Wednesday, 31 August 2022

Family of Dead Marine Files Lawsuit Against Alec Baldwin

Friday saw the re-filing of a defamation lawsuit against actor Alec Baldwin in New York by Rylee J. McCollum’s family.

Jiennah McCollum, Rylee’s widow, and Roice and Cheyenne McCollum, her sisters, have filed a lawsuit asking for $25,000,000 in damages. They claim that Baldwin has made false accusations against them, such as labeling Roice McCollum a “insurrectionist” in January 2022 because she shared a photo of protesters in Washington, DC from January 6, 2021 on social media.

Even though she was there on January 6th, Roice “did not take part in, nor did she support or condone the rioting that erupted,” as the lawsuit puts it. Baldwin “plainly ignored Roice’s denial of rioting” and her claim that the FBI “cleared her for participating in any of the conduct Baldwin chose to falsely attribute to her via his massive following.”

In January, the sisters and widow sued Baldwin in a similar fashion in Wyoming. In May, the lawsuit was thrown out by a federal judge who decided that, as a New York resident, Baldwin did not fall under the court’s jurisdiction.

Baldwin’s lawyer at the time, Luke Nikas, was pleased with the verdict. He claimed that the lawsuit was filed to “punish Mr. Baldwin for expressing his political opinion.”
The re-filed lawsuit reiterates the original claims that the plaintiffs suffered significant emotional harm as a result of Baldwin’s remarks.

“Mr. Baldwin gave Ms. McCollum a few thousand dollars in honor of her late husband, and now she’s suing him for more money because she doesn’t agree with his political stance on the January 6th insurrection at the U.S. Capitol Building. The last time they tried this, we beat them in court “Nikas stated to CNN on Wednesday.

In August of last year, as the United States and its Western allies rushed to evacuate their citizens and allies from Afghanistan, an attack outside the Kabul airport killed 13 American service members, including 20-year-old Rylee McCollum.
After Rylee passed away, his wife Jiennah and their child benefited from an online fundraising campaign. According to the complaint, Baldwin sent Roice a $5,000 check as “a tribute to a fallen soldier,” which she then split with Jiennah.

The suit claims that Baldwin commented on Roice’s Instagram post with the question, “Are you the same woman that I sent the $ to for your sister’s husband who was killed during the Afghanistan exit?” after Roice posted photos of protesters in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021 on January 3 “in anticipation of the January 6, 2022, one year anniversary of her attendance.”

In spite of the allegations made in the lawsuit, Roice “was never detained, arrested, charged with or convicted of any crime associated with her attendance at the January 6, 2021, event in Washington, DC,” the plaintiff claims.

As stated in the lawsuit, her response to Baldwin was, “I’ve had a chat with the FBI and know that protesting is legal here. Thank you, and have a good day!”

According to the complaint, Baldwin shot back with, “My gut tells me no. Because of your actions, government property was illegally destroyed, a police officer was killed, and the presidential election certification was threatened. You can find your picture here, which I re-posted. I wish you all the best.”

According to the complaint, Roice’s “Instagram feed” was flooded with “hostile, aggressive, hateful messages” from Baldwin’s fans roughly 20 minutes after the initial post.

To his own Instagram, Baldwin added the now-deleted message, “Many Trump supporters have recently argued that the assault on the Capitol was merely a protest (a more peaceful version of which resulted in the imprisonment of many other protestors) and a demonstration of support for democracy. That’s utter nonsense.”
Screenshots of his further post that were included in the lawsuit read, “I looked into the matter thoroughly. I discovered that Roice McCollum’s brother was among those “killed” in Kabul, Afghanistan. I learned this through Instagram.

“For the sake of her brother’s widow and their child, I offered to send some money to Jiennah McCollum, her sister-in-law. This is exactly what I did. In honor of the slain soldier. Now I come across this. Some of life’s most bizarre moments actually occurred “an addition to his post.
According to the lawsuit, Baldwin “unequivocally understood that by forwarding Roice’s Instagram feed to 2.4 million like-minded followers and posting his commentary would result in the onslaught of threats and hatred that it did.”
The suit claims that hours after Baldwin’s post, “hateful messages and even death threats” were sent to Lance’s other sister, Cheyenne, and his widow, Jiennah.
On January 6, 2021, “neither Cheyenne nor Jiennah” were in the nation’s capital “that is what the lawsuit asserts.



from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/family-of-dead-marine-files-lawsuit-against-alec-baldwin/
via IFTTT

2022 Updates on the Essure Lawsuit and Settlements  

The current status of the Essure litigation is discussed here. You’ll get the inside scoop on the preemption suit and Bayer AG’s recent decision to halt production of the implant. You will also be informed of the possible adverse reactions and complications that may arise from getting the implant. We’ll keep you posted as this story develops. To learn more, check out our piece on unwanted pregnancies and other potential side effects.

Depending on where the lawsuit came from, a settlement can be found based on the original Essure case. Recently, Bayer said it was settling nearly all Essure legal suits against the firm for $1.7 billion.

Having Essure Birth Control can result in injury if it causes injury. Currently, there are thousands that are suing Bayer to recover damages from the abuse of the Essure birth control program. We strongly recommend seeking the advice of a lawyer to see if you can join the Essure lawsuit.

Original Complaints in lawsuits

Several women claim that their injuries are causing severe pain and crippling autoimmune problems. The Agency’s first adverse reaction report was reported by DrugWatch from December 20 2018 to January 20, 2022, a CDC spokesperson said. Although many women have undergone numerous surgeries, the residual metal fragment is still painful and causes chronic inflammatory symptoms for a number of reasons.

This woman was part of the lawsuits filed by thousands against Bayer. The gynecologic doctor is trying to transfer liability for the escorted injuries mentioned in litigation by Bayers.

Women describe injuries

The lawsuit says Bayer acted in a manner intended to gain monetary compensation for wrongful actions and, in doing so, create harm to plaintiffs and their health.” A marriage or family loss often occurs. The escort experience was an overwhelming challenge. After years of adversity and wrongful death, a lawsuit has resulted. Stephanie Baily’s alleged damages are among only a handful of first lawsuits.

Stephanie Bailey

Bradley Bailey’s spouse sued Stephanie Bailey in 2016. Stephanie suffered numbness in her extremities and long-term migraine symptoms after receiving medication in November 2010. She underwent a hysterectomy and later died. Her husband seeks compensation from her husband in the event of her loss of life support and companionship.

Lawsuits against Essure keep rolling on

The Bayer company has reached a $1.6 billion settlement agreement to end lawsuits against the Essure birth control implant. The settlement will resolve 90% of the claims made against the device. In 2018, Bayer opted to settle thousands of lawsuits alleging Essure caused devastating side effects rather than continue selling the device. Almost all pending lawsuits in the United States will be resolved through settlements approved by the company. In reaching this settlement, the plaintiffs have won their right to a day in court.

Cases brought by plaintiffs tend to be drawn out and difficult. Multiple surgeries have taken a toll on the health of some women. The daughter of a woman who got the implant in November 2010 is the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the woman’s husband. According to the lawsuit, Stephanie experienced excruciating pelvic pain and had to have a hysterectomy to have the contraption removed. Shortly after, Stephanie passed away. Stephanie’s husband, Bradley Bailey, has officially filed the lawsuit against Bayer and Conceptus.

