Boston Injury Lawyer Blog

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in a case that could determine whether drug makers should receive a similar protection from lawsuits to the one the court granted to medical device makers last week.

The main issue, according to Justice Stephen Breyer, is whether a drug, “on balance,” will save people or hurt people. Breyer says he believes that the Food and Drug Administration, and not a jury, is solely responsible for policing the pharmaceutical industry. He expressed concern over allowing a jury of 12 people randomly selected to rule on such lawsuits.

If the Supreme Court rules along with Breyer, thousands of personal injury lawsuits filed against drug manufacturers could be thrown out.

The issue in this case, Warner-Lambert v. Kent, is restricted to examining a Michigan statute that prevents personal injury lawsuits against drug manufacturers unless the injured person can prove that the company purposely kept information from the FDA that would have then barred the drug from the marketplace. A majority of the arguments on Monday centered on whether (and how much) of the Michigan law should be struck down.

The Supreme Court, however, is also scheduled to hear arguments in Levine v. Wyeth. It is during this case that the will be asked to rule on whether FDA approval bars personal injury lawsuits.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of medical device maker Medtronic Inc. The court said that FDA approval of a medical device trumps state tort lawsuits filed against medical device makers for products that have already passed a rigorous FDA approval process.

The ruling may benefit other medical device manufacturers that have been named in products liability and wrongful death cases by injured patients.

If you or someone you love has been injured by a medical device or by a dangerous or a defective drug in Massachusetts, one of our Boston, Massachusetts products liability lawyers can explore your legal options with you.

U.S. Supreme Court considers extending protections to drug makers, International Herald Tribune, February 26, 2008

Top court rules for Medtronic in devices case, Washington Post, February 20, 2008

Related Web Resources:

Warner-Lambert Co. v. Kent, Oyez.org

Riegel v. Medtronic, Justia US Supreme Court Center

Continue reading "Supreme Court Considers Whether To Provide Drug Manufacturers Injury Lawsuit Protection" »

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark:

A Texas woman has filed a products liability lawsuit against Advanced Medical Optics Inc. for its contact lens disinfectant Complete Moisture Plus Multi-Purpose solution’s failure to properly disinfect her contact lenses.

Kimlyn Cline, a contact lense wearer for 35 years, says she always cleans and disinfects her contact lenses properly and that the infection in her left eye occurred because she used the solution. The damages she is seeking include medical costs, loss of income, pain, vision problems, mental and emotional trauma, disfigurement, and legal fees.

A corneal specialist diagnosed Cline’s condition as Acanthamoeba Keratitis. She must now undergo corneal transplant surgery, but she cannot do this until her infection clears.

In her defective products lawsuit, Cline claims that the risk of infection from using Complete Moisture Plus Multi-Purpose solution is grossly disproportionate to the risks associated with using other solutions. She says that Advanced Medical Optical should have acted to reduce or eliminate these higher risks.

Cline alleges that the company was aware the solution was defective but still designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold its lens solution to wearers without including a failure to warn of the risk of infection or providing proper instructions for use. Grounds for the lawsuit include strict liability involving design, manufacturing, and marketing, negligence, and breach of implied warranties.

In November 2006, Advanced Medical Optical recalled 18 lots of Complete Moisture Plus Multi-Purpose solution and then announced a full recall of the product line last May after the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that the solution was a high risk for causing eye infections.

Acanthamoeba Keratitis is a rare eye condition that occurs primarily in contact lens users. Failure to treat the infection can lead to vision loss and severe scarring.

Our Boston, Massachusetts products liability law firm represents clients injured because of a defective product.

Kilgore woman claims contact solution failed to disinfect, files product liability suit against maker, The SouthEast Texas Record, February 20, 2008

Acanthamoeba Keratitis, EyeMDLink.com

Related Web Resources:

Update on Serious Eye Infections Associated with Soft Contact Lens Solution, CDC.gov

Advanced Medical Optics Inc.

Continue reading "Woman Files Products Liability Lawsuit Against Contact Lens Solution Manufacturer Advanced Medical Optics " »

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark:

The Federal Drug Administration wants people to know that the anti-wrinkle drug Botox has been linked to several botulism related-deaths. A number of these victims were children. The warning comes three weeks after
Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, cited 180 reported incidents—including 16 deaths—where people who had used Botox experienced pneumonia, difficulty swallowing, or fluid in the lungs. Botox Cosmetics and its competitor Myobloc were named in last week’s FDA warning.

