Class Action Blog : Consumer Fraud, Consumer Protection, Securities and Antitrust Lawyer & Attorney : Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz

Ford Motor Company sells its trucks with the slogan “Built Ford Tough.” Unfortunately, the Ford F-Series and E-Series with the 6.0 Liter engine are not quite so tough. The engine, which is manufactured by Navistar, Inc., appears to be riddled with design and manufacturing defects which Ford did not disclose to potential buyers. Interestingly, however, Ford did sue Navistar to recoup some of the expenses Ford incurred in warranty expenses resulting from defective engines.

The problems with the Navistar engine may include injectors that frequently fail. In addition, consumers report that the turbo charger can stick because of carbon and rust deposits, which can result in headgasket failure.  Other consumers report problems with sticking exhaust gas recirculation valves, which can cause leaking EGR coolers. Another potential issue with the Navistar engine involves the torque-to-yield head bolts and problematic head gasket design, which can cause a blown head gasket and a cracked cylinder head.

If you or someone you know owns a Ford F-Series or E-Series with a 6.0 Liter engine, contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Television maker Vizio, which sells lower-tier LCD, high definition, flat screen televisions, has reportedly been advising the owners of its relatively new, but out-of-warranty sets that their broken televisions cannot be repaired. The company instead offers these customers the chance to purchase a refurbished replacement set from them, often at a price higher that of a new Vizio television.

At least one consumer, who owned a nearly $2,000, 55-inch television, reported having complained in writing to Vizio’s corporate headquarters about what certainly appears to be company-wide policy of Vizio’s customer service unit advising consumers that their televisions, which are as little as one month beyond the factory warranty, are totally “unrepairable.” The failure reported primarily involves breaking of the television’s backlight unit, which lights the screen from inside the set. Scores of consumers have reported that out-of-the-blue, their Vizio sets, which are not old, have gone black and never worked again.

Indeed, a consumer complaint website reports that it has received over 61 complaints about Vizio televisions failing, and the lack of any satisfactory response from Vizio to recurrent complaints of sets breaking shortly after warranty expiration without any repair solution offered by Vizio customer service.

While Vizio sets are not the only manufacturer’s sets that break, HD television guru, Gary Merson,  polled other well-know television makers who stated that they do not have a “unrepairable” TV policy; and that they do try to fix problem sets, and when a situation arises where a repair would really be uneconomical, they make every attempt to replace the set with one of their new sets at a significant discount so as to keep the consumer satisfied and with their brand set in that consumer’s home.

Several of the top-tier TV makers, such as Samsung, and even mid-tier electronics producers, like Best Buy, which markets a house brand called Insignia, reported that their TVs are repairable whether in or out of warranty, including those with failed backlights. The repairs on the older sets that are beyond the factory warranty are fixed at a reasonable repair cost.

If you own a Vizio, LCD, flat-screen, HD television that has had a blacked out backlight, or some other defect, and Vizio has refused to repair the set, please contact us to discuss your legal rights

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (14)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In July we wrote about the questionable advertisements for “toning shoes” promising that the shoes will help you burn calories, increase muscle tone, improve posture and reduce stress on the back and legs, and the occurrence of injuries related to their use. The concerns we raised were confirmed by a settlement reached between the Federal Trade Commission and Reebok International Ltd. of charges that the company deceptively advertised its “toning shoes.” Under the terms of the settlement, Reebok will pay $25 million which will be made available, either directly from the FTC or through a court-approved class action, to those consumers who purchased EasyTone and RunTone shoes and apparel. 

According to the FTC’s complaint, Reebok made unsupported claims in advertisements that the use of its EasyTone and RunTone shoes strengthened and toned leg and buttock muscles more than regular shoes. In particular, the complaint alleged that Reebok falsely claimed that walking in EasyTone shoes had been proven to lead to 28% more strength and tone in buttock muscles, 11% more strength and tone in hamstring muscles, and 11% more strength and tone in calf muscles, than regular walking shoes. 

In addition to the $25 million payment, the settlement enjoins Reebok from making any representations that its toning products are effective in strengthening muscles, or that wearing such products will result in a quantified percentage or amount of muscle toning or strengthening, unless the representation is not misleading and Reebok possesses and relies upon “competent and reliable scientific evidence that substantiates that the representation is true.” The FTC defines “competent and reliable scientific evidence” to include “at least one Adequate and Well-Controlled Human Clinical Study of the Covered Product that conforms to acceptable designs and protocols, the results of which, when considered in light of the entire body of relevant and reliable scientific evidence, is sufficient to substantiate that the representation is true.” As defined in the settlement agreement, an “Adequate and Well-Controlled Human Clinical Study” means a clinical study that is randomized, controlled, blinded to the maximum extent practicable, of at least six weeks duration, uses an appropriate measurement tool or tools (e.g. a dynamometer if measuring strength), and is conducted by persons qualified by training and experience to conduct and measure compliance with such a study.”

Consumers should gain some comfort from the substantiation standard set by the FTC in this settlement agreement. While the terms of the agreement apply only to Reebok, advertisers should understand the importance of complying with FTC orders applicable to their business.

If you or someone you know purchased toning shoes manufactured by Reebok, or any other entity, in reliance on the promise that they would strengthen and tone muscles, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As previously reported in these pages, back in October 2009, for years people have been experiencing incidents where Pyrex, or other glass bakeware, has suddenly shattered or “exploded” under normal use, often resulting in an injury to the consumer. These can range from minor to serious lacerations, and even to tendon and/or nerve injury. These complaints have been documented over many years and it appears that there has been no abatement of the problem.

The CPSC database lists at least 24 new incidents in the 2010-2011 period. Moreover, Consumers Union has also reported 121 new incidents in response to its solicitation of reader reports.

It should be noted that the vast majority of the reported incidents involve glass bakeware produced by World Kitchen (Pyrex) or Anchor Hocking. This is not surprising, as they are the two leading manufacturers of such bakeware. Most of the incidents involved either pouring hot water into glass bowls or cups, or use of the bakeware in microwave ovens. In spite of assurances from the manufacturers that these products are safe for these types of uses, the incidents apparently continue to occur.

If you or anyone you know has been injured in any such incident, please call us to discuss your options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (16)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Formaldehyde is a colorless chemical that many people recognize by its very pungent odor. It is used for many purposes, including the manufacture of a large number of products that exist in our everyday lives. Perhaps the most well-known use formaldehyde is as embalming fluid, but it is also used in many other industries and in the manufacture of common household and beauty products.

Formaldehyde was just recently declared to be a carcinogen. A recent report issued by the National Toxicology Program states that exposure to formaldehyde causes certain forms of cancer, including nasopharyngeal cancer, sinonasal cancer, and myeloid leukemia. The National Toxicology Program is part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and its report now classifies formaldehyde as a substance known to be a human carcinogen. Although the link between exposure to formaldehyde and cancer has been suggested for some time, the report of the National Toxicology Program confirms that it is a known carcinogen that is linked to these types of cancers.

