Unfortunately, rollovers tend to occur in SUVs and similar vehicles when a driver makes a quick steering movement, usually to avoid something on the road, or make some other emergency type of maneuver. Vehicles such as SUVs show a tendency to tip over because of their high center of gravity. The high fatality and injury rates are due, in part, to the high percentage of rollover crashes in which passengers are ejected from their vehicles. In addition, roof pillars are not typically strong enough to prevent collapse, resulting in more significant injuries than would sometimes be otherwise present including brain damage, spinal cords injuries and death, even for properly belted-in passengers.

To protect your rights following injury or death resulting from a rollover accident you should consult an experienced personal injury law firm. The best Pennsylvania car accident lawyers in the state can provide you with the legal resources and expertise you will need to pursue a case that has devastated your family.

This informational piece was prepared by the Philadelphia auto accident attorneys at the law firm of Silverman & Fodera. We completely understand and respect the particularly painful circumstances that can compel you to pursue legal relief in such a difficult situation. If we can provide you with any more information on this topic, please call us at (800) 220-LAW1, or use the “Do I Have A Case?” link found here on this web site. As the best Philadelphia car accident lawyers in the city, we understand exactly the legal remedies you and your family will need to begin the long painful process and rebuild your lives.

The Newest Toxic Exposure

This article first appeared in the Legal Intelligencer.

Latex has long been the material of choice for protective gloves in health care settings, providing the wearer with flexibility, a barrier against exposure to infectious agents, and durability.

Unfortunately, for a substantial number of health care workers and other regular wearers of latex gloves, latex glove wearing also leads to a permanent, allergic sensitivity to latex which can be life threatening. So life threatening, in fact, that once the allergic sensitivity to latex has fully developed its most intense form through repeated exposure to latex, the victim may no longer be able to be present in a room with a single birthday balloon — let alone in a latex-rich hospital setting — without risking his or her very life. As a result, many productive careers — primarily of doctors, dentists, and nurses — have been brought to a grinding halt due to allergic sensitivity to latex.

Plaintiffs believe that manufacturers of latex gloves have known for quite some time about the dangers of allergic sensitivity to latex glove wearers but, despite this knowledge, failed to take appropriate action. For example, plaintiffs believe that manufacturers have known about — but failed to take — certain precautions to minimize the amount of protein allergens in latex, which would prevent the devastating consequences of latex allergy to glove wearers. Plaintiffs also believe that manufacturers have had many opportunities to fully warn the potential wearers of latex gloves about those consequences, but failed to do so for self-interested reasons.

In this article, we will review the medical process that leads an unsuspecting wearer of latex gloves to develop the toxic syndrome and we will describe some of the highlights of and issues surrounding the growing legal response against manufacturers and sellers of latex gloves.

Who Is At Risk?

Latex protein toxic syndrome is an intense, usually-progressive allergy to one or more of the proteins which naturally occur in natural rubber latex. Like many serious allergies, the syndrome results from a Type 1 immunoglobulin E (IgE) reaction to the protein allergens in the latex. Type 1 reactions involving immediate hypersensitivity to latex were first reported in Germany in 1927. In 1983, researchers specifically attributed to latex glove use allergic sensitivity in a cohort of health care workers. Other medical and scientific literature has been around for many years. Between 1989 and 1993 the FDA received hundreds of reports of injury and 15 reports of death associated with latex allergy.

The incidence of IgE-mediated latex allergy in health care providers has been reported as being as high as 10%. With over 5.5 million health workers in the United States, an estimated 150,000 to 1 million health care workers may currently be sensitized to latex and thus at risk for serious adverse reactions. Health care workers at highest risk for the most serious reactions of latex allergy are those in latex-rich environments, such as operating rooms. Other highly latex protein-exposed occupations include paramedics, firemen, and police. People who have had multiple surgeries or other medical procedures are at risk of becoming latex sensitive because they have had repeated and directly internal exposures to latex protein. Others at high risk include children with conditions requiring frequent operations (especially spina bifida), workers in the rubber industry, and persons with history of other IgE-dependent allergies.

How The Syndrome Develops

The main routes of exposure (and therefore of allergic sensitization) to the proteins in latex are (1) direct skin contact with the protein allergens in latex during glove wearing and (2) inhalation into the respiratory tract of airborne protein allergens from latex gloves. Health care workers’ exposure to the protein allergens in latex gloves is aided by four basic facts: (1) the protein allergens in latex are water-soluble; (2) protein-absorbing glove powder intended to assist the wearer in donning and removing the gloves — and the protein allergens themselves — become aerosolized when the latex gloves are donned and removed, and float along the air currents for some time before settling; (3) some health care workers (especially nurses) tend to don and remove 30-40 pairs of latex gloves each day, creating a great deal of aerosolized latex protein; and (4) many health care workers spend the greater part of their long shifts continually wearing latex gloves.

During frequent and regular use, the protein allergens in latex gloves enter the body through the skin, respiratory tract, and mucosae. In response, the human immunological system creates latex-specific IgE antibodies. Repeated exposure to the latex allergen causes and progressively amplifies the production of antibodies, resulting in the body’s growing sensitivity to the latex protein allergens. After creation, the antibodies attach to types of cells which produce histamine and, with continued latex exposure, those cells begin to release their histamine. As exposure continues and allergic sensitivity increases, the body creates more and more histamine, which accounts for the increasing range of severity in allergic reactions, from the sniffles to death. Prevention of this progression of events can be achieved only prior to acute sensitization, by removing the protein allergens from the latex during glove manufacture, avoiding the use of powder in latex gloves (only a partial and, many believe, unsatisfactory solution), or a health care facility’s ceasing the use of latex gloves altogether and turning to one of many alternative synthetic glove materials. Because latex proteins easily aerosolize and are thereby inhaled, a single sensitive user’s refraining from using latex gloves in an environment where others are using such gloves is fruitless in preventing continued exposure and increasing sensitivity.

