All posts by admin

Mesothelioma

Mesothelioma Lawsuit // Monroe Law Group

What is Mesothelioma?

Mesothelioma is a rare but aggressive cancer that affects the protective lining of the lungs, abdomen and other organs, and causes symptoms like shortness of breath, unexplained weight loss, chest wall pain, coughing up blood, fatigue, anemia, and wheezing, cough or hoarseness. Unfortunately, because symptoms of mesothelioma typically don’t appear until the disease is in its later stages, the cancer is extremely difficult to diagnose, and while there is no cure for mesothelioma, treatment in the form of surgery, radiation or chemotherapy may help relieve the symptoms.

What Causes Mesothelioma?

The most common known cause of mesothelioma is exposure to asbestos, a naturally-occurring material that was once used extensively in a number of industries, including shipbuilding, electrical power, and home and commercial construction, valued for its heat resistance, insulating properties and tensile strength. Before being banned in more than 50 countries, asbestos was woven into fabric and mixed with cement in the production of furnaces, floor tiles, roofs, plumbing, fireplaces and window caulking, and more than 75 types of jobs in the United States have been known to expose workers to asbestos, as reported by the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety. Second-hand exposure to asbestos is also a serious health concern, as families of workers exposed on the job may be vulnerable to mesothelioma from asbestos dust or fibers brought home in their hair or on their clothing.

Lawsuits Filed Over Mesothelioma Lung Cancer

The use of asbestos in the United States was heavily restricted in the 1970s, but it was never banned in this country, and those considered to be at the highest risk for asbestos-related mesothelioma include the following:

  • Factory workers
  • Shipyard workers
  • Workers in construction and heating industries
  • Railroad and automotive workers
  • Workers in asbestos mills and mines
  • Manufacturers of asbestos-containing products

The first complaints against the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products were brought in 1929, and in the years since, thousands of asbestos exposure lawsuits have been filed on behalf of workers and their families, alleging that asbestos manufacturers and employers neglected to implement safety measures to protect workers from asbestosis, mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. In fact, litigation involving asbestos exposure and mesothelioma cancer is believed to be the longest-running mass tort in the history of the United States, with more than 700,000 claimants filing complaints against more than 8,000 defendants.

Contact the Experienced Mesothelioma Legal Team at Monroe Law Group

Because mesothelioma has an exceptionally long latency period of between 20 and 50 years, the disease is typically in its late stages by the time it’s diagnosed, and is therefore associated with a low survival rate. Also due to the long latency period, many workers who were exposed to asbestos in the 30s and 40s, when the material was still routinely used in construction and other industries, didn’t exhibit any symptoms of mesothelioma until decades after their initial exposure, or died before they could be diagnosed with the disease. If you have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, and you believe asbestos exposure on the job to be the cause, contact the Monroe Law Group today contact us today by phone at 619-777-1234 or by email at intake@monroelawgroup.com to explore your possible compensation options.

Mesothelioma is caused by asbestos exposure & is most common among shipyard, construction, factory, mill, mining, manufacturing, automotive, and railroad workers. // Monroe Law Group

$12.5 Million Awarded in Ethicon Prolift Tranvasginal Mesh Trial

What is Transvaginal Mesh?

Transvaginal mesh (TVM) is a type of implantable mesh designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI) that has been linked to a number of severe complications allegedly associated with defects in the design of the mesh. According to a growing body of research, women who receive vaginal mesh implants may be at risk for devastating complications caused by the mesh eroding in the vagina or otherwise not functioning as intended, and in 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicated that it had received more than 1,000 reports of adverse events involving POP or SUI repair with surgical mesh in the previous three years.

Compensation for Surgical Mesh Injuries

In light of the alleged risk of transvaginal mesh injuries, women across the country are pursuing legal claims against the makers of the allegedly defective devices. This latest surgical mesh award was delivered by a jury in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on December 21, in a product liability lawsuit filed by Patria Hammons, who received $5.5 million in compensatory damages for severe pain, permanent injuries and the need for multiple surgeries to repair or remove her mesh implant. The following day, the jury added $7 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon subsidiary, designed to punish the manufacturing company for claims including gross negligence and reckless disregard for consumer health and safety.

