All posts by Chris Powell

Chrysler recalling 1.9 million cars and SUVs due to airbag and seat belt defect linked deaths

September 16, 2016 Chrysler Airbag Recall, Chrysler Seat-Belt Recall, News

“The company is aware of three fatalities and five injuries that may potentially be related to this condition,” it released in a statement.

According to the automaker, it no longer uses the faulty equipment. The faulty seatbelts and airbags were used in some Chrysler and Jeep models manufactured from 2010 to 2014.

The recalled models are:

2010 Chrysler Sebring
2011-2014 Chrysler 200
2010-2012 Dodge Caliber
2010-2014 Dodge Avenger
2010-2014 Jeep Patriot SUV
2010-2014 Jeep Compass SUV

Most of the vehicles, approximately 1.4 million, were sold in the United States. The remainder were sold in Canada (143,000), Mexico (82,000) and the rest of the world (284,000).

This is not the first large scale recall announced by Fiat Chrysler this year

In April, the company also recalled 1.1 million cars and SUVs worldwide because of a gear selector problem that killed actor Anton Yelchin of Star Trek fame. The problem was a confusing gear selector that could lead some drivers to believe that their vehicle was in Park when it was not.

Risperdal

September 2, 2016 Gynecomastia, Risperdal

It is mainly used to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and irritability in people with autism. Thousands of boys and children have had to suffer through what would otherwise have been unnecessary surgeries and long-term medical care for these potentially permanent side effects.

Alleged Risperdal Side Effects

Serious Risperdal side effects include: Gynecomastia, Lactation, and Pituitary Tumors

Risperdal has been shown to increase the activity of a hormone known as prolactin which is produced by the pituitary gland. Prolactin levels are often at high levels in pregnant and nursing women which contributes to the creation of additional breast tissue and milk production. Risperdal has been shown to stimulate the pituitary gland and increase prolactin levels in males as well as females.

Risperdal appears to cause breast tissue development in males. This is known as gynecomastia. Risperdal has been reported to have caused gynecomastia in both male adults and children.

Premature breast tissue development has also been seen in girls, along with lactation developing in girls and women who are not pregnant. As with gynecomastia, premature breast tissue development in girls is permanent and may cause emotional trauma.

Risperdal has also been connected to the development of pituitary tumors. Increases in the size of the pituitary gland and tumor development caused by Risperdal can disrupt production of other hormone systems within the body. Risperdal use may be the cause of as many as 70% of all pituitary tumors that have been reported.

What is Gynecomastia?

Gynecomastia is the growth of female breasts on young males. The tissue is not cancerous, but it can be painful and can be embarrassing, especially for teenage males on whom it can have serious adverse psychological effects. For these reasons, surgery is often recommended. Severe gynecomastia may require a surgical procedure called a mastectomy, which involves the removal of breast tissue and excess skin. Because it involves glandular tissue, liposuction alone is usually not an effective treatment.

Link Between Risperdal and Gynecomastia

Researchers from the University of British Columbia examined a database of more than 400,000 young men between the ages of 15 and 25. They found that current users of Risperdal, including children and adolescent males, were five times more likely to develop breast tissue (gynecomastia) than those that did not take Risperdal or a similar drug. The findings were published in the August online edition of the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.

More recently, data from a review of national health claims found that older men also were linked to these issues. They had a 69-percent higher likelihood of developing gynecomastia if they took Risperdal. That study, also conducted by researchers from the University of British Columbia, looked at data from one million men in the United States.

Contact the Monroe Law Group today for expert Risperdal legal assistance

The Monroe Law Group is accepting cases now for those who suffered from side effects following use of Risperdal. The physical and emotional effects of these Risperdal side effects like gynecomastia can be devastating.

Alert: Due to statute of limitations, the time you have to pursue a Risperdal claim is limited. Call us right away at 866-308-1092, email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com, or complete the form on this page now.

Johnson & Johnson Hit With $70 Million Risperdal Verdict For Gynecomastia

September 2, 2016 Gynecomastia, Risperdal

A Philadelphia jury Friday found J&J officials failed to properly warn the young man and his family that Risperdal could cause him to grow female-size breasts and awarded him damages for emotional distress, said Steve Sheller, one of the teenager’s lawyers. The verdict is about 30 times larger than the $2.5 million awarded to an Alabama man in 2015 who sued J&J after developing size 46 DD breasts.

