An exploding battery can cause more harm than people may realize. Numerous individuals have suffered serious injuries from exploding lithium-ion batteries, and in fact, exploding batteries have even caused death in some cases. If you were injured by an exploding battery that has a defect, then you could be eligible for substantial compensation. Reach out to a New York City product liability lawyer to learn more about what this requires.
When it comes to lithium-ion battery hazards, the main causes of harm are fires and explosions. If a defect is present, these batteries are known to catch on fire or explode. The risk comes from the unpredictability
of these explosions and how close the person is to the battery when this happens.
A common concern is how many products these lithium-ion batteries can be found in. Lithium-ion batteries are used in phones, e-cigarettes, hoverboards, electric vehicles, certain train cars, hoverboards, and laptops. One small fire from an unchecked lithium-ion battery can spread into a major house fire if no one sees the battery catch fire.
Exploding lithium-ion batteries can dismember fingers if people have the battery near or in their hands. These explosions can result in a variety of other injuries like thermal burns, lacerations, tissue damage, vision loss, hearing problems, and infections depending on the injury severity. Deaths have been reported in rare cases.
The most hazardous part about defective lithium-ion batteries is not always knowing when they will catch fire or explode. This makes it hard to be cautious with lithium-ion batteries. Some of the most common causes of lithium-battery explosions are not easily detected:
You can sue for an exploding lithium-ion battery if you can prove the injuries you suffered and the defect that caused the explosion. This same rule applies if your lithium-ion battery caught fire and caused injuries or property damages. Filing a product liability lawsuit requires determining what type of defect caused your injuries.
The three types of product defects are manufacturing defects, marketing defects, and design defects. Manufacturing defects may only exist in your lithium-ion battery because they involve a one-time mistake made during factory production. Whereas design defects exist in every released version of the product and may result in multiple battery explosions.
Marketing defects are a lack of warning labels and instructions for safe use. For example, a lack of instructions on how to safely charge and store a lithium-ion battery could be a reason to sue. Consider contacting a New York City product liability lawyer to find out what steps you can take to sue.
No one should have to pay for injuries caused by a defective product. Contact the Sullivan and Brill Law Firm by dialing (212) 566-1000 to talk to a Puerto Rico product liability attorney for a consultation today. Our legal team can help you obtain compensation for damages caused by an exploding battery like medical bills and emotional distress. We serve clients throughout New York City, Long Island, Kings, Bronx, Queens, Richmond, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, and Rockland Counties, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.
All it takes is one product defect to result in serious injuries and harm to consumers. Increasing your awareness of types of product defects and product recalls might help you avoid these types of injuries. If you were injured by a product, then you might be able to sue for substantial compensation. All you have to do is reach out to a New York City personal injury attorney to see what legal steps to take.
Avoiding injuries from defective products starts with knowing about the types of defects that cause injuries. The three main types of product defects are marketing defects, manufacturing defects, and design defects. Being able to identify these ahead of time could potentially prevent an injury.
Marketing defects can be found on labels, instructions, packaging, and product stickers. What often happens is a lack of information about the safe use of the product. If the product looks dangerous when used a certain way, then precautions could prevent an accident.
Design defects exist within the design of the product and might involve internal or overall mechanisms that go wrong. Manufacturing defects may include minor issues like loose screws, cracked pieces, or missing parts. In some cases, these can be dangerous. For example, car seats with loose screws could make the seatbelt fail.
Checking product recall lists online is also a helpful tool for avoiding defective products. There are a variety of websites like the Food and Drug Administration, Recalls.gov, and Foodsafety.gov that can be used to keep track of the most recent product recalls. Products are recalled when they pose hazards to consumers.
If you suspect the product you are using has faults, then consider checking these online product recall sites. See if this product is listed and if so, the best step might be to avoid using the product. Some people are able to request a refund.
In the event that you were injured by a defective product, you might be able to file a product liability lawsuit for compensation. A product liability claim involves first identifying the type of defect that caused your injury. Then the damages caused and ties to the product manufacturer must be proven.
You can prove this by collecting and documenting as much evidence as possible. Write down what happened and details about the product defect. Take pictures of the product defect, your injuries, and any other damages like property damage. Some cases like these may require evidence from receipts, product blueprints, and documents.
Consider contacting a New York City product liability lawyer for more information on how to file your lawsuit. A lawyer can help you obtain significant compensation.
Going up against a product company can be intimidating. Feel free to call the Sullivan and Brill Law Firm today at (212) 566-1000 to speak with a New York product liability lawyer for a consultation today. Our team of attorneys can help you obtain compensation for any injuries or damages you suffered from a defective product. We can be found in New York City, Long Island, Kings, Bronx, Queens, Richmond, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, and Rockland Counties, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.
In the blink of an eye, one simple mistake can quickly lead to a catastrophic car accident. This means that being astutely aware of some of the most common mistakes associated with car accidents can be helpful. This may help prevent future car accidents and might help when filing a car accident claim. If you suffered injuries from another driver, then you could be eligible for compensation. Reach out to a New York City car accident lawyer for more information.
There are four types of driving errors that can increase the chances of a car accident. These include performance errors, recognition errors, decision errors, and non-performance errors. Being aware of these
types of errors may help with avoiding car accidents in the future.
Performance errors are described as using poor directional control over the vehicle. They are also described as overcompensation. Using poor directional control might look like not staying in the proper lane or turning too quickly. Overcompensation often means steering or braking too quickly when coming across a sudden change on the road. This could lead to a rollover accident.
