your attorney to try to maximize the number of defendants because your claim could be limited by trust fund procedures.

If you or a loved one have been exposed to asbestos and have suffered any injury, you have the right to file a legal claim. You should contact a mesothelioma lawyer today to learn more about your legal rights and the best way to receive compensation.

No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Uloric Lawsuits | Heart-Related Deaths & Cardiovascular Injuries

Uloric Lawsuits | Heart-Related Deaths & Cardiovascular Injuries | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
Uloric is intended to treat acid levels in people with gout. While this is in incredibly painful condition, the treatment may be even worse than the ailment. The FDA has ordered a boxed warning for Uloric, alerting patients to a risk of death when taking the drug. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, the maker of the drug, is […]
No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Phillips CPAP Lawsuit Lawyers | Sleep Apnea Machine Attorneys

Phillips CPAP Lawsuit Lawyers | Sleep Apnea Machine Attorneys | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
CPAP machines are used to treat those who have obstructive sleep apnea disorder. The machine takes pressurized air from the room and delivers it to the patient through a mask that they wear over their face. The CPAP machine depends on clear air because this goes directly to the patient’s lungs. It is the most […]
David Slepkow's insight:

CPAP machines are used to treat those who have obstructive sleep apnea disorder. The machine takes pressurized air from the room and delivers it to the patient through a mask that they wear over their face. The CPAP machine depends on clear air because this goes directly to the patient’s lungs. It is the most common way of treating sleep apnea.  

 Philips is a major manufacturer of CPAP machines. It has recently recalled several models of machines because of defects that make the air that patients breathe dangerous. Specifically, patients have been inhaling chemicals that can cause cancer while they sleep. The device itself has a foam in it that breaks down over time. The particles find their way into the air that users breathe and end up in their lungs.  

 

Phillips cpap lawsuit

 

 THE PHILIPS MACHINES THAT HAVE BEEN RECALLED 

 This particular problem affects the following types of Philips machines: 

  • CPAP machines 
  • BiPAP machines 
  • Ventilators 

Not all models of Philips machines were recalled. Particularly, this recall affects four million machines, spread over 18 products. You should check the recall list to see if your particular product is on the list.  

Update 9-15-21-  In the beginning of September, Phillips drafted  an important press release stating that they have FDA approval to fix Dreamstation, which was  previously recalled. They also have clearance from the FDA to repair other CPAC machines that they manufacture. 

HOW CPAP MACHINES TREAT SLEEP APNEA 

 Sleep apnea is a potentially dangerous condition in which the throat muscles relax while the person is sleeping. Breathing will repeatedly stop and start during sleep. The danger is that the person may not start breathing again. Even still, sleep apnea causes poor sleep, and it can have various other health effects. Patients will first visit a sleep lab, and a doctor who specializes in sleep may recommend a number of treatment options. They can range from oral appliances to machines like a CPAP.  

 The CPAP machine consists of a mask and hose that is connected to a unit. Patients will also connect a humidifier to keep them from inhaling dry air that could cause runny nose or other reactions. The machine will come with a preset pressure based on what the doctor has recommended. The patient will connect the mask to the hose (which is connected to the unit). They will then place the mask over their face. Air will come through the mask directly to the patient’s nose. 

 WHY PHILIPS CPAP AND BIPAP MACHINES HAVE BEEN RECALLED 

 The problem with the Philips CPAP machine is that the air that users breathe is not always pure. Although the problem does not affect every single machine, a number of the Philips units have had issues that put users in potential danger.  

 Here, the issue specifically relates to foam that was used in the unit itself. Philips designed the machine with foam to cut down on sound and vibration while the machine was in use. Specifically, this is called polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) sound abatement foam. 

 The problem is that the foam can break down over time. The issue is even more pronounced when there is any humidity in the room. The foam degrades into small particles, and users end up breathing them in as part of the air that comes through the CPAP. People who use CPAP machines breathe this air for hours every single night. Over time, foam made out of chemicals can build up in the lungs. This can sicken CPAP machine users. There are risks that patients can develop lung cancer because of the toxins contained in these chemicals. There are also reports of other lung problems associated with the use of Philips CPAP machines. 

 OTHER PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH PHILIPS MACHINES 

 In addition, users of Philips machines have reported the following problems: 

  •  Respiratory tract problems 
  • Kidney and liver cancer 
  • Headaches 
  • Asthma  

 The FDA issued a Safety Communication about the problem in June 2021. This detailed the voluntary recall of the products that Philips initiated. The Safety Communication described the issue that machine users could breathe in or swallow particles of foam, causing lung problems. Patients were advised to consult with their healthcare providers about whether they should continue to use the machines pending the recall.  

 Philips will begin the recall work in October 2021. It may take the company up to a year to finish repairing the defective machines. In the meantime, patients will need to figure out another option to treat their sleep apnea.  

 CONTACT A PHILIPS CPAP LAWSUIT ATTORNEY NOW 

 If you or a loved one have been using an affected version of the Philips CPAP or BiPAP machine, you should seek out an attorney immediately. In addition, you should also visit a doctor to have your lungs examined. If you are diagnosed with any type of cancer or other lung ailment, you have the legal right to file a lawsuit. 

 At this stage, product liability attorneys are still investigating the defects in this product. They are exploring the possibility of filing lawsuits against Philips for the defective machines. Already, consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against Phillips, but this seeks compensation for the amount of money that they spent to purchase the CPAP machine as opposed to for personal injury that they suffered. 

 However, we expect this to grow to be a large lawsuit. Hundreds of thousands of people have used the affected CPAP machines over the years, and the universe of possible plaintiffs is large. It may take some time for patients to realize that they have been sickened by these machines. They should seek a medical examination now, so that they do not have any issues with a statute of limitations.  

 Right now, Phillips’ role in the product defects (besides allegedly designing and selling a dangerous product is still to be learned. If these cases proceed to discovery, attorneys may learn what Philips knew about these possible defects and whether the company continued selling the product after it knew of the dangers. 

 DAMAGES IN PHILIPS CPAP LAWSUITS 

 If plaintiffs are successful in these lawsuits, they may receive the following damages: 

  • The cost of all of their medical bills 
  • Lost wages for time missed from work 
  • Pain and suffering 
  • Loss of enjoyment of life 
  • Wrongful death damages if a family member died from cancer 
  • Possible punitive damages, depending on what Philips did 

 You should contact an attorney today to discuss your case. They will advise you what you need to do to prepare your possible lawsuit against Phillips. You have a limited amount of time after you learned that you have been sickened to file a lawsuit.  

No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

https://mesotheliomalegalreview.com/

David Slepkow's insight:

Attorney David Slepkow is an attorney and Partner at Slepkow Slepkow & Associates Inc. David Slepkow is dedicated and committed to providing high quality, original and reliable information to Mesothelioma victims. We will provide free case reviews and will help you get justice and top compensation as a result of your pain, suffering and medical bills.

An Asbestos attorney, not a call center operator, will speak to you and provide legal advice about your potential Mesothelioma lawsuit. David was voted a best three lawyer in his state of practice. David has 24 years of legal experience. He is honored to be selected to the United States Supreme Court Bar. He has a superb rating from AVVO.

No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

https://mesotheliomalegalreview.com/learn-if-you-qualify-for-compensation/

David Slepkow's insight:

Mesothelioma

Mesothelioma is a devastating form of cancer where tumors form on the tissue of surrounding organs. Although rare, mesothelioma is a result of exposure to asbestos. Once diagnosed, it is incurable and fatal, resulting in medical treatments only able to keep patients comfortable and slightly prolong life.

Mesothelioma Symptoms

There are two common types of mesothelioma: pleural and peritoneal. Pleural affects the tissue surrounding the lungs and causes symptoms including pain in the chest and rib cage, strong and often painful coughing, difficulty breathing, suspicious lumps under the chest skin, and sudden weight loss. Peritoneal affects the abdominal surrounding tissues and causes abdominal pain, swelling of the abdomen, lumps in the abdominal cavity, and weight loss.

Mesothelioma Diagnosis

Diagnosis starts at the doctor’s office with a standard exam of the area. Next, the doctor will order chest X-rays and a CT scan of the area. If it appears that tumors are present, then a biopsy is conducted and some tissue from the tumors is studied. Once confirmed, a doctor will order additional imaging tests to determine how far the mesothelioma has spread. Mesothelioma has no cure, but the spread can be slowed through various treatments.

Mesothelioma Treatment

Treatments for mesothelioma are invasive and hard on patients. According to the Mayo Clinic, one of the top medical research hospitals in the United States, treatments for slowing the disease include surgically draining fluid, removing cancerous tissue, and use of conventional radiation and chemotherapy. Additionally, numerous studies and clinical trials are underway to make drugs that could ultimately cure, but also add comfort to the lives of those suffering from mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma Compensation

As with any cancer, all the causes of mesothelioma are unknown. It is known, however, that roughly 77 percent of those diagnosed with it have been exposed to asbestos in the past, usually through inhalation. For those suffering from asbestos related mesothelioma, there is compensation available. Special trusts have been set up by asbestos manufacturers for the purpose of compensating people who suffer from this disease. However, compensation can only be obtained after a successful mesothelioma lawsuit and depending on each case.

Mesothelioma Lawsuit

Although the link between asbestos and mesothelioma has been proven and upheld in the United States court system, there is no formal law requiring asbestos manufacturers to compensate all people who are affected. Instead, those diagnosed with mesothelioma must prove their exposure in court and obtain a ruling from the judge. The ruling is then used to place the person into one of the existing trusts and provide compensation.

Mesothelioma Lawyers

Mesothelioma cases require specific evidence from scientists, physicians, and previous employers. This information is not easily accessible to the public, so it is vital that anyone seeking to file a mesothelioma lawsuit find a local lawyer. A lawyer specializing in these types of cases will be up to date on the modern court rulings and able to connect patients with the necessary people to obtain a timely ruling.

Mesothelioma Lawsuit Qualification

The first step to take after being diagnosed with mesothelioma is to determine if the patient qualifies for compensation. Anyone can find out if they qualify by filling out the qualification information sheet here on this website. The form only takes a few minutes to fill out and if the person qualifies they will be contacted by a licensed lawyer who specialized in mesothelioma or Asbestos Lawsuit cases.

Having asbestos related mesothelioma is a hard burden for any family. It can only be made worse with the extensive medical expenses for the patients care.

Obtaining compensation for mesothelioma is one way to alleviate some of the burden on the patient and their family.

No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Belviq Cancer Lawsuit | Diet Pill Drug Recall lawyer

Belviq Cancer Lawsuit | Diet Pill Drug Recall lawyer | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
Diagnosed with Cancer as a result of recalled Belviq Diet medication? Call a top Belviq lawsuit lawyer. Get compensation & Justice.
David Slepkow's insight:

Belviq was one of those weight loss drugs that should have never been approved by the FDA. The drug seemed doomed from the start and was approved in spite of known cancer risks. Not only was the drug never approved in Europe, but it was a sales flop in the U.S. Nonetheless, there were still enough people who were subjected to danger when they were prescribed Belviq. As a result of the defects in the drug, many patients have now developed cancer. Accordingly, Belviq cancer lawsuits have been filed, and new legal claims are pending. If you or a loved one have developed cancer from taking Belviq, you could file your own claim for financial compensation.

 

Belviq lawsuit

 

Even though Belviq has been recalled and sales have been discontinued in the U.S., this does not mean that patients who took the drug can breathe easy. The drug’s effects may have built up in their body over time, and they may still develop cancer in the future, even if they are healthy now. The company that made the drug, Arena Pharmaceutical and the one that bought the selling rights, Eisai, are still at risk for future lawsuits. The lawsuits that have already been filed promise to be the first in a wave of court actions against Arena and Eisai.

Update -4-7-21-  A Florida Belviq victim filed a complaint  in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.

WHAT IS BELVIQ?

Belviq is a weight loss drug that is meant to go along with diet and exercise to help patients take off extra pounds. The active ingredient of Belviq is called lorcaserin. The drug was intended to trick patients’ bodies into feeling more full than they otherwise would have. This would have the same effect as reducing their appetite. The way the weight loss drug Belviq works is that lorcaserin stimulates a serotonin receptor that creates these feelings in the body. The end result is that patients eat less.

There are two companies that have had a hand in making and selling Belviq. Arena Pharmaceuticals developed the drug and Eisai, Inc partnered with it in marketing it. Eventually, Eisai bought all of the rights to sell the drug. “Eisai Inc, based in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey, voluntarily withdrew Belviq from the market on February 13, 2020, at the behest of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.” Mass Torts

  • “Earlier, in January 2020, the FDA had alerted the public about a possible risk of cancer associated with lorcaserin, the active ingredient in Belviq, based on preliminary analysis of the data.” Id.

WHY WAS BELVIQ A SALES DUD?

Americans are naturally skeptical about diet pills, even as a large part of the country is obese. People remember the dangers tied to the supposed miracle weight loss pill Fen-Phen. The popular weight loss drug had deadly side effects of killing scores of people with heart attacks. There are literally thousands of people with damaged hearts because of Fen-Phen’s defect. As a result, the FDA was afraid to approve a diet drug for years. Belviq was the first one that got FDA approval in nearly a decade. However, the FDA probably should not have approved Belviq in retrospect. While you cannot take action against the FDA, you can sue the companies that brought this dangerous drug to market.

Before it was approved, the sales expectations for Belviq were high. Some experts were throwing around numbers that the drug could have annual sales as high as $3 billion. However, the makers never fully understood how much of an overhang on sales the Fen-Phen debacle would cause. Arena thought that there was pent-up demand for a diet drug. They were wrong. Eventually, Arena decided to cut bait on the drug, disappointed by years of sluggish sales. It sold the rest of its stake in Belviq to Eisai in 2017.

CANCER RISKS OF THE WEIGHT LOSS DRUG BELVIQ WERE KNOWN EARLY

Part of the reason why Belviq’s sales were so low is that the drug was never approved by European regulators. They knew of the problem that the FDA either ignored or discounted. The European Medicines Agency learned two major things about Belviq in its testing. The first was that the drug was effective as a weight loss pill. The second was that there were known cancer risks that far outweighed the weight loss benefits.

Specifically, the EMA found that Belviq’s testing results indicated that it was a possible carcinogen. It was shown to cause cancer in laboratory rats. Ultimately, Arena decided not to proceed with its application in Europe because it could not persuade the EMA to approve the drug. When Arena started selling the drug in the U.S., the fears about cancer were not a secret.

THE FDA STILL APPROVED THE DRUG

The FDA was far from ignorant about the risks of Belviq. It knew full well of the possible carcinogenic properties of the drug, yet it still approved it for use. Of course, Belviq’s approval was a long-running saga that stretched out over two years. When Belviq received approval, the vote was far from unanimous. Even some FDA advisory voters had their own fears. In the end, four committee members voted against approval.

What is even more mind-boggling is that the FDA approval did not come with a requirement to warn the public about the risk of cancer after taking Belviq. Instead, the public bought the drug and put themselves at risk largely without the benefit of a heads-up that Belviq may cause cancer.

BELVIQ’S PROBLEMS NEVER WENT AWAY

The makers of Belviq were required to do post-market studies about the drug’s safety while the drug was being sold to the public. The test results confirmed what the FDA knew or should have known all along; Belviq is a dangerous drug. The post-market study showed that there was an elevated chance of being diagnosed with cancer and cancer risk from taking Belviq. The study looked for rates of cancer in people who were taking Belviq and those who were on a placebo. The patients taking a placebo had 7.1 cases of cancer for every 1,000 patients. Those on Belviq had a rate of 7.7 cases of cancer for 1,000 patients.

This may not seem like a higher risk, but it actually works out to six extra cases for every 1,000 patients. If there were 100,000 people using Belviq, this would work out to 600 extra cases.

BELVIQ CANCER LAWSUIT – CANCERS CAUSED BY BELVIQ

Belviq is a drug that works on the digestive system. Naturally, the types of cancer caused by the drug would be in the general area of the digestive system. Specifically, patients have alleged that Belviq has caused the following types of cancer:

  • Colorectal cancer
  • Pancreatic cancer
  • Lung cancer
  • Kidney cancer

This is based on some of the other reporting since the FDA report did not discuss specific types of cancer. Many patients are still learning about their cancer diagnoses since the disease takes some time to develop. There is still much to be learned about the effects of Belviq since it is a newer drug that was not on the market for a long time.

THE FDA RECALLED BELVIQ

Belviq’s recall happened very quickly after the post market study results were released. Initially, the Food and Drug Administration just released the study results in January 2020 and left it to healthcare professionals to decide whether they should continue to prescribe the drug to their patients. However, the FDA’s tune changed very quickly. In February 2020, the FDA ordered Belviq’s complete recall from pharmacies. Not only was the drug to be pulled from the market, but patients taking Belviq were also advised to stop using the drug and find a new weight loss aid. This ended a chapter that probably never should have happened anyway. In the meantime, at least hundreds of people developed cancer from an unsafe drug.

BELVIQ CANCER LAWSUITS

Patients are beginning to file Belviq cancer lawsuits. These are product liability lawsuits that allege that the drugmakers marketed and sold a defective drug. Not only that, but the lawsuits claim that the drugmakers knew all along of the risks of the drug and did not warn the public. Patients have already filed a class action lawsuit seeking their money back, but injured patients are in the process of working with attorneys to file personal injury lawsuits related to the cancer that they developed after taking Belviq.

It is likely that this case will become part of multi-district litigation in the future. With cases still being filed, there will probably be enough cases for this to become a mass tort in an MDL. This means that the cases will be combined for purposes of discovery but will remain separate legal actions. In an MDL, the court will pick several bellwether cases to proceed first ahead of all of the rest of the cases.

I have diagnosed if you or a loved one with cancer after taking Belviq, you may be entitled to significant financial compensation by filing a Belviq lawsuit. You should contact a Belviq cancer lawsuit attorney to learn more about your legal rights and how you can file your own legal claim. Hiring a Belviq lawyer will not cost you anything out of your pocket, and we are only paid if you win.

 

No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Invokana Lawsuit – Ketoacidosis & Amputation | SGLT-2 Inhibitors

Invokana Lawsuit – Ketoacidosis & Amputation | SGLT-2 Inhibitors | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
Invokana causes serious side effects such as ketoacidosis & amputation. If suffering Invokana side effects contact an Invokana lawsuit lawyer
David Slepkow's insight:
INVOKANA LAWSUIT – KETOACIDOSIS & AMPUTATION | SGLT-2 INHIBITORS

If you feel that you have suffered harm as a result of taking Invokana, there is legal relief that is possibly available to you by filing an Invokana lawsuit or an Invokana amputation lawsuit. Invokana is infamous for causing: Fournier’s gangrene, diabetic ketoacidosis and kidney failure. When it was first introduced in 2013, Invokana was hailed as a first-of-its-kind medicine that would revolutionize the treatment of type-2 diabetes. The medicine is intended to act upon sodium-glucose transport proteins in order to help with the elimination of blood glucose. However, it became apparent soon after introduction that Invokana can cause serious side effects in patients that are taking the drug that can be as severe as amputation. Invokana side effects are a serious matter which must be taken seriously by both victims and Invokana lawyers. There have been numerous FDA warnings associated with this drug and sales growth of the medicine has been slowing as a result. Because of the complications that patients have suffered, there have been numerous Invokana lawsuits filed against the manufacturer of Invokana. Many victims are searching for information about: invokana lawsuit settlement.

 

Invokana lawsuit

 

Canagliflozin, the generic drug for Invokana, is a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor used in patients with type 2 diabetes as an adjunct to diet and exercise to lower blood sugar. This medication lowers blood sugar by removing sugar from the body through the urine with help from the kidneys. ” Diabetes in control

Update-8/1/2020-  “As of August 2020… The Food and Drug Administration decided to remove the black boxed warning for the risk of leg and foot amputations. This decision was made after reviewing data from three clinical trials. These clinical trials revealed that canagliflozin reduced the risk of heart attack, stroke, or death and the risk of end-stage kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. The heart and kidney benefit of this medication contributed to different uses. Findings also showed that the risk of amputation is lower than previously described when appropriately monitored. While the risk for amputations remains, it has been removed as a Box Warning and listed under the Warnings and Precautions section. Under the Warnings and Precautions section, it states to monitor patients for infection or ulcers of the lower limb and discontinue in these scenarios.  As stated, even though leg and foot amputations are no longer a boxed warning, it is still listed as a warning and precaution for this drug.” Id.

“Earlier this week, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed the boxed warning concerning the risk of leg and foot amputations for Janssen’s (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson) sodium-glucose co-transporter (SGLT) inhibitor, Invokana (canagliflozin), including its combination varieties, Invokamet (canagliflozin + metformin) and Invokamet XR (canagliflozin + metformin extended-release). This is in the reversal of the FDA decision made in 2017, which required a boxed warning label describing the risk of leg and foot amputations associated with Invokana treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D). With the removal of the boxed warning, it is expected that Invokana will experience a moderate rebound from the trend of decreasing US sales that have been occurring since 2017, likely due to the boxed warning and increased competition from other SGLT inhibitors.” Pharmaceutical technology

4/10/19- “As of April 2019, there were 965 Invokana lawsuits and 37 Farxiga lawsuits  pending in federal courts. More than a thousand people have filed lawsuits against Type 2 diabetes drugmakers Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca over injuries ranging from a flesh-eating disease called Fournier’s gangrene to life-threatening blood infections.” Drug watch

THE INVOKANA MDL:

  • IN RE: INVOKANA (CANAGLIFLOZIN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION : MDL NO. 2750
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
  • MDL NO. 2750 Master Docket No. 3:16-MD-2750
  • JUDGE BRIAN R. MARTINOTT
  • JUDGE LOIS H. GOODMAN
  • Chief Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson
  • View case management orders

WHAT IS INVOKANA?

