Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog

A spokesperson from AstraZeneca tells us that plaintiffs’ lawyers have voluntarily dismissed two Seroquel lawsuits set for November trials in Delaware. AstraZeneca has a gloating statement:

With this announcement, the initial seven cases prepared for trial in federal and state courts have been thrown out by judges or abandoned by the plaintiffs’ attorneys themselves. We have said from day one that the heart of these cases are unproven claims that Seroquel caused diabetes in the individual plaintiffs. That continues to hold true as we see that plaintiffs’ lawyers have placed a huge burden on valuable court and public resources, bringing claims that they are repeatedly unable to prove.

Why did these Seroquel lawsuits get dismissed? I think plaintiffs' Seroquel lawyers know that the worst Seroquel cases are not going to make it to a jury. Clearly, AstraZeneca and this author apparently think this is the death knell for Seroquel cases. On the other hand, I don't think they will be telling shareholders to expect these cases are not going to cost AstraZeneca 10 figures. I'll still bet the Plaintiffs are going to win some of these cases and there is going to be a global settlement. But there is no question: the plaintiffs need to get these Seroquel cases to a jury.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Delaware , Product Liability

Bookmark:

The average personal injury verdict in Florida is $1,819,751, according to Jury Verdict Research, a company that tracks jury verdicts. Personal injury plaintiff win at trial in Florida personal injury cases approximately 61 percent of cases that go to trial.

Florida’s threshold requiring a more serious injury in auto accident case is one reason why the average jury verdict in Florida much higher than the national average. These Florida jury statistic verdicts also underscore that large case inflate average jury verdicts and settlements. The median – as opposed to the average – money damages in Florida personal injury trials in Florida is $122,674.

If you have been injured in a serious car accident (our lawyers only handle serious car accident claims), call our auto accident lawyers at 800-553-8082 or click here for free no obligation consultation.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Florida , Medical Malpractice , Product Liability

Bookmark:

Our Reglan lawyers are reviewing potential Reglan lawsuits for those with who have tardive dyskinesia as the result of the use of Reglan. Reglan is a pharmaceutical drug used to combat heartburn and slow gastric emptying in diabetes patients. Plaintiffs' Reglan lawyers are investigating injuries including tardive dyskinesia (also known as TD), a neurological disorder with symptoms including repeated involuntary movements.

Below is a question and answer for potential Reglan plaintiffs:

What is Reglan?

Reglan is a "prokinetic" drug that helps control gastroesophageal reflux disease by blocking dopamine receptors in the brain and throughout the body. It enhances movement or contractions of the esophagus, stomach, and intestines. Dopamine is a chemical in the brain that sends signals between nerves. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies have been experimenting with dopamine in psychotropic drugs for years with mixed results.

What Are the Reglan Lawsuits About?

Certainly, it is well known that Reglan causes side effects. Most commonly it can cause a feeling of "strangeness" or difficulty concentrating. This is a typically reversible condition. Our Reglan injury lawyers are investigating Reglan’s connection to tardive dyskinesia, in which the tongue or face moves involuntarily. Afflicted patients may experience many uncontrolled and involuntary movements, including:

· Grimacing

· Protrusion of the tongue

· Lip smacking

· Rapid eye blinking

· Swaying of the hip and upper body

· Movement of the extremities

Regrettably, these side effect of tardive dyskinesia can be permanent. There is currently no treatment for tardive dyskinesia caused by Reglan. In some cases, the symptoms may lessen or stop once the Reglan use is discontinued. The gist of the Reglan lawsuits is that the risks of tardive dyskinesia were minimized in the Reglan label and other literature put out by the manufacturer. Reglan patients were not give all of the information about the possible risks associated with Reglan.

Why Does Dopamine Cause Tardive Dyskinesia?

No one knows for sure why dopamine causes tardive dyskinesia. But the conventional wisdom is that by blocking dopamine receptors, Reglan can affect the extrapyramidal system the controls the signals between nerves. The inability of dopamine to produce its normal effects apparently causes tardive dyskinesia and its associated side effects because the extrapyramidal system needs dopamine to function.

Should Reglan Be Recalled?

Our lawyers believe that Reglan should have had a more meaningful label with respect to tardive dykinesia and involuntary movements. The FDA agreed earlier this year and now requires a black box warning for Reglan.

Moreover, the manufacturers of Reglan and other generic metoclopramide-containing drugs should stop pushing it for mild heartburn. Heartburn is seldom (if ever) severe enough to risk the permanent injuries associated with tardive dyskinesia. Plaintiffs’ Reglan lawyers certainly believe that the label minimized that risk for patients by implying that there was minimal danger in developing tardive dykinesia from Reglan. Specifically, the original Reglan label said it “may produce extrapyramidal reactions, although these are comparatively rare.” Other sections of the label likewise indicated that tardive dyskinesia is a low risk. Here, Plaintiffs’ Reglan lawyers and the FDA agree. The FDA now requires makers of Reglan to place a black box warning on their label, the most stringent act the FDA can take in requiring a warning.

What About Patients with Gastroparesis?

I don't know. The Gastroparesis issue is more complicated. Ordinarily, the stomach churns food and slowly delivers digested food into the patients’ intestinal tract. In people with Gastroparesis, the stomach does not work normally and food eaten will remain in the stomach sometimes for hours, distending it and causing severe symptoms for some sufferers. Patients with severe Gastroparesis can have serious health consequences that are difficult to live with. If there was a complete Reglan recall, these patients would not have many options because the only oral drug currently approved by the FDA for Gastroparesis is Reglan (or generic metoclopramide). It is only slightly effective for many patients, but for some patients it is very effective. So, in severe cases, Reglan may be the best solution, providing patients are adequately warned about the side effects.

What Did Wyeth Know About Reglan?

In 1992, an article was published by Dr. Ronald B. Stewart on the use of Reglan by 4,515 elderly patients at the Florida Geriatric Research Program. Of the patients who reported using metoclopramide, 32% had used it for more than one year. Plaintiffs’ experts have testified in these cases that Wyeth has estimated extended use of Reglan to be over 80%. This led Dr. Steward to conclude that long-term treatment with Reglan is "quite common" and that other prescription drugs were effective and safer for treating GERD:

The routine use of metoclopramide (Reglan) for gastroesophageal reflux should be questioned in light of the availability of safer, more effective drugs such as histamine-receptor blocking agents cimetidine and ranitidine, and omeprazole. The long-term efficacy and symptomatic benefit of metoclopramide have not been documented.

The point is that Wyeth apparently knew that Reglan patient were using the drug longer than the 12 weeks that is indicated, and that tardive dyskensia occurrs more often than “rarely,” as Wyeth wants us to believe.

Do I Have A Reglan Claim? 

If you or a loved one has used Reglan or generic metoclopramide and now suffer from tardive dyskinesia or other neurological and movement disorders, call a Reglan lawyer at 800-553-8082 or click here for a free no obligation consultation on your potential Reglan lawsuit.

Related Links

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

A Hydroxycutt class action lawsuit has been filed against Iovate Health Sciences, the makers of weight loss dietary supplement Hydroxycutt, in federal court in California. The plaintiffs' Hydroxycutt lawyers allege, among other things, that the manufacturer misrepresented the product as safe and effective in its advertisements.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: California , Product Liability

Bookmark:

Plaintiffs who filed Seroquel lawsuits finally got some good – albeit expected – news. Seroquel’s manufacturer will not be able to bar medical testimony on general causation of the link between Seroquel and weight gain and diabetes, a federal judge ruled.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers’ expert on Seroquel, the chairwoman of the epidemiology department at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, is expected to opine that Seroquel causes metabolic changes which can lead to diabetes without weight gain.

Honestly, I cannot imagine a scenario where general causation would be an issue. There really is not much legitimate dispute. The challenge that Plaintiffs’ Seroquel lawyers have had in the lawsuits that have gone forward is specific causation, whether diabetes was caused in the Plaintiff, as opposed to the general principle that Seroquel can cause diabetes.

As American Law Litigation Daily pointed out on Monday, Delaware Superior Court Judge Joseph Slights was pretty discouraging about the future of the Seroquel lawsuits in his recent opinion. The judge pointed out that in every Seroquel lawsuit, plaintiffs’ experts have been bounced on Daubert grounds. But you have to look at the facts of those specific cases (here and here). While plaintiffs’ Seroquel lawyers might have thought these were good cases to push forward, it is pretty clear that these were bad cases on the facts (it could have evolved that way in a way unknown to plaintiffs’ Seroquel lawyers.)

There are still 13,000 Seroquel lawsuits out there. There is a long way to go.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Alabama , Product Liability

Bookmark:

The New York Times reports that a former military doctors accused of falsifying medical research received more than $780,000 from Medtronic between 2001 and 2009. The surgeon claimed in the study that the use of a Medtronic bone growth product called Infuse had proved highly beneficial in treating leg injuries suffered by American soldiers in Iraq. Medtronic admitted the payments for travel expenses, speaking engagements, training other doctors or other consulting services. The Justice Department is now investigating whether Medtronic paid doctors to help market medical devices for unnaproved uses.

There are not a lot of Medtronic bone Infuse case out there. But there are cases involving the Medtronic bone Infuse product because there have been a number of spinal procedures involving the Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft that resulted in severe complications. If you have suffered a complication and would like to speak to a lawyer to discuss a potential Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft lawsuit, click here for a free no obligation consultation or call 800-553-8082.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

IA judge has denied the a request by Plaintiffs' Lexapro and Celexa lawyers to consolidate a newly filed proposed class action over Lexapro and Celexa with the ongoing Celexa Lexapro suicide MDL.

Judge Rodney W. Sippel - the judge overseeing overseeing the NuvaRing MDL cases - ruled that Plaintiffs' Lexapro and Celexa lawyers had not demonstrated that consolidation would be appropriate because they have different allegations and the fact that the MDL has already been going on for some time might cause prejudice in some cases.