Recognition errors involve not paying attention or not noticing important chances on the road. Pedestrians crossing the street, drivers turning left, and drivers shifting lanes may lead to accidents when a driver fails to notice these changes. Distracted driving like texting while driving plays a big role in these types of accidents.
Decision errors occur when a driver makes a risky decision like driving too fast on a sharp turn. This might also mean misjudging their distance from other drivers. Risky driving decisions like rapid lane changing and speeding can also lead to accidents.
Non-performance errors happen when drivers do not take any action and an accident occurs. This often looks like falling asleep at the wheel or experiencing a medical emergency like a stroke.
Other driving mistakes that can cause car accidents include failure to use a turn signal, not checking blind spots, and speeding through yellow lights. Not using a turn signal confuses other drivers and can easily lead to an accident. This is especially true at four-way stops where other drivers depend on knowing what the other driver is about to do.
Failure to check blind spots while shifting lanes can lead to side-sweep car accidents. The same outcome can happen when mirrors are not checked properly. Lastly, speeding through yellow lights may result in accidents when time runs out and the light turns red.
Try contacting a New York City car accident lawyer if you suffered injuries in an accident with another driver. Depending on what happened, you could be eligible for compensation.
Proving a car accident claim can be difficult. Call the Sullivan and Brill Law Firm today at (212) 566-1000 to talk to a New York automobile accident attorney for a free consultation. Our Long Island legal team might be able to increase your chances of compensation for lost wages, pain and suffering, and medical costs. We are located in New York City, Long Island, Kings, Bronx, Queens, Richmond, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, and Rockland Counties, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Knowing what increases the chances of teen driver car accidents can be enormously helpful when filing an accident claim. If you were in an unexpected car accident, then you could be eligible for compensation that could pay for your medical bills and car damages. This requires filing a car accident claim. Feel free to talk with a New York City automobile accident attorney about what steps this will take.
Teen driver car accidents tend to have common causes associated with them. Some of the most common teen driver accident causes include:
Distracted driving is one of the most well-known causes of teen car accidents. Texting while driving stands out as the most common form of distracted driving involved in these accidents. However, texting is not the only type of distracted driving. Other forms of distracted driving include eating, reaching for something in the back, not paying close enough attention to the road, and looking through CDs.
Drugged driving can mean consuming alcohol, illicit drugs, or medications that warn against driving. Drunk driving is the most well-known cause but not the only cause of teen driver car accidents. Abuse of prescription medications may also result in car accidents if the teen decides to drive while the medication is still in effect.
Driving with multiple passengers is particularly riskier for teen drivers due to less driving experience. Having other teens in the vehicle while a teen with minimal driving experience is driving can raise multiple risks. These risks include distractions while driving and being influenced by their friends to take greater risks while driving.
This leads to risky driving behaviors like pulling into traffic too soon, illegal lane changes, speeding, and turning too quickly or sharply.
Do not panic if you find yourself on the other end of an accident as a teen driver. There are several teen driver accident steps you can take to protect yourself. Taking a deep breath is often powerful enough to regain your composure and think more clearly. Mistakes can be made while in panic mode.
Call 911 to ensure you and others are protected by ensuring professional help is on the way. Always call 911 if you or anyone is injured. Once you are in a safe spot, try collecting as much information and evidence as you can by writing details down and taking pictures. Consider contacting a New York City car accident lawyer if you have questions about the next steps.
The aftermath of a car accident can be overwhelming but you do not have to face this alone. Contact the Sullivan and Brill Law Firm by dialing (212) 566-1000 to speak with a New York car accident lawyer for a free consultation today. Our Queens legal team can help increase your chances of compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost income. We serve clients throughout New York City, Long Island, Kings, Bronx, Queens, Richmond, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, and Rockland Counties, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Pedestrian accidents can come with severe consequences like life-threatening injuries and liability issues. Being aware of the most common causes of pedestrian accidents and safety tips might help you avoid these accidents in the future. If you were struck by a driver who was negligent, then you could be eligible for significant compensation. Ask a New York City pedestrian accident attorney for guidance if you have questions.
The first step to avoiding pedestrian accidents is being aware of what causes them. Knowing what not to do is almost always as important as knowing what to do to protect yourself from these accidents. Some of the most common pedestrian accident causes include:
Knowing that many pedestrian accidents are caused by not obeying crosswalks or failing to yield to traffic can be helpful. This means pedestrian accidents can be reduced if pedestrians follow crosswalk signals, use sidewalks instead of roadways, and yield to oncoming traffic. Running in front of traffic is risky and may result in severe injuries in the event of a collision.
Likewise, drivers can cause pedestrian accidents with risky behaviors. Common driving behaviors that increase pedestrian accidents include speeding, failing to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks, and not paying attention. Both drivers and pedestrians can cause accidents by being distracted. Texting while walking or driving has led to many pedestrian accidents.
Drivers can avoid pedestrian accidents by going the speed limit, not engaging in distracted driving, and following crosswalk laws. Some crosswalks have traffic signals while others have stop signs, yield signs, or signs telling drivers to slow down. Following these signs, even in parking lots, is important. Otherwise, other drivers and pedestrians can become confused, and a mistake can cause an accident.
There are several pedestrian safety tips that can decrease the chances of an accident. For one, following all road signs and crosswalk rules is vital. Knowing when to yield to traffic is important for not confusing drivers which helps avoid accidents.
Using sidewalks is much safer but when sidewalks are unavailable, walking while facing traffic is the next safest option. Keep as far away from traffic as possible and avoid walking on roadsides, if at all possible, when there are other ways to reach a destination. Be wary of drivers backing up or driving in parking lots.