Invokana is a relatively new drug that is aimed at acting as a SGLT-2 inhibitor. The drug is taken orally as opposed to being injected. The way that the drug works is by inhibiting a certain kind of sodium glucose co-transporter. This transporter actually works to facilitate absorption of glucose into the kidneys. By going after the transporter, this forces glucose to be eliminated in the urine as opposed to going into the bloodstream. The end result should be a reduction in blood sugar levels.

Invokana consists only of canagliflozin. Invokamet adds metoformin to make for a combined medication. Metformin is another medication that is used to treat diabetes. It is intended to help make it easier for insulin to cause a reaction in cells. By taking Invokamet, patients alleviate the need to have to take two different pills by combining them in one medication.

HOW LONG HAS INVOKANA BEEN ON THE MARKET?

“Medical LRARITAN, N.J., March 29, 2013 – Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. announced today the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved INVOKANA™ (canagliflozin) for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes. INVOKANA™ is the first in a new class of medications called sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to be approved in the United States. It is also the only oral, once-daily medication available in the United States offering improved glycemic control while also showing reduced body weight and systolic blood pressure in clinical trials literature.” J & J announcement

WHO MAKES INVOKANA?

Invokana is manufactured by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Janssen is a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson. Invokana was approved by the FDA to treat type-2 diabetes in 2013. Around the same time, an application for FDA by Bristol, Myers Squibb for a similar drug to treat diabetes was initially rejected before it was approved.

Invokana has seen brisk sales since it received its FDA approval. The product had gained wide acceptance in the marketplace as one of the first of its kind of medications. However, as news of hazardous side effects of Invokana have emerged, sales have slumped and competitors have gained ground. In fact, sales have been falling as bad news has come out about Invokana.

INVOKANA SIDE EFFECTS

As mentioned above, it has emerged that there are some severe Invokana side effects that have resulted from the use of Invokana. There are several major areas of damage that have been caused by Invokana. The drug is known to cause damage to kidneys. Several patients have allegedly died from kidney damage caused by Invokana. In addition, use of Invokana has been connected to ketoacidosis. This occurs when one’s body produces too many ketones. This is a harmful blood acid that occurs when the body cannot produce sufficient insulin. Ketoacidosis is treatable if it is caught in time, but it often requires hospitalization. Another complication of Invokana is that is has been alleged to cause heart disease in patients. Invokana side effects are serious matters that must be carefully researched by victim.

COMPLICATIONS THAT HAVE RESULTED FROM INVOKANA

The most major invokana side effects  and complication that has resulted from Invokana is an increased risk of amputations in patients. Diabetics already face a heightened chance that they will require an amputation. Many of the amputations allegedly caused by Invokana have been to the foot. Some doctors have speculated that the effect of Invokana is that it causes blood to pool in the foot. Others have surmised that Invokana decreases the fluid that flows through the bloodstream, exacerbating the already poor circulation of those with diabetes.

FDA INVESTIGATION

As the side effects emerged, the FDA did further investigation. As a result of the FDA investigation, box label warnings were required that called attention to the increased risk of amputation. In addition, the FDA recently issued a new warning in the face of a spate of infections that have been caused by Invokana. Although Johnson & Johnson has hotly contested the finding that Invokana can lead to amputation, sales of Invokana have lost ground.

THE INVOKANA LAWSUITS

There have been a multitude of invokana side effects lawsuits that have been filed against Johnson & Johnson in the wake of the news about Invokana. By early 2018, there were approximately 1,100 lawsuits pending related to side effects of Invokana. The lawsuits have alleged that Invokana is a defective product due to the side effects that it causes. The defect has been alleged to be a manufacturing. Alternatively, plaintiffs have described the defect as a design defect. The complaints allege that Johnson & Johnson failed to perform adequate testing before marketing the product to the public. Additionally, the suits claim that there was a more economical alternative available that would not have had the defects.

POSSIBLE SIDE EFFECTS

The plaintiffs have alleged that Johnson & Johnson has known about the possible side effects and took action to conceal the information from the public. The manufacturer allegedly continued to market the product in spite of its knowledge that the drug is dangerous. Johnson & Johnson had a duty to warn patients of the dangers associated with Invokana and failed to do so.

Additionally, the lawsuits accuse Johnson & Johnson of breaching several warranties that should come when a consumer purchases its products. There is an express warranty that Invokana was safe and fit for use for its intended purpose to treat diabetes. Finally, the invokana lawsuits allege that the manufacturer of Invokana was negligent in its manufacture and design of Invokana.

INVOKANA LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT

In response to the lawsuits, Johnson & Johnson set aside an accrual as an accounting method. An accrual is a form of liability. Here, it is apparently acknowledging that Johnson & Johnson will face some sort of liability from Invokana.

Predictably, Johnson & Johnson decided to settle many of the lawsuits stemming from the Invokana side effects. There were over 1,000 cases that were pending in New Jersey as part of a multi-district litigation. These cases were are settled. The settlement amount is still confidential as of this writing. There will be a settlement fund that will be established to administer the payments to the plaintiffs. There are multiple other cases that are pending in other courts across the country. It is likely that there will eventually be settlement agreements in those cases as well.

INVOKANA LAWSUIT

If you have taken Invokana and have suffered some of these invokana side effects, you should immediately contact an invokana lawsuit lawyer to discuss your legal rights. You may be entitled to compensation for the invokana side effects  and injuries that you have suffered.

Invokana has been marketed as an effective treatment for Type-2 diabetes. However, Invokana has been beset by safety issues and FDA warnings over the past several years, dating back to very shortly after it was approved. As a result of the myriad of complications that have been caused by the drug, the manufacturer now faces a large amount of product liability lawsuits that is growing by the day.

The developer of Invokana was Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma. Through a licensing agreement, Janssen Pharmaceuticals is the marketer of Invokana. Janssen is a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson. Invokana was given FDA approval to be used as a treatment for diabetes in 2013. Invokana is intended to act as a SGLT2 inhibitor which blocks certain proteins from being absorbed. Instead of being absorbed, when the medications works as intended, these proteins are eliminated through the urine.

WHY DOES INVOKANA CAUSE AMPUTATIONS?

“Based on new data from two large clinical trials, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has concluded that the type 2 diabetes medicine canagliflozin (Invokana, Invokamet, Invokamet XR) causes an increased risk of leg and foot amputations. We are requiring new warnings, including our most prominent Boxed Warning, to be added to the canagliflozin drug labels to describe this risk.” FDA  

INVOKANA WARNING

“Patients taking canagliflozin should notify your health care professionals right away if you develop new pain or tenderness, sores or ulcers, or infections in your legs or feet. Talk to your health care professional if you have questions or concerns. Do not stop taking your diabetes medicine without first talking to your health care professional.” Id.

2017 WARNING

“We required the Boxed Warning in 2017 based on our assessment that the risk of amputations was very serious in relation to the potential benefit of canagliflozin, which was initially approved to be used with diet and exercise to lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. Subsequent FDA reviews of new clinical trial data demonstrated additional heart- and kidney-related benefits, which led to additional approved uses. Specifically, in 2018, canagliflozin was approved to reduce the risk of major heart-related events such as heart attack, stroke, or death in patients with type 2 diabetes who have known heart disease; and, in 2019, it was approved to reduce the risk of end-stage kidney disease, worsening of kidney function, heart-related death, and being hospitalized for heart failure in certain patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease.” FDA

INVOKANA FDA WARNING

“Certain medications, such as Invokana, can also increase the risk of amputation. Invokana, the trade name for the drug canagliflozin, is prescribed to patients for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The drug is licensed from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation to Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals division for distribution throughout most of the world. ” https://medtruth.com/invokana-cause-amputations/ “According to Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Invokana lowers blood sugar (A1C) and the 300-mg dose is proven to reduce A1C levels more effectively than a competing drug from Merck called Januvia.” Id.

WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE FDA INVOKANA AMPUTATION WARNING?

“Known Invokana side effects include ketoacidosis, kidney problems, urinary tract infections and a higher risk of broken bones. Amputation risk, however, is a new concern for users of the popular diabetes medication. In 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration began requiring new ‘black box’ warnings to be added to Invokana labels to describe the increased risk of leg and foot amputations to patients.” Id. “The FDA acted following two large clinical trials, CANVAS and CANVAS-R, in which the data demonstrated that leg and foot amputations occurred about twice as often in patients treated with canagliflozin compared to patients treated with a placebo.” Id.

SGLT2 INHIBITOR

Invokana had previously been the market leading drug in the SGLT2 inhibitor space. However, negative reports and lawsuits surrounding Invokana as well as competition from a new drug have reduced Invokana’s sales. In 2017, sales dropped by 20 percent to $1.1 billion. Sales have further fallen in the first quarter of this year. Johnson and Johnson has been seeking to expand the label for Invokana, but has faced delays from the FDA as there have been strong concerns about the safety of the drug.

INVOKANA AMPUTATION

Invokana has had a long history of regulatory problems as safety issues regarding the drug have mounted in recent years. Invokana has gone from being perceived as a significant advance in the treatment of diabetes to a drug that has been linked with some severe side effects. This has placed the drug under a cloud that Johnson and Johnson has found it difficult to escape.

KETOACIDOSIS

The first issue with Invokana emerged in 2015 when it was reported that there were links between Invokana and ketoacidosis. Following that, the FDA issued a communication discussing possible links between Invokana and lower bone density and fractures. Shortly after that, the FDA required warnings that would detail connections between Invokana and bladder infections. Finally, in 2017, the FDA required a label warning that would discuss heightened risks of amputation that are faced by users of Invokana. The amputation risk has been a large driver of the drop in sales of Invokana. Although Johnson and Johnson has attempted to counter this with scientific data of its own, the label warning remains in place.

Ivokana has been the subject of a variety of lawsuits in the past several years. The major areas of causes of action have been those associated with ketoacidosis and amputations. In February 2018, Johnson and Johnson disclosed in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it was currently named as a defendant in approximately 1,100 lawsuits pertaining to Invokana. According to Johnson and Johnson, the number of lawsuits related to this drug continues to increase, and the company expects more lawsuits to be filed in the future. Johnson and Johnson has established an accrual for these lawsuits. Currently, the main litigation regarding Invokana is a multi-district suit that has been brought in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. This is where Johnson and Johnson is headquartered. There are cases pending in several other state courts as well as Canada.

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON FAILED TO ADEQUATELY WARN

The claims against Johnson and Johnson are rooted in product liability. The lawsuit alleges that Johnson and Johnson failed to adequately warn the public of the dangers associated with Invokana. Johnson and Johnson is alleged to have also marketed Invokana for off-label purposes such as weight loss, reduced blood pressure and Type-1 diabetes. According to the complaint, not only did Johnson and Johnson fail to warn of the dangers, but it willfully misrepresented these risks to consumers.

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THESE RISKS

According to the complaint, Johnson and Johnson knew or should have known of these risks based on data that they possessed. Even if Johnson and Johnson did not have this data, they had the ability to obtain this data through proper testing of the drug or through other efforts to learn about the side effects. The complaint alleges that, even after Johnson and Johnson learned of the increased risks of the drug, it continue to defend the drug to the public and to doctors. According to the plaintiffs, the failure to warn of the dangers makes Johnson and Johnson strictly liable.

DEFECTIVE DESIGN

In addition, the lawsuits allege that Invokana was defectively designed. The fact that Invokana caused these side effects made it defective at the time of its design and manufacture. According to the complaint, the design defect outweighed any benefits that could be obtained from the medication. In addition, the plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants were negligent in the design on the medication. Finally, plaintiffs have stated that Johnson and Johnson breached express and implied warranties associated with the drug.

DID DEFENDANTS FRAUDULENTLY MISREPRESENTED THE SAFETY OF INVOKANA?

The most serious accusation contained in these lawsuits is that the defendants fraudulently misrepresented the safety of Invokana. Johnson and Johnson is alleged to have intentionally omitted these side effects when it had a section in the drug user guide that specifically asked about possible side effects. Johnson and Johnson should have warned consumers that Invokana was more dangerous than other diabetes drugs due to the potential side effects about which it knew or should have known.

CONSOLIDATED INTO A MULTI-DISTRICT LAWSUIT

Currently, these cases are pending in front of the courts. In order to reduce duplicative discovery requests, these cases have been consolidated into a multi-district lawsuit. This is not the same as a class action suit since the plaintiffs can still receive individualized compensation if they prevail. There have been no settlements reached and no decisions issued in the case. Currently, Johnson and Johnson is still contesting liability in this case.

If you have been taking Invokana and believe that you have suffered harm, you should immediately consult with an Invokana lawsuit attorney regarding your legal options. The attorney can inform youwhether  you are entitled to a invokana lawsuit settlement. Due to the statute of limitations, potential plaintiffs have a limited amount of time in which they can file an invokana amputation lawsuit  and still obtain relief. An invokana lawsuit is a very serious matter and you need representation from the best invokana lawsuits law firm.

DOES INVOKANA CAUSE HAIR LOSS?

Hair loss is not a side effect of invokana. “Hair loss wasn’t a side effect of Invokana in any clinical trials. If you’re concerned about hair loss, talk with your doctor. They can help you determine what’s causing it and ways to treat it.” Medical news today

HAS THERE BEEN AN INVOKANA RECALL?

There has been no Invokana recall as a result of Invokana amputations.

Sources:

FDA

Type two diabetes

law.com

No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

IVC Filter Lawsuit Complications | Blood Clot Filter Settlements

IVC Filter Lawsuit Complications | Blood Clot Filter Settlements | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
IVC filter complications alter a patient’s life. Looking to file a blood clot filter lawsuit? IVC filter lawsuit settlements may be available
David Slepkow's insight:

IVC Filter settlement amounts as a result of an inferior vena cava lawsuit are difficult to determine at this time. Issues with an IVC (inferior vena cava) filter may lead to many unwelcome side effects and IVC filter complications. Physician utilize IVC Filters to strengthen weak or damaged tissue. If you were implanted with a defective IVC filter, contact top IVC filter lawsuit attorneys. These IVC filter complications can drastically alter a patient’s quality of life. Many victims are seeking information about: “Bard IVC filter lawsuit settlements, “ivc filter lawsuit awards”, “blood clot filter lawsuit” and “IVC filter lawsuit settlements” Most importantly, do not miss an ivc filter lawsuit deadline!

 

Bard IVC lawsuit

 

In order to determine what ivc filter lawsuit settlements amounts will be, a victim needs to be informed. IVC lawsuits are individual lawsuits and none of the lawsuits constitute an ivc filter class action lawsuit. A patient suffering from serious medical complications due to an inferior IVC filter product and/or placement will be afforded the ability to seek compensation using an ivc filter lawsuit for the following reasons:

IVC FILTER DEFECTS:

  1. The filter has migrated from its original placement position.
  2. The  IVC filter did not prevent (or lessen the severity of) a pulmonary embolism.
  3. The filter is not removable due to migration.
  4. The filter has become fractured, broken, or otherwise come apart in some way- whether or not it has migrated from its original position.
  5. The filter perforated, punctured, or otherwise caused damage to the IVC or other blood vessels.
  6. The filter has malfunctioned or broken, causing damage to other organs such as the lungs, liver, heart, kidneys, etc.
  7. The patient has had to undergo further surgery to have a malfunctioning IVC hernias filter removed.

IVC FILTER UPDATE

Update- 11/28/2020- “The guidelines on the use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE; ie, deep vein thrombosis [DVT] or pulmonary embolism [PE]) were published in October 2020 by the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR), in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Committee on Trauma, the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), and the Society for Vascular Medicine (SVM).[1]” medscape

9-25-2020- “Medtech trade group AdvaMed this week debuted a website that tracks law firm TV advertisements aimed at patients who have had certain medical devices implanted. The “Responsible Advertising for Patient Safety” site says that such ads mislead patients into legal action against the manufacturers of devices that are “non-faulty” and may jeopardize patient safety. We are advocates protecting patients from risks associated with deceptive, third-party funded advertisements,” the site says. “We support the doctor-patient relationship and seeking proper medical, not legal, advice for any medical device and health-related concerns.”  Medical Design

8-13-2020- “The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday affirmed a $3.6 million award to Sherr-Una Booker, the first bellwether plaintiff in the Bard IVC Filter Multidistrict Litigation and the only one, of five, to win her case at trial. Booker, a Georgia resident represented by Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick, still has a fragment of the C.R. Bard G2 filter lodged in a vein leading to her heart, the 9th Circuit said. The MDL jury in Phoenix awarded her $1.6 million in compensation and $2 million in punitive damages in 2018, finding that Bard knew the G2 fractured, migrated and caused perforations at a “significantly higher” rate than competing filters and should have included a warning to physicians on the label.” Reuters

8/6/2020- “The placement of an inferior vena cava filter reduced the rate of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and cancer, according to study results published in JAMA Network Open….This population-based cohort study included encounter-level data from the (HCUP) databases. The analysis included a total of 88,585 patients (median age, 71.0 years) with malignant neoplasms and a diagnosis of acute lower extremity DVT from state inpatient databases from California (2005-2011) and Florida (2005-2014) who were enrolled in the HCUP. Investigators examined all hospital visits for these patients to determine whether or not an IVC filter was placed. The primary outcome was the development of new PE following the initial DVT diagnosis. Additionally, the rates of new DVT as well as in-hospital mortality were examined. The researchers concluded that “[t]hese data suggest that IVC filter use in patients with cancer is of potential benefit in appropriately selected patients,” but additional studies are needed to determine “the appropriate use of these devices.” Pulmonology Advisor  

1/9/2020- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has vacated a $3 million judgment against Bloomington-based Cook Medical. The company had been sued by a Georgia woman who claimed an intravenous filter made by Cook deteriorated inside her body, causing medical complications. In the lawsuit, Tonya Brand said she pulled part of her inferior vena cava (IVC) filter out of her thigh in 2011 after it had broken up and deteriorated. She says some pieces of the device are still lodged in her body and cannot be removed. In February 2019, a jury awarded Brand $3 million, however the court has now vacated the judgment and ordered a new trial. In its decision, the court said the “Plaintiff did not have overwhelming evidence to show the filter was defective or that a defect in the filter caused her injuries” and that “a jury could have just as easily found in Cook’s favor.” inside business

1 -8-2020- “On January 8, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal certified this proceeding to move forward as a class action on behalf of all residents of Canada who were implanted with an IVC filter product, namely: the Cook Gunther Tulip Vena Cava Filter Set, the Cook Celect Vena Cava Filter Set, and the Cook Celect Platinum Vena Cava Filter Set, at any time on or before January 8, 2020.” Newswire

11/1/2019- “The lawsuit was filed by a woman from Georgia who was implanted with an Option® blood clot filter in 2016. The filter perforated the wall of her vein, causing her to suffer severe pain and health problems. The jury awarded her over $1 million in future medical expenses, plus more than $2.3 million in future pain and suffering. The jury also awarded an additional $30.3 million in punitive damages. Blood clot filters are wire devices that are implanted in the vena cava, where they are supposed to catch blood clots and prevent deadly pulmonary embolisms. Unfortunately, IVC filters also pose serious risks. The filter can move out of position, fracture into pieces, puncture the vein, and more. Rex Medical was accused of selling a defective IVC filter with an unreasonably dangerous risk of causing complications. The trial began in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas earlier this month. It was the first case to come before a Philadelphia jury in the nationwide IVC filter litigation.” Daily Hornet

IVC FILTER | THE 411

  1. There are over 10,000 ivc filter lawsuits pending in the United States. These IVC Filter lawsuits are pending in both Federal and State Courts. Victims are seeking lucrative awards.
  2. The most IVC Filter lawsuits have been filed against Bard Medical and Cook Medical. Many victims are waiting to get an IVC filter payout.
  3. There are currently two MDL’s:  1.) The Bard MDL located in Arizona Federal Court. 2.) The Cook Medical MDL ( MDL No. 2570 IN RE: Cook Medical, Inc., IVC Filters Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation) which is pending in Federal Court in Indiana. “Southern District of Indiana, assigned to Judge Richard L. Young and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” INSD  
  4. “Rex Medical L.P., the designer of the Option and Option Elite IVC Filters as well as the distributor of these products, Argon Medical, face a growing number of lawsuits related to injuries that plaintiffs’ complaints allege were caused by these devices. (See a detailed list of complaints and attorneys below.) We believe the majority, if not all, claims against Rex and Argon have been filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiffs claim that jurisdiction is proper in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas under Pennsylvania Law partially due to the Pennsylvania citizenship of Rex Medical.” Mass tort
  5. “Boston Scientific faces a product liability lawsuit brought by the family of Ohio woman, which alleges that problems with a Greenfield Vena Cava filter caused severe internal injuries and death.  The complaint (PDF) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on January 12, by Julia and Raylyn Ratliff, administrators of the estate of Cinthia K. Ratliff.”  About lawsuits  
  6. “Following a three-week-long trial, a Houston firefighter, Jeff Pavlock, was awarded more than $1.2 million by a Texas jury for the lawsuit filed against Cook Medical LLC involving an IVC filter. The plaintiff was implanted with Cook Celect IVC filter in March 2015 to avert blood clots from reaching his heart, but the filter tilted and pierced into his tissues causing an internal injury, requiring a revision surgery. The allegations include failure to warn the performing surgeon about the possible adverse effects of the defectively designed filter. Cynthia Kretz, vice president and general counsel for Cook Medical and Cook Group, expressed her disappointment saying, “we are disappointed in this outcome and do not believe this verdict is supported by the facts or the law. This one case does not change our position on continually defending this important, life-saving technology.” Cook officials stated that they plan to appeal the court’s decision on the allegations laid on them over its IVC filter.”  Neuralit 

BARD IVC FILTER LAWSUIT MDL:

“The U.S. District Judge presiding over all federal Bard IVC filter lawsuits indicates that the Court will consider whether to establish a separate track for cases likely to be resolved in settlement, or whether to simply begin remanding all cases after an upcoming bellwether trial.  There are currently more than 5,700 product liability cases pending in a federal multidistrict litigation, each involving allegations that plaintiffs experienced complications with IVC filters manufactured by C.R. Bard, including reports that the retrievable blood clot filters moved out of position, punctured internal organs or fractured, causing small pieces to travel throughout the body.” About Lawsuits

IVC FILTER PAYOUTS

“Given similar questions of fact and law presented in the cases, the litigation has been centralized before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell in the District of Arizona since August 2015, for coordinated discovery and a group of “bellwether” trials designed to help gauge how juries are likely to respond to certain evidence and testimony that is likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.” Id.