This ruling does not means that Lexapro and Celexa victims cannot bring claims or that there is still not a class action for purposed of discovery. It just means that lawyers handling Lexapro and Celexa are not going to have a pure class action and that the claims are going to be more narrowly defined in scope in the MDL than some plaintiffs' lawyers would like.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

Median jury awards in motor vehicle tort trials dropped to $17,000 in 2005 from $41,000 in 1992. I don't know about you but this underscores to me that auto accident verdicts are not driving car insurance rates.

The picture is different in medical malpractice and product liability lawsuits. Product liability trials had median awards at least five times higher in 2005 than in 1992. Medical malpractice trials median awards more than doubled to $682,000 in 2005 from $280,000 in 1992.

I realize this data is a bit dated - 2005 - but that is how we typically get personal injury statistics... a little dated.

You can find the entire study here.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Medical Malpractice , Nevada , Product Liability , South Carolina

Bookmark:

A Seroquel lawsuit that was set to go to trial before the next Seroquel MDL trial was dismissed yesterday by a Delaware state court judge. The move was not unexpected. The judge had previously excluded medical expert testimony linking diabetes and Seroquel. Without an expert, a product liability lawyer cannot pursue a Seroquel verdict.The irony of it all is that no one seriously questions that Seroquel can cause diabetes. But I believe the problem here is the same as the problem in the Florida Seroquel MDL case that was set for trial: the expert - in this case an endocrinologist - could not sufficiently rule out alternative causes for the diabetes. It did not help that AstraZeneca's lawyers were able to state in their motion for summary judgment that "until recently, her diet consisted of slurpies and donuts, fish and fries from McDonald's, Burger King and '(a) lot of Chinese food.'" Not exactly the best "Seroquel caused my diabetes" case.

The Plaintiff in this case had the type of lawsuit Seroquel lawyers prefer: diabetes from off-label use of Seroquel for insomnia.

"The plaintiffs want to try these cases in the press," said Mike Kelly, a Wilmington attorney with the law firm McCarter & English who represents AstraZeneca in the Delaware cases. "But what is happening in the courts tells it all ... So far, the plaintiffs can't get a case to trial."

Continue reading "Seroquel Lawsuit: Another Loss, This Time in Delaware" »

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Delaware , Florida , Product Liability , Texas

Bookmark:

Fiat has asked a federal bankruptcy judge to shield the automaker from "unknowable, but potentially vast" tort claims against further partner Chrysler. Fiat lawyers argued that Fiat should not be responsible for injuries caused by cars it did not manufacturer.

File this under "I Could See This Coming." When you buy a company, you buy its assets and its debts. Consumer groups and plaintiff attorneys naturally disagree with this effort to buy Chrysler immunity from injuries caused by its negligence.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Product Liability

Bookmark:

A new AMA study reports that some acid reflux drugs routinely given to hospital patients may increase the risk of pneumonia. The study found that patients who received proton pump inhibitors were more than twice as likely to develop pneumonia. Proton pump inhibitors include the drugs Nexium, Prilosec and Prevacid.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

The learned intermediary doctrine provides that makers of prescription drugs and medical devices discharge their obligation to consumers by providing warnings to the prescribing doctor. In other words, drug and device companies have no obligation to directly warn patients about the risks associated with their drugs or medical devices.

The historic rationale for this rule is that prescription drugs are often complex and prescribing doctors can take into account the propensities of the drug, as well as the susceptibilities of his patient and properly weigh the risk against the benefits. But, arguably, all of this is premised on the notion that drug companies are talking to doctors and not consumers.

Today, drug companies talk to us about their drugs every time we pick up a paper or turn on the television. Does this make the learned intermediary doctrine obsolete? Apparently, some New York legislatures do, proposing a bill to eliminate the learned intermediary doctrine. I first read about this from the Drug and Device Law Blog, a defense oriented blog that naturally opposes the bill.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: New York , Product Liability

Bookmark:

Patients suing over injuries from using PoliGrip and Fixodent denture cream to consolidate their cases in a MDL this month. Denture cream lawyers argue that the plaintiffs' lawsuits contending that the plaintiffs suffered neurological damage from zinc in the products should be consolidated as a class action for the purpose of core discovery against the manufacturers of PolyGrip and Fixodent.

The problem with zinc that has lead to these denture cream lawsuits - that may be soon be consolidated in an MDL (class action for discovery) is that excessive amounts of zinc can cause injury. The denture cream lawsuits argue that the manufacturers have known for years yet added zinc even after it was well known hat excess zinc causes copper depletion or “hypocupremia. ” Excessive zinc reduces the level of copper because the body's receptors for copper fail when a person uses excessive zinc causes the body's receptors to stop accepting copper because they are fully loaded with zinc.

If you believe you may have a denture cream lawsuit that should be a part of this MDL discovery class action, call a Denture Cream lawyer at 800-553-8082 or click here for a free internet consultation about your potential denture cream class action lawsuit.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

Our lawyers handle shoulder pain pump lawsuits. This blog provides an overview of the facts that gave rise to the shoulder pain pump lawsuits. If you have been injured by a shoulder pain pump or are a lawyer with a client who has a potential shoulder pain pump lawsuit, please contact our shoulder pain pump lawyers at 800-553-8082 or click here for a free should pain pump lawsuit Internet consultation.

Shoulder pain pumps are small, portable medical devices used to manage post-operative pain. They are used after surgery by surgeons to deliver, through a catheter, continuous doses of anesthetic drugs directly into the incision site. These shoulder pain pumps are manufactured and distributed by I-Flow, DJO/DonJoy, Stryker, Breg, Sgarlatto, Curlin, Moog and McKinley Medical, among others.

Shoulder pain pump litigation began in late 2007 after publication of an article by Brent Hansen and Charles Beck in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, which identified a “concerning and strong association between postarthroscopic chondrolysis [cartilage loss] and intra-articular pain pump catheter use with bupivicaine and epinephrine.” (Hansen B., Beck C. (2007) Postarthroscopic Glenohumeral Chondrolysis. Am. J. Sports Med. 35: 1628-1634). Those lawsuits alleged that shoulder pain pump manufacturers encouraged orthopedic surgeons to use the pumps for patient pain relief following shoulder surgery without conducting the necessary research to determine whether the procedure was safe. As a result, the anesthetic drugs in the pump destroyed the shoulder cartilage, leaving the patient with a lifetime of pain and necessitating future surgeries.

By May, 2008, approximately 13 federal shoulder pain pump lawsuits had been filed. Plaintiffs sought consolidation and/or coordination of those cases (and any future filed federal cases) by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) in mid-2008; however, those petitions were denied in August, 2008. The litigation thereafter proceeded on an individual basis, though pockets of quasi-consolidation have occurred in federal and state courts in Oregon, Minnesota, New York, Kentucky and California, among others. There are now over 100 pain pump lawsuits filed, many of them including not only the pain pump manufacturers and distributors, but also the manufacturers of the anesthetic drugs used in the pumps.

Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs in these cases are frequently young and athletic—many of them are high school or college athletes who initially sought routine orthopedic surgery for a sports-related injury. However, three months to about 16 months after using the pump, the shoulder cartilage erodes away, leaving the patient with limited range of motion and constant shoulder pain, sometimes even while at rest. The prognosis is likewise devastating—frequently the only option is shoulder replacement surgery at the point where the pain becomes unbearable. These surgeries are designed to address the pain, but oftentimes do not improve the patient’s range of motion. Furthermore, the surgeries themselves have a limited lifespan of about ten to fifteen years.

Case Evaluation

In order to confirm that cartilage loss was caused by a pain pump, attorneys must (1) exclude other causes; (2) confirm placement and use of a shoulder pain pump; and (3) identify defendants.

Other causes of cartilage damage must be excluded. These include infection, significant arthritis, gentian violet and improper use of thermal radiofrequency energy. Ideally, a patient’s x-rays and MRIs (pre-surgical and post-surgical), as well as their operative reports will be available for evidence of their cartilage condition. If the cartilage along the glenohumeral joint was fine before surgery, but was largely absent within 16 months after the insertion of the pain pump, the patient likely has a cause of action.

Pump catheters placed in the intra-articular joint space have the highest probability of affecting the cartilage; however, there have been some reports that anesthetic introduced into the subacromial space may likewise cause cartilage loss.

Potential defendants should include the manufacturers and distributors of the pump and the anesthetic used in the pump. Since publication of the Hansen article, other studies have revealed that anesthetic (including bupivicaine, marcaine, ropivicaine, lidocaine and others) without epinephrine can cause cartilage damage.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

The FDA announced today the the recall of Hydroxycut (also spelled/misspelled Hydroxecut and Hydroxycutt), a weight loss drug, after reports of liver damage and other health problems. Specifically, the FDA has received 23 serious reports of health complications associated with Hydroxycut, including and the death in a 19-year-old boy. The primary complications with Hydroxycut are liver failure and jaundice. Accordingly, Hydroxycut is issuing a recall of 14 of these always controversial weight loss products. Hydroxycut products with different active ingredients, such as Hydroxycut Cleanse and Hydroxycut Hoodia, will not be recalled.

Hydroxycut is a very lucrative product selling over one million bottles a year, making up 90 percent of the market for weight loss supplements. The problem our lawyers see with these supplements like Hydroxycut is that the standards to get them on the market make drug and medical devices seem like an act of Congress by comparison. Hydroxycut never had to show that it was both safe and effective and the post-marketing review of these products is incredibly insufficient.

No one knows for certain why Hydroxycut would cause liver failure or jaundice. But the suspicion has long rested with hydroxycitric acid, which is derived from a tropical fruit. While harmless in the fruit, it could be that Hydroxycut causes a hydroxycitric acid overdose, causing liver damage.

The crazy thing about these Hydroxycut claims is how long the concerns have been out there. The death of this teenager was three years ago but was just reported to the FDA in March.

Our lawyers are investigating Hydroxycut injury claims subject to this recall for patients with liver failure or jaundice. If you want to speak with a Hydroxycut lawyer about potential lawsuits involving Hydroxycut, call 800-553-8082 or click here for a free Hydrroxycut lawsuit case evaluation.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

A subsidiary Swiss drug maker of Roche Holding AG has announced a phased market withdraw of the injectable, psoriasis treatment drug, Raptiva because of Raptiva's link to a deadly brain disease. Genentech Inc. announced that at least three patients have been infected with the brain infection progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) since October.