Consider contacting a New York City pedestrian accident lawyer if you were in a serious accident.
You may not have to deal with the aftermath of a pedestrian accident alone. Call the Sullivan and Brill Law Firm today at (212) 566-1000 to talk to a New York personal injury attorney for a free consultation. Our Richmond legal team might be able to help you obtain compensation for lost income, pain and suffering, and medical costs. We can be found in New York City, Long Island, Kings, Bronx, Queens, Richmond, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, and Rockland Counties, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.
A defective medication can lead to a multitude of medical complications. These complications range from mild side effects to severe allergic reactions and life-threatening effects. Some people may suffer worsening symptoms or use a medication that fails to treat their medical condition. Consider talking to a New York City product liability attorney if you have questions about how to file a lawsuit.
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recalls new medications each year, for a variety of reasons. Some of the most common causes of defective medications include incorrect dosing,
contamination, mislabeling, and medication defects. These errors may happen during the design, manufacturing, or shipping of the medication.
Recalls happen when the medication is deemed harmful to the public and must be removed from shelves. Some recalls are more serious than others. Class I recalls are done for medications that have been known or could cause injuries or death. Whereas class II recalls are for medications that induce temporary negative effects. Lastly, class III recalls handling medications with labeling mistakes.
Faulty medications can result in mild to severe consequences depending on the defect. For example, a minor mislabeling error may lead to a simple lack of information about the product. However, a mislabeling error that lists the wrong dosage or frequency to use the medication could lead to an overdose.
Accidental contamination of a medication product during factory production can be as severe as death. This could be caused by deadly chemicals, cancer-causing chemicals, or chemicals that induce severe allergic reactions. Too much of one ingredient due to a factory error can also lead to severe side effects or overdoses.
A pharmaceutical company can be sued with a product liability claim if it sold a defective medication that caused harm to the public. This harm can be mental or physical and may include damages like pain and suffering, emotional distress, and medical costs. The three types of defects you can sue for are:
Design defects exist in the product itself. They impact every released version of the medication. Common examples might be medications that were not adequately tested in labs before public release. These medications may come with adverse side effects.
Manufacturing defects occur when factory errors are made. They may only impact one or a small subset of released products. One example would be the wrong dosage. Marketing defects involve mislabeling, like when allergy warnings or safe use instructions for the medication are not listed.
Try contacting a New York City product liability lawyer if you have questions about suing.
Going up against a pharmaceutical company alone can feel intimidating. Contact the Sullivan and Brill Law Firm by dialing (212) 566-1000 to speak with a New York product liability lawyer for a free consultation today. Our Westchester legal team is prepared to help you obtain compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering, and lost income. We serve clients throughout New York City, Long Island, Kings, Bronx, Queens, Richmond, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, and Rockland Counties, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.
If you were injured or significantly harmed by a defective medical device, then you could be eligible for substantial compensation. Depending on the circumstances, you might be able to file a lawsuit against your doctor or the product manufacturer. The hard part is figuring out who to sue and how to sue. Feel free to reach out to a New York City product liability lawyer for answers.
Medical devices are recalled by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) each year due to defects. The harm caused by defective medical devices ranges from mild discomfort to life-threatening injuries. Depending on the type of medical device that becomes defective, a person could be left with permanent harm.
Some of the most common defective medical devices that have been recalled over the past several years are implants. Surgical mesh was recalled after the mesh shrunk over time, resulting in severe pain in patients who had the mesh implanted in them. What happened is surgical mesh manufacturers were able to skip testing of their product with legal loopholes.
Many medical device companies will attempt to do the same thing to speed up their revenue. An implanted lap band designed to reduce eating for purposes of helping patients lose weight ended up injuring patients. The lap band had started causing many patients chronic nausea, vomiting, and little to no results with weight loss.
Metal hip implants were recalled after several implant failures with one patient suffering the effects of metal debris poisoning. Other patients suffered chronic pain and injuries from these hip implants. Some patients struggled with physical activities as a result.
You might be wondering if you should sue your doctor or the medical device manufacturer for your injuries. This can be a difficult question because the answer depends on who was negligent. If the doctor knowingly used a defective medical device, then the doctor could be held liable.
A damaged or defective medical device for one medical device only could be a user error by a doctor or a manufacturing error. Having a manufacturing error would mean you would sue the product manufacturer. This involves filing a product liability lawsuit against the medical device company.
Taking an action like this can be intimidating but might be easier than suing your doctor if you have evidence. You must prove a defect in the design, manufacturing, or marketing of the medical device. Pictures of the damage, defects, and blueprints all serve as evidence.
Try contacting a New York City product liability lawyer if you have questions about what other steps to take.
Figuring out how to sue for a defective medical device can be complicated. Contact the Sullivan and Brill Law Firm by dialing (212) 566-1000 today to speak with a New York medical malpractice lawyer for a free consultation. Our San Juan legal team might be able to help you obtain compensation for medical bills, emotional distress, and lost income. We serve clients throughout New York City, Long Island, Kings, Bronx, Queens, Richmond, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, and Rockland Counties, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Certain unexpected medical emergencies like heart attacks can make a driver immune from liability for a car accident. This involves using the medical emergency defense when submitting a car accident claim. However, specific criteria must be met to qualify a driver to use this defense. Feel free to ask a New York City car accident lawyer to see if this could apply to your car accident.
The medical emergency defense is something that could make an at-fault driver immune from liability in a car accident. Only certain medical emergencies can qualify for this defense to work. Common examples of medical emergencies that usually qualify include:
What these all have in common is they are unexpected, unforeseeable medical events. They are also sudden medical conditions that are hard to manage in enough time to pull off to the side of the road. These medical events are severe enough to make drivers lose control over their vehicles.
