A rare metabolic disorder is helping researchers at the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) uncover new clues about the biology underlying Parkinson’s disease.
Autism is always surprising. What was once considered a rare disorder is now reported as affecting 1 in 88 children, 1 in 54 boys. Do these new numbers, up 78 percent from 2002 and 23 percent from 2006, reflect a growing problem—an epidemic—or an improvement in our ability to diagnose and serve those affected?
07/31/2012 Pradaxa Lawyer Details: A Pradaxa Lawyer files claims for those victims who endured health complications after taking the blood thinning medication, Pradaxa. Pradaxa Lawyer groups assist plaintiffs looking to become part of the Multi District Litigation which is similar to a Pradaxa Class Action Lawsuit. If you are interested in learning more about the Pradaxa Lawsuit and how you can reach a Pradaxa Lawyer, call Best Legal Source at (800) 611-7080. We have the resources you need to find the best Pradaxa Lawyer for your case.
Directions for Finding a Pradaxa Lawyer
The search for the right Pradaxa Lawyer can often be more difficult than expected. Best Legal Source seeks to ease the minds of those victimized by large drug companies. The process of finding a Pradaxa Lawyer can be hassle-free with a knowledgeable guide on your side.
Best Legal Source has many connections of established, successful attorneys involved in the Pradaxa Lawsuit. To speak with a Pradaxa Lawyer, call (800) 611-7080 and Best Legal Source will arrange a free consultation. During this period, you can discuss legal options with the Pradaxa Lawyer and determine if a Pradaxa Lawsuit is the right course of action for you. Please don’t delay. It may be beneficial to join the first group of Pradaxa Lawsuit MDL cases. You can join others filing cases against Boehringer Ingelheim by discussing your eligibility with a Pradaxa Lawyer.
Advantage of Using Best Legal Source to Find a Pradaxa Lawyer
Best Legal Source offers a complimentary service to those victims who experienced excessive bleeding events while taking Pradaxa. Our experience and knowledge of mass tort law is extensive and we have been working with injured parties pursuing pharmaceutical litigation for many years. You can be assured quality and that the Pradaxa Lawyer is dependable. We only connect individuals with a Pradaxa Lawyer who will work on a contingency-fee basis. This means a Pradaxa Lawyer will only be compensated through a portion of the Pradaxa Lawsuit earnings if the case is successful. You will not be responsible for any upfront costs and you will not owe fees if the Pradaxa Lawsuit is unsuccessful.
Begin Finding a Pradaxa Lawyer
It is beneficial to enter the Pradaxa Lawsuit now while there is still ample time for filing. The FDA has released safety communications and credible organizations have produced studies that will assist in supporting your Pradaxa Lawsuit claim. The process is simple to begin. Call Best Legal Source at (800) 611-7080 and we will connect you with a Pradaxa Lawyer. While it is not necessary, it may help to have pharmacy records and medical records that relate to all incidents associated with Pradaxa. Our mission is to assist you in finding the best possible choice for a Pradaxa Lawyer.
Further Resources for Pradaxa Lawyer Guidance
Below are paragraphs from an actual Pradaxa Lawsuit. We have inserted this for the benefit of the reader. Our comments are inserted within the Pradaxa Lawsuit below through the form of headers and notes beneath the headers. This information (as well as the entire Pradaxa Lawsuit site) should not be taken as legal advice. The Pradaxa Lawsuit below is not affiliated with Best Legal Source in any way. Please read the excerpt for your benefit and understanding. Call Best Legal Source for Pradaxa Lawyer assistance.
Cook County Pradaxa Lawsuit Begins
2012 WL 2396831 (S.D.Ill.) (Trial Pleading)
United States District Court, S.D. Illinois.
Phyllis KEKICH, Plaintiff,
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation; Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation; and Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc., Defendants.
Counts within Pradaxa Lawsuit Explained
Each Pradaxa Lawsuit will likely contain “counts” or causes for action that explain the complaints against Boehringer Ingelheim. The counts in Phyllis Kekich’s Pradaxa Lawsuit are similar to other Pradaxa Lawsuit claims. Below we have inserted excerpts from the Pradaxa Lawsuit of Phyllis Kekich in the form of counts or causes for action. Not all of the Pradaxa Lawsuit document’s counts are listed due to the length required.
First Count of Failure to Warn Phyllis Kekich
Defendants were, at all times relevant to this suit, and are now engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, testing, marketing, and placing into the stream of commerce Pradaxa® for sale to, and use by, members of the public.
The dangerous propensities of Pradaxa® were known to Defendants, or were reasonably and scientifically knowable to them through appropriate research and testing by known methods, at the time Defendants distributed, supplied, or sold their respective product and were not known to ordinary physicians who would be expected to prescribe the drug to their patients.
Pradaxa® was defective and unreasonably dangerous in that the labeling was insufficient to adequately warn physicians and users of the increased risk of excessive and/or uncontrolled bleeding.
As a direct and proximate result of the actions and omissions of Defendants as set forth above, Plaintiff was exposed to Pradaxa® and suffered personal injuries, economic damages, and non-economic damages, including pain and suffering.
Defendants’ actions and omissions as identified in this Complaint show that Defendants acted maliciously and/or intentionally disregarded Plaintiffs rights, justifying an award of punitive damages.
Pradaxa Lawsuit Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Bridgeview, Illinois
Phyllis Kekich of Cook County, filed her Pradaxa Lawsuit due to excessive bleeding events in June of 2012. Like many others who filed Pradaxa Lawsuit claims, Phyllis is part of the MDL Pradaxa Lawsuit group in the U.S. District Court of S.D. Illinois. Below a section on the second cause to action in the Pradaxa Lawsuit document is given.
Second Count of Pradaxa Lawsuit Involves Design
Defendants manufactured, designed, distributed, supplied, and sold Pradaxa® in the regular course of business. The Pradaxa® manufactured, designed, sold, marketed, distributed, supplied, and/or placed in the stream of commerce by Defendants was expected to and did reach the consumer without any alterations or changes.
The Pradaxa® administered to Plaintiff was defective in design or formulation in one or more of the following respects:
a. When it left the hands of Defendants, this drug was unreasonably dangerous to an extent beyond that which could reasonably be contemplated by Plaintiff or Plaintiffs physicians;
b. Any benefit of this drug was outweighed by the serious and undisclosed risks of its use when prescribed and used as Defendants intended;
c. The dosages and/or formulation of Pradaxa® sold by Defendants was unreasonably dangerous;
d. There are no patients for whom the benefits of Pradaxa® outweighed the risks;
e. The product was not made in accordance with Defendants’ specifications or performance standards; 16 of 29
f. There are no patients for whom Pradaxa® is a safer and more efficacious drug than other drug products in its class; and/or
g. There were safer alternatives that did not carry the same risks and dangers as Pradaxa®.
The Pradaxa® administered to Plaintiff was defective at the time it was distributed by Defendants or left their control.
