Many people enjoy the convenience of ordering chef-created meals through delivery companies that can be easily prepared and ready in minutes. One such company, Daily Harvest, has been a favorite of people who are trying to eat healthfully with its emphasis on vegetables, fruits, and healthy grains. Unfortunately, however, Daily Harvest initiated a voluntary recall in June 2022 of its Fench Lentil + Leak Crumbles because of potential adverse health effects. More than 28,000 units of recalled products that were sold to people across the U.S., including in Los Angeles, were affected by the recall.

Here is some information about the recall and what you should do if you have experienced serious illness following consuming this product. If you were sickened and injured after consuming this product, you might be entitled to pursue compensation through a defective product injury claim with the help of the Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC.

Daily Harvest Recall

On June 23, 2022, Daily Harvest and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the company’s voluntary recall of 28,000 units of the French Lentil + Leek Crumbles. The affected units were sold between April 23, 2022, and June 17, 2022, throughout the U.S. by mail, at a pop-up store in Los Angeles, and at the Daily Harvest store in Chicago, Illinois. The recall was announced after hundreds of people reported experiencing severe illnesses following their consumption of the lentil and leek product, with many requiring hospitalization and surgery.

Consumers who purchased and consumed this product have reported experiencing the following medical issues:

• Liver damage
• Liver failure
• Abdominal distress
• Gastrointestinal illness
• Severe nausea
• Gallbladder failure
• Gallbladder removal surgery

Some otherwise healthy people reported they experienced liver damage resulting in high amounts of liver enzymes in their blood. According to the FDA, Daily Harvest was first made aware of around 470 customers who suffered deleterious health consequences after consuming the French Lentil + Leek Crumbles product in April 2022, which raises questions about why the company waited to announce the recall until June. The recall affects all lot codes of the product. People who have some of this product in their freezers should not consume it.

State health officials, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FDA are all investigating the cause of the reported illnesses. More than 133 consumers used the Consumer Adverse Events Reporting System through the FDA’s website to report becoming ill. Out of the adverse events reports, 42 reported they were sickened enough that they had to be hospitalized, and some consumers reported they had to undergo gallbladder removal surgery.

Symptoms

Some of the symptoms reported by people who consumed the product include the following:

• Frequent bouts of diarrhea
• Severe abdominal cramping and pain
• Fever
• Nausea
• Jaundice of the eyes and skin
• Light-colored stools
• Dark urine
• Body aches
• Fatigue
• Itching without a rash

The French Lentil + Leek Crumbles were sold or given out as samples to customers who reported illnesses in the following states:

• California
• Washington
• Oregon
• Montana
• Colorado
• Wisconsin
• Virginia
• Tennessee
• Rhode Island
• Pennsylvania
• Ohio
• North Carolina
• New York
• New Jersey
• New Hampshire
• Missouri
• Michigan
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Iowa
• Illinois
• Georgia
• Florida
• Connecticut

Which Products Were Recalled?

According to the recall, all units of the Daily Harvest French Lentil + Leek Crumbles were affected. These products are frozen and are sold in 12-oz. packages. Daily Harvest is written at the top of the package with a large “Crumbles” immediately below. French Lentils + Leek appear in bold print. The frozen French Lentil + Leek products were sold through direct delivery, in a pop-up store in Los Angeles, online, and through the Daily Harvest store in Chicago.

The recall occurred because of the hundreds of reported illnesses and injuries from consumers, including some who required hospitalization and surgery, after consuming the products.

What Was the Source of the Contamination?

While the exact cause is still being investigated, Daily Harvest announced on July 19, 2022, that they had identified the source as being the tara flour the company used in the French Lentil + Leek Crumbles product. According to a note to consumers posted on the company’s website, Daily Harvest reported that they had isolated the source to the flour, which the company states it only used in the French Lentils + Leek Crumbles. Tara flour is made from a seed sourced from Peru. Investigators are analyzing the tara flour used to manufacture the product to identify the exact cause of the illnesses.

The company has had its labs, product samples, and manufacturing facilities tested for a variety of different pathogens and bacteria. They have also tested for allergens, mycotoxins, and aflatoxins. However, they haven’t yet been able to identify the specific cause.

Many people have shared information about side effects they have experienced from consuming the Daily Harvest products, including abdominal pains, liver damage, gallbladder problems, and others that have resulted in hospitalization and emergency department visits. Hundreds of people who were injured or seriously sickened might be able to hold the company accountable by filing product liability lawsuits.

Potential Damages

By pursuing monetary compensation, people who have suffered food-borne illnesses and injuries caused by consuming the French Lentils + Leeks Crumbles between April and late June might be able to hold the manufacturer accountable. Food manufacturers like Daily Harvest have a duty to ensure the products they offer to consumers are safe. When they fail to do so, they might be liable to pay damages to everyone who is injured as a result.

How much compensation might be recoverable in a Daily Harvest lentil injury lawsuit will vary. The amount of compensation will depend on the extent and severity of your injuries and other factors. Some of the types of compensatory damages that might be available include the following:

• Past and future medical treatment costs
• Surgical expenses
• Wage losses if you were forced to miss work
• Physical pain and suffering
• Psychological trauma
• Other damages

If it is discovered that Daily Harvest knew about the dangers of its product but concealed the information from consumers, punitive damages might also be available. Your lawyer can review your case and explain the types of damages that you might be able to recover and how much your claim might be worth.

Will it Cost Anything to Retain a Lawyer?

The injury attorneys at the law firm of Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC work on a contingent-fee basis. This means that you won’t have to pay any money out of pocket for attorney’s fees. Instead, we only receive a payment if and when we successfully recover money for you through a settlement or verdict. We also offer complimentary case evaluations so that we can analyze the legal merits of your case and help you understand whether your claim has legal merits.

If we recover money for you in your lawsuit against Daily Harvest, we will take a percentage of the total settlement or award as our fee. During your consultation, we will explain our fees so that you understand how they work. However, you will not have to pay any money upfront to hire our attorneys. Contact us today for a free consultation at 866-966-5240.

In California, many people use paraquat-containing herbicides to prevent weeds from encroaching on their lawns and fields. Paraquat-containing herbicides are commonly used by farmers and agricultural workers, and many people are unaware of the potential dangers these substances pose. Paraquat is a chemical found in many industrial herbicides, including Gramoxone, Parazone, Para-Shot, Helmquat, and others. People who directly use paraquat-containing herbicides with licenses and those who are indirectly exposed to this chemical over a long period of time have a heightened risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. People who have developed Parkinson’s disease after exposure to paraquat-containing herbicides might be entitled to pursue compensation. An experienced product liability attorney at the Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC, can review your case and explain whether it has legal merits.