For the medical emergency defense to work, the driver must prove the medical event caused a loss of control over driving. This loss of control must have happened before the car accident. Proving these can be difficult depending on the complexity of the accident.
If the medical emergency or event is deemed predictable, then this defense may not work. When the driver was aware of the medical condition or forewarned not to drive due to a medical condition, this could also work against this defense. Certain disorders like epilepsy, for example, may disqualify people for the medical emergency defense since they know about the risks of driving.
You can use the medical emergency defense in your car accident claim to defend against liability. Other necessary car accident steps can improve your car accident claim. One of the most important steps is to call 911 if anyone is injured. Contact the police for the same reason or if property damages are severe.
Be sure to collect the other driver's contact and auto insurance information. Without this, filing an accident claim will be extremely difficult. The same issue may arise without a copy of the police report. Obtaining a copy of your medical records is also vital to prove any injuries you suffered.
You might be able to request compensation from the other driver if you suffered injuries and the other driver was partially at fault. Consider contacting a New York City accident lawyer to see what legal steps this requires.
You may not have to pay for all the car accident damages yourself. Contact the Sullivan and Brill Law Firm by dialing (212) 566-1000 today to speak with a New York automobile accident lawyer for a free consultation. Our New York City attorneys might be able to help you obtain compensation for medical expenses, emotional distress, and lost wages. We serve clients throughout New York City, Long Island, Kings, Bronx, Queens, Richmond, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, and Rockland Counties, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.
After years of ongoing lawsuits alleging Johnson & Johnson hid the associated increased risk to ovarian cancer, the company has finally announced it will discontinue the sale of Talcum Powder products in the U.S and Canada. At the start of this litigation, the goal was only to get the large conglomerate to warn of the increased risk of cancer on the label. The discontinuance of sale and production of talc-based baby powder is a far bigger win for society then anticipated. It is estimated that approximately 10% of the 21,000 plus ovarian cancer diagnosis-es each year are attributable to the genital use of talc powder. This action ensures that there will never be new users and current use of this harmful product will stop.
The talcum powder federal multi-district litigation officially formed in 2016, but there have been single event cases dating back to the 1970s. Johnson & Johnson has aggressively fought the claims defending the purity of the product. Early cases were dismissed or voluntarily discontinued while J&J withheld research and documents indicating that the genital use of talcum powder was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. Beginning in 2016, jury trials in Missouri and California began resulting in multi-million dollar verdicts on behalf of victims who developed cancer after using talcum baby powder. Regardless of the trial verdicts, J&J continued to back the product. The company ignored the scientific evidence that showed an increased risk of cancer from using talc-based powder and continued to put the consumer in harm's way to deepen its own pockets. In 2017, evidence emerged that J&J's talcum powder contained small amounts of asbestos, a dangerous mineral that causes mesothelioma. J&J denied the claims. In October of 2019, the FDA tested random containers of J&J talc powder and found unsafe levels of asbestos. Johnson & Johnson was forced to recall the affected lots. Afterward, they continued to steadfastly defend the product.
The announcement discontinuing the sale of the product comes shortly after the MDL judge ruled that the vast majority of the plaintiff's proposed expert witness testimony was valid and could be heard by the jury at trial. As J&J pulls the product, it still claims that there is no increased risk of cancer and it continues to sell the product in other countries. It has rationalized the discontinuance of the product as a commercial decision based upon declining sales. Although baby powder makes up only a small portion of Johnson & Johnson's revenue, the talc story has tarnished its reputation. Regardless of the justifications it gives to the public, the litigation brought to light a blatant disregard for the consumer and a willingness to place profits over the safety of the public. Like many similar litigations in the past, this litigation rid the public of a product that provided no medical benefit, but imposed significant harm.
On May 15, 2020, a proposed plan of settlement was agreed to in the Imerys bankruptcy to compensate women harmed by talcum powder. Imerys has coined itself as the world leader in the production and processing of minerals. The French-based multinational corporation has been named in the talcum powder litigation as the primary supplier for Johnson & Johnson's talcum baby powder. Over the past decade, it has faced liability lawsuits. In 2018, Imerys settled the claims of 22 women for 5.5 million in Missouri prior to trial. The trial proceeded against Johnson & Johnson and resulted in a 4.7 billion dollar verdict. In February 2019, Imerys's North American Subsidies filed for bankruptcy. As part of the bankruptcy resolution, Imerys is proposing, subject to court approval, to auction off the North American operations and put the proceeds into a trust fund for current and future women that develop ovarian cancer from their use of talcum powder. Essentially, it is offering to settle the present and future claims for the fair market value for the North American operations. In return, it will no longer be named as a defendant future liability lawsuits. "Today's announcement marks an important step toward a permanent resolution of historic talc-related liabilities," said Alessandro Dazza, Imerys' Chief Executive Officer. "The Plan, once approved by the relevant Courts, represents a favorable outcome for the Group and the Talc Subsidiaries, and will enable the Group to focus on its current operations and move forward free from these past liabilities." Under the proposed plan, the completion of the sale is expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2020. The ramifications for the Talcum Powder multidistrict litigation and for Johnson & Johnson remain unclear. Learn more with Sullivan Brill Personal Injury Attorneys in New York.
