All posts by Chris Powell

Chlorpyrifos Lawsuit

If your child was exposed to chlorpyrifos in utero and has since been diagnosed with brain damage, neurological deficits, ADHD or other potential side effects, contact an experienced chlorpyrifos injury lawyer today for legal help. You may have grounds to file a chlorpyrifos lawsuit against Dow AgroSciences, in order to pursue financial compensation for your family’s medical bills, pain and suffering, future medical care and other damages.

What is Chlorpyrifos?

Chlorpyrifos is a broad-spectrum, chlorinated organophosphate (OP) insecticide first registered for use in the United States in 1965. The chemical works by attacking the nervous system and inhibiting the breakdown of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine (Ach), which allows it to kill insects on contact. Unfortunately, research shows that the effect of chlorpyrifos on the brain and nervous system may pose a risk to developing fetuses exposed to the pesticide in utero. According to reports, chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxin originally developed for chemical warfare and later repurposed for agriculture, is unsafe for public health and is particularly harmful to children and farmworkers.

Why is there a Chlorpyrifos Lawsuit?

For more than 50 years, chlorpyrifos has been used by farmers and homeowners, sprayed liberally on crops and around homes to kill pests like mosquitos and fire ants. In-home use of the chemical was restricted in 2000, due to toxicity concerns, but the pesticide continues to be one of the most heavily used insecticides in the United States and around the world, sprayed on 8.5 million crop acres worldwide. This is despite a growing body of research suggesting that prenatal and early life exposure to chlorpyrifos can cause devastating, irreversible brain damage and other serious side effects in children.

Side Effects Linked to Chlorpyrifos

• Delayed motor development
• Reduced IQ
• Loss of working memory
• Neurodevelopmental problems
• Attention disorders (ADHD)
• Behavioral disorders
• Birth defects
• Brain damage
• Impaired fetal brain development
• Impaired fetal nervous system development
• Developmental delays
• Impaired cognitive abilities

Links to Chlorpyrifos Studies Alleging Side Effects

Archives of Environmental Health Study Highlighting Reports of Birth Defects in Babies Exposed to Chlorpyrifos in Utero
Study Linking Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpyrifos and Brain Anomalies in Children
Research Linking Agricultural Pesticide Use and Adverse Birth Outcomes
Study Examining Parental Exposure to Pesticides and Birth Defects in Babies

Recent Chlorpyrifos News

In response to growing concerns about the potential health risks associated with chlorpyrifos exposure, scientists with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended a ban on the chemical in 2015, a ban Dow AgroSciences argued was unjustified. Two years later, the EPA overruled its own scientists and declined to ban chlorpyrifos, citing scientific uncertainty about the potential risk to human health. The EPA’s decision to reverse the Obama-era effort to ban chlorpyrifos resulted in a coalition of environmental groups and farmworkers filing a lawsuit, which was resolved in August 2018, in a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The federal appeals court ruled that then-EPA chief Scott Pruitt violated federal law and endangered public health by keeping chlorpyrifos on the market, despite extensive research showing that even minimal exposure to the pesticide can harm babies’ developing brains. As a result of the decision, the EPA was ordered to remove chlorpyrifos from the market in the United States within 60 days.

As more information comes to light about the potential risk of birth defects from prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos, U.S. states are finally taking action to limit the use of chlorpyrifos in the agricultural industry. In December 2017, the state of California added chlorpyrifos to its Prop 65 list of substances known to cause cancer, reproductive harm and birth defects, and in June 2018, Hawaii became the first state to institute a ban on chlorpyrifos, effectively sending a message “to the EPA and to the chemical companies that we will no longer tolerate being ground zero for the testing of toxic pesticides that are damaging our children’s health and poisoning our environment.” The chlorpyrifos ban in Hawaii took effect in January 2019, though companies needing more time to respond to the ban could apply for temporary permits that would allow them to use chlorpyrifos until December 2022.

How Do I Join the Chlorpyrifos Lawsuit?

The neurotoxicity of pesticides like chlorpyrifos has been evident for decades, yet companies like Dow AgroSciences continue to market their products to farmers and homeowners, claiming that they are safe and effective for use in protecting food crops from insect damage. Unfortunately, when expectant mothers are exposed to these toxic chemicals during pregnancy, the effects on their developing children can be devastating and long-lasting. If your child was exposed to chlorpyrifos during pregnancy and has since suffered developmental delays, attention-deficit disorders, reduced IQ or other potential birth defects, you may have grounds to file a chlorpyrifos lawsuit against Dow AgroSciences for damages. Contact a knowledgeable chlorpyrifos birth defect attorney as soon as possible to explore your possible compensation options.

Recent Home Buyers May Face Potential Formaldehyde Dangers in New Homes

Get a free, confidential case evaluation now

The problem is in the floor, according to Consumer Safety Watch. Weyerhaeuser, one of the world’s largest lumber distributors, issued a recall on their i-joists coated with flak jacket protection. It is applied to enhance fire resistance, but instead it’s causing formaldehyde, commonly used in pressed lumber, to leak out and create a dangerously high levels of formaldehyde for an indoor environment.

