Cordis and Cook IVC IVC Filter Lawsuit Update For 2022

If you or a loved one has suffered because of an IVC filter, you may have grounds for an IVC filter lawsuit. These filters are known to tilt, fracture, migrate, and even perforate the IVC walls. As a result, if you are having trouble breathing, you should contact an attorney immediately to discuss your legal options. An experienced attorney can help you establish damages and gather enough evidence to win your case.

IVC filters are associated with a greater potential for injury/fatalities. We are particularly interested in Cordis IVC filter claims. The IVC Filters lawsuit is ongoing for too long now. Our law firm receives calls from clients frustrated by their lawyers not doing anything to help them reach an agreement with the government.

IVC Filter Lawsuit | Blood Clot Filter Injuries & Settlements

More than 140,000 lawsuits have been filed by two IVC filter makers. The Cook medical team filed 562 federal and state suits against the hospital. He faces another 8423 cases. Filter lawyers say hundreds are preparing lawsuits. The Federal Court merged the lawsuit against each company into multi district litigation for better efficiency. The Bellwether trial was in place for the disputed lands of the two MDLs as of July 2018. No medical or Bard has proposed global settlements.

IVC filters are prone to fracture

A Bard IVC filter lawsuit has been filed by patients who were injured by the device. This lawsuit applies to the G2 Express, G2, and Recovery filters. The G2 filter was approved by the FDA in 2005 and the Recovery filter in 2002. The company marketed the G2 as a safer alternative. Nevertheless, the filters are prone to fracture, migration, and perforation. Fracture and migration can cause injury to internal organs. According to the FDA, the filters are highly susceptible to these complications and the FDA has issued two official warnings, one in 2010 and one in 2014.

While IVC filters are meant to block blood clots from entering the heart and lungs, they are not perfect. A fractured IVC filter can cause serious medical complications, including migration from the original implant. Many people who have undergone the procedure have filed lawsuits against the manufacturers, claiming that the device was defective and failed to warn them of the risks. The filters are tiny and under considerable pressure inside the vein, so they are prone to fracture. The device should be temporary, but over time, it can become infected, and fragments can migrate.

After 5.5 years, 40% of Bard Recovery IVC filters developed a problem that caused their migration. They migrated into the pulmonary artery and the iliac vein, resulting in severe complications. Even more concerning, the filters were removed prematurely after their placement due to a failure rate of as much as 31 percent. This resulted in severe complications, including pulmonary embolism and kidney failure.

They tilt

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are eager to win IVC filter cases before judges, but the courts often reject these claims. A major case that tipped the balance in favor of plaintiffs in late 2020 was In re Bard IVC Filter Products Liability Litigation. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 barred the plaintiff’s claims. The decision is important because the plaintiffs’ attorneys hope that these verdicts will be a turning point for the litigation and a global settlement.

In Jeff Pavlock’s IVC Filter Lawsuit, the manufacturer was found liable for the injury to a Houston firefighter. The surgeon implanted an inferior vena cava filter, but it tilted after implantation. This device perforated Jeff Pavlock’s aorta and duodenum and required two additional surgeries. The company that made the Cook IVC filter failed to warn its implanting surgeon of the dangers of these devices.

The company, the Bard, has been accused of causing more harm than good. The IVC filter is known to fracture, tilt, break, migrate, and perforate the IVC wall. As a result, plaintiffs are suing Bard for the medical device’s manufacture. The lawsuits have resulted in settlements of millions of dollars. The manufacturer’s response is an apology for the device’s adverse effects and the company has agreed to pay compensation.

The Bard G2 Filter is the most recent IVC filter lawsuit. Booker, a nurse, had the device implanted in 2007 but discovered in 2014 that it tilted and moved. Multiple surgeries were necessary to remove the filter, and she had to pay a total of $3.6 million to recover from the company. Sherr-Una Booker’s IVC Filter Lawsuit was a bellwether case that resulted in a settlement worth nearly $7 million.

They migrate

An IVC Filter lawsuit claims that the defective design of the G2 filter has caused it to migrate and fracture. A woman received a G2 filter in 2006 and still has ongoing health problems. She must take anticoagulant medications for the rest of her life. Her lawsuit against CR Bard is one of many pending against the manufacturers of the device. The company denies any responsibility for the defect. IVC Filter lawsuits can be difficult to win, but if you have suffered from a heart attack caused by a defective product, you may be entitled to a large settlement.

You may have noticed symptoms such as low blood pressure, chest pain, or an irregular heartbeat. In severe cases, you might lose consciousness or experience loss of consciousness. If you experience any of these symptoms, contact an attorney as soon as possible. An attorney can help you file an IVC filter lawsuit. These attorneys can help you determine your legal options and pursue the compensation you deserve. If you’re suffering from the consequences of an IVC Filter migration, call Catania & Catania, PA today.