BLOOD CLOT FILTER 

Bard medical MDL bellwether trial

  • 1st Bard MDL bellwether trial in 2018- Verdict for 3.6 million in favor of victim.
  • 2nd bellwether trial- Defense verdict a couple of months after the first bellwether.
  • 3rd bellwether trial- Schedule for May 2019. This trial is about the Bard Recovery Filter.

COOK MEDICAL IVC FILTER MDL UPDATE

There are more than 5000 Cook medical IVC Filter lawsuits consolidated in to the MDL in the Southern District of Indiana. Many victims are seeking information abou cook ivc filter lawsuit. “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 , the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has transferred a number of actions to the Southern District of Indiana, assigned to Judge Richard L. Young and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Plaintiffs allege defect in Cook Medical’s IVC filter, a medical device placed in the inferior vena cava to catch blood clots and stop them from traveling to the heart or lungs. The cases generally allege defective design, misrepresentation in marketing, and failure to warn doctors and patients. The Southern District of Indiana’s Master Case is: 1:14-ml-2570-RLY-TAB (PACER access required)” https://www.insd.uscourts.gov/mdl-case-information

 SETTLEMENTS

“According to recent court filings, Cook Medical and plaintiffs lawyers are continuing settlement negotiations in an attempt to resolve IVC filter lawsuits pending throughout the federal court system, as additional “bellwether” claims are being prepared for early trial dates. There are currently more than 4,700 product liability cases filed against Cook Medical in U.S. District Courts nationwide, each involving similar allegations that Cook Celect, Cook Gunther Tulip or other inferior vena cava (IVC) filters were defectively designed and prone to migrate out of position, puncture internal organs, fracture or cause other serious health complications.” https://www.aboutlawsuits.com/cook-ivc-filter-settlement-negotiations-151304/

Important  Orders in MDL 2570

THE COOK MEDICAL IVC FILTER BELLWETHER TRIALS

  • 1st Cook Medical lawsuit bellwether trial- Defense verdict.
  • 2nd Cook Medical IVC Filter lawsuit bellwether trial- Case dismissed on summary judgement because the victim missed a statute of limitations  / IVC Filter deadline.
  • 3rd Cook Medical IVC lawsuit-bellwether: Jury determines that  the IVC filter is defective and awards IVC filter victim 3 million in damages. This trial went on for over a month. The IVC Filter lawsuit jury refused to award punitive damages to the victim

GREENFIELD IVC FILTER LAWSUIT AGAINST BOSTON SCIENTIFIC

If you are a victim of the Greenfield IVC , you should seriously consider filing a greenfield filter lawsuit. What are the greenfield filter lawsuits? “Boston Scientific produces the Greenfield™ Stainless Steel Vena Cava Filter. (It is named after Dr. Lazar Greenfield, who originally designed it.) The Greenfield™ filter is implanted in patients’ veins to stop current blood clots from traveling while maintaining as normal a blood flow as possible. According to the manufacturer website, more than one million of these devices have been implanted in the last three decades.” Shouse Law 

HEART FILTER 

The heart filter lawsuits, which are often know as a blood clot filter lawsuit, pertain to allegations that the manufacturer of the medical device did not properly warn medical doctors and victims of the heightened risk of the heart filter breaking causing metal fragments to travel in the blood, possibly causing organ damage. Many heart filter victims are wondering:

  •  What are the ivc filter lawsuit settlements amounts?
  • How long until there will be ivc filter lawsuit settlements?
  • How do I get an ivc filter payout

WHAT IS AN INFERIOR VENA CAVA FILTER PLACEMENT?

“An inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is a small device that can stop blood clots from going up into the lungs. The inferior vena cava is a large vein in the middle of your body. The device is put in during a short surgery. Veins are the blood vessels that bring oxygen-poor blood and waste products back to the heart. Arteries are the blood vessels that bring oxygen-rich blood and nutrients to the body. A deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a blood clot that forms in a vein deep inside the body. A clot occurs when blood thickens and clumps together. In most cases, this clot forms inside one of the deep veins of the thigh or lower leg.” Hopkins Medicine

FIRST BELLWETHER TRIALS

“Inferior vena cava filters are commonly used to prevent pulmonary embolism in patients who manifest deep vein thrombosis and recurrent pulmonary embolism despite anticoagulation, or in patients with contraindications to anticoagulation.” NCBI 

“The first bellwether trials over medical devices that are designed to prevent blood clots during surgery have failed to carve out a clear winner, with another trial set to begin next week. About 9,000 lawsuits allege that various types of inferior vena cava filters, or IVC filters, which doctors implant in patients, have perforated or fractured in their bodies, causing pain and leading to removal surgeries. Among the several device manufacturers listed in the lawsuits, C.R. Bard Inc. and Cook Medical Inc. face the largest number of cases, clocking in over 4,000 each. law.com 

DO I QUALIFY FOR A LAWSUIT?

  • The victim “had an IVC Filter (Inferior Vena Cav) implanted after January 2003 and suffered any of the following injuries after receiving this implant:
  • “Device Became Non- Removable, Device Tilted, Filter Fracture, Device Migration, Filter Perforation, Device Embolization (Deatched Components), Filter Punctured Blood Vessels or Organs, Death.” (Source Consumer Awareness Group Full Service Marketing and Intake Support Center)
  • Implanted with: Bard IVC filter, Cook IVC,  Johnson and Johnson IVC.

IVC FILTER LAWSUIT DEADLINE

IVC Filter victims who do not meet the above IVC lawsuit criteria should still reach out to an IVC Filter lawsuit lawyer to see whether he or she can still file an IVC filter lawsuit.

1.2 MILLION VERDICT IN TEXAS

“So far, trials have failed to identify a clear victor. Cook won the first IVC filter trial last year, but it lost a $1.2 million verdict in Texas state court on May 24. Bard lost a $3.6 million verdict on March 30, but followed up with a defense win on June 1. Judges also have granted summary judgment motions in at least two key cases slated for trials. For these reasons and more, a patient can and should seek legal representation. IVC filters have had numerous warnings and recalls over the years. It comes as little to no surprise many patients are now facing the ramifications of faulty products and/or poor placement procedures. Though the pain and suffering can not be reversed with monetary compensation, the outcome of a lawsuit against the  manufacturers of the IVC and possibly against the medical professionals in charge of the patients’ care will deliver peace of mind in a most difficult time.” Law

IVC FILTER LAWSUITS AND IVC FILTER LAW FIRMS

Considering all this and more will greatly reduce the chances of a patient having a negative experience. Of course, complications will arise regardless of either the doctor’s or patient’s frugality in understanding the potential outcomes. If and when that happens, finding the best legal representation is imperative. Those who are left without legal recourse to obtain compensation for time lost from work and/or other major lifestyle alterations due to the procedure or complications therefrom will find themselves less able to function in their everyday lives and see an inevitable decline in their quality of life.

IVC FILTER LAWYER

A licensed physician is not one typically one who is out to take advantage of unhealthy patients. Though invasive surgeries may be more commonplace today than they were even twenty or thirty years ago, and our technologies and understanding of the issues have grown exponentially, there will still be those instances where something doesn’t go according to plan. Rarer, though still a prevalent issue, the doctor or surgeon made the wrong call or bungled the procedure. In those cases, seeking immediate legal representation will greatly benefit the patient in the end.Whether you or a loved one has experienced pain and issues with their IVC hernia filter or are taking preventative measures before undergoing such a procedure, it will behoove the individual to keep in mind the serious risks and potential medical complications which can, and very well may, arise in the aftermath of the surgery.

WHAT IS A DENALI IVC FILTER? 

A Denali Ivc filter is described here: “The DENALI® Vena Cava Filter is a venous interruption device designed to prevent pulmonary embolism. TheDENALI® Filter can be delivered via the femoral and jugular/subclavian approaches. A separate delivery system isavailable for each approach. The DENALI® Filter is designed to act as a permanent filter. When clinically indicated,the DENALI® Filter may be percutaneously removed after implantation according to the instructions provided under the “Optional Procedure for Filter Removal” section.”

BARD IVC FILTER LAWSUIT SETTLEMENTS

“The DENALI® Filter consists of twelve shape-memory laser-cut nickel-titanium appendages. These twelve appendages form two levels of filtration with the legs providing the lower level of filtration and the arms providing the upper level of filtration. The DENALI® Filter is intended to be used in the inferior vena cava (IVC) with a diameter less than or equal to 28mm.” Bard/ Davol  

IVC FILTER LAWSUIT ATTORNEYS

For those patients who are suffering, there is hope for a return to your previous standard of living. Though the physical problems may never fully disappear, having the right legal team fighting for your patient rights can deliver one from a state of utter despair and hopelessness to one of seeing a brighter future on the horizon!  Victims are looking for IVC filter attorneys to file IVC filter lawsuits or a blood clot filter lawsuit on their behalf. As of this date there has been no global ivc filter lawsuit settlements.  Victims are hoping for an ivc filter lawsuit settlement in order to get an IVC Filter payout as soon as possible.  An IVC filter lawsuit using a blood clot filter lawsuit lawyer will help the victim get justice and compensation in the form of an IVC filter payout for his or her complications. If you are seeking an ivc filter payout, you need to speak to an IVC lawsuit  lawyer as soon as possible.  If you do not have a lawsuit filed because you missed an ivc filter lawsuit deadline, then it makes no difference what the IVC settlement amounts end up amounting to. It cannot be repeated enough that the greenfield filter lawsuits are not an ivc filter class action lawsuit.

Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Food Poisoning Lawsuit, Foodborne Illness – Salmonella, E. coli etc.

Food Poisoning Lawsuit, Foodborne Illness – Salmonella, E. coli etc. | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
Suffered food poisoning causing Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria? Contact a food borne illness and wrongful death lawyer now.
David Slepkow's insight:
FOOD POISONING LAWSUIT, FOODBORNE ILLNESS – SALMONELLA, E. COLI ETC.

If you have been sickened by food poisoning, either from products that you bought at a store or a restaurant, the seller can be held liable. Food is just like any product, where the seller could face a product liability lawsuit if it is defective. They assume the legal obligation to sell you food that does not sicken you. In fact, food poisoning lawsuits have led to large judgements and settlement for injured consumers.

 

Food poisoning lawsuit

 

There have been a number of large nationwide outbreaks of food poisoning that have sickened people. It seems as if there are monthly news reports of tainted food, either at restaurants or grocery stores. Some of these incidents have even killed people who simply trusted the seller when they bought the food. You can hold the merchant or manufacturer legally responsible.

Food poisoning is both angering and debilitating at once. When you purchase food or eat at a restaurant, the last thing that you expect is that the food will make you ill. Some foodborne illness is serious enough to cause lasting damage, and even death in some cases. Below is some information on common or severe types of foodborne illness. If you have contracted a foodborne illness and have suffered harm, it is vital that you contact a food poisoning lawsuit lawyer. The manufacturer or the purveyor of the food that sickened you may be legally responsible for your illness.

Update-11-27-2020- “Vegpro International says that Fresh Attitude Baby Spinach is being recalled in Canada for possible Salmonella contamination. The spinach was distributed in Ontario and Quebec at the consumer level. No illnesses have been reported to the company to date in connection with this problem. The recalled products are Fresh Attitude Baby Spinach sold in 312 gram packages. The UPC number on the label is 8 88048 00028 8, and the code is Best Before 2020 DE 04. Also recalled is fresh Attitude Baby Spinach, sold in 142 gram packages. The UPC number printed on the label is 8 88048 00004 2, and the codes on the product are Best Before 2020 DE 04 and Best Before 2020 DE 05.”

11/16/2020- “In Mediterranean Grill, a federal judge in Texas granted an insurer’s motion seeking to treat 124 separate cases of food poisoning as a single “occurrence” under a commercial general liability policy because all cases arose from the restaurant’s allegedly contaminated food. Over a one-month period in 2018, nearly 200 cases of food poisoning from salmonella were reported after customers ate at Pasha’s Mediterranean restaurant in San Antonio, Texas. The illnesses led to seven separate lawsuits alleging that the restaurant was negligent in manufacturing and preparing its food, which led to food poisoning. The restaurant sought coverage from its insurer, Travelers, under a policy with a $1 million “per occurrence” coverage limit and a $2 million “aggregate” limit.” National Law Review

11/16/2020- “Fresh Express is voluntarily recalling a limited number of cases of expired 10.5 oz. Fresh Express Kit Caesar Supreme with the Use-By Date of November 8, 2020 and Product Code S296 because it may be contaminated with Escherichia coli STEC 026 bacteria.  The recall is being executed out of an abundance of caution in the unlikely event the product, which is now 8 days past the Use-By Date, is still in stores or consumers’ homes.  The recalled product was distributed primarily in Western and Southwestern U.S. states.” Food Poisoning Journal

10/31/2020- “The CDC has reported two separate E. Coli outbreaks with no known sources, having caused a total of 44 infections and one death. Though the two outbreaks are caused by different strains, they have both been connected to E. coli O157:H7. Investigators are currently deducing the cause of this outbreak, having no advice as of date for foods the public should avoid. The first outbreak has caused 21 infections in 8 states: California (7), Florida (1), Illinois (1), Michigan (2), New Jersey (1), Ohio (7), Utah (1), and Wisconsin (1). Of the reported cases, 8 required hospitalizations and there was one death. The second outbreak has caused 23 infections in 12 states: California (2), Illinois (1), Kansas (4), Michigan (2), Missouri (2), North Dakota (4), Ohio (1), Pennsylvania (2), Tennessee (1), Utah (1), Washington (1), and Wisconsin (2). Of those reported cases, 10 required hospitalizations.  The CDC is currently investigating the outbreak, having found no restaurants, grocery stores, or food items to avoid.” Food poisoning News

SOME DIFFERENT TYPES OF FOOD-BORNE ILLNESSES

First, it is important to know about the types of food-borne diseases that you could get from tainted food. All of these are serious illnesses that can cause significant injury and even death.

  • Salmonella – This is bacteria which lives in the intestinal tracts of animals. When you eat food contaminated with salmonella, you are literally eating animal feces. This infection causes diarrhea, fever and stomach cramps. In most cases, salmonella contaminates food or products from animals, but even fruit and vegetables can become tainted.
  • coli – This is another bacteria that is found in the animal’s gut. It can contaminate meat, but it can also taint food that comes into contact with it. Milk and meat are usually impacted, but fruits and vegetables can become contaminated when they are handled by a sick person or touch E.coli contamination.
  • Listeria – This bacteria is found in dairy and cheese products and some vegetables. Listeria is actually the most deadly of foodborne bacteria, and it is especially dangerous for pregnant women. Listeria can cause a long illness and will lead to hospitalization.
  • Botulism – Food that is improperly preserved or canned can become tainted with botulism. While this is relatively rare, the resulting illness requires hospitalization. Botulism is always considered a medical emergency.
  • Hepatitis A – Raw foods carry the risk of hepatitis, especially undercooked shellfish. This is a highly contagious disease, and many cases happen when an infected food handler touches the food with their bare hands.

THE CHIPOTLE OUTBREAKS BROUGHT ATTENTION TO FOOD POISONING

Ask people about tainted restaurant food, and the first thing that many will tell you about is Chipotle. The major nationwide chain had several outbreaks of food-borne diseases that sickened over 1,100 people. In all, there were five outbreaks of disease that included cases of:

  • coli
  • Norovirus
  • perfringens

In one restaurant in Ohio, 650 people became ill with C.perfringens, which is a bacteria that grows when food is not properly stored. Chipotle ended up paying a $25 million fine to the Department of Justice in a criminal matter.

RECENT EXAMPLES OF TAINTED FOOD

In addition, there have been other large or well-known recent outbreaks of foodborne illness in the following products:

  • Romaine lettuce – 165 people were sickened and 85 of them hospitalized when they either ate romaine lettuce tainted with E.coli or food that touched this lettuce. This was just one in a series of outbreaks tied to romaine lettuce.
  • Fresh Express bagged salad – 701 people were sickened and 38 hospitalized when this produce was tainted with cyclospora. Predictably, this bag included lettuce, a food which is very easily contaminated.
  • Shell Eggs – In 2018, 45 people became ill when they ate shell eggs from Rose Hill Farm that were tainted with salmonella. The contamination happened due to poor food safety practices at the farm.
  • Flour – In 2017, 63 people were sickened and 17 hospitalized when they ate food containing General Mills flour that was contaminated with E.Coli. Some of the sickened people handled raw dough at a restaurant, a practice that the FDA has questioned.

In general, food safety is improving throughout the U.S, but there are still instances of large outbreaks. However, there have been fewer major outbreaks in recent years. This does not lessen the liability if you have been sickened.

DAMAGES IN A FOOD POISONING LAWSUIT

Customers who become ill from food poisoning are entitled to the same type of damages that they would in any personal injury cases. This includes:

  • Pain and suffering
  • Medical expenses to treat their condition and any future medical expenses
  • Compensation for missed time from work due to their illness
  • Wrongful death damages if someone died
  • Emotional distress
  • Possible punitive damages if the defendant was extremely negligent or even acted intentionally

There have been numerous high-profile lawsuits in the wake of large-scale food poisonings. As a plaintiff, you would have a challenge in showing that your illness resulted from specific food poisoning. You would need detailed medical records from a doctor that conclusively determined what made you sick. If you have food poisoning, it is vital that you see a doctor immediately and obtain a thoroughly documented medical file. This would satisfy the causation element of the negligence test. If you were sickened as part of a large national outbreak, you would have a better chance of receiving compensation than if you became ill as part of an isolated case.

HOW YOUR CAN SUE FOR FOOD POISONING

If you are suing a restaurant or a food manufacturer for a case of food poisoning, here are the legal theories under which you can sue:

  • Strict Liability – You can win your case if you show that the food was contaminated, and you were sickened by the food.
  • Breach of Warranty – When the merchant sells you the food, they make an implied warranty that it is safe and fit for the purpose for which they sell it to you. Food poisoning would obviously be a breach of this warranty.
  • Negligence – This is the fallback option when a strict liability claim is not available. You would need to show that the seller did not use reasonable care in making or selling the food.

FOOD POISONING VERDICTS AND SETTLEMENTS

You can file a lawsuit against a restaurant or a food manufacturer. Whoever was responsible for your illness can be made to pay. Here are some examples of lawsuits against food manufacturers and restaurants for cases of food poisoning:

  • In 2018, a Florida couple was awarded $6.7 million in a verdict against a restaurant. The man was sickened after he ate tainted seafood. He developed a severe autoimmune disease that left him with permanent nerve damage after he got flu-like symptoms from contaminated seafood.
  • In 2019, an Alabama jury awarded a couple $300,000. The man was sickened by food right around the same time as the restaurant received a seriously deficient examination from the county Department of Health, which found unsafe temperatures and cross-contamination between cheese and meat. The man got salmonella poisoning and was hospitalized for nearly three weeks.
  • In 2018, an Arizona plaintiff was awarded $6.5 million in federal court when he developed salmonella from eating chicken from Foster Poultry Farms. He required brain surgery and suffered permanent damage. This was part of an outbreak where 634 people were sickened. While nobody died, some people did suffer serious injuries.
  • In 2016, a New Hampshire jury awarded a plaintiff $750,000 after he got salmonella poisoning from eating a hamburger at an Applebee’s. This plaintiff was not even seriously sickened like the other plaintiffs mentioned above. Applebee’s tried to blame his salmonella poisoning on the fact that he kept lizards at home.
  • In 2015, a Wyoming plaintiff was awarded over $11 million when he sued the Old Country Buffet. He suffered permanent brain damage and kidney failure after he got salmonella from contaminated food. The man was no longer able to care for himself after his severe illness. The plaintiff needed over $5 million in life care damages.

As you can see, the damages in food poisoning cases can vary. Some cases will settle for amounts in the tens of thousands of dollars, which severe cases can merit multi million dollar verdicts. In some cases, a jury may punish a restaurant or food manufacturer with a high verdict because their carelessness is downright appalling.

FOOD POISONING LAWSUIT

According to the Centers for Disease Control, there are more than 250 foodborne illnesses. These are infections that result from bacteria and other viruses. These can also result from toxins and chemicals. According to the CDC, there are five top foodborne illnesses. In addition, there are several other common illnesses beyond the top five.

NOROVIRUS

Norovirus is a severe stomach bug that results in nearly 800 deaths each year. It is highly contagious and easily spread. People can contract norovirus in a variety of different ways, including contact with someone who has the virus. It can be transmitted through food. If someone infected with norovirus comes into contact with food, then the food can carry the virus. Norovirus can also spread through water and surfaces. The illness can last from one to three days, but more severe cases can require hospitalization.

SALMONELLA

According to the CDC, there are over one million cases of salmonella in the United States each year. The illness kills approximately 450 people each year. The illness generally last from four to seven days, but in many cases, it does not require further treatment. However, if the diarrhea is severe enough, hospitalization is required. Salmonella is often spread through contaminated meat. For example, there was a recent outbreak of salmonella that has been connected to Butterball turkey products. There is also another active outbreak of salmonella that has come from tainted ground beef.

