Nevro Corporation wants a panel of federal judges to reject a petition calling for the creation of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for all lawsuits being pursued in U.S. District Courts nationwide over problems with its spinal cord stimulators, which have been linked to an alarming number of patient injuries and the need for revision surgery.

The company is only one of several medical device manufacturers facing a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, each involving claims that the companies failed to properly test the devices or warn medical personnel and patients about the potential health risks and failure rates. Additionally, many claims argue the manufacturers allowed sales representatives without medical licenses to program the devices, sometimes causing patients to suffer severe pain.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Risks

Spinal cord stimulators are implants designed to treat chronic pain after other options have failed. They consist of electrodes and a battery-powered pulse generator placed under the skin, near the spine, plus an external remote control. The electrical pulses are meant to interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain. The system is designed to be implanted permanently.

In recent months, Nevro and other spinal cord manufacturers, such as Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Abbott Laboratories, have received numerous reports of patients saying that not only did the treatments fail, but the devices frequently failed or caused medical complications requiring surgical removal.

Patients report experiencing unexpected and painful electric shocks, burning sensations, lead migration and total device failures. They also report incidents where the electrodes or battery pierced the skin and incidents where the device increased their level of chronic pain and caused additional nerve damage, worsening their situation.

In February, a group of plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate all federal spinal cord stimulator lawsuits before one judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings regardless of manufacturer. However, given the involvement of several different manufacturers, the MDL panel refused to create one industry-wide consolidation. Instead, it ordered the creation of a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator multidistrict litigation (MDL) in June in the Central District of California before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton. Lawsuits involving Nevro and Abbott were left to proceed as individual claims.

Since then, plaintiffs have filed separate motions calling for Nevro stimulator lawsuit consolidation and Abbott stimulator lawsuit consolidation, with both asking for cases to be centralized in the same district as separate proceedings.

On August 6, Nevro filed a motion in opposition (PDF) to the plaintiffs’ petition for the creation of a Nevro MDL, arguing that the plaintiffs are trying to perform an end-run around the previous JPML ruling to get the same results. Additionally, Nevro claims plaintiffs lack common product defect allegations, meaning no one can point to a part of the devices and identify it as a defectively designed part.

The company also claims the injuries are only loosely associated, with some varying quite differently from patient to patient, leaving little commonality to justify consolidation. Abbott Laboratories recently filed a similar opposition brief, also calling for its own MDL petition to be rejected.

When and if the JPML will hear oral arguments over the petitions has not yet been announced, but if the JPML sides with the plaintiffs and agrees to form a Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuit MDL, all cases would remain individual claims even as they go through pretrial proceedings together. This means plaintiffs will still have to individually prove their injuries were caused by the spinal implant.

If the panel does deem the cases would benefit from consolidation, the presiding U.S. District Judge would be expected to instruct the parties to begin preparing a group of representative claims for bellwether trials. These early test trials would give plaintiffs and defendants a look at how juries nationwide could interpret evidence and testimony that may be repeated throughout the litigation.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

The previous determination that Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits would benefit from centralization may significantly improve the chances of Abbott and Nevro SCS lawsuit consolidation.

Meanwhile, spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to review plaintiffs’ claims of injuries caused by spinal cord stimulator problems, including:

Individuals who believe they may qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit can request a free case evaluation. Attorneys handling these claims work on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs and fees are only collected if compensation is recovered.

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

Blaming social media trends for massive misuse, a U.S. lawmaker is pushing for a national ban on the consumer sale of nitrous oxide canisters, seeking to stem a recent wave of whippet injuries, addiction and abuse problems.

Representative Kevin Mullin, of California, introduced new legislation in June, the Nitrous Oxide Safety Act (H.R. 7945), which would ban retail sales of nitrous oxide throughout the U.S. The bill seeks to enact the ban while still leaving easily accessible avenues to purchase the canisters for legitimate use by medical professionals and in other industries.

Nitrous Oxide Risks

Nitrous oxide is traditionally used as an anesthetic in medical procedures and in food preparation. It can also be inhaled for a brief euphoric high, a process known as doing whippets, or whippits, so named because the practice began with the illegal use of small nitrous oxide canisters used to refill kitchen whipped cream dispensers.

In recent years nitrous oxide canisters have increased massively in size and have been sold directly to consumers as a thinly veiled recreational drug, often coming in sweet and fruity flavors, bright colors and with devices to help with inhalation. They are often sold in vape shops as well as online on Amazon and other platforms under names such as Galaxy Gas, Baking Bad and Miami Magic.