There are two main types of IVC filter lawsuits: MDL and class actions. A multidistrict litigation (MDL) combines all individual cases filed in one court to bring more efficient litigation and settlement. The MDL requires test trials, also known as bellwether trials, in order to make the parties reach a global settlement. If there’s a settlement, the individual cases will be sent back to the original court. The IVC Filter lawsuits migrate between the two types of litigation.

They perforate the IVC walls

The alleged dangerous side effects of IVC filters include fracture, tilting, migration, and perforating the IVC walls. Most IVC filter lawsuits are filed against Boston Scientific and C.R. Bard, and the devices’ effectiveness in reducing mortality is also questionable. In fact, many doctors still use the devices despite the safety concerns. But is it worth the risk?

IVC filter litigation is a global issue. There have been numerous verdicts and settlements filed against manufacturers. In the first two bellwether cases, the company won three million dollars from a woman named Tonya Brand. The lawsuit alleges that the device fractured the struts in the IVC walls and perforated the lining. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are eager to win and are confident that the litigation is progressing toward a global settlement.

The manufacturers of IVC filters must have warned consumers about the risks of the devices. If they didn’t, the device could fail, causing serious injury or death. In some cases, the filter will rupture, piercing vital organs and blood vessels. In the worst-case scenario, it could be fatal. Regardless of the cause, a lawsuit can help you recover compensation for the harm IVC filters caused.

If you are considering filing an IVC filter lawsuit, it is important to remember that the majority of IVC filter lawsuits are centralized in multidistrict litigation (MDL). This will allow the manufacturers to evaluate the financial risks of the product and determine the appropriate settlement amounts. The attorneys at the manufacturers’ legal teams will determine what level of compensation is appropriate for the injury.

They rupture the aorta

This case report describes a patient who underwent IVC Filter surgery. The aorta was partially obstructed by the filter, which protruded from the infrarenal aorta into the lumbar spine. Three-dimensional reconstructions of the patient’s aorta show that the filter limbs protruded in a right-lateral fashion. The aorta was then ligated and the filter leg was embedded into the lumbar spine. This procedure was completed successfully and the patient was discharged after two days.

There is a small risk of abdominal aortic pseudoaneurysm, although this complication is uncommon and potentially life-threatening. Although it occurs rarely after IVC filter placement, it represents a unique challenge for surgeons. Historically, this complication required surgical management. In 1997, White et al. performed the first endograft repair. However, many years later, the risk of rupture has risen.

In this case, the limb of the IVC filter protruded into the aorta and penetrated the aorta. The filter had partially occluded the lumen and caused partial thrombosis. Aortic repair was performed. The patient was offered two treatment options: open explantation of the filter or repair of the infrarenal aorta.

IVC filter removal is associated with numerous complications, including fracture of the filter leg and contrast extravasation. In addition to the complications associated with retrieval, the patient may experience traumatic injury to the cava wall. In addition, leg fractures and embolizations have been reported after IVC filter removal. This is an unforeseen, but potentially fatal, complication. If you have had IVC filter surgery, make sure you seek the assistance of an experienced surgeon.

NBC Nightly News Discovers IVC Filter Fractures

A report released today found a number of deaths from another blood-clot filter, the Bard G2 Express, involving 12 people. There were 39 deaths resulting from impurities from patients whose filtration devices had bards installed. At most 27 people died from a blood vessel infection from the Bard Recovery filter. Government data indicates that more than 230 deaths were recorded under the recovery program, which is part of thousands of medical devices manufactured by C.R. Bard. Do blood cell filtering devices in the US cause death or disability?

IVC Filter lawsuits in 2022

By the end of 2024 there were approximately 8,600 claims against the defendant in each Multidistric Litigation against the Bard. Cook IVC Filter MDL is currently undergoing a trial that has over 600 cases – although about 750 have already been decided on. In 2018, Bard announced that the company had been sentenced to $3.6 million in a lawsuit filed by Bard with the DA in the United Kingdom in which Bard is accused. The patient had complications from an internal rupture of her G2 Filtered Filter resulting from her fractures. The trial was first held in a central court and numerous others followed.

Boston Scientific Greenfield IVC Filter Lawsuits

Greenfield filters from Boston Scientific are also cited as a plaintiff. There hasn’t ever been any MDL involving Greenfield filter technology, however, prosecutors filed a single lawsuit to recover them. The firm recalled more than 18,000 greenfield filter units. It said a piece could fall apart and potentially cause vascular embolism. Earlier in 2015 Boston Scientific released an omission from its Greenfield filter line, which caused serious blood vessel injury and resuscitation in the. A 2016 study in the journal Cardiovascular Diagnosis & Therapies examined IVC filter complications, such as perforated incomplete openings, migration, and fractures.

Bard IVC Filter Verdicts and Settlements

The Ninth Circuit ruled that a Georgia woman’s case deserved $3.7 million. In addition, she is being paid $16 million in real damages in addition to $23 million in damages. A judge will award monetary damages — or monetary sanctions — for causing a defendant serious injury to himself. Bard executives knew that a dangerous drug had been sold for a while and kept marketing it unadvertised without warning doctors. Bard won two previous court cases involving plaintiff Doris Jones. Jones was granted Bard Eclipse Filter in 2010.