Numerous women have complained of negative side effects after having Essure implanted. It’s been responsible for over 10,000 injuries and at least 30 deaths. Because of a lack of testing and a lack of warning to patients, this device should not be used.

And since the FDA hasn’t green-lighted the product, any women who have used it should see a doctor right away. The company has agreed to settle the vast majority of the Essure lawsuits that have been filed in the United States.

Preemption litigation has been filed against Bayer AG Medical devices

The claims against Bayer for failing to warn women about the risks of Essure have been upheld by a judge in the Alameda County Superior Court, who ruled that the claims are not preempted by California law. Failure-to-warn claims have not been dismissed, even though other claims against Bayer, such as fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and advertising, may be preempted by state laws.

The lawsuit claims that Bayer’s “Essure Simulator Training,” rather than actual hands-on experience, left its doctors unprepared to perform the procedure safely and effectively. As a result, doctors who shouldn’t have been performing Essure procedures were encouraged to make false claims about the device’s safety. This resulted in a tsunami of litigation and an Essure lawsuit against the makers of the Essure birth control implant for a defective medical device. Bayer has responded to the lawsuit by refuting the allegations made against it and defending its business model and reputation.

According to the complaint, Bayer should be protected from Essure lawsuits because the device falls under the category of “medical device” and is therefore governed by federal law. Unfortunately, the FDA has been unable or unwilling to initiate a federal cause of action for Essure-related violations. Instead, Congress delegated responsibility for compensating victims of federal law violations to the individual states. The FDA and state law have similar responsibilities, so the two bodies have worked together to create this system. In other words, undermining Congress’s approved enforcement regime by requiring the parties to litigate in federal court is a bad idea.

Bayer has agreed to pay $1.6 billion to resolve all pending lawsuits involving Essure in the United States. There is no admission of guilt in the settlements, and the agreements will have no bearing on any other litigation that may be ongoing in other jurisdictions. Bayer, however, maintains that the settlement agreements reflect the distinctive features of the American legal system and its capacity to filter out frivolous lawsuits.

Essure Birth Control Device, A Permanent Birth Control Device?

Some consumers who used the Essure device and subsequently became pregnant or had a child against their will may be entitled to financial compensation. Although Essure is effective in helping women avoid unintended pregnancies, it does come with some undesirable side effects. Instances of itching, cramping, dizziness, and abnormal bleeding are all in this category. Perforation of the fallopian tubes and ectopic pregnancies are just two of the potentially fatal complications. Essure has been associated with fatal complications.

The FDA mandated that Bayer, the manufacturer of Essure, conduct a safety review of the medical devices. According to the results of this inquiry, Bayer did not do enough testing on the product or provide adequate warnings to consumers about its possible dangers. After this and other adverse event reports, in December 2018, Bayer voluntarily withdrew Essure birth control device from the sale. There is a chance of serious side effects with the implant, so the FDA also issued a black box warning for Essure.

Patients who were treated with Essure have sued the manufacturer. Legal action has been taken against Bayer on the grounds that it did not conduct sufficient pre-market safety studies and that it knowingly concealed the occurrence of study complications. Clinical trials of the product reportedly resulted in no birth defects, according to information provided on Bayer’s website. Four pregnancies occurred during the trials, and another five occurred in the product’s first year on the market. The FDA also moved quickly to approve Essure.

Affects Unwanted

Bayer, the manufacturer of the contraceptive device Essure, has filed suit to defend it against the growing number of lawsuits filed against it. Legal defense costs are separate from any settlements with plaintiffs, but the company has settled several cases for more than $413 million despite the fact that the product has not caused any serious side effects. There has been no verdict yet, but the company has spent hundreds of millions of dollars fighting off competition from other pharmaceutical firms.

Bayer has blamed doctors for the complications and denied any responsibility for the adverse effects. However, the company has also been accused of failing to provide adequate physician training, failing to keep track of safety data, and failing to report issues with the device to the Food and Drug Administration. A woman can sue for damages to cover her medical bills, time off work, and emotional distress no matter what caused her injury. She may be entitled to wrongful death compensation if she has been injured by the device.

The suit claims that Essure can travel through a woman’s body and corrode her fallopian tubes. Some women may experience autoimmune symptoms due to the presence of nickel in the metal implant. According to another plaintiff, using the device results in persistent pelvic pain and multiple fibroids. She also claims that multiple fibroids, chronic pelvic pain, and other complications are all results of nickel poisoning. Contact a lawyer in Nevada who specializes in the Essure lawsuit process if you’ve had any of the above issues.

FDA Warning on Essure device

The FDA has mandated a black box warning for the birth control implant Essure due to the potential for serious injury or death. The FDA only issues this level of warning for the most dangerous medical devices. The Food and Drug Administration reports that more than 5,000 women have reported adverse events related to the Essure device. Some women, however, feel that the FDA isn’t doing enough to address the device’s risks, and they have voiced their displeasure with the agency.

Doctors who perform the procedure are obligated by the FDA to notify patients of the black box warning and to provide a patient decision checklist that details the potential risks associated with the procedure. There have been reports of women who were not fully informed of the risks associated with Essure. Although this is discouraging for female patients, it is essential that medical professionals make patients aware of all potential complications. These individuals can choose whether or not to have the surgery based on reliable information.

Numerous class action lawsuits have been filed against Essure’s maker because of the device’s black box warning. The plaintiffs in these suits accuse the company of negligent conduct and demand monetary compensation for their injured clients. A black box warning was issued for Essure in February after the FDA issued its final recommendations. Although a black box warning for Essure was warranted, whether or not the FDA will impose further restrictions on the product remains unknown. The FDA has pledged to maintain its rigorous safety assessments of Essure and similar contraceptive options.

Essure Settlements Amounts

You may be able to sue Bayer for compensation if you suffered an injury as a result of your Essure procedure. In most cases, consumers file suit after a company fails to provide adequate warning about a dangerous or defective product. Contact a lawyer specializing in defective products if you experienced complications after having Essure implanted. Your legal options may include claiming money for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and even wrongful death.

To file a claim related to Essure in California court, a woman must live in California. Recently, a judge in California consolidated dozens of separate lawsuits against Essure into a single Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding. The goal of the new procedure is to facilitate the resolution of the most complex cases as quickly as possible while also making the process more manageable for plaintiffs. Further, California is acting to safeguard residents from defective products.

Although the time limit for filing such claims had long since passed, a federal judge in Pennsylvania recently halved the number of pending Essure lawsuits. In addition, the pre-insertion consultation must include a “black box” warning highlighting any “significant or common adverse events” associated with the device. A new law that mandates this regulation will improve the odds of successful settlements and make Essure safer for women. There have been over three thousand lawsuits filed against companies related to this product, but they have a solid legal defense.



from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/essure-lawsuit-and-settlements/
via IFTTT

Wednesday, 24 August 2022

Paragard IUD Class Lawsuit Settlement Amounts

The PARAGARD IUD is an intrauterine device used to prevent pregnancy. However, the use of PARAGARD can cause a variety of side effects. These include pelvic infections, which are easily treatable with antibiotics, and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). This disease affects less than 1% of PARAGARD users. If you experience pelvic pain or find your PARAGARD sticking out or coming out easily, you should immediately notify your healthcare provider. If you think you might be pregnant, surgical removal may be necessary. If you are considering this method, you should consider a number of factors, including cost and availability.