The typical sufferer of latex protein toxic syndrome has worked in the medical field for a period of years. In the beginning, the symptoms mimic benign allergies such as hayfever (runny nose, watery eyes), food allergies (hives), or the well-known irritation caused by glove wearing due to hand dryness or the chemicals used in glove processing (contact dermatitis), thus confounding accurate diagnosis of the syndrome and delaying necessary early intervention. These symptoms may progress to asthma, concomitant with growing sensitivity, exposure to smaller and smaller amounts of latex protein triggering increasingly severe reactions. Some highly latex-sensitized individuals then progress, suddenly and without warning, to a terrifying and life-threatening anaphylactic shock reaction following exposure to even minimal amounts latex protein, with associated unconsciousness and airway obstruction and, without emergency treatment, cyanosis and resulting death. It is typically only at this point in the syndrome’s severity that a treating doctor’s differential diagnostic curiosity is sufficiently piqued and the necessary latex-specific allergy test administered. By this time, however, it is too late: intense sensitivity to even minute amounts of latex protein has developed and is permanent. The only effective steps that can be taken at this point are removing the latex protein from the victim’s environment or, more likely, removing the victim from his or her career. The victim’s allergic sensitivity has left him or her living under the constant threat of anaphylactic shock reactions, which prevents him or her from encountering any latex whatsoever. For example, one of our clients can’t go to her own doctor’s office any longer and must find a “latex-free” doctor. Another can’t take his little daughter to the local “Chuck E. Cheese”, because the latex in the children’s balloons will send him to the emergency room. Both wear “medic alert” bracelets and carry epinephrine with them wherever they go. Other clients battle frequent, debilitating asthma.

Responsibility

In the 1980s, with the growing HIV scare, latex gloves became the barrier of choice, although alternatives such as vinyl and technology for various synthetics existed. As demand for latex gloves increased in the middle 1980s, there arose an acute latex shortage. Plaintiffs believe that production of latex gloves increased furiously at this time as competing manufacturers sought to gain market share. Protein allergen reduction processes, designed to remove from latex the very proteins that cause allergic sensitivity, are time-consuming and cost-additive, and thus conflict with a latex glove manufacturer’s profit motive. Plaintiffs believe that these processes were scaled down or skipped altogether. Without adequate deproteinization, the risk of producing latex that will cause allergic sensitivity increases. Thus, reports of severe allergic reactions in the early 1990s caught the attention of the FDA.

In March of 1991, the FDA issued a Medical Alert concerning the hazards of latex protein allergy. This was followed two months later by an FDA letter to manufacturers of latex gloves, in which the FDA recommended steps to reduce the amount of latex protein in gloves. Later, the FDA recommended that the latex glove industry voluntarily label gloves with a warning concerning the possibility of allergic reactions. Documents obtained from an industry trade group, the Health Industry Manufacturers’ Association, suggest that upon considering the FDA’s recommendation, various glove manufacturers decided instead merely to state on the glove box that the gloves contained natural rubber latex, omitting any reference to allergy. Some latex glove manufacturers even went so far as to label their gloves misleadingly as “hypoallergenic”, when only the powder content (and not the protein allergen content) of the gloves had been reduced.

It is against this background that litigation concerning latex protein toxic syndrome was born. Primarily because of what plaintiffs see as the industry’s failure to warn latex glove wearers adequately or to take the necessary precautions to minimize the protein allergen content of latex gloves through proper processing, many productive people who had regularly worn latex gloves developed a permanent, debilitating and intense allergy, with life-altering consequences.

Litigation

In this, the second and final article concerning latex protein toxic syndrome litigation, we focus on the characteristics of lawsuits brought on behalf of victims of latex allergy. In our prior article, we reviewed the pertinent medical background of latex protein toxic syndrome.

Litigation In Various Forums

Lawsuits brought on behalf of victims of latex protein toxic syndrome are becoming increasingly numerous nationally. Because the suits generally join as defendants latex glove manufacturers and distributors with a national presence, most feature diversity of citizenship and are brought in or removed to federal courts, although there are many in state court, as well, primarily due to diversity-destroying local manufacturers and distributors of latex gloves.

Significantly for those suits brought in federal court, a petition under the procedures of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation was filed by, and granted to, a plaintiff in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking to have all federal cases coordinated in a single federal district for pre-trial proceedings. Defendant manufacturers such as Baxter and Johnson & Johnson vigorously opposed coordination, some believe because such treatment would lead to document depository creation and facilitate communication and cooperation among victims, who, up until now, have had to suffer the imposition of strict confidentiality orders with regard to the contents of discovery documents.

Currently there is no pending petition in Pennsylvania pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 213.1 for coordinated treatment of statewide litigation, although this is a possibility as well. In Philadelphia County, latex cases are a new addition to the several toxic tort litigation programs supervised in the Complex Litigation Center.

Causes Of Action And Statutes Of Limitation

Complaints in latex cases are fairly uniform. Latex cases are essentially products liability cases, featuring the familiar negligence-402A-implied warranty triad and averments that the latex gloves the victim used were defective in manufacture, design, or for want of adequate warnings, thereby causing Type I latex allergy, consequent injuries and a full range of economic and hedonic damages. Owing to misleading “hypoallergenic” claims and other claims and omissions of manufacturers of the gloves, misrepresentation and concealment claims are joined (featuring all state of mind gradations from strict liability through purposeful and pecuniary gain- driven fraud). Several complaints also join a count based on the consumer protection laws of the jurisdiction.

The product defects alleged vary somewhat, but center on the alleged failure of the manufacturers to subject the gloves to adequate measures to reduce the amount of protein allergen in the latex or to warn users of the possibility and consequences of developing latex allergy.

The choice of causes of action may become important from a statute of limitations standpoint. In Pennsylvania the limitations period for actions complaining of personal injury is, in view of one formulation of the discovery rule, two years from the date the victim should have known (1) that he or she was injured, (2) the operative cause of the injury, and (3) that the injury was due to the conduct of another. The cause of action for breach of implied warranty, however, has a four year limitations period, and that for violation of the Pennsylvania consumer protection statute is six years. These variations are important because plaintiffs can reasonably expect that defendants will devote enormous energy to attempts to portray a plaintiff’s limitations period as having commenced not when a diagnosis of latex allergy was made, but rather when the plaintiff experienced allergy-related symptoms in the workplace. Although discovery rule brawling has not yet taken place in a Pennsylvania latex case concerning the question of what quantum of knowledge a plaintiff must have to commence the running of the statute of limitations; and even though the recent asbestos-limited and defendant-favorable opinions of Cochran and Baumgart have been put into question by lower courts recently; and although various states have recently fixed the commencement of the running of the statute of limitations in latex cases as the point when a reliable diagnosis of latex allergy is made (recognizing the difficulty even competent allergists have in diagnosing latex allergy), plaintiffs are likely joining causes of action that fix the running of the limitations period at more than two years as a hedge against possible defense-oriented statute of limitations rulings.