Botox causes nerves to relax because the botulinum toxin injected into a specific area of the body blocks nerve impulses. Sometimes, however, the toxin can spread to other areas of the body, which can weaken or paralyze the muscles needed to breathe or swallow. This can be fatal.

The children who died after using Botox were given the drug to treat spasticity problems in their legs. The FDA is also looking at other reported incidents involving adults that used Botox. One woman who used Botox to hide her forehead wrinkles reportedly had to be hospitalized.

Many adults use Botox injections on their faces to minimize the presence of wrinkles. Botox is also used to treat a number of spasm conditions, such as severe neck spasms or cervical dystonia.

Although Botox labels include a warning about possible botulism toxin and how this can lead to death, the labels only link these potential side effects to people with neuromuscular illnesses.

The FDA is warning Botox users to seek medical attention immediately if they experience any botulism symptoms, including:

• Slurred speech
• Problems swallowing
• Problems breathing
• Problems holding up one’s head
• Muscle weakness

Drug manufacturers are supposed to provide proper warning of any and all potential side effects from taking a drug. When failure to provide sufficient warning results in injury or death, the drug maker can be held liable in a products liability or wrongful death lawsuit. One of our Massachusetts defects products lawyers would be happy to speak with you about your case.

FDA: Botox linked to kids’ deaths, MSNBC/AP, February 8, 2008

Related Web Resources:

Group seeks Botox warning following 16 deaths, MSNBC/Reuters, January 24, 2008

Botox, FDA

Continue reading "FDA Warns of Connection Between Botox and Botulism-Related Deaths " »

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark:

The parents of Zachary Cohn, a six-year-old boy who died last July after his arm got stuck in an underwater suction drain in the deep end of their swimming pool, have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the town of Greenwich, Connecticut, Shoreline Pools, as well as several other defendants.

According to the lawsuit, Zachary’s father Brian and another person tried to pull the boy free but the suction of the drain was too strong. The mechanism to shut off the suction could not be located in time. His mother, Karen Cohn, turned off the power to the house and the pool but it was too late.

According to the wrongful death lawsuit, the swimming pool did not meet minimum safety standards and had a number of serious code violations—all of which increased the chances of fatalities occurring in the pool.

Brian and Karen Cohn say that Shoreline Pools has violated building code requirements before. The couple named the city of Greenwich in the lawsuit because they believe that it should have performed a more thorough inspection before issuing a permit for the family's pool.

Since 1985, there have been at least 48 fatalities involving swimming pool drains. Many others have been seriously injured in the 158 pool drain entrapment incidents that have been reported. There are more 5.4 million hot tubs and over 8 million pools in the United States.

Drowning in swimming pools is a leading cause of death among children. There is no justification for why a child or anyone else should die in a swimming pool accident because the pool drain was defective, dangerous, or malfunctioned or because the pool failed to meet safety standards. Depending on the specifics of the injury case, the injured party may have grounds to file a premises liability case or a products liability one.

In Massachusetts, a personal injury attorney can help you file your injury or wrongful death case.

Former Connecticut hedge fund exec sues in son's drowning, Reuters, January 29, 2008

Parents of pool drowning victim file suit, USA Today, January 29, 2007

Kerry Co-Sponsors Plan to Prevent Swimming Pool Drownings, Senator John Kerry, July 19, 2007

Related Web Resources:

A National Study of Drain Entrapment and Pool Safety Measures, USA Safekids.org

Pool Drain Systems, How Stuff Works

Continue reading "Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed in Death of Boy Who Drowned In Pool Drain Suction Accident " »

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Products Liability , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Battat Inc. are recalling 125,000 Battat Magnabild Magnetic Building Systems due to concerns that if young children swallow more than one of the magnets, they may experience intestinal blockages or perforations or even die.

Two sets are affected by the recall: the 180-piece Magnabild Magnetic Building System (BB1431H) and the 293-piece Magnabild Magnetic Building System (BB1502H).