Short-term exposure may result in symptoms such as:

  • Eye, nose and throat irritation
  • Coughing
  • Headaches
  • Dizziness and nausea

Long-term exposure to formaldehyde may cause different types of cancer.

Some of the affected states and localities include:

  • New Jersey
  • Colorado: Parker, Commerce City, Aurora and Firestone
  • Delaware
  • Arkansas
  • Missouri
  • Ohio
  • Minnesota
  • New York
  • Pennsylvania
  • Arkansas
  • Connecticut
  • Massachusetts
  • Others (We will continue to add states and localities at our website as we learn of them)

Who are some of the builders involved in the recall:

  • CalAtlantic Homes
  • Carrier Homes
  • Gerber Homes
  • Great Traditions
  • Homes By Whittaker (also known as New Town Homebuilders)
  • Infinity Homes
  • K. Hovnanian Homes
  • Lennar
  • Mattamy Homes
  • Procacci Development Company
  • Pulte Homes
  • Richmond American Homes
  • Shea Homes
  • Toll Brothers
  • Village Homes
  • Westport
  • Others

Remediation and Concerns for Homeowners and Home Buyers

Concerns include: “Where am I going to stay? Builders have in many cases advised home owners to move out, but it is unclean in many cases if they assisting with alternative housing. And if they are, when the funds will be available.

Outside of finding a new place to live, homeowners additional concerns include how this will impact the value of their home, whether or not proposed fixes will be safe and how long repairs might take.

“There is not a timeline for how long this may take”, according to Alan Christopher of Consumer Safety Watch. “Homeowners are just getting generic information from the builders and some builders are not even aware that there is a problem.”

In a statement Weyerhaeuser says “We’ve been working directly with homeowners and builders to understand each unique situation, and we are absolutely committed to making this right for everyone who is affected.”

In the interim, families are left looking at the builders for answers.

“I think there’s a lot of uncertainty from everyone and that’s probably the biggest part of it,” one home owner said.

How can I measure the level of formaldehyde?

  • If you are having formaldehyde-related symptoms, it is important to examine your environment before making the decision to test. Air testing can be expensive and the results can be difficult to interpret because most homes contain products and other sources of formaldehyde.
  • Hire an indoor air quality (IAQ) consultant: While this is the most costly option, hiring a consultant provides you with a variety of testing methods that are not easily available to consumers. In addition, consultants can help you interpret your results.
  • Order a test kit: You can search for “formaldehyde test kit” on the Internet or call an environmental testing laboratory for an at-home kit to measure your formaldehyde levels. It is important to follow the kit instructions to obtain accurate results.
    What is an acceptable level of formaldehyde?

Indoor levels should be as low as possible, assuming that you cannot get indoor levels below background (outdoor levels). Outdoor levels of formaldehyde average about 2.0 ppb. According to research from the California Environmental Protection Agency (2004), levels of formaldehyde in conventional homes average about 20 ppb, while levels in manufactured homes the average is about 40 ppb.

More Information and Latest Updates

Get more information and keep up with the latest on the status of the Weyerhaeuser formaldehyde at https://www.consumersafetywatch.com/lawsuit/weyerhaeuser-flak-jacket-lawsuit-settlement

Supreme court rebuffs GM’s bid to limit ignition-switch lawsuits

But the automaker is not yet close to putting the matter behind it and may now face years of additional litigation as a result of the latest legal turn in the case.

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court declined to review a lower-court ruling that the company was liable for claims for deaths or injuries arising before it filed for bankruptcy in 2009. The compensation fund that G.M. set up made payments to more than 100 such claimants, but a bankruptcy filing typically wipes out past liability, and G.M. had argued that point in court.

Last year, however, a federal appeals court said prebankruptcy claims could proceed. G.M. then asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling.

The Supreme Court’s rebuff means that several hundred remaining unsolved wrongful death and personal injury claims against G.M. could be sent to state courts for resolution or even trials.

“There are a lot of cases out there that either are going to have to be settled by G.M. or litigated, now that the Supreme Court is not getting involved,” said Robert C. Hilliard, a lawyer who is handling 243 claims against G.M. Among them are cases involving 27 deaths, Mr. Hilliard said.

He estimated that 1,000 or more outstanding cases remain.

The ignition switch at the heart of the matter was used mainly in the Chevrolet Cobalt and Saturn Ion small cars that G.M. started producing in 2002 and 2003. The switch had a tendency to turn off by itself, leaving the car without power and disabling its airbags.

G.M. engineers knew of the switch’s problems for years before the company issued limited recalls of affected models, and the trouble remained obscured as G.M. went through a federally financed bankruptcy in 2009. In 2014, as links between the switch and an increasing number of fatal crashes became clear, the company was forced to acknowledge that it had failed to respond quickly, and it recalled 2.6 million vehicles.

Eventually, G.M. paid $900 million to settle a federal criminal investigation, and set aside $594.5 million for a fund to compensate victims of switch-related crashes. That fund was managed by the compensation expert Kenneth R. Feinberg.

The ignition-switch troubles damaged G.M.’s reputation, led some automakers to move more quickly to issue recalls, and prompted federal safety regulators to push harder for fast action when safety issues are suspected. In 2015, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles was fined $70 million for failing to execute 23 recalls involving 11 million vehicles.