In a related vein, experienced practitioners who invite latex allergy cases into their offices for evaluation and investigation are wary of the possibility that, if the potential client does not come through the door with a complete set of medical records, the applicable limitations period could conceivably run before the medical copy service gets around to xeroxing that two-year-old report by the client’s allergist diagnosing latex sensitivity. This is not an easily solved problem and requires thoughtful treatment.

Two Disease Rule Applicability?

As a progressive disease, latex protein toxic syndrome features a wide array of symptom manifestations of varying severity, from itchy eyes, through asthma, and finally anaphylaxis and death. Should a plaintiff with watery eyes and a diagnosis of latex allergy be forced to file a complaint (or should a defendant be forced to be exposed to a verdict) when it is not at all certain that the plaintiff will develop more serious symptoms? Should a plaintiff who chooses not to file an action complaining of a runny nose be precluded from later filing an action should an anaphylactic-type reaction emerge later on? In the asbestos context, with the Marinari case, these questions have been answered. They have yet to be answered in the latex context and probably will not arise for several years.

Product (And Defendant) Identification

With the sole DES exception and a decision by the Supreme Court in the lead paint poisoning context pending, it appears that for now Pennsylvania is a product identification state, and alternative liability theories (market share, enterprise, etc.) are not yet recognized. Whether latex glove cases may lend themselves to cognizable market share liability remains to be seen. Each plaintiff, therefore, must assume that the product identification rule of Eckenrod applies, and that contact with a specific manufacturer’s gloves on a regular and frequent basis will be required as an evidentiary sufficiency threshold. Thorough client interview and pre-complaint investigation of the plaintiff’s employer’s purchasing records will in most instances reveal all of the information necessary for purposes of drafting an accurate complaint and obtaining sufficient evidence for trial. (For noncooperative employers, a stern threat regarding the worker’s compensation lien may be necessary, although there is decisional law in Pennsylvania that suggests that such a threat may be empty, an employer’s noncooperation with a third-party suit possibly having no bearing on the plaintiff (and counsel’s) duty to protect the lien.) As with asbestos litigation, the plaintiff will likely be questioned closely in deposition as the defendants try to establish that their products have been misidentified (for example, the plaintiff testifies that the gloves she used came in boxes with a blue stripe, but the defendant’s boxes had orange polka dots), and the employer’s purchasing agents will be similarly questioned (for example, the employer testifies that it only purchased gloves that were powdered, but the defendant never made powdered gloves).

Once a reliable, closed set of glove brands is obtained, the question turns to the identity of the defendants. Here, the relationships of parent/subsidiary and predecessor/successor are important. Although there is a potential laundry list of nationally-recognized surgical and examination glove manufacturers (including Aladan, American Health Products, Ansell Perry, Baxter Healthcare, General Medical, Jason Marketing, Johnson & Johnson, Kendall Healthcare, Safeskin, Tillotson, and many others), it is of no use to a plaintiff (and great use to a defendant) to name parties that turn out to be wrong, since a verified pleading is a non-hearsay party admission and the plaintiff’s credibility can be impeached if the defendant can establish that the plaintiff just sued everybody his or her attorney could think of. But failing to include a responsible defendant before the statute of limitations runs — either because a parent was named instead of the actually-responsible subsidiary, or because it was not discovered until it was too late that a merger or acquisition occurred during the plaintiff’s exposure period and the predecessor or successor was not named — risks an empty chair onto which the remaining defendants can safely heap liability. In this regard, practitioners must bear in mind that large multi-national healthcare corporations may have multiple subsidiaries (Johnson & Johnson has over 100), and the parent may not have any involvement in (and, unless an alter ego situation exists, no vicarious responsibility for) the manufacture or distribution of the relevant latex gloves, which may merely involve one or more subsidiaries. Another fact is that many of the manufacturing facilities for latex gloves are located in the Pacific Rim area, so in identifying the potentially-responsible subsidiaries one should not overlook those based in Thailand, Malaysia, China, etc., even though headaches of foreign service of process attend naming such defendants. Also, there has been a moderate amount of merger and acquisition activity in the latex glove business recently (for example, Smith & Nephew’s “Perry” glove business was sold to Ansell in 1/95, and is now called Ansell Perry. No product lines were discontinued subsequent to the acquisition).

Another question involves naming various non-manufacturing defendants, such as the plaintiff’s employer (a hospital in many cases), the distributors or retail sellers of the gloves to the plaintiff’s employer, and group purchasing organizations which administer purchasing contracts between the plaintiff’s employer and various manufacturers. Regarding the employer, given the immunity granted by the Worker’s Compensation Act such a strategy will most likely be fruitless, unless your client happens to be an independent contractor or falls into another exception to the general rule of immunity for employers. Regarding distributors and other non-manufacturing sellers, there are various considerations. The first is that under ß402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and the implied warranty theories, all sellers in the chain of distribution are jointly and severally liable for damages caused by defective products. The second is that under the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, a non- manufacturing seller who selects a product for the purchaser can be held liable. A third consideration is that there exist in the latex glove industry some “private label” arrangements, whereby a seller puts its own label on gloves manufactured by another company (for instance, a hospital services company known as VHA, Inc. arranges to have its own label on gloves manufactured by Ansell and American Health Products). Under Restatement (Second) of Torts ß400, a seller who holds itself out as the manufacturer of the gloves can be liable as the “apparent manufacturer” of the gloves to the same extent as the actual manufacturer.

Defenses

The affirmative defenses in latex cases are those traditional defenses in all product liability cases, with some special twists. The statute of limitations defense is discussed above. Another twist is borne of the fact that most plaintiffs (and their employers who purchased the gloves) are health care providers whom defendants contend are “sophisticated users” or “sophisticated purchasers” of products for whom no warning is required. A third notable defense is termed the “idiosyncratic reaction” defense: the defendant is not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries because the risk of developing such injuries is particular to the plaintiff. This appears to be some form of an “unforeseeability” argument or a “risk/utility” defense. Other defenses include pre-emption (owing to the classification of latex gloves as medical devices), the viability of which is questionable after the recent Lohr case from the U.S. Supreme Court. It is also expected that defendants will claim that there were no feasible alternatives to latex as the material from which to construct medical gloves. Finally, we expect that defendants will argue that, given the prevalence of latex in the environment (hospitals, especially), latex-containing items other than gloves caused the development of latex sensitivity.

If you would like more information about latex allergy claims, or if you are interested in seeing if you have been dangerously exposed to latex protein, contact the Law Offices of Silverman & Fodera, at 1-800-220-5291 or Do I Have A Case?.