So far, no injuries connected to these toy items have been reported. There have, however, been 16 reported incidents of the smaller magnets falling out of the building pieces.

An earlier recall in March 2006 involving a different magnetic building set brand highlights the hazards that magnetic toys can pose to young children. That recall, involving, all 3.8 million Magnetix Magnetic Building Sets by Mega Brands Inc. was issued after one child died and 34 others were injured.

Magnetic toys can become dangerous to a child if he or she swallows more than one magnet. Once in a child’s intestine, the magnets can be drawn to one another, which can result in blocks or perforations that can be deadly. Young children and toddlers who are prone to put things in their mouths are at highest risk of serious injuries.

If your child suffered serious injuries or died because he or she swallowed a magnetic toy or another item, you should speak with a Boston, Massachusetts products liability lawyer right away.

In 2007, the CPSC named magnets as one of the five hidden home hazards. Over eight million magnet toys have been recalled since 2005.

Toy manufacturers are supposed to make sure that their toys will not cause injury or death to children. When a defect in the products or in the product design causes serious harm, the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer may be held liable through products liability claims and lawsuits.

Battat Toy Magnet Sets Recalled in the U.S., Reuters, January 23, 2008

New recall of magnetic toys highlights warning on dangers, Consumer Reports.org, January 24, 2008

Related Web Resources:

Magnetic Dangers, Washington Post, April 20, 2007

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Continue reading "CPSC Recalls Toy Magnetic Construction Sets to Protect Children from Personal Injury" »

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injuries to Minors , Products Liability

Bookmark:

Kenneth McClain, a Denver, Colorado resident, has filed a personal injury lawsuit because he says that the artificial butter flavoring on microwave popcorn gave him bronchiolitis obliterans, also called “popcorn lung.” He filed his lawsuit against Kroger Company, Inter-American Products Inc., and Dillon Companies Inc, which owns the King Soopers grocery store.

McClain would eat two bags a day. He is the only consumer who has been diagnosed with “popcorn lung,” which can sometimes develop in factory workers involved in the testing of microwave popcorn.

Ingesting flavoring chemicals is believed to be one cause of bronchiolitis obliterans. People with this type of lung damage have problems breathing because their lung’s airways have been destroyed.

At the Gilster Mary Lee Factory in Missouri, 10 workers had to be put on lung transplant waiting lists. 30 workers injured at the plant filed personal injury lawsuits. One of the workers, Eric Peoples, was awarded $18 million. His wife was awarded $2 million in compensatory injury damages.

The artificial butter flavoring that is believed to sometimes cause “popcorn lung” is called Diacetyl, which is a naturally occurring compound. In December, the countries four largest microwave popcorn manufacturers said they were changing their recipes and removing Diacetyl from almost all of its products.

Products Liability
The product manufacturers are legally obligated to make sure that no one is harmed by their products. An person injured by a defective product can file a products liability claim on the grounds of strict liability, negligence, or breach of warranty.

“Products” includes all consumer products, from tangible products, such as electronic devices, motor vehicles, and toys, to pets, real estate, writing and instructional materials, gases, and chemicals.

Product retailers and distributors can also be named as defendants in defective products lawsuits.

In the Boston area and everywhere else in Massachusetts, a Massachusetts products liability lawyer can help you with your case.

Denver Man Files Lawsuit Claiming Microwave Popcorn Damaged His Lungs, Fox News, January 15, 2008

$20 million awarded in popcorn lawsuit, AP, March 15, 2004

Related Web Resources:

Popcorn May Cause Lung Disease, ABCNews.com, September 6, 2007

Products Liability Law, Cornell Law School

Continue reading "Man Files Personal Injury Lawsuit Claiming that Eating Microwave Popcorn Injured His Lungs" »

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark:

An 87-year-old man from Norfolk County is the third elderly person to die in connection with drinking contaminated milk. Health officials are citing Whittier Farms, a dairy located in Massachusetts, as the source of the tainted milk. The other two people who died were also elderly men, ages 78 and 75. They were both Worcester County residents.