Mesh May Be Defectively Designed

According to Patria Hammons’ claim, she received the Ethicon Prolift mesh implant in 2009, to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP), a common medical condition characterized by weakened or damaged pelvic muscles and tissues that results in the bladder, uterus, rectum or bowel sagging into the vaginal canal. Hammons indicates that the defective design of her transvaginal mesh device caused scar tissue to develop and resulted in the mesh eroding into her bladder, which caused her severe pain. As a result of complications from the surgical mesh, Hammons required multiple surgeries to repair the damage caused by the implant, and has been left with permanent injuries.

Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits

Hammons’ lawsuit joins a growing number of cases brought over side effects of transvaginal mesh, and all vaginal mesh complaints pending in the federal court system have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in the Southern District of West Virginia, for coordinated pretrial proceedings as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL). All of the surgical mesh complaints involve similar allegations that the makers of the medical devices failed to provide adequate warnings to consumers and the medical community about the potential for transvaginal mesh to cause serious side effects in users.

An Experienced TVM Lawyer Can Help

In addition to mesh erosion, which is one of the mesh complications Patria Hammons experienced, transvaginal mesh has been linked to a number of devastating side effects like infection injuries, pain during intercourse, recurrence of POP or SUI, nerve damage, chronic pain and the need for additional surgeries to remove the mesh. If you received a vaginal mesh implant in the past, and you have since suffered one or more major mesh complications, contact an experienced product liability lawyer today for legal help. You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries, which you can pursue by filing a vaginal mesh lawsuit against the allegedly negligent mesh manufacturing company.

There is no risk to you in consulting one of our lawyers today. Contact Monroe Law Group now by phone at 619-777-1234 or by email at intake@monroelawgroup.com to arrange for your free, no-obligation consultation.

Illinois Man Alleges Deep Joint Infection Injuries from Bair Hugger Warming Blanket

Deep Joint Infection from Warming Blanket

According to his claim, Larry Young underwent surgery to repair a leg fracture in June 2013, and the procedure, called an open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), involved realigning a fractured leg bone using steel rods. During surgery, the Bair Hugger forced-air warming blanket was used to help control Young’s temperature, and the product liability lawsuit alleges that problems with the design of the medical device allowed contaminants to enter the sterile surgical site, causing a serious periprosthetic infection. As a result of his deep joint infection, Young indicates that he experienced severe, chronic pain, and required multiple surgeries to treat the infection and remove the devices used in the leg fracture repair surgery.

Bair Hugger Blanket’s Defective Design

Unfortunately, because the medical team that performed Young’s surgery was unaware of the link between forced-air warming and deep joint infections, the Bair Hugger blanket was also used during the first stage of Young’s revision surgery in November 2013. “The Defendants concealed and continue to conceal their knowledge of the Bair Hugger’s unreasonably dangerous risks from Plaintiff, other consumers, and the medical community,” Young’s lawsuit states. “The Defendants failed to conduct adequate and sufficient post-marketing surveillance after they began marketing, advertising, distributing and selling the Bair Hugger.”

Similar allegations have been raised in Bair Hugger lawsuits filed in courts across the country, on behalf of consumers who underwent orthopedic surgery for knee or hip replacement systems where the patient warming blanket was used, and subsequently suffered deep joint infections, MRSA, sepsis or other potentially life-threatening injuries. The product liability complaints allege that the design of the Bair Hugger forced-air warming system allows bacteria from the operating room floor to be blown into the surgical wound, increasing the patient’s risk of infection possibly requiring revision surgery.

3M, Arizant Accused of Failure to Warn

Although several studies published in recent years have questioned the safety of the Bair Hugger blanket, plaintiffs allege that 3M and Arizant continue to defend the safety of the warming system, providing false and misleading information to medical professionals. “Rather than alter the design of their product or warn physicians of the dangers associated with the Bair Hugger, as numerous studies confirm, the Defendants have chosen to ‘double down’ on their efforts to promote their defective product,” Young states in his Bair Hugger complaint. Even the original creator of the Bair Hugger blanket, Dr. Scott Augustine, has gone public with concerns about the safety of the patient warming device, yet 3M and Arizant call his efforts to warn the public “baseless,” and claim that they “stem from a personal vendetta.”

Contact an Experienced Bair Hugger Attorney Today

There are currently about 100 deep joint infection lawsuits pending in the Bair Hugger multidistrict litigation (MDL), which is being overseen by U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen in the District of Minnesota, and additional complaints are expected to be filed as lawyers continue to review and file claims for individuals who have suffered deep joint infections and other side effects allegedly caused by the Bair Hugger blanket. If you believe you have been harmed by Bair Hugger side effects like a deep joint infection, sepsis or MRSA, contact a knowledgeable product liability lawyer today to discuss your possible compensation options.

