A Chicago jury decided this week that Abbott Laboratories should pay four mothers a total of $53 million for necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) injuries suffered by their children shortly after birth, which they say was caused by the company’s Similac infant formula.

The case is one of hundreds of Similac NEC lawsuits filed in state and federal courts nationwide, each involving similar claims alleging that Abbott endangers preterm infants, whose health is already fragile, by failing to warn the medical community and expecting mothers of the potential risks of feeding them cow’s milk-based infant formula products.

NEC is caused when harmful bacteria begin attacking the lining of a newborn’s intestines, which are often underdeveloped in premature infants, making them much more susceptible to the frequently deadly condition. The condition causes inflammation and necrosis and often requires emergency surgery to avoid death. However, these surgeries may leave the child with life-long injuries and health complications.

Over the years, numerous studies have warned that preterm infants face a higher risk of NEC when fed cow’s milk-based formula, which is often introduced shortly after birth in NICU settings. As a result, health experts have increasingly urged the use of breastfeeding, donated human milk and human milk fortifiers, citing their significant health benefits, including a substantially lower risk of NEC.

Similac NEC Lawsuit Verdict

The lawsuit was decided in Cook County Circuit Court this week. It was filed by four mothers: Antonia Mendez, Kara Sharpe, Casie Thompson and Eboni Williams, all of whom say their newborns suffered NEC injuries and complications. All of them also had preterm infants who were fed Similac Special Care 24 while in NICU.

After more than a month of trial, the jury took 10 hours to deliberate before reaching a verdict awarding the women $53 million, which includes $15 million for Mendez, $16 million for Sharpe, $7 million for Thomson and $15 million for Williams.

The awards granted by the jury only cover compensatory damages, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, and past and future medical expenses. After the jury handed in the verdict, Judge Ehrlich determined there was enough evidence Abbott hid Similac NEC risks that plaintiffs could pursue punitive damages. He told the jurors they would return today to begin hearing arguments over whether Abbott should make additional punitive damages payments due to willful, wanton or reckless conduct in endangering infant lives for profit.

This is the third Similac NEC lawsuit to go to trial. The first, held in the summer of 2024, ended in a nearly $500 million verdict in Missouri state court. A similar trial, held in the same court in November of that year, ended in a defense verdict. However, that verdict was vacated last year and a new trial ordered, following a judge’s ruling that Abbott repeatedly introduced inadmissible evidence to the jury.

Abbott’s competitor, Mead Johnson, faces similar, though far fewer, Enfamil lawsuits over its own cow’s milk-based formula. In one of those cases, a jury awarded $60 million to a mother whose child died of NEC injuries shortly after birth.

Infant Formula NEC Lawsuits

In addition to the state court claims, there are nearly 800 Similac and Enfamil infant formula lawsuits consolidated in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois under U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, who is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The judge has worked with parties for the last several years preparing a group of cases deemed to be representative of the litigation at large to serve as bellwether trials, which will give the parties more opportunities to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony that would be common to all claims.

This will be the second batch of such lawsuits. The first federal infant formula NEC lawsuit was originally expected to begin in April 2025, but it and several other claims were thrown out due to lack of sufficient evidence. The second group of potential bellwether trials is now going through pretrial preparations, with the first expected to go before a jury this August.

Both that case and the other state trials are being closely watched to see what kinds of verdicts juries hand down and the amounts of payouts awarded to plaintiffs. The results are likely to significantly influence any infant formula NEC lawsuit settlement negotiations.

However, if the bellwether trials end with no settlement or other resolution, Judge Pallmeyer will likely begin remanding the cases back to their original federal courts for individual trial dates.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive baby formula NEC lawsuit information sent directly to your inbox.

A Georgia woman’s lawsuit claims she purchased a sterile wound care kit to clean the site where a driveline connects to her mechanical heart, yet the solution caused a severe infection doctors have been unable to eliminate.

The complaint (PDF) was originally filed by Frances M. Wilbers in Georgia Superior Court in late February, naming Nurse Assist LLC, multiple Cardinal Health Inc. subsidiaries, Orthodynamix Company Inc., and several unidentified entities as defendants. It was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on April 1.

Wilbers filed the lawsuit after allegedly developing a persistent and life-threatening infection she indicates was caused by contaminated Nurse Assist saline solution that she used in routine wound care for her mechanical heart’s driveline site.

Nurse Assist Sterile Water and Saline Recall

The lawsuit references a November 2023 Nurse Assist recall of sterile water and saline solutions announced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The agency found the items’ packaging seals could break, compromising sterility and exposing the fluids to bacterial contamination. As a result, the solutions may have been contaminated before use. The FDA urged healthcare providers and consumers to stop using and distributing the affected supplies.

In the wake of that announcement, multiple individuals have filed Nurse Assist infection lawsuits, alleging that the manufacturer failed to ensure the medical products were properly manufactured and packaged before being shipped to unsuspecting consumers.

Nurse Assist Infection Lawsuit

Wilbers’ lawsuit indicates she suffered a major heart attack in 2019, leading to a surgery that replaced her organic heart with a mechanical HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (LVAD). This device receives its power from an external battery pack. The battery pack connects to a “driveline” which enters the body and connects to the HeartMate 3.

Knowing the driveline entry site was highly susceptible to infection, Wilbers followed a routine of regularly using sterile saline and wound care kits purchased from ODI, which sourced the products from Cardinal Health. Cardinal Health, in turn, obtained the sterile water used in those kits from Nurse Assist.

The lawsuit indicates that the defendants continued to distribute and sell the potentially contaminated sterile water along with the wound care kits for months after the November 2023 Nurse Assist recall. This resulted in Wilbers developing an infection in February 2024.

Wilbers indicates she went to her doctors at the Mayo Clinic when she first saw the area growing red, fearing an infection. Doctors determined the driveline site was severely infected and admitted her to the hospital, where Wilbers was given IV antibiotics. A culture of the site determined she was infected with Serratia Marcesnes.

In late February 2024, Wilbers underwent a debridement procedure and the installation of antibiotic beads at the driveline infection site. However, doctors discovered that the infection had spread to her bloodstream and throughout her body, including her abdomen, chest and even into the HeartMate 3.

“Without being able to eliminate the infection, despite the doctors’ best efforts, the infection eventually entered Plaintiff’s blood stream and remains there today. As a result, Plaintiff has been placed on a high dose of extremely strong antibiotics (Bactrim) just to keep the infection at bay, with any minor cut or scratch potentially leading to a life-threatening flareup.”

– Frances M. Wilbers v. Nurse Assist Inc. et al

Wilbers presents claims of failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, and violation of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA). The lawsuit notes that Wilbers’ medical expenses have so far exceeded $2 million.

Nurse Assist Litigation

The complaint is one of several Nurse Assist lawsuits filed since the recall by consumers who say they used the sterile water and saline solution products on wounds, only to discover too late that the products were not as sterile as advertised.

As individuals continue to learn that prior infections may have been caused by sterile water or saline solutions used during their treatment, lawsuits are being filed nationwide against Nurse Assist and related distributors, alleging the company failed to ensure the sterility of its solutions.

Product liability lawyers currently offer free consultation and claim evaluations for individuals exposed to the recalled products who experienced problems, including:

• Sepsis or septic shock
• Bloodstream infections
• Respiratory infections
• Organ failure
• Necrosis or serious wound-related infections
• Prolonged hospital stays or additional surgeries

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A product liability lawsuit has been filed against the manufacturers of an Oster countertop oven, alleging a defective design caused the appliance to inflict severe burn injuries during normal use.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Victoria Zanetti in Colorado District Court on January 30. It names Sunbeam Products Inc., Sunbeam-Oster Company Inc. and various unidentified entities as defendants. The case was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on April 6.

Zanetti filed the lawsuit after an Oster countertop oven allegedly malfunctioned during normal use, causing the door to fail and exposing her to extreme heat and hot contents.

Manufactured by Sunbeam Products, Oster countertop ovens are marketed as convenient kitchen appliances designed to bake, broil and toast food items on a small scale. However, a recent Oster Countertop French Door Oven recall indicates certain devices’ doors may detach or fail, allowing hot surfaces or contents to come into contact with users.

Similar incidents have prompted additional injury reports leading to Oster oven recall lawsuits, with plaintiffs alleging the manufacturer failed to properly test the products, identify foreseeable hazards, or warn consumers about the risk of burns.

Oster Countertop Oven Burn Injury Allegations

According to the complaint, Zanetti was using an Oster countertop oven, model TSSTTVFDXL, in a routine manner when the device allegedly malfunctioned, causing the door to fail and exposing her to dangerously high temperatures and hot contents. The incident resulted in immediate and severe second- and third-degree burn injuries to her hand.

Zanetti’s burns required extensive medical treatment, including hospitalization and surgical intervention, which may result in permanent scarring and long-term complications.

The lawsuit indicates the defect that caused Zanetti’s burns is linked to the same door failure issues identified in the recall, which included the TSSTTVFDXL model.

As a result, the filing alleges the appliance posed an unreasonable risk of burn injuries due to defects in its design and construction, which were known or should have been known to the manufacturer prior to the incident.

The complaint further states that the risks associated with the oven were not adequately disclosed to consumers, leaving users unaware of the potential for serious harm.

“The medical treatment received by Plaintiff was significant, excruciating, and traumatic; she quickly sought treatment and was later was admitted to the burn ward at UCHeath Medical Center, Anschutz Medical Campus, where she was treated for five days, received skin graft surgery, and other treatment for her burned hand.”

— Victoria Zanetti v. Sunbeam Products Inc.

Zanetti raises allegations of design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

She seeks damages for medical expenses, lost income, diminished earning capacity, pain and suffering, emotional distress and other losses.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

The union representing Major League Baseball players has reached a settlement to resolve a lawsuit alleging that DraftKings and Bet365 illegally used their likenesses during sports betting promotions without first gaining permission.

Originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania back in September 2024, the MLB Players Inc. complaint (PDF) indicated that the two sports betting apps used the image, name or likeness of nearly every currently active MLB player. However, the lawsuit claims the sportsbooks never got the players’, or the league’s, permission to do so.

Since the lawsuit was filed, there has been a growing concern nationwide over the popularity of sports betting as more states approve the practice since the Supreme Court made it legal to do so in a landmark 2018 decision.

Sports Gambling Addiction Lawsuits

Dozens of states have legalized sports betting in recent years. However, with the expansion has come reports of increased gambling addiction problems nationwide, particularly among young people who are comfortable with digital payments through mobile apps on their smart devices. This group of young gamblers, who are also often managing their own finances for the first time, appear to be particularly susceptible to sports betting promotions.

Critics claim that by employing aggressive and sometimes deceptive promotions, data-tracking algorithms and logging players’ behavior, sites like DraftKings, Bet365 and FanDuel encourage those who show signs of gambling addiction to make more frequent and larger bets.

This has led to the filing of numerous sports betting addiction lawsuits nationwide in recent months, each involving similar allegations that the betting platforms intentionally encourage compulsive gambling and self-destructive wagering to increase their profit margins.

In addition to individual claims, DraftKings, Bet365 and FanDuel have faced additional litigation from states, cities and sports organizations for allegedly violating numerous state gambling and consumer protection laws.

MLB Players Gambling Settlement

According to the 2024 lawsuit, DraftKings and Bet365 never sought permission to use players’ images in promotions, noting that the companies could have just used the athletes’ names without violating trademark and copyright laws. The use of players’ likenesses was purely for the purpose of gaining consumers’ attention, leading to more betting and increasing profits, the players’ union noted.

“Defendants’ use of player images within their sportsbook platforms is not merely informational—it is promotional. Users could bet that the Phillies will beat the Marlins, or that Bryce Harper will hit more than two home runs in a given game, without seeing Harper’s valuable image.”

– MLB Players Inc. v. DraftKings Inc. et al

However, after about a year and a half of litigation, U.S. District Judge Karen Marston, of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued a court order (PDF) on April 6, dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice, indicating that the parties have informed the court they have reached a settlement agreement.

Details of the settlement have not yet been released. The lawsuit originally included FanDuel as a defendant as well, but the sportsbook reportedly reached a settlement with the union in late 2024.

Sports Betting Addiction Lawsuits

While the sports betting apps have reached settlements with the MLB players union, they are still fighting an increasing number of gambling addiction lawsuits filed by individual consumers nationwide.

Observers expect thousands of similar claims to be filed in the coming months and years, indicating that individuals have been exploited by predatory algorithms and promotions used by DraftKings, FanDuel and Bet365.

Sports betting addiction lawyers are investigating claims across the U.S., focusing on whether these platforms intentionally foster compulsive behavior and profit from users’ escalating losses. Platforms named in ongoing investigations include:

To find out whether you qualify for a sports betting lawsuit, submit information about your potential claim for an attorney to review. All cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay nothing unless a settlement is obtained in your case.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive sports betting addiction lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

Federal safety officials are recalling approximately 1.7 million Bissell steam cleaners after more than 200 reports that the devices unexpectedly expelled hot water or steam.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the Bissell steam cleaner recall on April 9, warning that attachments on the affected units may detach unexpectedly and release scalding contents onto users.

Steam cleaners are household devices that use heated water to generate high-pressure steam for cleaning and sanitizing surfaces like floors, upholstery and appliances. However, when these devices malfunction, the high-temperature steam can cause serious injuries. Faulty components or loose attachments may release scalding contents without warning, creating a significant burn risk.

According to federal officials, there have been at least 206 reports of the affected Bissell steam cleaners unexpectedly releasing hot water or steam, which have been linked to 161 burn injuries, including at least one second-degree burn.

Bissell Steam Cleaner Recall

The recall includes approximately 1.7 million Bissell Steam Shot OmniReach and Steam Shot Omni steam cleaners sold in the United States, along with an additional 96,000 units sold in Canada.

Affected products can be identified by the following specific model numbers, which are listed on the product rating label located on the bottom of each unit:

The steam cleaners were sold in green, gray, white, blue and dark blue. Depending on the model, the products include an accessory nozzle, grout brush, round detail brushes, a flat scraping tool and an angle concentrator tool. They may also include an extension hose, fabric steamer and steam squeegee. The attachments and hose are gray in color.

Affected products were manufactured in China and sold at Target, Walmart and other department and home goods stores nationwide, as well as online at Bissell, Amazon, HSN and other websites from October 2024 through March 2026 for between $9 and $55.

Officials are instructing individuals to immediately stop using the recalled cleaners and contact Bissell to receive free replacement attachments. Consumers should visit www.steamshot2026.com to register for the recall and to follow instructions on how to participate, including how to upload a photo showing that the original attachment accessories have been disposed of in the trash.

For more information, Bissell can be reached at 855-417-7001 between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET, Monday through Saturday, by email at RecallNA@bissell.com, or online at www.BISSELL.com.

Steam Cleaner Recalls

This is not the first time Bissell has recalled its steam cleaners for a similar issue. In 2024, 3 million Bissell Steam Shot steam cleaners were recalled following more than 150 reports of hot water and steam unexpectedly spraying on consumers and causing severe burns.

Other manufacturers have also reported problems with steam cleaner safety. Earlier this year, Dupray recalled nearly 750,000 steam cleaners after at least 15 reports of boiler ruptures, resulting in injuries that included burns, bruises, lacerations, a broken wrist and property damage.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Washington woman has filed a lawsuit over problems with her Vortex port, indicating that design defects left her with a dangerous blood clot in her neck, which became infected after her port catheter failed.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Sadarah Rhone in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 2. It names AngioDynamics Inc. and Navilyst Medical Inc. as the defendants.

AngioDynamics is the manufacturer of a line of port catheters, including the Vortex port, SmartPort and Xcela, which are often implanted in patients undergoing chemotherapy. The devices are designed to give doctors long-term access to a patient’s bloodstream without the need for repeated needle sticks. 

Port catheters, also known as totally implantable vascular access devices (TIVADs), consist of a small injection port placed beneath the skin and a flexible catheter which delivers the medication directly into a vein.

Over the past several years, a growing number of patients and doctors have reported problems with the Vortex port and similar devices. These reports include problems with infections, device migration and implant failure, which has led to hundreds of AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits filed in courts nationwide and thousands of Bard PowerPort lawsuits brought against its competitor, C.R. Bard.

Rhone’s lawsuit raises similar allegations as those filed previously, indicating that the port catheters are defectively designed and manufactured, making patients susceptible to injuries from catheter fractures, migration, infections and premature failure.

Vortex Port Lawsuit

The complaint indicates Rhone received her Vortex port implant on January 5, 2017. However, the device barely lasted an entire month.

By February 11, Rhone had become concerned and went to see her doctor about the port. She was diagnosed as having developed an infection as well as blood clots in the right jugular of her neck. The device had to be immediately removed.

According to the lawsuit, Rhone suffered permanent injuries and significant physical deformity, along with financial losses, including medical expenses.

Rhone argues that AngioDynamics knew of the problem for years yet failed to warn doctors or patients about the risks of infections and failures, choosing to conceal reports of problems instead of correcting them, in order to sustain substantial profit margins.

“Defendants provided incomplete, insufficient, and misleading information to physicians in order to increase the number of physicians using the Vortex for the purpose of increasing their sales. By so doing, Defendants caused the dissemination of inadequate and misleading information to patients, including the Plaintiff.”

– Sadarah Rhone v. AngioDynamics Inc. et al

Due to the manufacturers’ efforts to conceal the issue, Rhone did not learn until very recently that a defective Vortex port design itself may have been the problem, she states. Her lawsuit presents claims of negligence, failure to warn, design defect, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, and violation of Washington state’s Consumer Protection Act. She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

AngioDynamics Port Catheter Lawsuits

Along with more than 300 similar port catheter lawsuits, Rhone’s complaint will be consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of California, where the cases are undergoing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings before U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta.

Judge Ohta has called on the parties to select nine AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits each by June 5, 2026, for a total of 18 to be prepared for early test trials. These “bellwether” trials are designed to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony that is nearly identical throughout the other claims.

While the results of these bellwether trials are not binding on other claims, they will be closely watched for how juries rule and the types of payouts awarded. These outcomes could influence negotiations toward an AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuit settlement.

If no settlement or resolution is reached, the judge is expected to begin remanding cases back to their original districts for individual trial dates.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Following months of negotiations, the U.S. District Judge presiding over all federal Paraquat lawsuits has called on the parties to provide key details on proposed settlement agreements by April 20, in hopes that it will lead to a resolution of all litigation over the development of Parkingson’s disease from the controversial weed killer.

Paraquat is a powerful and toxic herbicide introduced in the U.S. in 1964 under the brand name Gramoxone. It is widely used nationwide to kill broadleaf weeds and grasses before crops are planted, as well as to dry out some crops in preparation for processing. However, it is now known to be extremely toxic, which has led to a ban in more than 70 countries and special training requirements for American applicators.

While long known to present severe poisoning risks, studies have linked Paraquat use to Parkinson’s disease in recent years. Researchers warn that farm workers, landscapers and other agricultural workers who spray, mix or handle the weed killer face increased risks of developing chronic and progressive neurological damage.

As a result, handlers of the herbicide have filed more than 6,500 product liability lawsuits against Syngenta and Chevron, each alleging that the manufacturers failed to warn that routine exposure to Paraquat may cause Parkinson’s disease.

Paraquat Settlement Negotiations

In June 2021, a Paraquat lawsuit MDL (multidistrict litigation) was established in the Southern District of Illinois before U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengal, who is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. She has also been working with the parties to prepare a series of “bellwether” trials designed to gauge how juries may respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

The first trial, originally scheduled to begin in January 2026, was averted when Syngenta reached a settlement agreement with the plaintiff just before the trial was set to start. Discussions have intensified for the litigation since April 2025 when the parties announced they were nearing a Paraquat Parkinson’s disease settlement. Since then, Judge Rosenstengal has maintained a stay on the litigation, pausing all pretrial proceedings at the federal level.

On April 6, the judge issued a case management order (PDF) calling for the parties to grant Special Master Randi Ellis access to information on the status of Paraquat settlement offers and the deal being hammered out.

Judge Rosenstengal has directed the parties to provide Ellis with the names of plaintiffs who do not qualify for the settlement under its current terms, as well as a list of eligible cases and the firms representing them that have opted out or intend to do so. The parties must also identify eligible cases that remain undecided and report the total dollar amounts allocated to cases that have opted in, opted out, indicated an intent to do so, or have yet to make a decision. The information is due by April 20.

“Once the above materials have been received and reviewed, Special Master Ellis shall meet with each plaintiff who opted out of the Settlement or has not opted in or opted out—or, at Special Master Ellis’s discretion, with plaintiff’s counsel—to ensure that the plaintiff is making an informed decision and understands his or her rights and obligations should the plaintiff choose not to participate in the Settlement.”

– U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengal

The judge called for Ellis to provide her with a progress report within 90 days.