Officials of J&J’s Janssen unit, which sells Risperdal, said the drug’s safety label contained proper warnings about the breast side effect. The company intends to challenge the verdict.
“We believe this verdict is not justified by the evidence, and that the award is clearly excessive and far out of line with any factual assessment of actual damages,” Kristina Chang, a Janssen spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement.

Philadelphia Juries

The verdict comes as J&J still faces about 1,500 cases in state court in Philadelphia over claims of the Risperdal side-effect. The ruling is the fifth time the drugmaker has been found by Philadelphia juries to have failed to properly warn users and doctors about the breast-development risk.

“This verdict sends a clear message to J&J to step up and take responsibility for the damage they’ve done to these young men and to set up a global settlement program so the families don’t have to continue to suffer through these trials,” Sheller said in an interview.
In 2013, J&J agreed to pay $2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil probes into allegations that it illegally marketed Risperdal to children and the elderly. The settlement, which included marketing claims about two other J&J drugs, was one of the largest U.S. health-fraud penalties in history.

Past Verdicts

New Brunswick, New Jersey-based J&J has been settling some of the male breast cases filed in Philadelphia but has been hit with several verdicts, starting in February 2015 with the $2.5 million awarded to Austin Pledger, an autistic man from Alabama. In November, a separate jury in the same court later awarded $1.75 million to another Risperdal user who developed breasts.
Lawyers for the Tennessee resident, identified as A.Y. in court papers, told jurors he started taking Risperdal at age 5 to treat a psychiatric disorder and never received a warning about breast development. The teen is now 16, according to the filings.

They argued J&J officials intentionally kept pediatricians and psychiatrists in the dark about study results showing Risperdal caused abnormal breast development in boys so they’d keep writing prescriptions, Sheller said.

The case is A.Y. v. Janssen, No. 130402094, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas (Philadelphia).

Xarelto and Pradaxa Victims Encouraged by Previous Pradaxa Settlement

June 14, 2016 Internal Bleeding, News, Pradaxa, Xarelto

If you took Pradaxa or Xarelto in the past, and you have since suffered a major bleeding complication or another serious side effect as a result, consult an experienced product liability lawyer today for legal help. You may have grounds to file a Pradaxa or Xarelto lawsuit against the drug maker, in order to seek fair and timely reimbursement for your losses.

New-Generation Anticoagulant Drugs

Although Xarelto (rivaroxaban) and Pradaxa (dabigatran) have different active ingredients, both drugs belong to a new class of anticoagulant medications that have been hailed as a breakthrough treatment for patients whose only other option for fifty-plus years was warfarin. Unlike warfarin, which requires frequent blood tests to monitor how well the blood is clotting, and which has been the go-to blood thinner in the United States since the 1950s, Xarelto and Pradaxa were marketed from the very beginning as requiring less patient monitoring and carrying a lower risk of stroke and other side effects. What thousands of former Xarelto and Pradaxa users, many of whom have suffered life-threatening bleeding complications, now know, is that these claims are not entirely true.

Possible Side Effects of Pradaxa, Xarelto

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug administration (FDA) in 2010 and 2011, respectively, Pradaxa and Xarelto have been prescribed to millions of patients across the United States who suffer from atrial fibrillation, a medical condition characterized by an irregular heartbeat. Just two years after Pradaxa came to market though, the blood thinner was blamed for more than 500 patient deaths and thousands of bleeding complications, and that same year, the FDA reported that patients taking Xarelto were three times more likely to suffer fatal side effects than patients taking warfarin. In 2014, federal regulators required the makers of Xarelto to update the drug warning label to reflect the increased risk of “serious or fatal bleeding” from Xarelto.

Reversing Pradaxa, Xarelto Bleeding Events

The main problem with Pradaxa and Xarelto lies in the fact that when the drugs first became available for consumer use, they did not have an approved antidote, designed to reverse the blood-thinning effects of the drugs in the event of a bleeding problem. A Pradaxa reversal agent called Praxbind was approved by the FDA in October 2015, but the move came far too late for former Pradaxa users who suffered devastating bleeding side effects from the anticoagulant drug, or to the family members who lost loved ones to fatal Pradaxa bleeding events. To this day, there is still no approved antidote for Xarelto, which means doctors may be unable to control bleeding complications in patients taking the blood thinner.