However, inhaling nitrous oxide can deprive parts of the brain and body of oxygen, putting users at risk of physical, neurological and cognitive injuries, including paralysis, brain damage, vitamin B12 deficiency, addiction and death. This has led to an increasing number of whippet lawsuits being filed against manufacturers and distributors, each alleging defendants knew their nitrous oxide products were being purchased for illegal use and encouraged such behavior, despite the risks of consumer injuries and addiction.

Nitrous Oxide Legislation

In a press release detailing the legislation, Mullin noted that more than 14 million Americans are believed to have abused nitrous oxide at least once in their life. Over the past decade, the number of deaths linked to nitrous oxide misuse have skyrocketed 578%, he noted.

The congressman indicates that social media and influencers have helped spread and promote the dangerous practice as a trend, particularly targeting young people, and often ending in tragic results.

“We have been hearing heartbreaking stories from parents whose children have been gravely injured, hospitalized with serious neurological problems, and in the worst cases even died from nitrous oxide misuse. The blatant branding of these products as a carefree party drug is absurd, and this dangerous inhalant is widely available online and at stores across America.”

– U.S. Representative Kevin Mullin, California

Mullin noted that some states have moved to ban nitrous oxide consumer use, and suggests that his legislation could fill the gaps for the states that have not. He indicated that the movement for a national ban has been led by a nationwide coalition of parents.

The Nitrous Oxide Safety Act’s provisions would prohibit the sale of nitrous oxide to consumers for household use. It would also prevent the promotion of nitrous oxide products toward youth for illegal purposes, while preserving access for licensed medical and dental professionals and legitimate industrial, food production, automotive and research applications.

In addition, Mullin’s legislation would leave a carve out for multi-ingredient foods that contain nitrous oxide as a key component, such as whipped cream canisters.

Whippet Lawsuits

As the legislation seeks to make its way through Congress, individual consumers are pressing forward with a growing number of lawsuits against nitrous oxide manufacturers and retailers, each raising similar claims that they ignored the substantial risk of whippet injuries in an effort to capitalize on a growing trend to abuse the gas.

Plaintiffs say manufacturers pushed nitrous oxide distribution even as evidence mounted that customers were buying canisters to inhale the gas rather than use it for food preparation.

Whippet injury lawyers are offering free case evaluations to individuals and families who have suffered injuries and may be entitled to financial compensation through a nitrous oxide lawsuit.

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

A California man has filed a lawsuit alleging a defective Ninja Foodi pressure cooker exploded while it was being used in the normal and intended manner, spraying him with scalding food and liquid that left him with severe burns over large portions of his body.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Detovionte Small in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on August 11, naming SharkNinja Operating LLC as the sole defendant.

Small claims SharkNinja knew the pressure cooker was defective, but failed to recall the device or adequately warn consumers about the safety risks, as part of a continuing effort to place profits before the health and safety of consumers.

Pressure Cooker Explosion Risks

The case joins a growing number of pressure cooker lawsuits filed in recent years against manufacturers of popular brands such as Instant Pot, Ninja and Crock-Pot, alleging design defects can expose consumers to severe burn injuries.

Many of the claims stem from incidents in which pressure cooker lids opened before built-up pressure has been safely released, allowing hot food, steam and liquid to violently escape.

Plaintiffs allege defective lid-locking mechanisms and other safety features can result in explosions that cause severe burns, permanent scarring and life-altering injuries.

Pressure Cooker Injury Allegations

In the complaint, Small claims he was using a Ninja Foodi TenderCrisp Pressure Cooker to prepare food for his family on August 12, 2024. After the cooking cycle finished, he attempted to open the appliance, causing the lid to allegedly blow off and spray super-heated liquid, food and steam across his hands, chest and arms.

According to the lawsuit, the Ninja Foodi operating manual states that the lid will lock while the unit is pressurized and remain locked until the pressure is released. However, Small alleges the lid can actually be opened while dangerous pressure remains inside.

Small says he suffered significant and painful injuries as a result, requiring medical treatment and causing physical pain and mental anguish.

The filing claims SharkNinja knew or should have known about the defect based on other pressure cooker explosions involving the same alleged design, manufacturing and warning problems. Small maintains the company nevertheless continued selling the devices without adequately warning consumers, issuing a timely recall or remedying the defect.

Small also alleges economically feasible alternative designs could have prevented the lid from detaching under pressure, and he maintains the defect was inconsistent with the product’s safety certification as represented by SharkNinja.