Cook. Medical verdicts

Cook has received a double verdict. The second was $3M in Brand v. Cook Medical. January 2019. In December 2012, the judicial panel said the evidence should have been rejected. In addition, the precedential value remains in Cook Medicals IVC filter settlement calculations. The judge’s decision on the firefighter was based on a $1.2 million case against Cook et al. His Celect inferior vagina filter was taken off. COVID slows the progress in the process. But Cook will be back fighting against the Celect filters.

$2.55 million Bard Recovery IVC Filter Award

A Texas judge ordered the manufacturers of Bard Recovery $2,197892. The plaintiff also had $31,2268 owed for medical expenses and future medical expenses. May 30, 2022: The Bard Recovery IV filter from Ms. Wright has been implanted to prevent pulmonary clots causing her breathing problems. This IVC filter has remained in use for nearly twelve decades now. In January 2018 Wright suffered from blood clots in her lungs because her iv filters were cracked and had caused debris from her heart and lung.

$926,000 Bard Eclipse IVC Filter Award

In May 2021, a federal Oregon court ruled Justin Peterson was in a critical state of critical bruising and fractures. Justin went to emergency surgery to remove the filter from his intestines, remove blood, and repair damaged arteries. Bard Eclipse IVC filters were commissioned in 2010 but Justin suffered fatal complications ten years on. During her time at IVC Filters, she served as the litigation committee that supervised bellwether jury trials. How does a company sell blood stains? CBS News.

Manufacturer knew of IVC Filter Deaths

In 2015 NBC News linked bard ICVC filters to 37 fatalities. The report stated bard executives knew about the potential risks for years but did nothing. In 2004 NBC obtained an investigation commission of Bard that determined that Bard recovered VC filters that were more likely to fail than other filtering devices. The report also stated that executives would make copies available to anyone with access to them without revealing anything. Tell me the truth?

$33.7 million Argon/Rex Option IVC Filter Award

Several hundred thousand were awarded as part of a trial in Pennsylvania’s lower vena cava filter mass tort case. In an investigation conducted by the court of appeals, a jury of three judges found a defective filter device. The jury commenced its first trial on October 8. Tracy Reed-Brown filed the lawsuit in February 2017 alleging invasive and removable Vena cava filters that were placed on the Vena cava caused severe injuries.

$3.6 million Bard IVC Filter Award

The Phoenix Federal Court has awarded Bard $3 million in compensation for the crime. The IVC filter in Sherri Bookers heart fell and she required urgent medical intervention. The open heart surgeon removed parts of the rupture, but there remains fragments lodged in her body. 80% of the resulting damages have already been attributed to Bard, who faces punitive damages. There were over 4,000 IVC filter cases filed by the Bards.

Greenfield filter lawsuit

Boston Scientific is suing the manufacturer for the distribution of potentially dangerous devices. It is true that Greenfield’s safe use was merely a test for its safety but was approved in 510K form. Unsurprisingly, this filter is linked to an unknown but significant risk. Several instances of severe injury occurred as implants were smashed, moved or fragmented in patients.

Cordis Optease litigation

Many victims of traumatic experiences filed a lawsuit with Cordis Corporation after they had been injured. At least 23 case filings have been filed across the nation. Previously the Cordis Optease filters were not available to consumers. They say the results showed most of the studied studies didn’t adequately assess fracture risk from using this device.

Do you have a Vena Cava IVC filter?

This filter prevents blood clots from entering the vital organs. Some patients undergoing IVC filters claim the filters have broken up and moved to another area of the body where they may cause potentially life-threatening IVC filter problems.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/cordis-and-cook-ivc-ivc-filter-lawsuit-update-for-2022/
via IFTTT

CA Bar Desires Proactive Approach In Lawyer Discipline Cases

The Office of Chief Trial Counsel, which investigates and prosecutes cases involving attorney disciplinary action, has undergone changes, according to State Bar of California officials, and more changes are on the way.

These initiatives include hiring more personnel, including a full-time administrator and forensic auditor, as well as raising the compensation of the independent attorneys engaged to look into attorney complaints.

Officials from the agency said at a news briefing to emphasize the reforms that they are also implementing new initiatives to proactively uncover possible professional misconduct rather than relying simply on complaints.

According to state bar executive director Leah Wilson, the organization will work to pinpoint the risk indicators for legal misconduct before offering assistance to lawyers who aren’t yet in trouble.

The bar is new to this proactive regulating approach, she claimed. She and other bar officials admitted that, in order to regain the public’s faith in their institution, more substantial adjustments will be required.
The regulation of lawyer behavior is the responsibility of each state. After New York, California has the second-largest legal population, and its disciplinary system has endured years of harsh audits and high-profile scandals, including those involving the ouster of renowned plaintiffs’ attorney Tom Girardi.