At room temperature, formaldehyde is a gas which enters the body through inhalation, which links exposure to it to cancers of the nose and throat. Many people who work in manufacturing plants or at industrial sites where formaldehyde is used are constantly exposed to formaldehyde vapors. The recently released report of the National Toxicology Program is further evidence for people diagnosed with certain types of cancer that it may be linked to exposures they received in their workplace.

If you, or someone you know, have developed cancer which you believe may be linked to exposure to formaldehyde, please contact us to discuss your legal rights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The makers of Brazilian Blowout are selling a harmful product and lying about it, according to a warning issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

We’ve reported previously on Brazilian Blowout, a hair straightening treatment favored by Jennifer Aniston, Lindsay Lohan, and Reese Witherspoon. Its distributor, GIB, LLC, claims that Brazilian Blowout is safe because it contains no formaldehyde, a known cancer-causing chemical. That claim has been challenged by foreign governments and state public health officials.

Now the FDA has issued a warning letter to GIB, LLC, alleging two violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. First, the FDA says Brazilian Blowout contains a “poisonous or deleterious substance” that may injure users when used as intended. Specifically, the FDA found that Brazilian Blowout is 8.7% to 10.4% liquid formaldehyde. When hair treated with Brazilian Blowout is heated with a blow dryer or drying iron, it releases formaldehyde, which can be inhaled, harming the eyes, respiratory tract, and nervous system.

Second, the FDA challenges the product labels claiming that Brazilian Blowout is “Formaldehyde Free” and contains “No Formaldehyde.” The FDA says that claim is false or misleading.

In its August 22, 2011 letter, FDA Acting Director Michael W. Roosevelt urged GIB to “take prompt action to correct the violations.” Don’t hold your breath (unless you are a salon worker who applies Brazilian Blowout). The Brazilian Blowout web site claims that the company is “now working directly with the FDA to clear up the controversy.” The company says it wants to “clear up misinformation” about Brazilian Blowout – a far cry from acknowledging the problem and fixing it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Custom car enthusiasts spend significant sums on parts and accessories to dress up their vehicles. One such product, Vogue tires, are popular with these consumers because they have a nostalgic "whitewall" and a unique, rich looking gold stripe around the tire. These tires are available as a custom, after-market purchase and also come equipped on certain high end cars in the Cadillac line, among others. When sold separately, these tires cost $300-400 per tire. However reportedly these tires often are not lasting as long as this substantial price would warrant. Many consumers of Vogue tires have reported serious problems and premature tire failures.

Specifically, owners have reported more than normal incidences of bulging, cracking sidewalls, tread separation, vibration and poor handling even after multiple balancings, as well as dangerous blowouts at high speeds. These problems seem to arise long before the normal tire life expectancy. Among the consumers making these reports, there has emerged a disturbing pattern to the complaints that the Vogue Tyre and Rubber Company does not acknowledge that there is a problem; and that when faced with claims for replacement, the company fails to live up to the promises in its limited warranty.

If you have had what you believe to be defective Vogue tires, and especially if you have had difficulties dealing with Vogue regarding a warranty claim, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Surgical mesh is used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (slippage out of place of the uterus or bladder) and stress urinary incontinence in women purportedly by strengthening the vaginal tissue. Yet, for several years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received thousands of reports involving patients in whom surgical mesh was implanted who subsequently suffered from multiple complications, including, but not limited to, infection, pain, urinary problems, recurrence of prolapsed, incontinence, bowel and bladder perforation, and vaginal scarring. Many patients require hospitalization and surgical treatment, in part to remove the surgical mesh. According to the FDA, in 2010 alone, at least 100,000 pelvic organ prolapsed repairs used surgical mesh and each year the number of adverse side effects are increasing. In the FDA’s July 13, 2011 Release, the FCA further noted that there are very few, if any, peer-reviewed clinical studies to support the claim that the device improves pelvic organ prolapse, and, to the contrary, when implanted vaginally, it an expose the patients to many serious risks. As the FDA specifically noted, “with the exposure to greater risk comes no evidence of greater clinical benefit such as improved quality of life.”

If you use a surgical mesh and have been experiencing any adverse side effects, please contact us. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Do you own or lease a recent model year,  high end car equipped with low profile tires such as an Audi, a BMW, or a Lexus?  Have you suffered from tire blowouts and expensive rim damage on your car?  Well, those low profile tires and fancy rims sure look good in the driveway.  But they can cost you a lot of money in unnecessary repairs, and high speed blowouts on the highway can be very dangerous.  So what’s the problem?  It’s really a design problem.  The low profile tires don’t have a lot of rubber between the road and the tire rim.  So when you hit a pothole, the rubber compresses, the rims get dinged or bent, and the tire wall quickly develops a bubble.  If you don’t notice the bubble, odds are pretty high that you’ll suffer a blowout soon.  These tires are very expensive to replace – often costing around $400 per tire – and the rims are equally expensive.  The problem is exacerbated by winters like we had this year and the poor road conditions in the northern half of the country.  When you bought or leased the car, did the product brochures advise you of these issues?

 If you have experienced such blowout or rim problems, please contact us to discuss your legal rights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As any parent will attest, kids are messy. That is why many parents were undoubtedly thrilled when Crayola came out with its new “Washable Colored Bubbles” product. Unlike normal soap bubbles, these bubbles come in several vibrant colors, and Crayola sells accompanying wand sets and bubble launchers.

Given the bright colors and the inevitable contact with clothes, furniture and outdoor surfaces, parents would be wary about purchasing a product that seems likely to cause substantial stains. To allay those fears, Crayola markets its bubbles as being “washable.” As Crayola states on its website: “Because Colored Bubbles contain color, colorful marks appear on clothing, skin and outdoor surfaces wherever they pop.  But marks are temporary and washable.”

Unfortunately, Crayola’s claim that marks left by its bubbles are washable may be false. In fact, numerous consumers report that children, clothes, furniture, driveways and even pets are stained from the bubbles, even when washing instructions are precisely followed. As one consumer stated; "Washable? It practically requires scrubbing the top layer of your skin off to get the color out." She added, "I feel misled as a shopper."

Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz, P.C is investigating whether Crayola misled consumers as to whether its bubbles are actually washable. If you or someone you know purchased Crayola’s Washable Colored Bubbles, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Appliance manufacturer Haier is again the subject of scrutiny for having placed EnergyGuide labels on several of its freezers that may significantly (between 35 and 85 percent) and misleadingly understate the amount of energy that they use. Tests have recently shown that certain models use hundreds of kilowatt hours (kWh) more than what is required for the coveted U.S. government’s EnergyStar compliance rating EnergyStar designation. As a result, Haier’s deception could cost consumers hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars of unexpected electricity costs over the life of the appliance.

Three Haier freezers and one GE freezer made by Haier have failed testing designed to determine the accuracy of the energy consumption claims Haier makes on the familiar big, bright yellow EnergyGuide label, that consumers often use to compare appliance models.

