fbpx

1.800.597.1870

Free Case Evaluation

Category: Featured Story

Hernia Mesh Litigations Set to Begin After COVID-19 Delays

Posted on

After a delay due to COVID-19 restrictions, the lawsuits surrounding defective Hernia Mesh products are beginning to move forward around the country. Major manufacturers, including Bard, Ethicon, Atrium, and Covidien, are involved in separate litigations, although it’s likely that advances against one manufacturer will impact judiciary decisions against another. 

The Bard Hernia Mesh litigation is the biggest (based on market share) and focuses on the PerFix, 3DMax, Marlex, Kugel, Composix, Ventralex, Ventrio, Sepramesh, and Ventralight product lines. The primary state litigation is based in Rhode Island (where Bard is headquartered) and began on April 6, 2021, while the federal Multi-district Litigation (MDL) is occurring in the Southern District of Ohio and began on April 19, 2021. 

The Ethicon Hernia Mesh litigations primarily focus on Physiomesh and include claims against both the Proceed and Prolene product lines. Set to begin on June 7, 2021, the major state litigation will take place in New Jersey (home to the company’s headquarters), while the federal MDL is scheduled in the Northern District of Georgia. 

The Atrium Hernia Mesh litigations mainly focus on the C-Qur product line. The major state litigation will take place in New Hampshire (where the company’s former headquarters were located), while the federal MDL is scheduled for the District of New Hampshire. The first in-person federal trial will begin on July 7, 2021 with additional state and federal bellwether trials to follow.

The Covidien Hernia Mesh litigations, the smallest of the group, involve the Parietex and Gore-Tex product lines. The state litigation will occur in Massachusetts (where the company was previously headquartered), but no trial date is currently set.

Hernia Mesh

Have you been injured by Hernia Mesh?

Click here to download your FREE E-Book and to see if you qualify to join current active lawsuits.

Lung Injuries in Teens Linked to Vaping Marijuana

Posted on

A recent study reveals that teens are nearly twice as likely to report “wheezing or whistling” in the chest after vaping marijuana than after smoking cigarettes or e-cigarettes. While we know that cigarettes and e-cigarettes are unhealthy and damaging to the lungs, it appears that vaping marijuana has even worse health implications. 

Study author Carol Boyd, co-director of the Center for the Study of Drugs, Alcohol, Smoking & Health at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, was surprised by these results. “We thought we would find more negative respiratory symptoms in both cigarette and e-cigarette users,” she explains. “I recommend parents treat all vaping as risky behavior (just like alcohol or drug use).”

Vaping marijuana is also associated with a newly-identified lung disease called EVALI, which stands for e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury. This dangerous illness was first identified in August 2019 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) after seemingly-healthy young people from around the country were hospitalized for severe and even fatal lung infections. 

A link between the condition and vaping was soon discovered with blame being placed on the use of vitamin E acetate. This sticky oil substance, which is added to thicken or dilute the oil in cartridges, is most often used in vaping products with THC, the primary psychoactive compound in marijuana. “According to the CDC, 84 percent of the EVALI cases were associated with cannabis-containing products,” Boyd says. 

Vaping and Juul

Update: Tort Lawsuit Against 3M Begins This Month in Pensacola

Posted on

Later this month, a mass tort lawsuit is set to begin in Pensacola, Florida, against 3M for the defective ear protection that the company made for the military, which led to hearing loss in servicemen and women. As of January 2021, there were more than 220,000 service members who have filed suit. 

WUWF News (NPR for Florida’s Great Northwest) spoke to Bryan Aylstock, an attorney at the law firm Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis, and Overholtz in Pensacola for more insight into the suit. “We now have a trial set for late March involving three service members,” he shares. “And then two subsequent trials involving single service members — what we call ‘bellwether trials,’ to help the parties and the court determine what the evidence is, what the facts show, and how to proceed following those trials.”

When looking at mass tort versus a class-action lawsuit, Aylstock explains that the two take very different approaches. “We’re signing up individual service members who have hearing loss or tinnitus following the use of these defective earplugs, and we’re individually filing their lawsuits. So there are an awful lot of them — probably too many to ever go to trial,” he says. “But they are treated individually; their cases rise and fall on their own merit.” In these instances, the attorneys are able to talk to the individuals involved and understand their experiences. This sort of interaction typically doesn’t occur in a class-action lawsuit, which is not an individualized process. 

Were You Issued 3M Combat Arms Earplugs and Now Suffer Tinnitus and/or Hearing Loss?

It’s important to note that this lawsuit is only against 3M, not the government or military. In 2018, 3M settled with the government for over nine million dollars in a case concerning the fraud they committed for selling defective earplugs to the military. “They were selling these products for a huge profit to the U.S. military for 15 years without telling them the truth about how the earplugs really worked and the defects that the company executives knew about,” Aylstock adds. 