Girardi has been the target of multiple complaints over the previous four decades, but the bar permitted him to maintain his license. He is accused by a rival legal practice of diverting settlement money intended for the relatives of victims of the 2018 Lion Air tragedy to support an opulent lifestyle. A third-party review into how the club handled accusations against Girardi, who was prohibited in June, was requested by the bar.
Delays in attorney misconduct investigations, case backlogs, and low rates of punishment have been major concerns cited by state auditors for years. The most recent audit discovered that the bar does not regularly handle conflicts of interest with attorneys who are under investigation and resolves complaints of professional misconduct far too frequently behind closed doors.

Bar executives said on Monday that they are putting the audit’s suggestions for improvement into practice. Additionally, they stated that they wanted to address the idea that the bar is unwilling to bring disciplinary complaints against attorneys at major firms as well as racial inequities in attorney punishment.

“While we’ve accomplished a lot, let me be clear. Ruben Duran, chair of the bar’s board of trustees, said on Monday that there was still work to be done in order to improve the disciplinary process.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/ca-bar-desires-proactive-approach-in-lawyer-discipline-cases/
via IFTTT

Attorneys ask for $7 Million In Fees In Coca-Cola, Fairlife dairy cow false advertising settlement

Attorneys have requested $7 million in attorney fees from an Illinois federal judge after negotiating a $21 million class action settlement with milk manufacturer Fairlife and its parent firm Coca-Cola.

The class action settlement was reached to address accusations that, among other businesses, Coca-Cola and Fairlife misrepresented to customers that their milk products came from dairy cows that were treated humanely.

In a petition for an award of attorney fees, attorneys claimed that they delivered a “great” and “amazing” outcome for the Class, which justifies their receiving a $7 million share of the settlement.

According to attorneys, “class counsel’s efforts in pursuing this claim paid off, resulting in a large, non-reversionary settlement money of $21 million that delivers huge advantages to the class.”

As “the very core of defendants’ claimed illegal conduct,” attorneys also made a point of mentioning how they were able to get injunctive relief for the dairy cows who were allegedly being treated inhumanely.

In April, the Fairlife and Coca-Cola deal received preliminary approval.

The class action settlement was given preliminary approval in April and put an end to nine potential class action lawsuits brought by 19 different named plaintiffs against Coca-Cola, Fairlife LLC, Select Milk Producers Inc., Fair Oaks Farms LLC, and its founders. A final approval hearing is scheduled for September.

Customers claimed that businesses deceived them about how they handled their dairy cows, leading them to buy items that, upon further investigation, turned out to be sourced from allegedly mistreated animals.

According to the Fairlife settlement, eligible Class Members will be eligible to receive up to $20 in compensation for claims filed without a proof of purchase and up to $80 for claims supported by legitimate proof.

A monitoring and compliance procedure must be established and implemented by Fairlife and Coca-Cola to guarantee that dairy cows are treated humanely moving forward.

Consumer claims Organic Valley misleads customers into believing it treats its dairy cows humanely and filed a similar class action complaint against the cooperative earlier this month.

Do you own any Fairlife milk products? If so, go here to join the class action settlement.

Amy E. Keller, Adam Prom, Michelle Locascio, and Melissa S. Weiner of DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, Pearson Simon & Warshaw LLP, Michael R. Reese, George V. Granade, and Charles D. Moore of Reese LLP, and Yeremey Krivoshey of Bursor & Fisher PA are the plaintiffs’ attorneys.

False promotion for Coca-Cola milk Case No. 1:19-cv-03924, In re: Fairlife Milk Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, is the name of the MDL in the Northern District of Illinois.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/attorneys-ask-for-7-million-in-fees-in-coca-cola-fairlife-dairy-cow-false-advertising-settlement/
via IFTTT

Magnesium Citrate Saline Laxative Recalled

Following a report of a negative reaction, a recall for magnesium citrate saline laxatives due to microbial contamination was issued.

More than 30 store-brand magnesium citrate saline laxatives have now been added to the recall, which was initially only applicable to one lot sold at CVS.

Several over-the-counter magnesium laxatives with lemon flavors that were sold under store brand names, such as Harris Teeter, Meijer, Kroger, and Rite Aid, have been recalled due to microbial contamination.

On July 15, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a recall for Vi-Jon products that contain magnesium laxatives due to the possibility of serious and perhaps fatal sickness. The FDA received a report of an adverse event connected to the issue, which prompted the recall.

The manufacturer conducted internal and external microbial testing, which confirmed the presence of Gluconacetobacter liquefaciens, a type of bacteria, in lemon-flavored oral magnesium citrate saline laxative solution. The action was taken after the FDA received an adverse event report related to the issue.

The recall, which was initially only applicable to one lot of CVS Magnesium Laxative solution when it was first reported last month, now affects all lots of Magnesium Citrate Saline Laxative Oral Solution Lemon Flavor 10 fl. oz produced in Vi-Smyrna, Jon’s Tennessee, factory. The list has since been increased to about 30 shop brands.