Haier’s five cubic foot chest freezer model HCM050EC, which retails for $270, was said by Consumer Reports to have claimed use of 240 kWh per year, but the magazine’s tests show it actually used 444 kWh per year. The seven cubic foot Haier model HNCM070E chest freezer ($260 retail) and the similar GE model FCM7SU chest freezer made by Haier ($220 retail), both claimed use of approximately 276 kWh per year, but they used over 440 kWh per year. The deception with respect to the $750 Haier 20.5 cubic foot capacity upright freezer is possibly even worse. With respect to that large, expensive model, Haier’s label claims use of an EnergyStar rating worthy 689 kWh, but one such appliance was measured in testing at an actual use of 943 KWh.

EnergyStar is a federal government program in which the government partners with private and public appliance manufacturers to promote the use of highly energy efficient products. The widely recognized EnergyStar label and designation is relied upon by consumers as a representation of the very highest standard of energy efficiency. Haier’s apparent misuse of the EnergyStar designation threatens the integrity and vitality of the worthwhile EnergyStar labeling program.

If you have purchased one of the above-referenced Haier-made freezers you may have been the victim of a deceptive consumer practice. Please contact us to discuss your legal rights and options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There is a lot in the news these days about the risks associated with routine vaccinations that most of us have received.  One government program can provide great help to people who have been injured by vaccines.

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “VICP”) was established by federal law in 1988.  It is a little known program that provides people injured by vaccines the opportunity to be compensated for their injuries without having to go to court.  The program provides a method by which injured people can file a claim for damages without having to show fault.  It is a “no-fault” system in which the claimant does not need to show that the vaccine manufacturer is at fault for the injuries.  Rather, the claimant must show that he or she was injured by the vaccine, after which a board determines what the compensation will be.  Three government agencies - the Department of Health and Human Resources, the Department of Justice, and the United States Court of Federal Claims - are involved in deciding whether a particular claimant deserves to be compensated for injuries suffered as a result of a vaccine, and if so, how much.

There is a specific list of vaccines that are covered by the program:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A few months ago, a beauty editor hyped a hair straightening product called “Brazilian Blowout” that’s been used by the likes of Jennifer Aniston, Lindsay Lohan, and Reese Witherspoon.  The editor raved that Brazilian Blowout “is formaldehyde-free, takes only 90 minutes, has no downtime, and best of all, eradicates almost all frizz without sacrificing body.  It sounded way too good to be true.”

Of course, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. Laboratory tests have shown that Brazilian Blowout contains up to 10% formaldehyde. That directly contradicts the company’s boast that the product contains “no harsh chemicals” and “no formaldehyde.” According to the National Cancer Institute, short-term exposure to formaldehyde can cause skin irritation, coughing, wheezing, nausea, and burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and throat. Long-term exposure has been scientifically linked to cancer.

Small wonder that Brazilian Blowout is marketed as formaldehyde-free. But in lab tests, the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division found that Brazilian Blowout had formaldehyde levels of “upwards of 10% in some samples.”  The Canadian government advised salons to “immediately stop” using Brazilian Blowout, based on validated research showing that its formaldehyde content is 8.4%.  That’s “42 times the acceptable limit” and “well above the amount known to cause injury,” according to the Canadian health agency.

The company says “there is no reason to believe” that the substance tested in Oregon “was indeed Brazilian Blowout product.”   It also says a recent test showed safe levels of airborne formaldehyde in a salon environment where the product was used.  A Brazilian Blowout treatment typically costs $300 to $500 at a salon.

If you are a consumer or salon owner who incurred damages as a result of purchasing Brazilian Blowout products or treatments, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Are Pampers diapers causing chemical burns on babies?  Thousands of parents think so, and now government officials are investigating their claims.  The Consumer Product Safey Commission (“CPSC”) has announced that it is reviewing complaints received about diaper rashes that appear to be associated with the use of Pampers diapers with Dry Max, manufactured by Proctor and Gamble (“P&C”).  Parents have reported the appearance of what look like chemical burns on their children when using Pampers Swaddlers diapers with Dry Max and Pampers Cruisers diapers with Dry Max.  Indeed, in March, 2010, P&C changed its "Pampers Swaddlers" and "Pampers Cruisers" to include "Dry Max."  Dry Max is a thinner and more absorbent material that replaced the paper pulp previously used.  P&C calls the change "new and improved" but some parents are calling it a nightmare.

For example, Jenny Cooper of Eugene, Oregon is one of those parents.  Cooper told KVAL News that within about two days of using Dry Max diapers her son Paul developed a rash.  "And then it started to get worse," she said. "It actually started to blister on him.  And the blisters started to bleed on him.”  Paul was in so much pain, he would fight his mom when she tried to change him.  "There was a lot of screaming and crying and tears," said Cooper. "And he didn't want to sit down because his bum was really sore."

Cooper thought it might be a reaction to the diaper so she went online to find out more information. At one point, she went onto the Pampers Facebook page and found a link to another Facebook group with more than 6,500 members called "Pampers bring back the OLD CRUISERS/SWADDLERS."  The site includes numerous horror stories, tips from parents of how to cure the rash, and some very graphic pictures of irritated skin.

As for Jenny, she changed Paul into Huggies and said the problem has gone away.  She told KVAL News she strongly believes her son's rash was directly connected to the diapers.  "There's something wrong with the diapers," she said. "I'd like to see a mass recall of all the Pampers Cruisers and any of the other affected products.”  Cooper told KVAL News she called P&C to complain but says it didn't do anything.  She called P&C again a few days later and told the P&C customer representative she was taking her story to the news.  It was at that point that P&G quickly agreed to refund her money.

If you purchased and used "Pampers Swaddlers" and/or "Pampers Cruisers" and your child has been injured as a result, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has warned three large manufacturers to stop marketing ear candles and has posted a consumer warning on its web site.  The warning page states that during the past decade, the FDA has received reports of burns, punctured eardrums, and blockage of the ear canal that required outpatient surgery.

An ear candle is a hollow cone about 10 inches long made from a fabric tube soaked in beeswax, paraffin, or a mixture of the two.  In ear candling, also called ear coning or thermal auricular therapy, a patient lies on his or her side while a candle is placed in the outer ear and lit.  Marketers claim that warmth created by the device produces suction that draws wax and other impurities out of the ear canal.  However, tests by Health Canada found that ear candles produce no measurable effect in the ear and have no therapeutic value.

“Some ear candles are offered as products that purify the blood, strengthen the brain, or even 'cure' cancer," says Eric Mann, M.D., Ph.D., clinical deputy director of the FDA's Division of Ophthalmic, Neurological, and Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices. But the FDA warns that ear candles can cause serious injuries, even when used in accordance to manufacturers' directions.  "Also," says Mann, "FDA believes that there is no valid scientific evidence for any medical benefit from their use."

The FDA says that ear candling -- the procedure is also called "ear coning" and "thermal auricular therapy" -- exposes the recipient to risks such as:

• starting a fire;
• burns to the face, ear canal, eardrum, and middle ear;
• injury to the ear from dripping wax;
• ears plugged by candle wax;
• bleeding;
• puncture of the eardrum; and
• delay in seeking needed medical care for underlying conditions such as sinus and ear infections, hearing loss, cancer, and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders. (TMJ disorders often cause headache and painful sensations in the area of the ear, jaw, and face).