Link between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease

Paraquat is a common chemical found in many industrial herbicides that farmers and agricultural workers use on fields to control weed growth. It is used across the U.S. and the world. Researchers have found a link between paraquat exposure and the development of Parkinson’s disease. In a 2019 systematic review, researchers found that Parkinson’s disease occurrence was 25% higher in people who had been exposed to paraquat versus those who had not.

Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurological disorder that can be fatal. While Parkinson’s disease can also be genetic, its onset might also be caused by pesticide exposure. If you have developed Parkinson’s disease after being directly exposed to paraquat-containing pesticides or indirectly exposed over a long period of time, you might be entitled to compensation for your losses. The attorneys at the Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC are currently evaluating paraquat injury claims and can help you understand the rights that you might have.

What is paraquat?

Paraquat or paraquat dichloride is a hazardous chemical used to control weeds and grass. It works as a defoliant on crops before they are harvested. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, paraquat is one of the most widely used pesticides in the U.S. for farming purposes. Paraquat-containing pesticides are restricted use products that can only be applied by certified applicators.

Paraquat was first produced in 1961 as Gramoxone. Paraquat-containing pesticides are dyed blue to keep people from confusing them with beverages. Swallowing paraquat can be fatal. There are several brand names of paraquat-containing herbicides, including the following:

• Gramoxone
• Helmquat
• Ortho-Paraquat
• Parazone
• Firestorm
• Para-Shot
• Quick-Quat

Gramoxone is the most widely used and is manufactured by a global company based in Switzerland called Syngenta.

Exposure methods

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, people might be exposed to paraquat in the following ways:

• Accidental ingestion
• Skin exposure over long periods
• Inhalation

Paraquat mixes with food, beverages, and water very easily. If a pesticide does not include dye, people might not know that their food or beverages are contaminated and could potentially die. Indirect exposure to the skin over a long time can also lead to neurological damage. If the skin is not intact, the effects can occur faster. Inhaling paraquat can also result in lung damage, poisoning, and neurological problems.

People who are employed by licensed applicators and those who work on farms are the most at risk of being harmed by paraquat. The EPA reports that 1,400 paraquat poisonings were identified by California’s Poison Control system in the 10 years between 1998 and 2009. The California Poison Control System and the American Association of Poison Control Centers notified the EPA after 50 deaths caused by ingesting paraquat in the San Joaquin Valley in 2013. In 2016, the EPA took action to reduce the risk of paraquat ingestion and exposure. Many of these deaths resulted after people accidentally ingested paraquat that was stored in unmarked bottles.

What are the side effects of paraquat exposure?

If a person accidentally ingests paraquat, he or she might immediately experience pain and swelling in the mouth and throat followed by the following potential symptoms:

• Abdominal pain
• Vomiting
• Nausea
• Bloody diarrhea
• Low blood pressure
• Electrolyte imbalances
• Severe dehydration
• Kidney failure
• Heart failure
• Lung scarring
• Liver failure

If a person only ingests a small amount of paraquat, the symptoms might not develop for a few days or weeks.

Ingesting paraquat can also cause these additional symptoms:

• Tachycardia
• Kidney failure
• Heart damage
• Confusion
• Coma
• Muscle weakness
• Seizures
• Pulmonary edema
• Respiratory failure
• Death

Parkinson’s disease and paraquat

Parkinson’s disease is a neurodegenerative condition that causes brain cells to die over time. People who have Parkinson’s disease may experience multiple symptoms, including tremors, uncontrolled movements, rigidity, slowed movements, and motor control issues. People may also have difficulty swallowing and speaking.

In 2009, the Journal of Epidemiology published a study in which researchers found paraquat sprayed within 1,650 feet of people’s homes was linked to a 75% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. In 2011, the National Institutes of Health published a study in which a strong link was found between Parkinson’s disease and exposure to paraquat. Epidemiological research into paraquat exposure and the development of Parkinson’s disease continues.

Paraquat injury lawsuits

In March 2021, The Guardian reported that a former scientist at Syngenta claimed that the company could have made changes to its formula to make Gramoxone safer. Internal corporate documents also demonstrate that Syngenta might have known as far back as 1968 that an additive would make the product less deadly but resisted changes because of profit motives.

Syngenta and other manufacturers may have known about the link between Parkinson’s disease and paraquat for years but failed to disclose the risk. The manufacturers’ failure to provide adequate warnings to the public might mean that people who were exposed to paraquat and later develop Parkinson’s disease may have grounds to file product liability lawsuits against the manufacturers. Manufacturers are required to adequately warn the public about the risks of their products and can be liable when people are harmed because of their failure to warn.

People who developed Parkinson’s disease after exposure to paraquat began filing lawsuits against Syngenta and other manufacturers beginning in 2016, according to Syngenta’s 2018 Financial Report. Since then, many other plaintiffs have filed paraquat injury lawsuits after developing Parkinson’s disease following exposure to this chemical.

Why file a paraquat injury claim?

There are several reasons to consider filing a paraquat injury claim against Syngenta or another manufacturer. A lawsuit against the manufacturer might help to spread awareness about the dangers of paraquat exposure and help you to secure compensation for your losses. It can also help you to hold the manufacturers accountable for their actions.

Manufacturers of chemicals and pesticides owe a duty of care to adequately warn consumers of the risks involved with their products. They also owe a duty to provide reasonably safe, defect-free products. Manufacturers are required to include warnings about known risks of using their products on warning labels.

When a manufacturer fails to warn consumers about the dangers of their products, it should be held accountable when people suffer injuries because of using their products.

Damages in a paraquat injury lawsuit

If you developed Parkinson’s disease after being exposed to paraquat, you might be entitled to recover compensatory damages for both your economic and non-economic losses. Some of the damages that you might be able to recover through a paraquat injury lawsuit include the following:

• Past and future medical expenses for treating your injuries
• Past lost wages
• Future anticipated lost wages
• Physical pain and suffering
• Disability
• Reduction of your ability to enjoy life
• Therapy and rehabilitation costs
• Lost rights to an inheritance in wrongful death claims
• Burial and funeral costs in a wrongful death claim
• Loss of consortium/guidance in a wrongful death claim

If the paraquat manufacturers are found to have willfully concealed information about the risks of paraquat, punitive damages might also be recoverable.

Talk to an experienced paraquat injury lawyer

If you were exposed to paraquat and subsequently developed Parkinson’s disease, you should talk to an experienced paraquat injury lawyer at the Steven M. Sweat, Injury Lawyers, APC. Our attorneys can evaluate your case and help you to understand the legal options that might be available to you. Call us today for a free consultation at 866.966.5240.