In April of 2019, the 3M Dual Sided Combat Earplugs multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) was created and assigned to Judge M. Casey Rodgers in the Northern District of Florida. The MDL includes lawsuits against 3M alleging that the plaintiff suffered hearing loss and/or tinnitus as a result of the use of the defective 3M dual-sided earplugs that 3M exclusively supplied to the military between 2003 and 2015. After its formation, Judge Rodgers appointed a plaintiff steering committee, which is a group of attorneys designated to organize and lead all of the attorneys throughout the country that are representing veterans in the litigation. This enables the attorneys to collectively work together, share resources and file cases against 3M in a uniform manner.
For the past year, the litigation has been in the discovery phase. Discovery is the process of obtaining the relevant documents and information related to building the case. Hundreds of thousands of documents related to the design, manufacturing, marketing, safety testing and sale of the 3M earplugs have been produced, and sworn testimony has been taken from many witnesses with knowledge of these issues.
The judge has prioritized the production of documents and depositions relating to 3M's government contractor immunity defense. This defense would provide 3M Company with immunity from being sued. Recently, the parties have filed motions for summary judgment on this defense. Summary judgment is a process by which both sides present their evidence and written legal argument on whether a defense should apply in a case. Judge Rodgers will soon rule on whether the government contractor defense applies to this case. If Judge Roger's rules the way 3M is requesting, all of the cases will be dismissed. If the judge rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the defense will be dismissed, and the litigation will continue.
Simultaneous with discovery, the judge has been developing and executing a bellwether selection process. The bellwether selection process is a process by which a small number of individual cases are chosen for trial. Bellwether trials are the initial trials that are used to get a sense of how juries will evaluate the evidence to assist both sides in moving the MDL towards resolution. As of December of 2019, there were 139,693 individuals that had filed claims. Out of those, 1% were randomly selected to be considered for a potential bellwether case. Next, the cases were analyzed to identify characteristics that were most representative of the whole population. The characteristics found in that analysis were then applied to the 1%, which narrowed the pool to 175 individuals. Of those, 20 cases plus five alternate cases were chosen to be the bellwether trials.
The court has laid out a timeline for general discovery to be completed by July of 2020. Thereafter, discovery in the bellwether trials will be completed, and the first bellwether trials are anticipated to begin in the spring of 2021.
If you or a loved one has suffered hearing loss or tinnitus as a result of using the 3M Dual-Sided Earplugs while serving in the United States Military, please contact our office at 212-566-1000 to speak to an attorney that can help you. Sullivan Brill Personal Injury Attorneys in New York provide expert legal guidance for your defective earplug claims. Contact us today!
After years of push back from Johnson & Johnson claiming it's baby powder products are completely safe, J&J has recalled over 33,000 bottles. The recall came after the Food and Drug Administration found unsafe levels of asbestos, a carcinogen, in some bottles.
For years, Johnson & Johnson has defended the purity of baby powder products in lawsuits filed by women throughout the country. The women have alleged that J&J's talc baby powder contained asbestos and fibrous talcum which has caused their ovarian and mesothelioma cancer. The individuals perusing the lawsuit are suing on the grounds that Johnson & Johnson did not warn of the increased risk of developing cancer despite being aware of them for decades, and even going as far as to cover up the evidence. Often times, these diagnoses are fatal and despite numerous extremely high jury verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs, J&J has stood by their product. They have appealed every trial decision and there have been no publicly reported settlements, instead they have vigorously fought individuals who have been harmed by their corporate misconduct.
The tests run by the FDA show trace levels of asbestos in the 22-ounce bottles from lot number 22318RB. Johnson & Johnson responded with the recall, saying they are “taking an overabundance of caution” and they also advise any individuals with baby powder from lot number 22318RB to discontinue use immediately. Although Johnson & Johnson has issued this recall after significant pressure from the FDA and public, they continue to defend their product stating that they will “determine the integrity of the tested sample and the validity of the test results”
The FDA spokeswomen, Gloria Sánchez-Contreras, responded to the accusation stating “The F.D.A. stands by the quality of its testing and results.”
Until this point, Johnson & Johnson has never recalled any of its baby powder products. They have remained on the shelves as many individuals unassumingly continue the use of a product that has caused illness in so many others. Baby powder is classified as a cosmetic product. It has no therapeutic or medical benefit whatsoever. Personal care and cosmetic products do not have to be tested by the FDA before they go to market. They are only tested, very occasionally, after public concern has been raised. Previous FDA tests of J&J baby powder from earlier this year and one from ten years ago did not find asbestos. However, there is no safe level of asbestos. Health risk increase with more frequent use but evidence suggests any amount of exposure can be harmful. Many companies that carry baby powder, such as Rite Aid, Walgreens and CVS have taken all baby powder bottles off its shelves. Other carriers like Walmart, have chosen to only remove certain lot number bottles of the 22-ounce powder. Other companies have begun to sell and market cornstarch-based alternatives which are said to have the same feeling as talcum powder without the increased risk for disease.
Although baby powder itself makes up a smaller portion of J&J sales, the threat to the company's reputation is significant. Many consumers are saying enough is enough to the corporation profiting at the expense of their safety. Johnson & Johnson has found themselves in a very unfavorable light as many ongoing litigations have fallen in the plaintiff's favor recently. Time and time again J&J continued corporate misconduct has harmed the consumer. Other litigations Johnson & Johnson are responsible for include; Risperdal, Pelvic Transvaginal Mesh, Pinnacle Acetabular Cup, Xarelto, Marketing for Opioids and many more. Johnson& Johnson has had complete disregard for the wellbeing of the consumer, selling these harmful products where oftentimes, internal documents confirm that they were aware of the risks but ignored it and hid the knowledge from the public. Their goal was and continues to be, only to deepen their pockets, even at the expense of the consumer's health. Sullivan Brill Personal Injury Attorneys in New York are here to help if you’ve been affected by the Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder recall.