Paragard side effects & complications

Paragard has a recurrent arm break out of the body during use and can cause severe side effects during use. The twisted metal coils may be embedded within the uterine wall as it can damage any organ. In this case, it is recommended for people to undergo surgery to remove the fragments. Surgical procedures could remove fragments but could have long-term consequences — for instance, a patient who undergoes a hysterectomy will have the right to remain in uterine condition without becoming pregnant. In addition, Paragard IUD removal surgery may even fail in removing the fragment.

Paragard class action lawsuit

More than 1 million women filed lawsuits in court claiming the device was damaged because it broke and left foreign objects in its body. Paragard litigation in federal courts has been merged with an additional Paragard MDL for the Northern District. Paragard is claiming that the devices are vulnerable to rupture inside women’s

About Paragard Lawsuits

Paragards are a form of pregnancy contraceptive known as IUDs. The parallaxs are cylindrical devices sized as a quarter and have a central copper coil. A surgeon places IUDs at the uterine axis. It has been in operation for 10 years, protecting pregnant women. It is designed for easy removal by pulling out an extraction cable in a medical office. Unfortunately, Paragard’s copper IUD design has a hidden defect that has caused some women problems while removing it. The plastic arms at its base will flex up as the device is removed from the box.

Paragard Class Action Lawsuit Updates – July 2022

The para-agent’s lawsuit against the Paragard IUD has been brought for more than 60 days in the acclaim process from June 15 to July 15. There are now 246 cases that are pending for Paragard’s MDL. Since May there have been approximately 88 new cases added to the MDL each month, which represents a significant increase compared with the first two-year average of 88 cases. The judge approved the long-awaiting plaintiffs’ fact sheet this week, giving all plaintiffs 120 hours to complete the form as a supporting document.

Paragard IUD lawsuits will be resolved in a global settlement

The Paragard case was finally settled via global settlement. Almost all product mass tort cases are resolved without the approval of judges. Paragard commenced its operation on 31 December 2020. New Paragard lawsuits were filed in the MDL as well. The MDL judge oversees the consolidation of the “group discovery” between plaintiff and defendant. The investigation is focused on the design flaws of the Paragarde and the information the defendant had. Courthouse Federal. Atlanta GA After completion of the process to gather evidence for the Paragard MDL, the litigation moves onto the bellwether trial stage.

Tell me the future of Paragard Settlement?

How global settlement processes operate can only be explained using a hypothetical case study. Acme defends 10,000 cases in the MDL. The company claims the device caused internal organ failure. The Paragard Class Action MDL has 18-month investigations. The plaintiffs selected 20 defendants in a bench court. The plaintiffs picked 10. Acme picked the remainder of the 10. Three of the ten cases involved in this case require a jury trial. The first case is convicted for the amount of $5 million.

Failure to warn Paragard Complications

The lawsuit also has a failure to warn. Plaintiffs argue that the defendants did not properly warn doctors and patients about the dangers of Paragard. How can a defendant know about Paragard’s dangers? During the past three decades, defendants reported that the company reported over 2.000 Paragard break-ins in their operation. It did not come to the attention of a physician or patient.

Estimated settlement payout in Paragard Lawsuits

The payout could easily exceed $500,000 for Paragard. It is not too late to estimate settlement value in these cases. Based in part upon previous settlements in mass torts cases involving defective drugs and injuries, we believe Paragard cases are expected to exceed $100,000. Paraguay claimants can expect payouts between $45,000-750,000.

bodies due to their inadequate flexibility. The following article presents the 2022 Paragard case update. Our lawyer also reflects on the potential value of a Paragard case if it is settled through a worldwide arbitration between the manufacturer and Paragard.

Side effects

While most side effects of Paragard are mild, there are some cases where you may experience bleeding or cramping. Some women may feel dizzy, nausea, or faint after the procedure. If these symptoms persist, you should contact your healthcare provider. You should also be sure to read the patient brochure to learn more about the drug. You can also check out Paragard’s website to learn more about the device and how it works.

Another serious side effect of Paragard is a broken IUD. This may result in the IUD breaking during removal, causing severe injuries or even new complications. In some cases, broken Paragard IUDs require surgery to remove the pieces. While most women do not experience this problem, it is important to know the potential consequences of this risk before choosing the treatment option. A defective medical device lawsuit may be the best option if you or someone you love was injured by a Paragard device.

While using Paragard, women should discuss whether breastfeeding is an option for them. It may increase their risk of perforation or embedment. Perforation occurs when the IUD pokes through the uterine wall. It is important to discuss this risk with your health care provider before using Paragard. While the risks are low, you must always discuss the benefits and risks of the product with your health care provider. It is important to note that the Paragard IUD is only effective in preventing pregnancy for up to 10 years.

Although the manufacturers of Paragard have admitted the risks associated with the device, it is important to note that there is no definitive proof. In some cases, women have suffered serious injuries or death from the device. However, many women have already been injected with a Paragard IUD, and are unaware of any harmful side effects. There are many lawsuits filed against Paragard as a result of these problems. If you’re concerned that Paragard may cause you harm, contact your healthcare provider immediately.

Cost

While the Paragard IUD is a popular birth control method, costs are increasing. According to the Affordable Care Act, most health plans now cover all forms of contraception, including the IUD. Erica’s health insurance covered the birth control pills and she paid nothing out of pocket. But after a year, she received a bill for $1,900 for her Paragard IUD. She earns less than $10 an hour.

Many insurance plans cover the Paragard IUD, and many drug companies offer low-cost or free options for people on Medicaid or other government programs. If you have questions about cost, contact your local health department or health center. If you do not have health insurance, you may be able to find a clinic that offers the device for free or at a low cost. The Paragard IUD is also the subject of lawsuits claiming that it is defective and causes serious injuries. You may be eligible for compensation from an insurance company or a lawsuit if you have purchased one.

A bimanual examination is required prior to implantation to ensure the correct placement of the IUD. This test will also help determine if there is an infection in the pelvis, which may prevent the implant from being properly inserted. Your healthcare provider may also recommend additional tests. The cost of these consultations depends on the healthcare provider and clinic. If you have health insurance, your provider may offer a co-pay savings program to help you offset the out-of-pocket costs.

The Paragard IUD is an implantable copper device. It stays in the body for up to 10 years and can cost around $800. Many insurance plans cover the cost of the device but not the associated service charges. You may also have to pay extra if you have to visit out-of-network doctors. In this case, you may want to consider Medicaid or Planned Parenthood as a source of assistance.

Availability

The Paragard IUD is a prescription birth control device that is placed in the uterus by a healthcare provider. The procedure is relatively simple and takes a few minutes during a routine office visit. During the procedure, the doctor will use a speculum to view the cervix and then insert the Paragard into the uterus. It will remain in place for up to ten years.

The Paragard IUD can be inserted at any time during the menstrual cycle, though some doctors recommend waiting eight weeks after delivery. Your health care provider will evaluate your overall health and perform a pelvic exam to rule out any STIs. If necessary, your health care provider may prescribe nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to help with the cramping. The procedure is usually performed in the health care provider’s office.

Once inserted, the Paragard IUD is removed. The health care provider will likely use forceps to remove the device from your vagina. The arms of the Paragard IUD will fold upward when it is removed from your uterus. Light bleeding and cramping may occur during this procedure. However, these effects will fade over time. Your health care provider may offer you free consultations and cost estimates before you get started.