RAPTIVA is supplied as a sterile, white to off-white, lyophilized powder in single-use glass vials for subcutaneous (SC) injection. Reconstitution of the single-use vial with 1.3 mL

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

Calls for Yamaha to recall its Rhino ATVs fell on deaf ears for a long time. Yamaha’s defense to the recall argument was essentially, “Hey, we all know people drive these things like idiots, we can’t be surprised when they flip.”

This argument is now dead. Yamaha finally recalled the Rhino ATV when the death toll reached 46. Accordingly, Yamaha recalled the Rhino 450 and the Rhino 660 to make repairs to reduce the rollover risk and to improve handling of the Yamaha Rhino ATV to keep riders' extremities in the vehicle. These are the same risks that Rhino ATV lawyers have been screaming about at the top of the lungs for quite some time.

Yamaha’s solution before this recall was to provide polyethylene half-doors and passenger handholds for the Rhino at no charge, safety devices that are mandatory on the 2008 Yamaha ATV. It was the classic corporate half measure, solving a small part of the problem for less than half of its ATV customers. The recall now does focus on the problem that the Yamaha Rhino ATV rolls because the center of gravity on the ATV is too high, a design defect that makes the Yamaha Rhino ATV unstable. These problems are more pronounced for the passenger.

Rhino 450 and Rhino 660 owners should stop using these vehicles and call their local Yamaha ATV dealer to schedule an appointment to make the repairs under this recall. If you have been injured by a Rhino ATV in the United States and need a Rhino lawyer to handle your Rhino ATV recall lawsuit, call 800-553-8082 or click here for a free consultation with a Rhino ATV accident attorney.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability , Puerto Rico

Bookmark:

Pfizer has settled nearly 35,000 claims related to the withdrawn diabetes drug Rezulin for $750,000,000. A lot of money, to be sure, but Pfizer had set aside almost one billion dollars to settle these claims. Rezulin was recalled from the market in 2000 after scores of reports of liver failure.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

Liraglutide, a proposed diabetes drug, could increase the risk for heart problems and thyroid tumors, according to some studies conducted by drug maker Novo Nordisk. The FDA will determine exactly risks associated with liraglutide. Current data were insufficient to determine whether potential heart or thyroid risks exist.

Hopefully, this issue with liraglutide gets sorted out before liraglutide goes on to the market. I'm not prejudging the results. It would seem the process is working as it should: Novo Nordisk tells the FDA there is a concern and the FDA and the drug company work to sort of the concern.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

I just wrote a blog post for the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog about the Plaintiff's victory in Wyeth v. Levine.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito writes:

This case illustrates that tragic facts make bad law. The court holds that a state tort jury, rather than the Food and Drug Administration, is ultimately responsible for regulating warning labels for prescription drugs.

For more on the case, click here.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

The FDA issued a warning that taking the psoriasis drug Raptiva could result in serious brain infection and even death. Raptiva may cause a serious brain infection called progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Three confirmed long term users of Raptiva have developed progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) after the use of Raptiva.

Raptiva is an injectable drug used by adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Raptiva suppresses T-cells in the mmune system that cause the skin inflammation associated with psoriasis.

Our lawyers are now begining to investigate the facts of potential lawsuits involving Raptiva. If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) after the use of Raptiva. If you believe you or someone you love who was taking Raptiva has PML, contact one lawyers about your potential Raptiva lawsuit at 800-553-6000 or click here for a free consultation.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

The ObTape lawsuits could proceed to trial early next year, according to an order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land, who is the MDL judge in the ObTape lawsuits.

ObTape is a vaginal sling that was surgically implanted in women suffering from stress urinary incontinence, allegedly caused injuries such as erosion, abscesses and infections, leading to loss of continence and multiple surgeries.

Plaintiffs' Mentor ObTape lawyers contend that the Mentor ObTape Vaginal Sling was defectively designed. Why was the Mentor ObTape defective? The problem is that vaginal slings are made with a mesh design which allows the sling to breathe and get nutrients to the body’s tissue. The ObTape Vaginal Sling cannot breathe which caused pressure on the vaginal wall causing tearing, cutting, and sometimes permanent erosion of the vaginal tissues. When ObTape causes erosion of the vagina, complete excision of the exposed mesh is often recommended in order to avoid severe soft tissue infections that may occur for years after surgery.

Continue reading "OB Tape Lawsuits to Proceed" »

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

Right now, Medtronic lead lawyers are unable to buy a break in this litigation. The MDL court denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its summary judgment ruling in quite dismissive language. A sample:

Plaintiffs point to a litany of so-called errors in the Court's January 5, 2009 Order but when distilled to their essence Plaintiffs merely seek to relitigate issues addressed therein. Simply put, Plaintiffs' disappointment with the Order is not a valid basis to move to reconsider.

Ouch. The American Association for Justice's president Les Weisbord has an editorial in the New York Times that provides a solution to all of this:

In early January, the cases of 1,496 people with heart defibrillators attached by defective Medtronic leads were dismissed. The leads have been known to malfunction and send repeated shocks to patients, sometimes for hours. These people may have no legal remedy, while the manufacturer receives complete immunity. While the Obama administration can strengthen the F.D.A., Congress must reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in order to make sure negligent device manufacturers can be held accountable.

This is the best answer, one I'm not sure the MDL judge ruling against Medtronic victims would necessarily oppose. Hopefully, Congress is listening.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability , Utah

Bookmark:

http://www.millerandzois.com/Fleet-Phospho-soda-lawyer.htmlOur lawyers are now looking at potential class action cases involving oral sodium phosphate products. The FDA indicated in December, through a MedWatch Safety Alert, that oral sodium phosphates (OSP) bowel cleansing solutions should be available by prescription only.

The MedWatch Safety Alert, with the cumbersome title, "Oral Sodium Phosphate (OSP) Products for Bowel Cleansing: reports of acute phosphate nephropathy, Boxed Warning to be added to labeling,” reported serious kidney injuries were associated with the use of oral sodium phosphate products (OSP) for bowel cleansing prior to not only colonoscopies but other less invasive procedures. The MedWatch also noted something that will be critical in proving these lawsuits: they have found kidney injuries with patients that not only did not have prior kidney injury but also did not have markers that would make them candidates for this particular kidney injury (acute phosphate nephropathy).

Acute phosphate nephropathy, often called acute nephrocalcinosis, is a very serious kidney injury that can require dialysis or a kidney transplant and can lead to acute renal failure and even death.

The FDA is also concerned with all potential kidney injuries and risks associated with the use of OSP products that are available over-the-counter (OTC). The reason the OTC problem is more severe is because the injury appears to be dose responsive.

Continue reading "Lawyers for Oral Sodium Phosphate (OSP) Kidney Injury" »

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

Tough blow today for victims who have filed lawsuits pending in the Seroquel MDL in Orlando. Defendant AstraZeneca won a huge victory with a dismissal of two Seroquel lawsuits claiming its antipsychotic drug Seroquel causes diabetes and other health consequences.

This "bellwether" MDL trial was set to start February 2, 2009 in Orlando, Florida where the vast majority of the current Seroquel lawsuits are parked. Judge Anne Conway threw out the cases saying at a hearing that they "just didn't meet the standards" to go to trial. Specifically, and I think bizarrely considering the medical evidence of the link between diabetes and Seroquel, the court found the plaintiffs could not prove that the former Seroquel users diabetes was linked to Seroquel.

Update: I might have gone off a little to quickly on this story. It seems like the finding was a lack of specific causation between the plaintiffs' diabetes in this case and Seroquel. You can look at the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog post that has a Seroquel update here.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Florida , Product Liability , South Carolina

Bookmark:

Johnson & Johnson announced another Duragesic patch recall. The problems appear to be the same as other fentanyl patch recalls: pain patches that leak fentanyl gel. Fentanyl overdoses have long been known to cause death and serious injuries.

This is hardly the beginning of the Duragesic pain patch recalls. In the most recent on New Year’s Eve last year, Johnson & Johnson announced a recall for some Duragesic 50 microgram per hour patches (lot number 0817239) and some of the Sandoz 50 microgram per hour patches (lot number 0816851). This total pain patch recall involves 410,000 pain patches.

Continue reading "Pain Patch Lawyers: Another Recall for Fentanyl Leak" »

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability , Vermont

Bookmark:

A federal judge in Minnesota yesterday granted Medtronic's motion for summary judgment setting up an appeal and a plea to Congress to act to overrule the Supreme Court's holding in Medtronic v. Riegel.

I don't want to soft pedal what a setback this ruling is for the Medtronic lead lawsuits. But these cases are far from over.

For more on the story and for a copy of the ruling, click here.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

A number of popular asthma medications may have caused more than 14,000 deaths since 1994, an FDA official told an FDA advisory board. Dr. David Graham said that the drugs Foradil, Advair, Symbicort, and Serevent provided little benefit for asthma sufferers when weighed against other available asthma treatments and potential risks. Another FDA doctor disagreed, telling the panel that Dr. Graham’s concerns were unfounded.

I have not looked at the efficacy or the risks of these drugs. But Dr. Graham has a history of being right on these things. I think he is also considered a guy with no particular ax to grind against either consumers or drug companies, which gives him credibility.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

A report released last week by the Manhattan Institute -- "Greater Justice, Lower Cost: How a 'Loser Pays' Rule Would Improve the American Legal System" -- says making personal injury lawsuit losers pay the winner's legal expenses would improve the fairness of our legal system.

"The integrity of our legal system is under assault. Establishing loser-pays rules and other tort reforms can help restore citizens' faith in the bedrock of society -- justice, fairness and the rule of law," former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani write in the preface to the report. (With the election over, Giuliani is apparently capable of complete sentences that do not contain 9/11. I am a little surprised.)

I have not given the issue any thought. I think the problem is that it presents an intimidating bar for Plaintiff's who have been the victim of the neglignece of someone else in a case that is not clear cut. Do we want to discourage those suits?