In an e-mail statement submitted to WUWF News, 3M said: “We are confident in our case and look forward to defending against plaintiff’s claims at the upcoming trial. As we will demonstrate, the Combat Arms Earplugs Version 2 product was not defectively designed and did not cause injuries. The Combat Arms Earplugs Version 2 product is effective and safe to use, and its design reflected the direction and feedback of individuals acting on the military’s behalf.”

Additional Reading:

https://druglawjournal.com/dlj_legal/veterans-suing-3m-over-claims-of-defective-earplugs/
https://druglawjournal.com/dlj_device/3m-combat-arms-earplugs/

Seresto Flea and Tick Collars Linked to Nearly 1,700 Pet Deaths; Class-Action Lawsuit Filed Against Elanco Animal Health

Posted on

A class-action lawsuit has been filed against Elanco Animal Health (Elanco), the seller of Bayer’s Seresto flea and tick collars. Two pet owners claim that their dogs either died or developed problems as a result of the collars and argue that Elanco misrepresented the safety of its product. 

Days before the lawsuit was filed, a congressional subcommittee called for Elanco to voluntarily recall the collars due to reporting by the Midwest Center for Investigative Report and USA TODAY. Unfortunately, Elanco declined this request. 

These investigations revealed that the flea and tick collars, which are the top-selling collar of their kind on Amazon, have been linked to nearly 1,700 pet deaths. Moreover, since 2012, when the product first hit the market, the Environmental Protection Agency has received over 75,000 incident reports related to pet and human health issues following the use of the collar.

The Seresto collars have two active pesticide ingredients: imidacloprid and flumethrin. In a recent interview, Colleen Dekker, a spokesperson for Elanco, said that the company has looked into reports of deaths and illnesses after wearing the collar and found no evidence that either of these active ingredients is at fault. 

However, the two plaintiffs — Faye Hemsley from Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, and Aitana Vargas from Los Angeles, California — both blame the Seresto flea and tick collars for their pets’ ailments. Hemsley purchased the collar in January 2020 for her terrier mix, who suddenly died the following month. Vargas bought the collar for her Siberian Husky in November 2020, and two months later, a cancerous lump appeared on the dog’s neck near where the collar sits. 

Spencer Sheehan, a consumer liability attorney based in New York, believes that this lawsuit is likely the first of “dozens.”

Class Action Lawsuit and FDA Probe Against Real Water

Posted on

A recent class-action lawsuit filed by Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC (Milberg) argues that Nevada-based Real Water causes liver failure and other side effects due to unidentified toxins. Real Water, a product of Affinity Lifestyles.com, Inc., calls its drinking water the “healthiest” available thanks to its alkaline properties and infusion with negative ions. The company argues that its water can “help your body restore balance and reach its full potential.” 

According to Milberg’s complaint, Real Water failed to disclose that its product is defective, causing health problems such as fever, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, jaundice, liver failure, and hospitalization. The lawsuit specifically states that Real Water has “caused liver damage to children due to non-viral hepatitis.” In November 2020, a two-year-old from Southern Nevada was taken to the hospital for liver malfunction. It was determined then that multiple children had had similar problems with the only common link being the consumption of Real Water. 

The Food and Drug Administration began an investigation on March 16th, and only five days later, on March 21st, they issued a warning that consumers, restaurants, and retailers should not drink, cook with, or serve Real Water. In concordance with the FDA’s statement, a company press release revealed that Real Water has asked stores to immediately stop selling its products. 

Johnson & Johnson Sets Aside Nearly $4 Billion for Talc Verdict

Posted on

A securities filing from late February shows that Johnson & Johnson (J&J) allotted $3.9 billion for litigation expenses in 2020 and that the funds were “primarily associated with talc-related reserves and certain settlements.” This figure is almost twice as much as the $2.1 billion that the company agreed to set aside in November. 

A 2018 Reuters report first revealed that J&J has known for decades about asbestos in the talc. Internal records and trial testimony, among other evidence, show that their raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos from 1971 to the early 2000s. The pharmaceutical company now faces 25,000 lawsuits by former users of its baby powder who believe that the asbestos-laced talc caused their cancers.

The drugmaker is currently appealing to the Supreme Court against a $2.12 billion verdict in Missouri to women who believe their ovarian cancer developed due to asbestos in J&J products. Additionally, in November, a New York state judge ordered the company to pay $120 million to a Brooklyn couple after the woman argued that her cancer was a result of asbestos exposure from their baby powder.