CLOSTRIDIUM PERFRINGENS

While not as well known as the other types of foodborne illness, C. perfringens is every bit as common. While the name is not well-known, this is more familiar to people as food poisoning. Over one million Americans are sickened by this on an annual basis. This can come from eating rotten food or food that was not stored at the right temperature. Due to the nature of this illness, it will most likely not come as part of an outbreak because it comes from individual food not being served and stored in a correct manner.

CAMPYLOBACTER

This mostly results from eating poultry that has been undercooked. Outbreaks of this illness are rare. According to the CDC, there have been an average of 35 outbreaks of this illness each year recently. Although this foodborne illness is not as severe as the others, it is very easy for someone to become sickened with it. All it takes is one drop of juice from contaminated poultry and one can contract this illness. This illness sickens over one million Americans each year, although many cases go unreported.

LISTERIA

This is a common cause of fatalities among foodborne illnesses. Listeria is very rare, but is very deadly. Of the approximately 1,600 people that contract listeria every year, roughly one in every six die. Pregnant women are especially susceptible to this illness. Nearly all of the cases of listeria will require the patient to be hospitalized. Recently, there was on outbreak of listeria from pork products that sickened four people, although there were no fatalities.

E. COLI

This is one of the more well-known foodborne illnesses. According to the CDC, there are approximately 75,000 people who are sickened with this illness every year and roughly 2,000 will require hospitalization. Between 50 and 100 people die from this disease annually. Recently, one of the more publicized out breaks of this illness was the E. Coli that was connected with consumption of romaine lettuce that caused one fatality.

There are numerous other foodborne illnesses. including botulism and Vibrio. Botulism is a serious illness because its toxins attack the body’s nervous system. While botulism is rare, up to one in ten cases can be fatal.

FOOD POISONING LAWSUITS

Widespread cases of food poisoning can lead to large-scale litigation. For example, there have recently been a number of cases filed in the wake of the outbreak of E. coli. People in 11 states were sickened from consuming this romaine lettuce. It is believed that nearly 150 people were sickened in this outbreak. At least five lawsuits have been filed in conjunction with the tainted romaine lettuce. Many of the plaintiffs required hospitalization, including blood transfusions, due to the severity of their illness. Some of the plaintiffs were sickened by eating romaine lettuce served at Panera Bread. The lawsuits target the lettuce supplier for Panera. Further, several restaurants have been sued because the plaintiffs were sickened by food that they ate there.

FOOD CONTAMINATION LITIGATION

Another example of widespread food contamination litigation is the lawsuits that have been filed against Chipotle. The Mexican restaurant chain was the originator of a nationwide outbreak of E. coli starting in 2015. As of August 2018, there were over 700 cases filed against Chipotle for food poisoning claims. These consist of both individual claims as well as class action lawsuits. There was another outbreak that has been traced to a Chipotle in Ohio that has led to an increase in the number of suits against Chipotle.

FOOD POISONING AS PRODUCT LIABILITY CASES

When it comes to lawsuits that stem from instances of food poisoning, there are a number of different possible defendants. The company that manufactured the product may be held liable for making the food that made you sick. Further, if you purchased the food at a grocery store, that establishment can also be sued for selling you the food. Similarly, a restaurant where you ate the food can also be legally responsible for your illness. A lawyer will likely advise you to sue both the manufacturer and the seller of the food. You will receive the verdict or the settlement and it is up to the two companies to fight it out to see who has to pay what share of your award.

In most states, all you have to show is that the food was contaminated and that the contamination was the cause of your illness. It does not matter whether the manufacturer was negligent in how they prepared the food. Of course you can always show that the supplier was negligent and that may increase your jury award. However, under the products liability theory, proving negligence is not required.

FOOD POISONING LAWSUIT LAWYER

If you have been sickened by any type of food, it is best to get the documentation from your doctor of the reason why you were sickened. Your medical records should contain the diagnosis of whatever foodborne illness you contracted. Then, you should seek out legal counsel to figure out whether you have a viable legal claim against anyone who may have had a role in selling that food to you. It is vital that you contact a salmonella lawsuit lawyer immediately, while the evidence that can back up your claim is still available. In addition, there is also the issue with the statute of limitations that can place a time limit on filing a claim. The E. Coli lawsuit lawyer can tell you after reviewing the facts of your case whether they believe that you have a viable legal claim.

If you or a loved one have been sickened by tainted food, contact a food poisoning lawyer today to learn more about your legal rights.

Sources:

https://www.foodsafety.gov/poisoning/causes/bacteriaviruses/norovirus/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/outbreaks-active.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/01/chipotle-hit-with-new-lawsuit-over-food-contamination-in-ohio.html

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/quality/chipotle-food-poisoning-cases-up-to-700-as-fast-food-chain-hit-with-second-lawsuit.html

No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Neocate Lawsuits for Broken & Damages Bones (Infant Formula)

Neocate Lawsuits for Broken & Damages Bones (Infant Formula) | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
If your child has taken Neocate Infant Formula and suffered broken or damaged bones, contact a Neocate lawyer to file a Neocate lawsuit.
David Slepkow's insight:

Neocate is a popular brand of infant formula that is amino-acid based. However, like many brands of infant formula, there are legitimate health dangers to the babies who depend on them. Many of these popular brands have faced lawsuits for various alleged defects in the products that have sickened and harmed babies. Neocate is no different as its makers are being sued because families have alleged that it is tied to broken bones and cases of rickets.

WHY CHILDREN ARE PRESCRIBED NEOCATE

Neocate is not something that you can freely buy on store shelves. It is given by prescription when infants have developed an intolerance for milk and have other allergies. Specifically, Neocate is prescribed for the following:

  • Cow milk allergy
  • Multiple food protein intolerance
  • Short bowel syndrome
  • Gastrointestinal reflux disease
  • eosinophilic esophagitis

THE DIFFERENT FORMULAS IN THE NEOCATE LINE

This formula is usually one of the last resorts when an infant is having feeding problems, and breast milk and other types of formula are not tolerated. Neocate is actually the name for an entire range of infant formulas. Specifically, the line includes the following:

  • Neocate Syneo Infant – for use by infants from 0-12 months
  • Neocate Infant DHA/ARA – also for use by infants from 0-12 months. This formula contains nucleotides and adds DHA
  • Neocate Junior – for use by infants over one year of age. It can either be used as a supplement or as the sole source of nutrition
  • Neocate Nutra – this is used by infants over six months old and mixes into the consistency of a cereal.
  • Neocate Splash – for use by children over one year, this formula mixes into a drink

Neocate is manufactured by Nutricia North America. This is now a subsidiary of the French conglomerate Groupe Danone. This is the same company that makes food products such as Dannon Yogurt. Neocate is part of the Advanced Medical Nutrition business unit. Its primary competitor is Nutramigen Baby Formula.

Any product defects in infant formula will have a large effect, since the product is a main source of nutrition for a delicate and developing body. Therefore, it is critical that these products be free from defects. This is not always the case with infant formulas, as there have been numerous class action lawsuits over the years.

INFANT FORMULA MAKERS HAVE BEEN SUED

Usually, lawsuits involving infant formula can take on one of two forms. There have been lawsuits against formula makers in the past, alleging that babies were injured when their product was contaminated. For example, there was a large lawsuit against the makers of Enfamil that claimed that the product was contaminated by insects.

SIDE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH NEOCATE

Here, the alleged problem is with the composition of Neocate. Specifically, Neocate is alleged to cause:

  • Low phosphate levels
  • Bone fractures
  • Rickets

A 2017 STUDY REVEALS PROBLEMS

Neocate’s legal issues began with a 2017 study that was published in the magazine Bone. The study group focused on children who had low phosphate levels. Most of these children suffered from fractures. The common denominator among these children is that they had consumed only Neocate as infants. What led researchers to believe that Neocate may be the cause of the hypophosphatemia is that their condition improved when they were switched from Neocate to another formula.

In one case, a father was even investigated for possible child abuse claims when his child with cerebral palsy developed multiple fractures. The father was saved from criminal charges when his daughter happened to draw the connection between her brother’s formula and his fractures. Here, a father almost ended up in jail over the possible product defect in Neocate formula.

There are allegations that the company that makes Neocate knew even earlier that there was a connection between their product and unhealthy bones. However, the company allegedly took their time to begin researching the possible tie. In the meantime, they continued to sell the product to families. The end result was that physicians were now instructed to monitor babies’ phosphate levels when they were prescribed Neocate. Seemingly, this is an admission of the possible connection between the formula and poor bone health.

HOW CAN I FILE A NEOCATE LAWSUIT?

The process of obtaining financial compensation begins when you hire a product liability lawyer to represent you in a lawsuit. The attorney will review your file and your medical records and work with you on drafting a complaint. Once this is filed in court and served on the defendant, your lawsuit has begun.

The Neocate lawsuit process can take years to resolve. There have been cases filed several years ago that are still not at the trial stage. Before then, your case will be the subject of pretrial motions and a long process called discovery, where your lawyers can learn facts that will help prove your case when it gets to court.

CAN I AFFORD TO HIRE A NEOCATE LAWYER?

It will cost you no money out of your pocket to hire an attorney for your case. Your Neocate attorney will work on a contingency basis, meaning that they are not paid unless you receive money for your case. If you get nothing, your lawyer gets nothing. This means that you will not be stuck with large hourly bills for their services if your case is unsuccessful. Your attorney will be paid out of the proceeds of your settlement or jury award.

HOW MUCH IS MY NEOCATE CASE WORTH?

It is hard to say. Two Neocate cases can be worth completely different amounts because your compensation all depends on the particular harm that your child suffered. Beyond that, two juries may have completely different views of cases. You can receive money for all elements of harm that your child experienced. This can include:

  • Medical bills
  • Pain and suffering
  • Cost of future care
  • Emotional trauma and distress
  • Your missed work to care for your child

If your child has taken Neocate and has suffered from any of the above side effects, contact a Neocate lawyer immediately so you can begin the process of filing your own lawsuit.

No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Truvada Lawsuit (TDF) – Bone Loss & Kidney Damage | HIV Medication

Truvada Lawsuit (TDF) – Bone Loss & Kidney Damage | HIV Medication | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
The company is facing Truvada lawsuits claiming the drug caused bone & kidney damage. Suffered complications? Contact a HIV medication lawyer
David Slepkow's insight:

Despite recent Truvada lawsuits, Gilead Biosciences’ HIV drugs in the Truvada family have been a giant moneymaker for the company since they were introduced in 1997. This particular class of drugs also known as PrEP, which consisted of five separate medications, made billions of dollars in profits for the company before their patent protection ran out and the company replaced these drugs with a new product that also has earned the company outsized profits. Now, the company is facing a multitude of lawsuits claiming that the first generation of drugs caused bone and kidney damage. The company is now accused of suppressing the knowledge that it had that these drugs could be dangerous. The allegations is that Gilead suppressed this knowledge in order to maximize their profits and to keep selling this class of drugs for as long as possible. ““The core allegation is that Gilead, for-profit reasons, decided in 2004 to shelve the safe drug. They knew it was safer and they decided to wait until the patent life had expired on the less safe drug and launch it as new and improved,” 10 News There is currently no Truvada MDL consolidated lawsuit. In 2018, Numerous Plaintiffs were previously attempting to create an MDL which would be known as: In Re. Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2881. However, the litigants withdrew the motion  for an MDL in 2019.  However, there is now a state court coordinated proceeding for Truvada lawsuits pending before a single Justice in San Francisco Superior Court. This California state Court lawsuit is known as: Gilead Tenofovir Cases and Coordinated Actions. There is no Truvada class action. There have been no Truvada global settlements. There are thousands of lawsuits in this California state Court coordinated proceeding

 

 

Truvada lawsuit

 

 

WHAT IS A COORDINATED PROCEEDING IN CALIFORNIA?

The Truvada lawsuits are now part of a Sate Court coordinated proceeding in San Francisco Superior Court. In California state Courts, complicated causes of actions that could be coordinated are lawsuits where multiple lawsuits are filed in different counties which involve fact or law common issues. The court can legally order that the lawsuits be coordinated together in one court using particular procedures and by consent of the litigants.  This is type of cause of action is called a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding (“JCCP”)  This is not considered a class action.  The purpose of this type of proceeding is for efficiency and a faster resolution of the lawsuits.   Judge Cheng is the Judge in charge of the   Gilead Tenofovir Cases and Coordinated Actions

WHAT ARE THE CENTRAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE TRUVADA LAWSUITS IN SAN FRANCISCO:

“According to the main lawsuit, “Beginning in 2001, Gilead manufactured and sold a prodrug form of tenofovir called tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or TDF. Unbeknownst to plaintiffs and the general public, Gilead had also developed another prodrug form of tenofovir called tenofovir alafenamide fumarate or TAF, which it knew to be more efficacious and less toxic to kidneys and bones than TDF.” 10 News

“The attorneys who are helping to sue Gilead Sciences say that the company already got exclusivity rights on TDF and wanted to profit off that. “The core [allegation] is that Gilead, for-profit reasons, decided…in 2004 to shelve the safe drug. They knew it was safer and [they decided to] wait until the patent life had expired on the less safe drug and launch it as new and improved,”  Id.

SIDE EFFECTS, COMPLICATIONS AND INJURIES CAUSED BY TRUVADA:

  • Kidney injury: Acute kidney injury, kidney failure,  chronic kidney disease (CKD),  renal failure,  severe liver problems, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), renal insufficiency/impairment
  • Bone issues : Osteoporosis, bone density loss, bone breaks/fractures, tooth loss, Broken bones, Osteopenia.
  • Headache, abdominal pain, insomnia, Respiratory infections, Renal impairment, weight loss, lactic acidosis,  weird dreams, Depression, Dizziness and more

WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL TIMELINE FOR  GILEAD SETTLEMENTS?

Premised on other defective drug  lawsuit settlements in the past, it could possibly be 2 to 3 more years before a Truvada settlement in the Gilead lawsuits.

GILEAD HAS FACED ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO TRUVADA FOR YEARS

The allegations that are at the core of these lawsuits have been levied against Gilead for many years. The basic claims in the lawsuit accuse Gilead of purposefully delaying the release of a safer drug so that they could continue to maximize their profits from a drug that they knew to be dangerous. According to the plaintiffs, Gilead continued to sell this possibly harmful drug for over ten years with the knowledge of the harm that it could cause.

For years, Gilead’s flagship HIV drugs were a series of medicines known as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). These are sold under the brand name of Truvada. Eventually, when the patent protections on TDF ran out, Gilead switched to selling tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF). There are differences between these two classes of drugs. Both of these drugs are antiretroviral medications. TDF has a much shorter half life than TAF. As a result, TDF must be given in much higher doses than TAF in order to be effective. The TAF dose is only a fraction of the drug content of TDF since much less is required in order to achieve the same result.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST GILEAD REGARDING TDF DRUGS:

  •  TDF medication is alleged to be unreasonably dangerous to victims’ kidneys and patient’s bones.
  • Gilead is alleged to have known before releasing the drug that the drug is extremely toxic and that there was a better alternative which was less toxic. “Before Gilead began selling its first TDF drug, Viread, in 2001, Gilead knew that TDF could be highly toxic to patients’ kidneys and bones. And once TDF was on the market, Gilead’s knowledge of TDF’s toxic effects grew as patients were injured by each successive TDF product. By the time Gilead designed Stribild, it had ten years’ worth of cumulative evidence that TDF injured patients’ kidneys and bones.” Plaintiff’s brief
  • There are allegations that Gilead did not use a safer alternative drug for more than 10 years for financial gain despite victims reports of  severe complications. “Gilead also knew, before it started selling its TDF drugs, that it had discovered a safer version of tenofovir—tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (“TAF”). TAF is absorbed into the cells HIV targets much more efficiently than TDF. As a result, TAF can be administered at a dramatically reduced dose compared to TDF without sacrificing efficacy. Because TAF can be administered at a much lower dose than TDF, TAF is much less toxic than TDF. A 25 mg dose of TAF achieves the same therapeutic effect as a 300 mg dose of TDF, with a better safety profile. Despite knowing that TAF could be given at a much lower, safer dose, Gilead intentionally designed Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera, and Stribild to contain toxic TDF rather than safer TAF. Falsely claiming that TAF was not different enough from TDF, Gilead abruptly shelved its TAF design in 2004. However, as John Milligan, Gilead’s President and Chief Executive Officer, later admitted to investment analysts, the real reason Gilead abandoned the TAF design was that TAF was too different from TDF. Once Viread was on the market, Gilead did not want to hurt TDF sales by admitting that its TDF-based products are unreasonably and unnecessarily.”
    unsafe. ” Plaintiff’s brief
  • “In addition, Gilead knew that by withholding the safer TAF design, it could extend the longevity of its HIV drug franchise and make billions two times over: first, with TDF
    medications until TDF patent expiration, which would begin by no later than 2018, and second, with TAF medications until TAF patent expiration as late as 2032. Only once Gilead realized billions in sales through most of the TDF patent life did it seek to market safer TAF-based versions of its HIV medications. Finally, in 2015, Gilead began selling the first of its TAF-designed medicines and convinced doctors to switch their patients from TDF-based to TAF-based treatments by demonstrating TAF’s superior safety profile over TDF with respect to kidney and bone toxicity—the very benefits Gilead could have and should have incorporated into its prior product designs but withheld from doctors and patients for over a decade.” id.
  • Gilead did not warn medical providers and victims about how to use the TDF drug safely, including the necessity of monitoring for side effects.

“All plaintiffs allege that Gilead intentionally designed its TDF drugs to be unreasonably and unnecessarily toxic to patients’ kidneys and bones, while it purposefully withheld a safer design of the drugs for more than a decade in order to make more money. All plaintiffs also challenge the inadequate warnings Gilead gave to physicians and consumers about the risks and safe use of the TDF drugs.” Plaintiff’s brief

  • “TDF is a form of the compound tenofovir, which works by blocking an enzyme HIV needs to replicate.”Id.
  • “Gilead manufacturers, markets, and sells five drugs that contain TDF for the treatment of HIV: Viread (300 mg TDF tablets); Truvada (TDF 300 mg/emtricitabine 200 mg
    tablets); Atripla (TDF 300 mg/emtricitabine 200 mg/efavirenz 600 mg tablets); Complera (TDF 300 mg/emtricitabine 200 mg/rilpivirine 25 mg tablets); and Stribild (TDF 300 mg/emtricitabine 200 mg/elvitegravir 150 mg/cobicistat 150 mg tablets).” Id.
  • “The Related Actions challenge Gilead’s decision to intentionally withhold a safer design of these drugs in order to make more money.” Id.

Update- 10-23-2020- “A drug company may have violated the privacy of thousands of people who are taking a medicine to prevent them from coming down with HIV. Gilead Sciences, the biopharmaceutical giant, sent out a mass mailing in mid-April to people on its antiretroviral drugs, Truvada and Descovy. The drugs are used to reduce the risk of HIV infection, a prevention measure called pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). The return address on the envelopes read “HIV Prevention Team.” On Thursday, the AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania filed a federal class action suit against Gilead. It claims the company illegally compromised the privacy rights of patients by recklessly mailing the inappropriately marked envelopes after promising confidentiality. It’s unclear how many people received the letters. The suit demands that Gilead’s HIV Prevention Team immediately stop sending out letters to patients and seeks unspecified monetary damages. It was filed in the Northern District of California. The AIDS Law Project was joined by law firms Berger Montague and Langer Grogan and Diver.” Inquirer

7/17/2020- “Truvada lawsuits claim that the pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, drug causes bone loss and kidney problems that the drug’s maker, Gilead Sciences, did not warn the public about. In addition, they claim that Gilead withheld a safer alternative, tenofovir alafenamide, or TAF, in order to maximize profits from Truvada. The majority of individual injury cases are pending in California, and the company faces a related class action in the state. So far, there have been no Truvada lawsuit settlements or trials because the litigation is relatively new. In its 2018 annual report, Gilead said it believes these cases are without merit. However, the company expressed concern that losing these lawsuits could result in “significant monetary damages. Cases against Gilead are pending in state and federal courts and involve hundreds of plaintiffs, according to the company’s quarterly report ending June 30, 2019. In addition to the large group of lawsuits in California, people from other states including Delaware and Louisiana have filed individual injury claims.” Consumer Notice

10-11-2019-  The Honorable Andrew Cheng of the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco determined Amy Eski of Schneider Wallace will Co-Lead Counsel in the California Coordinated Truvada lawsuits.

8/8/2019- Judge Kenneth R. Freeman ordered that all Truvada lawsuits be  transferred to San Francisco. The new lawsuits will be titled: Gilead Tenofovir Cases and Coordinated Actions, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 5043. “A California judge has ordered that all California lawsuits brought against drugmaker Gilead Sciences, Inc. over HIV medications containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) will be coordinated before a single judge in San Francisco County Superior Court going forward. The ruling will facilitate efficient adjudication in the California court system and coordinate the efforts on behalf of patients claiming injuries in connection with Gilead’s TDF antiviral medications, namely Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and/or Stribild, which are prescribed to treat, and in some cases prevent, HIV-1.” Grant & Eisenhofer press release

2/6/2019- The Plaintiff withdraw their motion for an mdl. The Panel on Multidistrict litigation end the possibility of an MDL. See ORDER DEEMING MOTION WITHDRAWN.

12/19/18- Several Plaintiff’s file a motion attempting to set up a federal Court Truvada MDL. (This motion was subsequently withdrawn in February 2019 and an MDL was never established.

2018- In Gilead’s 2018 annual report, “While we believe these cases are without merit, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages,”

TRUVADA LAWSUIT

TDF was a class of drugs. There were five different drugs in the class that were sold at one point or another in the last 20 years. Since Gilead is one of the dominant drug manufacturers in the HIV space, hundreds of thousands of people have taken one of these drugs over the years. Regardless of the type of HIV drug, Gilead markets them all under the name of Truvada.