As former Pradaxa and Xarelto users across the country become aware of the potential for the new-generation anticoagulant drugs to cause severe and potentially life-threatening bleeding complications, Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer face a growing number of product liability lawsuits alleging that they failed to adequately warn about the risks associated with the blood thinners. There have been more than 2,800 lawsuits filed over Xarelto side effects in federal courts across the country, all of which have been consolidated in an MDL overseen by U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon in the Eastern District of Louisiana, with the first trials set to begin in the spring of 2017.

Pursuing Compensation for Severe Bleeding Injuries

With a $650 million Pradaxa settlement agreement from Boehringer Ingelheim already in the books, it’s possible that Bayer will make a similar move and agree to settle the Xarelto product liability claims currently pending against the company. Contact the knowledgeable attorneys at the Monroe Law Group as soon as possible if you believe you have been adversely affected by bleeding complications of the controversial blood thinners Pradaxa or Xarelto.

There is no risk to you in consulting one of our lawyers today. Contact Monroe Law Group now by phone at 866-308-1092 or by email at intake@monroelawgroup.com to arrange for your free, no-obligation consultation.

FDA Approval of Pradaxa Reversal Agent is Too Late for Many Bleeding Victims

June 14, 2016 Internal Bleeding, News, Pradaxa

If you believe you have been harmed by uncontrollable bleeding side effects of Pradaxa or other devastating injuries, consult an experienced Xarelto/Pradaxa internal bleeding attorney today for legal help. You may be entitled to financial compensation for your bleeding injuries, hospital bills, lost wages, pain and suffering and other damages, which you can pursue by filing a Xarelto or Pradaxa bleeding lawsuit today.

Pradaxa and Xarelto Blood Thinners Used by Millions

When Pradaxa (dabigatran) first came to market in October 2010, it was aggressively marketed by its manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim, as a superior alternative to warfarin, which has been the go-to anticoagulant in the United States for decades. According to Boehringer, Pradaxa requires less patient monitoring during treatment and reduces the risk of strokes and other side effects, and many patients were switched to the new-generation blood thinner as a result of these claims. In 2011 alone, Boehringer Ingelheim spent $464 million to promote Pradaxa, and by August 2012, more than 3.7 million patients in the United States had filled prescriptions for the blood thinner.

Lawsuits Alleging Bleeding Injuries from Pradaxa and Xarelto

Perceived by many as a safe and effective anticoagulant drug, Pradaxa actually carries a serious risk of side effects, including hemorrhaging and uncontrollable internal bleeding, and just two years after its arrival on the market, the blood thinner was blamed for more than 500 patient deaths. It was stated that in 2011 alone, the FDA received 817 reports of adverse events involving Pradaxa, but a QuarterWatch report released that same year identified 3,781 serious adverse events from Pradaxa in 2011, 542 of which were fatal.

Thousands of victims of Pradaxa bleeding complications have taken legal action against Boehringer Ingelheim, filing product liability lawsuits alleging that the drug maker failed to adequately warn consumers and the medical community about the potential for Pradaxa to cause severe and potentially life-threatening bleeding problems. In May 2014, Boehringer settled more than 4,000 of these claims, agreeing to pay $650 million to resolve all of the Pradaxa multidistrict litigations (MDLs) that had been created.

FDA Approves Pradaxa Reversal Agent

It wasn’t until October 2015, that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finally approved a reversal agent called Praxbind (idarucizumab) as the first antidote for this new class of blood thinners, indicating that the drug can be used to safely reverse the blood-thinning effects of Pradaxa in the event of a bleeding complication. It is hoped that, as Praxbind becomes more widely available, the number of potentially life-threatening bleeding injuries from Pradaxa can be significantly reduced. According to one study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in June 2015, Praxbind may be able to stop Pradaxa’s blood-thinning effects within minutes, allowing doctors to treat bleeding side effects that occur among users. To this day, Xarelto still does not have an approved reversal agent, yet continues to be prescribed.

An Experienced Pradaxa Attorney Can Help

In the meantime, Boehringer Ingelheim has faced significant criticism and a number of lawsuits claiming that the drug manufacturing company never should have been allowed to sell Pradaxa without a reversal agent in the first place, and victims of Pradaxa bleeding complications may be entitled to financial compensation from Boehringer for their injuries and medical expenses. If you or a loved one took the anticoagulant Pradaxa in the past, and you have since suffered an uncontrollable bleeding side effect, contact the knowledgeable Pradaxa/Xarelto attorneys at the Monroe Law Group today at 866-308-1092, at intake@monroelawgroup.com, or by completing the form on this page to discuss your legal options. With a reputable product liability lawyer on your side, you can protect your legal rights and seek fair and timely reimbursement for your medical bills, losses, and/or pain and suffering.