There is no risk to you in consulting one of our lawyers today. Contact Monroe Law Group now by phone at 619-777-1234 or by email at intake@monroelawgroup.com to arrange for your free, no-obligation consultation.

Power Morcellator Upstaged Woman’s Uterine Cancer, Lawsuit Alleges

Power Morcellators May Cause Spread of Cancer

According to Babette Davis’ claim, she underwent a laparoscopic hysterectomy in November 2008, during which Ethicon’s Gynecare power morcellator was used to cut up and remove her uterus through a small incision in the abdomen. A biopsy of the removed tissue was found to contain leiomyosarcoma cancer cells, which doctors were unable to detect prior to the surgery, and Davis alleges in her lawsuit that power morcellation caused a rapid dissemination of the aggressive uterine cancer. As a result of the leiomyosarcoma cancer being spread throughout her body, Davis underwent multiple cycles of chemotherapy, but the following year, it was discovered that the cancer had spread when three large masses were detected in her abdomen and pelvis.

Possible Side Effects of Power Morcellators

Power morcellators have become a popular method for cutting up and removing uterine fibroids, used by hospitals and doctors across the country during hysterectomy and myomectomy procedures. However, serious concerns have been raised recently about the potential for power morcellation to significantly upstage undiagnosed uterine cancer by spreading cancerous tissue throughout the body. In Davis’ case, “Plaintiff continues to suffer from abdominal pain, weakness, fatigue and takes oral chemotherapy to treat the life-threatening cancer that use of Defendant’s Gynecare Laparoscopic Power Morcellator caused to disseminate in her body. Had the Laparoscopic Power Morcellator used on Plaintiff not disseminated her leiomyosarcoma, Plaintiff would not have suffered and continued to suffer these symptoms.”

Power Morcellator Warnings from the FDA

In November 2014, the FDA issued a safety communication warning that, “If laparoscopic power morcellation is performed in women with unsuspected uterine sarcoma, there is a risk that the procedure will spread the cancerous tissue within the abdomen and pelvis, significantly worsening the patient’s long-term survival.” In light of this serious risk, the FDA at that time advised against “the use of laparoscopic power morcellators in the majority of women undergoing myomectomy or hysterectomy for treatment of fibroids.” According to the FDA, approximately one in 350 women undergoing hysterectomy or myomectomy procedures have unsuspected uterine sarcoma, and there is currently no reliable method for detecting this cancer prior to surgery.

Pursuing Compensation for Power Morcellation Injuries

Babette Davis’ claim joins a growing number of product liability lawsuits filed over alleged side effects of power morcellators, and all of the complaints involve similar allegations that the makers of power morcellator devices failed to provide adequate warnings about the potential for power morcellation to spread cancerous tissues throughout the body during surgery. In October 2015, all power morcellation lawsuits pending in the federal court system were centralized for coordinated pretrial proceedings before U.S. District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil in the District of Kansas. If you underwent a laparoscopic hysterectomy or myomectomy procedure where power morcellation was used, and you have since been diagnosed with leiomyosarcoma cancer, consult an experienced product liability lawyer today to discuss filing a claim against the device manufacturing company.

There is no risk to you in consulting one of our lawyers today. Contact Monroe Law Group now by phone at 619-777-1234 or by email at intake@monroelawgroup.com to arrange for your free, no-obligation consultation.

Power Morcellator

Power Morcellator Lawsuit // Monroe Law Group

What is a Power Morcellator?

A power morcellator is an electric surgical instrument commonly used during laparoscopic hysterectomy and uterine fibroid removal (myomectomy) procedures, to cut up large masses of tissues and remove them through a small incision in the abdomen. When power morcellators first came to market, the devices were praised as a good alternative to more traditional surgical methods, as the devices allow surgeons to make minimally invasive incisions in the abdomen, rather than making large incisions through core stomach muscles. The medical devices were designed to reduce recovery time and limit the risk of surgical complications and post-operative pain. However, a growing number of adverse event reports have linked power morcellation to the possible spread of unsuspected cancerous tissue.