Last month, Syngenta announced that it was ending global Paraquat production by June of this year and plans to retool the only Paraquat manufacturing plant in Huddersfield, UK.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive Paraquat lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

A Florida woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a Samsung smartphone’s lithium-ion battery malfunctioned due to a dangerous defect, causing it to enter thermal runaway and inflict severe burn injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Jennifer Kravchuck in Florida Circuit Court on February 26, naming Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and T-Mobile USA Inc. as defendants. It was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 3.

Kravchuck alleges the defendants failed to design a safe product or provide adequate warnings about the risk of overheating and combustion, despite the foreseeable danger posed by lithium-ion battery failures.

Lithium-ion batteries are commonly used in smartphones and other portable electronics due to their high energy density and rechargeability. However, when defective or damaged, these batteries can experience “thermal runaway,” a chain reaction that causes rapid overheating, fire or explosion, often without warning.

Thermal runaway events can be triggered by internal short circuits, manufacturing defects or inadequate thermal management systems. Once initiated, the reaction can escalate quickly, leading to intense heat, fire and the release of flammable gases.

Samsung Phone Battery Defect Allegations

According to the complaint, Kravchuck suffered a severe burn injury when her Samsung smartphone experienced a battery failure, resulting in the thermal runaway event. The incident reportedly caused the device to overheat rapidly, leading to a significant burn to Kravchuck’s abdomen that required medical treatment.

The lawsuit indicates that the phone was being used in a normal and intended manner at the time of the incident, with no warning that it posed a risk of overheating or combustion. 

The lawsuit alleges that Samsung Electronics America and T-Mobile USA sold and distributed a defective product, asserting that the lithium-ion battery was prone to overheating and failure due to design or manufacturing defects. The complaint further claims the defendants failed to adequately test the device or provide sufficient warnings about the risk of thermal runaway and burn injuries.

“The device was defective in its design because the lithium-ion battery and thermal management systems were inherently unstable and prone to thermal runaway, creating a foreseeable risk of catastrophic overheating and severe burn injury that outweighed any utility of the product’s design.”

— Jennifer Kravchuck v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Kravchuck raises allegations of strict products liability, negligence and breach of implied warranty. She is seeking damages for her injuries, pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, permanent disfigurement and medical expenses.

Lithium-Ion Battery Lawsuits

As similar incidents continue to be reported involving lithium-ion batteries in consumer devices, product liability lawyers are reviewing potential claims for individuals who suffered burn injuries or property damage linked to battery malfunctions.

A growing number of heated insole lawsuits over rechargeable foot warmers allege that defective lithium-ion batteries in those products may overheat, ignite or explode during normal use, causing serious burn injuries and fire hazards. In several cases, consumers claim the products failed while being worn or charged, resulting in painful injuries to the feet and lower extremities.

Similar allegations have been raised in lawsuits involving portable power banks sold through major online retailers, where defective battery packs have been linked to house fires and significant property damage. Plaintiffs claim the devices contained unsafe battery cells or lacked proper safeguards to prevent overheating during charging or regular use.

In addition, vape battery explosion lawsuits have been filed by individuals who suffered catastrophic injuries when e-cigarette batteries allegedly failed without warning. These incidents often involve thermal runaway events that cause the devices to explode in pockets or hands, leading to severe burns, disfigurement and, in some cases, permanent disability.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Massachusetts man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a 15-foot ladder sold by Home Depot and manufactured by Louisville Ladder collapsed, causing serious spinal injuries and nerve damage.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Anthony Trupiano in the Superior Court of Massachusetts on February 12, and removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 3. The lawsuit names Home Depot USA Inc. and Louisville Ladder Inc. as defendants.

Trupiano alleges that the ladder was defectively designed and manufactured, making it prone to collapse during normal use. He claims the structural failure of the ladder directly caused his own fall and resulting injuries, which have required medical treatment and may have long-term consequences.

Ladder Collapse Lawsuits

A number of ladder collapse lawsuits have been filed in recent years, each raising similar allegations that manufacturing or design defects caused falls, with devastating consequences.

In September 2025, Joseph Wasik III brought a Little Giant Ladder lawsuit against the manufacturer of that other product, as well as Home Depot. Little Giant Ladder products rely on locking pin mechanisms to hold adjustable sections in place. However, if the pins malfunction, the structure may collapse and create a serious fall risk.

According to Wasik’s complaint, the Little Giant Ladder he was using had a known defect that caused the internal springs to fail to lock the bolts into the frame. This defect led to his fall and injuries, which included a left temporal fracture, intracranial hemorrhaging and additional trauma.

Home Depot Ladder Lawsuit

In this new complaint, Trupiano indicates that a ladder manufactured by Louisville Ladder and sold by Home Depot collapsed in 2023 when the side rails buckled under normal use, due to a structural failure of the product. This malfunction allegedly caused Trupiano to lose balance and fall violently to the ground.

As a result of the fall, Trupiano claims he suffered severe bodily injuries, including spinal trauma, disc herniation, nerve compression, and damage to his right leg and left arm.

The lawsuit alleges Louisville Ladder was negligent in designing and manufacturing a defective and dangerous 15-foot ladder that directly contributed to Trupiano’s serious injuries. Additionally, the complaint suggests the company knew or should have known the ladder posed a risk of injury to users under normal use.

“The ladder was defectively designed, defectively manufactured, and/or inadequately tested, making it unreasonably dangerous for its intended and foreseeable use.”

– Anthony Trupiano v. Louisville Ladder Inc. et al

The complaint raises allegations of negligence, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular use and merchantability, and strict liability. Trupiano is seeking compensation for the harm he suffered, past and future medical expenses, interest and compensation for attorney’s fees.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) published a new safety benefits report late last month, outlining the substantial benefits provided by advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), indicating that the advantages increase most when these capabilities are installed and used together.

ADAS include a wide array of electronic safety technologies, which are built into many new vehicles, using cameras, sensors and radar to monitor the road and assist drivers with tasks like braking, steering and maintaining safe distances. However, many automakers still reserve these features for high-end vehicles, or package them as expensive add-ons.

Common features of these systems include automatic emergency braking, lane departure warnings, adaptive cruise control and blind-spot detection, which are all designed to reduce the risk of accidents and improve overall driving safety.

For example, IIHS reported last year that stricter crash prevention criteria for automatic emergency braking systems can reduce both the frequency and severity of high speed accidents.

Prior findings have also shown that individuals, especially teens, who operate newer vehicles equipped with advanced driver assistance systems may be substantially less likely to be killed in a crash.

Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Study

In the new IIHS study, researchers examined the impact of advanced driver assistance systems offered on 2015 to 2023 Mazda vehicles, comparing six feature bundles with four stand alone systems.

The basic package included front automatic emergency braking (AEB) with forward collision warning. The most advanced added pedestrian-detecting front AEB, adaptive cruise control, high beam assist, lane departure warning and prevention, rear AEB, and Driver Attention Alert, which detects driver fatigue or distraction.

Researchers found that the larger bundles offered in newer vehicles were more comprehensive and included more advanced versions of the technologies than those provided by smaller bundles.

Larger ADAS bundles were also linked to lower claim frequency, particularly for property damage and bodily injury liability, which covers damage to others’ vehicles or property as well as injuries to other people in a crash. Reported reductions include:

• Property damage claims:
  • About 40% reduction, bundle with the most features
  • 13% reduction, most basic bundle
  • 39% reduction, most comprehensive bundle
• Bodily injury claims:
  • About 15% reduction, bundle with the most features
  • 9% reduction, most basic bundle
  • 21% reduction, most comprehensive bundle—not statistically significant

ADAS Safety Improvements

The most significant safety gains were tied to the addition of front automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection and rear automatic emergency braking. Updated front AEB systems reduced pedestrian crashes and proved more effective at preventing collisions with other vehicles, while rear AEB helped avoid low-speed parking lot incidents, which account for a large share of insurance claims.

“These technologies are awesome. As they improve and become more common, we are seeing compounding crash reductions.”

— Matt Moore, Chief Insurance Operations Officer, HLDI and IIHS

While Mazda’s blind spot detection and rear cross traffic alert come as a single system and cannot be evaluated separately, the combination was linked to nearly a 10% drop in property damage claims and a 13% drop in bodily injury claims, the highest of all stand-alone systems.

ADAS Feature Limitations

One feature that did not show a significant benefit was Driver Attention Alert. However, its impact may have been limited because it activates only after about 20 minutes of driving at speeds between 41 and 86 mph and may not work on roads without clear lane markings.

Curve-adaptive headlights and the heads-up display, which projects information like vehicle speed and navigation guidance onto the windshield, were each linked to slightly smaller reductions. The impact of Traffic Sign Recognition, which identifies and displays traffic signs using a forward-facing camera or navigation data, was unclear.

Most safety systems and bundles were also associated with higher claim costs. This is likely because the sensors and technology are expensive to repair or replace after a crash. In addition, these systems tend to prevent low-speed accidents, which removes smaller claims and makes the average cost of remaining claims appear higher.

All bundles and features except Traffic Sign Recognition lowered losses for property damage liability, while a few slightly increased losses for collision coverage, which covers damage to the driver’s own vehicle.

Sign up for more safety and legal news that could affect you or your family.

A product liability lawsuit has been filed against Boston Scientific Corporation, alleging that the company’s spinal cord stimulator (SCS) neuromodulation systems implanted in at least three different individuals failed to provide pain relief, and instead worsened chronic pain symptoms.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Stacy Neal, Angelina Lynn Mena and Tiffany Putterman in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 2. It names Boston Scientific Corporation, Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as defendants.

Spinal cord stimulators are a type of neuromodulation device, which is designed to deliver electrical pulses to the spinal cord, with the goal of interrupting pain signals before they reach the brain. These systems are typically recommended for individuals suffering from chronic back, leg or nerve pain that has not responded to more conservative treatments.

SCS devices consist of a battery-powered pulse generator implanted under the skin, thin electrical leads positioned along the spinal cord and an external controller that allows doctors or patients to adjust stimulation levels. After implantation, they become a permanent part of the person’s body.

Although marketed as effective pain management solutions, an increasing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits have been filed in recent months, many centering on allegations that design modifications were not properly tested or approved and have made the devices more susceptible to failure. Plaintiffs claim these changes are associated with complications such as lead fractures or movement, unintended electrical stimulation, diminished pain relief and other neurological problems.

Boston Scientific SCS Device Allegations

According to the complaint, Neal, Mena and Putterman all underwent implantation of Boston Scientific neuromodulation systems in an effort to manage their chronic pain, yet they all experienced increased discomfort and complications following the procedure.

In Neal’s case, the lawsuit indicates the device failed to deliver consistent or effective pain relief and may have caused new or worsening symptoms. The complications reportedly required additional medical intervention, including potential revision procedures or device removal, along with ongoing care. The other two plaintiffs suffered similar side effects.

As a result, the plaintiffs allege that all of their devices were defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, particularly due to issues affecting their abilities to provide reliable electrical stimulation without causing adverse conditions.

The complaint further claims that Boston Scientific failed to adequately test the devices and did not provide sufficient warnings or instructions regarding the risks of worsening pain, device malfunction or other complications associated with implantation.

The complaint also raises concerns that the devices were modified through FDA premarket approval supplement processes without requiring new clinical testing, potentially allowing significant design changes to reach individuals without full safety review.

“As a direct and proximate result of the defective and misrepresented nature of the device, Plaintiffs suffered physical injury, worsening pain, emotional distress, and economic damages including medical expenses and loss of quality of life.”

— Stacy Neal et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al

The plaintiffs are raising allegations of strict product liability, failure to warn, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and unauthorized practice of medicine. They also raise claims of violations of state consumer protection laws for Texas, New York and Pennsylvania, where Neal, Mena and Putterman reside, respectively, in addition to violations of the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by the FDA.

The lawsuit is seeking compensatory, statutory and punitive damages against Boston Scientific, as well as injunctive relief requiring the FDA to initiate enforcement proceedings or premarket approval reevaluation of the affected SCS devices.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

The case joins a growing number of spinal cord stimulator neuromodulation lawsuits being filed nationwide against medical device manufacturers, including Boston Scientific, Abbott, Medtronic and others.

Last month, a group of plaintiffs pursuing similar SCS claims against Boston Scientific and Abbott asked to centralize all of those federal cases before a single judge in the Northern District of Illinois, seeking to establish a multidistrict litigation (MDL) to coordinate the proceedings.

However, Abbott and Boston Scientific have asked the JPML to reject centralizing spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, arguing the cases involve different products and lack a common defect that would justify consolidation. The companies also contend that many of the lawsuits are already well advanced and that combining them would offer little efficiency, while Boston Scientific maintains the claims may ultimately be barred by federal preemption. The JPML has not yet ruled on the request, and a decision on whether to form an MDL is still pending.

Regardless of whether the cases are ultimately centralized, plaintiffs in this litigation commonly allege that design changes and manufacturing issues have made certain SCS systems prone to complications such as:

• Ineffective pain control
• Lead migration or breakage
• Unintended electrical shocks
• Neurological side effects

In many complaints, individuals indicate that instead of improving their quality of life, the devices resulted in additional pain, repeated surgeries and long-term complications.

As more claims are filed, spinal cord stimulator attorneys are continuing to evaluate potential lawsuits on behalf of individuals who experienced adverse outcomes following implantation of spinal cord stimulator devices.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A federal judge has ruled that plaintiffs involved in Bard PowerPort lawsuits cannot present evidence at trial about prior adverse event reporting violations tied to the company’s inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, rejecting an argument that the conduct is relevant to claims involving a different product line.

The dispute centers on plaintiffs’ efforts to show that Bard engaged in a broader pattern of failing to properly report device-related complications to regulators. Attorneys had argued that the company’s handling of adverse event reporting for its IVC filters, which have been the subject of separate litigation for years, helps demonstrate that Bard may have similarly withheld or underreported safety issues involving its PowerPort catheter devices.

The Bard Powerport is a type of port catheter used to deliver medications and other fluids into patients repeatedly, without the need for a new needlestick each time. They consist of a small injection port where the needle is inserted and a polyurethane catheter that delivers the fluid into the vein. However, despite Bard’s version of the port catheters being marketed as safe and effective, a growing number of individuals say it is actually defectively designed, increasing the risk of port catheter infections, fractures and migration injuries.

Becton Dickinson and its C.R. Bard subsidiary currently face more than 3,000 product liability lawsuits, alleging that they knew about these problems, yet failed to correct issues with the design or warn the medical community and patients about the potential for additional complications that could result in pulmonary embolism, blood clots, infections and the need for additional surgeries to remove the failed implants.

Plaintiffs blame the use of barium sulfate in the construction of the catheters for their premature breakdown, cracks, fracturing and failures.

All federal Bard PowerPort lawsuits are currently consolidated in the District of Arizona before Judge David G. Campbell for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

The court has been working with attorneys for months to prepare a series of six bellwether trials, which are intended to test key arguments likely to be repeated across thousands of cases. The first trial, involving claims by Robert Cook of Minnesota, is scheduled to begin April 21, with a final pretrial conference set for this week.

Judge Restricts IVC Filter Warning Letter Testimony

As part of preparations for the Cook trial, plaintiffs sought to introduce a July 2015 warning letter issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to Bard over its handling of adverse event reports and product complaints involving its IVC filters.

Those filters have been the subject of thousands of Bard IVC filter lawsuits in recent years, with plaintiffs alleging the devices were defectively designed and prone to fracture, migrate or perforate the vena cava. In some cases, fragments have reportedly broken off and traveled to the heart or lungs, causing the very complications the devices were intended to prevent.

Relying on that history, PowerPort plaintiffs argue the FDA warning letter is relevant not because it involves the same product, but because it may show a broader pattern of failing to properly report safety issues to regulators, which they claim also occurred with the PowerPort.

However, Judge Campbell rejected that argument in a court order (PDF) issued April 6, ruling that the IVC filter warning letter could not be used to suggest misconduct related to a different product line. The decision limits plaintiffs from drawing that connection for the jury, even though both sets of claims involve allegations that Bard concealed or failed to disclose device risks.

The judge did leave open a narrow exception, indicating that portions of the warning letter could be introduced if Bard argues at trial that it has consistently complied with FDA reporting requirements or has never been subject to regulatory enforcement actions.

Defendants also asked the judge to block plaintiffs from mentioning a 1994 criminal conviction against C.R. Bard over improper use of the FDA’s 510(k) fast-track approval program, which grants marketing approval to devices that are “substantially equivalent” to existing designs without the need for extensive clinical trials. The program was also used to approve the Bard PowerPort.

The judge denied the motion but warned plaintiffs that the issue must be resolved at trial and to consult with the court before showing such evidence to the jury. He acknowledges that, if handled incorrectly, the evidence could be “highly prejudicial.”

“(T)he 1994 conviction — which in part concerned Bard’s deliberate disregard of FDA requirements and its knowing and willful failure to comply with FDA disclosure rules — could be relevant if Defendants rely heavily before the jury on their past compliance with FDA requirements and suggest to the jury that they have always been exemplary and forthcoming in their dealings with federal regulators. The issue is also factually complex, with Plaintiff submitting more than 70 pages of court records from 1994.”

– U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell

Cook’s bellwether trial will be closely watched. Although the results will not be binding on other claims, its outcome, and those of the following bellwether trials, may help the parties pave the way to a Bard PowerPort lawsuit settlement agreement.

Following the Cook trial, additional bellwether trials are currently scheduled to begin on July 7, August 18, October 13, December 1, and February 2, 2027.

Once the bellwether trials have been completed, if the parties have not reached a settlement or other agreement to resolve the litigation, Judge Campbell may begin remanding the cases back to their original federal district courts for individual trial dates.

A settlement has been reached that resolves claims that a New York fertility clinic’s mishandling and improper storage practices destroyed a woman’s frozen eggs, ending her chances of having more biological children.

The original complaint (PDF) was filed by Larisa Lev-Ary in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in June 2023. It names Manhattan Fertility Services LLC, Legacy IVF LLC and Advanced Fertility Services P.C. as defendants.

According to the fertility clinic lawsuit, the facility failed to exercise reasonable care in all aspects of storing and preserving Lev-Ary’s eggs, which ultimately destroyed them and ruined their viability, causing her to suffer not only financial damages but severe emotional injuries.

IVF Process

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a form of assisted reproductive technology that involves retrieving eggs from a woman’s ovaries, fertilizing them with sperm in a laboratory and then transferring resulting embryos into the uterus in an attempt to achieve pregnancy.

In certain cases, patients may also choose to freeze unfertilized eggs, known as oocytes, for later use, preserving the possibility of having biological children at a future date. The process typically requires hormonal stimulation, surgical retrieval of the eggs and long-term storage in cryogenic tanks designed to keep the cells viable for years.

The success of IVF and egg preservation depends on strict handling and storage protocols, since oocytes are highly sensitive to temperature changes and environmental exposure. Even minor deviations, including removal from cryogenic conditions, improper labeling or faulty storage equipment, can compromise their viability and render the eggs unusable for future fertility treatments.

IVF Oocyte Storage Lawsuit

According to the lawsuit, Lev-Ary froze 17 eggs in 2014 with Advanced Fertility Services, which later transferred its operations to Manhattan Fertility Services.

She claims that she later discovered discrepancies in the number of eggs stored as well as improper handling, including an incident where straws containing her oocytes were left outside a cryogenic tank. The complaint also alleges that two eggs were unlabeled and that the clinic used recalled storage equipment, raising concerns about the integrity of the specimens.

The filing notes Lev-Ary had one child in 2018 without using the frozen eggs, yet she was unable to conceive again, leading her to rely on the stored oocytes.

In 2021, when the eggs were thawed at another fertility clinic, all 16 were found to be non-viable, something doctors said is extremely rare and usually points to damage that occurred before thawing. The lawsuit alleges this left Lev-Ary unable to have additional biological children and caused significant emotional and financial harm.

Lev-Ary indicates she spent about $11,200 on the original egg retrieval and storage, and more than $69,000 on subsequent fertility treatments after discovering the eggs were destroyed, none of which was covered by insurance. The complaint also points out that the New York State Department of Health was investigating the clinic’s handling of the oocytes.

“Ms. Lev-Ary experienced severe anguish at the loss of the future children she had always imagined. For months, she cried nearly every day, and fell into a deep depression. She developed anxiety and lost her energy, which led her work to suffer. To this day, she struggles to sleep more than four hours a night, as she lays awake imagining the children she will never meet.”

— Larisa Lev-Ary v. Manhattan Fertility Services LLC et al

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, medical malpractice and bailment. It seeks compensatory damages for economic and emotional distress.

Fertility Clinic Settlement

According to an April 6, 2026 letter (PDF) submitted to the court, the parties have reached a settlement and are finalizing the terms of the agreement.

The letter indicates a stipulation of dismissal is expected to be filed shortly and attorneys have requested that the court stay all deadlines and conferences pending completion of the settlement process.

Specific terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and it remains unclear what compensation or other relief Lev-Ary will receive as part of the agreement.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

The owners of DraftKings and FanDuel are trying to convince a federal appeals court to move a sports betting lawsuit by the City of Baltimore to federal jurisdiction, despite the city’s efforts to keep the case in state court.