Toyota/Takata Air Bag Recall

June 10, 2016 Defective Products, Takata Airbags, Toyota

To date, the faulty Takata-made air bags have been linked to more than 100 injuries and at least 13 deaths in vehicles manufactured by 17 different automakers. If you were injured in an accident involving a defective Takata air bag, consult an experienced attorney as soon as possible to discuss the possibility of filing a claim for compensation.

Defective Takata Air Bags

The Takata air bag recall is “the largest and most complex safety recall in U.S. history,” according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), affecting more than 100 million vehicles from more than a dozen auto manufacturing companies, including Honda, Ford, Toyota, Acura, BMW, Subaru, Mitsubishi and Mazda. The recalled vehicles were equipped with Takata-made air bags that, when deployed even in minor collisions, could deploy explosively and shoot metal shrapnel at drivers and passengers, turning what was intended as a safety feature into an extremely dangerous and potentially deadly vehicle component.

Millions of Vehicles Affected by Recall

In early May 2016, Takata Corporation reported that it was declaring another 35 million to 40 million U.S. air bag inflators defective at the urging of federal regulators, bringing the total number of recalled vehicles up to 100 million or more. According to Toyota, this latest air bag recall affects some, but not all, models of Matrix, Corolla, Yaris, 4Runner, Scion xB, Sienna, and Lexus ES, GX and IS vehicles manufactured between 2006 and 2011. Later that same month, Toyota announced that it would recall close to 1.6 million additional U.S. vehicles for front-passenger-side Takata-made air bags that could overinflate and rupture.

Problem With Air Bag Inflators

The root of the problem is the inflator used in Takata-made air bags, a metal cartridge loaded with propellant wafers, which can cause metal shrapnel to be sprayed into the passenger compartment of a vehicle if the inflator housing ruptures with explosive force in an accident. Although the various Takata air bag recalls affect vehicles manufactured and sold throughout the United States, Takata’s primary focus will be on replacing vehicles’ air bag inflators in geographic locations that experience persistent heat and absolute humidity, like Florida and Hawaii, as these factors are thought to have an effect on the performance of the inflators.

Takata Air Bag Settlement Agreement

Through various recall announcements, the Takata air bag recall has tripled in size over the past year, but there are still millions more vehicles out there with Takata air bags that have yet to be recalled. As a result of the air bag defect, the Japanese auto parts maker faces a growing number of lawsuits filed on behalf of vehicle owners who suffered severe injuries when their air bags ruptured, and on behalf of families who have lost loved ones in accidents with defective Takata air bags. In one highly-publicized air bag settlement, Takata agreed to pay $3 million in a lawsuit filed on behalf of a woman who was killed when the air bags in her Honda Accord ruptured in an accident.

The Experienced Takata Air Bag Attorneys at Monroe Law Group Can Help

If you or a loved one has been adversely affected by a defective Takata air bag, contact the knowledgeable product liability lawyers at Monroe Law Group today at to discuss your legal options. You may have grounds to file a lawsuit against Takata Corporation, in order to seek fair and timely reimbursement for your injuries, past and future medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, funeral expenses and other damages associated with the faulty air bags.

IVC Compensation

April 26, 2016 Defective Drugs

IVC Filter Compensation Application

IVC Filter Lawsuits are being Filed to Help Cover Medical Costs, Other Expenses for Patients with Defective Devices

April 26, 2016 IVC Filter, News

An IVC filter is a medical device designed to be inserted into the inferior vena cava, an integral part of the cardiovascular system that carries blood from the lower body to the heart.

When blood clots put people at risk for pulmonary embolism or stroke, in many cases an inferior vena cava filter is inserted into the inferior vena cava in an attempt to catch any migrating blood clots and to prevent any blood clots from reaching the lung.

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 866-308-1092 or email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com for your free no obligation case evaluation.

Pulmonary embolus (PE) remains the leading cause of preventable mortality in surgical patients and the third leading cause of death in hospitalized trauma patients. This has contributed to the 4-fold rise in use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters following Food and Drug Administration approval of the first retrievable (or optional) IVC filter in 2003.