In California, the manufacturers of defective products are strictly liable for injuries that are caused by the defects to people who use the products in the manner in which they were intended. The state extended strict liability to retailers of products in 1964. However, online retailers, including Amazon, eBay, Etsy, and others, have relied on a loophole to escape strict liability. If passed and enacted, a new assembly bill would erase the loophole and expose online retailers to liability when defective projects that are sold on their platforms by third-party sellers injure consumers.[1]

Proposed legislation to end defective products loophole

California AB 3262 was introduced by Assemblyman Mark Stone (D-Santa Cruz) on Feb. 21, 2020.[2] This law would extend strict liability for defective products to online retailers. Currently, product designers and manufacturers are strictly liable for injuries caused by their products. Brick-and-mortar retailers are also liable when they sell products to consumers that are defective and cause injuries. While laws have been in place to hold retailers accountable when they sell defective products that injure consumers, online retailers, including Amazon, Etsy, and eBay have been able to rely on a loophole to escape liability.

The proposed bill notes that online sales have greatly increased over the past decade, growing from less than 5% of retail sales to more than 15% in 10 years. The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred online sales even more. As more people turn to online marketplaces to buy the products that they need, some might be injured when the products that they purchase are defective. Not being able to hold an online marketplace accountable for injuries may leave consumers with limited recourse. Many third-party sellers on online marketplaces are located overseas and may be more difficult to sue. When third-party sellers are located outside of the jurisdictional reach of the courts in California, the inability to hold the online marketplace liable might leave injured victims without legal remedies for their losses.

How product liability cases work

When consumers purchase products and use them as they are intended to be used, they do not expect that a defect in the products might injure or kill them. Unfortunately, people are injured or killed by defective products every year. Because of this risk, California has established consumer protection laws that allow injured victims to file lawsuits against all of the parties involved in the chain of production and distribution to seek legal remedies for their losses. Multiple parties can be liable for defective products, including product designers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers.[3]

Several types of defects can form the basis of liability, including design defects, manufacturing defects, and inadequate warnings.[4] Design defects occur in the design phase and affect all of the products that are subsequently manufactured based on the defective design. Manufacturing defects happen during the manufacturing process and can affect a single lot of products. Manufacturers must also provide adequate warnings to consumers of the known risks that a product might pose. When the warnings that are provided are inadequate and someone is injured, the injured victim may file a lawsuit based on the inadequate warnings that were provided.

Providing strict liability for retailers, manufacturers, designers, and others involved in the chain of production and distribution of a defective product helps injured victims to recover damages that fairly compensate them for their economic and noneconomic losses. However, with the advent of online marketplaces, people who are injured by defective products that are purchased from third-party sellers may not be able to recover sufficient compensation for their losses.

Strict liability for defective products

Under California law, manufacturers, designers, and retailers are strictly liable for injuries that are caused to plaintiffs when they use defective products in a reasonably foreseeable way. To prove product liability, the plaintiff must prove the following elements:

• The product was defective when it left the defendant’s possession.
• The plaintiff used the product in a reasonably foreseeable way.
• The product’s defect was the direct or proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

Strict liability allows people to hold all of the parties who are involved in bringing a product to the marketplace accountable for their injuries without having to prove negligence. However, the law is unclear about how strict liability might apply to online retail marketplaces. This uncertainty has resulted in the proposed bill to expressly extend strict liability to online marketplaces so that victims can receive the compensation that they deserve when they are injured by defective products.

Opposition to AB 3262

Online retail marketplaces have been able to escape strict liability in California product liability cases by claiming that they are only platforms that connect sellers and buyers rather than directly selling the products themselves. However, the new bill would close that loophole and expose online marketplaces to legal liability for defective products that are sold on their platforms. Recently, Amazon stated that it would back the proposed law if it applies to all platforms no matter how they make money. Online marketplaces make money in three main ways, including charging retailers money to list products, taking a percentage of sales, or charging for advertising on the marketplace.

After Amazon indicated that it would support the law if its proposed changes were made, an amendment was passed to include online retail marketplaces that earn money from advertising sales.[5] Etsy and eBay have said that this proposed change would give Amazon an advantage because many small businesses sell products on Etsy or eBay and could not afford to absorb the potential liability costs that the changes in the law might bring. Opponents to the law argue that the bill will hobble small businesses and drive many out of business.

If AB 3262 is passed, it will be the first law in the U.S. that holds online retail marketplaces liable for selling defective products. The bill has passed the assembly and is now before the state senate. A vote in the state senate on the bill is expected to happen soon. If the law is passed and signed into law by Gov. Newsome, it will provide legal remedies to people who are injured by defective products that they purchase online even if they are unable to hold foreign manufacturers or retailers accountable.

Contact an injury attorney in Los Angeles

Many people are injured by defective products each year. When consumers purchase products, they believe that they are safe and will work as promised. When a product is defective and causes serious injuries, the victim may be entitled to recover damages. Getting help from an experienced injury attorney is important. Product liability cases can be complex and may require in-depth investigations. Contact an attorney at the Steven M. Sweat Personal Injury Lawyers today to learn more about your case by calling us at 866.966.5240 or by filling out our online contact form.

Sources

[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/California-should-hold-online-retailers-liable-15511586.php?utm_source=Justia%20Blogging%20Ideas&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=c544fea8cb-blogging_ideas_injury_20200826&utm_term=0_dba88020e6-c544fea8cb-406640669

[2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB3262

[3] https://www.victimslawyer.com/products-liability.html

[4] https://www.victimslawyer.com/defective-products-injury-cases.html

[5] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/25/etsy-amazon-trying-to-squash-competitors-by-backing-california-bill.html

Millions of Americans have been prescribed Zantac or have taken it over-the-counter to treat the symptoms of acid reflux. Californians who have taken Zantac or its generic ranitidine may be at risk of developing cancer. While many people in California have relied on this drug and have assumed it is safe, research has recently demonstrated that Zantac and ranitidine contain a known carcinogen, and the drug itself may interact with other substances to form the carcinogen in the body. The personal injury attorneys at Steven M. Sweat Injury Lawyers APC represent people who have developed cancer because of this dangerous drug.

What is Zantac?