The three men had listeriosis, which is a bacterial infection that can be contracted from drinking tainted milk and raw foods and certain processed foods that are not properly cleaned or prepared. Two other listeria cases also being linked to the contaminated milk from the dairy involve pregnant women. One woman, 34, miscarried. The other woman, a 31-year-old Middlesex County resident, had the infection but delivered a healthy baby.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describes listeriosis as a “serious infection that can be caused by eating food contaminated with the bacterium Listeria monocytogenes.” Symptoms of listeriosis can include muscle pains, fever, diarrhea, nausea, balance problems, neck problems, confusion, and convulsions.

Newborn babies, pregnant mothers, the elderly, and other adults with weakened immune symptoms are the ones most susceptible to contracting listeriosis. A pregnant woman with listeriosis can end up miscarrying, delivering prematurely, or delivering a stillborn baby.

The contaminated milk from Whittier Farms is believed to have come from the dairy’s Shrewsbury plant, just 35 miles from Boston. Health inspectors are examining the dairy’s cooling and bottling machinery to try and determine the source of the contamination. Whittier Farms is family owned and operated and is known for delivering people’s milk in glass bottles to their doorsteps.

Some 2,500 people are afflicted with listeriosis every year, with 500 of these people dying from the infection.

Manufacturers and producers of food products must ensure that their food products are properly processed or prepared. If failure to do leads to injury or death, the injured party or surviving family members can have grounds for a products liability claim or a wrongful death lawsuit. A Boston, Massachusetts products liability lawyer can handle your claim or lawsuit for you.

Bacteria-Contaminated Milk from Massachusetts Dairy is Blamed for 3 Deaths, Miscarriage, FoxNews.com, January 8, 2008

Listeriosis, CDC.gov

Infection tied to tainted milk kills a 3d man, Boston.com, January 8, 2008

Related Web Resource:

Whittier Farms

Continue reading "Norfolk County Man is Third Fatality Linked to Tainted Milk From Whittier Farms Dairy in Massachusetts" »

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark:

Medtronic Inc. will settle 2682 lawsuits filed by plaintiffs who claim that the implantable biomedical device maker knew that its Marquis line of implanted cardiac defibrillators was defective but didn't do enough to pull the devices off the market or let patients know there were safer alternatives.

As part of the agreement, Medtronic will settle the cases for $95.6 million and pay $18.5 million in lawyers’ fees. Medtronic, however, says it is not admitting liability or affirming to the plaintiffs’ claims by settling the products liability lawsuits.

In a statement made by Medtronic's Cardiac Rhythm Disease Management Unit President Pat Mackin affirmed that Implantable defibrillators made by Medtronic are “the most reliable ICD’s ever manufactured."

Implantable defibrillators are tiny devices that deliver shocks so that the heart doesn’t beat too fast. They are implanted in the chests of patients that are at risk of a fatal heart attack—the number one cause of death in America.

In 2005, Medtronic announced that its Marquis line defibrillators could have a battery shorting problem. 11,000 patients had these defibrillators surgically removed and replaced. 2,000 similar surgeries took place overseas.

In 2004, Medtronic recalled two heart defibrillators that could have been related to at least one injury and four deaths because of the defibrillators’ failure to charge properly.

In 2007, Medtronics announced a global recall of its heart-defibrillator wires because the lead used to connect the defibrillators to the heart was fracturing. 235,000 patients were affected by this recall.

If you have been injured or your health has suffered or someone you love has died because they used a defective product anywhere in the Boston, Massachusetts area, you should contact a Boston products liability lawyer immediately.

Medtronic to settle ICD lawsuits for $114 million, Reuters, December 21, 2007

Medtronic to Pay $114 Million In Settling Heart-Device Suits, WSJ, December 21, 2007

Related Web Resources:

Medtronic

A Pivotal Medical-Device Case, The New England Journal of Medicine, January 3, 2008

Continue reading "Medtronic to Pay $114.1 Million to Settle Implanted Cardiac Defibrillator Lawsuits" »

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark:

Massachusetts middle school student Kevin Lou, 13, was awarded $2.85 million in Worcester Superior Court for the escalator accident that mangled his right hand nine years ago. Kevin and his family filed the personal injury lawsuit against Otis Elevator Co, the U.S. company whose name was on the escalator that caused his injury. The escalator was manufactured in China.