In a statement on Monday, G.M. reiterated that allowing prebankruptcy claims to move forward “doesn’t change the landscape” regarding GM ignition-switch lawsuits. “The plaintiffs must still establish their right to assert successor liability claims,” the company said. “From there, they still have to prove those claims have merit.”

How much G.M. might be liable for is hard to calculate. In injury and death cases, plaintiffs have to show that a defective switch caused the accident in which a victim was injured or killed. Some cases have been dismissed at trial because crashes were found to be related to other causes, such as impaired driving, or other contributing factors.

Zimmer Biomet Lawsuit

Patients implanted with the Zimmer Biomet Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder System have reported fractures, impaired shoulder movement, permanent loss of shoulder function and other serious injuries requiring revision surgery. Unfortunately, patients forced to undergo revision surgery after their shoulder implant fails may suffer from a painful recovery, and the surgery itself may increase the risk of serious infection or death. If you or a loved one has suffered severe injuries allegedly associated with Zimmer Biomet’s Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder implant, consult an experienced product liability lawyer today to discuss the possibility of filing a defective shoulder replacement lawsuit against the manufacturing company.

What is the Zimmer Biomet Reverse Shoulder Implant?

Zimmer Biomet’s Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder Humeral is an artificial shoulder replacement device surgically implanted to help relieve pain, reduce weakness and restore arm movement in patients with rotator cuff tears who have developed arthropathy, a severe type of shoulder arthritis. The Reverse Shoulder implant is specifically designed for patients who are not candidates for a traditional shoulder replacement, and for those who have had a shoulder replacement that failed in the past. The implant uses components in a reverse fashion than normal shoulder operation, utilizing other muscles surrounding the rotator cuff to assist with movement, being that the rotator cuff is no longer able to function properly.

Why is There a Zimmer Biomet Shoulder Injury Lawsuit?

The Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder implant was developed by Zimmer Biomet to help patients with severe damage to their rotator cuff improve their strength, stability and range of motion, so that they could engage in more of their regular activities. However, these devices have been linked to a high rate of fracture possibly leading to other severe injuries. In fact, the complications associated with the Zimmer Biomet shoulder implant are so serious that patients who have received the artificial shoulder may end up needing additional surgeries to remove or replace the device in the event of a fracture. As a result, the Zimmer Biomet shoulder implant has been subjected to a Class I recall, which is the most serious type of recall, reserved for situations in which there is a reasonable probability that use of the device will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.

Side Effects Linked to Zimmer Biomet’s Shoulder Implant

Zimmer Biomet’s Reverse Shoulder implant has been linked to a higher than expected fracture rate, and patients who have been implanted with the artificial shoulder may require revision surgery to repair, remove or replace the device with another implant, should it fracture. Unfortunately, failed shoulder implants requiring additional surgeries may put patients at risk for serious side effects, possibly including:

  • Infection
  • Tissue and bone damage
  • Severe pain
  • Impaired shoulder movement
  • Permanent loss of shoulder movement
  • Death

For some patients who were implanted with a Zimmer Biomet shoulder, receiving a replacement device may no longer be an option, and for others, the risks associated with revision surgery are too great.

Links to Zimmer Biomet Studies Alleging Side Effects

Although research is limited regarding the outcomes of patients who undergo reverse shoulder arthroplasty procedures, it has been reported that device fractures may increase the risk of serious or life-threatening complications in patients implanted with a shoulder replacement system. In one study published in the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, researchers found that patients who experienced a fracture after shoulder replacement surgery “had a 6 times higher incidence of death within 30 days than the general population,” with the causes of death including cardiac, pulmonary and abdominal complications.

Recent Zimmer Biomet News

In February 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a Class I recall of Zimmer Biomet’s Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder, warning that the devices are prone to fracture, which may result in the need for revision surgery. According to the FDA, the Zimmer Biomet shoulder fractures at a higher rate than is stated in the device labeling, and this premature failure can lead to a permanent loss of shoulder function, infection, or in severe cases, death. Prior to the recall being announced by the FDA, Zimmer Biomet had sent an urgent notice to all customers in possession of Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder devices, asking that they identify and quarantine any affected implants in stock, so that the devices could be removed from the facility.

The first case against Zimmer Biomet over injuries allegedly caused by the manufacturer’s defective shoulder device was filed in 2014, by a man who was implanted with a Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder in one shoulder in 2009, and in the other in 2010. Within just a few years of implantation, both shoulder devices failed, and the patient was forced to undergo revision surgeries to replace the implants. Zimmer Biomet agreed to settle this case in 2016 for $350,000. As more information comes to light about the potential for Zimmer Biomet’s reverse shoulder replacement system to cause serious injuries, additional lawsuits are expected to be brought against the medical device maker in the future.

How Do I Join the Zimmer Biomet Lawsuit?