The foreseeable risks associated with the design or formulation of Pradaxa® include, but are not limited to, the fact that the design or formulation of Pradaxa® is more dangerous that a reasonably prudent consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner and/or did not have the claimed benefits.
The defective and unreasonably dangerous design and marketing of Pradaxa® was a direct, proximate, and producing cause of Plaintiffs injuries and damages. Under strict products liability theories set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for all damages claimed in this case.
As a direct, legal, proximate, and producing result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of Pradaxa®, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries, economic damages, and non-economic damages, including pain and suffering.
Defendants’ actions and omissions as identified in this Complaint show that Defendants acted maliciously and/or intentionally disregarded Plaintiffs rights, justifying an award of punitive damages.
Explanation of Pradaxa Lawyer Term
Best Legal Source uses the term Pradaxa Lawyer in a descriptive sense. We do not mean to confuse the reader of our page. Best Legal Source is not the owner or maker of Pradaxa. We have no affiliation with the manufacturer of any drug type. Best Legal Source simply connects those harmed by a drug product with Pradaxa Lawyer groups who are interested and qualified to handle the Pradaxa Lawsuit claims.
Negligence Among Kekich Pradaxa Lawsuit Complaints
Defendants owed a duty to the general public and specifically to Plaintiff to exercise reasonable care in the design, study, development, manufacture, promotion, sale, labeling, marketing, and distribution of Pradaxa®.
Defendants breached their duty and failed to exercise reasonable care in the developing, testing, designing, and manufacturing of Pradaxa® because it was capable of causing serious personal injuries, such as those suffered by Plaintiff, during foreseeable use.
Defendants breached their duty and also failed to exercise reasonable care in the marketing of Pradaxa® because they failed to warn that, as designed, Pradaxa® was capable of causing serious personal injuries, such as those suffered by Plaintiff, during foreseeable use.
Defendants breached their duty and also failed to exercise ordinary care in the labeling of Pradaxa® and failed to issue to consumers and/or their healthcare providers adequate warnings of the risk of serious bodily injury or death associated with Pradaxa® use. Defendants over-promoted the benefits of Pradaxa® for anticoagulation therapy in patients suffering from atrial fibrillation and understated the risk of excessive and/or uncontrollable bleeding.
Omitted Content in the Pradaxa Lawsuit
We are very clear about the fact that this is a Pradaxa Lawsuit excerpt and not the Pradaxa Lawsuit in its entirety. We have omitted content from this portion of the Pradaxa Lawsuit due to length and time requirements. The following portion of the Pradaxa Lawsuit will resume with the sixth count of the Pradaxa Lawsuit.
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act in Pradaxa Lawsuit Document
The Illinois Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., prohibits “the use of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact… in the conduct of any trade or commerce” and declares such acts or practices to be unlawful.
Defendants researched, developed, designed, tested, manufactured, inspected, labeled, distributed, marketed, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released Pradaxa® into the stream of commerce and, in the course of the same, directly advertised or marketed the product to healthcare professionals and consumers, including Plaintiff.
Defendants violated ICFA by the use of deceptive, false, and misleading representations or omissions of material fact in connection with the marketing, promotion, and sale of Pradaxa®. Defendants communicated and continue to communicate the purported benefits and safety of Pradaxa® while failing to disclose the serious and dangerous side effects related to the use of Pradaxa® with the intent that consumers, like Plaintiff, and their healthcare providers rely upon the omissions and misrepresentations and purchase or prescribe Pradaxa®, respectively.
Defendants intended that consumers like Plaintiff rely on Defendants’ deceptive, false, and misleading representations or omissions of material fact in order to increase their sales and profit for Pradaxa®, which was done in the ordinary course of their business, and Plaintiff did so rely on Defendants’ deceptive, false, and misleading representations or omissions of material fact.
As a result of violating ICFA, Defendants caused Plaintiff to be prescribed and to use Pradaxa®, causing severe injuries and damages as previously described herein.
As a result of Defendants’ violation of ICFA, Plaintiff suffered pecuniary loss and damages when Plaintiff failed to receive the benefit of her bargain by purchasing Pradaxa® in reliance on Defendants’ deceptive, false, and misleading representations concerning its benefits and safety and, instead, suffered actual severe injuries as previously described herein.
Defendants’ actions or omissions as identified in the Complaint show that Defendants acted maliciously and/or intentionally disregarded Plaintiffs rights, justifying an award of punitive damages.
Final Counts of the Pradaxa Lawsuit for Ms. Kekich
In the following count, we are at the end of the Pradaxa Lawsuit excerpt. For further Pradaxa Lawsuit information, you can visit other articles of the Best Legal Source site or search public records for Pradaxa Lawsuit trial court documents. The above count of violating ICFA is specific to Ms. Kekich’s state and situation and is not present in all Pradaxa Lawsuit documents.
Punitive Damages Related to Pradaxa Lawsuit Injuries
At all material times, Defendants knew or should have known that Pradaxa® was inherently dangerous.
Despite their knowledge, Defendants continued to aggressively market Pradaxa® to consumers, including Plaintiff, without disclosing its dangerous side effects when safer alternative products existed.
Despite Defendants’ knowledge of the defective and unreasonably dangerous nature of Pradaxa®, Defendants continued to test, design, develop, manufacture, label, package, promote, market, sell, and distribute it to maximize sales and profits at the expense of the health and safety of the public, including Plaintiff, in conscious disregard of the foreseeable harm caused by Pradaxa®. Defendants’ conduct was intentional and/or wanton.
Defendants’ conduct as described above, including but not limited to their failure to adequately test their product, their failure to provide adequate warnings, and their continued manufacture, sale, and marketing of their product when they knew or should have known of the serious health risks it created evidences a flagrant disregard of human life. Punitive damages are warranted because the acts or omissions were committed with knowing, conscious, and deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of consumers, including Plaintiff.
End of Pradaxa Lawsuit Content
Closing Remark from Best Legal Source on Pradaxa Lawyer Groups
In closing, Best Legal Source would like to remind you of the essential steps to finding a Pradaxa Lawyer. You can be guided through the Pradaxa Lawsuit process by a knowledgeable Pradaxa Lawyer by calling Best Legal Source. We offer the most efficient and trusted avenue to qualified Pradaxa Lawyer groups. Again, the Best Legal Source number is (800) 611-7080.
Pradaxa Lawyer Resources
07/30/2012 Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit Info: The Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit would potentially involve those who were implanted with a faulty Biomet Metal-on-Metal hip replacement. If you have undergone hip surgery, only to realize you will require further revision surgeries, you may be considering a Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit. The best advice to seek before entering into a Biomet Hip Lawsuit is that of a Biomet Hip Lawyer. Contact Best Legal Source for up-to-date information regarding the Biomet Hip Lawsuit.