Kevin doesn’t remember the accident that occurred while he was in China visiting his grandmother. Since then, however, he has had to endure five surgeries to save his hand. He will need more surgeries to hopefully regain full use of his hands.

In 1998, Kevin and his grandmother were at a department store in China. While riding the elevator down to the second floor, he fell. His hand slipped into the opening between the stationary side panels and the moving escalator. The next escalator step that hit his stuck hand caused the injury.

The Worcester jury awarded Kevin $2.85 million. His parents were awarded $250,000 each. Following the verdict, Kevin’s father, Jidong, says he will start looking for a microsurgeon who specializes in hands.

Prior to the injury accident, Kevin was right-handed. Now, he can only use his right hand with the help of his left. He is unable to bend his fingers or pick up objects.

Manufacturers are supposed to make sure that the products that they produce are safe for use. If a person is injured because a product manufactured by a company is dangerous or defective, the injured party may have grounds to file a products liability claim or lawsuit.

There are three kinds of products liability cases:

Strict Liability: Lets a plaintiff recover compensation for an injury caused by a defective product just by proving that the manufacturer made or sold the product that injured him or her.

Negligence: Plaintiff must prove that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the manufacturer breached that duty, and that this negligence injured the plaintiff.

Breach of Warranty: The defendant failed to properly warn the plaintiff of the potential dangers of using the product.

Worcester teen awarded $2.85m after escalator accident, Boston Herald.com, December 22, 2007

Jury awards $2.85M to child, Telegram.com, December 22, 2007

Related Web Resources:

Products Liability Overview, Justia

OTIS

Continue reading "Worcester Jury Awards Massachusetts Teen $2.85 For Escalator Accident that Mangled His Hand" »

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark:

New research shows that the popular diabetes drug Avandia may cause bone thinning, which could lead to osteoporosis and bone fractures. Although GlaxoSmith-Kline has admitted that women who take Avandia have a higher risk of bone fractures, this most recent study is the first one to explain the connection between bone fractures and the drug.

A report published in Nature Medicine says that researchers gave the drug to mice. The drug increased activity among the cells that degrade bones. The National Institutes of Health and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute funded the research.

Avandia, also called Rosiglitazone, is used for long-term care of patients with Type II diabetes (adult-onset diabetes). Type II diabetes is the most common type of diabetes. Some 21 million people in America are afflicted with diabetes.

If you or someone you love has sustained an injury or become sick because of a prescription drug, you should speak with a dangerous drug attorney right away to determine whether you have grounds to file a products liability claim or lawsuit against the manufacturer.

Drug manufacturers are supposed to including a warning of all the health risks that come with taking a prescription drug. If you were not warned of the health risks or side effects beforehand, you may be able to sue the manufacturer for personal injury.

Although the FDA is there to regulate the safety of prescription and over-the-counter drugs, it is not uncommon for a drug to be found "dangerous" only after a number of people have already sustained serious injuries or died as a result of taking the medication.

GlaxoSmithKline is already facing numerous dangerous drug lawsuits because it had not previously warned users that the drug could place them at risk of heart disease. One lawsuit is seeking more than $100 million in damages for hiding the risks associated with Avandia. One wrongful death lawsuit in involves a Texas widow who says the drug killed her husband. Warnings of heart failure risks was recently added to the Avandia drug label.

Diabetes drug tied to bone fractures, Baltimore Sun, December 3, 2007

Diabetes Drug to Warn of Risk to Heart, AP, November 15, 2007

Related Web Resource:

Avandia

Continue reading "Diabetes Drug Avandia May Cause Bone Fractures" »

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark:

The Consumer Product Safety Commission says that 40,400 children were treated for ATV accident-related injuries at emergency rooms throughout the United States in 2005.

According to a study presented by Dr. Cheten Shah of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital, the injuries sustained by children on ATV’s can be potentially disabling. Dr. Shah presented the study’s findings at the annual Radiological Society of North America meeting.