Over the past decade, FDA has received reports of burns, punctured eardrums, and blockage of the ear canal which required outpatient surgery from the use of ear candles.  And in a survey published in 1996, the medical journal Laryngoscope reported 13 cases of burns of the ear, seven cases of ear canal blockage due to wax, and one case of a punctured eardrum.

If you or someone you know purchased and used ear candles and have been injured as a result, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Birmingham-area man won a $25.16 million verdict this month against Switzerland-based Roche Holding AG ("Roche") after claiming its acne medicine led to inflammatory bowel disease.  Andrew McCarrell, 38, won the verdict against Roche after a retrial in state court in New Jersey, where a company unit that produced the drug Accutane is based.

McCarrell is a computer technician who has lived in the Birmingham area 13 to 15 years.  He testified he got sick after taking Accutane in 1995.  He needed five surgeries, including one to remove his colon.

"I never thought it would be like this," McCarrell said. "Never in my wildest dreams."

Six former Accutane users have now won verdicts worth $56 million.  All claimed Roche failed to warn of the drug's risks.  Roche stopped selling Accutane last year, citing competition from generic formulations and legal costs from defending personal injury suits.  Roche faces almost 1,000 other cases.

McCarrell had played small-college football in the Midwest and "was a vibrant healthy guy until he started taking this drug," said his lawyer. "A year after he started taking it, he had his colon removed."  McCarrell goes to the bathroom 10 to 20 times a day and "suffers from massive gastrointestinal upset," his lawyer said. "Imagine going though that every day.  He and his wife are living day by day."

The lawsuit alleged that Roche had internal documents that said Accutane caused inflammatory bowel disease and did not tell anyone.  Indeed, some patients who were prescribed Accutane have allegedly suffered such severe injuries as a result.  While Accutane is still on the market, it is the focus of lawsuits nationwide.

If you or someone you know were prescribed Accutane and have suffered serious injuries as a result, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The continuing dangers posed to infants by certain products has been highlighted by the recall announced this month by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) of approximately 635,000 cribs manufactured by Dorel Asia SRL of Barbados.  The recall was announced after the reported death of a 6 month old child who became entrapped and strangled in a Dorel crib after the drop side hardware broke.  The drop side hardware on the cribs can fail causing the drop side to detach from the crib creating a space in which an infant can become entrapped and suffocate or strangle.  This, as well as bruising and lacerations, may also occur if one of the slats is damaged.

Moreover, thirty six incidents of slat breakage have been reported. The drop side hardware failure or slat damage may occur while the crib is in use, in storage, being assembled, taken apart or reassembled or during shipping and handling.  The Dorel cribs were sold at Kmart, Sears and Wal-Mart stores nationwide from January 2005 through December 2009.

The CPSC also recently announced the recall of about 1.5 million strollers manufactured by Graco Children’s Products, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, between October 2004 and February 2008, due to fingertip amputation and laceration hazards.  There have been seven reports of children placing their fingers in the stroller's plastic, jointed canopy hinge mechanism while the canopy was being opened or closed, resulting in five fingertip amputations and two fingertip lacerations.  The recalled strollers were sold at AAFES, Burlington Coat Factory, Babies “R” Us, Toys “R” Us, Kmart, Fred Meyer, Meijers, Navy Exchange, Sears, Target, Wal-Mart and other retailers nationwide from October 2004 to December 2009.

If any infants or children you know have been injured by these products please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A few months ago, we published blog posts on the dangers of Yaz birth control pills.  We also pointed out that Public Citizen, a consumer rights group based in Washington, D.C., had petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to remove the medication from sale.  According to another recent petition the consumer group sent the FDA, Public Citizen has requested that Savella, manufactured and sold by Cypress Bioscience, Inc. and Forest Laboratories, Inc. and used to treat fibromyalgia, be removed from the market immediately because its dangers outweigh its benefits.

Public Citizen alleges that Savella has highly questionable clinical efficacy and has been found, in randomized controlled trials, to cause a large number of potentially serious adverse reactions including hypertension, increased heart rate, and increased suicidal ideation.

In its petition, Public Citizen notes the European Medicine Agency, as of July 23, 2009, turned down the application for Savella for the treatment of fibromyalgia, citing both the lack of efficacy and data on long-term effects.  After the drug's sponsors challenged that decision, the European Medicine Agency reconfirmed its original decision.  Public Citizen’s petition states that the “FDA should never have approved Savella for fibromyalgia, and should now immediately undo its error by removing it from the market before large numbers of people in this country suffer serious harm from this marginally effective drug.”

If you were injured as a result of taking Savella, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Parkers Farm of Coon Rapids, Minnesota is recalling products because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infection in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy individuals may suffer short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, but Listeria infection can also cause severe injuries like miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled products were distributed nationwide in the following retail stores: Hy-Vee, CUB, Rainbow, Byerlys Lunds, Target, Whole Foods, Jewel, Dominicks, Marsh, Price Chopper, Shop Rite, Nash Finch, Sam’s Club, Costco, Safeway.

The following recalled products were sold under the Parkers Farm or Parkers label: (a) 16 ounce peanut butter in square plastic containers (tub with snap on lid), varieties are creamy, crunchy, honey creamy and honey crunchy with sell by dates between 11/14/2010 and 12/31/2010; (b) 34 ounce peanut butter in round plastic containers (tub with snap on lid), varieties are creamy and crunchy with sell by dates between 8/11/2010 and 9/30/2010; (c) 7 ounce bagel spreads in white plastic containers (tub with snap on lid), varieties are garden veggie, wild berry, strawberry, apple cinnamon and honey walnut) with sell by dates between 5/13/2010 and 6/30/2010; (d) 14 ounce dips & spreads in square plastic containers (tub with snap on lid), varieties are jalapeño nacho, pimento and salsa con queso with sell by dates between 8/11/2010 and 9/30/2010; (e) 8 ounce, 12 ounce and 16 ounce cold pack cheese in round or square plastic containers (tub with snap on lid), varieties are sharp cheddar, bacon, onion, smoked cheddar, swiss almond, horseradish, garlic, port wine, and swiss & cheddar with sell by dates between 11/14/2010 and 12/31/2010; and (f) 16 ounce salsa in square plastic containers (tub with snap on lid), varieties are hot, mild, garlic, black bean and fire roasted with sell by dates between 3/14/2010 and 4/30/2010.