Necessary Information for Prospective Plaintiffs in the Biomet Hip Lawsuit
Biomet Hip Lawyer groups are looking specifically into cases for patients with Metal-on-Metal (MoM) Biomet Hip Systems. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration site can help you determine if a safety communication or warning exists for your MoM device. Best Legal Source can then assist you by finding a qualified Biomet Hip Lawyer to handle your Biomet Hip Lawsuit. One call to Best Legal Source can make the daunting task of pursuing a Biomet Hip Lawsuit much easier. We will explain the parameters of a Biomet Hip Lawsuit and explain the advantages between Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit cases and MDL suits.
Most important to many consumers is the financial aspect. A Biomet Hip Lawsuit could result in compensation for your potential revision surgery, past medical bills and pain and suffering. The assistance of Best Legal Source is free and the Biomet Hip Lawyer will work on your case at no upfront cost. Once the lawsuit is won, the Biomet Hip Lawyer will be paid a percentage of the compensation. If the case is not won in your favor, you will not owe any expenses. There is no reason to wait—call Best Legal Source today at (800) 611-7080!
Should I pursue a Biomet Hip Lawsuit or a Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit?
Ultimately, the decision to pursue a Biomet Hip Lawsuit or a Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit should be decided based upon advice from your Biomet Hip Lawyer and the details of your situation. It can be advantageous to join a Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit based on finances and efficiency. It is up to the court to decide whether a Biomet Hip Lawsuit will be culminated into either a Biomet Hip Lawsuit Multi District Litigation (MDL) or a Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit. As the differences are primarily necessary knowledge for your legal representative, we will refer to any kind of joint Biomet Hip Lawsuit as a Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit.
Directions on Contacting a Biomet Hip Lawyer
It is not easy to find the right attorney for your Biomet Hip Lawsuit among the pool of law firms who claim to be qualified. Let Best Legal Source use their knowledge and experience to screen the available pool and find the best Biomet Hip Lawyer for your Biomet Hip Lawsuit. Take action now by calling our representatives at (800) 611-7080.
Sample of a Biomet Hip Lawsuit Filing
For the remainder of the article, we will present an excerpt of a Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit. You will have the remainder of this site to view an actual Biomet Hip Lawsuit document. The notes and headings below were written by a representative at Best Legal Source and not a lawyer. No content on our site should be taken as legal opinion or legal advice.
Biomet Hip Lawsuit in Excerpt Form Starts
2012 WL 2927078 (E.D.N.C.) (Trial Pleading)
United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina,
Mary P. JENKINS, Plaintiff,
BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS, LLC, Biomet, Inc. & Biomet, LLC, Defendants.
July 6, 2012.
Jury Trial Demanded
This is a product liability case involving a defective hip implant system. Plaintiff Mary Jenkins had a Biomet M2a Magnum Metal-on-Metal Hip System (“M2a Magnum Hip System”) implanted in her hip. The M2a Magnum Hip System is defective because excessive amounts of cobalt and chromium corrode and wear from the surfaces of the acetabular cup, the femoral head, and the taper sleeve. The excessive wear in turn causes the hip implant to fail and the surrounding tissue and bone to die. As a result of these defects, Ms. Jenkins’ M2a Magnum Hip System failed in her body, causing toxic levels of cobalt and chromium, tissue and bone destruction, and the need for Ms. Jenkins to undergo a complicated and risky surgery to remove and replace the defective implant.
Mary Jenkins Biomet Hip Lawsuit Introduction
Often in a Biomet Hip Lawsuit, the beginning of the Biomet Hip Lawsuit document will explain the parties involved including the Biomet Hip Lawsuit plaintiff and the Biomet Hip Lawsuit defendant. The Biomet Hip Lawyer information is also listed at this juncture; however, we have omitted this information. A short summary of the parties involved in this Biomet Hip Lawsuit is listed below.
Parties in the Biomet Hip Lawsuit from North Carolina
Plaintiff Mary P. Jenkins is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the state of North Carolina. Mrs. Jenkins’ home address is 1100 Washington Street, Roanoke Rapids, Northampton County, North Carolina..
On information and belief, Defendant Biomet Orthopedics, LLC is a limited liability corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Indiana with its principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC designed, manufactured, marketed, promoted, and sold the M2a Magnum Hip system that is the subject of this lawsuit. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC does not maintain a principal local office in North Carolina, but can be served at 56 East Bell Drive, P.O. Box 587, Warsaw, Indiana 46581-0587.
On information and belief, Defendant Biomet, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Indiana with its principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana. Biomet, Inc. designed, manufactured, marketed, promoted, and sold the M2a Magnum Hip system that is the subject of this lawsuit. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, Biomet, Inc., and Biomet LLC are collectively referred to herein as “Biomet.”
Facts of the Biomet Hip Lawsuit Are Listed
The basics of the Biomet Hip Lawsuit will be displayed next as the Biomet Hip Lawsuit trial document outlines summaries of the happenings in the specific case of Mary Jenkins. In the following paragraphs, you will get a better understanding of the background of the Biomet Hip Lawsuit background and origin.
Factual Background for Biomet Hip Lawsuit Magnum Hip System
The M2a Magnum Hip System Is Defective And Was Not Adequately Tested
The hip joint is where the femur connects to the pelvis. The joint is made up of the femoral head (a ball-like structure at the very top of the femur) rotating within the acetabulum (a cup-like structure at the bottom of the pelvis.) In a healthy hip, both the femur and the acetabulum are strong and the rotation of the bones against each other is cushioned and lubricated by cartilage and fluids.
The M2a Magnum Hip System suffers from a design or manufacturing defect that cause excessive amounts of cobalt and chromium to wear and corrode from the surface of the acetabular cup, from the femoral head, and from the taper adapter. These cobalt and chromium fragments prompt the body to react by rejecting the hip implant. This rejection often manifests with symptoms of pain, looseness, dislocation, and squeaking and popping sounds. Inside the hip joint, the metal reaction often causes fluids to accumulate and soft tissues and bone to die.
The design of the M2a Magnum Hip System was not sufficiently tested by Biomet, and it was never approved by the FDA as being safe or effective for the products’ intended purpose.
Details of the Biomet Hip Lawsuit Document’s Device Description
The factual statements in the Biomet Hip Lawsuit may seem overly descriptive, but these details are needed to make a point about the faulty issues Ms. Jenkins experienced when using this device. The Metal-on-Metal seems to create an added complication and health risk for those filing Biomet Hip Lawsuit claims. If you are interested in learning more about the Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit or would like to begin conversations with a Biomet Hip Lawyer, you can contact Best Legal Source at (800) 611-7080.
Biomet Hip Lawsuit Defendants’ Alleged Faults
Biomet Sold the M2a Magnum Hip Implant To Ms. Jenkins After It Knew It Was Defective, That It Had Injured Others, And That It Would Injure Her.
It was not long after Biomet launched the M2a Magnum Hip System that reports of failures began flooding into Biomet. For example, in August 2004, Biomet received a complaint that a patient had to undergo a surgery to remove and replace an M2a Magnum Hip System because it had become loose after only three years. Biomet closed its investigation of this complaint.