Zantac is a brand of ranitidine that may be prescribed to treat ulcers of the stomach and intestine and to keep them from returning.[1] It is also used to treat several other digestive problems, including the following:

• Acid indigestion
• Acid reflux
• Esophagitis
• Difficulty swallowing
• Stomach pain
• Zollinger-Ellison syndrome
• Multiple endocrine neoplasia

In the 1980s, Zantac was only available by prescription. However, it was approved for sale as an over-the-counter medication in 1995.[2] The doses of the OTC version of Zantac were one-half of the strength of the prescription drug. Millions of people have relied on Zantac to relieve symptoms of digestive problems, believing it to be safe. However, research has shown that this drug may contain NDMA, a carcinogenic substance. The drug has also been shown to interact with other substances that might be present in the human body to form NDMA after people take it.

Valisure discovers NDMA in Zantac and ranitidine

Valisure, a private Connecticut-based company, tested Zantac and ranitidine tablets. The company found that several forms of the drug contained NDMA and alerted the federal Food and Drug Administration of its discovery in 2019.[3] Studies as early as the late 1980s had revealed that ranitidine could react with nitrites to form NDMA in the body. Nitrites are substances that are present in processed meats like bacon or hot dogs, which are the types of foods that might prompt people to take ranitidine because of heartburn and indigestion caused by eating them.

Studies in the 2000s revealed that ranitidine is unstable and its DMA group can potentially form NDMA in the presence of oxidation. Valisure’s discovery came in 2019 when it found that ranitidine can react with itself and form millions of nanograms of NDMA.

In 2004, the National Cancer Institute found a correlation between taking certain antacids, including cimetidine and ranitidine, and the development of bladder cancer. As of 2019, Valisure is working with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to complete epidemiological studies of ranitidine use and cancer.

Recall of Zantac

The FDA issued a statement on Sept. 13, 2019, about the potential cancer risks of Zantac and ranitidine.[4] Following the statement, Sanofi issued a recall of Zantac to pull it from retailers’ shelves. Several generic drugmakers followed suit, recalling generic versions of the drugs from retailers’ shelves.[5]

The FDA tested 1,500 samples of ranitidine and found higher levels of NDMA than the levels that are deemed acceptable. Following the FDA’s statement, Canada, several European countries, Taiwan, and Pakistan ended the distribution of ranitidine. The FDA has not issued a mandatory recall. Instead, there have been voluntary recalls by some companies that manufacture the drug. The FDA is continuing to test samples and to post results for regulators around the world.

What is NDMA?

N-nitrosodimethylamine or NDMA is a hazardous substance that is used in aviation, industrial lubricants, and rocket fuel. It is also a byproduct of wastewater treatment, gasoline refining, and other industrial processes.[6] NDMA is a known carcinogen that has been linked to cancer for more than 40 years. Studies in the late 1980s demonstrated that ranitidine might form NDMA in the stomach by reacting with nitrites. Despite this, drugmakers failed to disclose the potential risk of cancer caused by NDMA exposure to patients who took Zantac or other medications containing ranitidine.

Symptoms of overexposure to NDMA

There are several symptoms of overexposure to NDMA, including the following:

• Jaundice
• Fever
• Nausea
• Vomiting
• Dizziness
• Abdominal cramps
• Potential development of cancer
• Reduced functioning of the lungs and kidneys

If you experience any of these symptoms after taking Zantac or another medication that contains ranitidine, you should talk to your doctor as soon as possible.

Zantac and ranitidine cancer claims

Zantac and ranitidine cancer claims are based on theories of product liability.[7] When people use products that are sold on the market in the manner in which they were intended to be used and are injured as a result, the parties that are responsible for placing the products on the market may be liable to pay damages. Several parties may be liable in a product liability claim, including the manufacturer, the distributor, the designer, the retailer, and others that are involved in the chain of distribution.

As we have previously discussed, there are three categories of product liability claims for defective products. Design defects occur when an inherent risk of a product outweighs its potential benefits. Manufacturing defects are defects that occur during the manufacturing process. Failures to warn or inadequate warnings occur when a manufacturer fails to warn consumers of the risks or provides inadequate warnings.[8]

Dangerous drug claims such as potential Zantac and ranitidine cancer lawsuits might include claims based on design defects and inadequate warnings. For example, you might be able to argue that the benefits or ranitidine for digestive issues are outweighed by the risk of developing cancer. Many claims will likely rely on the inadequate warnings and failures to warn consumers and health care professionals of the risks of developing cancer after taking Zantac or ranitidine. Despite studies dating back to the late 1980s that showed that ranitidine might form NDMA in the stomach when exposed to nitrites, the companies that manufactured the medication failed to include adequate warnings of the risks.

Zantac was a huge moneymaker for drug manufacturers. According to an article in the New York Times in 1988, Glaxo Inc. made more than $1 billion in sales of Zantac in 1987 alone and was expected to reach $1.7 billion in sales in 1988.[9] As a very popular drug, it promised to return staggering profits to the companies that manufactured it. This might have led some of the companies to conceal the link between ranitidine and the risk of cancer.

What to do if you have developed cancer after taking Zantac or ranitidine

If you are diagnosed with cancer after taking Zantac or ranitidine, you should follow all of your doctor’s treatment recommendations. You might also want to talk to the experienced product liability and dangerous drug attorneys at Steven M. Sweat Personal Injury Lawyers APC. Our attorneys can review your medical records and other evidence in your case to determine whether you might have a valid claim. If you do, you might be entitled to recover damages to compensate you for your losses. Contact us today to schedule a confidential consultation by calling us at 866.966.5240 or by filling out your information in our contact form.

Sources

[1] https://www.drugs.com/zantac.html [2] https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/dec/20/zantac-will-be-sold-over-the-counter/ [3] https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/SUMMARY-of-Ranitidine-investigation-v1.8.pdf [4] https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-alerting-patients-and-health-care-professionals-ndma-found-samples-ranitidine [5] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/11/07/how-did-zantac-become-potential-cancer-risk-fda-wants-find-out/2509043001/ [6] https://abcnews.go.com/Health/zantac-problem-whats-ndma/story?id=65799147 [7] https://www.victimslawyer.com/products-liability.html [8] https://www.victimslawyer.com/defective-products-injury-cases.html [9] https://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/28/business/companies-search-for-next-1-billion-drug.html

Many women in California and across the U.S. have received breast implants, including for breast reconstruction after breast cancer. Other women have chosen to get implants to enhance their appearance. Women who have received implants should be able to feel confident that their implants are safe. Unfortunately, however, one of the most popular types of implants, the BIOCELL® Textured Breast Implants and Tissue Expanders, were the subject of a voluntary recall by Allergan on July 24, 2019. Allergan’s voluntary recall was issued after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a safety advisory about the breast implants.

If you have received the BIOCELL implants, you may have grounds to file a lawsuit against Allergan. The product liability attorneys at the law firm of Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers can help you to understand the legal options that you might have.