In April 2025, the Mayor and City of Baltimore filed a lawsuit against FanDuel and DraftKings in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, alleging the companies use tracking algorithms and aggressive marketing tactics to target vulnerable users, which in return causes compulsive, unsustainable gambling.The city’s lawsuit claims the two apps violate Baltimore’s Consumer Protection ordinance.

However, DraftKings and FanDuel have fought to remove the case to federal court since May, noting that neither site is headquartered in Maryland. In November 2025, a federal judge in the U.S. District of Maryland rejected their efforts, and the two companies appealed that decision to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Sports Betting Addiction Concerns

Maryland first approved online sports betting in 2021, resulting in a boom in online gambling, with state residents wagering more than $5 billion in fiscal year 2024. By January 2025, more than $457 million in bets were placed through DraftKings and FanDuel by users in Baltimore, according to figures cited in the original complaint.

The state is following a nationwide trend as sports betting sites, also known as sportsbooks, became legal after a Supreme Court decision in 2018, which left states to decide for themselves whether to allow the businesses to operate within their borders.

As sportsbooks have expanded, a growing number of critics say they have leaned more on aggressive and deceptive promotions as well as data-driven algorithms that track the behavior of gamblers. The sites then allegedly use that data to identify problem gamblers and bombard them with psychologically-tailored messaging to encourage more frequent and higher wagers.

In a growing number of sports betting addiction lawsuits filed nationwide, consumers, as well as state and local governments, allege these tactics are creating a surge in gambling problems, particularly among college-age users, leading to compulsive gambling, in addition to financial and emotional losses.

Baltimore Sportsbooks Lawsuit Update

In February, Baltimore filed a response brief to FanDuel and DraftKings’ appeal, calling for the Fourth Circuit to uphold the earlier decision to leave the case in state court. According to the brief, gambling regulation in Maryland falls under the jurisdiction of state police and impacts state policy, thus making it unfit to be moved to federal court.

However, in a reply brief (PDF) filed late last month, the two sports betting sites argue that their operations do not impact state policy, indicating their businesses are federally regulated and not under the purview of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA).

The argument is increasingly being made by sports betting companies, which claim they can only be regulated at the federal level and, in some cases, assert they can operate even in states where sports betting remains illegal.

In the brief, the sports betting sites indicate they believe the cases will be resolved without ever interacting with state policy and believe those types of questions may not even come up.

“The City overlooks that this case can and will likely be resolved on any of various other grounds, before any hypothetical need to consider ‘interplay’ with state gaming regulations would arise.”

– Reply Brief of Defendants-Appellants, City of Baltimore v. DraftKings Inc. et al

It is unclear when the appellate court will make its decision.

Sports Betting Addiction Lawsuits

The results of the appeal may have broad implications as other states and individuals continue to file sports betting lawsuits nationwide, accusing platforms like DraftKings, FanDuel and others of using predatory practices to exploit consumers and foster addiction, particularly among younger users.

Sports betting addiction lawyers are investigating claims nationwide, focusing on whether these platforms intentionally foster compulsive behavior and profit from escalating losses. Platforms named in ongoing investigations include:

To find out whether you qualify for a sports betting lawsuit, submit information about your potential claim for an attorney to review. All cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay nothing unless a settlement is obtained in your case.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive sports betting addiction lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

A wrongful death lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai by the son of a New Hampshire couple, alleging that his parents died from carbon monoxide poisoning after their Hyundai Genesis was left running in the garage, allowing the gas to enter the home.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by David S. Moore, on behalf of David P. Moore and Janice Moore, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire on April 1, presenting claims against Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America Inc. and Hyundai America Technical Center Inc. as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the automaker has know for years that its “smart” key fobs may result in situations where the vehicle is left running, creating a serious risk of carbon monoxide poisoing, which Hyundai has failed to warn consumers about.

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Risks

Carbon monoxide is a toxic gas that has no smell or color. It can be produced by engines, appliances and heaters. When car engines are improperly vented or left running in enclosed spaces, like attached garages, a buildup of the gas may occur, which is undetectable without a carbon monoxide alarm.

Symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning include dizziness, nausea, headaches, confusion and fatigue. Exposure to high levels without ventilation can cause a person to lose consciousness, which may result in death by starving the brain and heart of oxygen.

As a result of these concerns, safety officials warn consumers to never leave a car idling in an enclosed garage and never use grills or generators indoors. According to a Consumer Product Safety Commission report, generators are the primary cause of carbon monoxide poisoning deaths in the U.S.

Hyundai Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Lawsuit

David and Janice Moore died from carbon monoxide poisoning in their home in 2024, with investigators determining that the only source of the gas was their 2015 Hyundai Genesis parked in the garage.

According to the lawsuit, the couple parked the vehicle and believed it had been turned off before taking the smart key fob inside. However, because the car lacked an automatic engine shutoff when the fob was removed and did not provide a warning alert, it remained running, allowing carbon monoxide to accumulate inside the home and ultimately cause their deaths.

Moore’s lawsuit claims Hyundai was aware of the danger of the carbon monoxide poisoning risks posed by their vehicles. The company allegedly warns consumers about the dangers of carbon monoxide in certain vehicles’ Owner’s Manuals, calling the gas “toxic” and warning not to idle the engine in a garage because it can cause “unconsciousness and death.”

Additionally, Hyundai Genesis vehicles use a key fob, also known as a smart key fob, to start the vehicles. The fob must be in the vehicle for the user to start the car, but the fob does not have to be in the vehicle for the car to be turned off. More importantly, there is no audible alarm to alert a user that the key fob has been removed and the vehicle is still running.

According to the lawsuit, the safety key fob problem has been known to Hyundai since at least 2011, when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) initiated an amendment to a rule on keyless ignition controls, specifically to address the carbon monoxide hazard created by keyless ignitions. 

Moore’s complaint indicates NHTSA has received numerous complaints detailing the problem with Hyundai vehicles and key fobs removed from the vehicles, allowing the cars to remain running and expose users to carbon monoxide.

The lawsuit asserts Hyundai failed to incorporate carbon monoxide safety measures, including warning sounds when the engine remains running and the key fob is removed from the vehicle, in addition to auto engine shut-off features, which many of its competitors have already implemented. Additionally, the complaint argues that despite Hyundai’s stated commitment to customer safety, the company did not issue a recall for the Genesis and failed to warn consumers.

“Despite including an automatic engine shut-off feature for 2023 model year vehicles and beyond, Hyundai failed to warn owners of older Hyundai models that removing the Smart Key from the vehicle does not turn the vehicle off and increases the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning.”

– David S. Moore v.  Hyundai Motor Company et al

Moore presents claims of wrongful death, survival action, liability claims of design defect and failure to warn, negligent design, negligent failure to warn and breach of implied warranty. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, as well as damages for mental and physical pain and suffering.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

The U.S. District Judge overseeing all federal hair relaxer lawsuits being pursued by former users of products like Just for Me, Optimum and Dark & Lovely has selected 10 cancer cases that will be prepared for early trials, narrowing the pool from what was originally planned.

The cases will be used as “bellwethers” to help gauge how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout more than 11,000 product liability lawsuits currently being pursued by women who developed uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and other injuries linked to chemicals in the popular hair straighteners.

The litigation emerged almost immediately after a study was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in October 2022, which found that women who use hair relaxers more than four times per year face a 156% increased risk of developing uterine cancer. Even infrequent use of between one and four times per year was found to increase the risk of uterine cancer by 54%.

Lawsuits now allege that cosmetics companies like L’Oreal, Revlon, Strength of Nature and others knew or should have known about these risks, yet failed to warn users that chemical hair straighteners may significantly increase the risk of reproductive cancers.

The complaints note that these products were heavily marketed toward women of color, pressuring them to conform to societal hair beauty standards. However, the lawsuits claim this led to disproportionate exposure to harmful chemicals, including phthalates, parabens and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals, which have been associated with hormone disruption and the development of tumors in reproductive tissues.

Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Bellwether Trials

In 2023, all federal complaints were consolidated into a hair relaxer lawsuit multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois, where U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland was appointed to preside over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Over the past three years, Judge Rowland has been overseeing the preparation of 32 hair relaxer lawsuits for potential bellwether trials. These early test cases are intended to help the court and parties evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their claims, potentially facilitating settlement negotiations to resolve the filings.

Last month, each side identified 12 potential bellwether selections from that pool of 32 claims, which the parties indicated they believe would serve as representative trial cases. However, an April 2 docket entry (PDF) indicates that Judge Rowland rejected several of these because she did not believe they were representative of the larger body of litigation.

Judge Rowland selected 10 cases to move forward as bellwether trials, reducing the overall pool and outlining criteria for excluding certain claims, particularly if replacements are needed.

She indicated the following types of cases should not be included:

• Claims involving only one or two defendants
• Plaintiffs with memory loss, mental health conditions or learning disabilities
• Plaintiffs also pursuing talcum powder cancer lawsuits involving similar reproductive cancer claims

Using these standards, the judge selected lawsuits filed by Bridget Boatwright, Carrie Chattman, Charlene Fennell, Gloria Ford, Areecia Jackson, Joanne Jones, Rosa Robinson, Karla Smith, Roxanna Wade and Janette Wallace.

For example, Boatwright, a New York resident, developed uterine and endometrial cancer after years of using hair relaxer products from L’Oréal, Revlon and Namaste Laboratories. Chattman, also from New York, was diagnosed with endometrial cancer in 2017 after long-term use of products such as Dark & Lovely, Optimum, ORS Olive Oil and Crème of Nature.

Originally, Judge Rowland was scheduled to nominate only three claims eligible to serve as bellwether trials by April 1, after which plaintiffs were expected to select one of the cases for trial by April 6, with defendants choosing another claim by April 10. That process was to be repeated throughout the month of April. However, with the revised orders, it is unclear how the bellwether schedule has changed.

While the results of these bellwether trials will not be binding on other cases, they are expected to give the parties and the court an idea of how juries will weigh evidence, testimony and legal theories that would be a prominent factor throughout the rest of the litigation. It is hoped that the results of these trials could help pave the way for hair relaxer cancer lawsuit settlement negotiations.

However, if the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings end without a settlement or other resolution, the lawsuits may be remanded back to their originating federal district courts for individual trial dates.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive hair relaxer lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

According to a new lawsuit, an 11-year-old Louisiana girl was groomed on Roblox and Snapchat by sexual predators who released nude pictures of her to classmates, causing severe emotional trauma.

Her mother filed the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 31, seeking to hold Roblox Corporation and Snap Inc. liable for failing to add safety features that protect children, despite knowing predatory adults were targeting them on their platforms, Roblox and Snapchat. In order to maintain their anonymity, the lawsuit refers to the daughter as AW-0002, and her mother as AW-GAL-0002.

Roblox was launched in 2006 as an online gaming platform marketed to children, which allows users to create their own games and servers that they can invite others to experience with them. Players can also interact and communicate through chat features.

Snapchat, which was originally launched in 2011 as Picaboo, is a chat service where users can send pictures, messages and other media that are only available for a limited time.

Both platforms attract millions of users worldwide. However, Roblox has been the subject of hundreds of Roblox child exploitation lawsuits filed by parents and young survivors who allege the lack of adequate safety features has allowed predators to contact and groom children into sending explicit videos, photos or to meet in the real world, which has led to sexual assaults, rapes, kidnappings and human trafficking for years.

In many instances, once the predator felt they had the child adequately groomed, they would allegedly switch the interactions from Roblox to a chat system like Snapchat or Discord.

After facing increasing pressure, late last year Roblox began rolling out facial recognition software, which it says can verify users’ ages and prevent adults from contacting children they do not know without parental consent. It remains to be seen how effective at preventing child exploitation the new features will be.

Roblox, Snapchat Grooming Allegations

According to the lawsuit, AW-0002 began using Roblox when she was only 10 years old. Her mother, seeing Roblox’s marketing, its child-like design and knowing other children used it, believed the platform to be safe for children.

However, her own daughter became the target of sexual predators on Roblox in 2024. Once they groomed the now 11-year-old child sufficiently, they moved the conversations to Snapchat.

One predator in particular, a 19-year-old who called himself “Fidel,” began having video calls with the child. Even after the mother confronted him with her daughter’s age and forbade him to contact her daughter, “Fidel” found other ways to do so through fake accounts and acquaintances.

Eventually, the mother discovered he had manipulated the child into sending topless pictures of herself, which were then shared at her school, causing the little girl to be the subject of ridicule and bullying, resulting in tremendous emotional trauma.

Her mother indicates that Roblox knew this was happening to children worldwide through their platform long before the daughter began using it. However, she argues that both platforms were far more concerned about profit, showing “reckless disregard” for the safety of children it knew were using their apps.

“Had Defendants’ defectively designed apps not provided these predators with easy access to Plaintiff, she would have never experienced this lifechanging abuse. Had Defendants implemented even the most basic system of screening or age and identity verification, as well as other commonsense safety measures, Plaintiff never would have interacted with these predators and never would have suffered the harm that she did.”

– AW-GAL-0002 v. Roblox Corporation et al

The lawsuit indicates the girl suffered “profound harm” as a result of all that has happened, leaving her with anxiety, extreme humiliation, shame and “a fundamental loss of trust” for others. 

It presents claims of design defect, negligence, failure to warn, unreasonable design, negligent undertaking, negligence – failure to warn, fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation.

Roblox Child Exploitation Lawsuits

The complaint will be consolidated with similar Roblox child exploitation lawsuits currently centralized in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Hundreds of claims have been filed to date, and the litigation is expected to continue to grow in the coming weeks and months. Judge Seeborg is also likely to call for “bellwether trials,” where the parties select and prepare a few cases, determined to be representative of the litigation as a whole, for early trial dates. These bellwether trials are typically used to gauge how juries may respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

However, if the parties have not reached a settlement agreement or other resolution after the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings have concluded, Judge Seeborg would likely begin remanding cases back to their original district courts for individual dates.

Sign up for more legal news that may affect you or your family.

A Pennsylvania couple has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a Kenmore-branded dehumidifier suddenly malfunctioned and sparked a fire, which caused extensive damage to their home.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Maurice and Trudy Gossert in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on March 25.

The lawsuit names Winix Inc., which allegedly manufactured the dehumidifier, and Transform SR Brands LLC, doing business as Transformco, which is accused of distributing and selling the Kenmore-branded appliance in North America after acquiring Sears’ assets.

A dehumidifier is a kind of household appliance that is designed to remove excess moisture or humidity from the air, helping to keep indoor environments dry and comfortable. Although generally considered safe when used properly, faulty electrical component failures can cause units to overheat, smoke or catch fire, which has led to multiple large-scale dehumidifier recalls and lawsuits over the years.

Dehumidifier Lawsuits and Recalls

Earlier this year, an insurer filed a similar Frigidaire dehumidifier lawsuit, alleging that one of that company’s recalled models contained defects which caused it to overheat and ignite, resulting in a house fire and significant damage to the clients’ property.

Similar concerns have been raised in recent years by a string of U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Gree dehumidifier recalls, which were tied to hundreds of reported fires nationwide.

The CPSC also announced a massive dehumidifier recall in 2021, impacting certain units from Haier, Amana, Honeywell and other brands, warning that the devices may overheat, smoke or catch fire, leading to millions of products being removed from the market and raising ongoing concerns about the safety of many of these household appliances.

Kenmore Dehumidifier Malfunction Lawsuit

According to the complaint, the Gosserts were using the Kenmore dehumidifier as intended in their Chambersburg, Pennsylvania home when it allegedly malfunctioned on March 26, 2024, sparking a fire that engulfed the home. The blaze is said to have caused extensive structural damage, along with significant costs for cleanup, repairs and related losses.

The lawsuit claims the dehumidifier was not altered or misused prior to the incident. Instead, it indicates the unit was defectively designed, manufactured and marketed, posing an unreasonable risk of fire.

The Gosserts maintain that the defendants knew or should have known the dehumidifier could present a fire hazard, yet failed to ensure the product was safe for consumers or provide adequate warnings about potential risks. 

They contend the product contained multiple defects, including issues related to its design, manufacturing and component parts, as well as inadequate instructions or warnings regarding safe use.

“As a result of the above-described fire and consequent damages, Plaintiffs’ property was damaged and additional expenses were incurred in an amount in excess of $150,000.00.”

— Maurice and Trudy Gossert v. Transform SR Brands LLC et al

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, strict liability and breach of warranties. It is seeking damages in excess of $150,000, along with additional compensation for costs, delay damages and attorney fees.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A panel of judges has determined that all federal ByHeart infant formula lawsuits should be consolidated before one judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New Jersey, for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings in the claims, which each raise similar allegations that the recalled formula is responsible for a nationwide outbreak of infant botulism last year.

The infant botulism outbreak was first detected in November 2025 and subsequently linked to 51 infant illnesses nationwide by the middle of January. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tracked the illnesses back to contaminated ByHeart formula, ultimately resulting in a ByHeart infant formula recall on November 8, 2025. 

Initially limited to two batches, the ByHeart recall was expanded just days later, pulling all batches of ByHeart Whole Nutrition Infant Formula Cans and Anywhere Packs from the U.S. market.

This has sparked multiple individual and class action ByHeart infant formula recall lawsuits nationwide by parents and caregivers, each alleging that the company failed to properly manufacture the recalled formula in a way that made it safe for infants. 

Individual lawsuits have been filed by families whose children were injured during the outbreak, while separate class action claims argue that parents whose children did not become ill should be refunded for the formula, alleging they would not have purchased or used the product had they known it carried a risk of infant botulism.

In January, a group of plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), requesting that all federal ByHeart formula lawsuits be consolidated in the Southern District of New York as a multidistrict litigation (MDL) under U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

In complex consumer product litigation, when large numbers of claims may be filed by users of the same product who suffered similar injuries or damages, it is common for the JPML to centralize cases. This is intended to reduce duplicative discovery on shared issues, avoid conflicting pretrial rulings, and promote efficiency for witnesses and parties involved in the litigation.

JPML Approves ByHeart Lawsuits MDL

The JPML agreed with the plaintiffs and approved the request in a transfer order (PDF) issued on April 2, several days after the panel heard oral arguments on centralization, during which ByHeart reportedly supported the motion. The panel also selected the Southern District of New York as the venue and appointed U.S. District Judge Arun S. Subramanian to oversee the litigation.

According to the order, ByHeart currently faces nine individual injury claims, as well as 10 class action lawsuits.

“The actions will share factual questions regarding the root cause of the alleged contamination, ByHeart’s manufacturing process, and ByHeart’s compliance with applicable FDA and other regulations.”

– U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Now that the cases have been consolidated, it is expected that Judge Subramanian will instruct the parties to begin preparing a series of representative cases to serve as early test “bellwether” trials in the coming months and years. These trials will give the parties an opportunity to see how a jury responds to the strengths and weaknesses of arguments, evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

However, if the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings end with the parties failing to negotiate a settlement or reach another resolution, each individual claim may be later remanded back to the U.S. District Court where it was originally filed for trial.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced three separate recalls impacting more than half a million Medtronic MiniMed insulin pumps, warning that a design flaw may cause the devices to deliver incorrect insulin doses when positioned above or below the infusion site due to changes in fluid pressure.

Medtronic MiniMed insulin pumps are designed to help individuals with diabetes regulate blood glucose levels. They provide a steady, continuous flow of insulin throughout the day, along with extra doses when needed.

However, if the pump delivers too much or too little insulin, serious or potentially life-threatening complications may occur. Too much insulin can cause hypoglycemia, leading to confusion, seizures or even death, while too little insulin can cause high blood sugar and, over time, diabetic ketoacidosis, another life-threatening condition.

Medtronic MiniMed Recall

The FDA recall impacts 13,811 MiniMed 700G insulin pumps, 95,704 MiniMed 770G pumps and 453,144 MiniMed 780G pumps, all of which are in circulation and have been distributed across the U.S. and internationally.

Customers began receiving correction notices from the manufacturer via email, SMS, certified mail and in-app push notifications on February 13, informing them of the updated user guides. 

The notices advise users to keep the pump in a stable position and not to wear or place the device more than 14 inches (35.5 cm) above the infusion site, as doing so may result in over-delivery of insulin and increase the risk of hypoglycemia.

The guidance further recommends limiting the amount of time the pump is positioned above the infusion site when elevation cannot be avoided. Users are also instructed to closely monitor pump alerts and watch for any signs of blood sugar fluctuations.

The FDA has classified the recall as Class II, indicating that the affected devices may pose a risk of temporary or medically reversible health effects.

Customers are encouraged to complete and return acknowledgment forms by visiting https://info.medtronicdiabetes.com/pump-placement. For additional questions, Medtronic can be contacted at 1-855-587-4950.

Medtronic MiniMed Lawsuits

The Medtronic MiniMed insulin pump has been the subject of multiple recalls and lawsuits in recent years, driven by ongoing safety concerns involving insulin dosing errors, device malfunctions and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. As a result, many patients and families have filed MiniMed lawsuits after experiencing severe injuries or the loss of loved ones.