Biomet would go on to receive hundreds of similar complaints reporting that the M2a Magnum Hip System had failed and that the failure had forced patients to undergo painful and risky surgeries to remove and replace the failed hip component. To date, more than 350 reports of adverse events associated with the M2a Magnum Hip System have been filed with the FDA.
By the time Biomet sold the M2a Magnum Hip System to Plaintiff, numerous reports had been filed with the FDA reporting an adverse event associated with the M2a Magnum Hip System. Consequently, Biomet was fully aware that the M2a Magnum Hip System was defective and that dozens of patients already had been injured by that defect. Based on this information, Biomet should have recalled the M2a Magnum Hip System before it was sold to Ms. Jenkins. At minimum, Biomet should have stopped selling the defective implant when it became aware that it had catastrophically failed in several patients.
Biomet Hip Lawsuit Term Explained by Best Legal Source
It must be noted within this Biomet Hip Lawsuit excerpt that Best Legal Source is not the maker of any Biomet products or any medical device in general. We use terms like Biomet Hip Lawsuit, Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit and Biomet Hip Lawyer simply to describe the product and legal terms associated with the product at this time. Our goal is to connect victims with Biomet Hip Lawyer groups who can best handle their Biomet Hip Lawsuit cases.
Biomet Hip Lawsuit of Ms. Jenkins Continues
Despite its knowledge that the M2a Magnum Hip System had a defect and that it had failed hundreds of times, causing hundreds of patients to undergo the agony of another surgery, Biomet continues to sell the defective M2a Magnum Hip System. In so doing, Biomet actively concealed the known defect from doctors and patients-including Ms. Jenkins and her doctor-and misrepresented that that the M2a Magnum Hip System was a safe and effective medical device.
Biomet’s reason to conceal the defect in its M2a Magnum Hip System is clear. Hip implant sales are critically important to Biomet, and the M2a Magnum is one of its most profitable products. During the time period relevant to this Complaint, Biomet’s management was trying to make Biomet look appealing to investors, and they ultimately were purchased by a private equity firm in 2007 for $10 billion. Biomet was faced with a critical defect in one of its most profitable hip implant systems. The last thing Biomet wanted to do was to admit that these popular products had a critical defect that could cause a premature failure, forcing patients to have to undergo another painful surgery. Focused on corporate profits, and at the expense of patient safety, Biomet decided that it would continue to promote, market, and sell the M2a Magnum Hip System despite the fact that it knew the product was defective. To this day, Biomet continue to sell these defective implants to unsuspecting patients without any warning about the risks or the failures that have been reported to the company.
Failure of Ms. Jenkins’ M2a Device Leads to Biomet Hip Lawsuit
A device failure can be devastating and is often the reason consumers pursue a Biomet Hip Lawsuit. The number of consumers affected may provoke a Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit. In addition to the pain experienced through the first surgery, a defective device can create the need for a second (more complex) revision surgery. Detailed below is Ms. Jenkins experience with this in the Biomet Hip Lawsuit document.
Specifics of Ms. Jenkins’ Suffering in the Biomet Hip Lawsuit Document
Ms. Jenkins’ M2a Magnum Hip System Was Defective And Failed, Forcing Her To Undergo An Additional Painful And Risky Surgery.
On or about August 11, 2008, Plaintiff underwent a right hip replacement surgery in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, during which a Biomet metal-on-metal Magnum prosthesis was implanted in her body. Post-surgical imaging revealed good placement of the device. By this time, numerous reports of adverse events associated with the M2a Magnum had been filed with the FDA and Biomet knew that the product was defective. But Biomet failed to disclose that information to Ms. Jenkins, her physicians, or the public. Upon information and belief, Biomet misrepresented to Ms. Jenkins and her orthopedic surgeon through its sales representatives that the M2a Magnum Hip System was safe and effective. In reliance on these representations, Ms. Jenkins’ orthopedic surgeon made the decision to use the M2a Magnum Hip System. If it were not for the misrepresentations made by Biomet, Ms. Jenkins’ orthopedic surgeon would not have used the M2a Magnum Hip System in Ms. Jenkins’ hip replacement surgery.
Within 18 months after her surgery, Plaintiff began experiencing pain in her right hip.
By 2010, the pain had become severe and she developed a large fluid collection. An aspiration of the fluid provided findings consistent with a metal on metal reaction.
Upon the advice of her physician, Mrs. Jenkins agreed to have her metal-on-metal prosthesis removed and replaced using a prosthesis using polyethylene cup.
On July 9, 2010, Plaintiff underwent a complex, risky, and painful surgery (known as a “revision surgery”) to remove the failed M2a Magnum Hip System from her body. Revision surgeries are generally more complex than the original hip replacement surgery, often because there is a reduced amount of bone in which to place the new hip implants. Revision surgeries also usually take longer than the original hip replacement surgery and the revision surgery has a higher rate of complications. Post-surgical pathology reports indicated that the acetabular head and lining were surrounded by fibroconnective tissue and bone with necrosis, granulation, acute and chronic inflammation. During the surgery, metalosis fluid was found in Plaintiff’s joint.
As a result of the defective design, manufacture and composition of the M2a Magnum Hip System, and its accompanying warnings and instructions (or lack thereof), Ms. Jenkins’ hip implant failed, causing her severe pain.
Closing Portion of Biomet Hip Lawsuit Document
Biomet Hip Lawsuit sample section is nearing the end. You can view the entire Biomet Hip Lawsuit document by searching public records. In addition, you can view other Biomet Hip Lawsuit cases and Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit cases by viewing other Best Legal Source pages. We had no affiliation with the Biomet Hip Lawsuit provided here.
Final Paragraphs of Biomet Hip Lawsuit Excerpt
Having to go through a revision surgery has subjected Ms. Jenkins to much greater risks of future complications than she had before the revision surgery. For example, several studies have found that a revision surgery causes a much higher risk of dislocation compared with an original hip replacement surgery. In one study conducted by Charlotte Phillips and her colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, 14.4 percent of patients who underwent a revision surgery suffered from a dislocation compared with 3.9 percent of patients who underwent a original hip replacement surgery. In other words, hip replacement patients who have undergone a revision surgery are almost four times more likely to suffer from a hip dislocation than those who have not. (Phillips CB, et al. Incidence rates of dislocation, pulmonary embolism, and deep infection during the first six months after elective total hip replacement. American Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2003; 85:20-26.)
As a direct and proximate result of the failure of her defective M2a Magnum Hip System and Biomet’s wrongful conduct, Ms. Jenkins sustained and continues to suffer economic damages (including medical and hospital expenses), severe and possibly permanent injuries, pain, suffering and emotional distress. As a result, Ms. Jenkins has sustained and will continue to sustain damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but which will far exceed $75,000 jurisdictional minimum of this court.