Which Allergan breast implants are included in the recall?

If you have implants on the recall list but are asymptomatic, Allergan is advising against removing the implants because of the potential risks. There are 11 different categories of the Allergan implants and tissue expanders that are being recalled. Each of the following categories includes numerous styles that are being recalled:

• Natrelle and McGhan 410 Soft Touch breast implants
• Natrelle and McGhan 410 breast implants
• Natrelle Saline breast implants
• Natrelle 510 dual-gel breast implants
• Natrelle and McGhan round gel implants
• Natrelle Inspira breast implants
• Natrelle Ritz Princess breast implants
• Natrelle Komuro breast implants
• Natrelle 150 full and short height double-lumen breast implants
• Natrelle 133 tissue expanders
• Natrelle 133 Plus tissue expanders

If your implants fall into any of these categories of products, you may have a heightened risk for developing a type of cancer called BIA-ALCL.

What is BIA-ALCL?

BIA-ALCL stands for breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. It is cancer that involves the immune system and has been linked to breast implants with textured surfaces. When BIA-ALCL is detected early, it is often treatable. However, if it is not caught early enough, it may spread throughout the body.

According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the FDA has received 573 reports of BIA-ALCL cases worldwide that are associated with textured breast implants. Thirty-three deaths have been reported from BIA-ALCL. Among the reported cases, 481 have specifically been linked to the implants from Allergan. Twelve deaths have similarly been linked to these products.

What are the symptoms of BIA-ALCL?

Multiple symptoms might indicate that you have BIA-ALCL, including the following:

• Enlargement of the breast
• Generalized pain in the breast
• Breast asymmetry
• Lump in the armpit or breast
• Hardening of the breast
• Skin rash
• Fluid building up around the implant area

If you experience any of these symptoms, you should see your doctor. If you are diagnosed with BIA-ALCL, it is better for you to get an early diagnosis than to wait.

Removal of textured breast implants

Doctors have chosen the textured breast implants from Allergan because they help the implants to stay in place and help to prevent the implants from being squeezed by scar tissue. If you are worried about the potential for developing BIA-ALCL and are thinking about having your textured breast implants removed, you need to be aware of the risks before you go through with the removal.

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons warns that breast implant removal can result in the following complications:

• Anesthesia complications • Asymmetry of the breasts • Bleeding • Deep vein thrombosis • Fatty tissue necrosis • Fluid buildup • Hematoma • Infection • Numbness or changes in nipple sensation • Numbness or changes in skin sensation • Persistent pain • Poor healing of incisions • Potential need for revision surgery • Recurring skin looseness • Scarring • Skin discoloration or swelling • Skin loss • Suboptimal aesthetic result

There are always potential dangers when you undergo surgery. If you are asymptomatic and choose to have your breast implants removed voluntarily, the procedure might not be covered by your medical insurance. If you do have BIA-ALCL symptoms, you should talk to your doctor as soon as possible. If you are diagnosed with BIA-ALCL, your breast implants and tissue expanders will need to be removed.

Potential compensation

If you have been diagnosed with BIA-ALCL after you have had textured breast implants, you may be entitled to recover compensation for your losses. Some of the types of damages for which you might be entitled include the following:

• Past and future medical expenses related to your treatment and recovery
• Past wage losses
• Future losses of your earning potential if you are no longer able to work or can only work in a reduced capacity
• Physical pain and suffering that you have endured
• Mental trauma
• Funeral and burial expenses if you lost your loved one to BIA-ALCL
• Loss of consortium in a wrongful death case
• Lost inheritance rights in a wrongful death case

What to do if you have Allergan breast implants

If you have textured breast implants from Allergan, it is a good idea for you to talk to your doctor even if you are asymptomatic. You might want to be tested for BIA-ALCL. If you receive negative results, you can weigh your options and risks for either leaving your breast implants in place or removing them.

If you are diagnosed with BIA-ALCL, and it is caught early, your doctor may be able to successfully treat it with surgery to remove your implants and the scar tissue that surrounds them. If cancer has spread, you might need to undergo chemotherapy and radiation. You should report a BIA-ALCL diagnosis that is related to your implants to the FDA’s MedWatch. This helps the FDA to track adverse reactions so that the agency can prevent more people from developing BIA-ALCL in the future.

Potential liability for a diagnosis of BIA-ALCL

If you have been diagnosed with BIA-ALCL after you have received Allergan textured breast implants, Allergan may be liable to pay monetary damages to you through a product liability lawsuit. As the manufacturer of the defective breast implants, Allergan should be responsible to pay damages to people who have suffered harm.

You need to act quickly if you have developed BIA-ALCL from your breast implants. The statute of limitations for filing personal injury claims in California is two years from the date that you discovered or reasonably should have discovered your injuries. If you wait too long to file a lawsuit, you may be barred from recovering damages to pay for your losses.

Talk to our experienced product liability attorneys today

When you undergo breast reconstruction or cosmetic surgical procedures, you should feel confident that you will be able to move forward with your life. Unfortunately, some breast implants and other medical devices are defective and can cause serious harm to people who receive them. The experienced product liability attorneys at the law firm of Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers can help you to understand your legal rights. Schedule a free consultation to learn about the rights that you might have by calling us at 310.592.0445. We work on a contingent-fee basis, which means that you will not have to pay attorney’s fees until and unless we can recover damages for you.

Over the past decade, vaping and e-cigarettes have greatly increased in popularity. This is especially true among young adults and teenagers. While the smoking rates among teenagers have fallen for decades, Juul and other e-cigarette devices are reversing the trend.

The National Institutes of Health conducted a survey of 44,000 teens in 2018. According to the study, 37.3% of teenagers in the 12th grade reported that they vaped. This was a sharp increase from the 28% who reported vaping in 2017, and there are few signs that the number will decline. Unfortunately, Juul and other e-cigarette devices are dangerous and can cause serious injuries and addiction.

What is Juul?

Juul is an electronic smoking device that contains cartridges of oil. The device heats the oil to release a vapor that users inhale. The device is inconspicuous and looks similar to a USB flash drive, and the company releases oils in flavors that appeal to teens such as mango and others. Because of the flavors and the ability for teens to hide these devices, they have exploded in the e-cigarette marketplace. According to Truth Initiative, Juul was able to seize half of the e-cigarette marketplace in the u.S. within just two years of its introduction in 2015.

Dangers of Juul and other types of e-cigarettes

E-cigarettes have high concentrations of nicotine, which is an addictive substance that impairs healthy brain development in adolescents. In a study of the nicotine concentrations of Juul cartridges versus other types of e-cigarettes, researchers found that the Juul pods had an average concentration of 60.9 mg/ml, which was significantly higher than any other type of e-cigarette that researchers had analyzed.