“SharkNinja’s conduct, including the distribution of dangerous pressure cookers premised on the false representation that they are free from unreasonably dangerous defects demonstrates a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, and rights of consumers, and constitutes gross negligence.”

— Detovionte Small v. SharkNinja Operating LLC

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty and unfair and deceptive practices. It seeks damages for medical expenses, physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, diminished enjoyment of life, lost time, disfigurement and permanent injuries.

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

Lawyers are investigating potential Parkinson’s disease lawsuits for Gulf War veterans who may have been exposed to chlorpyrifos while deployed during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm more than 35 years ago.

Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate pesticide that was widely used for decades to kill insects. During the Gulf War, the U.S. military shipped thousands of cases of the pesticide to the Persian Gulf region, where troops faced significant problems with flies, mosquitoes, sand flies and other pests.

However, questions about the potential long-term neurological effects of those exposures have emerged in recent years, as researchers increasingly examine the role chlorpyrifos may play in the development of Parkinson’s disease.

Chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s Disease Concerns

Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurological disorder caused by the loss of dopamine-producing neurons in the brain. Symptoms frequently begin gradually and may include tremors, muscle stiffness, slowed movement, difficulty walking, impaired balance and changes in speech or handwriting.

Because the disease may not become apparent until decades after a potentially harmful exposure, veterans diagnosed today may have little reason to connect their symptoms with pesticides they encountered during a deployment in 1990 or 1991.

However, these concerns are gaining renewed attention following the publication of research earlier this year that identified chlorpyrifos as a specific environmental risk factor for Parkinson’s disease.

As a result, lawyers are now investigating chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s disease lawsuits for Gulf War veterans who are entering their 50s, 60s and older ages, when Parkinson’s disease is more commonly diagnosed. In addition, claims are also being pursued for individuals directly exposed to the pesticide while living or working on farms, as well as other agricultural settings.

Chlorpyrifos and Parkinson’s Disease

In January, UCLA Health researchers reported that individuals with long-term residential exposure to chlorpyrifos were more than 2.5 times as likely to develop Parkinson’s disease as those without such exposure.

The researchers analyzed 829 individuals with Parkinson’s disease and 824 people without the condition, using California pesticide records and residential and workplace histories to estimate exposure.

Laboratory testing also found chlorpyrifos exposure caused movement problems and loss of dopamine-producing neurons in mice, as well as brain inflammation and abnormal accumulation of a protein associated with Parkinson’s disease.

Researchers indicated the findings identify chlorpyrifos as a specific environmental risk factor for Parkinson’s disease and provide biological evidence explaining how the pesticide may damage brain cells.

Parkinson’s Disease Risks for Gulf War Veterans

Pesticides like chlorpyrifos were extensively used during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm to protect military personnel from insects and rodents, which presented both a nuisance and the risk of diseases.

A review of Gulf War pesticide exposures by the National Academies indicates nearly 4,000 cases of chlorpyrifos, containing 12 bottles each, were shipped to the Persian Gulf during the conflict. The National Academies is an independent, congressionally chartered organization that provides expert scientific advice to the federal government.

Other historical reviews estimate approximately 8,410 pounds of chlorpyrifos were available during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. However, researchers have been unable to determine exactly how much was ultimately used or the exposure experienced by individual service members.

According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, about 697,000 U.S. service members deployed to the Persian Gulf during the first Gulf War.

Operation Desert Shield began after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, followed by Operation Desert Storm in January 1991. Most U.S. troops involved in the ground war returned home by June 1991.

As a result, a service member who was 20 years old during the Gulf War would now be about 55 or 56, while those who deployed in their late 20s or 30s are now in their 60s or older.

That timing may be significant because Parkinson’s disease typically develops later in life, and researchers have long recognized that environmental exposures may occur years or even decades before characteristic movement problems emerge.

Gulf War Veteran Parkinson’s Disease Lawsuits

In light of these concerns, chlorpyrifos lawyers are now investigating whether veterans diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease may be able to pursue product liability claims involving their exposure during military service.

The investigations are expected to focus on veterans who served in locations where chlorpyrifos was used or stored and subsequently developed Parkinson’s disease or characteristic neurological problems.

Veterans who have developed symptoms of Parkinson’s disease may want to begin looking more closely at where they served, the pesticides used around their deployment areas and whether exposures that occurred more than 35 years ago could have contributed to their current health problems, which may include:

• Tremors
• Slowed movement
• Stiffness
• Balance problems
• Other neurological symptoms

All chlorpyrifos lawsuits are being pursued on a contingency fee basis, with no upfront legal costs. Attorneys only receive payment if compensation is recovered. 