500 children and teenagers that were injured in ATV accidents were examined as part of the study. Here are some of the findings:

• The number of ATV injuries doubled from 1998 to 2006.
• 208 out of the 500 children and teens examined for the study sustained bone fractures as a result of ATV accidents.
• Head injuries—66 bleeding in the brain injuries, 85 skull fractures, and 59 children with brain damage—were also common.
• 12 cases resulted in amputations.
• 6 children died (the study did not include children who died before arriving at a hospital)
• Some of these injuries resulted in permanent damage or disabilities.
• The eyes of two children were so badly damaged that they were removed.
• There were 5 spinal cord injuries and 21 spinal fractures.
• 70 kids sustained injuries to the liver, spleen, pancreas, or kidneys.
• 36 children sustained lung injuries.

The youngest child examined for the study was a 6-month-old who rode the ATV while his mother drove. The toddler sustained a thigh injury. The youngest driver, a 2-year-old, lost four toes. Another 2-year-old driver experienced severe brain hemorrhaging and now has a permanent disability.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is recommending that kids younger than 16 years of age not be allowed to operate or ride an ATV. Experts say children lack the coordination skills to operate an ATV safely. Supporters of ATV riding, however, claim that ATVs are safe for use by children if they wear the corrective protective gear and are supervised properly.

If your child was injured because of a defective or dangerous product, you may have grounds to file a products liability claim or lawsuit. The manufacturer of any product is required to warn users of any known hazards that can result in injury to death. “Failure to warn” can also be grounds for a products liability claim.

Experts: ATVs not safe for children, USA Today, November 26, 2007

Doctor warns ATVs not safe for children, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, December 3, 2007

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Recreational Vehicle Safety Laws

All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Safety, NSC.org

Continue reading "Study Reports that Kids Riding ATVs at High Risk of Injuries" »

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injuries to Minors , Products Liability

Bookmark:

World Against Toys Causing Harm (WATCH), a Boston, Massachusetts based toy safety group has released its yearly “!0 Worst Toys” list. The list points out the hidden dangers in certain toys. This toy list is updated every year. This year, however, it is especially significant in light of all the toy recalls that have taken place—particularly involving toys with lead in them that were made in China.

Toy injuries that are caused by a defective or dangerous toy because a manufacturer of a toy was negligent can be grounds for a products liability claim or lawsuit. A personal injury lawyer can help you file your personal injury claim or lawsuit.

The list includes:

1. Go Diego Go Animal Rescue Boat, made by Fisher-Price: This toy was recalled because they were painted with what could be excessive quantities of lead.

2. Sticky Stones, made by GeoCentral: A pontential choking hazard and cause of internal injuries.

3. Jack Sparrow’s Spinning Dagger, made by Zizzle: May cause eye injuries and does not come with a manufacturer warning.

4. L’il Giddy Up’ Horse – Sassy Pet Saks, made by Douglas Co.: The Beads on the this toy can be removed and swallowed easily and can also lead to aspiration injuries.

5. Dora the Explorer Lamp, made by Funhouse: A potential cause of burns and electric shock.

6. Spider Man 3 New Goblin Sword, made by Hasbro: May cause impact injuries, including facial injuries.

7. Hip Hoppa, Made by Spin Master Ltd. and Vivid Imaginations Ltd.: Could lead to head injuries and fall injuries.

8. B'Loonies Party Pack, made by Ja-Ru Inc.: Flammable chemicals could lead to ingestion and burn injuries.

9. My Little Baby Born, made by Entertainment Inc.: Zapf Creations AG: The plastic pacifier attached to ribbon that comes with the doll is a choking hazard.

10. Rubber Band Shooter, made by Simple Toys LLC: May cause serious eye injuries.

Toy Injury Statistics:

• About 155,400 children under 15 years of age received medical care at hospitals in 2003 because of toy-related injuries.

• 64% of toy-related fatalities that year were caused by choking.

• Nearly 50% of toy-related injuries are sustained by children injured on the head or face.

• Drowning, falling off a toy, and suffocation are other common causes of toy related injuries.

Toys to avoid this holiday season, Boston.com, November 14, 2007

Toy Safety - Injury Statistics and Incidence Rates, Children's Hospital, Central California

Related Web Resources:

World Against Toys Causing Harm

Hey, you'll poke your eye out with that thing!, MSNBC, November 14, 2007

Continue reading "Boston-Based Advocacy Group Releases its Annual List of Dangerous Toys " »

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark:

Merck & Co. says it will set up a $4.5 billion fund as part of its settlement agreement to resolved the majority of the personal injury claims and lawsuits that have been filed by thousands of plaintiffs who had heart attacks and strokes because they used the painkiller Vioxx. The settlement agreement applies to lawsuits filed in U.S. state and federal courts—ever since Merck withdrew the once-popular painkiller off the market.