“During a 2016 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), researchers from the University of California San Francisco presented a study that showed a decline in kidney function in patients who took TDF-based drugs long term.” Ben Crump

TDF AFFECTS BONE DENSITY AND RENAL FUNCTION

The problem with TDF is that there are negative impacts on both renal function as well as bone density. When TDF was first released, Gilead toured it as a “miracle drug.” Not only that, but the company also stressed the drug’s safety. However, Gilead soon ran afoul of the FDA as a result of the claims that it was making. The regulator took action against Gilead for these claims and directed it to stop making unfounded marketing claims.

However, at the same time that Gilead was making these claims, they allegedly had information in their hands that contradicted the promises of safety. Gilead allegedly had this information in its hands nearly the entire time that it was selling TDF drugs. In fact, one of the lawsuits alleges that Gilead even put this knowledge into a patent application all the way back in 2000, almost 15 years before it applied for the TAF patent.

THE HIGH DOSAGE CAN CAUSE BONE LOSS

The specific danger results from the fact that the dose that must be given to the patient is very high. Since there is an impact on the bones and kidneys as a result of the medication, the high dosage magnifies the side effects of the drugs. Patients also reported suffering damage to their teeth after taking the medication. The side effects impacted both people with HIV as well as people taking the HIV preventative drug Truvada.

BONE LOSS IN THE HIP AREA

One particular study performed in 2014-2015 found the bone loss in the hip area to be four times greater in patients taking TDF than those taking TAF. In other words, four times as many patients suffered these side effects. Double the number of patients suffered bone loss in the spinal area.

The problem for Gilead is that it allegedly attempted to have it both ways with regard to the TDF and TAF medication. On one hand, Gilead touted the increased safety of TAF drugs when it began to sell them in the marketplace. The problem with that approach is it invites a natural comparison with the alternative. Here, the other class of drugs was the TDF drugs that Gilead sold for many years.

IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRUVADA AND TENOFOVIR?

“Truvada is the brand name of the medication you are taking which contains the active drugs tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300mg (equivalent to 245mg tenofovir) and emtricitabine 200mg.” HIVPA

GILEAD WAS MAKING TONS OF MONEY ON TDF

However, Gilead had patent protection for TDF drugs and was making billions of dollars on the medications. Gilead is a massive company with sales of over $22 billion in 2018. The lawsuits allege that Gildead avoided replacing TDF drugs with TAF medications so long as it has patent protection on TDF drugs and was profiting handsomely. It was only when the TDF patent expired did Gilead decide that TAF drugs (which carried with them a new patent protection period) were safer and should replace TDF. The lawsuits claim that Gilead knew that TAF was safer all along, and even had the opportunity to replace TDF 15 years ago, but declined to do so out of profit motives.

SALE OF TDF DRUGS

Gilead has faced a number of allegations relating to its sale of TDF drugs. The company was also alleged to have used anticompetitive practices to sell the drugs, but it defeated those lawsuits. Now, the company is facing lawsuits for the fact that it allegedly sold a dangerous product and failed to warn customers of the potential dangers associated with the use of the drug. The company is accused of designing and selling a defective product due to the impact that the drugs had on patients’ bones and kidneys.

Currently, there are hundreds of lawsuits pending against Gilead with new lawsuits being filed. The cases are generally centered in state and federal court in California, where Gilead is based. The cases have survived judicial scrutiny thus far, as a judge has cleared the case to proceed, allowing nearly all of the grounds to survive a motion for dismissal.

JULY 2020 LAWSUIT FILING

In July 2020, a group of 20 additional plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Gilead in federal court in California. These plaintiffs alleged that Gilead knew all along that TDF was dangerous and learned even more as time passed about the dangers of the drug. The lawsuit further claims that Gilead knew that there was a safer alternative to TDF, but still proceeded to develop the drug for profit considerations.

In fact, the plaintiffs allege that one of the main reasons that Gilead used to obtain FDA approval for the sale of TAF was that it was safer than TDF. Nonetheless, Gilead continued to sell TDF for years after that point, having told the FDA that TDF was potentially dangerous. The plaintiffs even point to even that Gilead was aware of potential dangers to the kidneys when it was developing TDF. However, despite Gilead’s alleged knowledge of the possible side effects, the company did not say anything to doctors or patients while it continues to make large amounts of money from the drug.

THE 411 ON  GILEAD:

  • Gilead is headquartered and has its principal place of business in the Northern District of California.
  •  Corporate address: 333 Lakeside Drive Foster City, CA 94404
  • “Gilead Sciences, Inc. is a research-based biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative medicines.” Gilead website
  • Gilead in the news: ” Gilead’s (NASDAQ:GILD) COVID-19 treatment Veklury (remdesivir) can now be used in non-hospitalized adults and adolescents at high risk of progressing to severe disease.” Seeking Alpha
  • Product quality complains: Email: QualityComplaints@gilead.com

REAP HUGE PROFITS IN THE HIV DRUG MARKETPLACE

In the meantime, the patent to TDF did not expire until 2017, and Gilead continued to sell the drug for as long as it could. Now, it has been replaced on the market by TAF. Still, Gilead continues to reap huge profits in the HIV drug marketplace with market practices that have been challenged in numerous lawsuits.

The  Truvada lawsuits were just filed in 2019, so the cases are at a relatively early stage. Since there have been no significant developments, any type of settlement is still far into the future. If you have taken Truvada and have suffered bone loss or kidney damage, you can still file your own lawsuit against Gilead so long as you are still within the statute of limitations. You should contact a Truvada lawsuit lawyer today.

No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Benzene Sunscreen Recall Lawsuits vs. Johnson & Johnson

Benzene Sunscreen Recall Lawsuits vs. Johnson & Johnson | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
Johnson & Johnson Sunscreen Benzene Lawsuits Johnson & Johnson is a company that has been under serious legal pressure for some time. From its major liability in the opioid crisis to tens of thousands of lawsuits over asbestos in its talc powder, the company is facing fire on many fronts because it sells dangerous products. […]
David Slepkow's insight:

Johnson & Johnson is a company that has been under serious legal pressure for some time. From its major liability in the opioid crisis to tens of thousands of lawsuits over asbestos in its talc powder, the company is facing fire on many fronts because it sells dangerous products. Now, the latest legal headache for the company comes from lawsuits filed over its Benzene sunscreen. The product has been recalled because it contains cancer-causing ingredients. Now, the company is being sued in multidistrict litigation in Florida by numerous plaintiffs.

 

Benzene in Sunscreen cancer lawsuit

 

In July 2021, Johnson & Johnson issued a recall of Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreen. These products were found to have contained Benzene, which is a known carcinogen. This is not something that the company wanted to do. Johnson & Johnson often does everything it can to keep products on the market, even those that it knows are dangerous.

BENZENE WAS DETECTED IN INDEPENDENT TESTING

The product testing was not done by Johnson & Johnson, nor did the company warn the public of any dangers associated with its products. Instead, the testing was performed by a company called Valisure. This is an online pharmacy that is committed to product safety. Valisure has ordered numerous products and tested them for safety, including Johnson & Johnson’s talc powder. Valisure has performed an important role in keeping the public safe that companies themselves will not do.

Surely, one would expect that Johnson & Johnson would have tested its own product and known that it contained a known carcinogen. However, the company has a track record of knowing about its own products’ dangers and either concealing them or failing to alert the public of dangers.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON WILL NOT ADMIT THE DANGER OF ITS PRODUCTS

Even still, the company denies any knowledge that its sunscreens contained benzene. After Valisure released the results of the tests, the company claimed that it was beginning an internal investigation to learn how Benzene became a part of its products because it said that Benzene was not an ingredient in any of its sunscreens. The company claimed that it was recalling its sunscreens “out of an abundance of caution,” even though it denied that they were tainted with benzene.

BENZENE CAN BE A VERY DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE

Benzene is a highly-toxic substance that has been associated with cancers of the blood and the immune system. It is a colorless and highly flammable liquid. It is usually formed through natural processes, such as volcano eruptions and forest fires.Benzene is a widely-used chemical that can be found in:

  • Plastics
  • Lubricants
  • Detergents
  • Pesticides

It is also naturally found in crude oil and petroleum. One can imagine that this would hardly be a safe substance for humans to be exposed to as part of a household product that they breathe in when sprayed.

THE CANCER RISK THAT COMES FROM BENZENE EXPOSURE

The main risk is that someone exposed to benzene can develop leukemia. The substance has been shown to cause chromosome changes in bone marrow of lab mice. Research has also shown that people who have been around benzene at work have a higher rate of developing leukemia.

Unlike other substances, the international health agencies do not even hedge about the danger of benzene. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified benzene as a known carcinogen. There is a little doubt about the dangers of benzene.

Even if Benzene was not an active ingredient in the sunscreens, there is always the possibility that there was a defect in the manufacturing process that would have caused it to form in the sunscreen. This is how toxic substances often end up as ingredients of popular products. For example, the heartburn drug Zantac was tainted with NDMA because the instability of its active ingredient caused it to form the carcinogen over time, especially when the product was exposed to heat.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON IS FACING MANY LAWSUITS

There have been several class action lawsuits that have been filed against Johnson & Johnson. Consumers want their money back because they have purchased a recalled product that they cannot use. Beyond that, there have been lawsuits filed by consumers who claimed that they were injured after they used these sunscreens. Right now, the personal injury lawsuits are separate from the class action cases.

Most of the Johnson & Johnson sunscreen benzene lawsuits stem from use of aerosol sunscreen products. However, there are a number of plaintiffs who claim that they were injured from using Johnson & Johnson sunscreen lotions.

THERE IS MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN THE JOHNSON & JOHNSON BENZENE LITIGATION

Right now, the Johnson & Johnson sunscreen lawsuits have been granted multidistrict lawsuit status. This means that the cases will proceed together as one right up until the time that the cases go before a jury. Then, each one of the cases is heard by a separate jury. Therefore, it is possible for some plaintiffs to win their cases, while others may lose.

As of now, the cases that have been consolidated are the consumer class action lawsuits. However, there have been some personal injury cases that have also been filed. If you or a loved one have been injured by any of these products, you have legal rights.

SUNSCREEN PRODUCTS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY CONTAIN BENZENE

While the litigation thus far has focused on Johnson & Johnson, there are other sunscreen makers that may have sold products that contain benzene. These makers could include:

  • Sun Bum
  • CVS Health;
  • Fruit of the Earth
  • Raw Elements
  • SunBurnt
  • Goodsense
  • Banana Boat
  • Coppertone

Not only is the maker of the product potentially liable, but the retailer that sold a product that sickened you could also be made to pay. This includes stores like:

  • Walgreens
  • CVS
  • Walmart
  • Target

The recall news just came out several months ago, and lawyers are still investigating potential cases against the product makers. Sunscreen cancer lawsuits are still in their early phases. If you or a loved one have been injured, we would like to talk to you about your case. We can help you file a lawsuit against the company that was responsible for your injuries. However, you have a limited amount of time to bring a court case for your injuries. Call us today to schedule your free initial consultation.

No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Lawsuits Against UNUM for Denying Long-Term Disability Claims

Lawsuits Against UNUM for Denying Long-Term Disability Claims | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
When it comes to ERISA long-term disability claims, UNUM has what can be charitably described as a poor record. The company has been in trouble with the government numerous times for conspiring to deny claims. This has become part of the corporate culture. UNUM is known as one of the country’s worst insurance companies. While […]
David Slepkow's insight:

When it comes to ERISA long-term disability claims, UNUM has what can be charitably described as a poor record. The company has been in trouble with the government numerous times for conspiring to deny claims. This has become part of the corporate culture. UNUM is known as one of the country’s worst insurance companies. While its business practices make it billions of dollars, there is a long trail of hundreds of thousands of people who faced extreme financial hardship so UNUM can make money.

ERISA IS A LAW THAT FAVORS LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURERS

When you are unable to work over the long term, you may have the ability to apply for long-term disability benefits. Your company may offer you a policy as a benefit. Since long-term disability through your job is an employee benefit, it is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). While you may think that this helps you, the reality is quite the opposite. ERISA actually gives insurance companies even more cover to do as they please with fewer consequences.

In order to receive long-term disability benefits, you must file a claim with the insurance company that your company uses for the policy. You must submit evidence that you are unable to work and that your condition meets the policy’s definition of a disability. Many times, the insurance company will deny the claim. As long as they follow the rules of ERISA, they have the ability to deny claims if they believe that you do not deserve benefits. Many times, they will end up putting their finger on the scale and denying your claim.

Even the appeals process is skewed towards them. The initial appeal of a claims denial is filed with the insurance company itself. They have the right to review their own decision. It is only after they deny your appeal that you have the right to go to federal court. When you do, you do not have the ability to call witnesses or introduce new evidence. You can understand why the ERISA process favors the insurance company.

COMPANIES LIKE UNUM DO NOT HAVE FREE REIN TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT

While ERISA gives the insurance company quite a bit of power, they do not have unlimited license to do whatever they want. Even though they cannot be sued for bad faith, there is still an outer limit on what they are allowed to do. Apparently, UNUM crossed this line. In what turned out to be a major scandal, years of bad behavior came to light. Just over a decade, UNUM unreasonably denied hundreds of thousands of claims.

The Department of Labor opened an investigation into UNUM and punished it severely. Multiple states also opened their own investigations into the company’s claims practices. The company was ordered to pay a $15 million fine. In addition, the Department of Labor ordered the company to change the way that they evaluate and process long-term disability claims. Finally, the government ordered UNUM to reopen over 200,000 claims that were unfairly denied.

UNUM HAS NOT CHANGED, EVEN AFTER BIG FINES AND LAWSUITS

Unfortunately, despite an agreement with the government, nothing really changed at UNUM. The claimants who were promised a fair shot at disability benefits never got it, as UNUM only reopened a very small fraction of the claims. In addition, it was business as usual at the company. For UNUM, business means putting profits over people and denying claims in any way that they can.

Not only does UNUM deny claims whenever they can, but they also look for reasons to terminate benefits. They hide behind their large team of in-house doctors and lawyers to do everything that they can to take away the long-term disability benefits that you desperately need.

YOU CAN TAKE ACTION WHEN UNUM HAS DENIED YOUR LONG-TERM DISABILITY CLAIM

You can hold UNUM accountable for what they have done to you. People who have had their claims unfairly denied may be able to file or join a class action lawsuit against the company. UNUM has faced numerous class actions lawsuits for the way that it has handled and processed disability claims.

There are two ways to take action against UNUM when it has unfairly denied your claim. Of course, you have the ability to file an ERISA appeal. You can and should take your appeal as far as you can to hopefully get the benefits that you deserve.

Second, you can consult with an attorney with the aim of suing the company itself for damages. UNUM faced class action lawsuits in both 2004 and 2005, and the company has not cleaned up its act since then. Courts have certified classes of plaintiffs when they were based on a corporate scheme to use all methods to deny as many claims as possible.

In addition, the ERISA rules have been changed to make it easier to sue an insurer directly. Now, you have the legal ability to sue UNUM directly when they violate certain legal rules of the claims process, even if you cannot sue them for a bad faith denial.

In the meantime, UNUM continues to be called to account in various lawsuits after it denied benefits and appeals. In one case, the company denied benefits for a double amputee, combing through every nook and cranny of the record and surveilling her social media to try to argue that she had not proven that she was disabled and could work. In this case, UNUM never even examined the claimant in person.

This is just one of many cases where UNUM has not only denied a claim that should have been persuasive, but it also denied the appeal. Courts have routinely slapped down the insurer and have expressed amazement that claims had to go this far in court. The conditions are ripe for another investigation and class action lawsuit against UNUM.

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST UNUM

First, you need to see an attorney to learn more about your legal options. Before you can sue UNUM directly for damages, you must fully appeal your ERISA disability denial. If you are looking to file a case against UNUM to make them pay for the unreasonable hell that they have put you through, we can help you. In the end, while UNUM may never clean up its act, cases like yours could teach it a lesson that arbitrarily denying claims to save money may be more trouble than it is worth

No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Pressure Cooker Lawsuits & Injuries | Injured by a Pressure Cooker?

Pressure Cooker Lawsuits & Injuries | Injured by a Pressure Cooker? | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
Americans are opting for pressure cookers in large numbers these days. More people are cooking at home, and they do not have the time to sit at the stove to wait for their food. As a result, things like the Instant Pot and other pressure cookers are flying off the shelves. Even the term “pressure […]
David Slepkow's insight:

Americans are opting for pressure cookers in large numbers these days. More people are cooking at home, and they do not have the time to sit at the stove to wait for their food. As a result, things like the Instant Pot and other pressure cookers are flying off the shelves. Even the term “pressure cooker” sounds dangerous. These appliances can injure the people who use them, especially when they are defectively designed. If you or a loved one have been hurt in a pressure cooker accident, you may be entitled to financial compensation in a lawsuit.

Pressure cookers mean reduced cooking time. They cook food differently than a traditional pot on the stove. They rely on sealing off the food and using pressure to quickly heat it. The pressure cooker is a chamber that is tightly closed. As the food heats, it produces steam, which is then trapped by the pressure cooker. The temperature rises quickly, beyond the 212 degree boiling point of water. The increased temperature leads to shorter cooking times.

 

Pressure Cooker lawsuit

 

Old-school pressure cookers were bulky contraptions. Many people hesitated to use them because of the perception of danger. Occasionally, that perception became reality as people were injured in accidents in their own kitchen. However, these appliances have gone mainstream in recent years as pressure cooker sales have picked up dramatically. Nowadays, it seems that everyone is sharing pressure cooker recipes and talking about them on social media.

INSTANT POT HAS CAUSED PRESSURE COOKER SALES TO SOAR

Brands like the Instant Pot have gained widespread acceptance. Amazon and other stores cannot sell this product fast enough, and millions of people have bought pressure cookers this decade. Pressure cookers have almost a cult following as people in a hurry still want to cook at home. Instant Pot has nearly six million social media follows, and it sold 300,000 products in 36 hours once during Amazon Prime Day.

PRESSURE COOKERS CAN CAUSE INJURIES

With pressure cookers, things tend to happen more quickly. The combination of extreme heat using pressure to cook more quickly can be dangerous. Before the user is able to open the pressure cooker, the unit should become de-pressurized. In fact, they should not be able to open it at all before that happens. In reality, there have been numerous pressure cooker injuries from Instant Pot and other brands because consumers have been able to open the lids before the pressure escapes, and it causes explosions. Consumers are injured by the scalding hot contents of these pots. They often suffer the following injuries:

  • Major burns
  • Melting skin
  • Blistered skin
  • Scars

Injured consumers often need multiple surgeries to repair some of the damages. This includes skin grafts and other procedures. In addition, scalding burns are intensely painful. Injured users lose their quality of life and could suffer permanent disfigurement.

OTHER PRESSURE COOKER BRANDS HAVE ALSO CAUSED INJURIES

Of course, Instant Pot is the most recognizable name on the market. It is not the only brand of pressure cooker. The following other brands have had consumers report injuries from using their products:

  • Tristar Power Pressure Cooker
  • Crock-Pot Express
  • Gourmia Express Pot Electric Pressure Cooker

PRESSURE COOKER LAWSUITS THAT ARE PENDING

Each of these companies have faced product liability lawsuits alleging defective pressure cookers that harmed consumers. Here are some examples of cases that are pending before courts right now:

Tristar Power Pressure Cooker Litigation – Numerous consumers have been injured when the pressure cooker exploded after the steam had been let out of the appliance. Others have also sued for burns that they suffered by being able to open the pressure valve when the cooker was working. There was a multi-plaintiff lawsuit filed recently with 12 plaintiffs.

Instant Pot – This is the fastest growing category of lawsuits since Instant Pot has become the market leader. There have recently been lawsuits filed in Delaware and Colorado that have been filed by people who have been burned by exploding pressure cookers.

NuWave Nutri Pot – In 2020, an Illinois woman filed a lawsuit after she was burned. She claims that she was able to open the pot during operation, and was scalding by exploding hot contents.

Cuisinart – In 2018, a Connecticut woman filed a lawsuit, alleging that she was severely burned when contents escaped from a defective lid-locking mechanism.

THE SUNBEAM PRESSURE COOKER RECALL

In November 2020, the kitchen appliance giant recalled its pressure cookers. The problem with these appliances was that the pot could pressurize when the lid was not fully locked. This means that consumers could open it and be injured by the exploding contents inside. The company received over 100 reports of this problem. 99 consumers suffered burns that range from mild to severe.

As a result, Sunbeam is now facing numerous lawsuits for an allegedly defective product. It seems that the company would have difficulty arguing that this problem was not a defect.

WHAT INJURED CONSUMERS ALLEGE IN A LAWSUIT

Pressure cooker product liability lawsuits usually have the following fact patterns:

  • Plaintiffs will usually discuss how the pressure cooker manufacturers always entices consumers to buy their product with claims of safety.
  • The lawsuits will allege that the pressure cooker is defective because consumers are able to remove the lid while there is still built up pressure insider
  • Alternatively, these lawsuits will claim that the product is defective because the lid-locking mechanism does not always work as intended, and does not completely lock into place.
  • The plaintiffs will always claim that the manufacturer of the pressure cooker knew or should have known of the defect. After all, the nature of the product itself should cause manufacturers to be vigilant about safety tests knowing the consequences of what could happen if the lid were able to open.

In many cases, manufacturers are alleged to have concealed this knowledge from the general public. After all, if the public truly knew what could happen when they are using this product, they wouldn’t be buying hundreds of thousands of them off of Amazon.

WHAT YOU CAN RECEIVE IN A PRESSURE COOKER LAWSUIT

Injured consumers can recover the following damages if they are successful in their lawsuits against these manufacturers:

  • Lost wages for time that they missed from work and the reduction in their earnings capacity
  • Pain and suffering for both past and future. Note that burns are both physically painful, and the disfigurement can cost severe anxiety and depression
  • Emotional trauma
  • The cost of all medical bills out of pocket. This would include things such as surgeries and skin grafts.