People with compromised immune systems may be more susceptible to invasive infections that could have catastrophic, potentially fatal health effects as a result of the microbial contamination.

The FDA has so far only received one report of a potentially recall-related adverse event. The report and the source of the bacterial contamination are both being looked into by Vi-Jon. To wholesale and retail establishments nationwide, the product was distributed.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/magnesium-citrate-saline-laxative-recalled/
via IFTTT

Zantac Facing Recalls and Lawsuits

Popular heartburn medicine Zantac has recently been the focus of numerous recalls. Consumers who currently use or previously used Zantac are worried about possible health effects as a result of the recall. The manufacturer of ranitidine, the generic equivalent of the medication that goes by the name Zantac, has also issued recalls for their products. Customers might be wondering why Zantac is being recalled and what they should do in response.

Zantac is a histamine-2 blocker, sometimes referred to by its generic name ranitidine hydrochloride, a medication that works to prevent heartburn by lowering the level of stomach acid.

Zantac is used to treat heartburn as well as related disorders such as Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, ulcers, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Sanofi is the company that produces and sells Zantac.

Why is Zantac being recalled?

What exactly is the big problem, and why is Zantac being recalled? NDMA (N-nitrosodimethylamine), a potential human carcinogen, may have been present in Zantac, so some manufacturers are removing it from the market to better protect patients. High NDMA concentrations, according to the World Health Organization, can cause colorectal or stomach cancer.

The most typical sources of NDMA, an environmental pollutant, are food, water, and soil. Although the EPA now only permits its use for research, the chemical was purportedly formerly used to produce rocket fuel.

Sadly, there are worries that manufacturing procedures or chlorinating drinking water could produce NDMA. This inadvertent contamination could result in the discovery of NDMA in unanticipated locations.

The issue is that Zantac may have been poisoned with unsafe doses of the chemical, even though NDMA is a common ingredient that is even present in some foods, according to The Deseret News.

The early Zantac recalls were voluntary, which means that manufacturers started the process themselves rather than waiting for a regulator like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to order a recall (FDA). On Dec. 4, 2019, the FDA said that it had requested ranitidine producers test every batch of the drug for NDMA contamination before making it available to customers. In cases where NDMA levels are found to be greater than 96 nanograms in a single day or 0.32 parts per million, the FDA has encouraged businesses to recall their products.

But if there isn’t any evidence of NDMA contamination, are Zantac goods being recalled?

In several instances, pharmacies ceased selling the medicine to safeguard their customers. Retailers like CVS, Walmart, and Walgreens removed their own ranitidine drugs from shelves in addition to other similar prescriptions.

Additionally, the FDA intervened after the initial voluntary recall of Zantac. The FDA demanded that all Zantac medicines, including brand-name and generic, be taken off the market right away until the contamination’s source could be identified and contained in April 2020.

Should I discard my medication in light of the Zantac recall?

The FDA emphasizes the significance of adhering to a treatment plan up to a replacement that can be located by a pharmacist or doctor, despite the fact that Zantac recalls may be frightening. The agency, as always, advises patients to discuss any concerns they may have with their healthcare team rather than changing their treatment plan in response to recalls.

Is Zantac subject to a recall? Yes, however, it’s crucial to remember that, to reduce unnecessary risk, adjustments to your treatment should always be approved by your doctor.

However, you might wish to discuss viable alternatives with your doctor. Testing of Pepcid (famotidine), Tagamet (cimetidine), Nexium (esomeprazole), Prevacid (lansoprazole), and Prilosec (omeprazole) samples, according to the FDA, has not revealed any NDMA contamination. Ranitidine, which is also sold in prescription strength to treat ulcers, heartburn, and acid reflux issues, has all of these over-the-counter substitutes.

Zantac was tainted in what way?

Why is Zantac being recalled when NDMA has not been identified in the products, some people may be wondering? According to The Deseret News, a recent study has shed light on how the medicine might have initially become infected. According to a study by Emery Pharma, Ranitidine may produce NDMA if it is overheated. “NDMA in this circumstance… is not a contaminant in the medicine; it is being generated from the drug itself,” says chemist Ron Najafi.

According to CBS News, the FDA’s permissible daily limit for NDMA is 96 nanograms. According to a recent study, after being stored at ambient temperature for 12 days, the ranitidine’s NDMA content increased to 25 nanograms, which is still considerably below the FDA’s limit. However, when heated to 158 degrees, the ranitidine’s NDMA content increased to 142 nanograms, which is far more than the FDA’s limit. According to CBS News, if the drug was, for instance, left in a warm automobile during the summer, it wouldn’t take long for the temperature to reach 158 degrees. It seems likely that NDMA will develop at this temperature.

There are still unsolved questions despite the study’s fresh information; Dr. Janet Woodcock, the FDA’s director of drug assessment and research, provided the explanation. According to reports, it has not yet been determined if ranitidine must be kept cold to prevent the drug from turning into NDMA.