Device manufacturing companies like Zimmer Biomet must be held responsible for any defects in the design of their medical devices, especially when these devices fail prematurely and cause serious injuries to patients, and patients adversely affected by a faulty medical device deserve to be compensated for their injuries. If you or a family member received a recalled Zimmer Biomet Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder System, and you have since suffered a major side effect or required revision surgery to remove the defective implant, you be entitled to financial compensation for your injuries, medical expenses and other damages. Contact the knowledgeable Zimmer Biomet shoulder injury attorneys at the Monroe Law Group as soon as possible to discuss your options for legal recourse.

Hernia Mesh

You may have grounds to file a hernia mesh injury lawsuit against the device manufacturing company, in order to pursue the financial compensation you deserve for your injuries, medical expenses, and other damages.

What is Hernia Mesh?

Hernia mesh is a special type of medical device used to treat a hernia, which occurs when an organ, intestine or fatty tissue protrudes through a hole or weak spot in the surrounding muscle or connective tissue, typically at the abdominal wall. According to the FDA, the most common types of hernias are inguinal (inner groin), femoral (upper thigh/outer groin), incisional (through an incision or scar in the abdomen), ventral (in the abdominal/ventral wall), umbilical (at the belly button), and hiatal (inside the abdomen, along the upper stomach/diaphragm). Some of the most widely-used hernia mesh products include:

  • Atrium’s C-Qur hernia mesh
  • Ethicon’s Physiomesh hernia mesh
  • Ethicon’s Proceed hernia mesh
  • C.R. Bard’s Sepramesh hernia mesh
  • C.R. Bard’s 3DMax hernia mesh
  • C.R. Bard’s PerFix Plug hernia mesh
  • C.R. Bard’s Ventralex ST hernia mesh
  • C.R. Bard’s Ventralight ST hernia mesh
  • Medtronic’s Symbotex hernia mesh
  • Medtronic’s Parietex composite mesh device

Why is there a Hernia Mesh Lawsuit?

Hernia mesh is designed to provide additional support to weakened or damaged tissue, and many hernia mesh products contain a type of plastic known as polypropylene, which can cause serious complications if it comes in direct contact with the bowels. Rather than replace the polypropylene with another material, which would have to be extensively studied before being approved by the FDA, mesh manufacturers began to apply various types of coatings to their mesh products, known as composite mesh, in order to create a barrier between the polypropylene and the bowels. Unfortunately, research has shown that even composite mesh can cause serious complications, and a growing number of hernia mesh lawsuits are now being filed by patients who were implanted with a hernia mesh device, and have since suffered one or more serious adverse effects.

Side Effects Linked to Hernia Mesh

According to a report issued by the FDA in 2016, the most common side effects of hernia mesh are the following:

• Pain
• Infection
• Hernia recurrence
• Scar-like tissue that sticks together (adhesion)
• Mesh migration
• Blockage of the large or small intestine (obstruction)
• Bleeding
• Mesh shrinkage
• Abnormal connection between organs, vessels, or intestines (fistula)
• Fluid build-up at the surgical site (seroma)
• A hole in neighboring tissues or organs (perforation)

Links to Hernia Mesh Studies Alleging Side Effects

A number of studies published in recent years have highlighted the potential side effects of hernia mesh, one of the earliest being a study published in 2009, which examined the “problem of mesh shrinkage in laparoscopic incisional hernia repair.” According to the researchers, “The surgeon has to anticipate the significant mesh shrinkage in laparoscopic hernia mesh repair.” Another hernia mesh study was published in the journal Surgical Infections in August 2012, and found that the polypropylene plastic used in many hernia mesh products is “characterized by high tensile strength and vigorous tissue ingrowth, but is unsuitable for intra-abdominal placement because of its tendency to induce bowel adhesions.”

In March 2016, the journal Surgical Endoscopy published research comparing the outcomes of 25 patients implanted with Ethicon’s Physiomesh hernia mesh device and 25 patients implanted with Ventralight hernia mesh by C.R. Bard. According to the study findings, within six months of implantation, 20% of the Physiomesh patients suffered a hernia recurrence, compared to 0% of patients implanted with Ventralight hernia mesh. That same year, a study published in the medical journal Hernia highlighted possible mesh complications in 31% of the 632 patients studied for two years after being implanted with hernia mesh, including necrosis, cellulitis, seroma, hematoma and fistula.

Recent Hernia Mesh News

In April 2016, the FDA published an article on hernia mesh, identifying “pain, infection, hernia recurrence, adhesion and bowel obstruction” as the most common adverse events associated with hernia mesh implants, as well as other possible complications, like mesh migration and mesh shrinkage. Just one month later, Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon subsidiary removed its Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh device from the market, due to a high rate of complications reported in connection with the hernia mesh. Now, hernia mesh lawsuits involving Ethicon’s Physiomesh device and other hernia mesh products are beginning to move forward in courts across the country, as patients become aware of the potential for the mesh to cause serious side effects.

How Do I Join the Hernia Mesh Lawsuit?

Hernia repair is one of the most common types of surgeries performed in the United States, with nearly half a million patients undergoing surgical hernia repair every year. Unfortunately, patients who have been implanted with a hernia mesh device may be at risk for serious mesh complications, like mesh shrinkage, adhesion, hernia recurrence, pain, infection, and bowel obstruction. If you or a loved one underwent surgery to receive a hernia mesh device, and you have since suffered one or more alleged mesh side effects, contact an experienced hernia mesh injury lawyer today to discuss your legal options.