Johnson & Johnson to Stop Selling Talcum Powder
Talcum Powder Lawsuits and Legal Updates
Talcum Powder

Update: Tort Lawsuit Against 3M Begins This Month in Pensacola

Posted on

Later this month, a mass tort lawsuit is set to begin in Pensacola, Florida, against 3M for the defective ear protection that the company made for the military, which led to hearing loss in servicemen and women. As of January 2021, there were more than 220,000 service members who have filed suit. 

WUWF News (NPR for Florida’s Great Northwest) spoke to Bryan Aylstock, an attorney at the law firm Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis, and Overholtz in Pensacola for more insight into the suit. “We now have a trial set for late March involving three service members,” he shares. “And then two subsequent trials involving single service members — what we call ‘bellwether trials,’ to help the parties and the court determine what the evidence is, what the facts show, and how to proceed following those trials.”

When looking at mass tort versus a class-action lawsuit, Aylstock explains that the two take very different approaches. “We’re signing up individual service members who have hearing loss or tinnitus following the use of these defective earplugs, and we’re individually filing their lawsuits. So there are an awful lot of them — probably too many to ever go to trial,” he says. “But they are treated individually; their cases rise and fall on their own merit.” In these instances, the attorneys are able to talk to the individuals involved and understand their experiences. This sort of interaction typically doesn’t occur in a class-action lawsuit, which is not an individualized process. 

 

Were You Issued 3M Combat Arms Earplugs and Now Suffer Tinnitus and/or Hearing Loss?

 

It’s important to note that this lawsuit is only against 3M, not the government or military. In 2018, 3M settled with the government for over nine million dollars in a case concerning the fraud they committed for selling defective earplugs to the military. “They were selling these products for a huge profit to the U.S. military for 15 years without telling them the truth about how the earplugs really worked and the defects that the company executives knew about,” Aylstock adds. 

In an e-mail statement submitted to WUWF News, 3M said: “We are confident in our case and look forward to defending against plaintiff’s claims at the upcoming trial. As we will demonstrate, the Combat Arms Earplugs Version 2 product was not defectively designed and did not cause injuries. The Combat Arms Earplugs Version 2 product is effective and safe to use, and its design reflected the direction and feedback of individuals acting on the military’s behalf.”

Additional Reading:

Veterans suing 3M over claims of defective earplugs

3M Combat Arms Earplugs

Zantac Cancer Claims Invalid Under Federal Law

Posted on

A federal judge recently threw out multiple claims by the plaintiffs in the Zantac cancer multi-district litigation (MDL) because the claims, which were filed under state laws, were barred by federal law.

MDL 2924, which now has more than 500 cases, was created in February 2020. These lawsuits focus on the belief that Zantac contains an undeclared carcinogen. Allegations made against the drug manufacturers include personal injury; negligence; violation of consumer protection laws; and design defects.

The recent ruling filed under state laws argued that the manufacturers of ranitidine (generic Zantac) created a flawed product and failed to notify consumers about it. The court ruled these claims invalid, effectively preventing manufacturers from addressing the defective design or the lack of consumer warning. Of course, the plaintiffs’ attorneys disagreed, arguing that the manufacturer could have changed the expiration date on the packaging without violating the law. Had the drug expired sooner, it would’ve been less harmful, as evidence shows that carcinogen levels in the drug increase over time. 

The federal judge also accused the plaintiffs of making conflicting Zantac claims within the same case (which is not allowed based on court precedent). The plaintiffs argued that the drug was defective at the time of manufacture, which opposes the claim about expiration dates. If the drug was in fact harmful on the production date, then an earlier expiration date would not make it safe. These claims, both under state law, were dismissed.

While it is unclear how the case will proceed, the plaintiffs now have 30 days to file new, narrower claims. Some reports suggest that they will focus on possible legal labeling changes that should’ve been made by the manufacturers. Additionally, there are still pending claims under federal law that have not yet been addressed by the judge. 

Additional Reading:

Keeping Up To Date On Potential Dangers of Medications

Zantac Lawsuits & Updates

Zantac (Ranitidine) Commonly Asked Questions

Zantac Cancer Risk

3M Earplug Hearing Loss Trial Scheduled for Spring 2021

Posted on

3M is currently facing over 200,000 product liability lawsuits in the federal court system, all involving similar allegations that the company distributed defective Combat Arms earplugs that left military service members at risk for permanent hearing loss, tinnitus (the perception of ringing), and other issues. The first trial, which involves three separate claims from veterans, is scheduled to go before one jury in April 2021.

The 3M Combat Arms earplug version 2 (CAEv2) was issued to all U.S. military service members from 2003 to 2015. Thanks to the dual-ended or reversible design, the earplugs were meant to block all sound when inserted one way and provide selective filtering when inserted the other way (i.e. reduce loud, potentially-damaging sounds but allow spoken commands). 