The FDA has the power to regulate the prices of contraception devices. The law requires insurers to cover the cost of hormonal IUDs. However, plans vary in the amount of money they will pay for the device. If your provider does not cover the Paragard IUD, it may still be covered under another health plan. In that case, the insurer can charge a co-payment for the use of other contraceptive devices.

Removability

Many women are seeking legal recourse over the removability of the Paragard IUD. The device is an artificial contraceptive that stays in the woman’s uterus for years. The device can become weak over time and may break. The plastic and strings of the Paragard IUD are not strong enough to hold up over time. In addition, a woman may experience painful periods and infertility after having the device placed.

Removability of Paragard is generally done in a medical office. The health care provider inserts the device through the cervix. The removal process is painless. The patient feels light bleeding or cramping while the device is being pulled out. Eventually, the copper wiring will wear down and the IUD will not work as well. The manufacturer of the Paragard IUD never warned women about the risks involved.

Women should seek medical attention to remove the Paragard IUD if they have any concerns. Usually, a gynecologist can perform the procedure on a routine office visit. The provider uses a speculum to gently pull on the strings, which are anchored into the uterus. If the patient experiences pain, ibuprofen may be prescribed to reduce pain. Once the IUD is removed, women can start using other forms of contraception.

Removability of Paragard IUD is simple and quick. After removal, the patient’s fertility should return. Removability of Paragard IUD is not recommended during a woman’s menstrual cycle. However, women may choose to discontinue their use of it after the end of their menstrual cycle. Once the procedure is completed, the patient’s blood pressure should decrease and bleeding should cease within two to three months.

Expulsion

The term “expulsion” is used to describe the process of removing a Paragard IUD from a woman’s uterus. The process may be either complete or partial. In either case, the patient may not be aware that the device is not in its proper position. Expulsion may also occur if the patient’s period is coming. Expulsion is the worst case scenario and must be handled by a qualified healthcare provider.

The first step in the expulsion process is determining whether or not the contraceptive device is still in the uterus. In cases where the Paragard has been removed from the uterus, an ultrasound will be performed to determine the exact date of the removal. Expulsion may result in the loss of a baby. The procedure can be extremely dangerous for both the woman and the fetus. It is important to remember that the fetus is not the same size as the fundus of the uterus, which means that the contraceptive device cannot anchor securely to the uterus.

While the Paragard IUD has a good safety record, there are a number of side effects associated with its use. One of these side effects is excessive pain in the pelvic area. Patients who experience these complications should seek medical care as soon as possible. If the risk of expulsion is high enough, it may be necessary to remove the device. If the procedure is not performed promptly, the woman may become pregnant. This may lead to an unplanned pregnancy.

Another study examined the risk factors for the expulsion of a Cu-IUD. Women with uterine volumes 148 mL or greater were at a higher risk. However, the proportion of women who suffered from dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia was not reported. This study also lacked data on the incidence of expulsion in women who did not have menorrhagia and uterine fibroids.



from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/paragard-iud-lawsuit-settlement-amounts/
via IFTTT

Tuesday, 23 August 2022

Babyganics Class Action Lawsuit

In 2002, President Keith Garber and CEO Kevin Schwartz established Babyganics in Westbury, New York. “To raise the next generation of healthy, happy babies” is the mission statement of Babyganics. The business takes pleasure in creating organic, child-safe products like cleaning supplies, shampoos, and suntan creams.

The company has had exponential growth in terms of revenue, value, and the number of goods over the last 15 years. Unfortunately, that quick expansion might have jeopardized Babyganics’ fundamental principles.

According to Babyganics, it carefully examines all of its ingredients and “test[s] the crap out] of everything,” including pH, odor, and color. Environmental organizations and angry parents, however, argue that this may not be the case.

Due to the possibly dangerous nature of its contents, Babyganics is currently the target of multiple lawsuits. The most well-known instance of this is a class action lawsuit brought by ClassAction.com.

SWIFT GROWTH ENSURES S.C. JOHNSON’S PURCHASE

Babyganics almost tripled its sales growth (277%) between 2011 and 2013. The business made its debut on the Inc. 5000 list in 2012, ranking #613 among the nation’s fastest-growing private businesses. (It appeared on the list one more in 2014, ranking #1540.)

Babyganics reported $30 million in gross sales for the year 2013.

Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Garber, the company’s co-founders, released a book titled BabySafe in Seven Steps: The Babyganics Guide to Smart and Effective Solutions for a Healthy Home in April 2014. The business was added to Crain’s New York Business’s Fast 50 list, which honors the 50 businesses in the New York City region with the quickest rate of growth, six months later.

Despite its rapid expansion, Babyganics maintained its reputation as a wholesome mom-and-pop store with two intrepid dads who were “extremely hands-on with new product design and development” (Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Garber).

However, VMG Partners, a private equity company based in San Francisco, owned Babyganics rather than its co-founders. Justin’s, Kind, Natural Balance Pet Foods, Quest, Spindrift, and Pirate’s Booty are some of VMG’s more well-known brands.

Babyganics was acquired by SC Johnson, a global conglomerate with a $10 billion annual revenue, in July 2016 from VMG Partners.

As stated on the company’s website, Babyganics’ goal is to “continue developing baby goods that use the safest chemicals available, products that are affordable for every mom and dad, and products that function phenomenally well.” However, it is difficult to envision having those values affected in any way by being owned by a private equity group and later a large multinational corporation.

More than 80 personal care and home goods that are “baby-safe” and “organic” are now available at Babyganics. Major merchants including Target, Amazon, and Babies “R” Us sell these items.

However, they might not be as secure or environmentally friendly as claimed.

BABYGANICS GETS A FAILING GRADE FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP

According to the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) numerous guides, Babyganics performs poorly for a business that prides itself on being socially and health-conscious. The EWG’s Healthy Cleaning Guide

…is an online hazard guide for household cleaning products that was introduced in 2012 to assist consumers in finding goods that fully reveal their ingredients and include fewer compounds that are dangerous or haven’t been extensively evaluated. The database incorporates information from more than 16 major toxicity databases, in-depth searches of peer-reviewed scientific literature, and product ingredient lists obtained from product labels, company websites, and worker safety manuals.

A business like Babyganics ought to perform admirably under such scrutiny, but that is not at all the case.

Only three of the 23 Babyganics cleaning products that the EWG assessed received an A. Zero received a B. 6 received a C. Of the 23 goods, 14 received a D or F. Some, such as Babyganics Fragrance-Free Laundry Detergent, were deemed to be of “High Concern” for Reproductive & Developmental Toxicity.

In EWG’s Skin Deep Cosmetics Database, Babyganics fared better, although even some of these products received 4, 5, or even 6 out of 10, which indicates a Moderate hazard risk. Additionally, five Babyganics products contain Coumarin (which has a hazard risk value of 7 out of 10), five contain Fragrance (which has a hazard risk score of 8), and two contain Octinoxate (which scores 6).

The problematic nature of Babyganics’ components has led to lawsuits in addition to the company receiving poor reviews from environmental organizations.

EFFECTIVE INGREDIENTS LAWSUIT

Lawyers has filed a complaint against Babyganics, alleging that many of the company’s bath products are not as “tear-free,” “safe,” or “gentle” as claimed and many of them include eye irritants.