Other labels affected by this recall: (a) 16 ounce Happy Farms Cold Pack Cheese in round plastic containers (tub with snap on lid), varieties are sharp cheddar, port wine and swiss almond with sell by dates between 11/24/2010 and 12/10/2010; (b) 8 ounce Kroger Cold Pack Cheese in round plastic containers (tub with snap on lid), varieties are sharp cheddar, port wine and swiss almond with sell by dates between 11/18/2010 thru 12/15/2010; (c) 8 ounce Central Markets Cold Pack Cheese in round plastic containers (tub with snap on lid), varieties are sharp cheddar, port win and swiss almond, horseradish with sell by dates of 12/9/2010; (d) 14 oz. Central Markets Salsa Con Queso in round plastic containers (tub with snap on lid) with sell by dates of 8/16/2010; (e) 16 oz. Central Markets Salsa in round plastic containers (tub with snap on lid), varieties are sharp cheddar, port wine, swiss almond, horseradish with sell by dates of 3/17/2010 thru 3/24/2010; and (f) 8 oz. Dutch Farms Cold Pack Cheese in round plastic containers (tub with snap on lid), varieties are sharp cheddar, port wine, swiss almond, horseradish, and swiss & cheddar with sell by dates of 11/16/2010 thru 11/18/2010.

If you purchased any of the above Parkers Farm products and have suffered injuries, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Would it surprise you that purchasing “new” tires for your car or truck from major retailers, like Sears and Wal-Mart, may place you and your family in danger?  It shouldn’t, because even if a tire looks new and has good tread depth it may in fact have been manufactured many years prior to your purchase.  And tires that are more than 6 years old, even if never driven one mile, are much more susceptible to suddenly coming apart on the road.  There are thousands of consumer complaints online, and hundreds of lawsuits filed across the country, regarding “new” tires which were, in fact, manufactured many years ago resulting in the tires literally falling apart and causing catastrophic damage both to the vehicle and its passengers.

A tire’s biggest foes are heat and oxygen.  Over time, heat and oxygen break down a tire’s internal adhesive bond between the various layers of the tire’s internal laminate structure.  This phenomenon is known as thermo-oxidative degradation.  Thus, tires older than 6 years have been exposed to prolonged heat and oxygen, causing the tire to become a safety risk.  Indeed, the safety research firm, Safety Research & Strategies, Inc. ("SRS"), has linked 50 serious accidents and 37 fatalities to older tires.  Sean Kane, who runs SRS, asserts that, "The factor that linked them all together is the tires were all six years old or older and, in most cases, were unused or barely used, and had more than ample tread depth on them, and no visible appearance of any problem."  From the outside, tires may look perfectly fine, but Kane says as tires age, they start to break down on the inside, and that can cause them to suddenly come apart on the road.  "The tread will peel off like a banana, and that's what can cause a crash," he observes.  Kane wants tire companies to stamp an expiration date on their tires so consumers know to get rid of them after six years.

In any event, there is a way to determine the age of many tires.  A code printed on the side of all tires, called the DOT number, has three or four numbers.  If those numbers are, for example, 0, 3 and 6, it would mean the tire was made in the third week of either 1986 or 1996.  For tires made in 2000 and beyond, consumers should look at the last four numbers.  If they are 0, 3, 0, 1 it would mean the tire was made in the third week of 2001.

If you, one of your family members, or friends have been injured by a tread separation on a tire, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Johnson & Johnson's subsidiary McNeil Consumer Healthcare (“McNeil”) recalled six million bottles of Tylenol Arthritis Pain Caplet 100 count bottles with the distinctive red EZ-Open Cap in early December, which follows a November recall of five lots of the drug.  But the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") waited an additional ten days -- until December 28^th -- before it issued its more widely seen and publicly accessible medical alert for the contaminated pills.  Thus, many consumers may not have been aware that they had purchased and ingested contaminated Tylenol caplets.

The all-out recall encompasses arthritis pain reliever produced over the past three years, stemming from contamination likely caused by the breakdown of a chemical treatment used on wooden pallets.  The chemical contaminant 2,4,6-tribromoanisole is believed to have seeped into empty medication bottles.  The contamination resulted in a musty odor and consumers who have taken the contaminated pills have allegedly suffered from cases of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.  According to the FDA, consumers who purchased Tylenol Arthritis Pain Caplets from the lots included in this recall should stop using the product.

If you purchased Tylenol Arthritis Pain Caplets and have suffered nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and/or any other injuries, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (10)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

46 Indiana women are planning to sue the pharmaceutical company Wyeth (“Wyeth”) alleging that it sold its Prempro menopause medication without first warning the public that the medication can cause breast cancer.  The Indiana women who plan to sue the drugmaker said they have a document that shows Wyeth officials were aware of the risks of Prempro and chose not to disclose it.   They also claim Wyeth oversold the benefits of the drug, promoting it as helping bones and the heart as well as menopause symptoms.

In 2003, Wyeth disclosed that Prempro could cause breast cancer, but the admission came too late for many women who had been taking the drug between 1999 and 2003.  Indeed, some women who were prescribed Prempro have allegedly developed breast cancer as a result.  While Prempro is still on the market, it is the focus of lawsuits nationwide resulting in jury verdicts totaling more than $103 million.  In fact, Pfizer -- the pharmaceutical company that now owns Wyeth -- has lost six of nine jury verdicts over its menopause drugs since the cases began going to trial in 2006.  Jurors have ruled against the company in the last four verdicts in a row.

If you or someone you know were prescribed Prempro and have developed breast cancer, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A lawsuit has been filed against pharmaceutical company Salix Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Salix”) alleging that its OsmoPrep medication, used to cleanse the intestines in preparation for a colonoscopy, causes kidney damage.  The lawsuit filed on behalf of four individuals alleges that the plaintiffs sustained a variety of serious kidney injuries, including acute phosphate nephropathy, and that some of the injuries resulted in the need for dialysis.

In December, 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) placed a “black box” warning – the most severe warning possible – on OsmoPrep and on another Salix bowel cleanser, Visicol.  The FDA stated that OsmoPrep and Visicol carry the risk of kidney damage and directed Salix to develop a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS), distribute a Medication Guide to alert patients to the risk of acute kidney injury associated with the use of these products, and to conduct a post-marketing clinical trial to further assess the risk of acute kidney injury.  The lawsuit alleges, however, that Salix was aware of the two drugs’ dangers before the FDA ordered the “black box” warning.

If you or someone you know were given OsmoPrep and/or Visicol and have suffered kidney damage, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At least 900 lawsuits have been filed against pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. (“Merck”) alleging that its Fosamax medication used to treat osteoporosis causes jaw damage.  Fosamax belongs to the bisphosphonate family of osteoporosis drugs that also include the branded drugs Actonel and Boniva.  Merck claims that Fosamax prevents bone fractures, particularly in post-menopausal women, by helping to increase bone density.

Consumers, however, allege that the drug can cause jaw damage after less than three years of use.  Indeed, plaintiffs in the hundreds of lawsuits filed against Merck allege that Fosamax users have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw, or “dead jaw,” a disease resulting from the temporary or permanent loss of blood supply to the bones.   Without blood, the bone tissue dies, and ultimately the jaw bone may collapse.  Fosamax users allegedly run the risk of developing a serious case of osteonecrosis of the jaw and suffering through the extreme pain associated with the death of jawbone tissue.