This month attorneys have filed a request to centralize the Allergan Biocell textured breast implants lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation, also known as an MDL. The Judicial Panel of Multidistrict Litigation, JPML, is a panel of judges who will decided whether to grant this request. An MDL would consolidate the several class action lawsuits that have been filed, along with any individual cases that have been or will be filed since the recall of the breast implants into one litigation before the same judge.
The FDA has reported that women with Allergan textured breast implants have a six fold increase in the risk of developing breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, BIA-ALCL, a cancer associated with the recalled product, over any other manufacturer. The plaintiffs argue that these cases should be consolidated because of the number of women that have been affected and the commonality of their claims. Thousands of women have the recalled implants and hundreds have already began to exhibit symptoms of BIA-ALCL.
Although Allergan has agreed to cover the cost to replace the implant itself, it has not agreed to supplement any of the expenses associated with the replacement, such has the removal surgery or medical monitoring costs. The plaintiffs motion seeks to centralize the pending cases before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee or the United States District Court for the Central District of California. While the class action lawsuits have initiated the consolidation, individual BIA-ALCL claims will likely also be centralized into the MDL and will preserve their individual identities, utilizing the MDL processes while moving toward trial. Sullivan Brill Personal Injury Attorneys in New York are here to help victims seek justice and compensation for injuries related to these recalled implants. Contact us today for expert legal guidance.
Less than a month after textured breast implant manufacturer, Allergan, announced its voluntary recall, two women have filed a class-action lawsuit against the company. On July 24th, Allergan recalled certain textured breast implants and tissue expanders. On July 30th, Allergan announced it will pay to cover the cost of a new implant itself, but will not cover the cost of the surgery to remove and replace them.
The two women who have filed the lawsuit allege that Allegeran was aware of the increased risk of developing BIA-ALCL and dismissed and downplayed the potential risks. Like many others, these two women have spent large sums of money unbeknownst to them that the product could increase their risk of developing cancer. The class action seeks to compel Allergan to cover the costs associated with explanting the recalled product and replacing them with a safe option.
The lawyers at Sullivan & Brill, LLP are currently representing women that have been implanted with these recalled breast implants and are investigating the strength of their legal claims. No one should have to deal with the anxiety and stress of living with a recalled product inside their bodies. A medical device manufacturer has a duty to ensure that the device is reasonably safe for its intended purpose and to warn consumers of the risks of which it is aware. If the medical device is not suited for its intended purpose or if the manufacturer is aware of risks, but does not warn of these risks, the company should be held responsible for the harm the device causes.
Contact Sullivan Brill Personal Injury Attorneys for a free consultation on whether you have a viable claim, call 212-566-1000 or complete the form on the right and one of our attorneys will contact you.
If you were one of the 147 million individuals affected by the Equifax data breach you are now eligible to submit a claim. In 2017, Equifax had the largest data breach in history. On July 22, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission stated Equifax had agreed to pay at least $575 million up to $700 million to help compensate victims of hackers who stole personal information from the Equifax servers. The complete release can be found here.
Follow the link to see if you were affected by the breach. If you were Equifax is offering 10 years free creditor monitoring or if you already have credit monitoring you can choose to receive a $125 check. Additionally, Equifax is offering further compensation, up to 20,000, to those who have 1. had to spend time recovering from the breach or 2. If you lost or spent money because of the breach. If you have lost 10 hours or less you can be compensated for 25 per hour lost. Beyond ten hours individuals will have to show the appropriate documentation to prove the loss of time and or money. You can click here for the link to file your claim. The deadline to file is January 22, 2020. Learn how to claim your compensation from the Equifax data breach with Sullivan Brill Personal Injury Attorneys.
As more recalls on popular blood pressure medications rollout, users should check their prescriptions bottles and see if their medication has been recalled. Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan are the Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers (ARBs) being recalled depending on the dosage, manufacturer and lot number. The list of affected medications is not complete because the FDA is still undertaking testing of all ARBs to see if they are contaminated with the carcinogens. To see if the medication you are taking has been tested yet, and if so, what the results were, click here.
This week Teva Pharmaceuticals's voluntary recall list has expanded. Earlier in April, it recalled 35 lots of Losartan; now it has recalled an additional six lots possibly affected by the carcinogen.
The original recall states: “Based on the available information, the risk of developing cancer in a few patients following long-term use of the product cannot be ruled out”.
Teva, along with many other manufacturers, has been called on to account as to why this has occurred and to provide compensation to those who have been harmed by the medication.
The recalls which have been coming since July 2018 are the result of contamination with cancer-causing substances during the formulatiion process. Three substances found to have contaminated many lots of Valsartan are N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), N-Nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA), and/or N-Methylnitrosobutyric acid (NMBA).
A 2018 study in Denmark showed a 9% increased risk for cancer for people who ingested Valsartan contaminated with NDMA. Short term risks are still being evaluated, but the long term effects such as liver damage, stomach cancer, kidney cancer and colon cancer have been scientifically linked to the use of the contaminated drugs for longer than 6 months.
If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with liver damage or gastrointestinal cancer after extended exposure to Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan, please call Sullivan Brill Personal Injury Attorneys today for a free consultation at (212)-566-1000.