Defendants’ conduct, as described above, was done with actual malice, that is, evil motive, intent to injure, ill will and/or fraud. Defendants risked the lives of consumers and users of their products, including the Plaintiff, with knowledge of the safety and efficacy problems and suppressed this knowledge from the general public. Defendants by and through their officers and manager made conscious decisions not to redesign, re-Label, warn or inform the unsuspecting consuming public, all to the detriment of the purchasers of the product, generally, and Mary Jenkins, in particular.
End of Biomet Hip Lawsuit
Final Words on Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit Filings
In closing, if you would like to file a Biomet Hip Lawsuit or join an existing Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit, Best Legal Source can make this a reality for you. Biomet Hip Lawyer groups are looking into cases for those with defective Metal-on-Metal devices which have necessitated a revision surgery for the patient. Call today to begin the Biomet Hip Lawsuit process—(800) 611-7080.
Biomet Hip Lawsuit Resource page:
Zoloft Lawsuit (07/30/12): If your child suffered serious side effects after you took Zoloft during your pregnancy, speaking with an experienced Zoloft Lawsuit attorney is your first step toward collecting damages as compensation for injuries. Zoloft (sertraline) is an antidepressant known as a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). In pregnant women, this drug has been linked to a higher rate of various birth defects. Contact Best Legal Source today for more information on Zoloft Lawsuits. Call at (800) 611-7080 or complete the form to the right. We will connect you with a Zoloft Lawsuit attorney who will discuss a possible Zoloft Lawsuit.
Why should I specifically use a Zoloft Lawsuit attorney?
It is generally accepted through certain studies that using Zoloft during the first trimester of pregnancy could produce birth defects such as Omphalocele and septal defects of the heart. Working with Zoloft Lawsuit attorneys can increase your chance of recovering financial compensation through a Zoloft Lawsuit. These attorneys are experienced with Zoloft Lawsuits and pharmaceutical litigation in general. Best Legal Source can assist you in beginning the process by helping you file a Zoloft Lawsuit.
Why should I call Best Legal Source first before searching for a Zoloft Lawsuit attorney?
The goal of Best Legal Source is to provide information to individuals suffering from the use of Zoloft that will help them pursue a successful Zoloft Lawsuit with a qualified Zoloft Lawsuit attorney. Not all attorneys working today have the experience and skill needed for this complex type of litigation. Let us put you in touch with a team of Zoloft Lawsuit attorneys who will guide you through the legal system.
What costs would I be responsible for in Zoloft Lawsuits?
The Zoloft Lawsuit firms we are associated with work on a contingency basis. This means you pay no fees unless they successfully resolve your case by a settlement or judgment. If your baby was injured because you were prescribed Zoloft, you could be entitled to financial compensation such as medical expenses and pain and suffering. The Zoloft Lawsuit attorneys we work with are experienced in evaluating cases. Call Best Legal Source today.
What period of time do I have to file a Zoloft Lawsuit?
A claimant in each state must bring an action within a certain period of time stipulated in their state’s statute of limitations. In most states, this period of time begins when a claimant became aware of their injury. Statute of limitations varies from state to state. Therefore, it is advisable to begin a conversation with a Zoloft Lawsuit attorney as soon as possible if you are interested in becoming a part of Zoloft Lawsuits. Call us at (800) 611-7080. Representatives are waiting for your call.
Are there any special precautions I should take when using Zoloft?
The Zoloft Lawsuit is an affordable option to pursue compensation for any harm possibly caused by Zoloft. If you are pregnant or plan on becoming pregnant, talk with your healthcare provider if you are undergoing treatment for depression to determine your best option during pregnancy. Discuss with your physician about the potential benefits versus risks of taking Zoloft during pregnancy. Never stop taking medication without first talking with your physician. Report any suspected side effects of Zoloft to your physician immediately. It is vitally important for you to stay up-to-date on any safety alerts or communications regarding this medication while you pursue a Zoloft Lawsuit.
Has there been any communication from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that could assist me in the pursuit of a Zoloft Lawsuit?
Even if you are already in the process of filing a Zoloft Lawsuit, staying apprised of new information from the FDA is beneficial. In December 2011, the FDA updated the public on the use of SSRIs by women during pregnancy and the potential risk of a heart and lung condition known as Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn (PPHN). This occurs when a newborn cannot adapt to breathing outside the womb. If severe enough, PPHN can result in organ damage, including brain damage and even death. Current SSRI product labeling states, “infants exposed to SSRIs late in pregnancy may have an increased risk for PPHN”. Some studies have added impact to filing Zoloft Lawsuits.
Are there any final thoughts on the medication Zoloft?
Before taking an antidepressant such as Zoloft, speak to your physician about the risks of treating your condition with an SSRI. Remember that if you believe your child has been injured because of the medication Zoloft, Best Legal Source can connect you with experienced Zoloft Lawsuit attorneys who are able to pursue successful Zoloft Lawsuits. Now is not the time for hesitation. Please call (800) 611-7080 or fill out the contact form to the right for assistance in proceeding with a Zoloft Lawsuit.
Listed Example of a Real Zoloft Lawsuit
You can view an actual Zoloft Lawsuit excerpt below that Best Legal Source has provided through publically accessed records. Best Legal Source added the heading and comment content and these sections should not be taken as legal advice, opinion or fact. These sections are simply to increase your understanding of the information from the Zoloft Lawsuit.
This information will be of interest to those looking to pursue their own Zoloft Lawsuit. Please read below for the actual Zoloft Lawsuit.
Zoloft Lawsuit of New York U.S. District Court
Kimberly ADLER, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of E.A. and F.A., Minor Children, Plaintiff, v. PFIZER, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant.
The drug “Sertraline” is manufactured, promoted, distributed, labeled, marketed and sold by Pfizer under the trade name Zoloft®, Zoloft® Oral Suspension, and Zoloft® CR (hereinafter “Zoloft®”). This action seeks to recover damages for injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs as the direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants in connection with their designing, developing, manufacturing, distributing, labeling, advertising, marketing, promoting, and selling Zoloft®.
Parties Involved in March 2012 Zoloft Lawsuit
Plaintiff Kimberly Adler is an adult resident of the State of Ohio. Plaintiff Kimberly Adler (“Mother Plaintiff”) is the mother and natural guardian of E.A. and F.A., minor children. (“Minor Plaintiffs”). Mother Plaintiff took the prescription drug Zoloft® during her pregnancies with Minor Plaintiffs.
Minor Plaintiffs E.A. and F.A. were born with congenital birth defects and stillborn, respectively.
Defendant Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”) is a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business located at 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York, 10017-5755.
At all relevant times, Pfizer was engaged in the business of, or was successor in interest to entities engaged in the business of researching, licensing, designing, formulating, compounding, testing, manufacturing, producing, processing, assembling, inspecting, distributing, marketing, labeling, promoting, packaging, advertising, and/or selling Zoloft® to the general public, including Plaintiff.