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Medical Malpractice , Montana , New York , Product Liability , Wisconsin

Bookmark:

In Christenson v. Mentor Corp, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in Broward County, Florida. The core of the action is a strict liability for injuries the Plaintiff suffered from the surgical implant of a device called ObTape, a prescription-only medical device sold by defendant Mentor Corporation. ObTape is a synthetic suburethral sling that was designed to help woman with stress urinary incontinence ("SUI"). Approximately 35,000 women in the United States used the Mentor ObTape between 2003 and 2006 for stress urinary incontinence.

The essence of the ObTape product liability case is that Mentor ObTape did not have a mesh design, which would have allowed the OBTape sling to breathe and get nutrients to the body’s tissue. Accordingly, the ObTape sling failed to allow the tissue where the sling is attached to heal, unlike other vaginal slings on the market. These ObTape problems became clear in a study in the fall of 2006 in the Journal of Urology which found that of the 67 women who had been implanted with the Mentor ObTape Vaginal Sling, more than 13% developed vaginal extrusions. Others patients had chronic vaginal discharge, and one patient developed an abscess that led to complications. It was telling that in the control group of 56 women who used another type of vaginal sling, none experienced the complications seen with the Mentor ObTape Vaginal Sling.

In Christenson v. Mentor Corp, the Plaintiff’s ObTape lawyer also brought a claim against the Cleveland Clinic (its West Palm Beach facility) alleging that it is in the chain for Plaintiff’s strict liability claim. Mentor sought to remove, relying on Porter v. Rosenberg, 650 So.2d 79 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995) – another case involving Mentor - for the proposition that strict product liability does not apply to health care providers when (1) the medical services provided could not have been rendered without utilizing the product at issue, and (2) the “predominant purpose of the transaction” was the provision of medical services.

The U.S. District Court Judge for Southern Florida William J. Zloch ruled there is no evidence that the Cleveland Clinic is the hospital where Plaintiff's surgery took place and that the medical services could not have been rendered without utilizing the ObTape. Accordingly, although the Mentor is correct on the law, it assumes facts not in evidence because there is “no evidence offered that the Plaintiff's surgery was performed at the Cleveland Clinic and that it did not sell the ObTape directly to Plaintiff, but rather used it as part of the procedure performed there.”

This outcome is a victory for the Plaintiff; her ObTape lawyers obviously believe that she is best served in Florida state court. Accordingly, this is a good outcome but not one that should be expected to be frequently replicated in most products liability cases, because most products cases will not have facts that get plaintiffs past the test for whether a health care provider is in the chain of distribution for purpose of a products liability lawsuit.

If you or someone you care about has been injured by this sling and would like to learn more about the Mentor ObTape Sling lawsuits that are pending around the country, call 800-553-6000 or click here for a free confidential case evaluation by a Mentor ObTape Sling lawyer.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Florida , Product Liability

Bookmark:

Chemotherapy patients taking the popular cancer drug Avastin more likely to develop blood clots in the veins according to a Journal of the American Medical Association study released this week. Researchers found that patients combining Avastin with chemotherapy treatment raise their risks for clots by about a third.

The study of 8000 patients demonstrates "a significant increased risk with Avastin for patients while they are taking chemotherapy," said Dr. Shenhong Wu of Stony Brook University Cancer Center in New York

Avastin's package insert contains warnings about the potential for arterial clotting.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

Two units of Johnson & Johnson were orded to pay $16.6 million to the family of a Chicago-area woman who died after using a Duragesic pain-patch. This is the 4th consecutive pain pump verdict against for Johnson & Johnson in the pain pump litigation. Last month, a Florida jury awarded $13 million to the family of a woman who died after using a similar patch.

If you have a Duragesic pain patch case, call our attorneys at 800-553-8082 or click here for a free initial consultation.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Florida , Illinois , Product Liability

Bookmark:

Our lawyers are investigating ReliOn syringe lawsuits after the FDA notified doctors and patients that Tyco is recalling one lot of ReliOn sterile, single-use, disposable, hypodermic syringes with permanently affixed hypodermic needles on the suspicion that the ReliON syringes have been mislabeled. This possible defect may lead to patients receiving an overdose of as much as 2.5 times the intended dose on insulin. Such an overdose can cause hypoglycemia and other serious health consequences, including death.
This recall appears to impact ReliOn Insulin Syringes sold at Wal-Mart or Sam’s Clubs since August 1, 2008. Approximately 471,000 potentially defective Sam’s Club and Walmart Insulin Syringes are subject to this recall (which is 4,710 boxes).

Wal-Mart is doing the right thing, telling ReliOn consumers to return the recalled syringes to their local Wal-Mart store or Sam's Club pharmacy. Customers will be provided a replacement product.

If you have been injured by a ReliOn Insulin Syringes and want your case evaluated for a potential ReliOn Syringe lawsuit, call 800-553-8082 or click here for a free internet consultation by a ReliOn Syringe Recall Lawyer. .

Related Posts:
• FDA Website on ReliOn Syringes Recall


• Washington Times Article on ReliOn Recall


• Contact Us for ReliON Recall Lawsuit Information

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

Reports of some 30 deaths involving ATVs - including the Yamaha Rhino ATV have prompted federal safety regulators to open an investigation into the new and unregulated products. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Yamaha Rhino, which differs from traditional all-terrain vehicles in size and design, is the primary focus of the Consumer Product Safety Commission probe. Other similiar vehicles, including the Polaris Razor, Honda''s Big Red, Kawasaki Mule and Arctic Cat Prowler, may also be included in the investigation.

If you or someone you love has suffered a serious rollover injury or death in a Yamaha Rhino ATV or other ATV, our lawyers may be able to help. Our Yamaha Rhino lawyers are handling Yamaha Rhino ATV rollover lawsuits in serious injury and death cases across the country. Call us for a free consultation at 800-553-8082 or click here for a free Rhino AVT Internet consultation.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

AstraZeneca is going to keep pushing Seroquel. Last week AstraZeneca asked the FDA to let it market the antipsychotic drug Seroquel for the treatment of schizophrenia in teenagers and for the treatment of acute manic episodes associated with bipolar I disorder in children and teenagers between 10 and 17.

It is amazing that there are over 13,000 Seroquel lawsuits and AstraZeneca is looking to expand the uses of Seroquel. Currently, two atypical antipsychotics are approved to treat adolescents and the literature to support their use with children is certainly not overwhelming. You have a drug under siege and you try to use that drug for a purpose for which pharmacological efficacy is highly questionable. This is called pushing all of your chips to the center of the table.

In other Seroquel news, About Lawsuits reports that the MDL judge in Orlando, Florida, who is overseeing all federal Seroquel lawsuits, denied a request by AstraZeneca last week to file motions in the Seroquel litigation under seal.

Note: For information on Seroquel class action cases involving diabetes and pancreatitis, click here.

If you think you may have a potential Seroquel lawsuit and have a question about the Seroquel class action lawsuit, you can call one of our Seroquel lawyers for a free consultation at 800-553-8082 or click here for a free Internet Seroquel consultation.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: California , Product Liability

Bookmark:

A Florida jury awared more than $13 million to the family of a woman who died of a drug overdose caused by a painkilling patch. Jurors found that the manufacturing defects that in the Duragesic patch caused the death.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Florida , Product Liability

Bookmark:

Avandia should be off the market, Public Citizen told the FDA last week, citing the life-threatening risks of Avandia, including heart and liver damage.

It was the second blow to Avandia in the last two weeks for Avandia. The American Diabetes Association and a European counterpart jointly released updated treatment guidelines for doctors that recommended against using Avandia.

Dr. John B. Buse, chief of endocrinology at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, and president of the American Diabetes Association has expressed grave concerns about Avandia, citing “a worrisome trend in cardiovascular deaths and severe adverse events” among patients using the Avandia. Dr. Buse's letter was also critical of the Glaxo's marketing of Avandia, accusing the company of “pervasive and systemic” efforts to understate the Avandia’s risks and overstate its benefits.

Some lawyers believe an Avandia settlement is in the near future. If you have a potential Avandia lawsuit, call our Avandia lawyers at 800-553-8082 or click here for a free consultation.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

A New Jersey jury has awarded $25 million in compensation to a man who suffered severe brain damage, concluding that the Plaintiff's doctors misdiagnosed his cyst that led to an aneurysm.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: New Jersey , Product Liability

Bookmark:

Our lawyers are now are investigating potential Thoratec HeartMateII lawsuits throughout the country in light of the recall issued last week for the Thoratec HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Systems (HM II LVAS) that had serial or catalogue numbers 1355 to 102139. The FDA has told patients with the Thoratec HeartMate II to contact their doctors.

The problem with the Thoratec HeartMate II is that the percutaneous lead that connects the Thoratec HeartMate II Left Ventrical Assist System with the System Controller has not, at least in some cases, been able to stand the test of time. Should this percutaneous lead fail, pump function could potentially be interrupted resulting in the need for surgery. The complications from this problem can range from minor to fatal. To date, there are reports of 5 deaths and at least 27 cases of wear and fatigue to the percutaneous lead requiring surgery to replace the blood pump. Different Thoratec HeartMate II patients are going to have different medical options to deal with this issue. Again, the FDA suggests that Thoratec HeartMate II patients contact their doctors for an evaluation of their condition and their options.

Thankfully, these defects with Thoratec HeartMate II have been caught fairly quickly. This product was just approved in April and only 2,000 patients have been implanted with the Thoratec HeartMate II, but this is no consolation to those 2,000 patients who have the device implanted in their chests.

If you or someone you care about has been injured by this Thoratec HeartMate II and would like to learn more about the Thoratec HeartMate II lawsuits that are pending around the country, call 800-553-6000 or click here for a free Internet case evaluation by a Thoratec HeartMate II lawyer.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

The FDA issued warnings yesterday to Bayer over marketing linked to two aspirin medicines, saying that Bayer Women’s Low Dose Aspirin Plus Calcium and Bayer Aspirin With Health Advantage had been marketed medical claims for which there is no evidence. The FDA said it intends to take further action against Bayer for the violations.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

An FDA warning has prompted LabCorp to stop sales of a controversial blood test for ovarian cancer. Experts have raised questions about whether OvaSure is effective. OvaSure had been offered without FDA approval because diagnostic checks are sometimes exempt from federal regulation if they are developed in a single laboratory. However, OvaSure was developed in conjunction with Yale University.