In a court decision released last week, United States District Court Judge John Keenan refused to dismiss 24 cases alleging that Fosamax caused jaw damage.  The court ruled that the plaintiffs could introduce expert medical testimony to show that Fosamax can cause jaw damage, and that the evidence submitted by plaintiffs is sufficiently reliable to allow a jury to establish such a connection.   As such, these cases were allowed to proceed and the plaintiffs now have an opportunity to convince a jury that Fosamax allegedly causes jaw damage.

If you have been prescribed Fosamax and have experienced osteonecrosis of the jaw (“dead jaw”), please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

U.S. health regulators are considering tougher standards for home glucose monitors.  Home glucose monitors are used by diabetics, as well as people with hypoglycemia to keep tabs on the level of glucose in the blood.  According to a report in The New York Times, the use of home glucose meters is on the rise, even in hospitals.  Current international standards for the devices allow them to be inaccurate by as much as 20 percent, the Times said.  This can lead to serious health problems, including seizure and coma.

A government study comparing tests from five different popular home glucose monitors found results varied by as much as 32 percent. What’s more, the accuracy of the devices can be affected if people are taking drugs like Tylenol, the Times said.

In a May letter to the FDA, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists wrote that home glucose monitor technology is not up to par.  One concern is that hospitals are switching to home meters in an effort to cut cost, and a former president of the group told The New York Times that no one knows how many hospital deaths may be related to the accuracy of home glucose meters, but said such deaths probably are not rare.

“Because of the highly variable quality of the meters and the glucose testing strips in widespread use, the safety of our patients who depend upon those meters is threatened,” the Associations’ letter said.  In response, the FDA acknowledged that it receives reports of several deaths and thousands of device-related failures associated with home glucose monitors every year.  The agency said it had contacted the International Standards Organization, which sets the parameters for home glucose monitors, asking that the accuracy standards for the devices be revised.

If you suffered a serious injury because of a defective home glucose monitor, or know someone who has died as a result of a defective glucose monitor, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

You may have received an email recently, or heard stories from friends, that the venerable Pyrex brand cookware is susceptible to “exploding” and/or shattering when used in the oven or microwave.  Pyrex, of course, has always prided itself on the fact that its dishes can be used safely in baking food in the oven or microwave, used to freeze foods and is dishwasher safe.  So should consumers be concerned that Pyrex dishes are not as safe as they once were, or as safe as the company that now manufactures Pyrex dishes claims?

For example, rumors are circulating over the Internet that Pyrex dishes, originally manufactured and sold by Corning, were indestructible because they were made of borosilicate glass.  Purportedly, once Corning sold the Pyrex brand to World Kitchen (a Chinese based company), the dishes were no longer made in the U.S. and were no longer manufactured by using borosilicate glass.  Instead, World Kitchen was manufacturing Pyrex dishes in China by using soda lime glass which is allegedly not as indestructible as borosilicate glass and a lot cheaper.  Today, Wal-Mart is the largest distributor of Pyrex products, and the Pyrex dishes consumers grew to love and trust is not the product they think it is.  That is, it is not as safe or indestructible as the Pyrex dishes originally manufactured by Corning.

The truth, however, is a bit more complicated than the narrative described above.  First, all brands of glass bakeware may be susceptible to breakage under certain conditions, particularly when subjected to extreme changes in temperature.  Glass bakeware is not, in every case, “indestructible.”  However, although glass bakeware is not “indestructible,” there are hundreds of consumer complaints on the Internet of sudden breakage involving Pyrex branded glass bakeware.  Moreover, as of 2008, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) had received 66 complaints about Pyrex incidents over the last ten years.  Second, the claim that when the Pyrex brand was sold by Corning to World Kitchen, World Kitchen immediately changed the material used to make the dishes from borosilicate glass to lime-glass is not completely true.  In fact, Corning itself began manufacturing Pyrex dishes out of soda-lime glass -- instead of borosilicate glass -- back in the 1940’s.  Finally, the rumors quoted above claim that World Kitchen is a Chinese based company that manufactures its Pyrex branded bakeware in China.  Not true.  World Kitchen is a subsidiary of WKI Holding Co., which is based in Rosemont, IL and manufactures its products in the U.S.

Nonetheless, some critics have maintained that Pyrex dishes are involved in a number of dangerous shattering incidents, allegedly caused by negligent manufacturing of Pyrex dishes.  For example, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin has called for an investigation of Pyrex, some critics maintain that the Pyrex dishes sold today are inadequately tempered and other critics maintain that World Kitchen’s product instructions are allegedly insufficient, misleading and/or deceptive.  And, as noted above, there are hundreds of consumer complaints that can be found online describing Pyrex dishes shattering after normal use, sometimes ending with someone being severely injured.

If you have purchased Pyrex brand glass bakeware, and have been injured as a result of the bakeware shattering, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (12)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A couple of months ago, we published a blog post on the dangers of Yaz and Yasmin birth control.  Since then, the results of clinical studies regarding this new class of birth control pills have been published in peer reviewed medical journals, and their conclusions are not encouraging for the millions of women who are currently taking Yaz or Yasmin.

For example, two studies published in August in the British Medical Journal found a higher risk for blood clots in women taking the newer progestins like the drospirenone found in Yaz and Yasmin.  Birth control pills work by altering a woman’s hormone levels, and researchers have long known that taking a combination hormone birth control pill which contains estrogen and a progestin hormone can increase the risk of stroke and blood clots in the legs and lungs.  Yaz, which contains drospirenone and a lower dose of estrogen, was approved by the FDA in 2006 and has been aggressively marketed by Bayer since then.  But because drospirenone can increase potassium levels in the body, it may put women who have liver or kidney problems at risk for serious heart problems, including possible liver or kidney failure.

The combination of estrogen and drospirenone found in Yaz also affects a woman’s hormonal level in a way that previous classes of birth control pills did not, and may also cause bouts of severe anxiety, depression and other mental health issues.  Indeed, Dr. Frits Rosendaal, the author of one of the studies published in the British Medical Journal, said the adverse reports regarding Yaz and Yasmin were worth acting on – by switching to the older class of birth control pills containing levonorgestrel.  “Even if the risk of thrombosis is low, why not choose the lowest risk, just in case?” he said.

If you were injured as a result of taking Yaz or Yasmin, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has issued warning letters to 8 companies who are illegally marketing over-the-counter ("OTC") products that contain topical ibuprofen.  The FDA warning letter states:  “Orally administered ibuprofen has been approved as a safe and effective treatment for pain and inflammation. There are no approved applications for topical ibuprofen products. Although the FDA has proposed to add orally administered ibuprofen to the applicable OTC monograph, it has never proposed that topical ibuprofen be added to any OTC monograph.”

Topical ibuprofen is often promoted as a “safer” alternative that can be used in place of oral ibuprofen because of certain side effects, such as stomach ulcers and cardiovascular effects that are associated with prolonged use of oral ibuprofen.  However, FDA officials warn that "these safety claims for topical ibuprofen have not been reviewed by the FDA, nor has the agency evaluated what side effects might be associated with such products."