The bodies of young adults and teens are more susceptible to damage because they are still developing. When teens use Juul devices, they can suffer from many different health problems, including poisoning, seizures, respiratory illnesses, anxiety disorders, and addiction. In 2019, a spate of severe lung injury cases occurred across the U.S. These lung diseases have been associated with vaping and present similar symptoms as popcorn lung disease. Some users developed a serious lung condition within a short period after they started vaping.

Despite the risks, Juul Labs has failed to issue adequate warnings to consumers about the risks of nicotine consumption and its products’ contents. Juul has also targeted young people by using aggressive marketing strategies.

Several states have filed lawsuits against Juul Labs for its deceptive marketing practices. The attorney generals of California, New York, and North Carolina have all filed lawsuits against Juul. Several other states, including Illinois, Massachusetts, and others are currently investigating the company and may file lawsuits of their own. Illinois filed a lawsuit against Juul in state court, and two counties and a school district in Washington filed class-action lawsuits against the company and Altria, a major stakeholder, for marketing the e-cigarette devices to teens.

Controversy over flavors and deceptive marketing tactics

Juul has offered a variety of different flavors that appeal to teens. Many teens report that they were unaware that Juul contains nicotine when they first started vaping. The company also has actively and aggressively marketed its product to teens, showing young people having fun and partying while using Juul devices. Many experts believe that part of the problem is the use of flavors. In Oct. 2019, the president briefly proposed a ban on the use of flavors until he changed position because of polling data.

Several of the lawsuits against the company argue that Juul Labs intentionally attempted to appeal to teens with its sleek design, deceptive marketing practices, and its flavors. The vaporizer pods are available in sweet, fruity flavors, including mango, menthol, creme brulee, mint, and others that conceal the amount of nicotine that the devices contain and help to prevent people around users from detecting that they are vaping.

Juul’s advertising campaign featured many advertisements on social media, showing images of celebrities and influencers using e-cigarette devices. Juul has argued that its device is designed to help smokers quit smoking. However, it has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for that purpose.

Allegations in the Juul lawsuits

The plaintiffs in the Juul lawsuits allege multiple causes of action against Juul Labs, Altria, and Phillip Morris. They argue that the companies knew that the Juul e-cigarette devices were unsafe under all circumstances for non-smokers yet marketed to teens. They also argue that the company did not warn consumers about the nicotine in its flavor pods and that the solutions that it uses deliver more nicotine into the bloodstream than cigarettes or other e-cigarettes. The lawsuits also argue that the companies are aware that Juul devices can make people who already smoke more addicted to nicotine and increase their rates of consumption. Juul failed to disclose the potential harm of its product. The plaintiffs allege that it also spread misleading, false, and deceptive information about the Juul devices on its website, in its advertisements, and through social media.

Who can file lawsuits against Juul?

Lawsuits against Juul and other e-cigarette makers have been filed by individuals who have been injured from using the devices, parents of teens who have become addicted to the products, schools, counties, and states. Any person or entity that has suffered injury and financial harm because of the wrongful actions of Juul and other e-cigarette makers can potentially file lawsuits to recover compensation for their losses.

Potential compensation in a Juul lawsuit

Juul devices have had an outsized impact on the health of millions of Americans. Many people have developed strong addictions to nicotine because of the devices, and some have suffered serious health problems. In addition to the harm suffered by individuals, Juul and other e-cigarettes have cause schools, counties, and states to suffer economic losses. By filing lawsuits against Juul, it is possible for the plaintiffs to recover damages to pay for the losses that have been suffered.

The available damages in a Juul lawsuit will depend on many factors, which means that the compensation amount will vary from case to case. Some of the types of damages that might be available include the following:

• Past and future medical expenses to care for vaping-related health conditions
• Past and future addiction treatment costs
• Past and future losses of income
• Physical pain and suffering
• Costs of increased staff at schools to enforce anti-vaping policies
• Cost of anti-vaping campaigns
• Increased health costs caused by the widespread use of Juul
• Funeral and burial costs in wrongful death cases
• Loss of consortium in wrongful death cases

An experienced personal injury attorney can review your potential claim and advise you of the merits of your case. He or she may also provide a value of your claim and explain the types of damages that you might be able to recover by filing a lawsuit against Juul and other negligent e-cigarette makers.

Contact the experienced attorneys at Steven M. Sweat Personal Injury Lawyers

Vaping has reached epidemic proportions among teens in California and across the U.S. Because of the actions of Juul and other e-cigarette manufacturers, millions of teens are becoming addicted to nicotine and are suffering multiple health problems as a result. If you have suffered harm because of the actions of the e-cigarette manufacturers, you may have legal rights. The experienced attorneys at the Steven M. Sweat Personal Injury Lawyers can advise you of the legal options that you might have. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation by calling 310.592.0445.

If you are a current or former member of the U.S. military who has a hearing loss or who suffers from tinnitus, your condition may have been caused by defective combat earplugs. These earplugs were sold to the government by 3M and are called the Combat Arms Earplugs, Version 2 or CAEv2. In 2018, 3M reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and agreed to pay $9.1 million for its failure to disclose that the earplugs were defectively designed. These defects led to hearing losses and tinnitus in thousands of military service members who used them.

The Los Angeles injury lawyers at Steven M. Sweat APC are currently reviewing defective earplugs cases to veterans who have suffered hearing losses or tinnitus after using the CAEv2 earplugs. The earplugs were used by service members who served from 2003 to 2015 and were olive and yellow in color. If you remember using these earplugs and have suffered a hearing loss, contact our office today for a free case review from an experienced California attorney.

The contract with 3M & Aearo Technologies

Aearo Technologies was awarded a contract by the government after claiming that the company had invented a selective attenuation earplug. The company was later acquired by 3M. The earplugs at issue are dual-ended with separate functions on each end. The yellow end was open to allow low-level sounds such as vocal commands to be heard. The other end was olive green and was closed to protect against high- and low-level sounds.

The idea behind the earplugs was to protect against hearing loss while also allowing service members to communicate. However, they had design defects that Aearo and 3M failed to disclose to the government. The earplugs were issued to servicemembers for use in combat zones to protect their hearing from the sounds of explosions and gunfire.

Defects in the 3M Dual-Ended Combat Arms Earplugs

The CAEv2 earplugs had a design flaw. When they were tested, they were found to be too short. This defect meant that they did not properly fit in the ear canal and did not completely seal the canal from loud noises. The earplugs fit too loosely in the wearers’ ears. It wasn’t possible to see from the outside that the earplugs weren’t properly sealing the ears, which allowed damaging noises to cause hearing injuries to U.S. soldiers.