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

A Nevada man has filed a lawsuit alleging he developed a severe addiction to Nova Kratom products, resulting in cardiac injuries, withdrawal symptoms and other health problems.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Alejandro Mendoza in Nevada District Court on July 20, naming MIB Inc., doing business as Nova Kratom, as the defendant. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on August 6.

Mendoza claims MIB failed to warn consumers about the numerous health risks and side effects of kratom, alleging the company marketed its products as harmless herbal supplements despite their highly addictive and opioid-like properties.

Kratom Supplement Risks

Kratom is a psychoactive substance derived from the leaves of the Mitragyna tree, which is native to Southeast Asia. It is often sold as a dietary supplement at gas stations, smoke shops, convenience stores, wellness stores and online throughout the United States. However, the substance is known to interact with some of the same receptors in the brain targeted by opioids such as morphine and heroin.

Despite being available in many forms, including powders, capsules, tablets, extracts, concentrated shots, gummies and beverages, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never approved kratom for any use.

A report published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicates kratom poisoning cases have increased by more than 1,200% since 2015. The increase comes amid concerns about increasingly potent kratom products being sold without FDA approval or oversight.

In light of these concerns, a number of kratom lawsuits have been filed in federal courts alleging products made from the substance are highly addictive and pose significant dangers to users.

Kratom Addiction Allegations

According to this recently filed complaint, Mendoza purchased Nova Kratom since it was marketed as an “all natural” herbal supplement. He claims continued use caused him to develop an addiction, resulting in cardiac injuries, physical withdrawal and emotional distress.

MIB, formerly known as Sunshine Trading Company, allegedly marketed its kratom products as safe and natural without adequately testing them or warning consumers about addiction, withdrawal and other health risks. Mendoza maintains he would not have used the products if adequate warnings had been provided.

The lawsuit points to research linking kratom use to addiction and opioid-like withdrawal symptoms, including agitation, irritability, insomnia, anxiety, tremors, body aches, nausea and vomiting. The filing also identifies potentially serious health risks, including seizures, organ damage, cardiac problems, respiratory depression, coma and death.

Mendoza further alleges kratom is marketed toward young and vulnerable consumers, including individuals struggling with or recovering from addiction, as a way to boost energy, improve mood, relieve pain and ease opioid withdrawal. He claims companies such as MIB exploit those consumers’ vulnerability to an addictive, opioid-like substance to develop repeat customers through dependence.

“Defendants’ kratom products were defective and unreasonably dangerous because Defendants failed to provide any adequate warning of the products’ addictive, opioid-like properties, the symptoms of withdrawal from their use, and the serious and potentially fatal health consequences of their use—dangers of which Defendants knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known.”

— Alejandro Mendoza v. MIB Inc.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict products liability—design defect/unreasonably dangerous product, failure to warn, negligence, breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and breach of express warranty deceptive trade practices/consumer fraud. It seeks compensation and other damages for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, diminished earning capacity and lost wages.

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

California’s highest court has issued a ruling that resulted in the dismissal of about 24,000 HIV drug lawsuits being pursued against Gilead, which were brought by former users who developed kidney damage or bone problems after using the treatments.

The litigation involves product liability lawsuits over side effects associated with various Gilead combination HIV treatments that contain the compound tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), such as Truvada, Viread, Atripla, Complera and Stribild.

Over the past five years, tens of thousands of individuals have filed their lawsuits in California state courts, each raising similar allegations that the drug manufacturer intentionally sold toxic and dangerous versions of the drugs while sitting on a safer formulation for years.

The alternative, a compound known as tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) is believed to reduce the risks of bone problems, kidney damage and other side effects linked to the older TDF formulations. However, Gilead allegedly delayed development of TAF-based HIV drugs until the existing TDF-based drugs neared the end of patent protections, extending the drug maker’s monopoly over the market by avoiding competition from generic competitors.

HIV Drug Lawsuit Settlement

In 2024, Gilead announced a $40 million HIV drug lawsuit settlement, resolving more than 2,600 claims pending in the federal court system, while leaving the California claims unresolved.

Gilead sought summary judgment in the California cases, arguing that plaintiffs never identified TDF drugs as having any kind of actual defect, but instead claimed the company had a duty to develop other treatment options. A California court of appeals rejected the company’s arguments, resulting in the case making its way to the California Supreme Court.