Potential Side Effects of Power Morcellation

When power morcellators are used during hysterectomy and myomectomy surgeries, the uterus or fibroids are cut up into smaller pieces inside the abdominal cavity before they are removed from the body. However, as a growing body of research has shown, if any of these tissues contain hidden cancer cells and are not removed from the body, the undiagnosed cancer may spread throughout the pelvis and abdominal cavity, resulting in a significantly upstaged cancer and reducing the chances of the patient’s long-term survival. In one high-profile power morcellator case, Dr. Amy Reed, an anesthesiologist and mother of six, was diagnosed with advanced cancer following a hysterectomy procedure where power morcellation was used. Another case filed in Philadelphia federal court involved a woman who died of metastatic leiomyosarcoma after undergoing a hysterectomy with power morcellation, even though she previously showed no evidence of metastatic cancer.

Link Between Power Morcellation and Cancer

In April 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety communication warning against the use of power morcellation during hysterectomy and myomectomy procedures. According to the FDA, “it is estimated that 1 in 350 women undergoing hysterectomy or myomectomy for the treatment of fibroids is found to have an unsuspected uterine sarcoma, a type of uterine cancer that includes leiomyosarcoma. If laparoscopic power morcellation is performed in women with unsuspected uterine sarcoma, there is a risk that the procedure will spread the cancerous tissue within the abdomen and pelvis, significantly worsening the patient’s likelihood of long-term survival.”

In November 2014, the FDA updated its safety communication, indicating that the agency had conducted a review of published and unpublished scientific literature, in an effort to estimate the prevalence of unsuspected uterine cancer in women undergoing hysterectomy or myomectomy procedures. According to the updated warning, “the prevalence of unsuspected uterine sarcoma in patients undergoing hysterectomy or myomectomy for presumed benign leiomyoma is 1 in 352 and the prevalence of unsuspected uterine leiomyosarcoma is 1 in 498.” The FDA also noted that “Both of these estimates are higher than the clinical community previously understood.”

Consult the expert Power Morcellator Attorneys at Monroe Law Group Today

In response to warnings from the FDA regarding the potential for power morcellation to cause the spread of aggressive uterine cancer, Johnson & Johnson immediately suspended worldwide sales of its laparoscopic power morcellators, and other manufacturers of power morcellation devices are expected to follow suit. However, because the J&J recall was voluntary, and because the FDA has yet to issue an official power morcellation recall, many power morcellator devices may actually still be in use in the United States. If you underwent a hysterectomy or myomectomy procedure using power morcellation, and you have since been diagnosed with upstaged uterine cancer, contact the Monroe Law Group today to explore your possible compensation options.

Alert: Due to statute of limitations, the time you have to pursue a Power Morcellator claim is limited. Call us right away at 877-459-8260, email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com, or complete the form on this page now.

Power Morcellators–commonly used during hysterectomy & uterine fibroid removal (myomectomy) procedures–may be associated with an increased cancer risk. // Monroe Law Group

Mirena IUD

How Mirena IUD Works

Mirena is an intrauterine device (IUD) manufactured by Bayer Pharmaceuticals and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000, as a long-acting, reversible birth control device. Made from a medical-grade, polyethylene plastic, Mirena IUD is a flexible, T-shaped device that is implanted in the uterus and slowly releases the progestin birth control hormone levonorgestrel directly into the uterus over time to prevent pregnancy. Because Mirena is designed to be 99% effective in protecting against pregnancy for up to five years, at which point it must be replaced, the intrauterine birth control device has grown in popularity, preferred by many women over birth control pills that must be taken daily to be effective. In 2009, the FDA expanded Mirena’s approval to treat heavy menstrual bleeding in women already using an IUD.

Possible Side Effects of Mirena IUD

Intrauterine devices like Mirena have become the most popular form of reversible birth control in the world, with an estimated 150 million women using IUDs for long-term pregnancy prevention. There is no doubt that Mirena IUD is highly effective in protecting against pregnancy for up to five years, but there have been a growing number of reports of women experiencing serious, potentially life-threatening side effects while using the birth control device, including:

  • Perforation of the uterus
  • Ectopic pregnancy
  • Pelvic inflammatory disease
  • Migration of the device to other parts of the body
  • Pseudotumor cerebri (PTC)
  • Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH)
  • Infection
  • Device expulsion
  • Embedment of the device in the abdomen or uterine wall
  • The need for revision surgery

Link Between Mirena IUD and Serious Injuries

Mirena IUD is designed to remain in place for up to five years, at which point the implant can be removed or replaced with another intrauterine device if the woman wants continued protection against pregnancy. In some reported cases of Mirena side effects, however, the device has migrated from its normal position in the uterus, perforated the uterine wall and entered the pelvis, abdominal cavity, bladder or blood vessels. And while Bayer claims that Mirena IUD complications are rare, a study published by the Department of Radiology at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center indicated that migration of the birth control device is a “frequently encountered complication,” possibly causing severe pain, infections and injury to internal organs.