At all relevant times, Pfizer was authorized to do business within the state of New York; maintained its headquarters in the State of New York; did in fact transact and conduct business in the State of New York; derived substantial revenue from goods and products used in the State of New York; and supplied Zoloft® within the State of New York.
Comment on the Above Zoloft Lawsuit Minor Plaintiffs
We know from the above information in the Zoloft Lawsuit party introduction that the plaintiffs in the Zoloft Lawsuit include the mother, Kimberly Adler, as well as her two minor children. One of the Zoloft Lawsuit minor plaintiffs was born with birth defects and the other was stillborn. Read on for more Zoloft Lawsuit excerpts.
Factual Allegations of the Zoloft Lawsuit for Adler
Mother Plaintiff is the natural parent of E.A. and F.A., minor children. The Minor Plaintiffs were born with multiple congenital birth defects and stillborn, respectively, as a result of Mother Plaintiffs ingestion of Zoloft® as prescribed by her treating physician during her pregnancies.
The surviving Minor Plaintiff has been treated for congenital birth defects, is continuing to be treated for her congenital birth defects, and will continue to need additional treatment for congenital birth defects throughout her life.
Plaintiffs bring this action to recover damages, medical, and other expenses related to the death of Minor Plaintiff, as well as the treatment resulting from the Minor Plaintiffs birth defects, disorders, and related illnesses, and for general and special damages and such other relief as requested herein for injuries suffered as a direct result of Mother Plaintiffs ingestion of Zoloft® during her pregnancy in a manner and dosage recommended by Pfizer and prescribed by Mother Plaintiffs doctors.
Comment on the Personal Nature of Zoloft Lawsuit
The Zoloft Lawsuit cases typically involve an injured child with birth defects. This case is especially upsetting due to the stillborn child of Ms. Adler in the Zoloft Lawsuit. The Zoloft Lawsuit here possibly has more at stake due to one child’s death and the other’s injury.
Plaintiffs of Zoloft Lawsuit Seek Damages
Plaintiffs also bring this action to recover for the mental anguish, emotional distress, and loss of consortium, companionship, service, and/or society caused by the death and congenital birth defects of the Minor Plaintiffs that resulted from Mother Plaintiffs ingestion of Zoloft® during her pregnancies.
Defendant Pfizer, its predecessors in interest and its subsidiaries, advertised, analyzed, assembled, compounded, designed, developed, distributed, formulated, inspected, labeled, manufactured, marketed, packed, produced, promoted, processed, researched, sold, and tested the Zoloft® ingested by Mother Plaintiff.
Zoloft® is a member of a class of drugs known as “selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.” (“SSRI”). Zoloft® was approved for use in the United States by the FDA for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder in December 1991; for the treatment of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (“OCD”) in October 1996; for the treatment of juvenile OCD in October 1997; for the treatment of Panic Disorder in July 1997; for the treatment of Acute Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) in December 1999; for the treatment of chronic, long term PTSD in August 2001; for the treatment of Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder in May 2002; and for the treatment of Social Anxiety Disorder in February 2003.
Pfizer’s Knowledge of Zoloft Lawsuit Alleged Info
Prior to Mother Plaintiffs becoming pregnant, Pfizer knew or should have known that children were being born with congenital birth defects, malformations, and other related conditions to women who took Zoloft® during pregnancy.
Prior to Mother Plaintiff becoming pregnant, Pfizer knew or should have known that taking Zoloft® during pregnancy poses risks to a developing fetus. Pfizer knew or should have known that Zoloft® crosses the placenta, which could have important implications for the developing fetus.
Prior to the time that Mother Plaintiff ingested Zoloft® during pregnancy, Pfizer knew or should have known that Zoloft® posed an increased risk of congenital birth defects, malformations, heart defects, persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (“PPHN”), fetal demise, and other conditions.
Zoloft Lawsuit Contains SSRI Studies
Importantly, Pfizer knew or should have known by 2007 that SSRIs, including Zoloft®, doubled the risk of septal heart defects in babies born to mothers taking Zoloft®. Louick, Carol, First-Trimester Use of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and the Risk of Birth Defects, 356 (26) New Eng. J. Med. 2675-2683 (2007).
These same heart defect results were further confirmed in 2009 with the publishing of the Pederson Study. This study was designed to evaluate the association between SSRI use during the first trimester of pregnancy and major malformation. The study looked at 496,881 births reported in the Danish nationwide birth registry. The study found that the use of Zoloft® and Celexa® were associated with an increased prevalence of septal heart defects, and the use of more than one type of SSRI during the first trimester was associated with a fourfold increase in the prevalence of septal heart defects. Pederson, Lars, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors in Pregnancy and Congenital Malformation: Population Based Cohort Study, 339 British Medical Journal b3569 (2009).
Further studies confirmed these earlier findings. The Komum Study looked at 216,042 women, 2,062 of whom had taken an SSRI during pregnancy. The conclusion was that all SSRIs (except Paroxetine) were associated with increased risk of cardiac malformation. Notably, Zoloft® was associated with a higher incidence of septal defects. Komum, Jete, Use of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors during Early Pregnancy and Risk of Congenital Malformation: Updated analysis, 2 Clinical Epidemiology 29-36 (2010).
FDA Involvement in Zoloft Lawsuit Claims
During the entire time Zoloft® has been on the market in the United States, FDA regulations have required Pfizer to issue stronger warnings whenever reasonable evidence of an association between a serious risk and Zoloft® existed. The regulations specifically state that a causal link need not have been proven to issue the new warnings. Further, the regulations explicitly allowed Pfizer to issue such a warning without prior FDA approval.
Prior to Mother Plaintiffs pregnancy, Pfizer had the knowledge, the means, and the duty to provide the medical community and the consuming public with a stronger warning regarding the association between Zoloft® and congenital birth defects and other related conditions, through all means necessary, including but not limited to, labeling, continuing education, symposiums, posters, sales calls to doctors, and advertisements and promotional materials. Further, based upon the alarming evidence and signals that had been accumulating since the 1990s evidencing and demonstrating a relationship between Zoloft® and birth defects and/or fetal demise, including but not limited to the information known or that should have been known from all animal studies, human studies, case reports, adverse event reports, registries and other available sources, Pfizer had a duty to conduct post-marketing studies to evaluate fully the significance of these studies. Pfizer breached this duty.
Medical Community and Involvement In Zoloft Lawsuit Knowledge
Pfizer had actual knowledge that doctors frequently prescribed Zoloft® to women of childbearing potential for approved uses of the drug and that doctors frequently prescribed Zoloft® to women of childbearing potential for unapproved or off-label uses.