In order for the settlement to go into effect, however, at least 38,000 of the plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits against Merck must sign the agreement and its terms. As part of the settlement, any law firm representing plaintiffs in a Vioxx claim or lawsuit must recommend the deal to all clients who are eligible for compensation from the settlement fund.

The settlement amount that a plaintiff can receive would depend on the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and the amount of time that he or she took Vioxx.

The New York Times says that about 47,000 plaintiffs are part of the 27,000 products liability lawsuits that have been filed against Merck. The average plaintiff could likely receive a little over $100,000 before legal fees and expenses are deducted. Plaintiffs do not have to take part in the agreement, but they could find it a challenge to pursue the case if some of the country’s top litigation attorneys agree to the settlement.

Merck negotiated the settlement with a group of lawyers that represent the majority of the plaintiffs.

If the agreement were to go into effect, the total amount that Merck would pay would not exceed $4.5 billion. The pharmaceutical giant says it plans to defend itself against claims that are not part of the settlement. So far, Merck has won 11 Vioxx lawsuits and lost five others.

Vioxx was recalled in 2004 after studies confirmed that use of the painkiller could increase the risk of stroke and heart attack. Merck withdrew the painkiller from the market on September 30, 2004.

By initially defending itself aggressively by going to trial rather than settling early, Merck was able to reveal some of the weaknesses in cases filed by many plaintiffs who could not prove that taking Vioxx caused their heart attack or stroke. A verdict in August 2005, however, held Merck liable for the death of a man who died after taking Vioxx for less than 12 months. Merck was ordered to pay his widow Carol Ernst $253.5 million.

Merck agrees to pay $4.85 billion in Vioxx settlement, Boston.com/Reuters, November 9, 2007

Related Web Resources:

Timeline Of Vioxx-Related Events, CBS News, April 5, 2006

Merck and Company

Continue reading "Merck Reaches $4.5 Billion Agreement in Vioxx Lawsuits" »

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark:

A jury in Los Angeles says Dole Food Co. Inc. must pay six Nicaraguan farm workers $3.2 million dollars for injuries they say they sustained on the job over 30 years ago.
The six men say they became sterile because Dole used a banned pesticide at the plantations where they were employed. The injuries occurred in Central America.

The jury is back in court to determine whether Dole and Dow Chemical Co, a codefendant in the lawsuit, should be asked to pay punitive damages to punish them for wrongful actions.

The LA jury determined that DBCP was defective and its benefits—increases banana harvests up to 20%--were outweighed by the risks.

So far, courts in Nicaragua have returned over $600 million in judgments against Dole and other companies but none of the money can so far be collected. The jury determined that Dole intentionally did not tell workers of the risks associated with the chemical. Dow must pay 20-40% of the awards owed to each worker. Dole claims that it did not hide the risks from workers.

Dow, the co-defendant in the case, claims that DBCP is not defective if used properly.

Four more personal injury lawsuits involving thousands of workers from Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, and Guatemala are pending. The workers say that they too were injured because Dole used DBCP at their plantations.

Internationally, tens of thousands of workers have filed lawsuits over the use of the chemical.

DBCP is banned almost everywhere in the world. The chemical is used to fight pests that attack fruit tree roots. The chemical also is known to make rabbits—and, allegedly, human beings sterile.

The Environmental Protection Agency says DBCP can cause cancer and liver and kidney damage especially if a person is exposed to high levels for an extended time period.

Companies in the United States stopped using DBCP after workers at a Lathrop, California plant appeared to become sterile after working with the chemical. The workers injured at the Lathrop plant sued the company they were working for and won. DBCP was pulled off shelves in 1979.

If you or someone you love has sustained serious injury or harm because of a defective or dangerous product, you may be able to file a products liability lawsuit against the party responsible for your injuries.

Jury considers punitive damages against Dole, Los Angeles Times, November 6, 2007

Dole must pay farmworkers $3.2 million, Los Angeles Times, November 6, 2007