"These companies have an obligation to the public to demonstrate to the FDA that their products are safe and effective, and they have failed to do so," said Deborah M. Autor, director of the Office of Compliance at the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.  Companies that received warning letters may not continue to market their products without FDA approval, and have been identified by the FDA as:

Progressive Emu, Inc. (Emuprofen)

BioCentric Laboratories, Inc. (BioEntopic 15% Ibuprofen Créme)

Core Products International, Inc. (Ibunex topical ibuprofen)

Geromatrix Health Products (LoPain AF 15% Ibuprofen Créme)

MEKT LLC (IB-Relief)

Ridge Medical Products (Profen HP)

Meditrend, Inc. d/b/a Progena Professional Formulations (IbuPRO-10 Plus)

Wonder Laboratories (IBU-Relief 12)

If you have purchased topical ibuprofen, or have been injured as a result of using topical ibuprofen, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Health and consumer advocates are calling for the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") to ban Yasmin, Yaz and Ocella -- brand names under which the birth control drug combination drospirenone and ethinyl estradiol are sold -- because of the pill’s potential to cause blood clots, heart attack and stroke.  Yasmin, for example, was introduced in the U.S. in 2001 and is now also available as a generic.  Revenues from Yasmin sales are reported to have reached $500 million in 2007, and its popularity can be attributed to the fact that some unpleasant side effects of other birth control pills, such as acne and unwanted hair, are diminished.  But some Yasmin users have allegedly reported serious health impacts, including inability to conceive after stopping use as well as heart and other health problems.  Indeed, Public Citizen petitioned the FDA in 2007 to ban the Yaz birth control pill for similar reasons.

If you have taken Yasmin, Yaz and/or Ocella and experienced adverse health impacts, contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (“ISMP”) recently reported that consumers were swallowing Benadryl Itch Stopping Gel, an over-the-counter (“OTC”) product that must be used topically.  Orally ingesting the product can cause serious adverse reactions, including death, burning of the mouth and throat, nausea and vomiting, irritability, confusion, seizures, coma and respiratory failure.

The FDA and ISMP have suggested that the way Benadryl has packaged this particular product is the reason consumers are ingesting the product rather than applying it topically to the skin.  Instead of being packaged in a tube – like many other OTC topical products – Benadryl Itch Stopping Gel is sold in a 4 ounce bottle.  Thus, the FDA points out, consumers believe they are purchasing an oral liquid which should be ingested instead of applied topically.  Moreover, adding to consumer confusion, Benadryl Itch Stopping Gel has the same shape and size as other oral liquid products.  And although the words “external use” appear on the back of the bottle, the front of the bottle states “Topical Analgesic” in small letters, which “consumers could miss or not understand."  The ISMP claims that, "The packaging and labeling of Benadryl Gel is one of the key contributing factors associated with these errors."

If you or someone you know has ingested Benadryl Itch Stopping Gel and has been injured as a result, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you live in a home that was built or remodeled in the last few years and smells like rotten eggs, you may have a Chinese Drywall problem.

Since around 2004, more than 500 million pounds of drywall has been imported from China, and much of it is defective.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the Chinese Drywall that is now causing problems in many American homes contains high levels of sulfur dioxide and other sulfides, and emits sulfur dioxide that produces the odor of rotten eggs.  The sulfur dioxide also causes metals (such as air conditioning coils and computer cables) to corrode.  Exposure to sulfur dioxide fumes can also be associated with illnesses, such as respiratory and sinus problems.

Much of the Chinese Drywall that was imported into the United States was placed into homes in the Southeast after several years of devastating hurricanes required intense rebuilding.  Most of the complaints about the Chinese Drywall come from states such as Louisiana, Florida or Mississippi, where the warm, humid environment encourages the emission of the sulfur dioxide fumes.  However, Chinese Drywall was likely used in all parts of the country, but the effects may be less noticeable where the climate is cooler and dryer.

If you have Chinese Drywall in your home, you may not only experience exposure to unhealthy sulfur dioxide fumes, but you also may be unable to sell your home.  Most States require that a home seller disclose adverse conditions that affect a home for sale, and if you know that your home is contaminated with sulfur dioxide fumes as a result of defective drywall, you probably have to disclose that to a buyer.  This will impact the value of your home.

In addition, if the drywall in your home needs to be replaced because it emits sulfur dioxide, your homeowners’ insurance may not cover the replacement costs.  Many insurance companies will consider a situation like this to be pollution or contamination that most insurance policies do not cover.

If you have suffered property damage and/or personal injuries as a result of Chinese Drywall installed in your home or business, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 1, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued an alert that requires manufacturers of several popular prescription smoking cessation drugs to add additional warnings to their products highlighting the risk of serious neuropsychiatric symptoms in persons using the drugs.  The FDA also issued a Public Health Advisory to the public that these drugs have been associated with reports of changes in behavior such as hostility, agitation, depression and suicidal thoughts and actions, and that people who have had any of these serious symptoms should stop taking the medication and call their health care professional right away.

The drugs varenicline (which is marketed under the name Chantix) and bupropion (which is marketed under the name Zyban and is also marketed generically) are prescription drugs that have been prescribed to millions of people who wish to stop smoking.  According to the FDA, some people who have taken these drugs have experienced serious and dangerous psychiatric side-effects, which include agitation, depression, hallucinations, mania, nightmares and psychosis.  The most serious side-effect has been people having suicidal thoughts, and attempting to or actually committing suicide.   Some people have reported having automobile and other accidents while taking the drugs, and other people have reported violent episodes associated with the drugs.

The reports of the psychiatric side-effects have mostly been in the “postmarket” period, meaning that the FDA has learned about the side-effects after the drugs were approved for use in the United States.  The “postmarket” experiences with Chantix and Zyban led the FDA to issue new requirements that these drugs have “Boxed Warnings” to alert consumers about the serious psychiatric side-effects that have been documented, and also led the FDA to warn the public about the side-effects.

Stopping smoking is a positive thing, but consumers should be cautious about the medications that they use to help quit smoking. If you or someone you know has experienced serious psychiatric side-effects that you believe are associated with Chantix or Zyban, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In past posts, this blog warned consumers of potentially dangerous ingredients that may be harmful to you or your child’s health.  Recent events have shown the warnings to be justified.

The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has warned consumers to stop using zinc-based intranasal Zicam cold products and discard them or return them to stores because they have been associated with anosmia -- long lasting or permanent loss of smell.  The loss of smell can be "life-threatening," said Deborah M. Autor, director of the office of compliance for the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, because people with impaired smell cannot detect leaking gas or smoke and cannot tell if food has spoiled before they eat it.  Indeed, the FDA has received more than 130 reports of anosmia associated with use of Zicam products from doctors and consumers.  The loss of sense of smell may be long-lasting or even permanent in some people.

The affected Zicam branded products, manufactured by Matrixx Initiatives, are Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel, Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Swabs and Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs, Kids Size (a discontinued product that consumers may still have in their homes).

Moreover, Zicam products are marketed as cold remedies used purportedly to reduce the duration and severity of cold symptoms.  According to the FDA, however, these products have not seen to be effective in the reduction of the duration and severity of cold symptoms.  As such, consumers may have been deceived into purchasing a useless product.