In a 6-to-1 opinion (PDF) issued on August 3, the California Supreme Court agreed with Gilead that the cases should be dismissed. The justices defended the company’s freedom to stop investing in a potential drug product, even if it showed the potential to be a better treatment.

“Imposing a duty of care in these circumstances would place extraordinary burdens on drug manufacturers by effectively requiring them to commit substantial time, expenses, and resources to conduct the later-stage clinical trials necessary to obtain FDA approval. It would also risk distorting research priorities and chilling pharmaceutical innovation in ways that may ultimately undermine, rather than advance, public health and safety.”

– Associate Justice Joshua Groban writing for the majority, California Supreme Court

According to the majority opinion, plaintiffs failed to meet essential elements of negligence claims under California law. The court determined a company’s existing duties under law, while encompassing a broad area of reasonable care, do not extend to owing its customers the development of a safer alternative product.

The decision effectively ends the litigation at the California state level.

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

Two eye drugs were linked to increased retinal nerve thickness in a new study, although researchers said it remains unclear whether the changes are beneficial or harmful.

The research was presented last month by Dr. David Brown of Retina Consultants of Texas at the American Society of Retina Specialists (ASRS) annual meeting, examining side effects of a class of drugs known as complement inhibitors, including Syfovre (pegcetacoplan) and Izervay (avacincaptad pegol). Brown reported that patients treated with the medications experienced an annual increase of more than four micrometers in retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness.

Syfovre and Izervay were both approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2023 for the treatment of geographic atrophy (GA), a side effect of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Both were released by Appellis Pharmaceuticals, with Syfovre introduced in February 2023, and Izervay released that August.

Syfovre Eye Inflammation Reports

Just months after Syfovre hit the market, the ASRS sent a letter to healthcare providers warning that the organization was receiving reports of eye inflammation linked to Syfovre injections.

At that time, ASRS indicated Syfovre was linked to at least six cases of occlusive retinal vasculitis, which blocks blood flow to the retina and can cause inflammation or total vision loss. The group warned doctors to closely follow up with patients who received the injections to detect potential adverse events as soon as possible.

Syfovre, Izervay Side Effects Study

In the new study, which has not yet been published for peer review, Brown and his team looked at 331 eyes that suffered from AMD, along with 4,870 optical coherence tomography measurements, which measure RNFL thickness. They looked at both compliment inhibitors, and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatments.

According to the findings, anti-VEGF drugs like Eylea slightly reduced retinal nerve thickness. However, patients taking Syfovre saw a 4.37 µm annual increase in RNFL thickness, and Izervay side effects resulted in a 5.72 µm annual increase.

The researchers found that the highest rate of thickening occurred in the first year of treatment. After the first year, the rate of increase leveled off. However, they concluded the nerves continued to thicken over time.

At issue is whether that nerve thickening is good or bad. The researchers note that the retinal nerve thickening could be neuroprotective, providing extra defense from nerve injuries, or detrimental, putting increasing pressure on the nerve itself.

Originally, the team believed the thickening would be a benefit, but upon realizing that the thickening never actually stopped, they raised concerns about nerve damage, telling attendees at the conference they did not have enough data to determine one way or the other.

In the meantime Dr. Brown advised doctors to closely monitor patients who are on drugs like Syfovre and Izervay for signs of RNFL thickening.

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

With the start of the next bellwether trial just days away, the makers of Bard PowerPort systems now face more than 3,700 product liability lawsuits claiming the port catheter implants are defectively designed and prone to fail, break and send debris into the bloodstream.

Port catheters are subdermal implants that consist of a small injection port and a polyurethane catheter. These devices give doctors access to patients’ veins without the need for repeated needle sticks, and are often implanted in patients who will require regular drug or fluid injections, such as those going through chemotherapy treatment.

Although Bard PowerPort devices have been marketed as safe and effective, a growing number of port catheter lawsuits have been filed in recent years alleging the devices contain manufacturing and design defects that may cause users to suffer devastating health consequences, such as infections, pulmonary embolisms, blood clots and death.

To help lawyers gauge how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the Bard PowerPort lawsuits, a series of test cases have been set for trial this year, which are being closely watched and may have a substantial impact on any future settlement negotiations.

Bard PowerPort MDL

Given common questions of fact and law raised in the claims, all federal Bard PowerPort Lawsuits have consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) since August 2023, when the cases were centralized before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell in the District of Arizona to oversee discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Over the past three years, Judge Campbell has been preparing the litigation for bellwether trials involving six representative cases. These trials are intended to provide a preview of how juries are likely to weigh evidence, argument and testimony that would be repeated in numerous other port catheter claims.