The 2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct of Cal. S.F. Cty., has left the future of talcum powder litigation uncertain.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct of Cal. S.F. Cty., (“BMS Decision”) was a consolidated action filed by approximately 60 plaintiffs, the majority of whom were non-residents of California. The plaintiffs alleged injuries due to the use of the prescription drug Plavix, manufactured and sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (“BMS”). Plavix was not developed in California, nor was it marketed, labeled or packaged there. However, BMS derived over 1% of its nationwide sales from California, employed over 250 sales representatives, 160 employees and had 3 small offices. BMS moved to dismiss the non-resident plaintiff's claims on grounds that the California courts could not exercise jurisdiction over the non-resident claims because it violated BMS's Due Process rights. The California courts rejected the argument, and BMS appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the California ruling and held that BMS's activities in California were not sufficient for the California courts to exercise specific jurisdiction over the non-resident's claims.
The Supreme Court case set a new precedent that will apply to other mass tort cases and will have a significant impact on future mass tort litigation. The decision makes it more difficult for nonresidents to join consolidated state litigation. This, in turn, will increase the overall cost of mass litigation and make it more difficult for plaintiffs to join together in large groups that can more effectively fight corporations. Further, it will preclude many claims that don't involve substantial injuries because the cost of bringing such claims individually or in limited groups will not justify the cost of prosecuting them.
In relation to the talcum powder litigation, this ruling has already had an impact in Missouri, and BMS will likely try to use it in California, Delaware and other states. The same day the BMS Decision was released, a Missouri judge declared a mistrial on a talc powder case it was hearing because two of the three plaintiffs were not residences of Missouri. A year later, one of the first talc powder lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson, which resulted in a $55 million verdict in 2016, was set aside by an appellate court. Citing the BMS Decision, a three-judge panel deemed the nonresidential plaintiffs unable to join the consolidated litigation in Missouri. "The high court ruled that state courts cannot hear claims against companies that are not based in the state or when the alleged injuries did not occur there,” according to the ruling. This may lead to the dismissal of non-resident claims in the future. A plaintiff's lawyer who recently won a multibillion-dollar verdict in a 22-plaintiff case in Missouri that included non-residents said, in response to J&J's threatened appeal on jurisdictional grounds, “I hope they focus their appeal on jurisdiction because I'm confident we'll win that.” He also stated that he and his team had amassed hundreds of pages of evidence regarding lobbying efforts and J&J focus groups conducted in Missouri, which he feels should be sufficient to overcome the application of the BMS Decision.
For more information about talc powder litigation and your rights, contact our New York City personal injury lawyers at Sullivan & Brill, LLP. Dial (212) 566-1000 or contact us online anytime by clicking here.
On Thursday, the latest jury to consider the link between the genital use of talc powder and ovarian cancer concluded that 22 women developed ovarian cancer from using talc powder. It took the jury less than one day of deliberations to reach its verdict after hearing six weeks of evidence. In this case, unlike all of the previously tried cases, evidence was presented that J&J's talc powder was tainted with asbestos. The jury clearly agreed with the women, awarding them $25 million each in compensatory damages. In addition to that, however, the jury assessed $4.19 billion in punitive damages intended to punish J&J for concealing and denying the link between the genital use of talc powder and the development of ovarian cancer.
After the verdict, a J&J spokesperson rejected the verdict as the product of a “fundamentally unfair process” and vowed to appeal the verdict. Of the eight ovarian cancer cases that have been presented to juries, J&J has lost seven. The verdicts have all been appealed and have either been set aside or are pending decision. J&J has yet to pay any of the verdicts and refuses to either remove its talc products from the market or to place a warning on the label. It claims that the scientific evidence is “inconclusive” as to whether the genital use of talc causes ovarian cancer. Although juries do not seem to agree, two judges, one in New Jersey and one in California, have dismissed cases on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently prove that their use of talc powder caused their ovarian cancer. Both of those decisions have been appealed by the plaintiffs and are pending decision from the appellate court.
At Sullivan & Brill, LLP, we are dedicated to providing passionate legal assistance. If you have suffered from cancer caused by talc powder, our firm can represent you in court. We can build your case, discuss your options, and work hard to hold Johnson & Johnson, and other companies, responsible for failing to warn consumers about hazardous healthcare products.
Contact our office today to schedule a free consultation.
Read more information about Talc Powder Lawsuits.
Since the 1970s, concerns about Johnson & Johnson's talc powder have grown. Talcum powder is a substance made from a mineral consisting of magnesium, silicon, and oxygen. Since the late 1800's Johnson & Johnson has been adding fragrance to it and marketing it to women for genital use to absorb moisture in the skin and reduce friction. Studies have provided increasing evidence that the product causes ovarian cancer in women who use the powder regularly.
However, the company refuses to put warning labels on its product. Instead of warning women, it continues to target women to increase sales. Six juries in Missouri have heard the evidence against Johnson & Johnson and five of them have found that its conduct warranted a significant award of punitive damages. In the latest development, a California jury, awarded a victim of ovarian cancer $417,000,000, over $300,000,000 of which was punitive damages.
Here's what you need to know about the case.
Eva Echeverria, a 62-year-old woman, recently brought a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson. She claimed its talcum powder was responsible for her ovarian cancer. Echeverria had started using the company's talc powder when she was 11 years old, and her diagnosis of ovarian cancer occurred in 2007.
Johnson & Johnson, the biggest healthcare company in the world, had been aware of concerns about its product for decades. However, it persisted in selling talc powder without warning labels. The repeated use for many years, according to Echeverria, led to the development of her ovarian cancer. She sought to hold the company liable for failing to warn her about the risks associated with its product, and for advertising talc powder to women without disclosing the warnings.
The claim was filed with the California Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The lawsuit is the first talcum powder case to go to trial in California. The trial lasted 3 weeks, and the jury deliberated for two days before making a final judgment.