According to CBS News, the FDA is also looking into whether the medication can turn into NDMA after consumption and why some batches of ranitidine contained more NDMA than others. Name-brand Zantac manufacturer Sanofi has instituted a recall and is testing its goods. Other pharmaceutical companies have called back generic versions of Zantac.

According to the Deseret News, NDMA has also been discovered in valsartan, a blood pressure medication. Later, losartan and irbesartan were added to the valsartan recall.

What reactions are consumers having?

In October 2019, Newsweek opined that the Zantac recall might result in a class action lawsuit. Experts considered what that might entail.

Recalls have been caused by the finding that NDMA may also have contaminated other medications. According to Newsweek, class action lawsuits are being considered in these instances. Because these medications are manufactured in large quantities, a class action lawsuit may be an effective approach to seek justice for many and maybe help those who need it.

In light of recent reports that Zantac may have been tainted, specialists now question whether the same thing will transpire. According to Newsweek, it is yet too early to know, says Katharine Van Tassel, a visiting professor of law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

She doesn’t believe there is sufficient proof to prove that the NDMA found in ranitidine (Zantac products) can cause cancer. Others in the field are said to concur, including Wake Forest University School of Law Professor Michael D. Green. In order to assess whether there is enough of the contaminant in the medication to put patients at risk, he concluded by noting that “the dose makes the poison” and that it is “essential to figure out what the amount is.”

Dr. Van Tessel continued by outlining the potential difficulties in asserting a Zantac claim. She pointed out that it would be the patient’s responsibility to provide evidence linking their cancer to their use of Zantac rather than to some other aspect of their lives. According to her, in some circumstances, this necessitates attributing 51% of the reasons in their situation to the usage of Zantac rather than to other factors.

Despite Dr. Van Tessel’s skepticism, a number of individual and class action lawsuits have been brought by patients who assert that taking tainted generic Zantac over an undetermined period of time increased their chance of developing cancer and caused them to get bladder or liver cancer.

A victim and his wife’s Zantac complaint claims that the drug makers may have known about the possible contamination for years. Plaintiff Douglas R. claims that the makers of ranitidine may have been aware of the hazards connected to the carcinogen contaminant but neglected to alert the FDA to these risks when he filed his lawsuit against numerous ranitidine manufacturers in April.

He alleges that Sanofi prioritized money over people for years and may have exposed millions of victims to carcinogenic substances. After taking Zantac on a regular basis, Douglas was diagnosed with a rare type of bladder cancer.

After contracting illnesses like stomach cancer, bladder cancer, colorectal cancer, kidney cancer, prostate cancer, and esophageal cancer, a number of additional plaintiffs in places like Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey, and Colorado have also filed cases against the medication manufacturers.

In these cases, the plaintiffs are suing the manufacturers for additional punitive damages, damages for their injuries, pain and suffering, and medical costs.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/zantac-facing-recalls-and-lawsuits/
via IFTTT

Mirena Side Effects — Cysts, Expulsion & IUD Migration

An IUD Mirena is a contraceptive that prevents sperm from fertilizing an ovum. However, it is not a foolproof contraceptive. It can lead to uterine perforation and miscarriage. In this article, you will learn the basics of the Mirena IUD. Once you have made the decision to use one, you should be aware of possible complications.

Most women using Mirena have no adverse reactions and are used for birth control. Typical side effects associated with a Mirena IUD can range from hours to days after its implant including swelling and bruising. Some side reactions can last years, but there’s nothing wrong with these.

Approximately 80% of women using Mirena have periods after one year unless they have had it before. When women stop taking an IUD, periods usually return. Miréna is a hormonal form of fertility control and may cause some discomfort when injected with it. It can also be helpful in reducing depression.

Mirena is an IUD, or intrauterine device, that releases LNG. The device is removable in the first seven days of your menstrual cycle and at other times. You should start a new method at least seven days before you wish to remove the Mirena. The Mirena consists of a T-shaped polyethylene frame with 52 mg of LNG inserted into it.

The company should inform physicians of the potential risks arising from its drug or medical device. The problem is even more complicated when women have multiple choices. Women can pick from three options for achieving the most effective birth control a woman can receive: IUD’s Mirena can cause heartache. Mirena may cause your body to become enlarged and you may have to undergo surgery. Miréna also faces an interesting danger worth considering if you want to take the plunge as there are several Mirena lawsuits.

IUD Mirena Birth Control – It prevents sperm from fertilizing the ovum

Mirena IUD is a contraceptive device (versus a hormonal iud) that prevents sperm from fertilizing the ovum. When the egg is released from the ovary, it travels through the fallopian tubes towards the uterus where progesterone is secreted to prepare the lining of the uterus. Sperm then fertilize the egg and implant it on the uterine wall where it begins to develop into an embryo.

Mirena IUD Lawsuits

In these cases, plaintiffs’ attorneys initially brought thousands of Mirena lawsuits as this was popular birth control. The litigation was centered on:

What was Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals aware of regarding the dangers connected to IUDs in general and Mirena in particular?