The first bellwether trial was held earlier this year, ending in a defense verdict. However, the plaintiff has filed a motion for mistrial, arguing the jury was given faulty and prejudicial instructions.

Second Bard PowerPort Bellwether Trial

The second Bard PowerPort bellwether trial is scheduled to begin on August 18. The lawsuit, involving claims by Kimberly Divelbliss, is one of 3,734 claims folded into the MDL to date, according to an August 3 report (PDF) by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML).

Divelbliss, of New Mexico, filed her complaint in 2022 indicating that she was implanted with a PowerPort port catheter in July 2017. Less than two years later she had to undergo emergency surgery to have the device removed.  

During the procedure, doctors discovered the Bard PowerPort’s polyurethane catheter had broken, resulting in seven inches of catheter detaching inside Divelbliss’ body, with part of it becoming lodged in the right side of her heart.

The outcome of the trial over Divelbliss’s claims will not be binding on other Bard PowerPort lawsuits. However, the results will be closely watched by both sides to see what types of verdicts juries hand down and what kind of payouts Bard may be ordered to pay plaintiffs. Those outcomes could form the basis of a Bard PowerPort lawsuit settlement agreement.

However, if the bellwether trials end without a settlement or other resolution to the litigation, Judge Campbell is likely to begin remanding individual cases back to their originating districts for separate trial dates over the next few years.

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

Individuals moving forward with Apple AirTag stalking lawsuits in various different federal courts nationwide have asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to centralize and consolidate their claims, which all allege that Apple knowingly marketed the tracking devices without adequate safeguards that could have prevented misuse by stalkers and abusers.

The motion (PDF) was filed on August 4, seeking to establish an AirTag multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona before U.S. District Judge Diane Humetewa. Plaintiffs contend coordinated pretrial proceedings would eliminate duplicative discovery, avoid inconsistent rulings and improve efficiency as the number of lawsuits continues to grow.

According to the filing, there are already more than 20 individual Apple lawsuits over AirTag stalking problems pending in at least 17 federal districts, with additional cases expected to be filed. Many of the actions were severed after a federal judge denied class certification earlier this year in a proposed nationwide AirTag stalking class action, prompting individual victims to pursue personal injury claims instead.

AirTag Stalking Allegations

The Apple stalking lawsuits generally allege that AirTags were designed, manufactured and marketed without adequate safeguards to prevent the Bluetooth tracking devices from being misused by stalkers, abusive partners and other bad actors, despite receiving warnings about those risks before the product launched in April 2021.

Plaintiffs argue the lawsuits involve common factual questions about Apple’s knowledge of stalking risks, the adequacy of AirTag’s anti-stalking features and the operation of the company’s “Find My” network. They also raise questions about the timing of alerts, the feasibility of safer alternative designs and Apple’s response to thousands of reports that the devices were allegedly used to facilitate stalking.

The filing argues Apple continued marketing AirTags even after domestic violence organizations and technology experts warned the devices could be exploited to secretly monitor victims. The motion further contends Apple received more than 40,000 stalking-related complaints between 2021 and 2024, at times averaging more than 1,000 reports per month, yet relied on software updates and other measures individuals claim failed to adequately address the danger.

Many of the complaints allege AirTag notifications could take hours or even days before warning victims that an unknown tracker was traveling with them. They also argue Android users initially received far fewer protections than Apple users and allege the company failed to implement a number of alternative safety measures before releasing the product. These include faster alerts, stronger Android detection, remote disabling features and other design changes.

Apple AirTag Lawsuit MDL Motion

According to plaintiffs, the litigation involves common factual issues that make it well suited for multidistrict proceedings because nearly every case will require discovery into the same corporate documents, engineering records, internal communications, safety testing, marketing materials and company witnesses. 

The JPML will now decide whether to centralize the federal AirTag lawsuits before one judge. If the panel grants the request, the court will appoint leadership attorneys to coordinate discovery and other pretrial proceedings on behalf of all plaintiffs while allowing each individual lawsuit to remain separate.

Under the proposal, all current and future federal AirTag stalking lawsuits would be transferred to the District of Arizona, where Judge Humetewa is already overseeing related AirTag cases. Supporters of the motion argue her familiarity with the product and allegations would allow the litigation to move forward more efficiently than assigning the cases to a new court. 