The selection of the jury began on July 24, 2017, and the opening statements began on July 26. The plaintiff presented arguments for 10 days and presented evidence of five experts. Afterward, the defendant presented counter-arguments for four days, offering testimony of four experts.
Echeverria claimed her use of Johnson & Johnson's talc powder had led to her cancer. The jury found the company, as well as Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., liable for her illness. It ordered the company to pay Echeverria a total of $417 million in compensation, including $347 million in punitive damages.
Johnson & Johnson currently faces 5,500 claims in U.S. courts regarding the use of its talc powder, and a spokesperson said it would appeal the court's decision. The company claimed there was not enough evidence to prove that its talc powder caused Echeverria's ovarian cancer. Nonetheless, the jury found the company liable and determined to hold it responsible for the negative health effects of its product and for its irresponsible marketing practices.
At Sullivan & Brill, LLP, we are dedicated to providing passionate legal assistance. If you have suffered from cancer caused by talc powder, our firm can represent you in court. We can build your case, discuss your options, and work hard to hold Johnson & Johnson, and other companies, responsible for failing to warn consumers about hazardous healthcare products.
Contact our office today to schedule a free consultation.
For more information about Talcum Powder read more here.
Last night, the fifth Missouri jury to consider whether Johnson & Johnson's talc powder caused the Plaintiff's ovarian cancer returned a verdict resoundingly answering that question in the affirmative. It awarded the Plaintiff over $110,000,000, of which, $105,000,000 was punitive damages intending to punish J&J for its deceitful conduct.
The Plaintiff was a resident of West Virginia that had used Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower products for over 40 years. At the time of trial, she was battling Stage III(c) ovarian cancer that had reoccurred and spread to her liver. Her case was chosen by the Defense because it felt it had a strong argument that her ovarian cancer was not caused by her use of talc powder. The entire defense centered on that argument and little effort was made to challenge the Plaintiff's evidence that talc generally causes ovarian cancer.
This verdict followed a jury verdict in favor of J&J in March of 2017 and the dismissal of 200 cases in New Jersey by Judge Johnson, who ruled that the Plaintiff's scientific evidence was not sufficient to support a finding that the genital use of talc causes ovarian cancer. That decision is presently on appeal. The first three jury verdicts in St. Louis came down in favor of the Plaintiffs and also included substantial punitive damages awards.
If you or a loved one developed ovarian cancer after the use of talc powder, it's important to speak with a New York City injury lawyer about your legal options. Contact our experienced and dedicated legal team at Sullivan & Brill, LLP to discuss your case. There are no fees until we secure compensation for our clients. Call 212.566.1000 today!
After losing three straight trials in a St. Louis trial court, Johnson & Johnson filed a request that the cases be moved to another court. Three different St. Louis juries in the past year have returned verdicts in excess of $50 million against Johnson & Johnson for failing to warn consumers that genital use of its talc powder increased the risk of ovarian cancer. Rather than accepting these verdicts and removing its talc based products from the market, Johnson & Johnson continues to maintain that its talc powder is safe.
It explains the verdicts by asserting that the plaintiff's lawyers have tainted the jury pool by spending $10 million advertising the dangers of talc powder in the past year, a disproportionate amount, they claim, being spent in St. Louis. The trial judge that has presided over the three trials, Judge Rex Burlison, denied Johnson & Johnson's request. Johnson & Johnson is appealing that decision to Missouri's intermediate appellate court, the Missouri Court of Appeals. Call Sullivan Brill Personal Injury Attorneys to learn more about how these legal battles impact victims and their rights.
In the past two months, there have been three significant developments in the talc powder litigation pending in state and federal court. First, on September 2, 2016, a New Jersey judge dismissed 200 cases pending against Johnson & Johnson in state court. The judge found that the plaintiff's experts did not reliably establish the connection between the perineal use of talc powder and ovarian cancer. You can read the judges decision here. Lawyers on behalf of the plaintiffs are appealing this decision.
The following month, on October 4, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation issued a decision consolidating all federal cases pending against Johnson & Johnson and Imerys Talc America, Inc. This decision creates what is commonly known as in MDL, or multidistrict litigation. A multidistrict litigation is a mechanism to consolidate similar lawsuits pending in federal court around the country into one centralized federal court. In this case, the panel chose the District of New Jersey and assigned the case to Judge Wolfson, who is presently presiding over the most advanced case pending against Johnson & Johnson in federal court. The consolidation of cases allows plaintiffs attorneys from across the country to pool their resources, it voids duplicative discovery in multiple jurisdictions and minimizes inconsistent judicial rulings.
Finally, on October 27, 2016, a St. Louis Missouri jury returned a verdict excess of $70 million. This was the third case to go to trial against Johnson & Johnson. The first two cases went to trial in early 2016 and resulted in verdicts of $50 million and $70 million. In all three cases, the jury was convinced that Johnson & Johnson was aware that the perennial use of its talc powder carried an increased risk of causing ovarian cancer, yet it did not warn consumers of this danger. Some of the scientific research and documents produced in the litigation establish that Johnson & Johnson was aware of this risk as early as the 1970s.
These developments clearly indicate that this litigation is picking up steam quickly. They also indicated, however, that the ultimate outcome of the litigation is far from clear. Johnson & Johnson will surely challenge the plaintiffs' expert testimony in the MDL and will ask Judge Wolfson to dismiss all cases pending in federal court on the same grounds that the New Jersey state court cases were dismissed. Call Sullivan Brill Personal Injury Attorneys to get expert legal advice and support for your talc powder-related injury claims.
Copyright © Sullivan Brill Personal Injury Attorneys