Hopefully, this gets sorted out quickly. If it is a good test, we want OvaSure on the market. But we have to test it to make sure it does not do more harm than good.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

I wrote last week about potential Spiriva inhaler lawsuits, noting that a JAMA article disagrees with Pfizer's own analysis of the data. What I meant to write but ran out of time is that I cannot say for certain who is on the right side of this issue of whether heart attacks and strokes are caused by the Spiriva inhaler. But I can say that in the battle for credibility, I chose an article in a respected peer review jounnal like JAMA about 10 million spots ahead of Pfizer.

A Boston Globe article today proves my point. The Globe reports that Pfizer suppressed a large European study suggesting their blockbuster medication Neurontin was ineffective for chronic nerve pain, and they plotted to silence a British researcher who wanted to go public with the data, according to documents produced in a Neurontin case in Boston. In 2004, Pfizer pled guilty to criminal conduct and paid $430 million in fines involving allegations that it illegally marketed Neurontin for "off-label" uses, ranging from manic depression to hiccups. That's right. Hiccups. Is it hard to understand why plaintiffs' lawyers are so skeptical about any claims Pfizer makes?

So, yeah, until proven otherwise, I'm going to go with findings I find in JAMA than what Pfizer tells us about the safety of the Spiriva inhalers.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that Spiriva HandiHaler patients may face increased risk of heart attacks or strokes and other cardiac problems.

The Spiriva HandiHaler (generic: tiotropium bromide inhalation powder) is an inhaler for long-term treatment of bronchospasm linked with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This disease is commonly described as emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

On the market for about four years, the Spiriva Handihaler is made by Boehringer Ingelheim. Pfizer also markets the Spiriva Handihaler. Boehringer also makes Atrovent, (generic name: Ipratropium bromide inhaler). The Atrovent inhaler has been around for about 10 years. Over five million people use these two inhalers. The Spiriva inhaler and Atrovent work the same: it opens pathways for effective breathing and preventing spasms that narrow airways in the lungs.

These inhalers have served that purpose by all accounts and that Spiriva is generally well tolerated but patients with few side effects. But this new JAMA study indicates that these inhalers could be linked to these potentially fatal cardiac conditions. The study looked at other drug trials and found that people taking Spiriva or Atrovent had a 58% higher risk of developing cardiac problems, including fatal heart attacks and strokes. Stating the obvious, if Spiriva has few side effects but one of those side effects is heart disease, that is a pretty big side effect we ought to be talking about.

This is not the first indication of concern with the Spiriva inhaler. In March 2008, the FDA raised concerns about the possible connection between side effects of Spiriva Handihaler and an increased risk of strokes.

There is no question that COPD is a serious disease. A slowly progressive airway disease that causes significant deterioration of lung function and chronic breathlessness, COPD can result in severe disability. Incredibly, in spite of the fact that there is not a lot of media attention around COPD, it is the fourth leading cause of death in the world. While it is great that Spiriva is efficacious for COPD, our lawyers question is whether Spiriva's warning adequately informed patients of the increased risk of cardiac problems, whether Spiriva was properly tested for cardiac concerns and whether there are other safer drugs available with the same cardiac risks. With respect to the latter point, the question is not whether patients would be better off not taking any medication for COPD, which is notoriously an undertreated disease, but whether there are safer inhalers than Spiriva (and Atrovent) available.

While we are still learning more about the cardiac risks associated with Spiriva, our lawyers believe there is enough evidence to begin evaluating Spiriva lawsuits. If you would like to speak to a Spiriva lawyer, call 800-553-8082 or click here for a free Spiriva lawsuit consultation.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

Today I stumbled on Pfizer's second quarter Earnings Conference Call. Here is a nugget of interest to Chantix lawyers and those who believe they have been injured by Chantix: "Strong international growth was largely offset by a 35% decline in US revenues, which was due mainly to labeling changes and to external reports about adverse events. Let me be clear -- we believe the Chantix labeling appropriately reflects the medication's risks and benefits, and we will continue to encourage doctors and patients to have a robust dialogue about the dangers of smoking and appropriate treatment options." Missing from the statements is Pfizer's answer to the question of whether it believes Chantix always had the appropriate labeling.

In other words, adverse reports are slowing sales but Pfizer is going to keep pushing Chantix. So without any further label changes, Pfizer is going to continue to try to milk it Chantix franchise.

Accordingly, our Chantix lawyers are now investigating cases involving suicides, cardiac disturbances, acute myocardial infarction, diabetes, seizures, and psychosis. If you or a loved one experienced an injury you attribute to Chantix, or if you are a lawyer looking to refer your Chantix lawsuit to a pharmaceutical injury lawyer, call our Chantix lawyers at 1-800-553-8082 or click here for a free, no obligation Internet consultation.

In other words,

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

Last month, the Digitek lawsuits pending around the country were consolidated in West Virginia under Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, a judge noted by the MDL Panel to be an experienced MDL transferee judge (the Serzone MDL for one) that had "a docket that will allow him to devote the needed attention to these cases." In the order consolidating the Digitek lawsuits, the MDL Panel said that with the increasing number of MDLs, it makes sense to spread the burden among districts, noting that the Southern District of West Virginia has no current MDLs.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

The New York Times reports pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly will join Merck in posting all payments to outside doctors online. Eli Lilly decision comes on the heels of congressinal pressure for monitoring and reporting of these payments.

My favorite quote from the article comes from Dr. Paul S. Appelbaum, a Columbia University doctor, who said any doctor who believes "that disclosure is likely to be embarrassing should not be accepting the money in the first place.” Well said.

Related Post:

Drug Companies and Doctors: Why the Marriage Is a Public Health Problem (January 12, 1006)

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

Right now, most of the over 13,000 Seroquel cases are consolidated in an MDL in Orlando, Florida. Mass tort cases - like the Seroquel lawsuits - are gathered in an MDL for, among other reasons, identification of discovery issues that are common to all of the cases, and to give a lens to the lawyers on both sides as to the settlement value of cases by taking some to trial.

The Florida judge handling these cases has called for the first Seroquel trial to start in February 2009. A group of 12 Serqouel cases has been selected to be tried first. These are called “bellwether” trials (defined as “leader or as a leading indicator of future trends”) that help guide the parties into an accurate understanding of the settlement value of the Seroquel lawsuits. Obviously, particularly in cases of diabetes and pancreatitis, two conditions of wildly varying severity, lawyers on both sides want to try the cases that are best for them on damage and on liability.

Moreover, there is also the question of causation. Seroquel lawyers obviously want the “bellwether” trials to be cases where specific causation is harder for the plaintiffs’ lawyers to prove. In a diabetes case, plaintiffs’ lawyers would prefer someone young and seemingly not likely at risk for diabetes while the Seroquel lawyers would prefer someone who was overweight and at high risk for diabetes. For pancreatitis cases, Seroquel lawyers would prefer someone with a history of alcohol abuse or otherwise at risk for pancreatitis while plaintiff’s lawyers would prefer someone with a clean living history and otherwise at little risk for pancreatitis. In the Seroquel cases, the plaintiffs’ lawyers will chose the first case and the Seroquel lawyers will chose the second and then back and forth until the 12 cases are tried (or the cases settle).

If you think you may have a Seroquel case and have a question about the Seroquel class action lawsuit, you can call one of our Seroquel lawyers for a free consultation at 800-553-8082 or click here for a free online consultation.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

Our lawyers are continuing to accept Medtronic defective lead recall cases. Our law firm has been reviewing Medtronic lead cases for almost a year and I’m amazed by the continued flow of cases although they are slowing down. If you have a Medtronic case you would like our lawyers to review the Medtronic class action, call 800-553-8082 or click here for a free Medtronic Internet consultation.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Florida , Pennsylvania , Product Liability

Bookmark:

There are NuvaRing lawsuits pending in an MDL (cases consolidated around the country in Missouri) and in New Jersey. Even though Organon is a New Jersey defendant, it sought to remove the NuvaRing cases because Organon was not "properly joined and served" under §1441(b) because Organon was not served with a tracking assignment number as required by New Jersey law.

No tracking assignment number? Who thinks of these things? Sure, strictly construed void of any sense of fairness or context, the statute the rule would preclude removal by an in-state defendant who has not been "properly joined and served" at the time of removal. But would a judge be such a foolish hypertechnical slave to the language beyond logic, reason and the legislative intent of the statute?

Thankfully, no.

The New Jersey District court found that strict adherence to the plain language of the statute would defeat the legislative intent and, accordingly, the law should not be interpreted to produce an absurd result.

If you are interested in learning more about the lawsuits involving NuvaRing, click on the "lawsuits involving NuvaRing" link above.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Maryland , Missouri , New Jersey , Product Liability , Virginia , Washington DC

Bookmark:

Below is a list of names of drugs that the FDA has provided in an effort to better inform medical doctors and their patients of concerns that have been raised with these drugs. For all of these drugs, the FDA has identified a potential safety issue. This does not mean that the FDA has established that the drug causes any harm or injury or that the potential risk of harm outweighs the drug’s potential benefits. Instead, it just means the FDA has identified that a drug may cause injury. The decision to take or stop taking a drug should be made in consultation with your doctor, not because the drug is on any list.

I’m a pretty big critic of the FDA but I think they are doing a good thing by offering information of concern with certain drugs but it a fair context. (Note: the release of the list comes after Congress last year ordered the FDA to produce a quarterly report of drugs being investigated by regulators. So maybe we should not spend too much time patting the FDA on the back.) Consumers have the right to know that which drugs are on the FDA’s watch list so that they can know to contact their doctor if they have a concern about a drug they are taking or a drug that a doctor has suggested that they initiate.

Some of these drugs are being explored for lawsuits by our products liability lawyers. For many others, our lawyers do not believe there is enough evidence to bring a claim. If would like to speak to a products liability lawyer about one of these drugs, either by phone or the Internet, call 800-553-8082 or click here for a free consultation or answer to your question.