With various Babyganics bath products claiming to be “tear-free,” gentle, non-allergenic, and safe for infants, our attorneys are suing Babyganics for allegedly false labeling. According to the complaint, the following nine goods (mentioned below) include chemicals and other materials that irritate the eyes:

  • Conditioning Shampoo & Body Wash with Chamomile Verbena
  • Shampoo and body wash with chamomile verbena
  • Bubble bath with chamomile and verbena
  • Conditioning Shampoo & Body Wash Without Fragrances
  • Fragrance-Free Body Wash & Shampoo
  • Unscented Bubble Bath
  • Moisturizing Therapy Cream Wash Without Fragrance
  • Shampoo and body wash with orange blossoms at night
  • Bubble bath with orange blossoms at night

We demand financial compensation for the plaintiffs who bought these goods as well as a halt to Babyganics’ misleading advertising of them.

AUTHENTIC BABYGANICS ACTIONS

A complaint was filed against Babyganics in the fall of 2016 stating that its “tear-free” shampoo burned a boy’s eyes, perhaps causing lifelong damage. Theresa Jones said that her infant son Hunter had 90% of his corneas burned and that physicians blamed the Babyganics shampoo, warning that Hunter might have long-term eye issues.

According to Ms. Jones, she discovered other internet complaints from mothers whose kids had suffered comparable harm from Babyganics products.

A rough rash that appeared on the face of Jade Christensen’s five-week-old son Leif was allegedly caused by Babyganics Face, Hand, and Baby Wipes in May 2017. She claimed she observed black patches on the wipes, indicating that mold of some kind was developing on them, and discovered related online complaints about the product.

Babyganics responded to Ms. Christensen’s experience by offering to replace any wipes with black spots and reassuring parents that the wipes had been tested and were safe to use.



from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/babyganics-class-action-lawsuit/
via IFTTT

Tuesday, 16 August 2022

12 Baby Formula NEC Lawsuits Go Forward (Similac and Enfamil)

Those who make infant formula A strategy outlining the procedure for choosing a set of 12 cases that will be ready for a series of early bellwether trials have been provided to the U.S. District Judge overseeing the litigation by the NEC lawsuits being brought against the manufacturers of Similac and Enfamil.

Cow’s milk infant formula brands Similac and Enfamil have received extensive marketing in recent years to hospitals and families of new babies, especially premature infants still in the NICU. Nevertheless, mounting research indicates that infant formula significantly raises the chance that preemies will experience the unpleasant necrotizing enterocolitis, or NEC, which causes the gut to rot away.

In the United States, more than 100 families are currently pursuing Similac NEC lawsuits or Enfamil NEC lawsuits against Abbott Laboratories and Mead Johnson, claiming the companies were aware of the dangers of using their products on premature newborns for years. However, it is anticipated that the amount of the case will drastically rise and most likely encompass more than 1,000 claims as lawyers continue to analyze and file claims in the upcoming months and years.

Similac or Enfamil cow’s milk formula for premature newborns carried a higher risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) or accidental death.

Case Info

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) established coordinated management for all NEC lawsuits against Similac and Enfamil manufacturers in April due to the similar factual and legal issues raised in complaints filed in numerous different U.S. District Courts nationwide. This mandated that any case filed throughout the federal court system be transferred to U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer in the Northern District of Illinois for centralized discovery.

Judge Pallmeyer has said that a “bellwether” program will be established as part of the coordinated management of the NEC lawsuits. Under this program, small groups of claims will go through case-specific discovery and early trial dates to help determine how juries are likely to react to certain evidence that will be repeated throughout the litigation. However, each Similac and Enfamil lawsuit may later be remanded to various different U.S. District Courts nationwide for separate trial dates if the parties are unable to reach a settlement during the MDL procedures.

suggested infant formula Bellwether Selection Plan for the NEC Lawsuit

Judge Pallmeyer received a collaborative plan from plaintiffs and defendants explaining how these initial bellwether cases should be chosen on August 12 in the form of a draft order (PDF).

The cases would be selected in accordance with the proposed plan among those filed on or before September 16, 2022. Plaintiffs must submit to the producers of infant formula a list of four initial bellwether discovery cases by the end of the following month, no more than three of which may name Mead Johnson, the company that makes Enfamil, as a defendant.

The parties will also submit to the court on September 30 a list of cases in which Similac’s manufacturer, Abbott, is the only defendant, as well as a list of situations in which Mead Johnson is either the only defendant or a co-defendant with Abbott. They will next submit a computer-generated application to the court to randomly select a total of four more cases from those two lists.

The baby formula producers will next submit a list of four additional cases on or before November 23, 2022, guaranteeing that Mead Johnson is a defendant in no more than five of the list’s 12 prospective bellwether trials.

Each party will choose two cases to serve as initial bellwether trial cases after fact discovery on the dozen initial bellwether discovery cases is finished. This will leave a total of four claims that are eligible to go before jurors.

According to the suggested strategy, the Court will later decide the cases’ trial order, spacing them out by approximately 12 weeks.

The results of these early bellwether trials are expected to have a significant impact on any baby formula NEC settlements the manufacturers may offer, even though their results will not be legally binding on other claims and won’t prevent them from being remanded back to U.S. District Courts nationwide for separate trial dates in the future.



from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/12-baby-formula-nec-lawsuits-go-forward-similac-and-enfamil/
via IFTTT

Wednesday, 10 August 2022

3M Combat Arms Earplugs Lawsuits Continue After Big Awards

If you are suffering from permanent hearing damage caused by wearing faulty 3M earplugs, you may be entitled to compensation. In the U.S. alone, there are thousands of 3M lawsuits pending. Compensation can cover medical costs, hearing aids, and lost quality of life. Read on to learn more about 3M combat earplugs and the possibility of filing a lawsuit.

Throughout the years, the U.S. military has issued millions of earplugs to combat noise and protect soldiers’ hearing. Unfortunately, this type of earplugs did not protect soldiers, who were exposed to extremely loud noises while on duty. The Hearing Health Foundation recently paid out more than $1 billion to service members and veterans for hearing loss caused by these products. These lawsuits accuse 3M of negligently manufacturing and marketing the product.

The manufacturer of the earplugs, 3M, allegedly knew it was defective before selling it to the military. Yet, they failed to issue a recall or add warnings to the packaging. This allowed them to continue selling the earplugs to the military, and nearly every service member used them for years. As a result, 3M is now paying out nearly $9 million in compensation.

3M Combat Arms Earplugs lawsuits have been filed by veterans and military personnel suffering from tinnitus. A whistleblower lawsuit filed against the manufacturer, 3M, has settled the case for $9 million. However, this verdict is still an important precedent for future trials. A successful plaintiff should have the chance to recover the full compensation due to the earplugs.

As a result of 3M combat earplugs, many military service members have suffered tinnitus and hearing loss. Many of them also face social isolation because of their limited hearing. This can make it difficult for them to attend social functions and maintain a normal lifestyle. Attorneys representing veterans in 3M Combat Arms Earplugs Lawsuits may be able to help them pursue compensation.

Veterans who have suffered permanent hearing damage or tinnitus as a result of earplugs manufactured by 3M may be able to receive compensation for their medical expenses. Additional damages can cover pain and suffering and increased quality of life. Additionally, if a service member has already been receiving disability benefits, filing a 3M combat earplugs lawsuit does not affect these benefits.