What are some of the complications associated with IVC filters?

Although IVC filters are efficient at preventing PE, they are associated with an increased risk of venous thrombosis, and other complications including failure to retrieve the devices within the recommended period of time making removal dangerous and the odds of other complications much higher.

Device is not removed with recommended time period
Device becomes dangerous or impossible to retrieve
Perforation of the vena cava or blood vessels
Migration of the filter to other parts of the body
Filter fracture
Filter embolization
Wrongful death

Why is IVC filter retrieval becoming such a serious concern?

Filter retrieval rates remain less than 50%, with many reports citing an incidence less than 15%. Some reasons for failure of retrieval are related to prolonged indwelling time with associated potential for complications and medical comorbidities, which may also increase the risk of the procedure and/or increase mortality in cases of subsequent PE. However, one of the primary reasons the devices are not being removed is refusal on the part of many physicians. Even though the FDA has recommended the devices be removed, many physicians have deemed it to dangerous to attempt.

According to the Journal of Vascular Surgery, “For patients with retrievable IVC filters in whom
the transient risk of PE has passed, quantitative decision analysis suggests the benefit/risk profile begins to favor filter removal between 29 and 54 days after implantation.”

What does this mean?

To put it simply, any patient that is given a IVC filter as a protective measure against temporary risk for pulmonary embolism and blood clots, essentially anyone that is not at permanent risk for blood clots, should have these devices removed at the most 54 days after their implant. Unfortunately, the majority of these devices that were implanted in patients were not removed and this has created a serious problem. After this 29-54 day window, the devices often become extremely difficult if not impossible to remove safely. In fact, there are a limited number of doctors that are willing to perform these procedures due to the risk associated with the removal. And many patients that wish

A study appearing in April 2013 in JAMA: Internal Medicine suggested that actual retrieval of devices designed to be retrieved occurs in fewer than 15 percent of IVC filter patients.

Unfortunately, many IVC filter recipients have experienced complications with their IVC filters. These complications range from migration of the IVC filter itself, when the spider-like arms intended to catch the blood clots and hold the filter in place ending up failing and the filter is free to move to other areas sometimes piercing veins or other organs such as the lungs or heart.

In some cases the resting place is the heart itself. At other times, the IVC filter has become embedded into the body in ways that it becomes dangerous to impossible for doctors to safely retrieve.

The FDA recently released an alert to physicians who implant inferior vena cava (IVC) filters and clinicians responsible for the ongoing care of patients with these devices recommending that they should remove the devices within a specified period of time to protect against them having complications and keeping removal manageable.

FDA Alert – Removing Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: FDA Safety Communication

The FDA has received reports of adverse events and product problems associated with IVC filters. Types of reports include device migration, filter fracture, embolization (movement of the entire filter or fracture fragments to the heart or lungs), perforation of the IVC, and difficulty removing the device. Some of these events led to adverse clinical outcomes. These types of events may be related to how long the filter has been implanted. Other known long-term risks associated with IVC filters include lower limb deep vein thrombosis and IVC occlusion. For patients with retrievable filters, some complications may be avoided if the filter can be removed once the risk of pulmonary embolism has subsided. The FDA is concerned that retrievable IVC filters, when placed for a short-term risk of pulmonary embolism, are not always removed once the risk subsides.

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

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 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 866-308-1092, email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com, or complete the form on this page now.

Nexium

April 20, 2016 Defective Drugs, Defective Products, Nexium, Prilosec OTC, Proton Pump Inhibitors

Nexium and Prilosec are proton pump inhibitors or PPIs used to treat acid reflux. Recent studies have linked long term use of these medications to increased risk of kidney disease by 20-50%. Frequent use of Nexium or Prilosec OTC can allegedly lead to kidney disease and renal failure, which can cause serious injury or death. Symptoms of Kidney disease include fever, blood in the urine, nausea or vomiting, weight gain, and skin rash, and regular users of Nexium for heartburn should be aware that these symptoms may indicate renal failure caused by use of their acid reflux medication.

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.

Latest News

April 2016 — The Journal of the American Society of Nephrology recently published a study that allegedly links long-term use of proton pump inhibitor antacid medications such as Nexium and Prilosec OTC with a 96% increased risk of kidney failure as well as a 26% increased risk of chronic kidney disease.