Another major complication that has been linked to hormonal birth control devices like Mirena IUD is pseudotumor cerebri (PTC), or “false brain tumor,” a condition characterized by an increase of pressure inside the skull that occurs for no apparent reason. In a 1995 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers identified 56 cases where pseudotumor cerebri side effects occurred in women using birth control pills or intrauterine birth control devices like Mirena IUD. More recently, at the 2015 meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, research was presented indicating that Bayer’s Mirena IUD was “disproportionately more common among IIH patients than non-IIH patients.”

Pursuing Compensation for Mirena IUD Injuries

Product liability lawsuits brought against Mirena IUD maker Bayer Pharmaceuticals allege that the device manufacturing company failed to provide accurate warnings to consumers and the medical community about the potential for its birth control device to cause devastating side effects in users. Many women claim that Bayer knew about the alleged risk of Mirena IUD complications, yet intentionally withheld information about this risk from the public. If you believe you have been harmed by alleged side effects of Bayer’s Mirena IUD device, contact the Monroe Law Group today for expert legal assistance to explore your possible compensation options.

Alert: Due to statute of limitations, the time you have to pursue a Mirena IUD claim is limited. Call us right away at 877-459-8260, email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com, or complete the form on this page now.

Invokana

Invokana Type 2 Diabetes Lawsuit // Monroe Law Group

How Invokana Works

Invokana (canagliflozin) is an oral diabetes medication belonging to a class of widely-used drugs called sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which are commonly prescribed in combination with diet and exercise as a treatment for Type 2 diabetes. Invokana was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2013, and is currently manufactured by Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals subsidiary. In individuals with Type 2 diabetes, the body is unable to properly use insulin to process sugar, and the pancreas is no longer able to keep up with the demand for insulin, which allows the amount of glucose in the bloodstream to reach dangerous levels. Invokana and other SGLT2 inhibitor drugs are designed to lower blood glucose levels by inhibiting a special protein in the kidneys, which prevents glucose from being reabsorbed into the blood and allows it to leave the body during urination instead.

Alleged Invokana Side Effects

Despite the fact that Invokana is a relatively new medication, the Type 2 diabetes drug, along with other drugs in its class, has already been linked to a potential risk of serious side effects in users. One of the most dangerous complications allegedly linked to Invokana therapy is diabetic ketoacidosis, a serious medical condition that can cause fatal swelling of the brain, severe dehydration, coma and possibly even death. Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) occurs when the body is no longer able to use sugar as a fuel source, either because there is too little or no insulin available. Instead, the body begins to break down fat for energy, which produces blood acids called ketones. When ketones are allowed to build up in the bloodstream, they can become toxic and cause serious medical complications.

Another potentially life-threatening side effect possibly linked to Invokana is kidney failure, believed to be connected to the action of the Type 2 diabetes drug on the kidneys in the removal of glucose via urination. Product liability lawsuits brought against Janssen Pharmaceuticals by patients who used Invokana in the past allege that the drug maker knew or should have known about the potential risk of Invokana diabetic ketoacidosis and kidney failure problems based on the way the diabetes medication is designed to function. However, consumer complaints allege that Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Johnson & Johnson failed to provide adequate warnings to the public about the risk of severe adverse events allegedly associated with the prescription diabetes drug.

Studies Linking Invokana to Complications

In May 2015, the FDA issued a drug safety communication warning about the potential link between SGTL2 inhibitors like Invokana and an increased risk of ketoacidosis, “a serious condition where the body produces high levels of blood acids called ketones that may require hospitalization.” At that time, the FDA had identified 20 cases of ketoacidosis side effects in patients taking SGLT2 inhibitor medications from March 2013 to June 6, 2014, all of which involved hospitalization to treat the medical condition. In December 2015, the FDA updated its Invokana ketoacidosis warning, and also reported on the possible connection between treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors and serious urinary tract infections possibly leading to hospitalization and kidney failure. The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) also weighed in on possible Invokana side effects in 2015, warning that the diabetes drug was linked to a higher-than-anticipated number of reported complications, surpassing 92% of the other medications regularly monitored by the agency.