Arginine Hydrochloride Injection (R-Gene 10): Pediatric overdose due to labeling / packaging confusion

Desflurane (Suprane): Cardiac arrest

Duloxetine (Cymbalta): Urinary retention

Etravirine (Intelence): Hemarthrosis

Fluorouracil Cream (Carac) and Ketoconazole Cream (Kuric):Adverse events due to name confusion

Heparin: Anaphylactic-type reactions

Icodextrin (Extraneal): Hypoglycemia

Insulin U-500 (Humulin R): Dosing confusion

Ivermectin (Stromectol) and Warfarin: Drug interaction

Lapatinib (Tykerb): Hepatotoxicity (chemical-driven liver damage)

Lenalidomide (Revlimid): Stevens Johnson Syndrome

Natalizumab (Tysabri): Skin melanomas

Nitroglycerin (Nitrostat): Overdose due to labeling confusion

Octreotide Acetate Depot (Sandostatin LAR): Ileus (partial or complete non-mechanical blockage of the small and/or large intestine)

Oxycodone Hydrochloride Controlled-Release (Oxycontin): Drug misuse, abuse and overdose

Perflutren Lipid Microsphere (Definity): Cardiopulmonary reactions

Phenytoin Injection (Dilantin) Purple Glove Syndrome (swollen extremities)

Quetiapine (Seroquel): Overdose due to sample pack labeling confusion (our lawyers believe problems with Seroquel may go well beyond the overdose problem)

Telbivudine (Tyzeka): Peripheral neuropathy

Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) Blockers: Cancers in children and young adults

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

In medical malpractice cases, medical malpractice lawyers talk about "frequent flyer doctors." There are also frequent flyer companies that are accused of misconduct. Medtronic is increasingly showing up on this list for products liability lawyers.

A number of spinal procedures involving the Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft that resulted in severe complications have been linked to spinal surgeons with financial ties to Medtronic.

Medtrnoic has already paid $40 million to settle whistleblower lawsuits filed by former Medtronic employees who allege that the company paid inducements to doctors to use Infuse and other Medtronic spine products.

The FDA has not approved the Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft approved for spinal surgery in the patient's neck. But this has not stopped some spinal surgeons with financial ties to Medtronic from pushing Medtronic's Infuse Bone Graft for use in cervical spine surgeries. In July, the FDA sent out a letter to doctors warning that using the device in the cervical spine can cause “life threatening complications."

The Wall Street Journal blogs about it here.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

The New York Times reports on cholesterol drugs Zetia and Vytorin, two fo the best setting drugs in the United States. Vytorin is a single pill that combines Zetia with another cholesterol-lowering medication. These drugs have been on the market for six years. Now, more than six years since receiving FDA approval, there is still little evidence that either Zetia or Vytorin actually help reduce cholesterol.

This would be a problem in and of itself. But now there is evidence that heart attacks, cancer and other health problems may be attributable to Vytorin and Zetia. In August, a study found that patients in three clinical trials had a 40% great chance of dying from cancer if they took Vytorin instead of a placebo.

Dr. Allen J. Taylor of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center makes a stinging indictment of Zetia. “The only place people should be taking it is in a clinical trial," he told the Times. What an incredible commentary on a drugs that has been available for six years and had more that $5.2 billion in sales last year.

Our lawyers are not looking at Vytorin and Zetia lawsuits at this time because there is more research that needs to be done. But if you would like to be kept abreast of information for potential future lawsuits involving Zetia or Vytorin, click here and send us your email address with a request for information as it becomes available.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

Seroquel is an antipsychotic medication manufactured by AstraZenica. Seroquel is an atypical antipsychotics medication. Approved in 1997 in the United States, Seroquel is for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorders. But, as AstraZenica knew and promoted, Seroquel was also prescribed off label to treat patients for dementia, autism, and even anxiety and depression. This accounted for much of the $3.4 billion in sales of Seroquel in 2006 alone.

Seroquel may be efficacious in treating these symptoms. But there are increasing reports about the increased risk of diabetes pancreatitis in patients taking Seroquel. The FDA has warned of diabetes risks from Seroquel and the labeling has changed in Seroquel. Still, Seroquel remains on the market. Seroquel is also associated with hyperglycemia, pancreatitis, ketoacidosis, certain cardiac events, and death.

At a hearing before Congress, FDA drug safety expert Dr. David Graham was asked about concerns he may have about drugs still on the market. Dr. Graham testified that “I would pay careful attention to antipsychotic medications. ... The problem with these drugs are that we know that they are being used extensively off-label in nursing homes to sedate elderly patients with dementia and other types of disorders... But the fact is, is that it increases mortality perhaps by 100 percent. It doubles mortality. So I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation on this and you have probably got 15,000 elderly people in nursing homes dying each year from the off-label use of antipsychotic medications.... With every pill that gets dispensed in a nursing home, the drug company is laughing all the way to the bank."

Doubles mortality. That is absolutely incredible.

Seroquel is not the only cause of diabetes, nursing home deaths, and the other problems associated with Seroquel. But our lawyers believe that this drug company knew these risks were associated with Seroquel and did not do enough to warn doctors and patients of the risks of Seroquel.

Accordingly, our lawyers are investigating Seroquel lawsuits on behalf of victims. But if you have diabetes or you or a loved one has suffered injury or death that you think may be attributable to Seroquel, call one of our Seroquel lawyers for a free consultation at 800-553-8082 or click here for a free online consultation.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Florida , Product Liability

Bookmark:

My two volume treatise Insurance Settlements is now available from James Publishing. The book discusses how to position a lawyer's car accident, truck accident, medical malpractice or product liability case to the best possible settlement at every step along the way (until the state's high court affirms the judgment).

Click on the James Publishing link. If you have any comments on the book, please email me at ronmiller@millerandzois.com under the subject "Insurance Settlements Comments."

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Alabama , Alaska , Arizona , Arkansas , California , Car Accidents , Colorado , Connecticut , Delaware , Florida , Georgia , Hawaii , Idaho , Illinois , Indiana , Iowa , Kansas , Kentucky , Lawyer Blogs of Interest , Louisiana , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts , Medical Malpractice , Michigan , Minnesota , Mississippi , Missouri , Montana , Nebraska , Nevada , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Carolina , North Dakota , Nursing Home Abuse , Ohio , Oklahoma , Oregon , Pennsylvania , Product Liability , Puerto Rico , Rhode Island , South Carolina , South Dakota , Tennessee , Texas , Truck Accidents , Utah , Vermont , Virginia , Washington , Washington DC , West Virginia , Wisconsin , Wyoming

Bookmark:

Our lawyers are reviewing Byetta claims after the FDA announced this week that the diabetes drug has been linked to severe pancreatic problems in dozens of patients. On Monday, the FDA warned patients taking Byetta to discontinue use if they develop symptoms of the disorder. Further the FDA said that doctor prescribing Byetta should consider other prescription options for patients with a history of pancreas problems.

Since Byetta was introduced into the United States in 2005, more than 700,000 patients have used the Byetta.

Our lawyers are now exploring potential Byetta lawsuits. If you would like to discuss your case with a Byetta lawyer, call 800-553-8082 or click here for a free consulation/case evaluation (or even to answer any question you may have). For more information on Byetta and the concerns with Byetta, click here.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Alabama , Alaska , Arizona , Arkansas , California , Colorado , Connecticut , Delaware , Florida , Georgia , Hawaii , Idaho , Illinois , Indiana , Iowa , Kansas , Kentucky , Louisiana , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts , Michigan , Minnesota , Mississippi , Missouri , Montana , Nebraska , Nevada , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Carolina , North Dakota , Ohio , Oklahoma , Oregon , Pennsylvania , Product Liability , Puerto Rico , Rhode Island , South Carolina , South Dakota , Tennessee , Texas , Utah , Vermont , Virginia , Washington , Washington DC , West Virginia , Wisconsin , Wyoming

Bookmark:

In separate letters in The American Journal of Psychiatry, psychiatrists in California and Ohio describe prisoners drug-seeking behavior and addiction to Seroquel.

Incredibly, staff members at the Los Angeles County jail believe that as many as 30% of the prisoners by psychiatrists have faked psychotic episodes or symptoms in an effort to get a prescription for Seroquel.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: California , Ohio , Product Liability

Bookmark:

Last week, Digitek manufacturer Actavis Totowa recalled over 65 different drugs made at their New Jersey manufacturing plant. The list of recalled drugs (in some form or another) includes such generic drugs as Bellamine, Buspirone, Carisoprodol, Oxycodone Meperidine, and Rifampin. This strengthens the conclusion that the New Jersey plant that made these drugs may be the cause of irregularities in Actavis medications.

In April 2008, Actavis recalled Digitek, a drug prescribed to treat heart failure and irregular heartbeat because it was discovered that Digitek tablets appeared to have double the thickness – and likely double the active ingredient – listed on the label. When Digitek is given in abnormally high doses it can lead to digitalis toxicity which, paradoxically, worsens the problems Digitek is intended to treat, causing nausea or lower blood pressure and other side effects from the Digitek overdose that can lead to the increased risk of stroke or a heart attack.

If you would like to speak to a Digitek recall lawyer about a potential Digitek lawsuit, call 1-800-553-8000. For more information on the Digitek overdose recall or a free consultation on your potential Digitek case, click here.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Alabama , Alaska , Arizona , Arkansas , California , Colorado , Connecticut , Delaware , Florida , Georgia , Hawaii , Idaho , Illinois , Indiana , Iowa , Kansas , Kentucky , Louisiana , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts , Medical Malpractice , Michigan , Minnesota , Mississippi , Missouri , Montana , Nebraska , Nevada , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Carolina , North Dakota , Ohio , Oklahoma , Oregon , Pennsylvania , Product Liability , Puerto Rico , Rhode Island , South Carolina , South Dakota , Tennessee , Texas , Utah , Vermont , Virginia , Washington , Washington DC , West Virginia , Wisconsin , Wyoming

Bookmark:

Zimmer's Durom Cup hip implants are likely to be the subject of a good number of lawsuits from patients with the Zimmer implants. But they will not be the only ones. Apparently, Zimmer’s own shareholders may agree that Zimmer left its hip implant on the market way too long. Last week, shareholders of Zimmer stock filed a class action in Indiana. Interestingly, the lawsuit seeks damages for shareholders who purchased stock between January 28, 2008 and July 21, 2008. This tells our Zimmer hip implant recall lawyers that these shareholders believe that Zimmer knew or should have known and issued a recall on or before January 28, 2008.