In August 2023, a MiniMed wrongful death lawsuit was filed following a fatal insulin overdose linked to a MiniMed pump. According to the complaint, Michael E. Domanowski properly prepared his insulin pump before going to sleep on August 9, 2020. After he failed to report to work for several days, he was later found deceased in his home.

Investigators determined that the device had delivered an excessive amount of insulin, potentially equivalent to an entire week’s dosage in a single event. The overdose caused severe hypoglycemia, ultimately resulting in his death. An autopsy later confirmed critically low blood sugar levels.

The lawsuit further alleges that the specific MiniMed pump involved was later recalled due to known risks of malfunction and insulin over-delivery. It also claims Medtronic representatives contacted the family shortly after his death to inform them of the recall, which plaintiffs argue reflects prior awareness of the defect.

Additional concerns have been raised in other regulatory actions. In September 2022, the FDA warned that certain MiniMed pumps contained cybersecurity vulnerabilities that could allow unauthorized access to the device’s wireless communication system when in close proximity. This risk was heightened when the pump was connected to other devices, such as continuous glucose monitors, blood glucose meters or CareLink USB systems.

Dosing issues were also identified in a February 2020 recall of MiniMed insulin pumps, which preceded a number of lawsuits. In one case filed in March 2020, a woman alleged that her Medtronic infusion pump malfunctioned, resulting in an insulin overdose. She reportedly fell into a diabetic coma, experienced seizures and suffered additional complications as a result.

Sign up for more health and legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Washington state woman has filed a lawsuit indicating she never would have agreed to receive Depo-Provera injections had she known that the birth control shots could cause her to develop a brain tumor, which is now threatening her health and life.

Rondella Kay Wray brought the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on March 31, naming Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC and Pharmacia LLC as defendants.

Depo-Provera (depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, or DMPA) is a long-term contraceptive injection given four times a year. The birth control shot was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1992, and it has been widely marketed as a safe and convenient way to prevent pregnancy, resulting in tens of millions of women being given the “Depo shot” worldwide.

About two years ago, concerns surfaced over the long-term side effects of Depo-Provera, after a study linked the birth control shot to a more than five-fold increased risk of developing an intracranial meningioma, which is a form of brain tumor.

These high risk brain tumors from Depo-Provera can cause serious complications, or even be life-threatening, based on their size and location in the brain, often requiring surgical intervention. In cases where the tumor is in too sensitive a place to be removed, it requires life-long monitoring to ensure that it does not grow in a way that creates an even greater threat to the patient.

Wray and others now say manufacturers hid this problem for decades. As a result, many women continued to receive injections for years, even after a brain tumor diagnosis since there was no way to know the two events were connected.

In light of these concerns, a growing number of Depo-Provera lawsuits have been brought over the past two years, each alleging Pfizer and other manufacturers of generic birth control shots failed to warn women about the risk of brain tumors.

Depo-Provera Side Effects Lawsuit

Wray’s lawsuit indicates she began receiving Depo-Provera shots in 2014, and continued to receive the injections until 2020. Some of the injections were Pfizer’s brand-name Depo-Provera, while others were authorized generic versions of the contraceptive.

However, in 2020, doctors informed Wray she had developed an intracranial meningioma along the left parietal convexity. Due to its location, the tumor cannot be surgically removed, requiring ongoing monitoring through regular MRI and CT scans to track its growth and potential complications.

“Plaintiff remains at a high risk of developing worsening neurological symptoms in the future and may necessitate radiation therapy or a surgical intervention. Such uncertainty surrounding Plaintiff’s medical condition and the possibility of worsening neurological injuries has caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff serious psychological injuries and emotional distress.”

– Rondella Kay Wray v. Pfizer Inc. et al

The lawsuit notes that there has been evidence that hormones like those used in Depo-Provera had a connection to brain tumor development since the 1930s. Researchers also have known, since at least 1983, that meningioma cells contain a high number of progesterone receptors, which respond strongly to estrogen, like the hormones included in Depo-Provera injections.

According to the lawsuit, the manufacturers knew about these studies and findings even before Depo-Provera was placed on the market, yet failed to warn patients and doctors to watch for early development of brain tumors in order to keep usage and profit levels high.

Wray’s complaint presents claims of failure to warn, design defect, negligence, negligent failure to warn, negligent design defect, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of warranty. She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Lawsuits

The complaint will be consolidated with similar Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuits in the Northern District of Florida, where all federal claims have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers, who is leading the litigation through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Early in the litigation, Judge Rodgers identified five “pilot” cases she indicated should serve as early test “bellwether” trials. These trials are designed to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony presented in cases meant to be representative of the litigation as a whole.

Judge Rodgers has scheduled the first Depo-Provera trial for December 7, 2026, involving a lawsuit filed by Donna Toney of Florida, who alleges she suffered vertigo, dizziness and hearing loss due to a brain tumor caused by the birth control injections. Additional bellwether trials will follow in early 2027.

Although the outcomes of these bellwether trials will not be binding on other claims, it is hoped they will help the parties form a basis for a settlement agreement. However, if no such agreement is reached after the bellwether trials are concluded, Judge Rodgers may remand Wray’s, and other Depo-Provera lawsuits, back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive Depo-Provera lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

Regeneron and Sanofi-Aventis face a Dupixent lawsuit brought last week by an Illinois man, who says the side effects of the eczema treatment caused him to develop a rare form of blood cancer.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Anthony Baum in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 2. It claims the two manufacturers marketed and sold a drug that could cause serious and life-altering side effects without adequate warnings to the medical community or patients.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved Dupixent (dupilumab) in 2017 as a treatment for atopic dermatitis and eczema. Its approval was later expanded to include use for asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), as well as some inflammatory conditions known to target the respiratory tract and skin. The drug generated $18.3 billion in sales in 2025.

However, studies have recently linked Dupixent side effects to an increased risk of certain forms of T-cell lymphoma, a rare form of cancer that affects the white blood cells, which are a key part of the human immune system and help combat infections. At least two forms of T-cell lymphoma have been associated with Dupixent use, including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

Baum’s complaint now joins dozens of similar Dupixent injection lawsuits filed nationwide since these findings came to light, each raising similar allegations that the manufacturers knew about potential cancer risks linked to the drug for years, yet hid these risks from regulators, doctors and patients in order to increase profits at the expense of consumer safety.

Dupixent PTCL Lawsuit

According to the complaint, Baum was prescribed Dupixent in March 2022 after being diagnosed with eczema earlier that year, receiving two injections that month and three more by the end of April.

Shortly after starting treatment, he developed swollen lymph nodes and was diagnosed with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) in May 2022, just two months later. His doctor immediately discontinued Dupixent as Baum underwent chemotherapy and a stem cell transplant, which led to additional complications, including graft-versus-host disease that allegedly caused COPD.

The lawsuit states that Baum was not informed of any potential link between Dupixent and his cancer until March 2025, which he claims reflects a broader lack of awareness caused by the manufacturers’ failure to disclose the risks. 

Baum alleges the companies withheld warnings for years despite case reports, epidemiological studies and other scientific evidence linking Dupixent to T-cell lymphoma, and failed to conduct adequate testing or update the drug’s label even after cancer signals emerged.

“Defendants made repeated representations that Dupixent is safe and effective, including references to ‘safety results’ from clinical trials. Defendants made these false and misleading statements even though they knew Dupixent had lymphoproliferative disorder risks that had not been adequately studied with respect to its effect on the development and progression of T-cell lymphoma, including CTCL and PTCL.”

– Anthony Baum et al. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al

The lawsuit presents claims for failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and breach of warranty. Baum’s wife, Jeanette Baum, is also pursuing loss of consortium claims.

Dupixent Injection Lawsuits

The complaint comes as a group of plaintiffs and the defendants seek to have all Dupixent injection lawsuits consolidated before one federal judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

If the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) approves the requests, the judge appointed to oversee the case will shepherd the litigation through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings, and will likely arrange for a series of early test trials. These “bellwether” trials will allow the parties and court to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony that would be cornerstones for the vast majority of claims.

While the outcomes of bellwether trials are not binding, they can help the parties negotiate a settlement agreement once it becomes clear how juries are likely to decide. However, if no Dupixent cancer settlement has been reached by the end of the bellwether trials, the judge may begin remanding the cases back to their original district courts for individual trial dates.

As the JPML weighs the decision on consolidation, individuals are continuing to file Dupixent cancer lawsuits throughout various federal courts nationwide, seeking compensation for their injuries. 

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A California stoneworker has filed a lawsuit alleging that quartz countertop manufacturers knew for years that the stone fabrication process could expose workers to dangerous silica dust linked to lung diseases like silicosis, yet failed to provide adequate warnings or protections.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Carilo Padilla Gomez and Laura Gallegos Gomez in California Superior Court, naming more than 25 manufacturers and distributors of quartz countertop products as defendants.

Quartz countertops, often sold under brand names like Silestone and Colorquartz, have become increasingly popular for their durability and appearance. However, these engineered stone products can contain up to 90% crystalline silica, significantly more than many natural materials, and may release hazardous dust during cutting and fabrication. 

As a result the manufacturers failure to disclose these risks, a number of silicosis lawsuits have been filed in recent years, each raising similar allegations that quartz countertop fabricators, installers and stoneworkers were left iwth severe and potentially life-threatening lung injuries after repeated exposure to the dust from working with engineered stone products.

Silicosis, one of the most common of these injuries, is a permanent and progressive respiratory disease caused by inhaling fine silica particles. This exposure can lead to inflammation and scarring of lung tissue, reduced breathing capacity, and in severe cases, respiratory failure requiring a lung transplant.

Quartz Countertop Silicosis Allegations

According to this recently filed complaint, Carilo Gomez worked with quartz countertop materials in the course of his employment, where he was regularly exposed to airborne silica dust generated during cutting, grinding and installation processes. The lawsuit alleges that even when basic dust control measures were used, workers were still exposed to levels of silica that exceeded permissible safety limits.

Gomez alleges he was never adequately warned about the risk of silicosis or other serious lung diseases, despite longstanding industry knowledge that inhaling respirable crystalline silica can cause permanent and potentially fatal respiratory conditions. The complaint cites internal data, safety materials, and prior litigation indicating manufacturers were aware of the risks but failed to take proper steps to protect workers.

It further claims safety data sheets and product warnings were misleading, downplaying the severity of the dangers and suggesting basic protections like dust masks were sufficient, even though they do not prevent inhalation of fine silica particles.

The lawsuit also points to a growing body of medical and occupational evidence showing a rise in aggressive, fast-progressing silicosis cases among countertop workers, with some developing severe lung damage after relatively short exposure periods.

As a direct result of this exposure, Gomez claims he developed permanent lung injuries, including silicosis, which have impaired his breathing, limited his ability to work, and caused ongoing physical and emotional suffering.

“Cutting, grinding, drilling, chipping, edging, and/or polishing (collectively ‘fabricating’) stone products produces large amounts of respirable crystalline silica dust which stone fabrication workers inhale, typically causing chronic silicosis as well as lung cancer and various other silica-related diseases.”

— Carilo Padilla Gomez et al v. Architectural Surfaces Group LLC et al

The lawsuit raises claims of negligence, products liability, design defect, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties and loss of consortium against the defendants. It seeks past, present and future damages for medical expenses, loss of wages and earning potential, as well as loss of consortium.

Gomez’s case joins a growing number of silica dust lawsuits being filed across the country on behalf of countertop workers who have developed silicosis and other respiratory diseases after working with engineered stone products.

Attorneys nationwide are currently offering free case reviews to individuals who were exposed to silica dust on the job and later diagnosed with silicosis.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Chinese researchers say they conducted the largest and most comprehensive review to date on the side effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists, finding strong evidence linking the drugs to gastrointestinal issues, while other potential safety concerns remained less clear.

The findings were published in JAMA Network Open on March 31, indicating that gastrointestinal problems, including stomach paralysis and bowel obstruction, are the most common complaints by those taking diabetes and weight loss drugs like Ozempic, Mounjaro and Wegovy.

GLP-1 Medications

First created to treat Type 2 diabetes, GLP-1 medications, including Ozempic, Mounjaro, Wegovy, Zepbound, Trulicity, Rybelsus and others, have grown significantly in popularity after they became linked with significant weight loss and beneficial metabolic effects.

However, the findings of a study published in October 2023, linked GLP-1 medications to triple the risk of gastroparesis, or stomach paralysis, compared to non-injectable weight loss medications. In the aftermath, thousands of Ozempic lawsuits, Wegovy lawsuits, Mounjaro lawsuits and other GLP-1 stomach paralysis complaints have been filed by users nationwide.

In addition, a growing number of other lawsuits have been brought in recent months after some of the medications, specifically Ozempic and Wegovy, were linked to GLP-1 vision loss side effects. Plaintiffs say these side effects, being discovered years after the products were placed on the market, are signs the manufacturers either failed to properly test the drugs, or failed to provide adequate warnings about the potential health risks.

GLP-1 Side Effects Study

The new study, led by Dr. Kaijie Yang of First Hospital of China Medical University, involved a review of 60 different meta-analyses of 1,751 randomized clinical trials involving about three million participants. The researchers combed data for incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events, cancer, fractures, respiratory problems, psychiatric side effects, liver problems and other potential complications.

The findings showed the most consistent risks involved gastrointestinal issues, with roughly double the likelihood of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. While researchers identified some signals suggesting a possible link to pancreatitis, evidence for other side effects, such as gallbladder or biliary disease, was less clear.

The analysis also suggested that GLP-1 medications may offer some protective effects against infections, respiratory diseases, bone fractures and dementia, while findings related to cancer remained inconclusive.

“GLP-1 RAs continue to be a cornerstone of antidiabetic therapy but should not be misconstrued as a panacea. The complex profile that emerged from our findings was characterized by potential neuroprotective and respiratory benefits coexisting with safety signals related to gastrointestinal events, such as nausea and vomiting.”

– Dr. Kaijie Yang, GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Noncardiometabolic Outcomes

The researchers concluded that the findings make it clear that doctors should approach GLP-1 use as part of individualized therapeutic strategies instead of just being prescribed routinely.

GLP-1 Stomach Paralysis Lawsuits

Drug makers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly currently face more than 3,300 GLP-1 stomach paralysis lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide, with plaintiffs claiming to have suffered severe injuries due to the delayed gastric emptying effects of the medications.

These claims are consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where U.S. District Judge Karen Marston is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Marston is working with the parties to select a small group of representative cases for bellwether trials, which will allow the parties to gauge how juries may respond to evidence and testimony likely to recur across thousands of similar claims.

GLP-1 Vision Loss Lawsuits

Similarly, Judge Marston is also overseeing a consolidated MDL of GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits, which consists of dozens of claims. These lawsuits began to be filed after a series of studies linked semaglutide-based drugs, like Ozempic, Wegovy and Rybelsus, to a condition known as non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION).

The condition can cause rapid onset of blurred or reduced vision, including blindness. Resulting in optic nerve damage, NAION occurs suddenly and the vision loss is often permanent. More than 50 GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits have already been filed by patients facing such injuries.

The judge is expected to also guide these cases through coordinated discovery, pretrial proceedings and a group of bellwether trials as well.

While the outcomes of these trials will not be binding on other claims for either condition, they will be closely watched to see what kinds of payouts juries award to plaintiffs, which are likely to have a significant impact on negotiations. However, if no settlement is reached following the bellwether trials, Judge Marston is likely to remand the cases back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up for GLP-1 lawsuit updates to be delivered directly to your inbox.

A new study published in the British Journal of Nutrition warns that consuming high levels of ultra-processed foods may weaken bone strength, leading to lower bone mineral density and an increased risk of hip fractures.

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) include a wide range of snacks, drinks and ready-made meals that rely heavily on added sugars, unhealthy fats, salt and other additives to boost flavor, extend shelf life or improve texture, while offering little nutritional benefit. 

As consumption of these products has surged in recent decades, research has linked their intake to a range of long-term health concerns, including the development of prediabetes in young adults, Type 2 diabetes and even an increased cancer risk.

A separate study has also suggested that ultra-processed foods may hijack the brain’s reward system, encouraging repetitive consumption and patterns of dependence similar to addiction.

These findings have led attorneys to begin investigating processed food lawsuits against many major manufacturers, including Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, General Mills and Kellogg’s. Some claims allege the companies have been aware of the health risks associated with these kinds of products for decades, yet continued to market and sell them without adequate warnings, prioritizing profits over consumer well being.

UPF Bone Density Risks

In the new study, researchers analyzed data from 163,855 participants enrolled in the UK Biobank, a large, long-term health database in the United Kingdom. The group had an average age of 56 and was followed for approximately 12 years.

Led by Huaying Hu, the researchers found that higher intake of ultra-processed foods was associated with reduced bone mineral density at multiple sites, including the upper femur and lumbar spine, with the strongest effects seen in individuals under age 65 and those who were underweight.

According to the findings, for every 3.7 additional servings of UPFs consumed per day, the risk of hip fracture increased by 10.5%, while the risk of all fractures increased by 2.7%.

“Our results suggest that higher UPF intake is associated with lower (bone mineral density) and increased risk of fractures captured in hospital inpatient records, highlighting the need for dietary interventions to protect bone health.”

— Huaying Hu, Associations of ultra-processed food intake with bone mineral density and fractures in the UK Biobank

Ultra-Processed Foods Lawsuits

As a growing body of research highlights the potential health risks linked to junk food, an increasing number of ultra-processed food lawsuits have been filed by individuals who allege that long-term consumption contributed to serious conditions such as Type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Many of these complaints claim major food manufacturers intentionally designed and marketed products to drive frequent consumption, particularly among younger consumers.

In one lawsuit filed last month, an Arkansas family alleged that some of the nation’s largest food companies played a role in a teenager developing Type 2 diabetes and other serious health problems through the promotion and formulation of ultra-processed foods.

Ultra-processed food attorneys are currently reviewing additional cases nationwide involving individuals who regularly consumed UPFs during childhood and later developed metabolic illnesses.

Sign up for more health and legal news that could affect you or your family.

An Illinois woman has filed a personal injury lawsuit alleging that a defective Medtronic Intellis neurostimulator left her with worsening pain and additional complications after the spinal cord stimulator (SCS) was implanted in her body.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Lori Lynn Geest in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 25, naming Medtronic Inc. and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as defendants.

Spinal cord stimulator (SCS) systems, like the Medtronic Intellis neurostimulator, are designed to deliver electrical impulses to the nervous system to disrupt pain signals before they reach the brain. They are commonly used to treat chronic back, leg and nerve pain when other treatments fail to provide relief.

These devices usually consist of a battery-powered pulse generator implanted under the skin, thin electrical leads positioned along the spinal cord and an external controller that allows doctors or patients to adjust stimulation levels. Once implanted, the SCS system becomes a permanent part of the patient’s body.

Despite their advertised benefits, a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits have been filed in recent months, with many claims focusing on unapproved or inadequately tested design changes that may have made the devices more prone to malfunctions. Plaintiffs allege these modifications have been linked to issues such as lead breakage or migration, unintended electrical shocks, loss of therapeutic benefit and other neurological complications.

Medtronic Intellis Neurostimulator Allegations

According to the complaint, Geest underwent implantation of a Medtronic Intellis LT neurostimulator (Model 97716) in an effort to manage chronic pain. However, she alleges that the device failed to perform as intended and instead led to worsening pain, discomfort and reduced mobility.

The filing indicates the Intellis neurostimulator delivered inconsistent or ineffective stimulation, which not only failed to alleviate symptoms but allegedly intensified the underlying condition. As a result, the Medtronic SCS lawsuit claims Geest suffered ongoing physical pain, emotional distress and a diminished quality of life.

The complaint further alleges that the manufacturer failed to adequately warn patients and healthcare providers about the potential risks associated with the Medtronic Intellis neurostimulator, including the possibility of ineffective treatment, device malfunction and worsening symptoms following implantation.

In addition, the lawsuit raises concerns about the design, manufacturing and testing of the device, indicating it may not have been sufficiently evaluated for long-term safety and effectiveness before being introduced to the market.

As a result of the alleged complications, Geest says that she may require additional medical treatment, including revision surgery or removal of the device, and continues to experience ongoing symptoms linked to the implant.

“Plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the implantation and use of the adulterated device and the Defendants’ wrongful actions. Any claim that Plaintiff ‘should have known’ about the regulatory violations at the time of injury ignores the fact that this information was hidden by Medtronic and is exclusively found within Medtronic’s and FDA’s regulatory records.”

— Lori Lynn Geest v. Medtronic Inc. et al

The Medtronic SCS lawsuit raises allegations of strict products liability, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment against Medtronic, in addition to claims of violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) against the FDA.