If you have purchased a Zicam product, or have been injured as a result of using a Zicam product, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 12, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a consumer alert advising consumers to stop using certain cosmetic “Face Paint” items labeled as distributed by Oriental Trading Co., due to adverse event reports of skin reactions in children. Adverse reactions included rashes, itchiness, burning sensation, and swelling where the face paints were applied.  Significant microbial contamination was indicated in most of the products in testing by an FDA laboratory. Blue, purple, red, orange, black and green “Face Paints” manufactured by Shanghai Color Art Stationery Company Limited, Shanghai, China, are being voluntarily recalled by Fun Express Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oriental Trading Co.  

If you suffered injuries related to cosmetic items, including "Face Paint," please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 7, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued an advisory notifying healthcare professionals that it will require two prescription topical testosterone gel products, AndroGel 1% and Testim 1%, to include a boxed warning on the products’ labels after receiving reports of adverse effects in children who were inadvertently exposed to testosterone through contact with another person being treated with these products. The FDA has received numerous reports of secondary exposure to testosterone in children ranging in age from nine months to five years. Adverse events reported in children inappropriate enlargement of the genitalia, premature development of pubic hair, advanced bone age, increased libido and aggressive behavior. The gels are approved for use in men who either no longer produce testosterone or produce it in very low amounts. Both products are applied once daily, to the shoulders or upper arms.

If you or your child has been harmed by a topical testosterone gel product, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When Congress mandated last year that all consumers (and businesses) begin replacing their traditional light bulbs with new energy saving bulbs, primarily manufactured by Feit Electric and General Electric, most jumped at the chance. After all -- albeit for more money -- you could purchase bulbs that lasted purportedly ten times longer than traditional bulbs and save as much as $5.40 a bulb each year in electricity. What consumers weren’t told was that most of these new energy saving bulbs do not work and are defective.

For example, as the New York Times reported, one of sixteen bulbs purchased at Costco did not work at all and three others died within hours. And these are bulbs which are supposed to last a minimum of 10,000 hours. Consumers are posting complaints on the internet by the thousands, all discussing how newly purchased bulbs don’t work out of the box, die within hours (or a day or two), or die within a month. And the bulbs aren’t cheap; they cost, on average, twice as much as a traditional bulb. With 330 million bulbs sold in the past year, consumers are out tens of millions of dollars.

Experts interviewed by the Times assert that the quality of the bulbs is poor and that the manufacturers’ poor packaging instructions are compounding the problem. Moreover, disposal of the defective bulbs is fast becoming a problem for consumers: The new bulbs contain high levels of mercury, a toxic metal harmful to adults and children alike, and can not be easily handled or disposed of.

Even Alan Feit, vice-president of Feit Electric, acknowledged quality control problems with his bulbs. Indeed, Victor Roberts -- an independent expert who conducted failure analysis testing compact fluorescent bulbs -- suspects that the manufacturers are using substandard components, many of them from China. “Somebody decides to save a little money somewhere,” he said, “and suddenly we have hundreds of thousands of failures.”  Or as Michael Siminovitch, director of a lighting center at the University of California, Davis has put it: “In pursuit of the holy grail, we stepped on the consumer.”

If you have purchased defective energy saving compact fluorescent bulbs manufactured by Feit Electric and/or General Electric, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Meisleman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz, P.C. is investigating a potential class action complaint on behalf of consumers and all others similarly situated (the “Class”) alleging that Apple’s iMac computers, specifically iMacs with 20” and 24” displays, have a widespread and commonplace characteristic screen defect and design flaw. The problem manifests as a change of colors from the top to the bottom of the iMac screen. A solid colored background appears normal at the top of the screen and gradually changes color as your eye approaches the bottom of the screen. At the bottom of the display, the color appears faded or washed out. Medium blue becomes light blue and light colors become white. Apple has refused to acknowledge the problem, and refuses to fix the defect if the computer is out of warranty, which expires one year after purchase.  Unfortunately, consumers who choose to repair the defect can incur costs of more than $600 in parts and labor. Moreover, the defect oftentimes manifests itself months or even years after purchase of a new iMac with a 20” or 24” display.

Consumers have posted complaints on various Apple related internet sites, stating that they have had to repair the defective displays at their own expense, that Apple has refused to reimburse them for the expense incurred, and that Apple has refused to exchange defective iMac displays for iMacs with properly functioning displays.

If you have an iMac computer with a defective 20” or 24” display which Apple has refused to warrant or fix free of charge, please contact us immediately to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In October, 2008, Meisleman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C. filed a class action complaint in federal court in California on behalf of Giorgio Gomelsky and all others similarly situated (the “Class”) alleging that Apple’s PowerBook G4 computers have a widespread and commonplace characteristic defect and design flaw which renders one or more of the PowerBook G4's memory slots inoperative. The defect manifests itself when a PowerBook owner adds additional memory (RAM) to the first or second (upper or lower) memory slot available in the PowerBook G4. Typically, when the additional memory is added, the Powerbook does not recognize the memory, resulting in slower processing speeds, decreased computer function and other computing problems. Unfortunately for consumers, because both memory slots are hardwired to the PowerBook’s motherboard, consumers who choose to repair the defect can incur costs of more than $500 in parts and labor. Moreover, the defect oftentimes manifests itself months or even years after purchase of a new PowerBook and/or installation of memory (RAM) in a memory slot.

In response to thousands of complaints from its PowerBook customers, Apple has admitted that its PowerBooks, specifically certain PowerBook G4 models, have defective memory slots. Aside from a limited number of PowerBooks manufactured between January, 2005 and April, 2005, however, Apple has refused to repair the defect which has manifested itself in PowerBooks manufactured before and after this time period. As a result of Apple’s actions, thousands of its customers have purchased PowerBook computers with defective memory slots. Apple has refused to repair the defect free of charge, and has refused its customers’ requests for refunds or exchanges of their defective PowerBooks.   As such, thousands of Apple PowerBook owners have been compelled to either repair the defective memory slot at their own expense or lose permanently the ability to add additional memory to their computers.

Consumers have posted complaints on various Apple related internet sites, stating that they have had to repair the defective memory slot at their own expense, that Apple has refused to reimburse them for the expense incurred, and that Apple has refused to exchange defective PowerBooks for PowerBooks with properly functioning memory slots. Moreover, an online petition has been initiated by Apple customers who have purchased PowerBooks with defective memory slots, and which Apple has refused to repair. As of November, 2008, almost 5,000 PowerBook owners have signed the petition, demanding that Apple repair the defective memory slots or reimburse the petitioners for expenses incurred in repairing the memory slots.

This class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of a nationwide class of all persons who have purchased Apple PowerBook G4 computers manufactured with defective memory slots. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, reimbursement of expenses incurred by consumers to repair defective memory slots or the repair of defective memory slots by Apple free of charge.

If you have a PowerBook G4 computer with one or more defective memory slots which Apple has refused to warrant or fix free of charge, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link