Resources Are Available

Please visit our Resource Page for a list of world-wide web links, internet, and non-internet resources discussing latex related injuries.

This informational piece was prepared by Silverman & Fodera. If you would like more information on this topic, call us at (800) 220-LAW1, or use the “Do I Have A Case?” link on this web site.

All About Propulsid

Propulsid (Cisapride) is a prescription drug manufactured by Janssen Pharmaceutica, and marketed by Johnson and Johnson. The principal ingredient in Propulsid is the chemical compound Cisapride. Propulsid was first approved as a new drug by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in July 1993. Propulsid is prescribed to treat nighttime heartburn caused by Gastro Intestinal Reflux Disease which happens when stomach acid backs up and causes heartburn. The heartburn can be relieved promptly by antacids, but the relief is shortlived.

From July 1993 when Propulsid first came to market, until February 1995, Janssen had no warning on its labeling with regard to the drug’s effect on cardiac rhythm. The labeling should have had such a warning because as far back as 1989 the World Health Organization was reporting that Cisapride was associated with disturbances in heart rhythm. Disturbance in heart rhythm means the electrical activity of the heart is not normal. Abnormal electrical heart problems can range from simply fainting to sudden death. In six cases where Cisapride was prescribed at doses below or equal to the recommended dose, occurences of heart rhythm disturbance continued for 15 days. And as soon as Cisapride treatment was withdrawn, the heart rhythm in each case returned to normal. Other medical journals between 1988 and 1991 published articles associating Cisapride treatment with abnormal heart rates up to 130 beats per minute, a rate which strains the heart and which over time may cause an early death. In one case a 64 year old male with a normal heart and no history of cardiac rhythm irregularities or seizure disorder, after receiving cisapride, fainted. The doctors related this fainting episode to an irregular heart beat seen on an abnormal ECG. In 1993 Janssen began to receive adverse reaction reports related to the use of Propulsid. These are reports from doctors documenting a bad reaction to a product, here Propulsid. Janssen responded by sending a letter to all physicians in the United States warning them not to prescribe Cisapride to patients taking anti-fungal drugs or anti-biotic drugs, such as eyrthomycin and to use caution when prescribing Cisapride to patients with renal insufficiency, or a history of arrhythmia and cardiac disease. Combining an anti-biotic with Cisapride increases the risk of developing a heart rhythm abnormality or even sudden cardiac death.

By July 1996, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that the FDA had received reports of persons receiving cisapride, 4 of whom had died and 16 who responded to resuscitation after their heart stopped . It was not until June 1998 that Janssen issued a letter to all physicians warning that even in the absence of taking other drugs, cardiac arrest and sudden death have been reported in patients taking Propulsid. By December 1999 there were 341 reported cases of serious cardiac rhythm disturbances and the deaths associated with use of Cisapride had risen to 80. The truth is this prescription drug for heartburn has the potential side effect of causing serious heart disorders. Further the reader should understand the FDA recognizes that underreporting of adverse experiences is widespread and that the exact number of serious adverse events associated with the Propulsid may be at least 10 times more than is reported.

If you or a loved one have suffered from documented cardiac arrhythmias associated with the use of Propulsid, call us at (800) 220-LAW1, or use the “Do I Have A Case?” link on this web site.

This informational piece was prepared by Silverman & Fodera. If you
would like more information on this topic, call us at (800) 220-LAW1, or
use the “Do I Have A Case?” link on this web site.

What Does it Take To Win the Case?

Childhood Lead-Paint poisoning is a hidden epidemic in this country. Statistics show that roughly 54 percent of poor black children, and 12 percent of affluent, middle class white kids living in urban areas, annually ingest enough lead to cause a substantial drop in IQ. With that drop in intelligence comes additional difficulties: hyperactivity and other behavioral problems, various health crises, and an overall decline in physical and mental functioning. The net effect? There will be 76,000 more retarded children and 44,000 fewer gifted ones. In Philadelphia, estimates are that between 60,000 and 80,000 children have lead levels in their blood above 10 micrograms per deciliter. (The Centers for Disease Control advise public health officials to be “concerned” about any child with a level above 10.) With all this in mind, the numbers of potential childhood Lead-Paint poisoning cases could occupy the entire career of an army of attorneys. Unfortunately, every case is not a viable case, even when substantial damage due to lead paint has occurred.

Defense Strategy

The typical, and often successful, defense strategy is to argue that a lead-poisoned child’s mental deficits and behavioral problems are due to “environmental” factors the fact that the family is not intact, that the single mother head-of-household is a drug addict, or that the house is occupied by lots of other children and unemployed adults all of which create a chaotic home environment allowing little “quality time” for the child in question. If the family has moved three or four times within the time period in which the poisoning occurred, the case against any one landlord becomes more complex to make. All these factors, combined, dilute any claim filed on behalf of a poisoned and damaged child. In my experience, the airtight Lead-Paint poisoning case simply doesn’t exist. Yet this does not preclude handling every case that is less than ideal.

The Ideal Case

To quickly clarify all the potential problems, let’s look at a hypothetical ideal case, from the standpoint of the plaintiff attorney. The best possible scenario might be something like this: “Matthew Smith”, let’s say, came to my office when he was 8 years old. He had lived his entire life in one rented house and, in fact, his family moved to that property three years prior to Matt’s birth. His older brother Bill is a straight-A student; Bill was past the toddler stage when the family began living in this rented house. Matt shows signs of Lead-Paint poisoning: his IQ is borderline retarded at 78, he is in the lowest track for all subjects, is hyperactive, inattentive and has behavioral difficulties. But his brother Bill is a normal, bright child. What accounts for the difference between the two siblings? Bill’s room, for one thing, did not contain Lead-Paint; for another, he exhibited minimal hand-to-mouth activity and, when he was learning to crawl, the family lived elsewhere. Matt, on the other hand, not only had a room in which old, lead-based paint was chipping and peeling, he was the kind of toddler who put everything into his mouth, and the paint on walls throughout the house had, by this time, started to deteriorate.