Geest seeks compensatory, statutory, punitive and exemplary damages against Medtronic. She is also asking the court to find that the FDA improperly allowed the Medtronic Intellis neurostimulator to be marketed without full review, strip the manufacturer of federal preemption protections, and block similar approvals in the future.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

The case adds to a growing number of SCS lawsuits being brought nationwide against numerous device manufacturers, including Medtronic, Abbott Laboratories and Boston Scientific. Many of these claims raise similar allegations that spinal cord stimulation devices may fail to provide effective pain relief or cause new complications after implantation.

Last month, a group of plaintiffs who have brought similar SCS lawsuits against Abbott and Boston Scientific filed a petition to consolidate all nationwide federal claims against those defendants before one judge as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois.

It is unclear how Medtronic SCS lawsuits will affect the plaintiffs’ motion for consolidation, or the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s (JPML) decision on whether to consolidate them.

If consolidation is granted, it is also uncertain whether other manufacturers’ claims will be included alongside those involving Abbott and Boston Scientific.

Spinal cord stimulator lawyers are currently investigating lawsuits on behalf of individuals implanted with a Medtronic Intellis neurostimulator or similar device who have experienced any of the following complications:

• Electrical shocks or burning sensations linked to stimulation or device wiring
• Device migration or lead movement after implantation
• Tissue burns or localized injury near leads or the generator
• Neurological symptoms associated with lead position or electrical output
• Revision surgery or planned explant surgery due to device complications

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

According to a lawsuit filed by a Texas man, a defectively designed Covidien hernia mesh implant led to numerous surgeries, weeks of hospitalization and permanent injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Steven Louis Jarmon in Texas District Court on March 30, naming Medtronic Inc. and its subsidiary, Covidien Inc., as the defendants. On the same day, the manufacturers had the case removed to the federal court system, where it will soon be consolidated with thousands of similar claims being pursued by individuals nationwide.

The Covidien mesh is a hernia mesh implant constructed of knitted polyester with an absorbable collagen film. However, the manufacturers face numerous similar hernia mesh lawsuits, alleging that there is a problem with the product’s polyester design that makes it more likely to fracture from fatigue, break, fragment, cause mesh migration, potentially puncture organs and cause other health problems.

Jarmon claims that the defendants have known for years that the mesh is defective, yet failed to warn the medical community, remove the mesh from the market, or alter its design.

Hernia Mesh Failure Lawsuit

According to the lawsuit, Jarmon was first implanted with a Covidien mesh during a laparoscopic right-sided inguinal hernia repair in June 2016. However, in June 2024, he began noticing a red, swollen abscess forming on his central abdomen.

For weeks, healthcare professionals struggled to figure out what was causing the abscess and infection, treating it with various antibiotics and draining it to no avail. Jarmon’s pain and discomfort kept worsening.

In late August, it was decided that the mass should be surgically removed, amid fears it may be a cancerous tumor. Instead, what doctors found was that his Covidien mesh had perforated Jarmon’s bowel and had adhered to his abdominal wall and other organs.

The surgeon told Jarmon the perforated area of his bowel looked like “hamburger meat” and indicated it took three hours to surgically remove the ruined mesh.

Jarmon had to undergo two additional surgeries in early September, due to a hernia recurrence and a liver hematoma. After the surgeries, he was seen by an infectious disease specialist who was able to identify the strain of infection and the correct treatment.

The complaint notes Jarmon spent almost two weeks in the hospital and several months receiving aftercare.

“As a result of the infections, surgeries and loss of a portion of his bowel, Plaintiff continues to suffer life-altering side effects. His once robust immune system is depleted.”

– Steven Louis Jarmon v. Medtronic Inc. et al

The lawsuit alleges defendants violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act and also presents claims of manufacturing and defect design, as well as breach of warranty. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Covidien Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

Jarmon’s complaint is one of more than 2,200 similar Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits currently pending in the federal court system, and will likely be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, where all federal Covidien mesh claims have been centralized as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Pattie B. Saris for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Under Judge Saris’s orders, the parties are currently preparing a handful of select cases, meant to represent the most common situations shared by all of the lawsuits, for a series of “bellwether” trials. These early test cases will help the parties see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation. 

The first Covidien hernia mesh bellwether trial is currently scheduled to begin on July 13, 2026.

The trials will be closely watched, not because they directly affect other cases, but because the outcomes may offer insight into how juries could respond to similar claims nationwide. These outcomes can often help the parties negotiate a settlement resolving all or most of the litigation.

However, if the bellwether trials are completed with no settlement or other resolution reached, Judge Saris may begin remanding the lawsuits back to their originating district court for individual trial dates.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

An appeal by Sunbeam and Newell Brands to overturn a $9 million verdict linked to a Crock-Pot pressure cooker explosion was rejected on multiple grounds by a federal judge in Colorado, who determined that the jury had the legal right and reason to decide against the manufacturers.

Georgina Perez first filed the complaint against Sunbeam Products, Newell Brands Inc. and Target Corporation in June 2023, about four years after she suffered burn injuries when her Crock-Pot Express Multi-Cooker exploded, allowing hot, pressurized contents to escape. Perez claims the product’s safety features were falsely marketed as preventing this type of accident.

The accident left Perez with pressure cooker burn injuries over 13% of her body, resulting in the need for expensive skin grafts. The explosion also damaged her sweat glands, causing difficulties in regulating her body temperature.

Perez’s case went to trial in December 2024, resulting in a $55.5 million verdict, which was later reduced to $9 million after punitive damages were lowered due to Colorado’s cap on non-economic damages.

The claim was just one of a continuing number of pressure cooker lawsuits being pursued nationwide over similar explosions affecting a variety of pressure cookers, including Instant Pots and Ninja Foodi devices. Each of the lawsuits allege that the manufacturers made false and misleading marketing statements and sold products with dangerous design defects, including lids that can be removed while the contents are still under pressure, making the devices unsafe.

Crock-Pot Verdict Upheld

Sunbeam and Newell filed post trial motions challenging the verdict, arguing that Perez’s attorneys wrongfully showed pictures of other pressure cooker burn victims to the jury, potentially prejudicing them against the manufacturers. They also argued that the jury was given inaccurate information about how much the companies profited from the devices.

However, U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer in the District of Colorado issued an order (PDF) on March 31, rejecting the manufacturers’ attempts to overturn the jury’s decision and obtain a new trial, upholding the $9 million verdict.

Judge Brimmer indicated that the disputed evidence was shown during opening and closing arguments, and the jury was instructed not to weigh that information as evidence in the case.

“The Court finds that displaying the photographs of other individuals who were allegedly injured by using the multicooker during opening and closing did not affect defendants’ substantial rights such that, without displaying these photographs, the jury would have reached a contrary result.”

– U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer

During the trial, the jury was also shown a video of product testing for the Crock-Pot that showed the lid exploding off the pressure cooker. Defendants protested the use of this video, which Judge Brimmer agreed was improperly shown, but determined that it also probably failed to influence the jury one way or another.

He concluded that a reasonable jury still could have reached the same verdict regardless of these complaints and denied the motion for a new trial.

Pressure Cooker Lawsuits

Following numerous allegations like those of Perez, pressure cooker injury attorneys continue to investigate potential claims on behalf of individuals who have suffered burns and other injuries from pressure cooker explosions or malfunctions. These investigations focus on whether manufacturers failed to properly design, test or provide adequate warnings about the risk of explosions.

In recent years, recalls have been issued for more than one million Best Buy Insignia pressure cookers, as well as about 900,000 Sensio pressure cooker units, due to lid defects that fail to prevent them from being removed while the contents are under pressure.

Compensation may be available for individuals who suffered pressure cooker explosion and burn injuries, including second- and third-degree burns, permanent scarring and long-term physical and emotional consequences.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a K.C. Pharmaceuticals eye drop recall on March 31, affecting more than 3.1 million bottles of over the counter products that may be contaminated, increasing the risk of infection and vision problems.

Sterile eye drops are intended to be manufactured under strict conditions that prevent exposure to bacteria and other harmful microorganisms, making them safe for direct use in the eyes. Because the eye is highly sensitive and vulnerable to infection, any breakdown in sterility controls during production can introduce pathogens that may cause irritation, infection or in severe cases, vision damage.

In recent years, regulators have repeatedly identified manufacturing deficiencies that raised concerns about whether proper sterility safeguards were maintained. Last year, more than 1.8 million AvKARE eye drop cartons were recalled after potential lapses in quality control created a risk of bacterial contamination. In 2023, at least 26 over the counter eye drop products sold by major retailers were also recalled following findings of unsanitary manufacturing conditions.

Those earlier recalls triggered a wave of Artificial Tears eye drop lawsuits, with plaintiffs alleging manufacturers failed to ensure products were produced in sterile environments. Just last year, consumers filed a class action lawsuit alleging they were misled into purchasing Systane eye drops marketed as safe and effective before a large-scale recall linked to suspected fungal contamination tied to manufacturing issues.

Sterile Eye Drops Recall

K.C. Pharmaceuticals initiated the recall on March 3, which the FDA later classified as a Class II recall on March 31, indicating that use of the affected products could cause temporary or medically reversible health problems, with a low risk of serious injury.

According to the FDA enforcement report, the recall was issued due to a “lack of assurance of sterility,” meaning the manufacturer could not confirm that the products were produced under conditions necessary to prevent microbial contamination. This type of deficiency often points to potential problems in the aseptic manufacturing or filling process, where even minor lapses can allow bacteria or other contaminants to enter products intended for direct use in the eye.

The recall impacts a wide range of private label and store brand products distributed nationwide and sold under a variety of names at major retail chains, including Walgreens, Kroger, CVS, Harris Teeter, H-E-B, military exchanges, and through other wholesale and pharmacy distribution channels.

In total, more than 3.1 million bottles are affected across multiple formulations and brand names. The following products were included in the recall:

• 182,000 bottles of Sterile Eye Drops AC
• 303,000 bottles of Eye Drops Advanced Relief
• 1,024,000 bottles of Dry Eye Relief Eye Drops
• 245,000 bottles of Ultra Lubricating Eye Drops
• 378,000 bottles of Sterile Eye Drops Original Formula
• 315,000 bottles of Sterile Eye Drops Redness Lubricant
• 74,000 bottles of Sterile Eye Drops Soothing Tears
• 590,000 bottles of Artificial Tears Sterile Lubricant Eye Drops

Specific lot numbers, expiration dates and UPC codes are listed in the FDA recall notice. Consumers are advised to check packaging carefully if they have recently purchased store brand eye drops.

While no widespread injuries have been publicly linked to this recall, the FDA warning underscores the risks associated with products that lack verified sterility. In similar cases, contamination has been tied to infections that required medical treatment and, in rare instances, resulted in vision complications.

Sign up for more safety and legal news that could affect you or your family.

The U.S. District Judge presiding over thousands of federal Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits filed by users nationwide, has issued an order outlining the schedule to prepare a group of representative cases for a series of “bellwether” test trials that may begin in March 2028, in hopes that the outcomes will help lawyers negotiate settlements that may resolve the massive litigation.

Suboxone (buprenorphine and naloxone) is a widely used opioid addiction treatment, which was first introduced in tablet form. However, the manufacturer, Indivior, later reformulated it into a dissolvable film strip, which has been linked to reports of dental decay and tooth loss among users.

It was not until years later, in June 2022, that the drug maker updated the warning label, indicating that Suboxone film side effects may place users at risk of tooth damage and other oral health concerns.

Indivior now faces tens of thousands of Suboxone lawsuits brought throughout the federal court system, each raising similar allegations that the manufacturer put a desire for profits ahead of patient safety, by failing to warn users or the medical community earlier about the potential risk, and steps that could have been taken to avoid tooth decay.

Due to the size of the litigation and the common allegations raised in the cases, all federal Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits were consolidated in the Northern District of Ohio as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in February 2024, where U.S. District Judge Philip Calabrese has been presiding over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Suboxone Lawsuit Bellwether Trials

For nearly a year, Judge Calabrese has had the parties preparing to select a group of representative cases for early trial dates, known as a bellwether trial process, which will provide the parties a chance to see how juries weigh evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

Judge Calabrese originally designated 500 cases as part of a Records Collection Pool in May 2025, directing each of the randomly selected plaintiffs to produce records necessary to allow the parties to narrow that pool down to 100 cases that involve allegations that are representative of the litigation as a whole for the next phase of discovery.

On March 27, Judge Calabrese issued a case management order (PDF) laying out a schedule and key deadlines that must be met to prepare for the first trial dates, which should get underway in early 2028.

Ultimately, the judge indicates the parties and court will select four Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits to serve as a trial pool. The order indicates that 20 cases must be randomly selected from the remaining 100 for core discovery by June 10. The parties will then select 15 cases as their preferences for representative cases by July 2, 2026. Deposition on these cases will last from July 13, 2026 until January 15, 2027, according to the order.

Motions to dismiss any of the trial pool cases are due by March 12, 2027, with responses due by April 20 and hearings on the motions scheduled for the week of April 26 or May 3, 2027.

Full discovery for the 15 trial pool cases will be completed by June 4, 2027, with the selection of the four final bellwether trial cases set for June 11, 2027. The schedule indicates the first trial will begin sometime in March 2028.

While not binding on other cases, the outcomes of these bellwether trials will be closely watched, as the verdicts and payouts may signal how many of the thousands of cases would be resolved if they all went to trial. Those outcomes could lead to Suboxone tooth decay settlement negotiations.

However, if no Suboxone settlement or other resolution is reached by the end of the bellwether trials and the pretrial proceedings, Judge Calabrese will likely begin remanding the cases back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive Suboxone lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

Following a massive recall of more than 3.2 million metal wire grill brushes that may shed sharp bristles into food, a growing number of Weber grill brush lawsuits are being filed nationwide, each rising similar allegations that consumers face a serious risk of ingestion or organ puncture injuries.

According to a recall notice issued by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in February, the recalled brushes pose an ingestion hazard if wire bristles detach during use, adhere to grilled food, and are swallowed. Federal regulators warned that ingestion of these small metal fragments can result in puncture injuries to the mouth, throat or gastrointestinal tract.

At the time of the recall, CPSC had received at least 38 reported cases of bristles detaching from the brushes, with at least four individuals requiring emergency medical treatment after ingesting metal fragments.

In the wake of the recall, multiple personal injury lawsuits and class action complaints have been filed against Weber and related defendants, including Amazon and Target, alleging the company failed to adequately warn consumers about the risks and sold a product with a dangerous and defective design.

Weber Grill Brush Organ Puncture Lawsuit

Complaints brought throughout the federal court system allege that multiple individuals have suffered severe and painful injuries after unknowingly ingesting wire bristles that detached from Weber grill brushes.

In one lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 30, plaintiff Kenneth Schnitzer (PDF) alleges he suffered serious internal injuries after consuming food contaminated with a detached wire bristle. The complaint names Weber-Stephens Products LLC and Weber Inc. as defendants.

According to the filing, the incident occurred on September 1, 2025, when a metal bristle became lodged in Schnitzer’s pancreas, requiring emergency medical treatment. The injury exposed him to significant risks, including organ perforation, infection and long-term gastrointestinal complications.

An earlier complaint was also filed by Shiraz Cooper (PDF), as father and natural guardian for an infant identified with the initials “N.C.”, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 20. It names Weber-Stephens Products LLC and Target Corporation as defendants.

Cooper claims N.C. ingested a metal bristle that became lodged in his throat or digestive tract, resulting in significant pain that required medical intervention. The lawsuit indicates this incident has led to ongoing complications, including difficulty swallowing and the need for diagnostic procedures to locate and remove the foreign object.

“Unbeknownst to the public, and to the Plaintiff and his family in particular, the metal bristles in the Weber grill brushes described above could break or otherwise detach during and following ordinary and intended use of the product, causing a safety risk due to the proximity to cooking implements and food.”

— Shiraz Cooper et al v. Weber-Stephens Products LLC et al

Both complaints allege Weber failed to provide adequate warnings about the risk that wire bristles could detach and contaminate food, and claim safer alternative designs, such as bristle-free grill cleaning tools, were available but not utilized.

The lawsuits raise claims of design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, strict liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and violations of various New York and New Jersey state laws. They seek compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other damages.

Weber Wire Brush Class Action Lawsuits

In addition to personal injury lawsuits, multiple Weber grill bristle class action lawsuits have also been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where Weber-Stephens is headquartered.

Many of these claims seek to represent consumers nationwide who purchased the recalled grill brushes, alleging the products were defectively designed and sold without adequate warnings about the risk that metal bristles could detach, adhere to food and be unknowingly ingested.

One such lawsuit brought by Christopher Hose (PDF) on March 12, naming Weber-Stephens Products LLC as the sole defendant, indicates that consumers reasonably expected the grill brushes to be safe for normal use. However, Hose claims that Weber failed to disclose known risks associated with bristle detachment, despite reports of incidents and injuries prior to the February 2026 recall.

The complaint further alleges that packaging, labeling and advertising materials were misleading because they omitted warnings about the ingestion hazard, leaving consumers unaware of the potential for serious internal injuries.

Hose contends that, had he and other potential class members known about the defect and safety risks, they would not have purchased the grill brushes or would have paid less for them. He now seeks compensation for economic losses, as well as damages for alleged breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, negligence—failure to warn, and violations of various New Jersey state laws.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

The makers of the Mobi-C cervical disc implant have asked a federal judge to dismiss a product liability lawsuit filed over the device’s alleged failure and defective design, arguing that such claims are preempted by federal law.

The case involves problems with Mobi-C, a motion-preserving cervical disc implant first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2013, which has been used in tens of thousands of patients nationwide to treat degenerative disc disease in the neck.

In December, Texas resident Tyler Gleaves filed a Mobi-C failure lawsuit against Highridge Medical LLC, formerly Zimmer Biomet Spine Inc., alleging that the implant catastrophically failed and left him permanently paralyzed. 

According to the complaint, Gleaves underwent cervical disc replacement surgery in 2017 and initially recovered well, returning to an active lifestyle. However, the lawsuit states that on September 30, 2023, the device suddenly fractured and migrated into his spinal canal, compressing his spinal cord and requiring emergency surgery.

Surgeons reportedly confirmed that the implant’s plastic core had broken, resulting in a complete spinal cord injury at the C6 level. Gleaves claims he is now quadriplegic, with loss of motor function below his chest and limited use of his hands.

The complaint alleges that the Mobi-C failure occurred during normal use, without trauma or unusual activity, indicating the device was defective. According to the lawsuit, the Mobi-C design relies on a plastic core made of ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene positioned between two metal plates, which can degrade if manufacturing and sterilization processes are not properly controlled.

Gleaves alleges that his implant was compromised by deviations from FDA manufacturing standards, including improper radiation sterilization, inadequate control of oxidation, and defective packaging that allowed oxygen exposure. 

These conditions, the Mobi-C lawsuit claims, can cause the plastic component to become brittle over time, increasing the risk of cracking and catastrophic failure under normal spinal movement.

Mobi-C Failure Lawsuit Challenged 

In response to the lawsuit, Highridge Medical filed a motion to dismiss (PDF) on March 27, arguing that Gleaves’ claims are preempted by federal law governing FDA-approved medical devices.

According to the complaint, Gleaves alleges the manufacturer failed to report numerous adverse events involving device failures to the FDA, including his own 2023 injury. He claims these omissions prevented regulators and investigators from identifying patterns of device failure and patient harm.

Highridge Medical disputes those allegations, arguing that Texas law does not impose a duty on manufacturers to report adverse events to the FDA.

“Texas law is clear. There is no duty under Texas state law to report information to the FDA.”

– Highridge Medical Motion to Dismiss

Based on that position, the company contends that Gleaves’ “failure to warn” claims, along with related negligence allegations, cannot proceed because they are based on reporting obligations governed by federal law.

The motion further argues that without those claims, the remaining allegations, including manufacturing defect and negligent manufacturing, are not sufficiently supported. Highridge asserts that the complaint does not clearly identify a specific defect or manufacturing error that directly caused the device to fail.

The court has not yet ruled on the motion.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Texas woman has filed a personal injury lawsuit alleging she has been left with serious and long-term respiratory side effects after exposure to toxic mold in her apartment.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Erma J. Wiggins in Texas District Court on March 27. It names Emmaus Housing Partners LTS, the owner of the apartment community, and Allied Orion Group LLC (AOG), the property management company, as defendants.

Mold Health Risks

Indoor mold exposure is known to cause a range of adverse health effects, particularly involving the respiratory system. Common symptoms include allergies, persistent coughing, wheezing, chronic bronchitis, sinusitis, as well as headaches, nausea, swollen glands and muscle pain.

Individuals with pre-existing conditions, such as allergies, asthma or weakened immune systems, face a higher risk of more severe complications. These may include breathing irregularities, skin rashes, fatigue, vomiting, neurological symptoms and increased susceptibility to infections.

Research has also shown that exposure can worsen underlying conditions, with a Harvard study finding that household mold significantly increases the risk of asthma attacks and related complications.

Apartment Complex Mold Lawsuit

In her lawsuit, Wiggins alleges she first noticed a foul odor in her apartment coming from the garbage disposal and air vents, along with black material in her bath water and visible mold near her toilet. She states that she reported these conditions to the management company, AOG, but received no meaningful response, and the apartment mold problem continued to worsen.