Of course, the companies that make these products will fight your claims in court most often. They make too much money selling pressure cookers to admit that their products are dangerous. This is why you need a products liability attorney to fight for you. Call us today to get the legal process started. If you can prove that the pressure cooker that injured you or a loved one was defective, you may be entitled to significant financial compensation.

No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

10 Biggest Car Recalls of all Time

10 Biggest Car Recalls of all Time | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
10 Biggest Car Recalls of all Time Car recalls are not just a hassle for owners. They signify a dangerous problem that can cost lives if left unaddressed. Many of these recalls only happen after there has been a widespread problem that has already led to numerous critical incidents. Here are ten of the largest […]
No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

People At Risk of Exposure To Asbestos | Industrial Workers

People At Risk of Exposure To Asbestos | Industrial Workers | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
Workers at risk to asbestos exposure: Industrial Workers: Asbestos Product Manufacturing, Utility Workers, Shipyard Workers, Construction & Building Trades etc.
David Slepkow's insight:

Industrial Workers: Asbestos Product Manufacturing

All Industrial workers in industries where asbestos fiber was incorporated into the company’s products, such as manufacturers of insulation, roofing, building materials, etc., prior to adequate safety controls were at risk of developing asbestos disease. This includes those not in direct contact with production such as secretaries and executives in adjoining offices, and spouses and family members of workers who wore asbestos laden work clothes home unaware that it could pose a risk. People at risk of asbestos exposure include industrial workers, shipyard laborers, roofers and others.

Shipyard asbestos

 

Utility Workers

Workers involved in the operation and maintenance of utility powerhouses, and other facilities and equipment of electric and gas utilities were exposed to asbestos products. Utility powerhouses in particular involved miles of steam piping which was insulated with asbestos products, as well as boilers many stories high which, together with feedwater heaters, pumps, conveyors, condensers, turbine-generators, and auxiliary equipment, were also assembled with and insulated with asbestos products. Everyone working in such facilities risked significant asbestos exposure because of ongoing repairs, maintenance, overhaul, and conversion, not to mention being present during the construction of new units. The asbestos dust and fiber from the asbestos products used to insulate, assemble, seal, and line all this piping and equipment was readily carried through the plant by drafts, convection created by the hot equipment, and the fact that only metal grating and not solid flooring separated the elevations of these huge structures. Utility workers involved in maintenance of sub-stations, underground cable and steam lines also risked exposure to asbestos products.

 Industrial Shipyard Workers

People who worked in shipyards during World War II or in the post-war years were at risk of asbestos exposure. The new construction, overhaul, and repair of Navy, Merchant and other ships caused friable asbestos products to be present in the confined spaces, and engine and boiler rooms of ships resulting in asbestos exposure to all trades working in these areas.

Construction & Building Trades

Union members and retirees of many trades encountered hazardous asbestos products in doing their work, as well as the asbestos products being used by other trades working nearby, during the construction, renovation, and repair of various industrial, commercial, military, education, governmental, and other job sites. Mechanical systems, including piping, duct work and equipment, were assembled with, sealed with and/or insulated with asbestos products. Structural steel and decking were fireproofed and sound proofed with asbestos sprays. Components of walls, roofing, electrical wiring and flooring contained asbestos through the 1970’s and, in some cases, even later.

Maintenance Workers & Non-Union Crafts | Auto and Truck Brake & Clutch Mechanics

Those who made a career of servicing auto and/or truck brakes and clutches may have been exposed to sufficient asbestos dust to cause disease.

Residential, industrial and Commercial Plumbing & Heating Contractors and Oil Burner Service

Mechanics who worked for, or operated a plumbing and heating contract or jobbing business, or worked in oil burner installation and service, may have had considerable asbestos exposure, even if the work was mostly residential. Residential boilers, furnaces, and hot water heaters, installed up through the 1970’s were often assembled, sealed, and/or insulated with asbestos products as was the attendant piping.

 Industrial trades at Risk:

Insulators

Sheetmetal Workers

Steamfitters

Plumbers & Pipefitters

Masons & Bricklayers

Ironworkers

Roofers

Carpenters & Joiners

Boilermakers

Tilesetters

Shipfitters

Electricians

Operating Engineers

Painters

Plasterers

Lathers

Millwrights

Laborers

Machinists

Others

People At Risk of Exposure To Asbestos | Industrial Workers

Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers Union

Sheetmetal Workers

Boilermakers

Bricklayer and Allied Craftworkers / BAC

Steamfitters and Pipefitters

Electricians

Carpenters

Plumbers

Roofers

Workers at Refineries, Chemical Plants, Pharmaceutical, Food, and Beverage Plants

These industries often utilize high temperature/high pressure processes and required lots of steam and process pipelines, which in and prior to the 1970’s meant piping, vessels, tanks, reactors, heat exchangers, boilers, roasters, ovens, driers, furnaces, pumps and other equipment insulated, assembled, and/or sealed with asbestos products. Those involved in maintenance, repair, construction, and turnaround of the production units risked exposure to asbestos products, as well as workers in the vicinity of these operations.

Union Members at Risk:

Oil

Chemical & Atomic Workers/OCAW

Independent Chemical Workers Union GMP

United Steel Workers

Teamsters

Paperworkers

Workers in Metal Refining Operations, Foundries, and Steel Mills

In addition to the insulated pipelines, boilers and similar equipment common to heavy industry,  industrial workers in metal refineries, foundries, and steel mills may have been exposed to the high temperature refractory linings of furnaces, smelters, launders, ladles, and similar equipment, some of which were composed of asbestos products, which were frequently in need of replacement and repair. In addition, asbestos gloves, leggings, and aprons were worn by workers near molten metals. Asbestos cloth and blankets were used to moderate the cooling of metal castings. If you are in need of a top mesothelioma lawsuit attorney contact us.

No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

https://mesotheliomalegalreview.com/faqs-asp/

David Slepkow's insight:

How soon after I am exposed to asbestos should I file a lawsuit?

If you have been diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease, that prevents you from working or interferes in the performance of your daily activities, you might be considering a lawsuit. In that case, it helps to contact an attorney as soon as possible to avoid running into deadlines that will negatively impact your ability to file. There are statutes of limitation that apply to specific types of cases; you want to be sure yours doesn’t run out between the time you are diagnosed and the time you file a case.

I want to sue, but I don’t want to harm my employers or the people that caused the damage. Is there a way around this?

Liability insurance usually covers individuals and companies against claims such as these, so you don’t have to worry about the adverse affect on people you like. If you do not want to, you do not have to sue your employer for workers compensation. You can elect to sue only the asbestos companies and get compensation from them. These options should be discussed with an experienced attorney ASAP.

Why is there so much asbestos litigation?

By the early 1930s there were individuals in the asbestos industry who knew that asbestos had been strongly linked to deadly lung disease; these dangers were hidden from people whose health was affected by exposure.

American manufacturers and distributors have a responsibility to the public. Their products must be safe for the people who come into contact with them and must be clearly labeled about dangers.

Asbestos was used in many different products for almost 50 years and is still causing illness in people exposed years ago. Citizens who have been disabled as a result of asbestos exposure should be able to hold those that caused their injury liable.

How much will it cost me for you to investigate my claim?

You will never get a bill from us for investigating your potential claim. If you decide to retain us as your attorneys we will work for you on a contingency basis. That means we are paid only if a judgment is won or settlements are reached in your case. There is no charge for work by our members unless you receive a payment from a settlement or judgment. The fees that may be charged and the expenses a client may be responsible for vary from state to state are governed by individual state laws and will be discussed with you by the attorney that you speak with.

How large a settlement or judgment might I expect to recover in a health related claim?

The value of your potential claim depends on many things. In health-related lawsuits such as asbestos, it depends on things such as the medical evidence supporting your diagnosis, how serious your injury is, your actual and your potential losses, and the financial resources of the company that made the product among other criteria. No attorney can rightfully answer this question fully without knowledge of the circumstances of your particular case.

How long does it take to actually get the settlement or judgment?

In some cases settlements are possible within a few months of filing your claim. In other cases it may take much longer. The answer to this question depends upon a number of factors including the court your case is filed in, the experience and reputation of your attorney and how many other cases like yours have already been resolved by the defendant who is being sued. An experienced attorney will be able to help you move your case through the legal system as efficiently as possible and to help people that are ill receive their money in a timely manner.

How do I begin my lawsuit?

You can get in touch with us in several different ways. If you’d like to complete the confidential case evaluation, an attorney will get in touch with you within 1 business day. The information will assure that we connect you with the proper attorney and that you receive accurate information as quickly as possible. The information you provide is strictly confidential.

No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Laparoscopic Power Morcellation lawsuit | Cancer diagnosis

Laparoscopic Power Morcellation lawsuit | Cancer diagnosis | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
Your Power Morcellation lawyer can inform you of a Power Morcellator lawsuit if you diagnosed with cancer and chance of a settlement.
David Slepkow's insight:

Laparoscopic power morcellators are a surgical medical device. “Laparoscopic power morcellators are Class II medical devices used during laparoscopic (minimally invasive) surgeries to cut tissue into smaller pieces so the tissue can be removed through a small incision site (typically 2 cm long or less).” FDA Enduring gynecological surgery is a horrific, painful experience. Learning that the surgical procedure utilized at the hospital could have caused a devastating diagnosis of uterine cancer is devastating. In 2017, the Federal Drug Administration issued a revised assessment indicating and discouraging that laparoscopic power morcellation (LPM) be used in hysterectomy and myomectomy surgical procedures. The FDA was concerned that LPM could cause a greater chance of spreading uterine tissue that could hold cancer. Many victims are now wondering whether there will be power morcellator lawsuit settlements.

 

Power Morcellator lawyer

 

HOW A MORCELLATOR WORKS

Laparoscopic power morcellators are used during surgical procedures. Their purpose is to take large masses of tissue and make them smaller. The surgeon makes a small incision and can remove the tissue through the incision site. The laparoscopic power morcellator works by using sharp edges to finely cut the tissue. It can be inserted through small incision and reaches the site of the tissue since it is a long and hollow cylinder that has cutting jaws on the end of it. While many of the common uses of these laparoscopic power morcellators involve gallbladder and spleen removal surgeries, there were also uses for other surgeries. As applicable here, these devices have been used in procedures such as a hysterectomy and surgery to remove uterine fibroids. The purpose was to shorten recovery times and make it a less difficult procedure.

Update- 1-4-2021- “A boxed warning and more explicit and detailed information about the risks associated with laparoscopic power morcellators should be included in labelling of the gynecologic surgery device, according to newly finalized guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). ..This final document updates an earlier 2014 guidance to recommend that manufacturers of laparoscopic power morcellators (LPMs) include more specificity about how the risk of the devices increases with the age of patients. Labels should now also give detailed information about the risk of spreading benign uterine tissue and make clear that LPMs should always be used with containment systems. (RELATED: Fears over device surveillance amid talk of deregulation, Regulatory Focus 20 June 2017)” RAPS

2-25-2020- “The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced several new steps designed to make the use of laparoscopic power morcellators (LPMs) safer in gynecologic surgeries. The agency granted marketing authorization for updated labeling for the PneumoLiner morcellation tissue containment system; released draft guidance recommending the addition of specific safety information to the product labeling for LPMs; and issued a Safety Communication recommending that an LPM only be used in certain gynecologic surgeries with a containment system that is compatible with the morcellator.” Medscape

WHAT IS A LAPAROSCOPIC POWER MORCELLATOR? 

“Laparoscopic power morcellators are Class II medical devices used during laparoscopic (minimally invasive) surgeries to cut tissue into smaller pieces so the tissue can be removed through a small incision site (typically 2 cm long or less). These devices are commonly used in gallbladder, kidney, liver, and spleen removal surgery. They are also used in hysterectomy (surgical procedure to remove a women’s uterus) and myomectomy (surgical procedure to remove uterine fibroids which are noncancerous growths in the lining of a women’s uterus).” FDA  “Laparoscopic surgeries are associated with shorter post-operative recovery time and a reduced risk of infection compared to hysterectomy or myomectomy done through an abdominal incision.” Id.

THE SIDE EFFECTS

Although there are side effects for gynecological surgeries, the device can have some positive effects for patients. There are several different companies that manufacture morcellators. The two largest makers of the product are Karl Storz GmbH and the Ethicon subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. Ethicon ceased selling morcellators in 2014. There are several other manufacturers of the product who continue to sell it.

MORCELLATOR SETTLEMENTS

The use of this device for hysterectomies and myomectomies (surgery for uterine fibroids) has caused some severe complications for women who have received the procedure. The major difficulty is that it is difficult sometimes to distinguish between cancerous tissue and a uterine fibroid before the procedure. Given the similarity between the two, telling the difference may often be impossible until the actual tissue can be analyzed. This means that when doctors insert the power morcellator and use it to reduce tissue, they sometimes cannot tell what the actual risks are. If the tissue that is being ground for removal is cancerous, the procedure runs the risk of dispersing cancerous tissues outside of the affected area. In other words, the morcellator takes cancerous tissue, blasts it and disperses it to other places in the body where it takes root and grows into a dangerous and often fatal type of cancer.

THE FDA’S INVESTIGATION

In the wake of reports of the possibility that laparoscopic power morcellators can increase risk of cancer, the FDA conducted an investigation. The FDA issued a safety communication in 2014 that detailed the risks associated with this procedure. The FDA estimates that between 1 in every 225 and 1 in every 580 women undergoing gynecological surgery may have undetected cancer, causing this risk. Among other things, the FDA required a new boxed warning and for treatment providers to consider other options before using a laparoscopic power morcellator. In the wake of this, Ethicon exited the market for this product. The FDA has sought to discourage the use of this product for several different types of procedures, including hysterectomies. The FDA also recommended several ways, including design and implementation, where this product could be made safer. Now, several companies manufacture morcellators with the use of a containment bag that is intended to prevent cancerous tissue from spreading around the body after it is reduced by the morcellator.

WHAT IS MORCELLATION?

“Morcellation means cutting an object or tissue into smaller pieces for removal. When it comes to gynecology, it could mean cutting up the uterus, polyps, tumors, or fibroids so they can be removed through a smaller opening.” https://www.hystersisters.com/vb2/article_557161.htm

“Surgeons have several different options for morcellation tools. There are power tools, such as the specifically-designed morcellator, and then there are the manual tools like the scalpel. The decision mostly depends on the surgeon’s preference and your specific situation. Some tools have the ability not only to cut, but also to core and extract tissues. Morcellation can either be done in a closed environment, such as a bag, or in an open environment such as the uterus, pelvic cavity, or abdominal region.” Id.

LAPAROSCOPIC POWER MORCELLATOR LAWSUITS

There are two different means that patients have for obtaining compensation for any harms that they may have suffered from laparoscopic power morcellators. The first is a suit against the manufacturer of the device for any defects in the product.  This lawsuit could lead to a power morcellator lawsuit settlement. The second is a medical malpractice suit against the doctor, especially given that the doctor may not have been able to distinguish between a uterine fibroid and cancerous tissue.

POWER MORCELLATOR LAWSUIT SETTLEMENTS

“FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH)’s most recent assessment of using laparoscopic power morcellators (LPM) to treat presumed uterine fibroids confirms concerns outlined in our 2014 safety communication which discouraged the use of these products for that use. Women with unsuspected uterine sarcoma who undergo morcellation of presumed benign fibroids are at risk for mechanical spread of cancerous tissue and worsened clinical outcomes. As part of the FDA’s ongoing
efforts, CDRH conducted an updated review to assess:

  •  the prevalence of sarcoma in women undergoing myomectomy or hysterectomy for presumed benign uterine fibroids;
  • clinical outcomes for patients who were diagnosed with cancer following morcellation (power or manual) during myomectomy or hysterectomy to treat presumed uterine fibroids; and,
  • differences in patient outcomes for women who have undergone electric power morcellation compared to manual (e.g., scalpel) morcellation and/or no morcellation.
    In addition, we reviewed Medical Device Reports (MDRs) received by FDA for dissemination of malignancy following LPM use as well as information related to changes in rates of hysterectomy or myomectomy procedures performed since our 2014 communication.” FDA

When surgeons had wanted to perform procedures on women through minimally invasive means, they had opted for a procedure that is called laparoscopic power morcellation. This was intended to achieve the same results as a surgery with an incision, while resulting in an easier recovery period. However, there have been unintended consequences that have accompanied the use of this procedure. In some instances, it has been alleged to have increased a woman’s risk of a cancer diagnosis in the wake of the procedure. This had led to Food and Drug Administration warnings about the safety of the product and procedure. There have been numerous lawsuits that have been brought against both the manufacturer of the product and the doctors who have performed the procedure. If you or someone in your family have undergone this procedure and have been diagnosed with cancer, you should contact a Laparoscopic Power Morcellation lawsuit attorney immediately. Many victims are wondering about power morcellator lawsuit settlements.

There have been many suits filed against the manufacturers of these morcellators. Some of these lawsuits have alleged that the manufacturers placed into commerce products that were defectively designed. State law product liability grounds have formed the basis for these suits. The plaintiffs have alleged that the manufacturers could have sold a product that was a safer alternative. In addition, the lawsuits allege that the manufacturers knew of the defects related to the product and failed to warn patients of the risks attached to the surgery. In fact, according to the plaintiffs, the manufacturers deliberately concealed the data that was in their possession that indicated that the morcellators caused an increased risk of cancer.  Many victims are seeking information about power morcellator lawsuit settlements

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON AND OLYMPUS CORP SETTLEMENT

Johnson & Johnson has sought to settle the lawsuits that have been brought against it. In addition, Olympus Corp., another manufacturer of the product, has also settled many of the cases that have been brought against it. There are still hundreds of cases pending in front of courts, although none have gone to trial yet.In addition, there is also the possibility of filing a claim against the doctor who conducted the surgical procedure. This is arguably medical malpractice given that the cancerous tissue was undetected by the doctor prior to the procedure. If you can prove the doctor was negligent by proceeding to use a laparoscopic power morcellator when the patient had undetected cancer, then you can recovery under a malpractice theory as well. Of course, a doctor can always be joined to a product liability lawsuit as well since the doctor was part of the transaction chain that resulted in a defendant coming into contact with a defective product. It is not your responsibility to prove exactly who is liable, only that you received a defective product. It is for the court to decide exactly who bear the legal liability for that defective product.

PRIOR MDL:

  • “In October 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated several morcellator cases against J&J’s Ethicon unit in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas before Senior District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil in MDL-2652. At the time the MDL was formed, other defendants included manufacturers Richard Wolf, Karl Storz and Gyrus. Since the majority of cases were against Ethicon, the other defendant lawsuits were not included in the MDL. Since many of the women involved in lawsuits were fighting aggressive uterine cancer, conducting their depositions before they could no longer testify was important. In January 2016, U.S. Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara signed an order granting expedited discovery status for women whose health was quickly deteriorating. Attorneys were then able to schedule and conduct depositions more quickly. In May 2016, defendants and plaintiffs filed a joint motion to dissolve the MDL, and in June Judge Vratil ordered the MDL dissolved after only eight months. According to the parties, most of the cases were resolved.” Drugwatch
  • “Due to the joint efforts of the Parties and the Court, the Parties have successfully resolved the vast majority of cases filed in the MDL,” the joint motion said. “All remaining actions have been resolved and/or dismissed.” At the time of dismissal, there were only two cases left in the MDL against Ethicon. These cases went back to the federal courts in the jurisdictions where they were originally filed. Any lawsuits filed in the future will be handled individually in local district courts unless another consolidation occurs.” Id.

DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER AFTER YOUR PROCEDURE

It is vital that you contact a Laparoscopic Power Morcellation lawsuit lawyer as soon as possible if you have undergone a procedure using a laparoscopic power morcellator to gain a full understanding of your legal rights. Your morcellator lawyer can inform you of your prospects of a Power Morcellator lawsuit settlement if you have been diagnosed with cancer after your procedure. It is also critically important that you are screened for uterine cancer given the complications that have been experienced. A Morcellation lawsuit is a serious matter and you need to retain the best Laparoscopic Power Morcellation lawsuit lawyer. A morcellator lawsuit is not easy to litigate by any means so you need to retain a power morcellator lawsuit attorney.

No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Allergan Breast Implant Lawsuit - Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Allergan Breast Implant Lawsuit - Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
Implanted by a recalled Allergen Biocell Breast Implant causing Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma? Contact a Biocell Breast implant lawyer.
David Slepkow's insight:
ALLERGAN BREAST IMPLANT LAWSUIT – NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA

Allergan Biocell Breast implant lawsuits are not part of a class action.  Many victims are searching google for information about: “textured breast implant lawsuit” as well as “Allegan smooth implants.” Some victims are surprised that there is no Allergan Biocell class action. However, the lack of a Breast implant class action does not mean that a victim cannot file a breast implant lawsuit. Biocell Breast implants are the subject of  a major mass tort litigation. There may be another wave of breast implant lawsuits on the way regarding the breast implant, Biocell. The Biocell implant lawsuits will take some time to proceed to trial.

  • Instead of the risk of leakage and rupture, Allergan’s Biocell breast implant is a carcinogen and has now been recalled from the market.
  • Biocell breast implants according to the FDA, causes BIA-ALCL which  is a type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system.
  • ALCL is otherwise known as Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma.
  • Women who have been sickened by this implant have now begun to file lawsuits against the company.
  • The lawsuits are still in their early stages and are part of an MDL in Federal Court in New Jersey.
  • Lawsuits can also be filed in state court multi-county litigation in New Jersey.

 

Biocell Breast implant lawsuit

 

ALLERGAN BIOCELL BREAST IMPLANT LAWSUIT

These lawsuits are filed against:

  • Allergan, Inc.,
  • Allergan USA, Inc.,
  • Allergan plc.