‘Control’ Sibling

The benefit of having a “control” sibling who shows no signs of damage is that it clearly establishes the deleterious role of Lead-Paint. The implication is that, were it not for the Lead-Paint, Matt would have been a bright child like his older brother Bill. (Though in cases where an older sibling has tested with a high lead level, but has no symptoms, the defense can then say, “Lead doesn’t do any harm”.) Another positive factor, from the standpoint of making this hypothetical case, is that the landlord knew his property was lead-infested and dangerous for children. The previous tenants had complained that their child suffered from lead paint poisoning, and this landlord simply evicted them, saying nothing when Matt’s family moved in with a toddler. When the landlord was again notified that he needed to clean up the property (Matt had been tested for lead at age 1; it was above 30), the landlord promised action but did nothing. When Matt was 2 years old, it reached 55 micrograms per deciliter of blood. Finally, at age 3, the City of Philadelphia conducted a full abatement of the house and placed a lien against the property for the landlord’s failure to do so. The lead levels in Matt’s blood began to decline from that point on; and they dropped to 20 by the time he reached age 5. Now that he’s 8 years old, they’re down to 14.

Damage Done

But that by no means indicates that Matt is getting better. With lead, once the damage is done during that crucial developmental period, it is permanent. Matt will never recover his former potential. The only hopeful thing – if hopeful is what it can be called – is that the damage will not continue to worsen. It will stabilize. (And measures can be taken to help him compensate for the loss of natural potential.) Lead can, in fact, disappear completely from a child’s blood and still be the cause of brain damage. It ultimately settles in soft tissue (most importantly, the brain) and in the bones. Once that occurs, irreparable harm has been done. There is no ameliorative cure. Another positive factor in this hypothetical case is that the landlord has a $5 million dollar insurance policy with no exclusions for lead. In many instances, there is no insurance, and no other assets of any kind. This makes pursuit of the case pointless, for obvious reasons. Other miscellaneous points include the fact that Matt’s birth was normal, he walked and was talking with words at age 1. His mother took pre-natal vitamins, had pre-natal care, was not on welfare, had no DHS involvement, and didn’t drink during the pregnancy. No one in the household smokes. It is not a crowded, chaotic home. The parents care about their children and read to them before bed. The older brother is doing well. They live in a residential area with no industry, no junkyards, no gas stations (possible other sources of lead contamination). And the landlord is solely in the business of real estate (and so cannot claim he owns only one property and was simply ignorant of the appropriate standard of care).

Matt’s case is ideal because every possible area the defense could use to deny liability is adequately and legitimately covered. The parents have a stable marriage, the father is employed, the mother volunteers at the school when she is not taking care of her two sons. Both parents have good parenting skills, and give Matt as much attention as they can.

Matt has a lead test result history beginning at age 1; it is consistently and alarmingly high. A clear line can be drawn from those results to Matt’s low IQ, his behavioral difficulties, and his failure to do better in school. Taking this ideal case to court would be, relatively speaking, easy. The net result would be a trust fund that would help pay for Matt’s continuous and lifelong need for special education, stimulation and care.

Less-Than-Ideal Cases

In less-than-ideal cases, the factors that inunediately preclude viability are:

• The aforementioned lack of insurance or other assets (I have rejected about half of those cases I would otherwise consider viable because of lack of assets).
• A mother who used drugs while pregnant.

• A crowded home, a single-parent home, or a violent or otherwise ” troubled” home.

• A lead level below 30 (though I have pursued some cases of chronic exposure in the 20s).
• A child who is still under 5 years of age (we don’t yet know which injuries will ultimately develop; it’s a wait-and-see situation).

Second Tier

At the second tier of considerations, we have:

• Cases in which the residence is owned by a family member (against whom it might be difficult to bring a case).
• Cases in which a child spent time at many different homes (making it harder to identify the lead source).
• Cases in which the parents have hobbies which involve lead (they present another possible source of lead).
• Cases in which siblings have high levels of lead but are still doing well (this leaves open the defense that lead is harmless; but lead affects each child differently).
• Cases in which the parents may have done lead removal and done it wrong (this leaves the parents subject to a possible joinder as defendants).

• Cases in which no notice is given to the landlord, and those in which the landlord, when notified, acted promptly, and the lead levels in the child’s blood actually went down (these are both more difficult to present).

To illustrate how a “less than ideal” childhood Lead-Paint poisoning case is still worth pursuing, here is the gist of a matter I handled recently. The “Brown” family had a daughter who was exposed to Lead-Paint on the property of landlord “Smith” when she was about 1-1/2 years old. When the case approached trial, the girl, who we’ll call Felicia, was about 7 years old. She was doing moderately well in school, but her lead levels had been in the 40s and 50s. An expert retained to testify said Felicia’s present IQ was in the 90s, but that she had suffered brain damage leading to a drop of between 10 to 20 IQ points. (This kind of drop in IQ has been correlated with a 15 percent to 20 percent drop in earning capacity.) The main argument the defense posed was that the mother used IV drugs while pregnant with Felicia. However, Felicia’s APGAR score at birth was normal, as were all subsequent tests. She exhibited no neurological deficits at birth, and, from a medical standpoint, appeared to be a healthy baby. The other argument made by the defense was that Felicia lived, both before and after her exposure to lead in the defendant’s property, in family member-owned homes that also contained lead. So those other family members could be sued, the defense argued, as could the mother herself for exposing her unborn fetus to drugs. The factor that ultimately diminished these arguments was that the landlord had been given notice by the City of Philadelphia’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program to abate the property. He did nothing, and Felicia’s lead levels went up. This clearly-drawn line between cause and effect led to the case being settled for an amount under $100,000. That money is now in a trust for the child and will be made available to her when she reaches the age of 18.

Difference In Cases

The difference between a viable Lead-Paint poisoning case and one that is not (beyond the presence or absence of assets), is whether the preponderance of evidence points to a clear relationship between the ingestion of lead and objective, demonstrable symptoms in the child. This must then be combined with adequate proof that the landlord had a duty to remedy the hazard, and failure to do so resulted in increased harm to the plaintiff. Additional factors that could conceivably contribute to those symptoms must not be so overwhelming as to irreparably harm the plaintiff’s claim. When those criteria are met, the case has potential to proceed.

This informational piece was developed by the Law Offices of Silverman & Fodera. If you wish to initiate a legal investigation into the possibility that your child was lead poisoned as a result of the wrongful conduct of another, please find an attorney with special expertise in Lead-Paint poisoning cases. Silverman & Fedora is ready to assist you. Please call 1-800-220-LAW1.

This informational piece was prepared by Silverman & Fodera. If you would like more information on this topic, call us at (800) 220-LAW1, or use the “Do I Have A Case?” link on this web site.