According to the complaint, Wiggins soon began experiencing health problems and was ultimately diagnosed with mold exposure by her doctors, which was later confirmed by an independent mold specialist.

The lawsuit indicates that maintenance staff attempted to remove some of the mold and assured her the issue had been resolved. However, Wiggins claims her symptoms continued to worsen, prompting her to retain a mold expert who determined the contamination in her apartment was severe and widespread.

Despite these findings, the complaint alleges that both Emmaus and AOG failed to take appropriate corrective action when notified. When remediation efforts were eventually undertaken, Wiggins claims the companies used toxic chemicals that created an unsafe living environment, causing burning, coughing, and nausea—symptoms she alleges persist to this day and require ongoing medical treatment.

“Defendants failed to identify the foreseeable hazard and appropriate procedures, training, and/or safety measures to implement to prevent such a foreseeable hazard.”

– Erma J. Wiggins v. Emmaus Housing Partners LTS et al

The complaint presents liability claims against Emmaus and AOG, as well as claims of negligence to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises safe, premises liability, private nuisance, breach of warranty of habitability and deceptive trade practices.

Wiggins seeks compensatory and punitive damages, along with pre- and post-judgement interest, court costs, and the right to amend the allegations as further investigation and discovery of the matter are conducted.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Federal highway safety officials have announced a recall impacting certain Chrysler Pacifica and Voyager vehicles that may contain defective side curtain airbags, which could increase the risk of injury during an auto accident.

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced the Chrysler airbag recall on March 30, warning that side curtain airbags in more than 170,000 affected vehicles may not maintain sufficient pressure during deployment.

Side curtain airbags are intended to shield occupants in side-impact crashes and rollovers by deploying from the roofline and covering the side windows, forming a protective barrier between passengers and the vehicle’s interior frame. This design helps reduce the likelihood of head and neck injuries and limits the chance of occupants being thrown from the vehicle.

However, if the airbags fail to maintain adequate pressure during a collision, they may not provide sufficient protection, increasing the risk that occupants could be partially or fully ejected through a side window and suffer serious or fatal injuries.

The recall affects 178,246 model year 2022 through 2026 Chrysler Pacifica and Voyager vehicles, which fail to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 226, “Ejection Mitigation.” The standard requires that headforms not move more than 100 millimeters past a specified point during crash testing.

While the NHTSA recall report does not identify any accidents or injuries linked to the issue, the action expands two prior recalls involving more than 250,000 Chrysler Pacifica and Voyager vehicles from model years 2022 through 2025, now extending the defect to include 2026 models.

FCA US LLC first identified the problem during supplier testing and production record reviews, leading to an initial recall announced on May 8, 2025. Subsequent testing on a 2025 Chrysler Pacifica confirmed that both left and right side curtain airbags failed to meet required excursion limits.

On July 31, 2025, FCA US’s Technical Safety and Regulatory Compliance team opened a broader investigation into vehicles potentially equipped with defective airbags. Over the following months, the company worked with its supplier, engineering teams and quality control personnel to review data and determine the scope of the issue.

That investigation ultimately confirmed a supplier-related manufacturing defect affecting additional airbags, leading FCA to determine that all impacted vehicles failed to meet federal safety requirements. NHTSA formally announced the voluntary safety recall on March 30.

Owners of affected vehicles are expected to begin receiving notification letters on May 14, with instructions on how to obtain a free replacement of the side curtain airbags through authorized dealerships. Vehicles included in earlier recalls will also require the updated repair.

Chrysler has assigned recall numbers 06D, 10D and 11D. Owners with questions can contact Chrysler customer service at 800-853-1403 or reach the NHTSA Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236, or visit www.nhtsa.gov for additional information.

Sign up for more safety and legal news that could affect you or your family.

A group of about a dozen plaintiffs are asking a federal judge to certify several hair relaxer class action lawsuits that seek to require L’Oreal and other cosmetics manufacturers to pay for lifelong medical monitoring, arguing that long-term users now face an elevated risk of developing cancer due to past exposure to the products’ chemicals.

The class action lawsuits represent only a small portion of the more than 12,000 claims currently being pursued against manufacturers of chemical straighteners like Just for Me, Dark & Lovely and others, most of which involve women alleging routine exposure caused them to develop uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer or other injuries. However, the litigation also includes at least seven class action claims seeking medical monitoring for women who have not yet been diagnosed with cancer.

The lawsuits began to be filed after the release of a National Institutes of Health study in late 2022, which found that women who frequently use chemical hair straighteners face a significantly higher risk of developing uterine cancer, along with increased risks of ovarian and endometrial cancers. 

Plaintiffs point to these findings as evidence that exposure to the products may create long-term health risks, even for individuals who have not yet been diagnosed.

As a result, medical monitoring lawsuits have been filed on behalf of those who argue that ongoing screening is medically necessary due to the increased risk. Because these cancers often have long latency periods and may not be detectable for years, plaintiffs contend that routine monitoring is critical to identify any future diagnosis at the earliest possible stage.

Given similar allegations raised in complaints filed throughout the federal court system, all hair relaxer lawsuits have been centralized in the Northern District of Illinois since 2023, where U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland has been overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. 

As part of the management of the litigation, Judge Rowland has directed the parties to prepare 32 hair relaxer cancer lawsuits for early discovery to serve as the first “bellwether” trials. The cases being selected involve women who have been diagnosed with uterine cancer, ovarian cancer or endometrial cancer, each involving similar allegations that manufacturers failed to adequately disclose the risks associated with use of their products. 

The first test cases involving personal injury claims are expected to be ready for trial by the second half of 2027, which will give the parties an opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony that is likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

However, the class action lawsuits have not been included in the bellwether trial process, as they are not representative of the wider mass of personal injury claims.

On March 25, a group of 11 plaintiffs, representing seven different class action medical monitoring claims, filed a memorandum and motion (PDF) asking Judge Rowland to grant class certification for their lawsuits. This would allow the claims to represent other members of a specified class of individuals who may also seek medical monitoring following regular hair relaxer use, whether they participate in the lawsuit or not.

Plaintiffs say there is extensive common evidence that gives plenty of reason for former users to seek cancer medical monitoring. In addition, the motion notes that the products have been widely used nationwide for decades, particularly among African American women, who were specifically targeted by hair relaxer product marketing.

If Judge Rowland chooses to grant certification to the hair relaxer medical monitoring claims, plaintiffs propose the lawsuits be resolved in a single class trial, saving the courts and parties time and expenses.

On the same day, counsel from both sides filed a joint stipulation (PDF) proposing page limits for the filing of briefs on the issue. However, no date for hearings on certification have yet been announced.

Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Bellwether Trials

Judge Rowland is expected to nominate three hair relaxer lawsuits to serve as bellwether cases sometime this week, previously indicating that plaintiffs will be permitted to select one of the cases for trial by April 6, with defendants choosing another claim by April 10. The Court will then repeat the process, selecting a second group of three potential bellwether cases by April 15, with plaintiffs choosing one of those cases by April 24, and defendants selecting another by April 30.

While the results of the individual injury bellwether trials will not be binding on other cases, they are being closely watched for the jury’s decisions on liability and payouts to plaintiffs. These outcomes could help pave the way for hair relaxer cancer lawsuit settlement negotiations.

After the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings are concluded, if the parties have not reached a settlement or other resolution, Judge Rowland will likely begin remanding the cases back to their originating district courts for individual trial dates.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive hair relaxer cancer lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

A product liability lawsuit has been filed by a North Carolina woman claiming the defective design of a Kizzby fire pit bowl sold through Amazon allowed its flammable vapors to explode suddenly and without warning.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Margaret Dineen in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. It names Amazon.com Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon.com LLC, Li You Xian Gong Si, an unnamed corporation doing business as Kizzby Fire Pits, and Kobi Tools Inc. as defendants.

Tabletop fire pits, like the one manufactured by Kizzby and sold on Amazon, have become increasingly popular in recent years. They are often promoted as stylish indoor or outdoor accessories that use liquid or gel fuels, including alcohol-based products, to produce an open flame. However, if the units are defectively designed or lack proper safety features, flammable vapors may accumulate and ignite unexpectedly, leading to sudden flare-ups, flashback flames or explosive bursts.

In a number of reported incidents, these unexpected ignitions have caused serious burn injuries to handlers and those nearby. As reports of injuries and safety concerns grow, a wave of product warnings and tabletop fire pit lawsuits have been filed, alleging that many of these alcohol-fueled devices are defectively designed, fail to comply with safety standards and do not include adequate warnings for consumers.

Kizzby Tabletop Fire Pit Allegations

According to the complaint, Dineen indicates the incident occurred when she attempted to move her tabletop fire pit while it was fueled with isopropyl alcohol. The flammable vapors allegedly exploded suddenly, causing a flashback that ignited her hand, resulting in serious and painful burn injuries, which required medical treatment and have resulted in ongoing physical and emotional damages.

The lawsuit claims the fire pit was being used in a reasonably foreseeable manner at the time of the incident. However, it goes on to indicate that the product itself must have created an unreasonably dangerous condition due to the way it handled liquid fuel and open flame.

As a result, Dineen alleges the fire pit was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, particularly due to risks associated with the use of fuels like isopropyl alcohol, which can ignite suddenly or spread flames in an unpredictable manner.

The complaint argues that the defendants failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions regarding the risks of flare-ups, flame propagation and the potential for ignition during routine handling of the product. Furthermore, the lawsuit alleges Amazon played a direct role in the sale and distribution of the fire pit, acting as more than just a third-party platform.

“Though now deleted from its site, upon information and belief, Amazon advertised, promoted, and sold the Fire Pit with representations that it was ‘100% safe,’ intended for ‘indoor or outdoor use,’ and can be used ‘to cook S’mores or place it in the center of your desk, main dining table or as an outdoor fireplace in your garden, patio or balcony for a warm and comfortable atmosphere, and it is also perfect for camping and parties.’”

— Margaret Dineen v. Amazon.com Inc. et al

The lawsuit raises allegations of products liability, negligence and willful/wanton conduct, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and unfair and deceptive trade practices against the defendants. It is seeking punitive damages.

Tabletop Fire Pit Lawsuits

As incidents like Dineen’s continue to be reported across the U.S., attorneys are pursuing tabletop fire pit lawsuits for individuals who have been injured by “flame jetting” incidents, flashbacks and other sudden flare-ups or explosions.

Reported injuries associated with these products include:

• Second- and third-degree burns requiring medical treatment
• Permanent scarring, nerve damage or reduced mobility
• Inhalation injuries from sudden bursts of flame
• Burns to children or others nearby
• Flare-ups during refueling
• Fatal injuries linked to fire pit incidents
• Lost wages due to time away from work
• Ongoing medical care, including hospitalization and rehabilitation
• Lasting disfigurement or emotional and psychological harm

Individuals who have suffered burn injuries from one of these devices can request a free case review with a tabletop fire pit burn injury lawyer to help identify the product, determine whether it was defective or subject to a recall, and explain potential legal options.

These cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs and attorneys are only paid if compensation is recovered.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A recently filed product liability lawsuit alleges that a Cartiva toe implant failed within about a year of implantation, despite manufacturer claims that the device had low revision rates, which were later called into question in 2024 when the device was removed from the market following growing reports of painful complications resulting in the need for additional surgery.

Marion Bhatt’s complaint (PDF) was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on March 26, naming Cartiva Inc. as the sole defendant.

The Cartiva synthetic cartilage implant (SCI) is a polyvinyl alcohol-based hydrogel device that was designed and marketed as a means of treating hallux limitus and hallux rigidus, both forms of degenerative arthritis that affect the big toe. About 2.2 million people in the United States are estimated to be living with the conditions.

The device was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2016, based in part on the results of a clinical trial known as the “MOTION Study,” which involved 152 Cartiva toe implant procedures. According to the study, there was no evidence of fragmentation, material degradation or bone loss.

However, Bhatt’s lawsuit indicates that once the device entered the market, the company began receiving numerous adverse event reports describing very different real-world performance. In addition, physicians were reporting significantly higher Cartiva revision rates than those originally presented.

Ultimately, the manufacturer announced a Cartiva recall in October 2024, after admitting the device suffered a “higher-than-expected” failure rate. Now, a growing number of Cartiva toe implant lawsuits are being filed indicating that the manufacturer knew, or at least should have known, that the Cartiva revision rates in the clinical study were dubious at best.

Cartiva Toe Implant Failure

According to the lawsuit, Bhatt received a Cartiva toe implant in her right big toe in May 2018, at a time when the manufacturer continued to promote the device as having very low failure rates. 

By May 2023, the implant had failed, requiring revision and fusion surgery. Following the procedure, the surgeon reportedly noted that “the bone surrounding the implant, especially dorsally and medially, was quite unhealthy.” Bhatt later underwent a second fusion surgery in August 2025.

The lawsuit further alleges that the manufacturer had long been aware that Cartiva revision rates were significantly higher than advertised. While the company claimed a failure rate of about 13.5%, a 2020 study of real-world outcomes found failure rates closer to 65%, suggesting Bhatt’s experience was far from uncommon. 

The complaint claims the company knew of these risks and failed to disclose them to doctors and patients.

“Prior to the implantation of Plaintiff’s Cartiva implant, Defendant was aware of higher than reported loss of toe mobility, pain, and high failure rates of the Cartiva implant due to shrinkage including but not limited to over 144 adverse event reports filed with the FDA.”

– Marion Bhatt v. Cartiva Inc.

Bhatt indicates that the failed Cartiva toe implant caused additional surgeries, including an osteophytectomy as early as 2019, only one year after the implantation procedure. She also required big toe fusion to address the toe deformity and bone loss caused by the implant, which the device was supposed to help her avoid.

The lawsuit presents claims of failure to warn, negligence – design, manufacture, misbranded and improper transfer of 510(k)/PMA without FDA approval, misbranded and adulterated device, and breach of warranty.

Cartiva Toe Implant Lawsuits

Bhatt’s complaint will be consolidated with other lawsuits over Cartiva toe implant failures in the Eastern District of Arkansas, as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker, who will oversee coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Baker is expected to eventually order the parties to prepare a series of cases for early “bellwether” trial dates, which will give them an opportunity to see how juries respond to arguments, evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

While not binding on any other lawsuits, bellwether trials are closely watched, as they often help form the basis of settlement negotiations. However, if the trials and pretrial proceedings end with no Cartiva SCI toe implant lawsuit settlement, Judge Baker would likely begin remanding the cases back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive Cartiva toe implant lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

Federal regulators warn that side effects of the drug Tavneos (avacopan) may increase the risk of serious and potentially life-threatening liver injuries, following new reports identifying cases of severe harm among patients using the medication for treatment of a rare autoimmune disease.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a drug safety communication on March 31, indicating it has identified cases of severe liver damage, including liver failure and death, in patients taking Tavneos. 

While the agency has not established a specific mechanism explaining how the Tavneos side effects may cause liver injury, it says clinical trial data and post-marketing reports suggest a potential pattern of drug-induced liver damage.

Tavneos, developed by Amgen, is prescribed for adults with severe active anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, a rare autoimmune disease that causes inflammation in small blood vessels and can lead to organ damage, particularly affecting the kidneys and lungs. 

The drug works by blocking the complement 5a receptor, a key driver of inflammation in the disease, and was introduced as a targeted alternative to long-term steroid use. The condition affects an estimated 200 to 400 people per million worldwide, and more than 7,000 patients have used Tavneos since its approval in 2021.

According to the FDA, reported Tavneos liver injury cases involved elevated liver enzymes, jaundice and other signs of acute liver damage, with some patients requiring hospitalization and others experiencing fatal outcomes.

Tavneos Liver Injury Risks 

After reviewing postmarketing safety data, medical literature and adverse event reports through October 9, 2024, federal regulators identified a series of serious liver injuries among patients treated with Tavneos.

According to the FDA’s analysis, a total of 76 cases of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) were identified with a reasonable causal association to Tavneos use. The majority of these cases involved severe outcomes:

• 74 cases involved serious complications
• 54 patients required hospitalization
• 8 deaths were reported

Among the reports that included sufficient clinical data, regulators found that liver injury most commonly followed a cholestatic or mixed pattern, meaning the liver was either struggling to properly move bile, a digestive fluid, or experiencing a combination of bile flow problems and direct liver cell damage. This can cause toxic substances to build up in the body instead of being filtered out.

These cases were often marked by significant elevations in liver enzymes and bilirubin, which are key indicators of liver function. Elevated liver enzymes suggest that liver cells are inflamed or damaged and leaking into the bloodstream, while high bilirubin levels can lead to jaundice, a yellowing of the skin and eyes, and signal that the liver is no longer processing waste effectively.

Timing data also showed that symptoms frequently developed early in treatment:

• Median time to onset was 46 days
• Reported onset ranged from 22 to 140 days after starting the drug

The FDA also identified a subset of particularly severe cases involving vanishing bile duct syndrome (VBDS), a rare but serious condition marked by progressive destruction of the liver’s bile ducts. Among these cases:

• 7 patients had biopsy-confirmed VBDS
• All 7 required hospitalization
• 3 cases resulted in death

These findings raise concerns about early-onset liver toxicity, particularly given that many cases developed within the first few months of treatment.

The FDA warns that patients taking Tavneos should be closely monitored for signs of liver injury, particularly during the early stages of treatment. Symptoms may include fatigue, nausea, abdominal pain, dark urine and yellowing of the skin or eyes, which could indicate worsening liver function.

Health officials are advising clinicians to conduct liver function tests before starting treatment with Tavneos and periodically during therapy. Doctors should also consider discontinuing the medication if signs of liver injury develop. The agency recommends avoiding use in patients with severe liver impairment. Regulators are continuing to evaluate whether additional warnings or label changes are necessary.

Patients currently taking Tavneos are urged to consult their healthcare providers before making any changes to treatment and seek immediate medical attention if symptoms of liver injury occur. Adverse events should be reported to the FDA through the MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program, either online, by regular mail or by fax at 1-800-FDA-0178.

Sign up for more safety and legal news that could affect you or your family.

The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) released its 2025 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State Preliminary Data report on March 25, indicating that pedestrian deaths remained higher than levels seen before the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the first half of 2025.

GHSA is a nonprofit organization that provides leadership and advocacy to help U.S. states and territories enhance traffic safety. It supports a holistic approach to protect everyone on the road, including targeted traffic enforcement against dangerous driving behaviors.

According to previous GHSA research, pedestrian deaths in the U.S. have risen by nearly 50% during the past decade. The organization has also determined that between 2009 and 2023, pedestrian deaths increased by 80%, far outpacing other traffic fatalities, which collectively have risen by only 13%.

Research into the rising number of accidents has identified several contributing factors, including the growing size of top selling vehicles, which creates larger forward blind zones and aligns with a rise in pedestrian and bicyclist deaths. To help reduce these risks, studies also suggest that roadway features such as sidewalks, crosswalks and proper lighting may help reduce accidents.

GHSA Pedestrian Traffic Deaths Report

In an updated analysis of data from State Highway Safety Offices, GHSA found that pedestrian deaths from January through June 2025 were 10.9% lower than the same period the previous year, marking 371 fewer fatalities and the largest annual decline since the organization began tracking the data 15 years ago.

However, the report indicates fatalities remain 2.5% higher than pre-pandemic levels, with 3,024 pedestrian deaths recorded during the first half of 2025, compared to 2,951 in 2019.

In particular, the report’s data shows that, when compared to the prior year, fatalities:

• Increased in 24 states
• Decreased in 23 states and Washington, D.C.
• Stayed the same in three states 

Reductions in deaths throughout states such as Alabama, California, Maryland, New Mexico and New York helped lower the nationwide total from the prior year.

“Each pedestrian death is so much more than just a number. Each one is a family member, friend or neighbor that no one will be able to hug, see or share time with ever again. While we are pleased with the progress shown in the data, the only acceptable number of traffic deaths is zero.”

— Jonathan Adkins, GHSA CEO

GHSA reports that beyond the lasting emotional trauma of each fatality, there is also a significant financial impact, with the total economic toll of all pedestrian deaths in the first half of 2025 exceeding $40 billion.

In addition, the report indicates that proven strategies may improve pedestrian safety, including reducing pedestrian exposure to traffic, improving visibility, managing speed, using data and technology to address risks, promoting safe road use and enhancing post crash care. Learning from past crashes could also guide effective safety policies and countermeasures. 

Sign up for more safety and legal news that could affect you or your family.

FanDuel and DraftKings face three lawsuits brought last week in Massachusetts state court, each raising nearly identical allegations that the popular sports betting apps should have detected that users were falling into addictive gambling patterns, yet instead of providing assistance or warnings, “VIP” managers were assigned to each of the plaintiffs to push them deeper into debt and losses.