Eliquis

You may be entitled to compensation for your alleged Eliquis injuries, medical expenses, and pain and suffering, which you can pursue by filing an Eliquis lawsuit against Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

What is Eliquis?

Eliquis (apixaban) is a controversial blood thinner manufactured and marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, and prescribed to reduce the risk of strokes and blood clots in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, a medical condition characterized by an irregular heartbeat. Since it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2013, Eliquis has been touted as a superior alternative to warfarin, a blood thinner that has been on the market for decades, due to the fact that the new-generation drug, like its competitors Pradaxa and Xarelto, does not require regular blood monitoring during treatment.

The way Eliquis and other new-generation anticoagulant drugs work is by thinning patients’ blood, thereby reducing the likelihood of blood clot formation, and decreasing the risk of stroke. However, there is no approved antidote for Eliquis, which means doctors are unable to reverse the blood-thinning effects of the medication in the event of a severe bleeding problem. Prior to clearing Eliquis for the prevention of strokes and blood clots in a-fib patients, the FDA twice delayed the drug’s approval while waiting for the results of ARISTOTLE, a clinical trial that compared the safety and effectiveness of Eliquis to warfarin.

Why is there an Eliquis Lawsuit?

Eliquis and other new-generation blood thinners have been marketed as revolutionary drugs, promising patients significant benefits over older anticoagulants, like warfarin. However, unlike traditional blood thinners, Eliquis and other new-generation anticoagulants were approved without an antidote, which means there is no available drug to stop Eliquis’ potentially life-threatening bleeding problems. Patients taking Eliquis to reduce their risk of strokes and blood clots are now pursuing legal claims against Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb, alleging that the drug makers overstated the benefits of Eliquis, while downplaying its potential side effects.

Thousands of similar product liability lawsuits have been brought against the makers of Pradaxa (dabigatran) and Xarelto (rivaroxaban), two popular blood thinners that have been linked to severe bleeding events and deaths in users, alleging that the manufacturers of these controversial drugs failed to warn about their potential risks. In 2014, Boehringer Ingelheim settled more than 4,000 Pradaxa lawsuits for $650 million, and that same year, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated more than 500 Xarelto lawsuits alleging uncontrollable bleeding, brain hemorrhaging and intestinal bleeding in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Side Effects Linked to Eliquis

Because anticoagulant medications work by thinning the blood, they put users at a greater risk of uncontrollable bleeding complications, which can lead to hospitalization or death. The most common side effects allegedly associated with Eliquis treatment include the following:

  • Internal bleeding requiring hospitalization
  • Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding
  • Rectal bleeding
  • Kidney bleeding
  • Cerebral hemorrhages
  • Death

Internal bleeding is a known side effect of all anticoagulant drugs, including Eliquis, Pradaxa and Xarelto. Unfortunately, because there is no approved antidote for Eliquis, bleeding events associated with the drug cannot be easily controlled

Links to Eliquis Studies Alleging Side Effects

The deciding factor in the FDA’s approval of Eliquis, after delaying its clearance for nine months, was the ARISTOTLE study, which found that a-fib patients taking Eliquis had fewer strokes than those on warfarin. However, this study was found to be incredibly flawed, with serious problems that included inaccurate and missing data, failure to report deaths and other adverse events, patients receiving incorrect medications, and patients receiving incorrect dosages of medications. The study also found that both Eliquis and warfarin put users at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding and other potentially life-threatening side effects.

Recent Eliquis News

The first Eliquis lawsuit was filed in July 2015, on behalf of Donald Herschell, who died while taking the blood thinner, prescribed to him in 2014 to treat his irregular heartbeat. A few months after beginning treatment with Eliquis, Herschell reportedly suffered irreversible gastrointestinal bleeding, and died in a hospital the same day. Herschell’s wife, Deborah, filed the Eliquis lawsuit in the Southern District of New York, alleging that Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb, among other things, misled consumers and the medical community about the safety and effectiveness of Eliquis by failing to disclose errors in the ARISTOTLE study. At least two other Eliquis lawsuits have been brought against Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb, both in Alabama federal court.

How Do I Join the Eliquis Lawsuit?

Lawsuits brought against Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb over possible Eliquis side effects allege that the manufacturers misrepresented the safety of the medication in direct-to-consumer marketing campaigns, were negligent in their design, research, manufacturing and marketing of Eliquis, failed to warn about the risks associated with an anticoagulant drug that has no antidote, and fraudulently conducted a clinical trial in an effort to conceal the risk of Eliquis side effects. Patients who took Eliquis and have since suffered severe bleeding events requiring hospitalization, and those who have lost loved ones to alleged Eliquis bleeding complications, may be entitled to financial compensation for their injuries, emotional distress, lost earnings and economic damages. Contact a knowledgeable Eliquis attorney today to discuss the possibility of filing an Eliquis lawsuit against Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Demanda de Monsanto Roundup

¿QUÉ ES herbicida Roundup?