Update- 5-6-21- “HACKENSACK, N.J. — The judge overseeing the New Jersey Allergan Biocell breast implant multicounty litigation has refused to dismiss claims of strict liability and negligent failure to warn that are based upon allegations that the company did not disclose to the FDA the risk of cancer posed by the implants.

However, in the May 4 opinion, Judge Rachelle L. Harz of the Bergen County (N.J.) Superior Court dismissed the claims based upon Allergan’s alleged failure to update the implants’ warnings via the federal permissive Changes Being Effected process…” Harris Martin

3/22/2021- “A federal judge in New Jersey has shut down part of a multi-district lawsuit against Allergan over its Biocell textured breast implants but kept most other parts of the litigation. Judge Brian Martinotti ruled on March 19 that some of the plaintiffs’ claims against Allergan (now part of AbbVie) were preempted by federal law while most others could stand — including one alleging that Allergan failed to report adverse events related to Biocell implants to the FDA.” Mass. device

October 1, 2020- “recently published study links breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) to implants manufactured by seven pharmaceutical companies. In addition to Allergan, the manufacturer of Biocell textured breast implants, the study names Mentor Worldwide, a unit of Johnson & Johnson, Silimed Polyurethane, Eurosilicone, Nagor, Orion, and Poly Implant Prothèse. Allergan faces at least 150 product liability and class action lawsuits. Mentor faces a smaller number, and none of the others are yet facing litigation.” Lawyers and settlements

8/24/2020- “Three more women have died from a cancer associated with certain kinds of breast implants—all within a six-month period starting just weeks before those implants were recalled. At least 36 women have now died of a cancer known as BIA-ALCL, for “breast implant–­associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma,” according to data the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released last week. The disease, which is not a breast cancer, has been linked in academic studies to a “textured” type of breast implants made by several manufacturers, and has especially affected patients with implants made by Allergan. In July 2019, after at least 33 women had died from BIA-ALCL, Allergan complied with an FDA request to voluntarily recall its textured implants. But the disease associated with those implants continued to claim lives, as I reported in a Fortune investigation earlier this year.” Fortune

6/1/2020- “On June 1, 2020, Allergan launched a dedicated multi-channel campaign to contact patients who may not be aware of the July 24, 2019, recall of BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders.  People who are not aware of the BIOCELL recall or do not know the type of implant they have or their implant history, should:

  • Contact go to www.BIOCELLinformation.com to reach out to Allergan Aesthetics to determine if the company has their implant information.
  • Contact their surgeon or hospital where they received implants to determine if the surgeon or hospital has records of their implant information.” FDA Biocell recall 

A recently published study links breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) to implants manufactured by seven pharmaceutical companies. In addition to Allergan, the manufacturer of Biocell textured breast implants, the study names Mentor Worldwide, a unit of Johnson & Johnson, Silimed Polyurethane, Eurosilicone, Nagor, Orion, and Poly Implant Prothèse. Allergan faces at least 150 product liability and class action lawsuits. Mentor faces a smaller number, and none of the others are yet facing litigation.

7-30-19- “On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL textured implants (“the Warranty”). The Warranty provides that Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the BIOCELL textured implants. However, Allergan will not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months, until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on or after the date of the FDA’s recall, July 24, 2019. ” Lawsuit complaint

  • “…provides free smooth Allergan implant replacement.”
  • “If a customer with a BIOCELL textured implant is diagnosed with BIA-ALCL, under the NATRELLE Confidence Plus Warranty, the customer will be reimbursed for diagnostic fees up to $1,000 and up to $7,500 in surgical fees related to diagnosing and treating BIA-ALCL.” Id.
  • “… It applies to customers who are diagnosed with BIA-ALCL. The Warranty’s reimbursement of $1,000 for diagnostic fees and $7,500 for surgical removal and cancer treatment…”  Id.

7/24/19- “Allergan’s announcement on July 24, 2019, of a voluntary worldwide recall of its BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders. The announcement followed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s request to initiate the recall based on the risk of breast-implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) associated with the products. ” TRANSFER ORDER

12/1/ 18- “In December 2018, Allergan’s BIOCELL textured implants lost their European certification and were suspended from the European and Brazilian markets. Allergan textured implants were banned in France in April 2019. Allergan’s BIOCELL textured implants were banned in Canada in May 2019. ” Lawsuit complaint

 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN FEDERAL COURT

  • Name of MDL is “ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.”
  •  Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
  • Get all case management orders here.
  • “These matters having been transferred to this Court by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation pursuant to its order of December 18, 2019…” INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
  • Case No. 2:19-md-02921 (BRM)(JAD)  MDL NO. 2921
  • Presiding judges: JUDGE BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI , JUDGE JOSEPH A. DICKSON
  • Why was case  transferred to New Jersey? UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION  reasoned that, “We conclude that the District of New Jersey is an appropriate transferee forum. Allergan USA, Inc., has its headquarters and principal place of business in this district, and represented at oral argument that significant common evidence, including witnesses, will be located there. Further, centralization in the District of New Jersey enables us to assign this litigation to Judge Brian R. Martinotti, an experienced transferee judge with the ability and willingness to manage this litigation. We are confident he will steer this matter on a prudent course.” Class action
  • “All actions share complex factual questions arising from the allegation that Allergan’s BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders significantly increase the risk of developing BIA-ALCL, and that Allergan failed to warn the FDA, patients, and healthcare providers of this risk. The common factual questions include: (1) whether BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders can cause BIA-ALCL; (2) whether defendants knew or should have known of the risk of BIA-ALCL; (3) whether they provided adequate warnings as to the risk; and (4) the adequacy of defendants’ product.” TRANSFER ORDER
  • Where did the parties request the Federal Court  to send the lawsuits? “The Allergan defendants request centralization in the District of New Jersey. Responding plaintiffs variously propose the Central District of California, the Southern District of New York, the Southern District of Florida, and the District of Kansas.” TRANSFER ORDER

NEW JERSEY STATE COURT ALLERGAN BIOCELL MULTICOUNTY LITIGATION

  • “This Notice is to advise that the Supreme Court, after considering the application and the comments received, has determined to designate cases involving allegations against Allergan, Inc., and Allergan USA, Inc. as  Multicounty litigation. The Court has assigned this MCL to Bergen County for centralized case management by Superior Court Judge Rachelle Harz.” Notice to bar
  • “Allergan Biocell Textured Breast Implants are products alleged to cause breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. On May 5, 2020, the Supreme Court designated pending and future New Jersey state court litigation alleging injuries from implantation of Allergan Biocell Textured Breast Implants as multicounty litigation and assigned it to Bergen County for centralized management.” NJ Courts
  • IN RE: ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
  • SUPERIOR COURT NEW JERSEY
  • Read the initial case management order here.

ALLERGAN SOLD BIOCELL IMPLANTS UNTIL THEY WERE RECALLED

Allergan was the manufacturer of a breast implant called Natrelle Biocell. The company was one of the leaders in the global market for female breast implants. Although the company’s sales figures for this product were not notionally large, they were one of the larger worldwide makers of breast implants. Before the product ran into major trouble, annual sales were over a quarter of a billion dollars. Allergan started selling breast implants in 2006 and immediately moved to a position of market leadership. Thus, there are many thousands of women worldwide who have these particular Biocell implants in their bodies. The FDA estimated the number at hundreds of thousands.

IMPLANTS TEXTURED INSTEAD OF SMOOTH

The Allergan breast implants were different from many other breast implants on the markets in that they were textured instead of smooth. The reason why the implants are textured is to allow scar tissue to stick to the implant. This will make it less likely to move around in the body. However, they do take longer to settle into the body.

BIOCELL IMPLANTS WERE LINKED TO A RARE FORM OF CANCER

For Allergan, the problems with Biocell implants began when data showed that women who had these implants were more likely to develop a certain rare type of cancer. The first reports of the elevated risk were made by the FDA itself, but the regulator did not order the product pulled from the market. In January 2018, a Dutch research study actually quantified the risk that a woman would develop ALCL from these implants.

In November 2018, NBC News investigated and found that there were over 400 adverse event reports filed in the FDA system that linked these breast implants with cancer. These adverse event reports detail 33 deaths from this type of cancer linked with breast implants.

ANAPLASTIC LARGE CELL LYMPHOMA (ALCL)

The actual cancer that these women were found to have was not breast cancer. Instead, it was a form of cancer called Anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). This is a rare type of blood cancer. ALCL is so rare that only 1,400 cases of it per year were previously diagnosed. Depending on the type of ALCL, the five-year survival rate is between 70-90%. Nonetheless, the disease is a form of cancer that exposes patients to a potentially deadly condition and takes away from their quality of life.

At the time that NBC News broke the story about the elevated risk of ALCL tied to textured breast implants, the FDA was already in the middle of its own investigation. However, as is usually the case with potentially dangerous medications and medical devices, it was the European regulators who acted first.

ALLERGAN PULLED THE PRODUCT OFF THE EUROPEAN & AMERICAN MARKET

Not long after public reports of the cases of ALCL, French regulators asked Allergan to withdraw the product from the market and took away its approval to sell the product in France. This took textured breast implants off the market in all of Europe. The FDA lagged behind European regulators in taking action. Initially, the FDA indicated that it did not intend to recall the product in the U.S. However, in July 2019, the FDA asked Allergan to recall its textured breast implants from the market. The company recalled all of the styles of its Natrelle Biocell breast implants that it produced.

ALLERGAN’S PRODUCTS WAS SIX TIMES THAT OF THE OTHER TEXTURED IMPLANTS

According to the FDA, while all textured implants raise the risk of ALCL, the risk associated with Allergan’s products was six times that of the other textured implants. The FDA noted that a large majority of ALCL cases from breast implants were from Allergan’s textured implants. The regulator did not advise that women who already had these implants get them removed. Instead, they advised women to work with their healthcare provider to continue to monitor the situation.

Even after Allergan issued the recall, the company still did not fulfill its obligations to the FDA after the recall. The company was required to complete a safety study as a condition of its approval for the product by the FDA. However, almost a year after the recall, Allergan was not making sufficient progress in the studies. As a result, the FDA issued a warning letter to Allergan.

OVER 100 LAWSUITS FOR ALCL HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST ALLERGAN TO DATE

Women are beginning to file lawsuits against the company for the harm that they allegedly suffered from Allergan breast implants. Currently, there are a number of lawsuits concentrated in New Jersey. There are federal lawsuits that have been granted multidistrict status. In addition, there are state lawsuits that have just been granted multicounty status by New Jersey state court.

At the time that the plaintiffs’ attorneys filed the request to consolidate into a multicounty lawsuit, there were six state court lawsuits outstanding. There are expectations that up to 100 state court lawsuits may be filed in the future.

THE FEDERAL MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IS IN THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

The federal multidistrict litigation is in the District of New Jersey. The initial status conference was held in January 2020 and the court continues to hold status conferences in the case. Currently, Allergan is working on motions to dismiss the case, even though these cases rarely end up being dismissed. As of July 2020, there were 143 actions pending in this MDL. These cases are still in their early phases, and it may be some time before they proceed to trial.

$5 MILLION BIOCELL CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA

In addition, two women filed a $5 million class action lawsuit in Florida in connection with the allegedly defective implants. This case was related to the cost of surgery to replace implants that are already in women’s bodies. This is different from the product liability personal injury lawsuits that have been consolidated in federal and state courts in New Jersey. Thus, there are both consumer and injury lawsuits open right now.

COURT RESTRICTED HOW ALLERGAN COULD COMMUNICATE WITH POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS

Even after the lawsuit had been filed, Allergan was accused of conduct that, if true, would border on the unethical. Allergan contacted potential class members who had received the textured implants and offered to replace their implants free of charge. Included in the offer was the fact that the women would be releasing Allergan from liability if they accepted the new implants. The women accused Allergan of trying to trick them into waiving their lawsuit rights. As a result, the court issued an order that restricted how Allergan would be able to communicate with potential class members, presumably to prevent the company from trying to persuade class members to waive their litigation rights.

BREAST IMPLANT LAWYER

If you are a woman who has received Biocell implants from Allergan, you should be vigilant about any symptoms that you are not well. You should proactively work with your physician to monitor your condition. Legally, if you have developed ALCL after receiving Allergan breast implants, you may be entitled to substantial financial compensation. You should contact a product liability lawyer to learn more about your legal rights and how you would file your own lawsuit against the company.

No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Paraquat Parkinson’s Disease Lawsuit - Settlements & Complications

Paraquat Parkinson’s Disease Lawsuit - Settlements & Complications | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
Paraquat is a fast-acting herbicide applied to the ground to kill weeds & grass. It is a deadly toxin that allegedly causes Parkinson's.
David Slepkow's insight:
PARAQUAT PARKINSON’S DISEASE LAWSUIT – SETTLEMENT & COMPLICATIONS

There is a strong tie between Paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease, which is now at issue in numerous lawsuits against the product manufacturer. Pesticides and herbicides have the potential to cause serious harm to those who work around them or ingest foods laced with them. These are long-lasting chemicals whose effects can last for long after they are sprayed. Exposure to these harmful chemicals, whether they are ingested or through the air, has caused fatal side effects. Simply stated, while these chemicals may serve a useful purpose for the food supply, they are simply too dangerous to human beings. However, the product makers still sell these products as if they are entirely safe. This is the case for the Herbicide Paraquat.

 

Herbicide paraquat lawyer

 

Update- 5-27-21- “Parties representing plaintiffs and defendants in Paraquat lawsuits presented oral arguments today to a panel of federal judges, requesting all claims brought by individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease following exposure to the herbicide be consolidated in one U.S. District Court for coordinated pretrial proceedings.” About Lawsuits

5-24-21- “A class action lawsuit filed earlier this month by an Iowa farmer seeks to pursue damages for thousands of farmers and agricultural workers exposed to the herbicide Paraquat who have not been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, but now face a risk of developing the devastating condition in the future.” The complaint (PDF) was filed by Doug Holliday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on May 3, presenting claims against Syngenta and Chevron USA for failing to disclose the Parkinson’s risks from Paraquat-based grass and weed killers.” About lawsuits

3-30-21- “SAN FRANCISCO and CHICAGOMarch 30, 2021 /PRNewswire/ — Agrochemical giant Syngenta Group ignored and downplayed known risks of its paraquat-based weed killer Gramoxone despite research over decades linking the chemical to neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, according to the first two product defect lawsuits filed against the company in federal court.  The new lawsuits were filed by Dallas-based Fears Nachawati Law Firm in U.S. District Courts in California and Illinois, alleging that exposure to the herbicide led to the onset of Parkinson’s disease in two men.” PR News wire 

3-26-21- “In recent years, lawsuits have begun to be filed against paraquat manufacturers, including Syngenta and Growmark, on behalf of farmers and farmworkers exposed to paraquat. Many farmers and farm workers have been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Multiple studies, including a 2011 National Institute of Health study, highlight that a person exposed to paraquat is 2.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease after being exposed to paraquat. In 2020, a Texas couple Michael Kean and his wife Jean filed a lawsuit against Syngenta, Growmark and Chevron, three of the paraquat manufacturers. This lawsuit alleges that Mr. Kean was repeatedly exposed to paraquat while he worked in Wisconsin and Illinois as a crop duster. He alleges that the manufacturers of paraquat failed to include warnings that this herbicide would cause neurological damage. Mr. Kean also alleges that the manufacturers did not warn or protect those regularly exposed to paraquat simply by working normally on fields saturated with paraquat.” Legal Examiner

3-24-21- “An Illinois woman recently filed a new Paraquat lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. She claims that after being exposed to the herbicide, she suffered from serious injuries. She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.” New York Legal Examiner

2-8-2021- “A man who was diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease after spraying Paraquat herbicides on farmland has filed a lawsuit in St. Clair County, Illinois. The lawsuit was filed by Michael K., a crop-duster who was “repeatedly exposed” to Paraquat from 1969 to 1981 while spraying farm fields near Edgerton, Wisconsin and Danville, Illinois. The lawsuit claims that he “inhaled, ingested or absorbed” Paraquat, which led to his diagnosis of Parkinson’s Disease in November 2019. He claims that the manufacturers of Paraquat failed to warn him that repeated exposure to the chemical may cause neurological damage. Furthermore, he accuses the manufacturers of failing to protect people who worked in farm fields and orchards where he sprayed Paraquat.” Daily Hornet

 

PARAQUAT IS A HIGHLY TOXIC CHEMICALS USED SINCE 1961

Paraquat is a fast-acting herbicide that is applied to the ground to kill weeds and grass. It is also a deadly toxin, although some claim that it is deactivated in the soil. It is used by farmers all over the world, and it is one of the most commonly used herbicides in existence. It has been used extensively since it was introduced to the market in 1961. Paraquat can only be used by specially licensed people given its extreme toxicity.

The brand name of Paraquat is Gramoxone, but it is also sold under many other brand names. Paraquat is the name of the active ingredient in the product. It is sold by Syngenta, which is an international chemicals giant with headquarters in Switzerland. Syngenta is now owned by the China National Chemical Corporation. The company was originally founded as the spinoff of Astra and Zeneca’s seed production businesses to allow their merger.

Paraquat is used on over 100 different crops worldwide. It is used most heavily on plantations in the developing world on crops such as tea, oil palm and bananas. The compound is cheap and therefore, popular. In spite of the known dangers discussed below, Paraquat usage in the U.S. was actually on the increase until relatively recently. By 2017, its usage had climbed to 10 million pounds annually.

  • Paraquat dichloride, is often referred to as “paraquat.”
  • Paraquat is utilized for weed killing. It is a herbicide composed of chemicals and is utilized for agricultural and commercial usage. It is extremely toxic. Paraquat is one of the most popular types of herbicides. Another name for Paraquat is Gramoxone.  It is not a product for residential use.
  • Paraquat is hazardous and can be possibly fatal if inhaled. Paraquat is alleged to cause Parkinson’s disease.
  •  Environmental Health Perspectives determined that being exposed to  paraquat greatened the chance of a Parkinson’s diagnosis by 250%. (2011)
  •  Parkinson’s Institute found that the chance of a Parkinson’s diagnosis increased over 10 times (2012)
  • “In October 2020, EPA took an important step in its regulatory review of paraquat—an herbicide used in agricultural and commercial settings only. The Agency is seeking public input on the Proposed Interim Decision. The Proposed Interim Decision proposes new mitigation measures to reduce potential ecological risks and protect public health based on the findings in the draft risk assessments and comments submitted during the public comment period. The Proposed Interim Decision is the next step in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registration review process and is not a denial or an approval of the herbicide.” EPA regulatory review of Paraquat

COMPLICATIONS OF PARAQUAT POISONING

If a victim inhales a large amount of Paraquat the person may have severe injuries. The usual way to get Paraquat positioning is by eating or drinking food or liquid that contains Paraquat.

  • Nausea
  • Coma
  • Seizure
  • Pulmonary Edema
  • Coma
  • Stomach discomfort and pain
  • Vomiting
  • Diarrhea/Blood in Diarrhea
  • Weak muscles
  • Respiratory Failure
  • Difficulty Breathing
  • Irregular accelerated heart rate
  •  kidney failure
  •  Failure of Liver
  •  Scarring in lungs
  • Parkinson’s disease (caused by long term exposure)

PARAQUAT HAS BEEN BANNED IN MANY OTHER COUNTRIES BUT NOT THE U.S.

Paraquat has a checkered history worldwide. The herbicide is now illegal in many countries around the world. It has been banned in the United Kingdom and throughout Europe. Even the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs has recently banned Paraquat in China. However, the Environmental Protection Administration refuses to take that action right here in the U.S. In a 2019 review, the EPA stubbornly ignored much of the scientific evidence from around the world and did not ban the product itself. Instead, the EPA thinks that additional safety regulations would be enough to protect consumers.

This is just the latest in a trend where the EPA ignored dangers and went out on a limb in failing to ban certain products. The EPA continued to allow sales of glyphosate in spite of known cancer risks and its banning around the rest of the world. However, the EPA has ignored science and subjected American workers and consumers to grave dangers. There was a bill proposed to ban Paraquat in the last Congress, but it never came to the floor for a vote.

WHY PARAQUAT IS A VERY DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE

Now, let’s focus on the reasons why Paraquat has been banned across the world and why it should likely not be allowed for sale in the U.S.:

  • Paraquat is highly toxic, and even ingesting a small amount can lead to death or permanent heart and lung damage.
  • Paraquat can sicken someone even if it makes contact with an open cut.
  • The compound has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, although there is not as much research on this topic.

THERE IS GROWING EVIDENCE THAT PARAQUAT IS CONNECTED WITH PARKINSON’S DISEASE

The main reason why Paraquat has been banned in many countries and should be banned in the U.S. is that the herbicide has been strongly linked with Parkinson’s disease. This is a progressive nervous system disorder that impacts movement. It is a neurological condition that affects balance and leads to stiffness and difficulty walking and talking. While Parkinson’s disease is not necessarily fatal, it will rob a patient of their quality of life.

Scientific research has been strengthening the connection between the usage of Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease. Even low-level exposure to the compound can greatly increase the chances that someone could develop this condition. One study found that Paraquat increases the risk of Parkinson’s by roughly 250%.

Parkinson’s disease is caused by certain gene mutations. These mutations can occur on their own (albeit rarely) or through environmental exposure to certain toxins. It is not uncommon for people who have worked around certain chemicals to eventually be diagnosed with Parkinson’s. Here, the effects of Paraquat can mimic the effect of known mutations that cause Parkinson’s disease. A study by a professor at the University of Guelph documented this connection in human cells for the first time in 2018. While there is not a documented causal link between Paraquat and Parkinson’s, the evidence is strengthening.

Some have even suggested that inhaling the chemical puts it on a direct pathway to the brain. While people may not be sickened immediately, Parkinson’s Disease is caused by a buildup of Lewy Bodies or harmful genetic mutations.