Instead of fixing the design flaw, Aearo decided to make changes to the procedure for fitting the earplugs into the ear. An Aearo member folded the yellow rim on the earplug’s open end before fitting it in the test subject’s ear. This elongated the earplug so that it would seal the ear canal. However, 3M and Aearo never disclosed this modification or the defect to the soldiers who used them in combat and training. The companies knew about the design defect before they ever began selling them to the government. The government subsequently issued the defective earplugs as a part of the standard gear to millions of service members.

Injuries resulting from using 3M’s dual-sided earplugs

Many women and men who served in the armed forces were given these earplugs and have subsequently suffered from severe hearing problems. The primary injuries that have been reported include partial hearing losses, full hearing losses, and tinnitus. The design defect is believed to have caused these injuries.

Soldiers who are in training or combat routinely are exposed to high noise levels. Noises that are above 85 decibels can cause severe hearing losses. It is critical for service members to have good ear protection while they perform their duties to prevent hearing loss.

Percussive sounds from explosions, shoulder-fired rockets, gunfire, and launchers can significantly damage the hairs of the inner ear and the cochlear nerve cells. When these parts of the ear are damaged, the electrical signals that are sent to the brain are interfered with, impairing the hearing.

Tinnitus is when you hear ringing in your ears. While a doctor can detect hearing loss, there is no examination for tinnitus. Instead, you may be diagnosed with tinnitus after your doctor asks you a number of questions. Tinnitus occurs when the hair cells in your inner ear are damaged. These cells respond to sound waves. When they are broken or bent, they might send signals to the brain when sounds are not present. If you have tinnitus, you may experience a constant ringing, humming, clicking, hissing, or humming sound in your ears. Tinnitus can be devastating to people and can impact their mental health. Some people who suffer from tinnitus develop depression or anxiety. Tinnitus may also be a contributing factor to higher rates of suicide among war veterans. Suffering hearing problems because of the earplugs has also caused some veterans to have fewer employment options.

The U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs reports that 2.7 million veterans receive disability benefits for tinnitus and hearing losses. The number continues to grow larger. 3M was contracted as a defense contractor for the military and provided its defective earplugs from 2003 to 2015. Hundreds of thousands of service members are believed to have tinnitus or hearing losses because of the defective earplugs.

What to do if you have suffered hearing damage after using the earplugs

Many service members have suffered damage to their hearing because of the carelessness of 3M. If you are a former or current service member who served at any time between 2003 and 2015, you may have legal rights. If you suffer from tinnitus or have lost all or part of your hearing after using the CAEv2 earplugs, it may be a good idea for you to talk to an experienced injury lawyer about your rights. A legal consultation is confidential, which means that the government will not be told that you consulted with an attorney.

Why you should consider filing a lawsuit

Many people hesitate to file legal claims because they feel they are not the litigious type. While it is true that a lawsuit will not cure your hearing loss or tinnitus, filing a claim can help you to hold 3M and Aearo Technologies accountable for their wrongful actions. You may be able to recover compensation to help both you and your family. In addition to the potential compensatory damages, you might be able to recover punitive damages to prevent other companies from engaging in similar conduct.

You are not obligated to file a lawsuit right now and will not be pressured to do so. When you speak with a California lawyer at Steven M. Sweat APC, we will help you to understand the options that might be available to you and how we might be able to help you. Contact the law firm of Steven M. Sweat APC today by calling us at 323.944.0993 to schedule a free and confidential review of your potential claim.

Products manufacturers have a duty of care to warn consumers about the potential dangers of their products. They also are not supposed to release unreasonably dangerous products into the market. If a product is defective, is unreasonably dangerous, or has inadequate warnings, the manufacturers may be liable when consumers who have used the products in an intended manner are harmed as a result. In Schmitz v. J&J, Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda, Case No. RG18923615, the jury returned a substantial verdict to a California woman who contracted mesothelioma after using talcum-powder products that were manufactured by Johnson & Johnson and Colgate for decades.

Factual and procedural background

Patricia Schmitz, a former fifth-grade teacher, is a 61-year-old California woman. Her mother applied baby powder containing talc when she was an infant. Beginning when she was 13, Schmitz began using talc-based products daily after her shower. She used Colgate-Palmolive’s Cashmere Bouquet on a daily basis from the time that she was 13 until the 2000s. She also used Avon’s Night Magic at some point in time. Her mother had used Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder on her when she was an infant.

In 2018, Schmitz was diagnosed with mesothelioma after locating it near her heart. Her cancer is advanced, and she is not expected to live past the summer of 2019. Schmitz’s attorneys had experts test bottles of Johnson & Johnson’s powder and Colgate-Palmolive’s Cashmere Bouquet. The experts found asbestos fiber in 70 bottles of the Johnson & Johnson powder and 20 bottles of the Cashmere Bouquet. Schmitz filed a lawsuit against the two companies, asking for compensatory and punitive damages.

Issue: Whether Johnson & Johnson had a duty to warn consumers about the potential of asbestos fibers in its talc-based products?

The primary issue was whether Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive had a duty to warn consumers that their talc-based products could contain asbestos fibers. Schmitz filed her case under a theory of products liability, arguing that both companies had a duty to warn consumers about the possible presence of asbestos fibers, which can lead to mesothelioma. The companies argued that they did not have a duty and that scientific research has demonstrated that talc-based products are perfectly safe.

Rule: Products manufacturers must provide adequate warnings of the potential harms that consumers might suffer when they use their products.

Manufacturers have a duty to provide warnings to consumers about the potential hazards of their products that the manufacturers knew about or reasonably should have known about. When the manufacturers fail to provide adequate warnings, and their failure to do so results in injuries to consumers who have used the products in the manner in which they were intended to use them, the manufacturers may be liable to pay damages.

Analysis

Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that is linked to exposure to asbestos. Talc is a mineral substance that is inert. However, it is often located in the same areas where asbestos is found. This makes contamination of talcum powder with asbestos possible. Johnson & Johnson argued that its own testing regimen has not found the presence of asbestos. Similarly, Colgate-Palmolive argued that its tests had not revealed asbestos fibers in its products. The company also argued that if asbestos was present, its own tests would have discovered it.

In a previous case against Johnson & Johnson, a jury had recommended that the company include a warning. However, Johnson & Johnson failed to follow that jury’s recommendation.