Roundup es un herbicida fabricado por Monsanto que contiene glifosato, que está diseñado para inhibir una enzima llamada EPSP sintasa, algo que las plantas necesitan para crecer. Sin EPSP sintasa, las plantas son capaces de producir otras proteínas esenciales para el crecimiento, y que finalmente se marchitan y mueren, en el transcurso de días o semanas. Roundup se pulveriza sobre el césped y cultivos para el control de muchas variedades de plantas exóticas invasoras, y el uso del herbicida se ha incrementado dramáticamente en los últimos años, debido en gran parte a la introducción de “Roundup Ready” cultivos de Monsanto, que están modificados genéticamente (OMG) a ser resistentes a glifosato.

¿POR QUE HAY UNA DEMANDA REDONDEAR.MAS?

A pesar de que Monsanto ha comercializado Roundup como un producto seguro, “biodegradable” y “medio ambiente”, numerosos estudios publicados en los últimos 20 años han demostrado que el herbicida en realidad puede estar ligada a un aumento del riesgo de cáncer y otros problemas médicos. Como resultado, los consumidores que han sido diagnosticados con enfermedades graves como el linfoma no Hodgkin después de haber sido expuestos al Roundup están llevando a cabo las demandas de responsabilidad por productos contra Monsanto, alegando que la compañía no proporcionó advertencias adecuadas sobre los posibles riesgos para la salud de Roundup, e intencionalmente datos falsos sobre la seguridad del herbicida

EFECTOS secundarios relacionados al Roundup herbicida Roundup está clasificada como la segunda césped y jardín herbicida más utilizado en los Estados Unidos, y se comercializa como fácil de usar y eficaz contra las malas hierbas invasoras, como los dientes de león, la hiedra venenosa y kudzu. De acuerdo con un creciente cuerpo de investigación, sin embargo, las personas que trabajan o viven cerca de granjas donde se utiliza el Roundup puede estar en riesgo de consecuencias graves para la salud, incluyendo:

  • Linfoma no Hodgkin
  • Enfermedad de Parkinson
  • Cáncer de pulmón
  • Cáncer de cerebro
  • Cáncer de tiroides
  • Enfermedad del riñón
  • Daño en el nervio
  • Leucemia
  • Enfermedad del corazón
  • Esclerosis múltiple
  • Enfermedad respiratoria
  • Defectos de nacimiento
  • Esterilidad

ESTUDIOS ROUNDUP que alegan Efectos secundarios En 1985, el New York Times publicó un informe citando a un comité de la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (EPA), que encontró que la exposición al Roundup herbicida puede causar cáncer, pero seis años más tarde, la EPA invierte sus conclusiones después de reevaluar el estudio que su conclusión original estaba basado en. Ahora la cuestión de la seguridad de Roundup está de vuelta en los titulares, y en marzo de 2015, la revista The Lancet Oncology publicó un informe de la Agencia Internacional para la Investigación sobre el Cáncer (IARC), que indica que el glifosato contenida en el Roundup es un “probable carcinógeno humano. “las investigaciones realizadas en el Paraguay también mostró que los bebés nacidos de madres que viven cerca de campos fumigados con glifosato tenían más del doble el riesgo de sufrir defectos de nacimiento.

RECIENTES resumen de noticias Un poco más de un año después de la IARC, que es el brazo de investigación del cáncer de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS), informó que el glifosato era posiblemente carcinógeno para los seres humanos, un juez de California rechazó una solicitud de Monsanto para desestimar una denuncia presentada por un hombre que afirmó que desarrolló el linfoma no Hodgkin, como resultado de estar expuesto a Roundup. Mientras tanto, el glifosato ha sido prohibido en Sri Lanka, debido a su presunto vínculo con la enfermedad renal, Brasil está considerando hacer lo mismo, México y los Países Bajos han impuesto nuevas restricciones al herbicida, y Canadá ha comenzado el proceso de considerar nueva Roundup reglamentos.

¿CÓMO unirse a la demanda REDONDEAR.MAS?

Si usted ha estado expuesto al Roundup, ya sea mientras se trabaja en o que viven cerca de una granja en la que se utiliza el herbicida potencialmente peligroso, y que ya ha sido diagnosticado con linfoma no Hodgkin, enfermedad renal, enfermedad del corazón u otra enfermedad grave, consultar el conocedor abogados de responsabilidad de productos en Monroe Law Group hoy para discutir cómo puede unirse a los litigios Roundup. Los abogados de Monroe Law Group tienen años de experiencia ayudando a los individuos persiguen una compensación económica por las lesiones y costosas facturas médicas asociadas con productos de consumo peligrosos, y que sólo se les paga si usted gana su caso.

No hay riesgo de que en consultar uno de nuestros abogados hoy. Póngase en contacto con Monroe Law Group ahora por teléfono al 619-777-1234 o por correo electrónico a intake@monroelawgroup.com para organizar para su libre, sin obligación de consulta.

Blood Thinners

If you took one of these blood thinners, and you have since suffered an irreversible gastrointestinal hemorrhage or another serious side effect, contact a reputable blood thinner injury lawyer to discuss your legal options. With an experienced attorney on your side, you can protect your legal rights and seek fair and timely reimbursement for your injuries and medical expenses.

What are Blood Thinners?