If your Zimmer Durom hip resurfacing cup was defective, call our Zimmer hip implant lawyers at 1-800-553-8082 or click here for a free consultation.

More information on the Zimmer Hip Implant Recall
History of the Zimmer Durom Cup Hip Implant Recall
More information on the Zimmer hip implant recall lawsuits

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Alabama , Alaska , Arizona , Arkansas , California , Colorado , Connecticut , Delaware , Florida , Georgia , Hawaii , Idaho , Illinois , Indiana , Iowa , Kansas , Kentucky , Louisiana , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts , Michigan , Minnesota , Mississippi , Missouri , Montana , Nebraska , Nevada , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Carolina , North Dakota , Ohio , Oklahoma , Oregon , Pennsylvania , Product Liability , Puerto Rico , Rhode Island , South Carolina , South Dakota , Tennessee , Texas , Utah , Vermont , Washington , Washington DC , West Virginia , Wisconsin , Wyoming

Bookmark:

Jury Verdict Research(r) study reports that rotator cuff injuries reached a 7-year high in 2006 with a compensatory award median of $72,667. This is almost 50% higher than previous reported settlements and verdicts in rotator cuff injury cases.

Our lawyers have never understood while the national data in these cases was so low. Washington D.C. rotator cuff injuries have averaged well over $100,000 for rotator cuff settlements and verdicts so we have never understood why the national average was as low as it has been. In any event, for whatever reason, rotator cuff verdicts are on the rise.

Our lawyers handle rotator cuff injury cases throughout the United States. Our lawyers have handled scores of rotator cuff injuries in car and truck accidents, typically in side collision or "T-bone" accidents. Our lawyers believe that insurance companies do not give fair value in most rotator cuff injury cases and our lawyers will fight to get you the financial compensation you deserve. Call a rotator cuff lawyer to protect you at 800-553-8082 or click here for a free consultation and case evaulation.

Related Posts

What Is the Value of Your Personal Injury Claim? (how the value of rotator cuff and other person injury settlements are calculated)

Sample Demand Letter (sample letter demanding settlement in a personal injury case)

Handling Your Claim Without a Lawyer (tips and pratfalls)

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Alabama , Alaska , Arkansas , California , Car Accidents , Colorado , Connecticut , Delaware , Florida , Georgia , Hawaii , Idaho , Illinois , Indiana , Iowa , Kansas , Kentucky , Louisiana , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts , Michigan , Minnesota , Mississippi , Missouri , Montana , Nebraska , Nevada , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Carolina , North Dakota , Ohio , Oklahoma , Oregon , Pennsylvania , Product Liability , Puerto Rico , Rhode Island , South Carolina , South Dakota , Tennessee , Texas , Truck Accidents , Utah , Vermont , Virginia , Washington , Washington DC , West Virginia , Wisconsin , Wyoming

Bookmark:

Jury Verdict Research's recent study finds that the compensatory median award for personal injury trials in New York is $287,628, dwarfing nationwide median is $34,550. The report is trials from 2001-2007.

New York has favorable juries, particuarly in its urban areas. But the reality is that this number is distorted by the lack of smaller and midsized car accident lawsuits. Under New York's no-fault law, an insurance company is required to pay drivers, passengers and pedestrians up to $50,000.00 for the legitimate economic and medical losses but does not provide for pain and suffering. Only permanent injuries cases can recover more than $50,000. This leads to less lawsuits in smaller cases - of which there are many - which increases the overall award in New York.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Medical Malpractice , New York , Product Liability , Truck Accidents

Bookmark:

There has been an increased concern over the use of Topamax – a treatment for migraine headaches and for epilepsy - during pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk of birth defects. There have been reports of birth defects as cleft palates, cleft lips, genital defects.

Besides the anticdotal reports, the respected medical journal Neurology published an article – albeit with a small cohort – that found that women who used Topamax to prevent seizures associated with epilepsy had a much higher incidence of delivering babies with birth defects.
While the study included only 203 pregnencies (178 children), the data found that woman on Topamax while pregnant had babies born with cleft lips or palates 11 times more frequently that you would otherwise expect. These children had genital defects at a rate 14 times higher than would be expected. Of the 178 babies, 16 had major birth defects.

This is an unfortunate development for Topamax, a drug that is apparently efficacious in treating the migraines that are debilitating for so many. A study published last year in Lancet found that patients using Topamax – which was approved for migraine headaches in 2006 - had a reduction in the number of migraine days per month and reported significant quality of life improvements.

It is also worth nothing that the label for Topamax indicates that Topamax has been associated with birth defects, miscarriages, and decreased fetal weight in rabbits, rats, and mice.

Our lawyers are not taking Topamax cases at this time. One study of this size – absent other facts – does not give rise to a lawsuit. But our lawyers will closely monitor the reports and literature on birth defects in children whose mothers were using Topamax during pregnancy.

If you have a question you would like our lawyers to address regarding Topamax or would like to be included on information as it develops with Topamax, call 800-553-8082 or click here.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

Our lawyers are reviewing Zimmer Durom Cup hip replacement component cases for potential lawsuits or settlements. Zimmer hip replacement sales were halted after doctors reported the need for revisions and further hip surgery. Our lawyers are limiting our inquiry to patients who received the Durom Cup and have serious problems with their replacement more than three months after surgery or required additional surgeries or revisions.

The tipping point of the Zimmer Durom Cup recall was a letter written by Lawrence D. Dorr, MD, an orthopedic surgeon who is the medical director of the Dorr Institute for Arthritis Research and Education in California. Dr. Door is considered to be an opinion leader in hip and joint replacement surgery and research around the world. Dr. Dorr found that 14 of the 165 Durom hip systems implanted at his clinic needed additional surgery within two years of hip implant surgery. In April, he letter to his hip and joint replacement colleagues around the country:

“This failure rate has occurred within the first two years. In the first year the x-rays looked perfect. We have revised four that did not have any radiolucent lines or migration (and John Moreland revised one). These early cups fooled us, but the symptoms were so classic for a loose implant that we operated the patients. When we hit on the edge of the cup it would just pop free. As time goes by the cups begin developing radiolucent lines. We now have one cup at two years that has actually migrated a short distance. It has tilted into varus. We do not believe the fixation surface is good on these cups. Also there is a circular cutting surface on the periphery of the cup that we believe prevents the cup from fully seating. We stopped using the cup after the first revisions.”

Dr. Dorr noted in his letter that Zimmer was unwilling to recall the Zimmer Durom Cup even in face of the evidence for this relatively new product. Regrettably, our products liability lawyers see medical device companies behaving this way far too often.

Since it was first sold in this country two years ago, the Zimmer Durom cup has been implanted in more than 12,000 patients. This is a lot of patients who may have potential claims against Zimmer.

If your Zimmer Durom hip cup was defective, call our Zimmer hip implant lawyers at 1-800-553-8082 or click here for a free consultation.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

A Malibu, California jury found that Johnson & Johnson's Children's Motrin was not responsible to a 11 year-old girl whose lawyers alleged she was blinded after using the drug. The California jury voted 9-3 against liability after a six week trial. California does not require that civil jury verdict be unanimious.

The lawsuit plaintiff's drug injury lawyers filed in Los Angeles Superior Courty claimed Children's Motrin's label was defective because it did not have a warning that it could lead to a rare, but potentially fatal allergic reaction with severe rash of the skin and mucous membrane called Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. Many users of the "stop smoking" drug Chantix have also reported Stevens-Johnson Syndrome.

Our lawyers are uninvolved in this litigation and cannot speak to the merits of the case. But what a tragedy that such a young girl would lose her vision. The only ray of hope is that the technology to overcome blindness really is growing at a rapid clip.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: California , Product Liability

Bookmark:

Lawyers representing Digitek overdose victims have filed nine lawsuits in New Jersey against Actavis Totowa LLL and its parent company Actavis Group, alleging a manufacturing defect in Digitek, namely that some Digitek tablets have contained twice the active ingredient of the drug. Digitek recall lawsuits have also been filed in West Virginia and California.

Our Digitek recall lawyers are reviewing these Digitek overdose cases in all 50 states expecting that a consolidated class action lawsuit will be appropriate (as opposed to this scatting of individual cases). If you want to discuss your case with one of our Digitek lawyers call us at 800-553-8082 for a free consultation or click here for a free Internet consultation.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Alabama , Alaska , Arizona , Arkansas , California , Colorado , Connecticut , Delaware , Florida , Georgia , Hawaii , Idaho , Illinois , Indiana , Iowa , Kansas , Kentucky , Louisiana , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts , Michigan , Minnesota , Mississippi , Missouri , Montana , Nebraska , Nevada , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Carolina , North Dakota , Ohio , Oklahoma , Oregon , Pennsylvania , Product Liability , Puerto Rico , Rhode Island , South Carolina , South Dakota , Tennessee , Texas , Utah , Vermont , Virginia , Washington , Washington DC , West Virginia , Wisconsin

Bookmark:

Gardasil, a vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer, has been associated with a range of health problems. Girls and women on Gradasil have reported, among other things, nausea, headaches, dizziness, vomiting, paralysis, and death. The FDA has received reports of 15 deaths; 10 of these reported were confirmed.

But it is important to note that the CDC does not believe any of these deaths were linked to the Gardasil vaccine. The fact that there is an association between health problems and Gardasil does not necessarily mean that there is a causal relationship.