Pfizer failed to disclose adequately the increased risk of congenital birth defects of Zoloft® to the medical community and Plaintiffs. Pfizer was aware that its’ failure to disclose this information to the medical community and Plaintiffs would result in serious injury and/or death to the children or unborn fetus of women who were prescribed Zoloft® by a physician who was not aware of this information. By failing to disclose this information to the medical community and Plaintiffs, Pfizer acted in a willful, wanton, and outrageous manner and with disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs. Pfizer’s conduct caused serious, permanent injuries to Plaintiffs.
Pfizer, its agents, servants, and employees acting in the course and scope of their employment, negligently and carelessly breached their duties to the medical community, Mother Plaintiff’s physicians, and other foreseeable users similarly situated.
Risks Listed in Zoloft Lawsuit
Despite having extensive knowledge of the extreme risks associated with Zoloft®, as well as the absolute duty to properly and adequately warn foreseeable users, Pfizer never approached the FDA to alter the label for Zoloft® so that it property and adequately warned of the risks of birth defects associated with the drug.
The current Zoloft® label still does not warn doctors or patients about the increased risk of malformations, fetal demise, and other birth defects seen in babies whose mothers took Zoloft® during pregnancy.
Comment On Zoloft Lawsuit Subsequent Findings
It may seem exhaustive that the Zoloft Lawsuit at hand mentions much information. The Zoloft Lawsuit will give very detailed information to increase the understanding of the court and to show the backing of knowledge leading to the Zoloft Lawsuit claim. The comments and information are lengthy. We have removed portions due to redundancy in the Zoloft Lawsuit.
Failed to Make Zoloft Lawsuit Plaintiffs Aware of Risk
Despite Pfizer’s longstanding knowledge of the danger of birth defects, Pfizer failed and continues to fail to warn and disclose to consumers that Zoloft® significantly increases the risk of malformations and other birth defects. Furthermore, the proper and effective use of Zoloft® by Mother Plaintiff was impaired due to Pfizer’s failure to warn of Zoloft®’s defects and Pfizer’s failure to properly and adequately set forth such warnings in Zoloft®’ s drug labeling.
Pfizer knew of the dangerous birth defects associated with Zoloft® use during pregnancy from the preclinical studies and the subsequent published studies confirming these risks. Pfizer took no action to properly study Zoloft® or did not properly publish the results of studies it did do, which would have reflected that risk. Pfizer failed to adequately warn or remedy the risks, and instead concealed, suppressed, and failed to disclose the dangers. Even in the face of numerous published studies, Pfizer continues to deny these dangers and will not review its drug labeling.
Design as it Affects the Zoloft Lawsuit
Pfizer designed, produced, manufactured, and injected into the stream of commerce, in the regular course of business, the pharmaceutical drug Zoloft® which it knew would be used by Mother Plaintiff and others.
At the time the Zoloft® was manufactured and sold to Mother Plaintiff by Pfizer, it was defective in design and unreasonably dangerous, subjecting users to risks of fetal malformations, fetal demise, and other birth defects which exceeded the benefits of the product, and for which other safer products were available. Alternatively, when the Zoloft® products were manufactured and sold to Mother Plaintiff by Defendant, the products were defective in design and formulation, making use of products more dangerous than other drugs for similar purposes.
Defects and Negligence Affect Zoloft Lawsuit
Pfizer designed, produced, manufactured, and injected into the stream of commerce, in the regular course of its business, the pharmaceutical drug Zoloft® which it knew would be used by Mother Plaintiff and others.
At the time the Zoloft® was manufactured and sold to Mother Plaintiff by Pfizer, it was defective in design and unreasonably dangerous, subjecting unborn children to risks of fetal malformation, fetal demise, and other birth defects which exceeded the benefits of the product and for which other safer products were available.
Alternatively, when the Zoloft® products were manufactured and sold to Mother Plaintiff by Pfizer, the product was defective in design and formulation, making use of the product more dangerous than other drugs for pain relief.
Comment on Finding a Zoloft Lawsuit Attorney
You can speak to a Zoloft Lawsuit attorney by contacting Best Legal Source. This Zoloft Lawsuit was provided to issue you an example of how an actual Zoloft Lawsuit may appear.
Suppression and Fraud by Zoloft Lawsuit Defendant
Pfizer’s advertising program, by affirmative misrepresentations and omissions, falsely and deceptively sought to create the image and impression that the use of Zoloft® was safe for human use; had no unacceptable side effects; had fewer side effects than other antidepressants; and would not interfere with daily life.
On information and belief, Pfizer purposefully concealed, failed to disclose, misstated, downplayed, and understated the health hazards and risks associated with the use of Zoloft®. Pfizer, through promotional literature, deceived potential users and prescribers of said drug by relying on only allegedly positive information, including testimonials from allegedly satisfied users, and manipulating statistics to suggest widespread acceptability, while concealing, misstating, and downplaying the known adverse and serious health effects. Pfizer falsely and deceptively kept relevant information from potential Zoloft® users and minimized presciber concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of Zoloft®.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray:
a) that process issue according to law;
b) that the Defendant be served with a copy of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and show cause why the prayers for relief requested by Plaintiffs should not be granted;
c) that Plaintiffs be granted a trial by jury in this matter;
d) that the Court enter judgment against the Defendant for all general and compensatory damages allowable to Plaintiffs;
e) that the Court enter judgment against the Defendant for all special damages allowable to Plaintiffs;
f) that the Court enter judgment against the Defendant for all equitable relief allowable to Plaintiffs;
g) that the Court enter judgment against the Defendant for all declaratory relief allowable to Plaintiffs;
h) that the Court enter judgment against the Defendant for all other relief allowable to Plaintiffs;
i) that the Court award Plaintiffs all interest allowable on all damages;
j) that the Court award Plaintiffs the costs and expenses in this litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert fees; and
k) that the Court award Plaintiffs such other and further monetary, medical, equitable, and declaratory relief as may be just and proper under the circumstances.
End of Zoloft Lawsuit Segment
The Zoloft Lawsuit and Best Legal Source Assistance
Best Legal Source has the capability of making the process of your Zoloft Lawsuit much easier for you. Calling Best Legal Source will give you the knowledge and connections you need to pursue a solid Zoloft Lawsuit claim.
A Zoloft Lawsuit attorney can be found, on your behalf, if you call (800) 611-7080 or you can fill out the contact form above to be reached electronically. Compensation for your Zoloft Lawsuit is attainable for certain birth defects with the assistance of a knowledgeable Zoloft Lawsuit attorney.
Zoloft Lawsuit Resource Page
07/26/2012 Yaz Lawsuit: Women who use birth control pills that contain the progestin drospirenone should understand the serious side effects, risks and possibility of death associated with these drugs. Numerous Yaz Lawsuits alleging the birth control pill caused adverse events such as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, heart attacks and strokes are now pending. Bayer Healthcare is now in the process of settling Yaz Lawsuits for thousands of women.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) elected to introduce stronger warnings on the label instead of removing Yaz from the market. These new warning labels are the result of studies that have shown a three-fold increase in the risk of blood clots for drospirenone-containing medications such as Yaz. While many attorneys can assist you with a Yaz Lawsuit, not all attorneys are experienced in pharmaceutical litigation. It is important to be aware of the qualifications of the Yaz Lawsuit attorney you select.