Dangerous Swimming Pool

An all-to-common tragedy faced by the water -safety community each year involves a child, a guest, or a friend who drowns while swimming in the presence of others who are swimming in the same pool. The general public, untrained in the investigation and causation of water safety deaths, justifiably can wonder how such a drowning could occur. Unfortunately, the pattern of such swimming deaths is quite similar.

The average person is usually unfamiliar with the pool’s depth, slope and bottom configuration; untrained in identifying the initial stages of drowning when the victim is in panic thrashing about atop the water for a matter of seconds, and then slipping underwater and out of view. While not generally realized drowning victims almost never yell for help with their major concern being to continue breathing.

Lifeguards

A properly-positioned lifeguard could easily prevent these needless deaths. A certified water-safety professional is trained in identifying drowning behavior, making rescues and performing life-saving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) procedures. The lifeguard perched atop a chair can easily identify swimmers most at risk of slipping into distress. Accident prevention is the lifeguard’s primary responsibility.

The Three Stages of Drowning

Stage I

In Stage I the victim is vertical in the water, with arms extended out from the side, moving about in a manner deceptively resembling a swimming movement to the untrained observer. The victim has his head held back to keep the mouth and nose above water and does not yell for help because it would require expelling air from the lungs. The natural reflex is to keep the mouth closed to prevent taking in water and to preserve air. The victim will struggle for only 20 to 60 seconds before going below the water’s surface. The properly-positioned lifeguard is uniquely able to identify swimmers at risk and to timely make the rescue.

Stage II

The victim gradually becomes physically exhausted and is unable to stay atop the water. Of course, the victim is still conscious and now below the surface and begins to hold breath. But then there is the need to inhale and a frantic attempt is made to reach the surface. If the victim is unable to reach the surface, the victim inhales water into the mouth and then into the respiratory system with water entering the lungs. Thereafter, reflexive coughing and gagging takes place, damaging tissues in the pulmonary system and ultimately blood appears in the victim’s mouth, followed frequently by vomiting. Unable to obtain air, the victim begins to lapse into unconsciousness, accompanied by convulsive spasms, involuntary urination and bowel movement. At this point breathing stops and the respiratory system shuts down.

Stage III

Now that the victim is unconscious, there is twitching of facial muscles and cardiac arrest occurs as the circulatory system stops functioning. The body sinks to the bottom and with the absence of breathing and blood circulation, clinical death results. The brain may remain viable for approximately 5 minutes in warm water. Absent CPR, biological death occurs with the cessation of brain activity.

Of course, the stages take place quite rapidly and thus the need for immediate and effective rescue procedures.

Typical Pool Ordinances

A typical pool ordinance applicable to hotels and motels requires that the slope of the pool bottom, where the shallow end leads to the deep end, be no steeper than one foot vertical drop for each three feet horizontal; requires the placement of a 36″ high fence or other barrier with a self-latching gate be located such that points of access to the users of the pool are at a part of the pool deck adjacent to water having a depth of not more than four feet; requires that a shepherd’s crook and a ring buoy be mounted on one side of the pool at approximately the halfway point of the length of the pool; and requires that a first aid kit be placed at all pools.

Investigation

Any investigation into a swimming pool death should address the following questions. Was there a lifeguard on duty at the time of the incident and if not why not? Was the pool design substandard and a substantial factor in the drowning? Was there a violation of local safety codes? Were video-monitoring equipment, safety alarm buttons, or emergency phones installed at or near the pool which would enhance the likelihood of a successful outcome to a potentially tragic water incident?

Conclusion

Death in a swimming pool is a reasonably foreseeable and preventable event which can arise as a result of a failure to have a trained lifeguard to minimize and or eliminate the risk of drowning at a pool. Another factor that can contribute to a swimming pool tragedy is a defectively designed pool not built in accordance with acceptable industry standards and in compliance with local ordinances. Pool water can be a dangerous place. Accident prevention is the goal.

This informational piece was prepared by Silverman & Fodera. If you would like more information on this topic, call us at (800) 220-LAW1, or use the “Do I Have A Case?” link on this web site.

Litigation Over Dangerous Products

Ford Motor Company no longer produces a car that explodes and bursts into a ball of flames when struck from behind. Work places have fewer guard-less punch presses and other machines capable of maiming and disfiguring. Life-threatening birth control and other medical devices have been removed from the market and the industry exercises more caution before introducing new devices. Asbestos is no longer used as an insulator, infants’ toys are safer and, in general, manufacturers are simply producing safer products.

What has motivated manufacturers? Certainly, there are various factors, including federal and state agencies and regulations, (some of which are currently in jeopardy). Perhaps the greatest incentive however, has been products liability lawsuits. Because of the consumer’s right to personally enforce the law through his or her decision to bring a products liability lawsuit, manufacturers know that if they create a product that is unreasonably dangerous, they subject themselves to serious liability.

Effective Consumer Protection

The products liability lawsuit is the consumer’s most effective weapon against unreasonably dangerous products. Regulations often lack teeth and offer little more than a wrist slapping to the manufacturer. A products liability lawsuit allows the individual citizen to assume the role of the attorney general and to prosecute an action against greedy, reckless, or negligent manufacturers. It is therefore not surprising that manufacturers are frightened of the consumer’s right to sue. It is also not surprising that manufacturers are working to limit the consumer’s right.

Although a person injured by an unreasonably dangerous product is justified in seeking compensation for his or her injuries, the consumer should be aware that a products liability lawsuit is oftentimes a hard-fought battle. The manufacturer generally has no concern for fairness. Settlement proceeds and jury awards are sometimes shockingly small in comparison to the plaintiff’s injury. Excessively large verdicts, while well-publicized, are a rarity, (and when they occur, they are usually reduced by the trial court or on appeal). Punitive damages are awarded only in the most egregious cases.

Starting a Product Liability Suit

In instituting a products liability action, the plaintiff should charge not only the manufacturer but all other entities responsible for placing the unreasonably dangerous article in the market. Other responsible parties may include distributors, retailers, repairers, assemblers, component suppliers and testing laboratories. All such entities may have played a significant role in placing the defective product in the market and all such entities have profited from their actions and thus should bear responsibility for damage resulting from their unreasonableness.

An injury from a product is not a justification for suing the manufacturer. Rather, the consumer must be able to legitimately allege that the product was “defective”, a legal term meaning essentially, that the product was unreasonably dangerous.