There have been a lot of adverse reports of patients on Gardasil. That is never a good sign. But more than 8 million people have received the vaccine since 2006. So while a lot of lawyers are talking about Gardasil as the next great class action, it is more prudent to wait to see how all of this flushes out. Time will tell if these adverse reports are from the Gardasil vaccine or because 8 million people taking a vaccine means that, regrettably, a lot of people are going to have bad outcomes unrelated to the vaccine. And if there is a relationship between Gardasil and these reports, the next question is going to be do the benefits outweigh the risks. Maybe these lawyers advertising on the Internet are right that Gardasil is the next great class action. But we are at least 3 steps short of that answer and I think at this point in the game, it is irresponsible for lawyers to be filing lawsuits without a lot more information that is going to take time to develop. The important this is that researchers continue to look at these issues and get answers.

For the short term, Gardasil will remain the only game in town until Glaxo's gets approval for its Cervarix cervical cancer vaccine. Glaxo announced today that it does not expect to obtain approval for Cervarix until late 2009, in spite of earlier reports expecting an earlier FDA approval.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

An Alabama jury on Tuesday ordered drug companies GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis to pay a combined $114 million in damages for their involvement in a Medicaid price fixing scheme. Lawyers for the state of Alabama claimed these drug manufacturers charged higher prices to Medicaid than those offered to other companies. In other words, they were trying to rip off the government. (If true, they would not be the first.)

Alabama has been out on the forefront of policing drug companies on this issue. Alabama has accused 70 drug companies with Medicaid drug pricing fraud. In the trial with AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals in February, a jury awarded $115 million (later reduced to $160 million).

In the public relations battles between drug companies and injury victims, one thing often gets left out: these drug companies are getting called to the mat for their reckless pursuit of profits by more than just drug injury lawyers.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Alabama , Product Liability

Bookmark:

ETHEX issued a recall of its morphine sulfate pills last week after it was discovered that a likely manufacturing error caused some tablets to have twice their safe dosage. The risk of taking twice the recommended amount is opiate overdose which is potentially life threatening. Symptoms of an overdose include low blood pressure, difficulty breathing and anything else considered out of the ordinary, such as trouble maintaining consciousness and other symptoms consistent with the body shutting down.

The following lot numbers are involved in the recall:

Morphine Sulfate ER 30 mg Tablet/NDC #58177-320-04:
Lots 75090, 77846, 77847, 80048, 83320, 89661, 89665, 90252 through 90258, and 93284.

Morphine Sulfate ER 60 mg Tablet/NDC #58177-330-04:
Lots 91762, 75091, 75092, 77848 through 77851, 82517, 82518, 83333, 83817, 83862, 84111, 84112, 84315, 84900, 85326, 85335, 85807, 86270 through 86276, 87723, 87939, 88007, 89083, 89668, 89669, 89821, 90260 through 90272, and 91763 through 91765.

Mophine Sulfate is Schedule II narcotic that is a prescription drug that is used to control pain in people with moderate to sever pain management for the treatment of moderate to severe pain.

This is the second report of a manufacturer recall a prescription drug because it had twice the recommended dosage. Digitek, a drug for heart patients, was recalled last month because it is linked to digitalis toxicity resulting from pills that were twice the labeled dosage. How a mistake of this kind can pass though the quality assurance department of a drug company should be a concern to us all - and the FDA.

Accordingly, our Ethex morphine sulfate recall lawyers are reviewing these Ethex morphine overdose cases throughout the country for patients who have suffered serious injury or death. If you want to discuss your potential lawsuit with one of our Ethex morphine lawyers call us at 800-553-8082 for a free consultation or click here for a free Internet consultation.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

A recent Jury Verdict Research study from 2000-2006 found that the median compensatory award in product liability cases is $1,500,000. This analysis is based on plaintiff verdicts rendered nationwide from 2000 to 2006.

The median verdicts by type are as follows:

Transportation Products: $3,000,000
Farm Products: $2,595,000
Industrial/Construction Products: $1,550,000
Medical products: $1,000,000
Commercial Products: $525,000
Consumer Products: $255,000

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

Plaintiff's claim against Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and others is time-barred by the "first injury" rule because her first smoking-related illness - chronic pulmonary disease - was diagnosed more than ten years after Plaintiff filed her complaint.

A California U.S. District Court found that California law provides that a limitations period begins to run when the claim accrues or when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements: wrongdoing, causation, and harm. The court found that plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of these elements when she was diagnosed with chronic pulmonary disease (if not long before). The court found misplaced Plaintiff's reliance on when a cause of action accrues in an asbestos case which has a separate statute-of-limitations accrual rule.

I don't like tobacco companies and I really feel for people who are suffering from smoking related illness. It's just awful. But I don't believe in the cause of the plaintiffs in the tobacco litigation because almost - agreed almost - every plaintiff knew or should have known of the risk to which they were subjected to and to which they subjected themselves. (One of the very few pro defendant positions I hold.)

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: California , Product Liability

Bookmark:

Medtronic, Inc. sent a letter out a few weeks ago to patients who still have the “recalled” Sprint Fidelis defibrillator leads in their chests. The letter claims that the risk to patients is relatively small. The letter from Reggie Groves, Vice President, Quality and Regulatory, claims that the “chance there will be a problem with your Sprint Fidelis lead remains small.”

Statistically speaking, Mr. Groves is correct. But using Medtronic’s own data, there is a 2.5% fracture risk at 30 months. No one knows yet the longer term risk for these Medtronic wires that were meant to be permanently implanted. What will the risk be at 60 months? Even at 2.5%, who wants potentially defective wires sending signals to their heart?

Miller & Zois’ defibrillator lead recall lawyers are reviewing both individual and class action defective Medtronic lead cases throughout the country. If you want to discuss your case with a Medtronic lead recall lawyer, call us for a free consultation at 800-553-8082 or click here for a free Internet consultation.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

The Kugel mesh patch was recalled two-and-a-half years ago on December 22, 2005. The hernia patch, made by Davol, Inc., was used for ventral or incisional hernias but has been removed because of a product defect.

The Kugel mesh patch is made of two pieces of mesh that encompass a plastic ring. The Kugel patch would be placed in the patient's body and folded on the hernia. The released ring would then spring back into its original shape, flattening the patch.

This was a great advance because it allowed the patient's tissue to grow with the patch which was fantastice for the healing process. The problem is that this new ring breaks with great frequency which more than defeated the benefit of the new technology.

Last year, the Kugel mesh cases were consolidated in an MDL class action in Rhode Island. Our lawyers are currently reviewing Kugel mesh hernia patch cases throughout the United States and Canada. I'm blogging about it today because after all of this time, our lawyers are still getting calls with new cases. If you have one of these implanted devices, you may be entitled to compensation. Call our Kugel mesh hernia patch lawyers at 1-800-553-8082 click here for a free web consultation.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability , Rhode Island

Bookmark:

Baxter International Inc. Chief Executive Robert Parkinson told company shareholders Tuesday that Baxter has yet to experience significant legal costs related to the rising deaths linked to its recalled blood thinner heparin.

Ah, Mr. CEO, may I ask a few followup questions? Has the FDA counted more than 80 deaths and more than 1,000 adverse events in the U.S. alone from Baxter's tained heparin? Are there already lawsuits pending around the country and shouldn't we reasonably expect a concolidated MDL class soon? Isn't saying you have insignificant legal costs now exactly what you would expect at this stage? Aren't you expecting signifcant legal fees and expenses and much greater costs in verdicts and settlements?

Maybe this post could be a cheap shot because this quote could be taken out of context. But Baxter needs to realize that it has both legal and ethical culpability here. Baxter cannot simply say, "Oh, it is all the Chinese fault." One Baxter investor asked whether Baxter has taken steps to "close the loopholes" in its heparin supply chain to make sure another disaster does not occur with heparin or any other medications.

Speaking of the Chinese, China's State Food and Drug Administration said Tuesday that Baxter has not fully cooperated with their investigation into the heparin fiasco and apparently did not receive heparin samples it sought during an April 22 visit to the Cherry Hill facility. I really cannot imagine Baxter is stonewalling the Chinese investigation but Baxter does need to give the Chinese every opportunity to investigate if it looking for any accountability from China.

Our Heparin recall lawyers are reviewing these Heparin allergic reaction cases throughout the country expecting a class action lawsuit will be appropriate. If you want to discuss your case with a Baxter Heparin recall lawyerwww.marylandlawyerblog.com/2008/02/heparin_recall_death_toll_rise.html call us at 800-553-8082 for a free consultation or click here for a free Internet consultation.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

Oregon's high court ruled unanimously yesterday that the mere possibility of injury is not enough to make a negligence claim against cigarette makers. Plaintiffs’ class action lawsuit on behalf of 400,000 Oregonians wanted medical monitoring for smokers to test for tobacco related disease.

It is difficult to argue with the court’s ruling in this case. While certainly the risk of disease from tobacco creates a greater risk for users, a mere threat of future harm probably should not be the basis for a claim in the tobacco cases. He or and court did not address this question, but I think it boils down to the question of whether the harm is expected to be imminent and how likely the harm is to occur. Certainly, you would think that the court would take a different posture in, for example, the Medtronic cases where the risk was more imminent.

But that explanation does not quite explain it because 400,000 people are dying a year from smoking and far less will die from Medtronic’s alleged negligence. I think a larger factor in the Oregon courts conclusion is that all of us believe on some level that smokers are also culpable by assuming the risks that they had incurred.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Oregon , Product Liability

Bookmark:

A Pennsylvania lawyer filed a wrongful death lawsuit yesterday on behalf of the family of a man who died after allegedly receiving contaminated heparin from Covidien, a Massachusetts supplier of heparin. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Covidien failed to recall batches of heparin that it knew or had reason to know may be contaminated.

The focus of the heparin cases has been on Baxter, which supplies approximately half of the heparin used in the United States. But Scientific Protein Laboratories supplied the active ingredient in heparin for both Baxter and Covidien.

I don't know enough about the timing of the Corvidien withdrawal and this man's use of heparin to know whether this is also a failure to recall case. But if this man did receive heparin after others had withdrawn heparin from the market, you can bet Corvidien's lawyers will not be racing to the courthouse steps to try that case.