3M earplug lawsuit

The U.S. Department of Justice is presiding over 3M combat arms earplug lawsuits. While the 3M lawsuits may be one of the largest mass torts in U.S. history, these claims are not directed against the government or military. Rather, they are filed against corporate giant 3M. The lawsuits will likely continue to grow as more veterans speak out.

The largest of these cases came from a Florida jury. A jury awarded a U.S. Army veteran $77.5 million in a bellwether trial. He alleged that 3M combat earplugs damaged his hearing and caused him to suffer tinnitus. Despite the jury’s ruling, 3M vows to appeal the verdict. If it does, it is likely to file for a new trial.

While 3M has denied the allegations, hundreds of veterans continue to file suit against the company for the damage they have suffered. In fact, as many as 1,000 3M Combat Arms Earplugs Lawsuits are currently pending against the company. Attorneys are still filing complaints on behalf of active and former military personnel who have suffered permanent hearing loss due to these earplugs.

Plaintiffs are now 6-3 in 3M Bellwether Trials

The lawsuit has already involved seven Bellwether tests on three M headphones. Despite a weak performance, 3M has been rewarded with two defensive wins in two rounds. The plaintiff’s win remained the same for the second round. In round one, the plaintiffs went 4-1. However, the first round was a little misleading since the consolidated trial of three people took place. The more accurate we are at tracking the win or loss for individual plaintiffs, the better our position is. Despite this victory, six of nine plaintiffs have been awarded restitution and damages. A soldier receiving damages is compensated in general for about $33 million in

3M Earplug lawsuit news

9.08.2022 3M Earplug Lawsuit News Update: Do we really need Aearo under these circumstances, you ask? On Thursday, Judge Casey Rogers will convene a hearing to discuss the specifics of 3M’s purchase of Aearo Technologies (the subsidiary that is now filing bankruptcy). The specifics of 3M’s commitment to take on Aearo’s obligations as part of the purchase will be the subject of close attention throughout the hearing. You must keep in mind that a major factor in 3M’s error with the Aearo transaction was their inability to comprehend the risk of the lawsuit Aearo offered. They didn’t purchase Aearo with the intention of later selling it for bankruptcy, therefore. That could be a challenge for 3M.

Judge Rogers’ decision on whether to approve a motion that would prevent 3M from asserting that it is not a suitable defendant in the earplug cases will be influenced by the outcome of the hearing. If approved, this may open the door for Aearo to simply be dropped as a defendant in the MDL, avoiding its recent bankruptcy.

Update: On August 4, 2022, Judge Casey Rogers of the 3M Earplugs MDL issued an Order halting the process of moving outstanding cases from the inactive to the active docket. The Order mentions “recent developments,” which is obviously a reference to 3M’s subsidiary company Aearo Technologies’ recent bankruptcy filing, as the reason why this was made necessary. The automatic stay brought on by Aearo’s bankruptcy should be extended to safeguard 3M as well, 3M will attempt to persuade the bankruptcy court in Indiana, although this issue is still open. However, Judge Rogers’ ruling allows thousands of earplug litigants to avoid providing evidence to support their claims and paying filing fees in the interim.

1 August 2022 Update: At the moment, the automatic bankruptcy stay only protects Aearo Technologies, a division of 3M. This stops any further action in the earplug litigation against Aearo, but not against 3M.

That might change, though, as 3M’s attorneys have already requested that the bankruptcy judge order the extension of Aearo’s automatic stay protection to 3M. This is nonsense because joint tortfeasors are not often covered by the Bankruptcy Code’s strong automatic stay.

At least until August 18, 2022, before a decision on this important matter is made.

July 29, 2022 Update: In a recently filed brief, 3M contended that the earplugs MDL procedure is “broken beyond repair,” necessitating the employment of its new bankruptcy tactic. They appeared to have no problems using the device until they began to have their brains repeatedly pummeled. Then all of a sudden, the system fails.

The earplugs MDL, according to 3M, is swamped with phony claims from plaintiffs who aren’t being screened out of the lawsuit. At a hearing on Wednesday, Casey Rogers, the judge overseeing the earplug MDL, rebuffed 3M and its attorneys. A “fully solvent defendant” like 3M, according to Judge Rogers, shouldn’t be granted bankruptcy protection just because the MDL isn’t heading in the direction it desires.

Rogers refuted 3M’s assertion that phony plaintiffs are not being screened, noting that 80,000 claimants had previously had their claims rejected. Judge Rogers publicly questions the sincerity of the settlement negotiations with 3M. In order to decide whether 3M behaved in bad faith by declaring bankruptcy just after taking part in a settlement mediation, the judge will issue a show cause order and convene a hearing.

July 28, 2022 Update: Will 3M receive an automatic stay on ongoing litigation as a result of the Aearo bankruptcy? At the bankruptcy hearing on August 18, 2022, we’ll probably get the answer.

The parties have decided to extend the MDL’s Wave 3 discovery deadlines in the meantime. The judge ordered 3M to pay the attorneys’ fees and costs related to the cancellation after 3M did cancel several Wave 3 depositions.

July 27, 2022 Update: 3M has hired new legal counsel to help them cope with their rising litigation issues. The new legal counsel is guiding the company’s new plan to resolve the earplug cases in a bankruptcy proceeding. Steven Reich, a former employee of the Justice Department who was hired as 3M’s new general counsel for risk management, is one of the new members of the legal team. Additionally, White & Case was retained by 3M to provide legal counsel on its subsidiary Aearo Technologies’ chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

The more I consider this bankruptcy, the more I believe 3M will suffer as a result.

July 26, 2022 Update: 3M is attempting to declare Aearo bankrupt by using the bankruptcy card. 3M The intention is to prevent the Wave 3 litigation from going to trial.

Aearo will request that the bankruptcy court halt the legal action. Although 3M has not filed for bankruptcy, it will attempt to leverage the bankruptcy of Aearo to halt the litigation in an effort to settle the unresolved claims in bankruptcy court rather than having to defend themselves in front of juries who will find their actions to be despicable.

This won’t be successful for 3M, in my opinion. I’ll write more about this later, but I wanted to get something online so you could all be aware of what was going on.

July 25, 2022 Update: The plaintiffs’ attorneys have filed a number of motions advancing wave claims in the ten days since the settlement mediation that MDL Judge Casey Rogers ordered. The message is clear: if you refuse to make reasonable settlement offers, you better get ready for a huge influx of new trials early next year.

Additionally, the plaintiffs’ counsel submitted an 84-page motion to limit or exclude all of 3M’s expert witnesses’ testimony before Wave 3 of the trial cases. Plaintiffs also submitted a motion requesting Judge Rogers to uphold any previous Daubert decisions in the future.

July 18, 2022 Update: This weekend’s class action lawsuit using 3M earplugs did not result in a global settlement.

July 16, 2022 Update: Should you have a positive or negative outlook as the settlement negotiations enter Day 2 today?

This coin has two sides to it. You should have hope because Judge Rodgers is correct; in this case, more than any other case in America, the parties and attorneys are aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the litigation. And the moment is right for 3M to resolve these disputes. The market will probably be shocked by the size of the 3M earplug settlement. However, 3M is currently perceived as a risky stock, which is not where it wants to be.

Additionally, there are grounds for pessimism. There is little pressure on 3M because there are no approaching trial dates, and the firm has demonstrated a reluctance to be serious about making earplug settlement offers that are acceptable and sufficient to end this action. The plan has been to put it off until later. In addition, there are 220,000 plaintiffs. These cases will undoubtedly be difficult to resolve. Instead of a general settlement for all plaintiffs, it can involve settlements for the litigation portfolio of particular law firms.