A product can be unreasonably dangerous for various reasons. The design of the product could be defective, thus the entire line of products would be unreasonably dangerous. Generally, (although it varies from state to state), to determine whether the product is unreasonably dangerous, a balancing test will be employed in which the utility of the product is weighed against the danger it poses. In most cases, the plaintiff will be obligated to offer a reasonable alternative design that the manufacturer could have employed, which would have prevented the injury and which would not have substantially diminished the product’s effectiveness. The added expense of the plaintiff’s proposed alternative design is of course a factor in the balancing test. If the jury finds that the plaintiff’s proposed alternative was reasonable and would have eliminated the product’s risk, the product should be deemed defective.

It is also worth noting that the manufacturer in a design defect case, cannot refer to the industry custom or standard as a defense. In other words, the defendant cannot say that a product’s design was not defective, simply because the other manufacturers used the same design. The entire industry could be at fault.

The industry standard defense should be distinguished from the “state of the art defense”. This latter defense basically says that when the product was built, the design was the state of the art; there was no safer, alternative design. With some exceptions, the state of the art defense is a valid one and it protects a manufacturer from liability for a product, which was reasonably safe years ago but which currently, because of developments in the field, could be deemed defective.

A manufacturing defect is another category of products liability. Such a theory says simply that the particular product was mis-manufactured and that in its condition, it was unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiff must of course show that the product was in its defective condition when it left the manufacturer’s possession and that it was unaltered at the time it caused the injury. In short, the consumer must prove that the defect was caused by the manufacturer.

A product can also be unreasonably dangerous absent appropriate warnings. If a product could reasonably have been designed with a higher degree of safety, a proper warning will not necessarily convert the unreasonably dangerous product into a safe, non-defective one. An appropriate warning however, can transform certain dangerous products, that would be defective without the warning, into reasonably safe ones. To be effective, the warning must be thorough and conspicuous and it must warn the consumer of the magnitude of the risk involved in failing to abide by the product’s warning instructions.

Products liability lawsuits include negligence theories, strict liability theories and breach of warranty theories. Each of these theories can be applied to all of the above categories of products liability actions.

Negligence

A negligence theory requires the plaintiff to prove four elements. First it must be shown that the defendant owed a duty to the consumer. Manufacturers do in fact, owe a duty to the users of its products and to bystanders likely to be injured. The manufacturer also has a duty in making its product, to guard against injuries likely to result from reasonably foreseeable misuse of the product. For example, a power saw that explodes when used on unrecommended hard wood, might well be defective. The plaintiff must also show that the manufacturer breached its duty, (by applying the above design defect, manufacturing defect or failure to warn theories). In showing breach, the reasonable manufacturer standard applies, i.e., would the reasonable manufacturer, with knowledge or constructive knowledge of the product’s defect, have produced the product. If the answer is “no”, then the manufacturer has breached its duty. Of course, the plaintiff need also prove he or she was injured and that the defendant’s breach caused the injury.

Strict Liability

Strict liability is different from a negligence theory in that the injured plaintiff need not show knowledge or fault on the manufacturer’s part. The plaintiff must show only that the product was sold or distributed by a defendant, and that the product was unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the defendant’s hands in order to prove liability on the part of such defendant. The behavior or knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of a products liability defendant regarding the dangerous nature of a product is not an issue for consideration under a strict liability theory. Strict liability concerns only the condition of the product itself. In contrast, a negligence theory concerns not only the product, but also the manufacturer’s knowledge and conduct.

“Strict liability”, however, does not mean “absolute liability”. Simply because a person is injured, he or she cannot assert strict liability and automatically recover. Instead, the injured consumer in asserting strict liability, still must prove his or her right to compensation by showing that the unreasonable dangerous condition of the product was what actually caused the injuries sustained.

Warranty

The final products liability theory is that of breach of warranty. Every product comes with an implied warranty that it is safe for its intended use. A defective product that causes injury was not safe for its intended use and thus can constitute a breach of warranty. Further, a seller or manufacturer cannot simply disclaim such a warranty but will be held responsible if its product is deemed defective.

The injured consumer should also be advised to preserve the allegedly defective product. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT because, in some cases, if the item is lost, the consumer may be left with no proof of the product’s defect and the possibility of a successful lawsuit could be wiped out completely as a result.

A products liability lawsuit is the best, if not the only, remedy for consumers injured by unreasonably dangerous products. Once engaged in such an action however, the plaintiff will learn that the reality is very different from that painted by the manufacturers and their allies. A recovery is difficult and a fair recovery is never assured. Fortunately, more often than not, the party which should fairly prevail, does win.

A products liability lawsuit also generates incentive for manufacturers to produce safer products. Absent the individual’s right to sue, we must resort to reliance on the government and on the good will of manufacturers to produce reasonably safe products. History informs us that such a situation simply creates more money for manufacturers, and more injured consumers.

Relevant Links

• Crib Defect Cases
• Nail Guns

• Swimming Pool Accidents
• Unsafe Foods

• Condoms

• Brain Injuries/Trauma
• Medical Devices

• Dangerous Pharmaceuticals

This informational piece was prepared by Silverman & Fodera. If you would like more information on this topic, call us at (800) 220-LAW1, or use the “Do I Have A Case?” link on this web site.

Facts

On December 14, 1988, the plaintiff parents took their daughter to the Children’s Pediatric Center in Philadelphia where she had treated since birth. The child’s temperatures was 104 degrees, according to evidence offered. The first defendant pediatrician, Dr. A, examined the child, diagnosed bilateralotis media (infection of both ears) and prescribed Amoxicillin and Tylenol. On December 17, 1998, the plaintiff mother telephoned the second defendant pediatrician, Dr. S, and reported that her daughter was sleeping constantly, the fever persisted and she was not eating. The second defendant pediatrician stopped the Amoxicillin and prescribed another antibiotic, Ceclor, in its place. On December 18, 1988, a Sunday, the plaintiff parents took the child to the emergency room of the defendant hospital with a temperature of 104 degrees. At the hospital, she was examined by another physician, Dr. F, who noted that one ear infection had resolved and that the other improved with no neck stiffness. Dr. F called Dr. A to discuss the case and prescribed pediolyte. The minor plaintiff appeared more alert and was released from the hospital with a diagnosis of fever dehydration secondary to otitis media.

The plaintiff mother testified that over the course of the next week, she took her daughter to the Pediatric Center on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and also called every day, reporting that the fever and lethargy continued with fever spikes of 106 degrees. On December 28, 1988, Dr. A referred the child to hospital where a spinal tap was performed revealing H-Influenza type B meningitis.