The lawsuits all raise similar allegations that 3M failed to share critical safety information and necessary instructions for proper use with the U.S. government. Given the similar natures of the lawsuits, federal multi-district litigation (MDL) was created last year, centralizing the claims before U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers in Florida and allowing for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Although these outcomes will not be binding for future plaintiffs, they will be closely watched to determine how juries may respond to the evidence that links the 3M earplugs to hearing loss and other problems. They may also have a major impact on potential settlement negotiations. 

Bayer Issues New Proposed Settlement in Cases Linking Roundup to Lymphoma Cancer

Posted on

Multiple jury verdicts in the Bay Area confirmed the link between the widely-used herbicide Roundup (a Monsanto product) and lymphoma cancer, and now, parent company Bayer is hoping to resolve future lawsuits with a proposed $2 billion settlement — its second attempt at reaching an agreement. Product users who were later diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma would receive up to $200,000 in compensation — or more in “exceptional circumstances.” The settlement would remain ongoing for four years, but a judge could approve additional time and/or increase the $2 billion budget if both sides requested the change. 

The settlement is still waiting for approval from a federal judge in San Francisco, who criticized Bayer’s first attempt at settling. Last summer, Bayer and a group of plaintiffs’ lawyers were sent back to the drawing board after being denied their proposed $1.25 billion agreement. 

Not only is the new version financially larger, but it is also less restrictive, allowing non-participants more freedom to pursue their cases in court with only some limitations on damages. Additionally, the settlement would add information to Roundup’s label, saying it may cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, an often deadly cancer. While the label would not directly state Roundup as a cause of the disease, it would include a link to information related to both sides of the legal battle. It would also provide Monsanto product users with free medical evaluations and legal advice as needed. 

In another new section of the settlement, a group of scientists will be chosen by Bayer and the plaintiffs’ lawyers to conduct an independent study on Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, and its links to cancer. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has declared the product safe, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, determined in 2015 that glyphosate was a probable cause of human cancer. 

Bayer previously settled up to 125,000 suits with a nearly $10 billion agreement, all directed at U.S. residents who said they had been diagnosed with cancer or other illnesses after using Roundup or Ranger Pro, another product that contained glyphosate. 

Roundup
Drug Law Journal Legal Sponsorship

Drug Law Journal's publishing and research are sponsored by the DDP Injury Law Group in Washington, D.C. Their legal team is focused on protecting the rights of injury victims.
Furthermore, they understand and appreciate the importance of a trusted attorney-client relationship.
The DDP Injury Law Group uses their years of experience with litigation to ensure their clients can fight for the compensation they deserve.

Always seek the advice of a medical professional when making personal health choices.

The Offices of DrugLawJournal.com are located at:

1800 North Orange Avenue, Suite C
Orlando, Florida 32804

DrugLawJournal.com is sponsored by the DDP Injury Law Group, and therefore may be considered attorney advertising. The information contained on DrugLawJournal.com is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any subject matter. No viewers of this site should discontinue taking a prescribed medication on the basis of any information on this site and should always first consult with a doctor concerning any medication. Viewers should understand that if they refrain from taking prescribed medication without appropriate medical advice they can suffer injury or death.

No viewers of content from this site, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the viewer’s state. Viewing information from DrugLawJournal.com does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and DDP Injury Law Group or DrugLawJournal.com nor is it intended to do so.The content of DrugLawJournal.com may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. Prior results do not predict a similar outcome. For more information, please visit our web site’s disclaimer.

©2024 DrugLawJournal.com | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive peroidic updates from our expert team of researchers, highlighting defective drugs, devices, and legal issues related to your health.

Email Catcher
Free Drug and Medical Device Case Review

Free Drug and Medical Device Case Review

Share your story with us and we will reach out to you about your case.

First
Last
Described what happened to you, we will review and reach out to you about your situation.

It is important for those who have suffered injury from dangerous drugs and medical devices to know that they have may have options.

Consumers have the ability to seek legal remedies for their injuries resulting from the negligence of drug and device manufacturers. The first step toward justice and recovery is sharing your story with effective legal counsel. An attorney will help you to better understand the issues and discuss the possibility of compensation for your suffering.

Once you complete the information request above, Drug Law Journal will send the information to a specialist at our legal sponsor’s firm, the DDP Injury Law Group, in Washington, D.C. That specialist will follow-up with you directly to gather further specific information about your case and make an evaluation. If the firm is able to move forward on your case, they will also discuss next steps. Remember – the entire consult and evaluation is free to you. You only need to take the first step to fill out the contact form or call: (800) 597-1870 for immediate assistance.