• Why didn’t the business communicate the dangers of uterine perforation and migration better?
• What did Bayer undertake to ensure the highest level of safety for its IUD?
• Was it for financial gain that the warning wasn’t made clearer?

So what took place? These instances flopped. Why? Was it as a result that ladies were not in pain? No. Plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to identify experts who the federal court judge hearing the cases would accept, which contributed to the failure of the Mirena perforation claims. Our case was supported by four experts, but the court disregarded them all and decided in favor of Bayer without a trial. Over 1,000 cases were dismissed as a result of this.

Does their dismissal imply that the claims in the Mirena IUD perforation cases were unjustified? No. In these huge tort cases, research occasionally lags behind the evidence. It has not been shown beyond a doubt that these women were not harmed by Bayer’s errors. However, it has not yet been demonstrated that Bayer’s errors resulted in injury.

Therefore, it is possible that you will have a very difficult time finding a lawyer who will accept your Mirena migration case. If any attorneys are accepting instances of uterine perforation and migration, it is rare. (Update: This is valid for all 2022 Mirena lawsuits. Our attorneys are unaware of any attorneys who are considering cases involving Mirena IUDs.)

Mirena Lawsuits

So why do attorneys continue to promote their Mirena IUD cases like crazy? There is a brand-new Manhattan MDL from 2018 that has more than 175 active lawsuits. Pseudotumor cerebri or intracranial hypertension (PTC/IH), according to the plaintiffs, is a serious, persistent, and crippling illness brought on by Bayer’s Mirena intrauterine system. Despite the fact that there is a proven connection between LNG and PTC/IH, these cases contend that Mirena’s warnings do not appropriately address non-stroke neurological diseases like PTC/IH.

A disorder called pseudotumor cerebri arises when a person’s cerebrospinal fluid level rises, leading to increased pressure in the patient’s skull. Women taking Mirena who acquire this illness frequently experience severe headaches that resemble migraines and cause blurred vision.

They might also develop papilledema or an enlarging of the optic disc, transient blindness, blind patches, or other visual abnormalities. If left untreated, this illness may result in blindness.

How do these instances stand up? Not good. The MDL court presiding over this litigation dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ causation experts in October 2018 after concluding that there was a lack of scientific evidence demonstrating the causal connection between these ailments.

Why does this matter? This indicates that these federal court cases are likely to be dismissed unless the judge’s decision is reversed on appeal (2022 update: they were not). I apologize, but I do not have any positive news on this lawsuit if you came here searching for it. Win for Bayer.

Mirena IUD can causes uterine perforation

Although Mirena IUD causes uterine perforations, they are rare and must be thoroughly explained before surgery. There have been Mirena IUD lawsuits forthis reason. There are many ways to diagnose and treat a perforation, from removal to proper medical care. In most cases, a perforation is a traumatic event at the time of insertion, but a “secondary” perforation may also occur. Partial perforation can then progress to complete perforation.

It can cause miscarriage

A woman who becomes pregnant while using an IUD such as Mirena can experience a high risk of miscarriage. Women should be careful taking any birth control and see a doctor prior. The device increases the chances of developing pelvic inflammatory disease, a serious bacterial infection of the uterus and reproductive organs. This risk is highest during the first 20 days after the device is placed. Women who already have a vaginal infection are also at risk.

It can cause premature birth

An IUD can increase the risk of premature birth, especially if a woman has several of these devices. There is evidence that pregnancies induced by IUDs are more likely to result in premature birth than those induced by other birth control or contraceptive methods. A new study reports that neonates born to women who have an IUD experienced higher birth weight and lower Apgar scores at 5 minutes. Some studies show that an IUD is associated with higher rates of sepsis and respiratory distress syndrome. Neonates born to women who have IUDs also had an increased risk of preterm delivery and neonatal deaths.

It can cause uterine thickening

The Mirena is an intrauterine device that delivers levonorgestrel to the uterus. It consists of an implantable loop with a white hormone-elastomer core and a pair of opaque tubing that regulates the release of levonorgestrel. A loop attached to one end of the white T-body has two arms and is connected to a pair of brown removal threads. The loop contains a small amount of barium sulfate that makes the T-frame visible during an X-ray examination.

It can cause uterine perforation

In women who are pregnant, IUDs can cause uterine perforation. Birth control like IUDs need to be taken with caution. The risk of uterine perforation is increased if a woman is breastfeeding or had a previous baby less than six weeks before her Mirena insertion. The perforation can lead to bleeding, severe abdominal pain, and the loss of the IUD string, as well as scarring and organ damage.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/mirena-side-effects-cysts-expulsion-iud-migration/
via IFTTT

Keurig Class Action Settlement Proceeds

To satisfy charges that it misled its customers about the broad recyclability of its K-Cup single-serve coffee pods, Keurig has agreed to pay $10 million.

Buyers requested approval of the settlement agreement and an extension of the class definition to include all consumers nationwide from a federal court in California, led by plaintiffs Kathleen Smith and Mathew Downing.