If an Apple AirTag MDL is established, Judge Humetewa will likely work with lawyers involved in the cases to coordinate the exchange documents, depositions of corporate witnesses and other common legal issues that apply across cases. The court may also select a small group of representative lawsuits for early “bellwether” trials, which are intended to help both sides evaluate how juries respond to the evidence and often serve as a catalyst for broader Apple AirTag stalking settlement negotiations.

The proposed MDL would centralize discovery and other pretrial proceedings only. If the parties are unable to negotiate AirTag lawsuit payouts or otherwise resolve the litigation after common discovery is completed, each case could later be remanded to the federal district where it was originally filed for individual trial.

Apple AirTag Stalking Lawsuits

As the number of Apple AirTag stalking cases continues to grow, personal injury lawyers are investigating potential stalking claims nationwide for individuals who suffered any of the following due to the trackers:

• Stalking
• Harassment
• Domestic violence
• Other criminal conduct

Attorneys are investigating these claims on a contingency fee basis, which means there are no upfront legal fees or expenses. Payment only occurs if compensation is recovered on your behalf.

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

A Missouri man has filed a lawsuit claiming that he experienced nothing but problems with a LINX Reflux Management System, which provided few benefits, resulted in the return of his acid reflux and ultimately required additional medical procedures to remove the device after it failed inside his body.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Deral Vincent in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 30. It names Torax Medical Inc. and Ethicon Inc. as defendants. Both companies are subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson.

Vincent claims the defendants placed a defective medical device into the stream of commerce without adequately testing it or providing proper warnings about the potential problems users may experience.

LINX Reflux System Problems

The LINX system consists of a small ring of magnetic beads held together by titanium wires. It is surgically implanted around the lower esophageal sphincter to help strengthen it and prevent the backward flow of stomach acid due to conditions such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

First approved in March 2012 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the LINX system soon became associated with reports of failures, resulting in pieces of the broken implants migrating through patients’ bodies, puncturing organs and causing other health complications. The FDA announced a LINX recall in April 2018 after determining the problem was likely caused by a manufacturing error.

Vincent’s complaint joins a number of similar LINX device lawsuits now being pursued in courts nationwide, each involving similar allegations that the implants were defectively designed and manufactured, placing patients at risk for the sake of the manufacturers’ profits.

LINX Device Failure Allegations

Vincent indicates he was implanted with a LINX Reflux Management System on July 27, 2018, less than two months after Torax initiated a recall on May 31 involving an “out of specification condition” that could allow a magnetic bead to separate from an adjacent wire link.

According to the complaint, Vincent’s specific implant was among the recalled devices. The recall notice warned that separation could cause the LINX ring to become discontinuous or open, potentially resulting in the recurrence of GERD symptoms and the need for additional surgery to remove or replace the device.

Vincent claims that is ultimately what happened to him, resulting in a severe recurrence of his GERD symptoms. On April 3, 2025, nearly seven years after receiving the implant, he underwent another invasive surgery to remove the failed LINX system.

“As a result of Defendant Torax’s violations of federal regulation, approved manufacturing process, and manufacturing standard of care, Plaintiff’s LINX was defectively manufactured and failed as a result of that defect. At the time the LINX device left the control of Defendant Torax, it was outside of manufacturing specification and was unreasonably dangerous due to its defective manufacture.”

– Deral Vincent v. Torax Medical Inc. et al.

Vincent presents claims of manufacturing defect, negligence, negligence per se and strict liability. He is seeking compensatory damages.

LINX Implant Lawsuits

The complaint joins a growing number of similar LINX implant lawsuits filed in the District of Minnesota, where Torax Medical is headquartered and where the device was originally developed.

LINX implant lawyers expect the number of claims to continue to rise as more individuals currently implanted with the devices experience breakages, and as more patients discover that their LINX broke because of a manufacturing defect.

As a result, attorneys are actively reviewing potential LINX lawsuits for those seeking compensation after having suffered injuries or complications due to:

• Device failures
• Migration and organ punctures
• Need for additional revision surgery to remove a failed device

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

A California woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a defective stepladder collapsed during use, causing her to fall and suffer a traumatic brain injury, fractured skull and other serious injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Armine Tataryan in the Superior Court of California on April 29, naming New Werner Co. and Werner Co. as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 5.

Tataryan claims the Werner aluminum stepladder suddenly collapsed while she was standing on it, causing her to fall and suffer severe and permanent injuries.

Ladder Collapse Risks

The filing comes amid a number of similar ladder collapse lawsuits filed in recent months, each involving allegations that design defects make certain widely used products unreasonably dangerous and defective.