Plaintiffs continue to file Yaz Lawsuits against Bayer, the manufacturer of Yaz, claiming they have suffered health complications such as serious blood clots. Yaz Lawsuits are usually filed on the premise that the manufacturer did not warn consumers about the potential serious side effects of Yaz. Those individuals interested in filing a Yaz Lawsuit have a limited period of time in which to take action because Yaz Lawsuits should be resolved in the near future. This is good news for those still interested in pursuing a Yaz Lawsuit claim. If you or someone you love has suffered a pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, heart attack, or stroke, you maybe be entitled to file a Yaz Lawsuit and receive financial compensation for high medical costs.
The fee for filing a Yaz Lawsuit is on a contingency fee basis which means you do not pay if the case is not won. If the Yaz Lawsuit is successful, the Yaz Lawsuit attorney will be paid through a portion of the settlement. Basically, this means you will not be charged any out-of-pocket expenses.
You can begin a Yaz Lawsuit with a free consultation by a Yaz Lawsuit attorney with no obligation involved. To be connected with an attorney qualified and experienced in Yaz Lawsuits, take the first step toward financial recovery and contact Best Legal Source at (800) 611-7080 today.
The plaintiff of the most recent Pradaxa Lawsuit case has been named as a woman from Cleveland, Ohio. The complaint was filed two months ago against the manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and the requested transfer to MDL was made. U.S. District Judge David Herndon has continued to move the Pradaxa Lawsuit forward despite Boehringer’s motion to dismiss the claim.
The Pradaxa Lawsuit MDL action is similar to a Pradaxa Class Action Lawsuit and may be confused with this term by many non-legal professionals. A Pradaxa Class Action Lawsuit would be different from MDL cases, but the terminology is often confused. In the Pradaxa Lawsuit MDL, cases will remain separate.
The Pradaxa Lawsuit cases may be joined together into MDL if the U.S. Judicial Panel for Multi District Litigation approves. The amount of Pradaxa Lawsuit claims has risen to 27 pending in 13 district courts across the nation. Judge Herndon was quoted by the Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch as saying, “This is far too many cases to ignore the issues of concern to this Court while the MDL motion is being resolved.”
The Pradaxa Lawsuit claims began against this blood thinning medication as consumers reported excessive bleeding events and even fatal bleeds. At the end of 2011, after only a year on the market, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had received over 500 reports of fatal bleed deaths linked to Pradaxa. Additionally, over 900 reports of gastrointestinal hemorrhages, 300 reports of rectal hemorrhages and 200 reports of cerebrovascular accidents were submitted to the FDA.
Those consumers who have experienced a severe bleeding event or have a family member who died while taking Pradaxa are encouraged to speak to their doctor about the link between Pradaxa and excessive bleeding. A Pradaxa Lawsuit may also be an option for you. Dial (800) 611-7080 to reach the Best Legal Source helpline for assistance in connecting with Pradaxa Lawyer .
07/25/2012 Mesothelioma Lawsuit and New Treatments: In a press release last week by Bayer HealthCare, it was publicized that a new product to treat Mesothelioma Cancer has been granted the designation of orphan drug. The new drug is a mesothelin-targeting antibody that was given this status by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. For more information about the orphan drug designation, please visit the FDA site.
This may have no effect on those patients who have filed Mesothelioma Lawsuit cases and are in later stages of their mesothelioma diagnosis; however, it offers a hopeful prospect for those in the early stages of a Mesothelioma Cancer diagnosis.
The drug is known as BAY 94-9343and is in the midst of Phase I clinical trials in Texas, Tennessee and Maryland. The treatment will be for those individuals with advanced solid tumors according to a press release from Bayer. Previously, the prognosis for malignant mesothelioma has been very grim. New developments may fill the void for possible treatment options for Mesothelioma Cancer victims. Mesothelioma generates much legal attention since the direct cause of most all cases is exposure to asbestos fibers located on many job sites.
Mesothelioma Lawsuit cases can be pursued by the person diagnosed with Mesothelioma Cancer or by the family of the victim. Because mesothelioma is caused by direct or indirect exposure to asbestos, the defendant of the Mesothelioma Lawsuit is generally any company responsible for the asbestos exposure. Workers most likely to be exposed include construction workers, plumbers, auto mechanics, navy shipyard employees and electricians among others.
Those searching for legal representation from seasoned Mesothelioma Lawsuit attorneys can call Best Legal Source for prompt assistance. A free consultation with well-known, dependable attorneys involved in Mesothelioma Lawsuit litigation can be obtained on your behalf. Please dial (800) 611-7080 to reach the Best Legal Source helpline.
07/20/2012 Zithromax Lawsuit Latest News: The San Francisco Chronicle reported information from sources stating relevant news to those pursuing Zithromax Lawsuit cases. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent the maker of Zithromax, Pfizer, a letter reprimanding the company for leaving out serious Zithromax risks in its promotional brochure.
The FDA letter states that the Zithromax (Z-Pak) brochure omitted and minimized important risk information, broadened the indication use for the drug, made misleading efficacy claims and unsubstantiated superiority claims. The Zithromax risks within the brochure were hidden in obscure locations without headings and not in a clear format for the benefit of the reader.
The heart risk has been the subject of recent Zithromax Lawsuit cases. Sudden cardiac death has been linked in certain cases to the use of Zithromax. The FDA highlighted these issues and stated that Pfizer failed to warn readers about QT prolongation (the possible cause of cardiac arrhythmia) and other fatal heart problems. The allergic reaction of Stevens-Johnson syndrome was also omitted from the brochure.
These claims are at the center of Zithromax Lawsuit news after the New England Journal of Medicine released study results in May of 2012 that found an increased risk of sudden cardiac death tied to the use of Zithromax.
The number of people affected by this issue is currently unknown. If you or a family member suffered from heart complications or death related to cardiac arrhythmia while taking Zithromax, you might find consultation with a Zithromax Lawsuit attorney beneficial. Zithromax is a widely used drug; however, this risk of heart damage and death may not be known by every consumer. If someone you loved died suddenly from a heart condition while taking the Z-Pak, an attorney involved in the Zithromax Lawsuit may be able to assist you in determining your eligibility for a Zithromax Lawsuit . Please call the Best Legal Source helpline at (800) 611-7080 to arrange for a legal consultation with a Zithromax Lawyer active in the Zithromax Lawsuit .
The idea that mental disorders could be due to infection is not new, but remains surprisingly difficult to accept. Just as what was once called “general paresis” ultimately was shown to be caused by syphilis and curable with antibiotics, some cases of sudden onset pediatric obsessive compulsive disorder are traceable to strep and respond to immune-based treatments. A proposed broader syndrome would include those with similar symptom but no clear link to strep.