(619) 777-1234

Recent Home Buyers May Face Potential Formaldehyde Dangers in New Homes

News Lawsuits Latest News

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.

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.


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.


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 866-308-1092 o por correo electrónico a intake@monroelawgroup.com para organizar para su libre, sin obligación de consulta.

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

“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.

Xarelto and Pradaxa Victims Encouraged by Previous Pradaxa Settlement

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

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.

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

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.

Why File an IVC Filter Lawsuit // Monroe Law Group

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.

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

Latest News on Testosterone Treatments

At the same time, additional studies have established a potential connection between testosterone therapy and a number of other severe health complications, such as osteonecrosis and bone damage.

If you believe you have been adversely affected by side effects of testosterone therapy, contact the Monroe Law Group today by completing the case evaluation form on this page, calling 866-308-1092, or emailing us at intake@monroelawgroup.com to discuss your legal options. You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries and medical bills, which you can pursue by filing a low-T treatment lawsuit against the drug manufacturing company.

What is Testosterone Replacement Therapy?

Testosterone replacement therapy, also known as testosterone therapy or low-T treatment, is a type of medical treatment commonly prescribed to men diagnosed with hypogonadism or another disease associated with abnormally low levels of testosterone. Testosterone is a male hormone produced primarily in the testicles that helps maintain sex drive, sperm production, muscle strength, red blood cell production and bone density, among other male attributes. With age, testosterone levels typically decline, usually about one percent a year after age 30 or 40, and while some men suffer low testosterone levels due to a medical condition, like hypogonadism, others experience a decline in testosterone associated with the normal aging process.

Testosterone Therapy News "Low T" Lawsuit // Monroe Law Group

Hypogonadism is a disease characterized by the body’s inability to produce normal amounts of testosterone, and typically occurs due to a problem with the testicles or with the pituitary gland that controls the testicles. Testosterone treatments like AndroGel and Testim can improve the signs and symptoms of low-T levels in men with hypogonadism, but testosterone replacement therapy is not recommended for men experiencing signs of naturally declining testosterone, like reduced sexual desire, infertility, reduced muscle strength and decreased energy levels. However, some older men without hypogonadism begin taking low-T treatments like AndroGel, under the impression that the medication will help make them feel younger and more vigorous as they age.

Low-T Treatments Linked to Serious Side Effects

Not only is testosterone replacement therapy not approved for use among otherwise healthy men experiencing naturally declining testosterone, but the treatment can actually have serious side effects for these patients. According to a growing body of research, men using prescription testosterone skin patches, topical creams, gels or injections may face a significantly increased risk of severe side effects, like stroke, heart attack, blood clots, venous thromboembolism, prostate cancer, decreased sperm production, irregular heartbeat and even death. In one of the most recent TRT studies, published in the medical journal Orthopedics in December 2015, researchers found an increased risk of osteonecrosis and bone damage in men taking low-T products.

Testosterone Therapy Warnings from the FDA

It was in January 2014 that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its first warning about “the risk of stroke, heart attack and death in men taking FDA-approved testosterone products,” and in March 2015, the FDA issued another drug safety communication, this time requiring the manufacturers of all prescription low-T products to update their drug labels to include information about “a possible increased risk of heart attacks and strokes in patients taking testosterone.” At that time, the FDA warned that prescription TRT products are approved only for men who have low-T levels caused by certain medical conditions, like hypogonadism.

Pursuing Compensation for TRT Injuries

Prescription testosterone products have become more and more popular in the United States, as older men search for ways to reverse the effects of the natural aging process, and sales of low-T products skyrocketed from $18 million in 1988 to $1.6 billion in 2011. Between 2001 and 2011, the percentage of men over 40 receiving testosterone replacement therapy tripled. Despite the rise in popularity of testosterone drugs like AndroGel and Testim, medical professionals disagree over the benefits of the medications, and more than 1,000 TRT lawsuits have been filed on behalf of men who suffered serious complications while using low-T products. Contact a knowledgeable testosterone therapy lawyer today if you believe you or a loved one has been harmed by side effects of testosterone replacement therapy.

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.

Latest News on Testosterone Therapy - Heart Attack, Stroke, and Blood Clots // Monroe Law Group