According to a motion for settlement approval, the beverage brewing business will also change the packaging labels for the single-serve coffee pods to let customers know that they could not be recyclable in their region.

The buyers added that as part of the settlement, Keurig would have to publish the revised disclaimer in a font size that is noticeably larger than the one on the packaging at present in order for customers to see and comprehend it.

According to the buyers, Keurig has also agreed to modify its website to tell visitors that K-Cup pods are not widely recyclable.

According to the motion, Ocean Conservancy will receive 75% of any settlement payments that go unclaimed, and Consumer Reports will receive 25% of the remainder. There would be no money left over to give to Keurig.

The buyers stated, “There is a clear correlation between the Ocean Conservancy’s purpose and the facts that give rise to the urgent action, as this case concerns plastic pollution in part due to the labeling of plastic products as recyclable but are not actually recycled.

Keurig Pods Have Been Made More Recyclable

According to the motion, Keurig has previously made steps to make its coffee pods more recyclable by changing their caps to make them easier to peel off.

According to Smith’s 2018 class action lawsuit, Keurig’s K-Cup coffee pods were too small to be recycled in most municipal recycling operations, resulting in them frequently ending up in landfills.

When Keurig tried to have the complaint dismissed, it was unsuccessful. Keurig claimed that a reasonable customer would not have been misleading and would have understood that K-Cup pods could not be recycled everywhere.

To settle various charges that it had established a monopoly in the market for single-serve coffee pods, Keurig agreed to pay $31 million in 2020.

In that instance, customers said that Keurig had stifled competition in order to maintain market dominance, allowing the business to charge higher prices.

Have you ever used a single-serve K-Cup coffee pod for a Keurig? Comment below and let us know!

Howard Hirsch, Ryan Berghoff, and Gideon Kracov of Lexington Law Group and the Law Offices of Gideon Kracov are the plaintiff’s attorneys.

Smith v. Keurig Green Mountain Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-06690, is the name of the Keurig K-Cup Recyclable Class Action Lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/keurig-class-action-settlement-proceeds/
via IFTTT

CDC Warns That Anti-epileptic Drug Gabapentin Linked to Overdose

Health experts at the federal level are warning that the overuse of Gabapentin has been more frequently connected to overdose deaths in the US in recent years, prompting requests for more education about the dangers of mixing the drug with illegal opioids.

According to a government study released this week by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), gabapentin was found in about one in ten overdose deaths that occurred in the U.S. between 2019 and 2020, and in about half of those cases, it was found to be the cause of death.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has given gabapentin the go-ahead to treat neuropathic pain and epilepsy. In addition, it is frequently prescribed off-label for the management of post-menopausal hot flashes, chronic cough, hiccups, and alcohol use disorder. The closely comparable medication gabapentin enacarbil is authorized to treat post-therapeutic neuralgia and restless legs syndrome. Additionally, the medications are offered in numerous generic forms as well as under the brand names Neurontin, Gralise, and Horizant, as well as for the pregabalin-based medications Lyrica and Lyrica CR.

Gabapentin is frequently taken by illicit opioid users to enhance the effects of the drugs. According to the CDC, there was a 103 percent rise in misuse, purposeful abuse, and unreported exposures to anticonvulsants between 2013 and 2017. This raises the risk of respiratory depression and death.

Using data from the State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System (SUDORS) in 23 states and the District of Columbia from 2019 through 2020, the CDC evaluated the drug’s contribution to fatal overdoses. The findings show that gabapentin was found in 5,687, or 9.7 percent, of the 58,362 overdose deaths that had toxicology reports. Non-Hispanic Whites accounted for 83.2 percent of overdose deaths. There were almost equal numbers of males and women who died. The findings, however, indicate that the death rate appears to be rising.

According to CDC researchers, “the number of deaths recorded with gabapentin identified during the second quarter of 2020 roughly doubled compared to the first quarter of 2019.” “By the first quarter of 2019, 49.4% of deaths where gabapentin was found were gabapentin-related; this figure rose to 55.1 percent during the fourth quarter of 2020.

Have You Heard? Philips Recalls Millions of CPAP Machines

Recent sales of Philips DreamStation, CPAP, and BiPAP machines raise the possibility of cancer, lung damage, and other harm.

Study More
Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization, requested that the FDA classify gabapentin as a schedule V prohibited substance earlier this year, citing the possibility of abuse, addiction, overdose, and fatalities.

Federal health regulators issued a warning in 2019 that combining opioids with gabapentin medications, such as Neurontin, or other medications used to treat nerve diseases could result in hazardous breathing issues that could cause hospitalization or even death.

Pregabalin, a medication that has been listed as a schedule V prohibited substance since 2005, and the naturally occurring neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) share structural similarities with gabapentin.

As of November 2020, 12 states require prescription monitoring, and seven states have classified gabapentin as a schedule V substance. Pregabalin and gabapentin have both been designated as restricted substances in the UK since 2019.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/cdc-warns-that-anti-epileptic-drug-gabapentin-linked-to-overdose/
via IFTTT