July 12, 2022, The 3M earplug lawsuit is still depressing the stock price of 3M.

June 27, 2022 Update: An piece headlined 3M Faces Billions in Liabilities Over $7.63 Earplugs was published in the Sunday Wall Street Journal. The article provides a general summary of the 3M earplug claims and explains how the litigation’s huge scope may end up costing 3M billions in liabilities. Of course, the article is behind a paywall.

This sudden interest appears to be related to the mandatory settlement meeting that the MDL Judge has scheduled for next month. Being the first time a significant media organization has given the 3M earplug lawsuits top-tier coverage, the WSJ article may prove to be a turning point in the litigation. If nothing else, it provides a positive impetus for the 3M earplug settlement negotiations, which are scheduled to begin on July15, 2022.

The largest combined mass tort in history, the 3M earplugs MDL, has gone unnoticed up to this point. Because it has not had to cope with the severe external pressure of investors asking for a resolution, 3M has utilized anonymity to its advantage. The WSJ story’s intense attention might put an end to that.

June 15, 2022, The 3M lawsuit settlement conference has been scheduled for July 15, 2022. It’s significant news.

Judge Casey Rogers of the 3M Earplugs MDL issued an Order on Friday compelling the parties to take part in settlement mediation. The Order requires that the mediation take place by July 15, 2022, endure at least three days, and be presided over by Randi S. Ellis as special master.

In her Order, Judge Rogers stated that a settlement would assist in reducing the enormous load that the earplug cases will continue to place on the federal court system. The number of cases in the MDL is currently about 233,000 (down from a high of 282,902), and these cases will soon be sent back to their original districts for trial in sizable blocks of 500 cases at a time.

There are no promises made. Even with parties that are motivated to deal and a federal court breaking down the lawyers’ backs, the 3M earplug litigation will be very difficult to resolve. However, the possibility of a settlement in the works is quite positive.

June 6, 2022 Update: Litigation costs could encourage a 3M earplug settlement. The sale of 3M is through the roof.

June 1, 2022 Update: William Wayman’s $55 million verdict was lowered by MDL Judge Casey Rogers. Wayman was one of the two plaintiffs in the 11th bellwether trial, which ended in a record-breaking $110 million verdict.

Because Colorado law applied to Wayman’s case and the $55 million verdict above Colorado’s statute damages cap, the verdict was lowered, as was expected.

A new Case Management Order by Judge Rogers also identified a third wave of 500 additional cases that needed to be prepared for the upcoming round of trials. The trial preparation for 1,500 open cases will begin in 2023.

May 20, 2022 Update: Oh my goodness! Beal received a $77.5 million check!

This afternoon’s conclusion of the 16th and last bellwether trial resulted in a staggering $77.5 million decision in favor of the plaintiff, Army veteran James Beal. The plaintiffs had a win-loss record of 10-6 with total damages of more than $300 million after 16 bellwether test trials. A $30 million average payout is the result of the average trial; some had many claimants. That is amazing.

May 19, 2022 Update: Dr. John Casali, a witness for 3M, took the stand on the eighth day of the trial. Dr. Casali is an authority on hearing loss and protection and the director of Virginia Tech’s Auditory Systems Laboratory. In each of the prior trials, 3M has utilized Casali as an expert witness. Video deposition testimony snippets from a few fact witnesses, including Heather Beal, the plaintiff’s wife, were also shown to the jury by 3M.



from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/3m-combat-arms-earplugs-lawsuits-continue-after-big-awards/
via IFTTT

Thursday, 4 August 2022

Vaping May Lead to Seizures

Serious concerns have been raised regarding the safety of electronic cigarettes, which have gained popularity in recent years, after reports of people having seizures after vaping.

After receiving 35 adverse event reports concerning e-cigarette users who had seizures after vaping, using brands like JUUL, a popular brand among teenagers and young people, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is now conducting an inquiry.

Describe vaping.

When someone vapes, they breathe in the vapor of a liquid containing nicotine and other chemicals and flavorings. An electronic cigarette, often known as a “vape pen,” is used to heat this liquid, producing an inhalable vapor.

Electronic cigarette producers like JUUL assert that because they don’t generate tar, their products are safer than traditional cigarettes. They further assert that “vaping” can aid tobacco users in quitting their habit. An increasing amount of research, however, demonstrates that “vaping” might be in some ways equally as dangerous as smoking. For example, having seizures after vaping.

Many users of these products might not even be conscious of their nicotine inhalation. Around two-thirds of Juul users between the ages of 15 and 24 didn’t know that vape pens always include nicotine rather than just flavorless vapor, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

Many vape pen businesses may be enticing teenagers and children to use their products by advertising fruity flavors. Teenage nicotine consumption has been declining for years prior to the vape pen and e-cigarette industries’ meteoric rise to fame. Teenage nicotine usage has now soared.

Many varieties of e-cigarettes and vape pens were taken off the U.S. market in January 2019 to combat teen e-cigarette use. The prohibition on fruit, dessert, and mint flavors of e-cigarettes and vape pods was announced by the Trump Administration on January 2. According to some studies, these tastes may be particularly popular among young people and e-cigarette smokers under the age of 18. Only menthol and tobacco-flavored products will be permitted to stay on the market under the new regulation. According to sources, the FDA would take all JUUL products off the market in June 2022.

How do seizures occur?

In essence, a seizure is a brain short circuit. There is a rapid increase in electrical activity in the brain for a variety of causes that are not all fully understood; the effects might range from a brief loss of consciousness to whole body convulsions. For many years, epilepsy, now known as the “falling illness,” was thought to be the cause of seizures.

Seizures may result from conditions other than epilepsy, such as hypoglycemia, alcohol withdrawal, low blood salt levels, and infections or lesions to the brain. There is also proof that excessive nicotine usage might result in seizures.

How might vaping cause seizures in people?

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the FDA commissioner, mentioned seizures as a recently-reported adverse effect of nicotine overdose. In plants belonging to the deadly nightshade family, which also contains the tobacco plant, nicotine is an alkaloid. Cigarette smoking is one of the most addictive behaviors known to science, which explains why smokers have such a hard time quitting.

The issue with e-cigarettes is that they rapidly release an enormous amount of nicotine, increasing the risk of a user developing nicotine poisoning and having a seizure. Users of vape pens could find it simple to quickly inhale more nicotine than they realize. Combustible cigarettes can only be smoked so many times until they burn out, whereas vape pens may be used repeatedly and quickly without leaving any trace of how much nicotine has been consumed. Additionally, it could be more enjoyable to inhale nicotine from a vape pen as opposed to a cigarette because of the delicious tastes and smooth vapor of the pens. This comfort might result in a nicotine overdose.

According to complaints sent to the FDA, seizures following vaping might happen right away or up to 24 hours later.

Seizures brought on by nicotine might last for a few seconds or many minutes.

The e-cigarette business, in contrast, has made an effort to allay worries about seizures following vaping.

One source that holds this opinion is Vaping 360, a website that promotes vaping as a “cleaner alternative” to cigarette smoking.

Vaping 360 stated in January 2020 that the recent anxiety around vaping seizures is much exaggerated. According to the source, Scott Gottlieb, a former FDA commissioner, voiced worry about 35 seizure incidents that may have been linked to vaping over the course of the previous ten years.