The complaints were filed by Daniel Arroyo (PDF), Joseph Santaniello (PDF) and Yanos Tewolde (PDF) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court on March 26. They each name DraftKings Inc., Crown MA Gaming LLC, Flutter Entertainment PLC, Betfair Interactive US LLC and Fanduel Inc as defendants.

All three men say they initially placed small bets on DraftKings and FanDuel, but were later encouraged to wager amounts far exceeding their actual incomes, leading to significant financial harm. Their experiences reflect a growing number of similar accounts nationwide, particularly among young adults, who allege that online sportsbooks rely on opportunistic algorithms designed to promote compulsive gambling behavior.

DraftKings, FanDuel Gambling Addiction Concerns

Sports betting sites, also known as sportsbooks, have expanded significantly in the United States since being legalized in 2018, with individual states continuing to decide whether residents can participate and be marketed to by the advertising.

With the expansion has come increases in gambling addiction problems nationwide, particularly among young people who are comfortable with digital payments through mobile apps on their smart devices. Critics accuse platforms like DraftKings and FanDuel of taking advantage of users, by pushing aggressive promotions and data-driven algorithms that track behavior and tailor incentives to encourage more frequent and higher wagers.

The owners of these apps are now facing a growing number of sports betting addiction lawsuits that argue the betting platforms intentionally encourage compulsive gambling and self-destructive wagering to increase their profit margins.

March 2026 Sportsbook Allegations

The three men share very similar tales of starting with small bets after being bombarded constantly with promotions, and then finding their bets creeping higher and higher in amount and frequency. They each go on to claim they were manipulated into gambling debts by sophisticated algorithms and promotional psychology that far outstripped their ability to combat it as individuals.

Arroyo began using FanDuel and DraftKings in 2023, when it was legalized in Massachusetts, starting with “small, recreational bets” while watching sporting events. His lawsuit notes that his gambling pattern did not stay that way but instead grew voraciously.

By the end of 2023, Arroyo had placed $196,639 in wagers, about twice his pre-tax income at the time. In 2024, his wagers jumped exponentially, to more than $1.3 million. Last year, he wagered in excess of $1.5 million, which the lawsuit notes was more than 15 times his income at that time. After that, he left his job to gamble full time, resulting in nearly $200,000 in total losses and a gambling addiction diagnosis.

Santaniello also began using FanDuel and DraftKings in 2023, having experience making sportsbook bets sporadically using offshore companies. Since he began using the two sites, those bets stopped ceasing to be sporadic, and he has since placed about $5 million in wagers, primarily on DraftKings.

“Plaintiff, as the consumer of Defendants’ respective products, did not expect the products to be psychologically and neurologically addictive, far beyond that which might be expected from non-online gambling and/or non-online sports betting when the products are used in their intended manner by their intended audiences.”

– Joseph Santaniello v. DraftKings Inc. et al

Tewolde, by comparison, had never placed sports bets before encountering FanDuel and DraftKings in 2023, though he was a long-time sports fan. He began making bets through the mobile apps while watching games.

Shortly after Tewolde started wagering on the apps, they began sending him special promotions and gambling credits, coaxing him into betting more than $4,000,000 on DraftKings alone, along with another $183,000 on FanDuel. These amounts far exceeded his income, his lawsuit states.

All three men indicate that once the apps observed their gambling habits, they began receiving special deals and were all assigned a personal “VIP manager” whose job appeared to be to offer tailored promotions designed to increase their rate and amount of wagering. All three say it worked, much to their detriment.

The plaintiffs indicate that the platforms easily could have identified them as problem gamblers and, instead of suggesting help or providing guardrails, the apps encouraged them to suffer catastrophic financial losses using advanced psychological marketing efforts that they knew would lead to addiction.

Arroyo, Santaniello and Tewolde present claims of failure to warn, defective design, negligent design, negligent failure to warn, negligence, intentional misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

Gambling Addiction Lawsuits

These are some of the first individual gambling addiction lawsuits filed against the two sports betting apps. Most previous claims have challenged the apps’ operating legality or were class action lawsuits.

It is expected that thousands of similar claims will be filed in the coming months and years by consumers nationwide who have found themselves facing severe financial losses due to predatory algorithms and promotions used by FanDuel, DraftKings and similar online sportsbooks.

Sports betting addiction lawyers are investigating claims nationwide, focusing on whether these platforms intentionally foster compulsive behavior and profit from users’ escalating losses. Platforms named in ongoing investigations include:

To find out whether you qualify for a sports betting lawsuit, submit information about your potential claim for an attorney to review. All cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay nothing unless a settlement is obtained in your case.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive sports betting addiction lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

A Pennsylvania man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging the makers of the atopic dermatitis drug Dupixent chose to hide information about the risk that their treatment may cause various forms of T-cell lymphoma, while continuing to rake in billions from unsuspecting patients.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by William Hinton Jr., and his wife, Labarbara, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 25. Hinton claims Dupixent’s manufacturers, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, failed to warn the medical community and patients about the potential cancer risks, indicating that the drug makers should be held liable for his own T-cell lymphoma diagnosis.

Approved for sale in the U.S. in 2017, Dupixent (dupilumab) is a widely used medication approved to treat atopic dermatitis, eczema, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other inflammatory conditions, particularly those affecting the respiratory system and skin.

Hinton’s lawsuit identifies Dupixent as a “flagship” product for both Regeneron and Sanofi-Aventis, generating $18.3 billion in sales in 2025. Since its release, and widespread marketing as a safe and effective treatment, sales have increased rapidly. In 2024, sales were $14.1 billion, while the year before the drug brought in $11.6 billion in sales, marking a nearly 18% annual increase over the period.

However, questions about Dupixent side effects and safety began after studies linked the drug to an increased risk of T-cell lymphoma, a rare form of cancer that affects white blood cells, a key part of the body’s immune system. In particular, Dupixent has been linked to two rare forms of the blood cancer, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

Like dozens of similar lawsuits over the link between Dupixent and CTCL filed nationwide, Hinton’s complaint alleges that the manufacturers knew about these risks, yet failed to report them to drug regulators, the medical community and patients.

Dupixent Side Effects Lawsuit

The complaint indicates that Hinton received multiple Dupixent injections from April 2025 until October 2025, which were meant to treat his severe asthma and COPD. However, he soon noticed that a preexisting small rash began to worsen, and the development of new rashes occurred while he was on the treatment.

Despite not previously being diagnosed with lymphoma of any kind, doctors told Hinton he had CTCL in late October 2025.

According to the lawsuit, Regeneron and Sanofi-Aventis knew about Dupixent cancer risks long before his injections began.

“Defendants have not informed the FDA of all of the newly-acquired, mounting evidence that use of Dupixent results in the development, accelerated progression and/or exacerbation of T-cell lymphoma, including CTCL. Defendants had such newly acquired information at least as early as 2018 upon receipt of multiple adverse event reports of CTCL development and/or rapid progression with use of Dupixent.”

– William Hinton Jr. et al v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al

Hinton indicates he has suffered permanent injuries, undergone severe pain, disability, mental anguish, and will require medical treatment and monitoring for the rest of his life. He presents a claim of negligence and seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Dupixent Cancer Litigation

Whether Hinton’s lawsuit stays in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania remains to be seen. In February, a group of plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), requesting to consolidate all federal Dupixent CTCL lawsuits before one judge in the Northern District of Georgia for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Regeneron and Sanofi-Aventis have indicated they support a Dupixent lawsuit MDL, or multidistrict litigation. However, the manufacturers have requested it be located in the Southern District of New York, near their respective headquarters.

If the panel approves consolidation, the cases will be placed under one U.S. District Judge for the duration of coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. It is then likely that the judge will order the parties to prepare a small group of cases for early “bellwether” test trials, meant to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony that would be core to virtually every case.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A California woman has filed a lawsuit alleging that a defective Otis elevator suddenly dropped multiple floors inside her apartment building, causing her to suffer severe injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Nasrin Farsad in the California Superior Court for San Francisco on March 25. Named defendants include Otis Elevator Company, which allegedly designed, manufactured and serviced the elevator, as well as Prometheus Real Estate Group, which owned and managed the apartment complex where the incident occurred.

The case joins a number of other Otis Elevator malfunction lawsuits filed in recent months, highlighting potential safety concerns over elevator maintenance and inspection practices, which may lead to equipment failures that can expose passengers to serious injury or death.

Elevator Failure Lawsuit

According to the complaint, Farsad was inside an elevator at her Santa Clara apartment complex on December 20, 2024, when the unit allegedly malfunctioned and fell multiple floors without warning.

The lawsuit indicates that after the initial drop, Farsad attempted to regain control of the elevator by pressing buttons and calling for help, but it allegedly dropped again before finally reaching the ground floor, where she was able to exit.

Farsad claims she suffered severe and lasting injuries as a result of the incident, which she alleges was caused by dangerous defects and failures in the design, manufacturing, maintenance and inspection of the elevator.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to properly maintain, inspect and repair the unit, allowing the dangerous conditions to persist.

The complaint also indicates that elevators are considered common carriers under California law, meaning operators owe passengers the highest degree of care and vigilance to ensure their safety. Farsad alleges the defendants breached that duty by allowing the elevator to operate in a dangerous and defective condition.

“At said time and place, Defendants, and each of them, so negligently maintained, manufactured, sold, designed, supplied, serviced, inspected, installed, and repaired the ELEVATOR, so as to cause the ELEVATOR to fall multiple floors, thereby proximately causing injuries and damages to Plaintiff.”

— Nasrin Farsad v. Otis Elevator Company et al

The case raises allegations of negligence, premises liability and strict product liability, including claims involving manufacturing defects, design defects and failure to warn about known risks associated with the elevator.

Farsad seeks damages for medical expenses, pain, suffering and other losses, as well as additional relief to be determined at trial.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

An Indiana woman has filed a new lawsuit, claiming that while undergoing chemotherapy treatment for metastatic cancer, she developed a serious infection from a failed ICU Medical Port-a-Cath port catheter.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Jacquline Hiatt in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 26, naming ICU Medical Inc., the successor to Smiths Medical ASD Inc., as the defendant.

Port catheters are implanted medical devices designed to provide repeated access to a patient’s bloodstream for the delivery of medications and fluids, eliminating the need for frequent needle sticks. Commonly used during cancer treatment, they consist of a small port placed beneath the skin that is connected to a flexible catheter that delivers drugs directly into a vein.

In recent years, these devices have come under increased scrutiny due to reports of port catheter failures, infections, migration and fracturing, which may lead to serious complications such as sepsis, pulmonary embolism and death.

As a result, Hiatt’s claim joins similar complaints against other manufacturers arguing certain port-a-cath devices are defectively designed due to the use of barium sulfate in the catheter material. In many of these lawsuits, plaintiffs indicate this can lead to cracking and fracturing, allowing foreign and infectious materials to enter the device. 

They further allege the catheter can break, shift out of position, and release potentially dangerous debris into the bloodstream. These incidents often result in the need for additional medical treatment or surgery to remove the device, often while the patient is already battling the effects of cancer and chemotherapy.

Power P.A.C. Port-A-Cath Infection Lawsuit Allegations

According to her lawsuit, Hiatt received her Port-A-Cath II Power P.A.C. in December 2023. The device was implanted for the delivery of palliative systemic chemotherapy due to metastatic anal cancer.

In early April 2024, Hiatt began to notice symptoms of infection around the port, including redness, swelling and tenderness. A CT scan confirmed soft tissue inflammation in her left upper chest wall next to the port-a-cath. The lawsuit indicates infectious disease experts were consulted. Hiatt was hospitalized, and the port was removed later that month.

The lawsuit indicates Hiatt required intravenous antibiotics for treatment. However, after the port-a-cath was removed, she showed significant improvement. Due to her continuing need for chemotherapy, another port catheter was implanted in late April 2024.

Hiatt’s complaint suggests the manufacturers knew about the risks of failure and infection, yet marketed the device as safe and effective, without warning the medical community or patients of the potential risk of port-a-cath complications.

“At the time of her operation, Plaintiff was not informed of, and had no knowledge of the complaints, known complications, and risks associated with Power P.A.C., including but not limited to the extent of seriousness of the danger of blood clots, fracture and infection.”

– Jacqueline Hiatt v. ICU Medical Inc. et al

She presents claims of negligence, failure to warn, design defect, breach of warranty and fraudulent concealment.

Port-A-Cath Lawsuits

Although claims involving ICU Medical’s port-a-cath devices are currently being pursued as individual lawsuits, similar allegations involving other port catheter systems have already led to large-scale litigation. Hundreds of AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits and thousands of Bard PowerPort lawsuits have been consolidated before federal judges for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

More than 300 AngioDynamics port-a-cath claims are consolidated in the Southern District of California as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) under U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta, who is presiding over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Ohta has ordered the parties to prepare to hold a series of early test “bellwether” trials, which are designed to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony that would be key factors in claims throughout the litigation. The parties are expected to turn in a list of 18 AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuit bellwether candidates by June 5, 2026.

Meanwhile, more than 3,000 similar port-a-cath lawsuits filed against Becton Dickinson and C.R. Bard over the Bard PowerPort are consolidated in the District of Arizona as part of a separate MDL under U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell, who is proceeding similarly to Judge Ohta.

Judge Campbell has had the parties preparing their bellwether test trials for months before selecting six Bard PowerPort lawsuits last year to be readied for trial. The first trial, involving claims by Robert Cook of Minnesota, is scheduled to begin on April 21, 2026. It will be followed by additional bellwether trials currently expected to begin on July 7, August 18, October 13, December 1, and February 2, 2027. 

While in both litigations, these bellwether test trials are non-binding on other claims, they will be closely watched to see what kinds of verdicts and payouts juries tend to hand down. These results could help the parties reach a port-a-cath lawsuit settlement.

However, if no settlement agreements are reached, the judges would begin remanding these cases back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

Over the past couple months, a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits have been filed throughout the federal court system, primarily involving claims against Abbott Laboratories and Boston Scientific, each involving similar allegations that widely used pain management implants are defective and prone to fail, often resulting in the need for additional surgery to remove the device.

Now, another manufacturer faces similar claims after three Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits were brought in the Northern District of California simultaneously on March 23. The complaints, from Richard Lutke (PDF), J.B. Mounteer (PDF) and Anita Manley (PDF), each echo allegations raised against other manufacturers, claiming the devices are defectively designed, improperly programmed by untrained sales representatives, and falsely marketed as safe and effective.

A spinal cord stimulator (SCS) is a surgically implanted device intended to relieve chronic back pain. It consists of a battery-powered pulse generator, electrical leads placed along the spinal cord, and an external remote used to adjust stimulation, working to block pain signals before they reach the brain.

The devices first hit the market around the turn of the millennium. However, over the past two decades, the manufacturers have made major design changes, which were approved through the FDA’s fast track 510(k) approval process that only requires the implants be “substantially equivalent” to ones coming before. Plaintiffs now claim these changes to the devices were rubber-stamped by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) without significant clinical studies.  

As a result of this allegedly flawed approval process, all three of the Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits also name the FDA as a defendant, in addition to Nevro Corporation and Globus Medical Inc., saying the agency failed in its duty to ensure SCS implants were safe and effective before approving them.

Mounteer, Manley and Lutke tell very similar stories in their Nevro SCS lawsuits. They received the implants to address chronic pain, and were first given a temporary “trial” device that was supposed to test whether their conditions would be receptive to a spine stimulation device.

All three say they reported significant pain relief from the trials, leading to the implantation of permanent Nevro SCS devices. However, the results with the permanent device were far different.

Mounteer received his Nevro SCS in September 2022, only to have the implant removed after it failed to provide relief. According to his complaint, Nevro sales representatives met with him several times to address the problem and reprogrammed the device outside of the presence of his doctor.

“Plaintiff was told by Nevro’s sales representative that the permanent device would relieve most of Plaintiff’s pain. In reality, the device caused worsening pain, avascular necrosis of both femoral heads, shocking sensations, and weakness in extremities, despite being both initially programmed by a Nevro sales representative as well as being reprogrammed after the initial programming.”

– J.B. Mounteer v. Nevro Corporation et al

The three plaintiffs say they were never made aware that the trial device would work materially differently from the actual SCS implant, and that the sales representatives oversold the benefits of the devices, in addition to making medical decisions without a license or adequate training.

According to the lawsuits, all three plaintiffs continue to suffer pain and other long-term side effects from the Nevro SCS. Manley also says she requires a foley catheter and suffered a pulmonary embolism. The health problems led to reduced mobility, the development of bedsores and overall functional decline.

The lawsuits present claims against Nevro and Globus of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and violation of consumer protection laws, as well as another negligence per se charge for unauthorized practice of medicine. The FDA faces a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, with plaintiffs calling for injunctive and declaratory relief.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Before the filing of the three Nevro SCS lawsuits, a group of plaintiffs called for all similar claims involving Abbott and Boston Scientific devices to be consolidated before one federal judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois.

It is unclear how lawsuits being filed against a third manufacturer will affect the plaintiffs’ motion for consolidation, or the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s (JPML) decision on whether to consolidate them.

If consolidation is granted, it is also uncertain whether Nevro claims will be included alongside those involving Abbott and Boston Scientific.

As additional claims continue to be filed, spinal cord stimulator lawyers are investigating new cases for individuals who had an SCS implanted and later experienced serious complications such as:

• Electrical shocks or burning sensations linked to stimulation or device wiring
• Device migration or lead movement after implantation
• Tissue burns or localized injury near leads or the generator
• Neurological symptoms associated with lead position or electrical output
• Revision surgery or planned explant surgery due to device complications

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Three attorneys have been appointed to serve as co-lead counsel in the centralized litigation established for all federal Lyft sexual assault lawsuits, giving them authority to choose other lawyers to assist with common discovery and help coordinate efforts on behalf of all plaintiffs pursuing claims against the rideshare company.

About 30 Lyft sexual assault lawsuits have been filed in federal courts nationwide, each raising similar allegations that passengers were sexually harassed, assaulted, raped and sometimes kidnapped by the company’s drivers. Lyft sexual assault attorneys expect that number to continue to grow in the coming months.

Almost all of the plaintiffs in the litigation are women, many of whom say the company refused to make passenger safety a priority. Instead, they argue that Lyft failed to equip vehicles with surveillance cameras, provide sexual assault or harassment awareness training for drivers, and did not give passengers the option of selecting the gender of their driver.

Given common questions of fact and law being raised in claims filed throughout the federal court system, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) established a Lyft sexual assault lawsuits MDL (multidistrict litigation) last month, centralizing the claims in the Northern District of California under U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The move was seen as a way to prevent the duplication of discovery efforts and keep different federal judges from making conflicting rulings, while also serving the convenience of the parties involved. Eventually, Judge Lin is likely to order attorneys to select a group of cases they find to be representative of the litigation as a whole to be prepared for early test trials.

These bellwether test cases give plaintiffs, defendants and the court a chance to see how jurors respond to evidence, testimony and arguments that are likely to be repeated throughout the litigation. The results of these trials can often form the foundation of settlement discussions.

Lyft Lawsuit Leadership Appointments

On March 26, Judge Lin issued a pretrial order (PDF) announcing the appointment of three attorneys to serve as co-lead counsel. She also empowered them to select a Plaintiffs Steering Committee and Liaison Counsel.

Judge Lin ordered the newly appointed leaders to submit their selections for those roles, along with a proposed order outlining their duties and responsibilities, to the Court by April 1, 2026.

These Lyft sexual assault lawsuit MDL leadership attorneys will handle key tasks during pretrial proceedings on behalf of all plaintiffs. This includes conducting discovery and depositions on common issues, arguing motions before the court, and potentially negotiating a settlement with Lyft that could resolve all claims.

Judge Lin also told parties to prepare a single proposed order that will include a process for filing cases directly with the MDL court, regardless of where the plaintiff is located, issues of plaintiffs’ pseudonymity, deadlines for filing master and short-form complaints, and other topics key to getting the litigation moving swiftly.

The next case management conference is scheduled for May 13, 2026.

Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits

The claims against Lyft have been centralized in the same district as nearly 3,300 Uber driver sexual assault lawsuits, which have been placed under U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer. As part of the coordinated federal litigation, Judge Breyer has had parties prepare a group of cases for a series of bellwether trials.

In February, the first federal Uber sexual assault bellwether trial ended in an $8.5 million verdict for Jaylynn Dean, a former passenger who alleged she was raped by an Uber driver in November 2023. Jurors determined that while Uber was not liable for failing to provide additional safety features, it was responsible for the actions of the driver, who they saw as acting as an agent of the rideshare service at the time of the assault.

A motion filed on March 16 suggests that the company has reached some kind of Uber settlement agreement, but the details of that settlement, or how many cases it affects, have not been released to the public.

If there is no settlement agreement in the next couple weeks, the second federal bellwether trial is set to begin on April 13. Additionally, a California state trial is scheduled to start on April 4. After the trials conclude, if there is still no settlement, Judge Breyer may begin remanding cases back to their original districts for individual trial dates.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A California man has filed a lawsuit alleging that he suffered severe and life-threatening injuries when the electronic door locks on his Tesla Model Y failed after the vehicle caught fire, preventing him from escaping the burning car.