Contact the Monroe Law Group today for expert Invokana legal representation

As more and more Type 2 diabetes patients are switched to Invokana therapy, the number of adverse events reported in connection with the SGLT2 inhibitor continues to climb. If you believe you have been adversely affected by alleged Invokana side effects, consult the knowledgeable product liability team at Monroe Law Group today for legal help. With a qualified Invokana attorney on your side, you can protect your legal rights and seek fair and timely reimbursement for your injuries and medical bills.

Alert: Due to statute of limitations, the time you have to pursue a claim is limited. Call us right away at 877-459-8260, email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com, or complete the form on this page now.

Invokana, Farxiga, Jardiance, Xigduo, Invokamet, & Glyxambi may be associated with diabetic ketoacidosis, kidney failure, heart attack, and stroke risks. // Monroe Law Group

Pseudotumor Cerebri

We are only currently able to accept cases for individuals who had the Mirena IUD with
a Pseudotumor Cerebri diagnosis. We are not currently accepting cases for Ortho Evra or Depo Provera use linked to Pseudotumor Cerebri. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Use of one of the most popular hormonal birth control devices on the market, Mirena IUD, may increase a woman’s chances of suffering devastating pseudotumor cerebri (PTC) complications possibly leading to swelling of the optic nerve and permanent vision loss.

If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with pseudotumor cerebri, and you believe a birth control product to be the cause, consult an experienced product liability lawyer as soon as possible to discuss your legal options. With a qualified pseudotumor cerebri attorney on your side, you can ensure that your legal rights are protected, and pursue the financial compensation you deserve for your injuries, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. The following article provides details on how to get a Pseudotumor Cerebri Diagnosis.

Pseudotumor Cerebri Described

Pseudotumor cerebri, sometimes called idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) or benign intracranial hypertension (BIH), is a serious medical condition occurring when pressure inside the skull increases for no apparent reason. Symptoms of pseudotumor cerebri, which literally translates to “false brain tumor,” mimic those of a brain tumor when no tumor is present, and may include ringing in the ears, headaches behind the eyes, and brief episodes of blindness. These symptoms are caused by pressure from the buildup or poor absorption of cerebrospinal fluid in the skull, which acts as a cushion for the brain’s cortex, protecting the brain and spinal cord from injury. In patients with PTC, the symptoms are sometimes more intense following physical activity, and may worsen with sneezing or coughing, due to an increase of pressure within the skull.

Possible Causes of Pseudotumor Cerebri

The cause of most reported cases of pseudotumor cerebri remains unknown, but a possible connection has been found between PTC side effects and the use of hormonal contraceptive birth control intrauterine device Mirena IUD.

Mirena IUD (levonorgestrel) is a long-acting hormonal intrauterine device inserted into the uterus to prevent pregnancy for up to five years. The flexible, T-shaped device slowly releases the progestin levonorgestrel directly into the uterus over time, and is a popular alternative to daily birth control pills.

One of the first studies to highlight the potential connection between pseudotumor cerebri and the use of hormonal birth control was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1995. The study identified 56 cases where PTC side effects and optic disc edema occurred in women using oral contraceptives or intrauterine birth control implants, like the Mirena IUD. Most recently, at the 2015 meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, research findings were presented indicating that “exposure to a [levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system] was significantly associated with the development of [idiopathic intracranial hypertension],” and that the use of Bayer Healthcare’s Mirena IUD was “disproportionately more common among IIH patients than non-IIH patients.”

Pursuing Compensation for PTC Complications

The long-term effects of pseudotumor cerebri extend far beyond headaches and ringing in the ears, and may result in swelling of the optic nerve, which transmits visual information between the eyes and brain, possibly leading to permanent vision loss. Unfortunately, at this point, surgery is typically required to reduce the pressure around the optic nerve and relieve the buildup of pressure inside the skull. If you used a hormonal birth control product like Mirena IUD, and you have since suffered major side effects like pseudotumor cerebri or idiopathic intracranial hypertension, contact the knowledgeable PTC attorneys at the Monroe Law Group today for legal help. You may be entitled to financial compensation for your injuries, which you can pursue by filing a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturing company.