The insider casts doubt on Gottlieb’s motivations for being concerned about the matter, claiming that he made remarks on his concerns while “likely awaiting confirmation that his post-FDA employment at pharmaceutical giant Pfizer was secured.”

Vaping 360 then went on to debunk a conclusion at the heart of many scientists’ current theories about why vaping could be linked to seizures after addressing the motivations behind government authorities’ worry over the practice.

Seizures have long been assumed to be related to nicotine poisoning. Some specialists are now concerned that seizures may be linked to the high nicotine content in vapes. They point out that while, on average, vapes can provide more nicotine than regular cigarettes, some of these devices are unregulated and may do so in a harmful way.

Vape 360, however, contests this assertion. It is improbable that a vase user could inhale enough nicotine rapidly enough to produce nicotine toxicity, claims Vape 360. According to Vape 360, government scientists are incorrectly extrapolating that vaping might cause seizures by confusing a “little nicotine rush” with a real nicotine overdose.

Instead, Vape 360 contends that the 35 alleged occurrences of vape-related seizures in ten years were really brought on by underlying medical issues in the user, not the vape they were consuming.

What were the e-cigarette firms aware of?

Current legal actions against JUUL Labs center around this issue.

A 15-year-old Florida girl who filed one of the lawsuits argues that she became addicted to vaping because she was not aware of the risks associated with nicotine addiction. When the defendant knew it to be inaccurate, she claims that JUUL “deceptively sold or cooperated [with tobacco firms] to offer JUUL products to plaintiffs as non-addictive nicotine delivery systems or less addictive nicotine products than cigarettes.”

Further allegations made by the lawsuit include that “JUUL has purposefully minimized, misrepresented, disguised, and failed to warn of the heightened risk of nicotine exposure and addiction.”

A number of additional class action lawsuits contend that JUUL products were directly responsible for the teenage vaping pandemic, which exposed countless adolescents to health risks.



from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/vaping-may-lead-to-seizures/
via IFTTT

Tuesday, 2 August 2022

Hunter Warfield Settles Debt Collection Call Lawsuit

In order to address charges that it called Massachusetts residents too often for debt collection, Hunter Warfield agreed to a $235,000 compensation.

Residents of Massachusetts who received two debt collection phone calls within a seven-day period between May 16, 2015, and June 6, 2019, are entitled to the settlement’s benefits.

A debt-collection business that provides services for several sectors is Hunter Warfield. The business website claims that throughout its thirty years of providing debt collection services, Hunter Warfield has successfully recovered over $574 million.

However, Hunter Warfield may have broken state debt-collection rules by making harassing calls while collecting debts from Massachusetts clients.

A 2019 class action complaint alleges that the debt-collection business violated Massachusetts’ debt collection regulations by calling consumers at a “excessive and harassing pace.”

In accordance with these rules, debt collectors are only permitted to phone Massachusetts once per seven days, regardless of the call’s outcome. It qualifies as a call if the creditor can get through to the customer and leave a voicemail.

The complainant claims that over the course of a week, Hunter Warfield called him more than twice. For instance, between the months of January and April 2019, Hunter Warfield reportedly phoned the plaintiff three times in a row. The complainant also claims that the business left him several voicemails.

The debt collection class action complaint claims that the plaintiff experienced emotional anguish, rage, worry, dread, and frustration as a result of the harassing calls. They were also disruptive and inconvenient. The calls reportedly wasted the plaintiff’s time and effort as well.

Despite refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing, Hunter Warfield consented to a $235,000 class action settlement to end these claims.

Class members are eligible to receive a monetary award under the provisions of the Hunter Warfield settlement. Although each class member will receive an equal portion of the net settlement fund, the precise payment amounts may vary depending on how many class members join in the settlement.

If there are any leftover funds after the initial round of settlement checks, the class members who cashed their first check may get a second round of compensation. The remaining monies will be given to a cy pres recipient if there are insufficient funds to support another distribution. Hunter Warfield won’t receive any settlement money back.

On August 8, 2022, objections must be made. The settlement webpage makes no mention of an exclusion deadline.

On October 25, 2022, the Hunter Warfield settlement will have its final approval hearing.

Class members must file a proper claim form by August 8, 2022 in order to receive a cash payout from the settlement.

WHO QUALIFIED
Residents of Massachusetts who received two debt collection phone calls within a seven-day period between May 16, 2015, and June 6, 2019, are entitled to the settlement’s benefits.

TO BE DETERMINED AWARD

Hunter Warfield’s caller ID, PROOF OF PURCHASE Claim Number, and PIN



from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/hunter-warfield-settles-debt-collection-call-lawsuit/
via IFTTT

Monday, 1 August 2022

Allstate Agrees to $4.5 Million Spam Calls Class Action Lawsuit

Allstate agreed to pay $4.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging that it made unauthorized phone calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Despite having their phone number listed on the National Do Not Call Registry, consumers who received at least two promotional phone calls from Allstate over a 12-month period beginning on October 8, 2015, will profit from the settlement of the Allstate class action case. An estimated 7,451 individuals are a part of the settlement class.

Allstate is an insurance provider with representatives all throughout the country. The business provides several different policy kinds, such as vehicle insurance, life insurance, and home insurance.

Allstate could have broken federal telemarketing regulations when pitching its insurance products to clients. A class action complaint alleges that Allstate repeatedly called individuals on the phone without their permission to telemarket.

The plaintiff originally contacted with Allstate about getting a call, and despite requesting that they never call him again, the client received multiple phone calls after that, the lawsuit claims. These calls were purportedly automated and not made by a real person at a contact center, according to the content of the calls.

The TCPA requires firms to get an express written agreement from customers before phoning them for telemarketing reasons, and the Allstate class action complaint contends that these phone calls broke this rule. The plaintiff claims that despite never providing his approval and even adding his phone number to the National Do Not Call Registry to stop bothersome telemarketing calls, he continued to receive several non-compliant phone calls from Allstate.

Despite refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing, Allstate consented to settle this class action case for $4.5 million in order to satisfy the TCPA claims.

Class members are eligible to receive a cash award under the settlement’s conditions.

A reward of up to $500 may be obtained for each class member’s phone call. The settlement administrator estimates that each class member will receive $1,000 in compensation.

However, if a sizable portion of the class decides to take part in the settlement, real payouts could be smaller. If more than two phone calls were made to class members, payments may exceed $1,000, but under no circumstances would a caller earn more than $500.

The settlement’s exclusion and objection periods end on August 8, 2022.

On September 23, 2022, the settlement’s final approval hearing is due.

Class members must submit a legitimate claim form by August 8, 2022, in order to be eligible for a payout from the Allstate TCPA class action lawsuit settlement.

WHO QUALIFIED

Despite having their phone number listed on the National Do Not Call Registry, consumers who received at least two promotional phone calls from Allstate over a 12-month period beginning on October 8, 2015, will profit from the settlement of the Allstate class action case. An estimated 7,451 individuals are a part of the settlement class.



from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/allstate-agrees-to-4-5-million-spam-calls-class-action-lawsuit/
via IFTTT

CIM and KBS Boars Recommend Shareholders Reject Comrit Offer

CIM Real Estate Finance Trust and KBS Real Estate Investment Trust III Inc. have each issued a letter to shareholders encouraging them to re...