Nexium Side Effects

Some of the most serious side effects of Nexium, Prilosec OTC and other PPIs include:

Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD)
Nephritis
Kidney failure
Bone fractures
Low magnesium levels
Tetany (muscle spasm)
Infections
Arrhythmia and heart problems
Seizures

Do you have a lawyer representing you in this matter?

The Monroe Law Group is accepting Nexium, Prilosec and other PPI inhibitor cases for individual that have suffered Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), Nephritis, or Kidney failure in all 50 states. If you or loved one has been diagnosed with Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), Nephritis, or Kidney failure, you should contact our expert Nexium lawsuit attorneys immediately for a free, confidential case consultation. Please call 866-308-1092 or email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com to speak to one of our attorneys, or complete the free case evaluation on this page. Our cases are always free unless there is a settlement or verdict in your favor.

Monsanto Roundup Lawsuit

April 15, 2016 Defective Products, Monsanto

What is Roundup Weed Killer?

Roundup is an herbicide manufactured by Monsanto that contains glyphosate, which is designed to inhibit an enzyme called EPSP synthase, something that plants need in order to grow. Without EPSP synthase, plants are unable to produce other proteins essential to growth, and they eventually wither up and die, over the course of days or weeks. Roundup is sprayed on lawns and crops to control many varieties of invasive exotic plants, and use of the herbicide has increased dramatically in recent years, due largely to the introduction of “Roundup Ready” crops by Monsanto, which are genetically modified (GMO) to be resistant to glyphosate.

Why is there a Roundup Lawsuit?

Despite the fact that Monsanto has marketed Roundup as a safe, “biodegradable” and “environmentally friendly” product, numerous studies published over the past 20 years have shown that the herbicide may actually be tied to an increased risk of cancer and other medical problems. As a result, consumers who have been diagnosed with serious illnesses like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after being exposed to Roundup are now pursuing product liability lawsuits against Monsanto, alleging that the company failed to provide adequate warnings about the potential health risks of Roundup, and intentionally falsified data on the weed killer’s safety.

Side Effects Linked to Roundup Weed Killer

Roundup is ranked as the second most widely used lawn and garden weed killer in the United States, and is marketed as easy-to-use and effective against invasive weeds like dandelions, poison ivy and kudzu. According to a growing body of research, however, people who work on or live near farms where Roundup is used may be at risk for serious health consequences, including:

Lymphoma
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
Parkinson’s disease
Lung cancer
Brain cancer
Thyroid cancer
Kidney disease
Nerve damage
Leukemia
Heart disease
Multiple sclerosis
Respiratory illness
Birth defects
Infertility

Roundup Studies Alleging Side Effects

In 1985, the New York Times published a report citing an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) committee, which found that exposure to Roundup weed killer may cause cancer, but six years later, the EPA reversed its findings after reevaluating the study that its original conclusion was based on. Now the question of Roundup’s safety is back in headlines, and in March 2015, the journal The Lancet Oncology published a report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), indicating that the glyphosate contained in Roundup is a “probable human carcinogen.” Research conducted in Paraguay also showed that babies born to mothers living near fields sprayed with glyphosate had more than double the risk of suffering birth defects.

Recent Roundup News

A little over a year after the IARC, which is the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), reported that glyphosate was possibly carcinogenic to humans, a California judge rejected a request by Monsanto to dismiss a complaint brought by a man who claimed that he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as a result of being exposed to Roundup. In the meantime, glyphosate has been banned in Sri Lanka, due to its suspected link to kidney disease, Brazil is considering doing the same, Mexico and the Netherlands have imposed new restrictions on the herbicide, and Canada has begun the process of considering new Roundup regulations.

How Do I Join the Roundup Lawsuit?

If you have been exposed to Roundup, either while working on or living near a farm where the potentially dangerous herbicide is used, and you have since been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, kidney disease, heart disease or another serious illness, consult the knowledgeable product liability lawyers at Monroe Law Group today to discuss how you can join the Roundup litigation. The attorneys at Monroe Law Group have years of experience helping individuals pursue financial compensation for injuries and costly medical bills associated with dangerous consumer products, and we only get paid if you win your case.

There is no risk to you in consulting one of our lawyers today. Contact Monroe Law Group now by phone at (855) 222-3888 or by email at intake@monroelawgroup.com to arrange for your free, no-obligation consultation.