Schmitz and her attorneys argued that its own testing revealed the presence of asbestos in multiple bottles of Johnson & Johnson baby powder and Colgate-Palmolive’s Cashmere Bouquet. The jury was able to view electron microscope photographs that allegedly showed the presence of asbestos fibers in the talcum powder products. The jury was also presented with evidence of internal memos from within Johnson & Johnson in which company officials discussed the presence of asbestos fibers in their talcum powder products.

Schmitz argued that the companies had a duty of care to provide adequate warnings about the dangers of their talc-based products. The companies argued that they did not have a duty because their products were safe, were free of asbestos, and did not cause Schmitz’s cancer.

As we have previously discussed, the manufacturers of products that are safely designed but that still contain dangers must warn consumers about the dangers of the products. If they fail to provide adequate warnings to consumers, they may be liable for harms that result from the consumers’ use of their products. In this case, Schmitz alleged that Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive failed to warn consumers about the potential danger of asbestos in their products even though they knew or should have known about the potential hazard. Johnson & Johnson’s lead lawyer argued that internal company documents going back more than 70 years showed that the company had made good faith efforts in how it handled the minerals. However, in light of the mining issues associated with talc-mining when asbestos is nearby, the jury may have interpreted this as the fact that Johnson & Johnson knew about the potential danger yet still failed to warn consumers about it.

Under California’s products liability laws, manufacturers have a duty to create products in such a way that the products will not cause injuries to consumers. If they subsequently discover a defect, the companies should recall the products in order to prevent harm. Companies must also include warning labels about the potential dangers of the products that they sell. If they don’t, they may be found to be liable to pay damages to consumers who are injured as a result of using the products.

Conclusion

The jury rejected the arguments of Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive. They returned a gross verdict of more than $10 million in favor of Schmitz. The jury found that Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive were each 40% liable for Schmitz’s mesothelioma, which amounted to roughly $4.8 million each. The jury also found that Avon was 20% liable. However, since Schmitz did not name Avon as a defendant to her lawsuit, she will be unlikely to be able to recover damages from that company. Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive have both said that they intend to appeal the jury’s verdict. Johnson & Johnson is currently facing thousands of lawsuits around the country about its talc-based products.

Contact an experienced personal injury attorney in Los Angeles

If you have contracted mesothelioma after using talc-based products for years, you may have legal rights. It is important for you to consult with an experienced Los Angeles personal injury lawyer. The manufacturers of these potentially dangerous products are large, multinational corporations with teams of defense lawyers that are ready to defend against lawsuits. To schedule a free consultation with an experienced attorney, contact the law firm of Steven M. Sweat APC today.

Sources

https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2019/06/13/291449.htm?utm_source=Justia%20Blogging%20Ideas&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=f349086124-blogging_ideas_injury_20190619&utm_term=0_dba88020e6-f349086124-406640669

https://www.victimslawyer.com/defective-products-injury-cases.html https://www.victimslawyer.com/products-liability.html

In the world of medicine, Stryker Hip Implant was one of those surgical procedures that required no clinical trial due to the fact that it was similar to previous generations of hip prosthetic devices. Because it was such a ground breaking technology, one that seemed ingenious ever since it was tried, it quickly gained popularity in the medical community as remedy to hip dislocation and joint problems compared to previous generations of hardware.

However, over the years post-surgery complications have increased in patients who have undergone this procedure. In its initial years, medical practitioners claimed that Stryker was a not a metal-on-metal hip implant, unlike other older devices. Therefore, it was deemed to be a success. However, the smaller metallic components in this device used at the junction of the joint itself have created so many complications that a significant percentage of patients have experienced chronic pain and serious complications a few months following the the surgery.

Problems arising out of Stryker Rejuvenate hip prosthetic

The complications and problems as a result of Stryker Rejuvenate are not run of the mill post-surgical pain and discomfort that can be remedied with medication or physiotherapy. The complications that some Stryker patients experience tend to stem from the components of the device themselves. Therefore, with Stryker, the concern is that once a complication has arisen there may be no alternative but to surgically remove the device and surrounding tissues in some cases.

The following are some of the symptoms experienced in patients who are recipients of defective Stryker devices:

• Experiencing pain while going up the stairs.
• Hearing pop sounds from the hip joint.
• Dull and sharp pain near the hip joint.
• Pain during movements like sitting in a car.
• Severe joint pain.
• Inflammation and soreness around the implant.

Unfortunately, the nature of the internal damage that may be related to Stryker hips, patients are at risk for developing complications such as heavy metal poisoning. Blood tests have shown that the metal components of the implant are increasing metallic composition of the blood which is very harmful for the body. Such a condition is called heavy metal poisoning, something that has severe complications due to the chromium and cobalt used in the devices.

In some cases, a patient may have no apparent symptoms of heavy metal poisoning it is not always visible symptom, becoming all the more dangerous because the levels may be building in the body without a patient’s knowledge.

Legal issues surrounding the technology

Patients who have been diagnosed with heavy metal poisoning as a result of Stryker are advised to undergo a hip revision surgery. The aim of this procedure would be to replace the components that are malfunctioning, making the hip joint fully functional again. With medication and regular checkup, the concentration of metals is the blood will be reduced and the pain and soreness around the joint will be minimized.

However, being a patient who had just heard the news of his surgery becoming a failure is hard. Not only this, it is not fair on the patients who went through tremendous pain and suffering to get a hip implant only to discover it has harmed them even more. Therefore, patients of Stryker are now entitled to legal compensation that can be demanded by hiring a Stryker hip recall lawyer.

Following are the areas that the compensation accounts for:

• Medical expenses of the revised surgery and any medications prescribed.
• If you have experienced disability as a result of the procedure, compensation would also cover that.
• Any loss of wages because of being unemployed as a result of the surgery will be accounted for by your lawyer in the compensation.
• Rehabilitation following a revision surgery

Presently, Stryker cases have been consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL) where the cases will be consolidated for discovery purposes.

Resources:

• http://www.prweb.com/releases/stryker-hip-recall-faq/03/prweb10534731.htm
• http://injurylawyer-news.com/stryker-hip-replacement/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_replacement
• https://www.slideshare.net/goose575/analysis-of-stryker-rejuvenate-recall-from-hip-defect-lawyers

Jonathan Rosenfeld is a personal injury attorney based in Chicago, IL and is a regular contributor to our blog. He can be reached as follows:

— Jonathan Rosenfeld Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers 33 North Dearborn Street Suite 1930 Chicago, IL 60602

(847) 835-8895 Fax: (847) 572-1331 Toll Free: (888) 424-5757

Rosenfeldinjurylawyers.com jonathan@rosenfeldinjurylawyers.com