THE NUMBER OF PARAQUAT LAWSUITS IS GROWING

Crop dusters and workers who have worked with Paraquat and have been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease are now beginning to file lawsuits. Recently, an Illinois farmer who was steadily exposed to Paraquat over a 12-year period filed a lawsuit against the maker of the product after he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease in November 2019. This is just the latest in a growing number of lawsuits against companies that have made Paraquat-based products. These lawsuits claim that Paraquat is an inherently dangerous product, and makers failed to warn workers of the dangers of being exposed to it.

There are a couple of factors that make this situation frightening:

  • Cases of Parkinson’s Disease can be diagnosed many years after the exposure to the chemicals. For example, in the Illinois case mentioned above, the plaintiff developed Parkinson’s nearly 40 years after he was last exposed to Paraquat.
  • Paraquat can not only contact people with direct exposure, but it also easily spreads through the air to possibly sicken people working nearby. This potentially puts any farm worker at risk.

As of now, there are at least a dozen lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs developed Parkinson’s disease as a result of Paraquat exposure. One of the first cases was filed in 2017 on behalf of a group of farmworkers and agriculture workers who were sickened. There have not been any legal decisions establishing liability, nor do we know of any settlements. Given the number of people who have been exposed to this toxic chemical over the years, we expect the number of lawsuits to grow.

WHY YOU NEED TO CONTACT A PARAQUAT LAWSUIT ATTORNEY TODAY

If you believe that your exposure to Paraquat has caused  Parkinson’s disease, it is vital that you contact an attorney immediately. The reason why is that there is a statute of limitations that applies to your case. You only have a certain period of time from when you knew you were injured to file a Paraquat lawsuit. Even though your exposure occurred decades ago, you can still file your Paraquat Parkinson’s lawsuit after you have been diagnosed with a disease because that is when your injury happened.

You and your family may be able to receive the financial compensation that you need as you suffer from the effects of a debilitating disease, including:

  • Costs of medical expenses
  • Pain and suffering
  • Lost wages if you are unable to work
  • Loss of enjoyment of life
  • Emotional trauma
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Beovu Lawsuit | Vision Loss, Blindness & Eye injury

Beovu Lawsuit | Vision Loss, Blindness & Eye injury | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
If you have suffered vision loss or blindness as a result of Beovu, you may be entitled to significant compensation for your injuries.
David Slepkow's insight:

Beovu is a drug that is used to treat age-related macular degeneration. However, the medication was not even on the market for a year before there were reports of serious side effects. Essentially, a drug that was meant to improve and save patients’ vision may end up costing them the ability to see, even leading to blindness. While it is rare for new medications to result in lawsuits so soon after they have been released, that is exactly what has happened to Beovu. Perhaps the drug should never have been approved in the first place, but it is little consolation to those who have lost their vision from it.

 

Beovu lawsuits, vision loss & blindness

 

NOVARTIS ONLY RECENTLY RECEIVED APPROVAL TO SELL BEOVU

Beovu is made by the giant conglomerate Novartis. The drug is intended to treat Neovascular (Wet) Age-Related Macular Degeneration. It is called “wet” because blood vessels in the eye are abnormal and leak fluid and blood into the part of the retina that is responsible for central vision. This causes either blurred vision or a blind spot in the patient’s vision field. This is the more severe type of macular degeneration, and it comprises about 20% of the cases from this disease.

Novartis entered the picture with a treatment that it believed would help patients. Beovu is an injectable drug, and the injection is administered by intravitreal injection. Basically, the patient receives an injection directly into their eye. The inside of the eye contains a jelly-like fluid that can receive an injection. Beovu’s course of treatment is a monthly injection into the eye. After the first three treatments, patients would receive injections every 2-3 months afterwards.

NOVARTIS CLAIMS THAT BEOVU IS A SUCCESSFUL DRUG

Beovu is a blocker that treats wet macular degeneration by blocking vascular endothelial growth factor. This is a protein that is responsible for helping form new blood vessels. Too many blood vessels in the eye can be a problem because it can result in abnormal growth.  Beovu tries to slow the growth of these blood vessels to stop the fluid leaking.

The makers of Beovu claim that the product works. They cite studies that show that patients gained an average of seven letters on a reading chart after a course of treatment using the drug. They also claim that 30% of patients gained as many as 15 letters on their vision tests. Finally, they also say that 93% of people maintained their vision after being treated with Beovu.

BEOVU WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A VERY PROFITABLE DRUG

Beovu was approved by the FDA towards the end of 2019. Just in the last quarter of 2019, the drug did $35 million in sales. By the first quarter of 2020, the number grew to $68 million. Beovu promises to be a huge moneymaker for Novartis. There is little wonder why. Each vial of the drug is priced at $1,850. Yearly treatments with Beovu can run as much as $11,000.

However, the cost does not necessarily mean that patients are buying themselves a safe drug. With Beovu, reports of serious side effects began to mount practically immediately. This is rare among medications. Usually, problems are reported after the drugs have been on the market for years, but Beovu’s history became checkered almost as soon as the drug hit the market.

AN EARLY STUDY DETAILED SIGNIFICANT DANGERS OF TAKING BEOVU

Less than six months after Beovu hit the market, the American Society of Retina Specialists issued a note warning about the possibility of retinal vasculitis for Beovu patients. Retinal vasculitis is when retinal vessels become inflamed. This is much more serious than it sounds at first glance. This is a sight-threatening condition that could leave patients blind. The most severe type of this ailment is called occlusive retinal vasculitis. This is the condition that causes blindness.

While the early reports were based on 14 cases of retinal vasculitis, this was enough to persuade some doctors not to prescribe the drug. There is a more established competitor in the marketplace called Eylea that was certainly threatened by Beovu. Many doctors that were considering Beovu stopped after the reports emerged.

NOVARTIS DEFENDS ITSELF TO PROTECT ITS DRUG

Novartis claims that there were only isolated cases of retinal vasculitis. Its employees have publicly defended the drug and doctors’ rights to prescribe what they want. However, this has failed to reassure doctors who are now afraid to prescribe the drug. In addition, one Novartis employee claims that she was fired because she discovered that Novartis had reported incorrect information about Beovu and encouraged the company to correct it. While this did not involve retinal vasculitis, it shows the lengths that Novartis would allegedly go to in order to protect its possible cash cow. She is suing the company.

However, recent retrospective studies show that the problem may be far more widespread. One small ASRS study showed that 44% of patients who received one injection of Beovu showed signs of retinal vasculitis. According to this study, 85% of eyes had occlusive vasculitis after treatment with Beovu.

EVEN WITH A BLACK BOX WARNING, NOVARTIS WILL STILL SELL THE DRUG

By June 2020, the FDA acted. The regulator required Novartis to use a black box warning about retinal vasculitis. This is the highest form of warning that the FDA could require, and it reserves this for dangerous drugs. No other drug in Beovu’s class has reports of retinal vasculitis, nor do they require a black box warning.

Nonetheless, Novartis has no plans to stop selling or to recall Beovu, regardless of the dangers. The company still believes that it will make money from what it thinks is a blockbuster drug. Even with the safety fears, Novartis plans on expanding its sales of the drug. However, there are patients whose eyesight may be at risk.

A RECENT LAWSUIT WAS FILED IN NEBRASKA

Now, the Beovu lawsuits are beginning to pile up as patients have been injured and lost vision from the drug. One recent lawsuit was filed by a Nebraska woman who alleges that she lost vision after taking Beovu. Here is some of what is in her lawsuit:

  • Novartis allegedly misrepresented Beovu as safe when the drug causes serious medical problems.
  • The company failed to warn doctors about the possible vision loss associated with the drug.
  • Novartis allegedly misled customers about the safety of the drug.
  • The company allegedly knew or should have known of the hazards of the drug.

Even with the new black box warning, patients can pursue lawsuits based on the fact that Beovu is a defective drug. Nonetheless, we expect there to be more lawsuits filed by people who received Beovu injections before the time that Novartis was required to issue a black box warning. There were over 50,000 patients treated with Beovu by this time. With reports of retinal vasculitis, we expect the number of court cases to grow.

The Nebraska lawsuit is one of the first cases to be filed in this litigation. It is too early to tell if the number of cases will reach the point where multidistrict litigation will be necessary. Even if there are as little as dozens of cases, it could still warrant an MDL.

In the meantime, these cases have just been filed and are very early on in their existence. It will still be years before Beovu cases advance through the court system. Nonetheless, that does not lessen your obligation to file a case before the statute of limitations expires. This could mean that you have as little as two years from the time that you notice possible vision loss to file a lawsuit.

TALK TO A BEOVU LAWSUIT ATTORNEY TODAY

If you have been injured by Beovu, you are entitled to compensation for your injuries. Vision loss can result in significant financial compensation. For instance, we are aware of  of prior lawsuit awards / settlements against other  wrongdoers ranging up to $1 million for near full vision loss. Even partial vision loss could lead to a six-figure settlement. If you or a loved one have taken Beovu and have suffered retinal vasculitis that has taken some of your vision, consult with a Beovu attorney today. We will fight for your legal right to receive compensation.

No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Paragard IUD Birth Control Lawsuit and Complications

Paragard IUD Birth Control Lawsuit and Complications | Rhode Island Lawyer, David Slepkow | Scoop.it
Paragard IUD Birth Control Lawsuit and Complications ParaGard  IUD is an intrauterine device that is intended to act as a long-lasting birth control solution that can last as long as 10 years. The device is implanted into women and remains in their body, deploying a copper substance that acts as a spermicide to prevent unwanted […]
David Slepkow's insight:

ParaGard  IUD is an intrauterine device that is intended to act as a long-lasting birth control solution that can last as long as 10 years. The device is implanted into women and remains in their body, deploying a copper substance that acts as a spermicide to prevent unwanted pregnancies. However, ParaGard IUD is not without its serious side effects. Paragard side effects are a very serious matter that should be researched by both physicians and patients. Specifically, this IUD has been reported to break or migrate after it has been inserted into patients. In some instance, this has caused serious injury to internal organs. In addition, there is a speculated linkage between ParaGard and brain injuries. As a result, the manufacturer of the IUD is facing numerous product liability lawsuits. If you have received a ParaGard IUD and have experienced dangerous side effects, you should immediately seek out a Paragard IUD lawsuit attorney. A Paragard IUD lawsuit will help you get justice and hold Teva accountable for their alleged negligence.

 

Paragard IUD lawsuit

 

A Paragard IUD lawsuit is a cause of action seeking damages filed by women who suffered complications by the Paragard T 380A. The Paragard T 80A is infamous for fracturing in the uterine cavity. The victims assert that Teva manufactured a dangerous contraceptive device. Victims assert that Teva did not properly inform physicians how to remove  the Paragard IUD without the medical device IUD breaking. There is no Paragard IUD class action. There is a possibility of a Paragard IUD MDL commencing in the future

Update- 1/4/21- “According to the plaintiff’s complaint, she was implanted with the ParaGard on May 12, 2011. She was young and healthy at the time and wanted the ParaGard because it was advertised as a reversible form of birth control. On November 20, 2018, the plaintiff went to have the ParaGard removed. Her healthcare provider attempted to do so as instructed by the manufacturers, by grasping the two ParaGard IUD threads and pulling gently. Yet the device didn’t come out as expected. When it emerged, it had one arm missing. Neither the plaintiff nor her doctors were warned that this could happen. As a result, the plaintiff states she suffered significant injuries, including pain, suffering, and loss of reproductive health, and will have to incur future medical expenses.” North Carolina Woman Says ParaGard IUD Broke Upon Removal

9/23/2020- “Four Missouri women who say they suffered injuries when an intrauterine contraceptive device broke while it was being removed are suing the device’s manufacturer and its successor company.In separate lawsuits filed in federal court in Kansas City last week and in August, the women allege the companies knew or should have known that the ParaGard IUD is defective because its arms have a tendency to break upon removal from the uterus. The device was made by Teva Pharmaceuticals, which sold it in 2017 to The Cooper Companies Inc. for $1.1 billion. Both companies and various Teva and Cooper affiliates are named as defendants.” KBIA

9/3/2020-“UTICA, N.Y. — Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and its affiliates have been sued in New York federal court by a woman who alleges that their ParaGard Intrauterine birth control device broke apart in her uterus during removal. In an Aug. 31 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Vanesha Johnson says she was forced to undergo laparoscopic surgery to remove the remnants of the device, and that defendants failed to warn doctors and patients of the risk of removal.” Harris Martin

7/19/2020- There is currently still no Multidistrict litigation for Paragard Iud lawsuits. Paragard lawsuits are being filed as individual lawsuits in State and Federal courts.

WHAT IS PARAGARD IUD? 

IUDs are a form of birth control that are implanted into the uterus by a doctor in a visit to their office without anesthesia. It is a small device that measures just more than an inch in both length and width. There are strings on the side that are supposed to be used to remove the IUD if necessary. ParaGard is a specific brand of IUD. It is manufactured by Duramed Pharmaceuticals who purchased the original company that developed and sold the device. Currently, Teva Pharmaceuticals owns Duramed. ParaGard has been around since the 1970s and is the only copper-based IUD that is approved for use in the United States.

PARAGARD CONTAINS COPPER WHICH IS SLOWLY RELEASED

ParaGard contains copper which is slowly released from the device. The copper is wrapped around the device and is intended to inflame. The copper that is released as a result of the inflammatory reaction acts as a spermicide and prevents pregnancy without raising the overall copper level in the body. The copper is toxic to the sperm and egg, but is not toxic to the overall body. This is a non-hormonal way for a woman to achieve the goal of preventing pregnancy.

The device is intended to last for up to 10 years. If ParaGard works as intended, it is supposed to be easy to remove. The physician merely uses a pair of forceps to grab onto the strings that are attached to the device. After a gentle pull, the ParaGard comes out and a new one can be inserted if the woman intends to continue IUD birth control.

ONLY NON-HORMONAL OPTION

“Paragard is one of five different intrauterine devices available in the United States and is the only non-hormonal option. Mirena, Kyleena, Liletta and Skyla are IUDs that work by using the hormone levonorgestrel.” Drug watch

“Some people prefer the copper IUD as it is non-hormonal, yet very effective at preventing pregnancy and can even be used as a form of emergency contraception if inserted within five days of having unprotected sex,” Courtney Benedict, associate director of Medical Standards Implementation at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told Drugwatch. “Paragard is considered the most effective form of emergency contraception because it reduces the risk of pregnancy by 99 percent up to five days after having unprotected sex, and can remain inserted for up to 12 years.” Id.

SIDE EFFECTS OF PARAGARD 

Some women have reported experiencing severe side effects as a result of the insertion of ParaGard. The normal side effects are supposed to be bleeding, cramps and a heavier than usual discharge during the menstrual cycle. However, some of the complications from this device are indeed more serious than those that are advertised.

PARAGARD SIDE EFFECTS

Some women have reported that ParaGsrd has caused an infection in the fallopian tubes, the uterus or nearby organs. This can lead to severe inflammation of the pelvis which can cause more serious problems that can include death in the absolute worst case scenario. If the infection cannot be treated, the IUD must be surgically removed. Other times, the device can perforate or move. The perforation also has the potential to damage nearby organs which can lead to infection or the necessity of surgery.

Finally, some patients have reported that their doctors experienced serious difficulty in removing their IUDs, requiring that they undergo surgery in order for the doctor to take out the device. The most prevalent severe complication is that the device fractures when the doctor attempts to remove it. In this event, surgery is the only option, and it is generally a complicated and invasive procedure.

LINKED TO PARAGARD, PSEUDOTUMOR CEREBRI

These complications are serious in themselves, but there is an even graver side effect that has been linked to ParaGard. Pseudotumor cerebri (PTC) is a condition that impacts the brain that acts similarly to a brain tumor. The symptoms of the two are alike. PTC is caused by pseudotumor cerebri gathering near the brain. Although the exact nature of the linkage is not known, birth control in general has been tied to PTC. This includes ParaGard.

LAWSUITS AGAINST TEVA 

The number of lawsuits against Teva have been growing in the past several years. Even if ParaGard has a low rate of severe complications, there is a large number of women who have received the device over the years, meaning that there can still be a large pool of potential claimants. The plaintiffs have alleged that the product is defectively designed and manufactured since it can either move, perforate or become extremely difficult to remove. In addition, the plaintiffs allege that Teva has known of the dangers of these products for many years, yet continues to market and sell them to women notwithstanding the danger. Even though Teva is alleged to be fully aware of the severe complications, the company has not warned women of the dangers.

PARAGARD IUD LAWSUIT

Teva has tried to escape liability for the failure to warn allegation by arguing that it used the warning label that was approved by the FDA and it could not have changed the FDA-sanctioned label. However, courts have recently begun to hold that, even if a warning label is approved by the FDA, a company has the obligation to update the label if it comes into possession of new information. This is a potentially important development in product liability litigation as it pertains to medications since it removes one of the drugmaker’s defenses.

Many of these lawsuits are currently pending in various courts. There is no multi-district litigation in these cases so each suit is proceeding entirely on its own as of now. While there is no multi-district litigation for ParaGard, its competitor Mirena is facing this litigation for the connection between it and PTC.

STEPHANIE IDEUS, VS. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. AND TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, INC.,

  • In 2019, the United States States District court of Nebraska dismissed a Teva IUD lawsuit filed by Stephanie Ideus. The Court determined that the warnings provided by Teva were sufficient and adequate. The Court granted Teva’s motion to dismiss (summary judgment) Read Stephanie Ideus’ lawsuit here
  • “Briefly summarized, the plaintiff, Stephanie Ideus, received the birth control ParaGard T380 Intrauterine Copper Contraceptive. Filing 81 at 6. Four years later, as her physician was removing the ParaGard, a piece of the device broke off and embedded in the myometrium of the plaintiff’s uterine wall. Filing 81 at 7. The broken piece was surgically removed in 2016.” MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA.
  • “Ideus claims she was not adequately warned of the possible risks associated with ParaGard. See filing 96 at 3. To support that contention, Ideus points to an “Information for Patients” brochure she received before the device was implanted, and to the product’s package insert, which contains prescribing information for treating physicians. See filing 96 at 3. Both sets of materials, she alleges, lack any warning that the ParaGard “could break during removal, or that smaller pieces of the device (as opposed to the device as a whole) could separate and become embedded “deep in the uterus[.]”  Ideus has sued the manufacturers of the device, Teva Pharmaceuticals and Teva Women’s Health (collectively, Teva), for allegedly failing to provide adequate warnings.” Id.
  • “So, to avoid summary judgment, Ideus must demonstrate that had the package insert contained a different warning, the treating physician would not have used or prescribed ParaGard. See Freeman, 618 N.W.2d at 842;  772 F.3d at 1138. But here, there is no evidence to suggest that Ideus’ physician would not have inserted ParaGard had the warnings in the package insert been
    stronger or more specific. In fact, Ideus has not even named the physician who prescribed and placed her IUD––much less demonstrated that had that physician been given the proper warning, she would not have placed ParaGard. See Freeman, 618 N.W.2d at 842; Brinkley, 772 F.3d at 1138; filing 95 at 19.” Id.
  • “And without any evidence before the Court demonstrating that Ideus’ prescribing physician would have changed her prescribing decision if different warnings had been given, Ideus cannot carry her burden of demonstrating proximate cause. Freeman, 618 N.W.2d at 842; Brinkley, 772 F.3d at 1138; see also Estrada v. Teva, No. 3:14-CV-1875, slip op. at 25-27 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2017) (unpublished opinion); Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 196 F. Supp. 2d 984, 991 (C.D. Cal. 2001).” Id.
  • “More fundamentally though, the package insert expressly warned about the possibility of breakage, embedment, and the difficulties of removing ParaGard, making the warning adequate as a matter of law. See filing 91-2 at 5. A warning is adequate if it accurately and unambiguously coveys the scope and nature of the risk to the prescribing physician. See Freeman, 618 N.W.2d at 841; Vallejo, 2014 WL 4922901, at *3; Rowland v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 2:12–CV–01474, 2014 WL 3735622, at *12 (W.D. Pa. July 28, 2014); In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices & Products Liab. Litig., 817 F. Supp. 2d 535, 546 (E.D. Pa. 2011); see also Felix v. Hoffmann–LaRoche, Inc., 540 So. 2d 102, 105 (Fla. 1989).” Id.
  • “Here, the package insert clearly stated that “[e]mbedment or breakage of ParaGard in the myometrium can make removal difficult” Filing 19-2 at 12. The label also warned that “[p]artial penetration or embedment of ParaGard in the myometrium can make removal difficult. In some cases, surgical removal may be necessary.” Filing 19-2 at 5. And as Teva’s experts opined, in the medical community, that warning is clearly adequate. Scelta v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 404 F. App’x. 92, 94 (8th Cir. 2010) (in the prescription drug arena, expert medical testimony is needed to determine whether the drug manufacturer’s warning to the medical community is adequate); see also Rowland, 2014 WL 3735622, at *12.” Id.
  • “And despite Ideus’ assertions, the prescribing physician was warned of the exact scenario at issue here: that embedment and breakage can make removal difficult, and in some instances, surgery may be required to remove ParaGard. See filing 57 at 5. In sum, based on the evidence before it, the Court concludes that there can be no genuine dispute of as to the adequacy of the ParaGard warning. See Freeman, 618 N.W.2d at 841; Vallejo, 2014 WL 4922901, at *3; Scelta, 404 F. App’x. at 94; Rowland, 2:12–CV–01474, 2014 WL 3735622, at *12. As such, the learned intermediary doctrine cuts off Teva’s liability. Teva’s motion for summary judgment will be granted and Ideus’ complaint will be dismissed.” Id.

PARAGARD IUD LAWYER

If you have had a ParaGard IUD inserted and have experienced any complications or paragard side effects from the device or difficulty removing it, you should contact a  Paragard IUD lawyer to discuss your legal options. The Paragard attorney can inform you as to the process for possibly receiving compensation as well as your chances of success in your case.

No comment yet.