Alert: Due to statute of limitations, the time you have to pursue a Pseudotumor Cerebri claim is limited. Call us right away at 877-459-8260, email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com, or complete the form on this page now.

GM Ignition Switch

GM Ignition Switch Lawsuit // Monroe Law Group

What is the Problem with GM Ignition Switches?

In February 2014, General Motors recalled approximately 800,000 of its small vehicles over concerns about faulty ignition switches, which could cause the engine to shut off during use, thereby disabling the power steering and preventing the airbags from inflating properly in the event of an accident. Over the course of the next several months, GM continued to recall more of its cars allegedly equipped with defective ignition switches, ultimately resulting in a worldwide recall of nearly 30 million Chevrolet, Pontiac, Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile and Saturn vehicles. According to reports, the “switch detent plunger,” designed to provide the torque necessary to prevent the ignition from turning off unintentionally, failed to do so, allowing the car engines to shut off unexpectedly during use. Hundreds of injuries and fatalities were allegedly caused by the faulty ignition switches causing the car to turn off, disabling the vehicle’s power steering function and preventing the airbags from deploying.

Models Affected by the GM Ignition Switch Recall

General Motors has been accused of intentionally concealing information about the problem with its ignition switches, allowing consumers to continue using the potentially dangerous vehicles, and therefore contributing to at least 124 deaths and 275 non-fatal injuries involving cars equipped with faulty GM ignition switches. The GM vehicles affected by the ignition switch recall include the following models:

  • Buick Lacrosse 2005-2009
  • Buick Lucerne 2006-2011
  • Cadillac CTS 2003-2011
  • Cadillac Deville 2000-2005
  • Cadillac DTS 2006-2011
  • Cadillac SRX 2004-2006
  • Chevrolet Camaro 2010-2014
  • Chevrolet Cobalt 2005-2010
  • Chevrolet HHR 2006-2011
  • Chevrolet Impala 2000-2014
  • Chevrolet Malibu 1997-2005
  • Chevrolet Monte Carlo 2000-2007
  • Oldsmobile Alero 1999-2004
  • Oldsmobile Intrigue 1998-2002
  • Pontiac G5 2007-2010
  • Pontiac Grand Am 1999-2005
  • Pontiac Grand Prix 2004-2008
  • Pontiac Solstice 2006-2010
  • Saturn Ion 2003-2007
  • Saturn Sky 2007-2010

Compensation for Faulty Ignition Switches

During the course of the investigation launched by the federal government in the aftermath of the GM ignition switch recall, it was revealed that General Motors executives knew about the problem with the faulty ignition switches for at least a decade before issuing the recall in 2014. General Motors itself has linked the defective ignition switches to 124 deaths, nearly ten times the 13 death estimate GM executives initially reported in April 2014, although other sources have reported a death toll of at least 153. As part of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, GM gave $600 million in compensation to surviving victims of accidents caused by faulty ignition switches, though a large number of lawsuits have also been filed against General Motors, by those claiming to have suffered injuries or lost loved ones in accidents involving recalled vehicles with defective switches.

Contact the Monroe Law Group today for expert GM ignition switch legal representation

The most alarming thing about the GM ignition switch problem is that something as simple as a heavy keychain could cause the ignition switches to unexpectedly shut off the vehicle engine during use, causing drivers to lose control of their power steering, and, in the event of a crash, preventing the airbags from deploying. If you were injured due to a defective GM ignition switch, or if you lost a loved one in an accident involving a recalled General Motors vehicle, don’t hesitate to discuss your claim with the experienced GM ignition switch attorneys at the Monroe Law Group. You may be entitled to reimbursement for your losses, which you can pursue by filing a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit against General Motors.

Alert: Due to statute of limitations, the time you have to pursue a GM ignition switch claim is limited. Call us right away at 877-459-8260, email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com, or complete the form on this page now.

GM Ignition Switch Recall effects nearly 30 million Chevrolet, Pontiac, Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile and Saturn vehicles. Compensation is available for those involved in an accident due to a faulty ignition switch. // Monroe Law Group

IVC Filter

Monroe Law Group – NO FEES UNLESS YOU WIN You pay nothing until you win your case. Monroe Law Group pays for all costs of the lawsuit up front, and if don’t win, you pay nothing! If we win, you pay a percentage of the awarded settlement. Call us now at 877-415-8851 or email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com for your free no obligation case evaluation.