Theories

The plaintiff’s medical experts testified that a spinal tap should have been performed after the fourth day of continued fever and lethargy and that diagnosis at that time would have allowed successful treatment of the condition. As a result of the failure to timely diagnosis meningitis, the minor plaintiff was rendered totally deaf and required surgical insertion of a shunt to drain fluid from her brain. The shunt malfunctioned throughout the summer of 1993 requiring five separate operations until a successful shunt replacement was made. The plaintiff’s treating neurosurgeon testified that the hydrocephalus would typically required two or three shunt replacements every ten years.

Defenses

The defendants called three medical experts and two treating physicians who opined that the minor plaintiff suffered from acute onset meningitis which developed with int eh 24-hour period before the plaintiff was referred to the hospital where the condition was diagnosed. The defense argued that the treatment rendered to the minor plaintiff met the appropriate standard of care in all respects. The first treating physician also contended that noes indicated that the plaintiff mother reported during the 11-day period in question that the child’s condition was improving. The plaintiff denied making such a statement and called a handwriting expert who testified that the notation was added to the records after the records were originally written.

Verdict

The jury found the defendant hospital and hospital physician were not negligent. It found the first defendant pediatrician, Dr. A 60% negligent and the second defendant pediatrician, Dr. S 40% negligent. The plaintiff was awarded $2.7 million.

This informational piece was prepared by Silverman & Fodera. If you would like more information on this topic, call us at (800) 220-LAW1, or use the “Do I Have A Case?” link on this web site.

This medical malpractice action arose out of negligent care rendered by a nurse anesthetist, which resulted in the tragic death of the plaintiff. The Defendant’s key responsibility as a nurse anesthetist was, after intubating plaintiff, to monitor her carbon dioxide levels to ensure that she was receiving oxygen from the anesthesia machine while she was anesthetized. Defendant failed to do so, resulting in prolonged pre-operative oxygen deprivation, extensive brain damage, and the death of Plaintiff. The defendant Anesthesiologist’s responsibility was the overall supervision of the anesthesia team, including the defendant nurse anesthetist.

Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital for an elective back surgery. On the morning of the scheduled operation, plaintiff was intubated and administered general anesthesia by defendant nurse anesthetist whom was being supervised at the time by defendant anesthesiologist. Shortly after the induction of general anesthesia, before the operation began, plaintiff’s oxygen supply was cut off from the anesthesia machine. Nurse Anesthetist failed to recognize and correct the insufficient of the oxygen supply and plaintiff went into cardiac arrest as a result.

The carbon dioxide readings, which the nurse anesthetist was supposed to be recording, were not on the anesthesiology record for several consecutive time intervals during the critical time period. If he had been properly monitoring and recording the carbon dioxide levels, defendant nurse anesthetist would have noticed that they were significantly elevated and he would have corrected plaintiff’s oxygen deficiency. Unrecognized by either defendant, the oxygen deficiency continued and plaintiff’s brain was starved of oxygen long enough to cause her blood pressure to drop. The low blood pressure was recognized when it occurred, however, by that time, it was too late because she had been deprived of oxygen for too long.

Resuscitation attempts were performed and the crash team was able to get plaintiff’s blood pressure stabilized, however, because of prolonged lack of oxygen to the brain caused by the unrecognized and uncorrected oxygen insufficiency, plaintiff was severely and irreversibly brain damaged. Due to extensive brain damage caused by the oxygen deprivation, plaintiff was only able to remain alive through artificial means, and four days later, she died when her family agreed to discontinue life support.

This informational piece was prepared by Silverman & Fodera. If you would like more information on this topic, call us at (800) 220-LAW1, or use the “Do I Have A Case?” link on this web site.

Are the Prepared Foods You and Your Children Eat Safe?

When you shop at your supermarket or corner grocery, there is one thing that you take for granted: that at the very least the foods you buy and eat and serve your family don’t contain harmful substances.

More and more, however, the evening news is full of food recalls, most recently the one involving hamburger meat contaminated with harmful bacteria that can cause serious food poisoning.

There are other examples, as well. Last year, Gerber Products Company, the popular and trusted baby food company, came under FDA scrutiny for its Gerber 1st Foods Carrots, Gerber 2nd Foods Carrots, and 3rd Foods Table Teaching Carrots, due to FDA allegations that these products contained high levels of arsenic, a dangerous poison. Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) last year charged that Gerber Products Co. made false and misleading claims concerning the extent to which doctors recommend Gerber Baby Food.

Also last yuear a brand of vanilla ice cream manufactured by Darigold, Inc. was alleged by the FDA to contain ammonia.

Consumers are entitled to safe foods. Consumers are also entitled to be told by manufacturers exactly what such foods contain.

If you suspect that you have purchased food that is contaminated, that contains substances not listed on the ingredients, that may be harmful, or that doesn’t do what it claims it can do, we would be pleased to hear from you. The Law Offices of Silverman & Fodera helps people who have purchased products that are potentially dangerous or defective. We also help people who have purchased products that have been found to have lies or misrepresentations on their labels or advertising. We also help people who have been the victims of consumer fraud and misleading claims about products and services. If you wish to initiate a legal investigation into the possibility of

• getting a full refund
• having your medical bills paid to make sure a product found to be medically dangerous has not injured you and others
• getting the manufacturer to change its practices, to change its misleading advertising or labelling, or to take a product off the market
• forcing a company to make a product or service safer
• getting a company to give back profits it has realized due to misleading claims
• bringing a claim for consequences caused by these products

This informational piece was prepared by Silverman & Fodera. If you would like more information on this topic, call us at (800) 220-LAW1, or use the “Do I Have A Case?” link on this web site.

Parke-Davis’ Rezulin Linked By FDA to 28 Deaths

The FDA has advised that diabetes drug Rezulin, manufactured by Parke-Davis, only be used as a last resort for diabetes, because it has been linked to 28 deaths and serious liver damage. Rezulin’s generic name is troglitazone. It has been used to treat type 2 diabetes (non-insulin dependent or “adult onset” diabetes).

If you are taking Rezulin, make sure your doctor is carefully and frequently monitoring your liver function with tests, and discuss this new information with your doctor, who has probably already received a letter from Parke-Davis about the use of Rezulin. If you or someone close to you has been affected by this drug, Silverman & Fodera, P.C. stands ready to assist you.

This informational piece was prepared by Silverman & Fodera. If you would like more information on this topic, call us at (800) 220-LAW1, or use the “Do I Have A Case?” link on this web site.