Blood thinners like Eliquis (apixaban), Pradaxa (dabigatran) and Xarelto (rivaroxaban) are prescription medications designed to reduce the risk of stroke and dangerous blood clots in patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation, a medical condition characterized by an irregular heartbeat. Blood thinners work on chemical reactions in the body to lengthen the amount of time it takes to form a blood clot, which decreases the risk of heart attack and stroke by reducing the formation of blood clots in the arteries and veins. While some blood thinners, like warfarin, have an antidote that can be administered to reverse the blood-thinning effects of the drugs in the event of a bleeding complication., many new-generation blood thinners, like Eliquis and Xarelto, have no antidote.

Why are there Blood Thinner Lawsuits?

Product liability lawsuits brought against the makers of Eliquis, Pradaxa, Xarelto and other new-generation blood thinners allege that the manufacturing companies designed, manufactured and marketed defective medications, failed to adequately warn users about the risks associated with their blood thinner drugs, and overstated the benefits of their medications, while downplaying their risks. As a result, former users of Eliquis, Pradaxa and Xarelto across the country are now pursuing legal claims against the makers of the widely-used blood thinners, seeking compensation for medical bills, lost wages, emotional distress, and other economic damages.

Side Effects Linked to Blood Thinners

By thinning the blood, anticoagulant medications like Eliquis, Pradaxa and Xarelto can effectively reduce the risk of blood clots forming and traveling to the brain, which may cause a stroke, but they have also been linked to serious bleeding problems, often resulting in hospitalization or death. Some of the most common side effects of blood thinners include the following:

  • Internal bleeding requiring hospitalization
  • Cerebral hemorrhages
  • Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding
  • Rectal bleeding
  • Kidney bleeding
  • Death

Links to Blood Thinner Studies Alleging Side Effects

A number of studies published in recent years have highlighted the potential side effects of popular blood thinners like Eliquis, Pradaxa and Xarelto, including research published in the British Medical Journal in April 2015, which found that patients taking Xarelto to reduce their risk of stroke and blood clots faced double the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding complications, compared to patients taking warfarin. In another study published in the medical journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes in January 2016, researchers found that while Pradaxa and warfarin offered similar stroke-prevention efficacy in patients with atrial fibrillation, the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was higher for patients taking Pradaxa than for those taking warfarin.

When considering approval for the new-generation blood thinner Eliquis, the FDA relied heavily on a clinical trial conducted in China called ARISTOTLE, which compared the safety and effectiveness of the new-generation blood thinner to warfarin, an older medication that has been the go-to blood thinner in the United States for decades. It was only after Eliquis was approved in 2013, that it was discovered the ARISTOTLE clinical trial was heavily flawed, with reports accusing researchers of concealing Eliquis side effects from test results, losing participants, changing and falsifying records, and failing to report a study participant’s death.

Recent Blood Thinner News

In July 2015, the first Eliquis lawsuit was filed against Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb, on behalf of Donald Herschell, a man who was prescribed Eliquis in 2014 to treat his irregular heartbeat. The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, alleged that, among other things, Pfizer and Bristol-Myers failed to provide adequate warnings about the risks associated with taking a blood thinner that doesn’t have an antidote. Just a few months after beginning treatment with Eliquis, Donald Herschell suffered an irreversible gastrointestinal hemorrhage and died in the hospital that same day.

Thousands of similar lawsuits have been brought against the makers of Pradaxa and Xarelto, two of the most widely-used blood thinners on the market, alleging that the prescription drugs increased the risk of serious and potentially life-threatening bleeding problems in users. In 2014, Pradaxa maker Boehringer Ingelheim agreed to pay $650 million to resolve more than 4,000 product liability lawsuits alleging gastrointestinal bleeding complications from Pradaxa, and that same year, more than 500 Xarelto lawsuits were consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the Eastern District of Louisiana, as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

How Do I Join the Blood Thinner Lawsuit?

According to the FDA, all blood thinners are known to increase the risk of bleeding, but new-generation blood thinners like Eliquis, Pradaxa and Xarelto have been linked to a higher-than-expected risk of internal bleeding, which is further complicated by the lack of an antidote. If you or a loved one has suffered severe gastrointestinal bleeding complications, and you believe a blood thinner like Eliquis, Pradaxa or Xarelto to be the cause, contact an experienced product liability lawyer today for legal help. You may have grounds to file a lawsuit against the drug manufacturing company, in order to pursue the financial compensation you deserve for your injuries, medical bills, pain and suffering, and other damages.

Monsanto Roundup Use Linked to Cancer

Monsanto Roundup Weed Killer Lawsuit // Monroe Law Group

The link between Roundup and cancer is believed to be associated with the pesticide’s active ingredient, glyphosate, which the IARC says is “probably carcinogenic,” or cancer-causing. Unfortunately, because non-Hodgkin lymphoma can have a latency period of five to 20 years, people exposed to Roundup weed killer through direct skin contact may have the cancer for years without even knowing it. The risk of cancer is present for individuals ranging from those who simply use the product in the yards or gardens to individual who work in landscaping or on farms.

How is Roundup Used?