The complaint (PDF) was originally brought by Wondafrash Gebreyes Gebremedihen in California Superior Court on February 23, naming Tesla Inc. as the sole defendant. The lawsuit was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 24.

Most Tesla vehicles are equipped with electronic door releases that depend on battery power to function, rather than traditional mechanical handles. While the design is intended to provide a sleek, modern interface, Gebremedihen alleges it creates a dangerous risk if power is lost during a collision or fire, potentially preventing occupants from exiting the vehicle.

Tesla Electronic Door Latch Risks

A growing number of Tesla investigations and lawsuits are raising similar concerns about electronic door systems and whether occupants can escape burning vehicles. Federal regulators began examining reports of children being trapped in Tesla vehicles due to electronic latch issues in September 2025. 

In addition, a Tesla wrongful death lawsuit filed earlier this year claims that a California man was trapped inside his Tesla Model Y after the door handles failed to operate.

A separate Tesla Cybertruck lawsuit brought in June 2025 also raised allegations that defective door handle designs may have prevented a Texas man’s timely escape during a vehicle fire, potentially contributing to his fatal burn injuries.

Tesla Door Latch Fire Allegations

According to this new complaint, the Tesla vehicle fire occurred after a crash that sparked the ignition, quickly engulfing parts of the vehicle. Gebremedihen alleges he was unable to open the doors using the electronic system, delaying his escape and exposing him to extreme heat and flames.

The lawsuit indicates that the vehicle’s electrical system was compromised during the crash, disabling the door release mechanism at a critical moment. As a result, Gebremedihen claims he was effectively trapped inside the vehicle while it burned, suffering serious injuries before he was able to escape or be rescued.

Gebremedihen alleges Tesla failed to include reliable, easy-to-access manual overrides for its electronic door handles, which could allow occupants to exit in an emergency. While some models have manual releases, the lawsuit claims they are difficult to locate, unintuitive or ineffective in certain conditions.

First responders referenced in the complaint have reportedly encountered similar challenges with other Tesla vehicles, where electronic door systems may not function when power is lost, complicating rescue efforts in emergency situations.

In addition, the complaint raises concerns about the risk of vehicle fires associated with lithium-ion battery systems, which can burn intensely and spread rapidly once ignited. Gebremedihen claims that the combination of fire risk and inaccessible door mechanisms creates an unreasonably dangerous condition for drivers and passengers.

As a result of the incident, the plaintiff claims he suffered severe burns and other injuries, requiring extensive medical treatment and resulting in long-term physical and emotional harm.

“If properly designed and manufactured, the subject Tesla Model Y and its structural components would have prevented the subject vehicle from catching fire and would not have trapped Plaintiff in the subject vehicle, causing his life-threatening and serious injuries.”

— Wondafrash Gebreyes Gebremedihen v. Tesla Inc.

The complaint raises allegations of strict product liability and negligence. It seeks general and special damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering and other losses.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A federal judge has ruled that two insurance companies have no duty to defend businesses facing lawsuits over the sale of nitrous oxide products, which have been marketed in recent years for the illegal use as a recreational inhalant.

Distributors and manufacturers of nitrous oxide products face a growing number of criminal and civil cases for selling large quantities that are often used for illegal inhalation, which has been linked to reports of severe nerve damage, paralysis and deaths.

As these nitrous oxide lawsuits continue to increase, several insurers have sought to avoid covering the potentially significant liability costs the retailers and manufacturers face for their role in devastating injuries suffered by consumers who inhaled the gas.

Nitrous Oxide Inhalation Injuries

Nitrous oxide is traditionally used as an anesthetic in medical situations or as a propellant for food preparation. However, in recent years canisters of nitrous oxide, often referred to as “laughing gas,” have been increasingly marketed directly to consumers for recreational use through online retailers on Amazon.com, local smoke and vape shops, as well as other major retailers.

The use of laughing gas is known to cause a feeling of euphoria, and manufacturers have begun adding various flavors to the canisters, which are often sold with accessories designed to help with inhalation. Critics point out that legitimate culinary uses do not involve flavoring the gas itself.

Amid these concerns, nitrous oxide lawsuits began to emerge in large numbers following a U.S. Food and Drug Administration warning issued over a nationwide surge in injuries linked to inhalation. Plaintiffs allege the products have caused severe harm, including brain damage, paralysis, psychiatric complications, addiction and, in some cases, death.

Insurers Not Liable for Illegal Nitrous Oxide Injuries

In September 2024, a woman named Jenna Combel filed a lawsuit against more than 20 nitrous oxide manufacturers and distributors. Combel recreationally used the gas from 2019 until 2023, suffering paralysis and nerve damage.

Following the filing, two insurance companies, United Specialty Insurance Company and Century Surety Company, brought a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to declare that they do not have to cover nitrous oxide sellers because they face claims for illegal activity. They note that such crimes are not included in their coverage.

On March 19, U.S. District Judge Sarah S. Vance, of the Eastern District of Louisiana, issued an order (PDF) granting the motion for summary judgment. Judge Vance indicated that, normally, the Court would have to conduct an extensive analysis of Combel’s complaint.

“Here, however, the Court finds that Century and United easily meet their burden of proving that coverage under the policies is foreclosed by a policy exclusion. This single issue is dispositive of all aspects of Century and United’s duty to provide a defense.”

– U.S. District Judge Sarah S. Vance

Century and United are not alone in seeking to distance themselves from the potential liability caused by businesses selling nitrous oxide products.

In February, a similar claim was filed by the Gemini Insurance Company in the Northern District of Georgia, seeking to void or rescind its insurance policy with Galaxy Gas LLC, which is one of the leading distributors of nitrous oxide, and the subject of numerous nitrous oxide lawsuits.

Galaxy Gas also came under scrutiny by investigators in Louisiana in March 2024 due to its nitrous oxide sales. Gemini indicates the company misled them about the nature of its business.

Nitrous Oxide Lawsuits

Galaxy Gas is just one of several nitrous oxide canister brands, including Baking Bad, Cosmic Gas, HOTWHIP, InfusionMax, MassGass, Miami Magic and Whip-It!, facing civil, and sometimes criminal, claims that they illegally sold nitrous oxide for recreational use.

Plaintiffs claim that these and other manufacturers and distributors have failed to provide adequate warnings and use deceptive marketing tactics to promote large canisters of nitrous oxide, designed for inhalation, as safe or harmless. Former users and family members seek to hold them accountable for injuries caused by placing profits over consumer safety.

Without insurance coverage, some defendants may face increasing pressure to settle such cases before the legal costs get out of hand.

Nitrous oxide attorneys are currently offering free consultations to individuals and families who may be eligible for compensation through a Galaxy Gas lawsuit, or lawsuit against another nitrous oxide canister manufacturer.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up for nitrous oxide lawsuit updates to be delivered directly to your inbox.

Federal regulators say kratom poisoning cases have risen sharply since 2015, a trend they attribute to increasingly potent products entering the market.

Kratom is a psychoactive substance made from the leaves of a tropical evergreen tree native to Southeast Asia. Historically consumed in that region for pain relief, mood enhancement and opioid withdrawal, kratom supplements are now widely available in the United States.

In recent years, the manufacturing of kratom products has shifted from using traditional leaves to high-potency alkaloid extracts. As a result, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned in 2019 that the number of calls regarding kratom poisonings increased from 13 in 2011 to nearly 700 in 2017.

New CDC findings published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report for March 26 now show that U.S. poison control centers are receiving up to two kratom-related phone calls per day.

Kratom Health Risks

Kratom’s active ingredient, mitragynine, has been linked to numerous adverse health conditions, including deadly heart arrhythmias. In addition to these potentially fatal events, health officials have also warned that certain kratom products may be linked to aggressive behavior and addiction.

In recent years, kratom has been refined into a more potent compound known as 7-hydroxymitragynine or 7-OH, which binds to the opioid receptors in the brain to create a euphoric effect. Due to the product’s addictive properties and abuse potential, federal regulators have called for 7-OH to be added to the federal drug schedule.

Following this action, a number of lawsuits have been brought targeting the sale of 7-OH kratom products, which are often marketed as safe and natural, despite the possibility of kratom addiction.

Last year, a lawsuit was filed against the makers of a kratom-containing seltzer after users suffered severe withdrawal symptoms. In addition, a wrongful death lawsuit was filed after a kratom poisoning led to a man’s death in Washington state in 2024.

Kratom Poisoning Reports

For the new report, CDC researchers analyzed data from the National Poison Data System from 2015 through 2025, indicating there were 14,449 kratom exposure poisoning reports during that period.

According to the findings, poison control calls involving Kratom increased significantly over the 10 years of the study, rising from 258 reports in 2015 to more than 3,400 in 2025. That’s a more than 1,200% increase in kratom-related poisonings.

The data indicates other addictive substances and antidepressants were also involved in many kratom poisoning reports.

Single-substance kratom exposures made up 62% of reports. However, cases involving kratom combined with other substances were more frequent and severe, with rates ranging from 467 to 5,442 per million reports, compared to 388 to 4,045 per million for kratom alone.

Multiple-substance poisonings were also linked to higher rates of hospitalizations and serious adverse outcomes, including life-threatening side effects. In addition, researchers determined multiple substance poisonings accounted for the majority of kratom-linked deaths.

Most of the poisonings involved men and young adults between 20 and 39 years old. However, rates of poisoning among 40 to 59 year olds also increased sharply during the study period as well.

CDC researchers warned kratom continues to be a public health concern and ongoing surveillance is needed to help identify high-risk use and abuse. They indicate this data should help guide clinical care and public outreach efforts.

Sign up for more safety and legal news that could affect you or your family.

With millions of individuals undergoing colonoscopy and ERCP procedures each year, there are growing concerns that reusable medical scopes may not be fully sanitized between patients, due to design limitations, which may result in a number of infection-related lawsuits against Olympus and other manufacturers in the coming months.

Colonoscopy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, known as ERCP, procedures are widely used to diagnose and treat digestive conditions. Colonoscopies are a cornerstone of colorectal cancer screening and prevention, while ERCP procedures are used to treat blockages in the bile ducts and pancreas. Both rely on flexible endoscopes, which are inserted deep into the body to visualize and treat internal organs without surgery.

Manufactured by a small group of major companies, led by Olympus Corporation, along with competitors like STERIS and Fujifilm, these endoscopes are complex and often reusable medical devices, which are equipped with cameras, lighting systems and narrow internal channels that can be difficult to access during cleaning.

Given the high cost of these instruments, endoscopes are designed for repeated use, requiring strict cleaning and disinfection protocols between patients. However, regulators and researchers have found that nearly 20% of reprocessed gastrointestinal endoscopes may still be contaminated when used in patients, suggesting that even when hospitals follow recommended reprocessing instructions provided by the manufacturers, bacteria can persist inside the devices, posing infection risks.

These contaminated scopes have been linked to reports of serious infections, including drug-resistant “superbug” outbreaks such as carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, as well as E. coli, bloodstream infections and sepsis. In severe cases, patients have required extended hospitalization, suffered organ failure or died following procedures involving contaminated scopes.

As a result, Olympus scope infection lawsuits are now being pursued on behalf of a growing number of individuals who developed serious infections following colonoscopy, ERCP and other endoscopic procedures involving reusable scopes. It is expected that these claims will allege that certain endoscopes and duodenoscopes sold by Olympus were defectively designed in ways that prevent them from being fully sterilized, allowing bacteria to remain trapped inside the devices and transmitted between patients.

Reusable Scopes Pose Infection Risks to Millions Annually

Each year, more than 20 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are performed in the United States, including an estimated 15 to 19 million colonoscopies and more than 650,000 ERCP procedures. Globally, the number of colonoscopies alone is estimated to reach nearly 50 million annually.

As the use of these procedures continues to grow, driven by an aging population and expanded screening efforts, millions of patients are exposed to reusable endoscopes each year. While these devices are essential for routine checkups, early detection and minimally invasive treatment, studies have shown that their widespread use may also be contributing to the number of infections and resulting injuries recorded each year.

Study Highlights Widespread Contamination Risks

In one review of multiple studies published in Endoscopy International Open, researchers looked at how often these devices still carried bacteria after they had already been cleaned and were considered ready for use on patients. Researchers found:

• Colonoscopy scopes had the highest contamination rates, with bacteria found in nearly 1 out of every 3 devices
• About 1 in 5 endoscopes were still contaminated, meaning bacteria were found even after cleaning
• Upper endoscopy scopes, used to examine the stomach and esophagus, showed contamination in about 1 out of 4 cases
• Duodenoscopes showed contamination in about 1 out of 7 cases
• Contamination rates varied by region:
  • In North America, about 6 out of every 100 scopes tested positive for bacteria
  • In Europe, about 18 out of every 100 scopes were contaminated
• When stricter standards were used to define contamination, the problem appeared even more significant:
  • Up to 3 out of every 10 scopes showed bacterial contamination under higher thresholds

These findings suggest that contamination is not limited to one specific type of device, but may occur across a wide range of reusable endoscopes.

Hidden Infection Risks After Routine Procedures

Colonoscopy and ERCP procedures are widely considered safe, but patients are often discharged within hours, leaving little opportunity to detect early signs of infection. As a result, complications linked to contaminated scopes may not become apparent until days later, when bacteria introduced during the procedure begin to spread.

Infections associated with reusable endoscopes have included E. coli, Klebsiella and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, known as CRE, which are often resistant to multiple antibiotics and difficult to treat. In some cases, these infections have led to prolonged hospital stays, invasive treatments or life-threatening complications such as sepsis.

Signs of Infection After ERCP

Patients who undergo ERCP should be aware of symptoms that may indicate a developing infection, particularly within the first few days after the procedure. Warning signs may include:

• Fever or chills
• Severe abdominal pain
• Nausea or vomiting
• Jaundice or yellowing of the skin and eyes
• Rapid heart rate
• Fatigue or general weakness

Because ERCP procedures involve the bile ducts and pancreas, infections can progress quickly and may become severe if not treated promptly. In some cases, patients may develop sepsis, requiring emergency medical care.

Colonoscopy Infections May Be Underrecognized

Although colonoscopies are often viewed as routine screening procedures, emerging research suggests infection risks may be higher than previously recognized. Given the large number of procedures performed each year, even low contamination rates may cause thousands of infections after colonoscopy procedures.

Symptoms of a colonoscopy infection are sometimes dismissed as expected side effects, which can delay diagnosis. However, persistent or worsening symptoms may indicate a developing bacterial infection that requires medical attention.

Symptoms of Bacterial Infection After Colonoscopy

After a colonoscopy, patients should monitor for symptoms that could indicate infection, including:

• Persistent abdominal pain or cramping
• Fever or chills
• Diarrhea, especially if severe or prolonged
• Rectal bleeding beyond expected levels
• Nausea or vomiting
• Signs of dehydration

Patients experiencing unusual or worsening symptoms after a colonoscopy should seek prompt medical evaluation, particularly if symptoms do not improve within a short period.

Olympus Scope Lawsuits Under Investigation

You may qualify for a contaminated scope infection lawsuit if you or a loved one developed a serious bacterial infection after undergoing a medical procedure involving a reusable surgical scope, such as an ERCP, endoscopy, colonoscopy or bronchoscopy. Injuries reported in surgical scope infection lawsuits include:

• Sepsis
• Bloodstream infections
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections
• E. coli infections
• Pneumonia
• Organ failure
• Extended hospitalization
• Emergency medical treatment
• Wrongful death
• Other serious bacterial infections

To determine whether you or a family member may qualify for a surgical scope infection lawsuit, submit your information for a free case evaluation. An attorney can review your situation, explain your legal rights and determine whether you may be eligible to pursue compensation.

The U.S. District Judge overseeing all federal Bard PowerPort lawsuits will meet with plaintiffs and defendants early next month, to discuss final preparations for the first in a series of bellwether trials scheduled to begin on April 21, which could shape the outcomes for thousands of similar cases.

There are currently more than 3,000 product liability lawsuits pending in the federal court system against Becton Dickinson and C.R. Bard over the design of their controversial port catheter devices, which are used to create an injection site for repeated delivery of medications or fluids, such as during chemotherapy.

The Bard PowerPort systems consists of a small injection port where the needle is inserted and a polyurethane catheter that delivers the fluid into the vein. However, plaintiffs say that while the device was marketed as safe and effective, it is actually defectively designed, increasing the risk of port catheter infections, fractures and migration injuries.

Lawsuits brought by individuals throughout the U.S. now allege that the use of barium sulfate in the construction of the catheter causes premature breakdown, cracks and fractures in the catheter. Each of the claims raise similar allegations, indicating that the manufacturers knew about this problem, yet failed to change the design or provide adequate warnings to the medical community to be on the lookout for such problems.

Given common questions of fact and law, all federal Bard PowerPort lawsuits are consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, where Judge David G. Campbell is overseeing a multidistrict litigation (MDL) established to coordinate discovery and pretrial proceedings in the large number of claims.

Lawyers have spent months preparing a series of “bellwether” test cases for early trials under Judge Campbell’s direction. The trials will help the parties evaluate how a jury will digest the testimony, evidence and arguments that would likely be repeated throughout the litigation.

Last year, the Court selected six Bard PowerPort lawsuits to be readied for trial, with the first, involving claims by Robert Cook of Minnesota, scheduled to begin on April 21, 2026. It will be followed by additional bellwether trials currently expected to begin on July 7, August 18, October 13, December 1, and February 2, 2027. 

Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Trial Final Conference

On March 19, the parties met for a status conference, after which Judge Campbell issued a case management order (PDF) scheduling a final pretrial conference for the Cook trial for April 9.

Judge Campbell called on the parties to be prepared to identify sensitive files and testimony that need to be sealed, and told attorneys to turn in deposition designations by March 30. The judge also ordered plaintiffs and defendants to attempt to resolve any disputes over evidence admissibility before the trial, and to set forth any such conflicts in the joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order.

A day before the case management conference was held, the manufacturers filed a motion seeking to bifurcate the Cook trial (PDF) into two phases. The first would be for the jury to determine liability. During the second phase, the jury would be asked to decide on whether punitive damages are warranted, and if so, how much.

According to the motion, conducting the trial in this way would match Minnesota state law, where Cook is from and where his lawsuit originates, despite being consolidated with the other cases in Arizona for pretrial proceedings. Although all of the cases have been centralized, they remain individual claims that can be subject to some state laws.

Defendants argue that it will make the trial more fair and noted that Judge Cook had done the same during litigation involving Bard IVC filter lawsuits, which involved claims over another C.R. Bard implant that allegedly had a penchant for breaking, migrating out of position and causing pulmonary embolisms.

In his order, Judge Campbell indicated that the issue would be discussed and resolved at the final pretrial conference next month.

Second PowerPort Bellwether Trial to Proceed

After the Cook trial, the second Bard PowerPort lawsuit selected to go before a jury was filed by Wanda Miller, who died in early February 2026, while awaiting her day in court. Since her death came suddenly, and cancer left her uncommunicative, plaintiffs’ attorneys could not take a final deposition to preserve her testimony for the scheduled trial set to begin in July 2026.

To date, Miller’s family has not yet decided whether to move forward with the lawsuit as her heirs. This has raised questions as to whether the case should move forward as scheduled, be rescheduled, swapped with another claim or removed as a bellwether trial entirely.

In a joint memorandum (PDF) filed ahead of last week’s conference, plaintiffs called for the case to be removed from the bellwether pool entirely and replaced with another lawsuit. Defendants are calling for swapping the case with another in the trial order, giving the family more time to grieve and decide. However, they have indicated that the family should be forced to dismiss the case if they are not prepared to move forward with a bellwether trial.

Lawyers representing plaintiffs in the litigation say that the swap would cause serious scheduling issues with the lead attorney representing Ms. Miller. In addition, they indicate that the Miller case is no longer representative of most others in the litigation now that she has passed away. In addition, her claim that the Bard PowerPort caused a thrombosis injury is only repeated in 98 of the 3,042 active cases in the MDL.

In the order issued after the recent case management conference, Judge Campbell ruled that the trial will move forward as planned or must be dismissed. He ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to talk with the Miller family about whether they are willing to have the case tried in July. He gave the family until April 7 to decide, which means a decision would be prepared by the Cook final pretrial conference.

While these bellwether trials are being closely watched, they are not binding on the other cases. However, it is important for them to be representative of the litigation as a whole, because the outcomes could help the parties reach a Bard PowerPort lawsuit settlement agreement.

If no such agreement is reached once the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings have been completed, Judge Campbell could begin remanding the cases back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

In addition to the Bard PowerPort litigation, more than 300 similar Angiodynamics port catheter lawsuits claim that the company’s series of port catheters, including the Vortex Port, SmartPort and Xcela Port, suffer from the same barium sulfate problem. These cases have been consolidated in a separate MDL before U.S. Judge Jinsook Ohta in the Southern District of California, where she is expected to begin a bellwether process as well.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.