Patients implanted with an IVC filter to reduce their risk of blood clots and pulmonary embolism may be at risk for complications that are equally as dangerous, including vena cava perforation, filter fracture and embolization, and migration of the filter to other parts of the body.

If you received an IVC filter in the past, and you have since suffered a potentially life-threatening side effect as a result, you may be entitled to financial compensation for your injuries and medical expenses. Contact a knowledgeable IVC filter lawyer today to discuss your options for legal recourse.

IVC Filter Lawsuit // Monroe Law Group

IVC Filter Described

An inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is a type of vascular filter surgically implanted in the inferior vena cava, the largest vein in the body, responsible for moving deoxygenated blood from the lower legs to the heart and lungs. The cage-like construction of the IVC filter is specifically designed to trap blood clots that break free from the lower extremities, and prevent them from traveling to the lungs and causing a pulmonary embolism or other serious complications. IVC filters were first introduced in the United States in 1979, and use of the devices has increased dramatically over the years. By 2012, doctors had inserted approximately 259,000 IVC filters in patients at risk for blood clots and pulmonary embolism. Some of the most widely-used IVC filter models include:

  • C.R. Bard Recovery
  • C.R. Bard G2 and G2 Express
  • C.R. Bard Eclipse
  • C.R. Bard Meridian
  • Cook Medical Celect
  • Cook Medical Gunther Tulip

Potential IVC Filter Side Effects

Anticoagulant medications are typically prescribed to patients at risk for blood clots, but doctors often use IVC filters in patients who are unable to take blood thinners, or for whom anticoagulant therapy is unsuccessful or inappropriate. However, IVC filters have been linked recently to a host of serious side effects, including:

  • Perforation of the vena cava or blood vessels
  • Migration of the filter to other parts of the body
  • Filter fracture
  • Filter embolization
  • Wrongful death

FDA Warnings for Patients with IVC Filters

Retrievable IVC filters provide short-term protection from blood clots, and are designed to be removed once the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) has passed. However, the FDA has voiced concerns about the fact that “retrievable IVC filters, intended for short-term placement, are not always removed once a patient’s risk for PE subsides.” In 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning about the alleged risk of IVC filter side effects, highlighting 921 adverse event reports submitted to the agency in connection with the medical devices during the previous five years, including 328 reports of device migration, 146 reports of filter embolization, 70 reports of vena cava perforation, and 56 reports of filter fracture.

In 2014, the FDA updated its IVC filter safety announcement, indicating that the agency had “received reports of adverse events and product problems associated with IVC filters,” including “device migration, filter fracture, embolization (movement of the entire filter or filter fragments to the heart or lungs), perforation of the IVC, and difficulty removing the device.” According to the FDA, retrievable IVC filters should be removed between one to two months after implantation, as long as the risk of pulmonary embolism has subsided, in order to reduce the risk of serious complications.

Bard May Have Known About IVC Filter Problems

C.R. Bard is one of the largest manufacturers of IVC filters, and there is evidence that the company may have known about problems with its Recovery filter as early as 2004, yet withheld information about this risk from the public and the FDA. According to reports, Bard hired an independent consultant in 2004 to compare filter fracture and migration rates associated with its new filters to those of older models, and discovered that the Recovery filter was linked to a significantly higher rate of complications than its competitors. Rather than remove the Recovery filter from the market, Bard continued to sell the potentially dangerous device until 2005, when the company replaced the Recovery filter with the nearly identical G2 series of blood clot filters.

Contact Monroe Law Group for assistance with your IVC filter case today

IVC filter lawsuits brought against C.R. Bard and other makers of potentially dangerous blood clot filters allege that the manufacturing companies knew or should have known about the risk of IVC filter side effects, yet failed to provide adequate warnings about this risk to consumers and the medical community. Firms nationwide including Monroe Law Group and Ford and Associates Nationwide Legal Services are accepting IVC Filter cases. If you believe you have been harmed by side effects of a blood clot filter like the Bard Recovery or Bard G2 filter, consult the Monroe Law Group today for legal help. With a qualified IVC filter attorney on your side, you can ensure that your legal rights are protected and seek fair and timely reimbursement for your losses.

Alert: Due to statute of limitations, the time you have to pursue an IVC filter claim is limited. Call us right away at 877-459-8260, email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com, or complete the form on this page now.

IVC Filters are implanted to reduce blood clot risk, but are associated with serious complications: tissue damage, device breakage or migration, and embolism/DVT. // Monroe Law Group