Whether or not you’ve handled Roundup yourself, you’ve probably been exposed to the allegedly harmful herbicide, which has been used frequently in American households since the 1970s, and sprayed on millions of acres of farmland since the 1990s. According to a Consumer Reports article published in March 2015, “The herbicide glyphosate, known by the commercial name Roundup, is the most commonly used agricultural pesticide in the U.S. on farms.” What’s more, “Glyphosate use has increased tenfold in the past 20 years thanks to the rise in genetically modified corn and soy.” Most of these corn and soy crops are designed to be resistant to glyphosate, which means the pesticide can be sprayed liberally on fields, farms and even in home gardens, killing the weeds without risk to the crops.

Demandas de Monsanto Roundup

Recent research has found that Roundup may increase the risk of serious illnesses among people who come in direct contact with the herbicide, i.e. people who are spraying it, workers in the vicinity of fields where Roundup is sprayed, and people handling soil contaminated with Roundup. The scary part is, Roundup can also end up in our food, but we have no idea how much of it does, because the government doesn’t regularly test produce for it. And when Roundup and other pesticides are applied to farms, fields or home gardens, their residues can end up in our drinking water. People in close proximity to these areas can also breathe in some of the product without even realizing it. As Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., of Washington State University so aptly puts it, “When a single pesticide is used that widely, people can’t help but be exposed to it.” Sadly, this means that millions of people in the United States have been exposed to Roundup, many unknowingly, and may now be at risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma or other serious side effects.

What is Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma?

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a deadly form of cancer that begins in the lymphatic system, a disease-fighting network of organs and tissues that help rid the body of toxins and other waste, and can spread to other parts of the body via tumors that develop from lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell that is part of the body’s immune system. There are different types of NHL, the most common being follicular lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, both of which involve the body’s B cells, tasked with producing antibodies to help fight infections. Some common symptoms of non-Hodgkin lymphoma include:

  • Painless, swollen lymph nodes in the neck, groin or armpits
  • Chest pain, trouble breathing or coughing
  • Abdominal pain or swelling
  • Fever
  • Fatigue
  • Weight loss
  • Night sweats

For individuals with NHL that is aggressive or causes noticeable signs or symptoms, treatment may include chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or a stem cell transplant to kill off the lymphoma cells and replace them with healthy stem cells.

Consult the Knowledgeable Roundup Cancer Lawyers at Monroe Law Group Today

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a deadly type of cancer, and more than 72,000 new cases of NHL are expected to be diagnosed in the United States this year, with 20,000 or more patients expected to die from the disease. The Monroe Law Group is accepting claims from individuals that were exposed to Roundup 3 or more times in a year and exposure can be from industrial use or from use in your own home or garden. Occupations that require workers to handle Roundup directly or indirectly may face the greatest risk of NHL, including nursery or greenhouse workers, crop farm workers and laborers, soil scientists and surveyors, and agricultural equipment operators. Recent product liability lawsuits filed against Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, allege that the company knew about the risk of cancer for more than 30 years, but failed to provide warnings to workers in the agricultural industry. If you were exposed to Roundup weed killer at work in 2003 or later, and you were under 65 years of age at the time of your cancer diagnosis, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other related damages. Contact the experienced Monsanto Roundup attorneys at Monroe Law Group today to find out if you have a claim against Monsanto.

Monsanto’s Roundup Weed Killer is linked to a range of devastating side effects, including: cancer, kidney disease, nerve disorders, & birth defects. // Monroe Law Group

Dodge/Jeep/Chrysler Airbag Lawsuit

At issue is a potentially flawed computer, called an “occupant restraint control module,” that is supposed to work in tandem with a wire harness that detects frontal impacts. If they fail to work as designed, the airbags might not deploy, and the seatbelt pretensioners, which tighten the seat belts in event of a crash, might not work, Fiat Chrysler says.

Affected Vehicles

The vehicles involved in the recall include the following:

  • 2010 Chrysler Sebring midsize car
  • 2011 to 2014 Chrysler 200 midsize cars
  • 2010 to 2012 Dodge Caliber compacts
  • Dodge Avenger midsize
  • Jeep Patriot and Compass vehicles

Actual recall repairs aren’t ready to proceed. “We’re finalizing the remedy and customers will be advised when they may schedule service,” Fiat Chrysler spokesman Eric Mayne says. He said he couldn’t offer any more details on the crash that resulted in the three deaths.

Fiat Chrysler says the occupant restraint controllers and wiring harness cited in the recall are no longer used in its new vehicles.

Other defects associated with Jeep/Chrysler Vehicles

  • Airbags will not deploy after frontal collision
  • Sudden inability to steer your car while driving
  • Engine can suddenly shutoff while driving
  • Power brakes may suddenly stop working while driving

Pursuing Compensation for Injuries/Death Resulting from Jeep/Chrysler Defects

The long-term effects of an auto accident are not always immediately clear. If you or a loved one was in an accident in one of the affected vehicles, contact the knowledgeable defective product and personal injury attorneys at the Monroe Law Group today for legal help. You may be entitled to financial compensation for your injuries or losses, which you can pursue by filing a product liability lawsuit against Chrysler.

Alert: Due to statute of limitations, the time you have to pursue an injury or defective product 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.