In April, a separate Werner ladder lawsuit alleged one of the company’s ladders suddenly collapsed while a homeowner was working near his roofline, causing him to fall and suffer a displaced wrist fracture.

Amazon has also been named in multiple lawsuits involving allegedly defective ladders. Last month, a lawsuit alleged a New York man suffered severe and permanent injuries after falling from a Rikade telescoping ladder purchased through Amazon.

The complaint claims Amazon was negligent in allowing the allegedly defective ladder to be sold through its online marketplace and remain available to consumers.

Stepladder Injury Allegations

According to this recently filed complaint, Tataryan was standing on the Werner stepladder on January 21, 2025, while putting away Christmas decorations in her garage when it suddenly collapsed, causing her to suffer a traumatic brain injury, a fractured skull, facial paralysis, a ruptured eardrum, orthopedic injuries and dental injuries.

The lawsuit indicates the ladder was marketed with a 200-pound maximum load capacity, even though Tataryan’s combined weight and the weight of the items she was carrying allegedly remained below that limit. After the incident, the complaint says one of the ladder’s legs was found buckled at the joint where the spreader was bolted to the frame.

Tataryan claims the ladder was defectively designed and manufactured, rendering it unreasonably dangerous, and alleges it lacked adequate safety features, warnings and instructions.

The filing states Werner used a red plastic top cap and pail shelf to signal they were not intended to be used as steps. However, the first step below the top was allegedly made from the same aluminum material and had the same appearance as the remaining steps, creating confusion about where it was safe to stand. The lawsuit further claims the product’s warning label failed to adequately communicate the hazard.

“As a direct and proximate result of the LADDER’s defective design, manufacture, warning and/or instruction, Plaintiff, while using the LADDER in a reasonably foreseeable way, sustained severe injuries.”

— Armine Tataryan v. New Werner Co. et al.

Tataryan raises allegations of strict product liability, negligent products liability and breach of implied warranty. She seeks past and future general and special damages, costs of the suit and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.

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

A Colorado woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging manufacturers of Dupixent knew for years that their eczema treatment could cause users to develop cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), yet withheld information about the potential cancer risks to protect the massive profits generated by the blockbuster drug.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Anne Gibson in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 3. It names Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Genzyme Corporation and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. as the defendants.

Gibson claims she was prescribed Dupixent to treat atopic dermatitis and was later diagnosed with a rare form of cancer she alleges was caused by the drug.

Dupixent CTCL Risks

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017, Dupixent (dupilumab) was originally designed for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, a form of eczema. However, over the past decade, the drug maker has continued to push for expanded use of the injections to treat a number of different conditions that impact the skin and respiratory system, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other health problems caused by overactive immune systems.

Despite claims by the drug manufacturer that the treatment was safe, there has been growing evidence in recent years that suggests Dupixent side effect may cause certain users to develop a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that primarily affects the skin, known as cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL).

In light of these concerns, Gibson joins plaintiffs nationwide who have filed similar Dupixent CTCL lawsuits alleging that the manufacturers knew, or should have known, of the drug’s cancer risks, yet failed to properly inform doctors or their patients about the potential cancer risks.

Dupixent CTCL Allegations

According to the complaint, Gibson was prescribed Dupixent in March 2021 for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. She continued to receive Dupixent injections until February 2023, at which time she received a CTCL diagnosis.

The cancer diagnosis has led to Gibson having to endure “extensive treatments,” including phototherapy, chemotherapy and radiation. Despite those treatments, the lawsuit indicates Gibson will likely require medical monitoring for the rest of her life.

In addition, Gibson maintains her physician would not have prescribed Dupixent for the treatment of her atopic dermatitis if the manufacturer had adequately warned about the alleged risk of CTCL. In that case, she argues she would not have used the medication.

Gibson indicates the manufacturers knew Dupixent carried a risk even before its approval, but decided to keep that information to themselves. She notes that the drug’s phase II clinical trials reported that a patient developed CTCL long before the drug hit the market.

Dupixent CTCL Studies

The FDA Medical Review for Dupixent indicated that the patient was diagnosed with stage IV Mycosis fungoides, the most common form of CTCL, after just 35 days of treatment and seven 300 mg Dupixent injections. Numerous studies have followed, raising the same safety signals.

During the third phase of Dupixent trials, key to winning FDA approval, three more patients developed CTCL. Reports note that Mycosis fungoides was one of the most common adverse events leading patients to stop taking the drug.

Those types of findings continued once Dupixent hit the market. In November 2018, French researchers published a case report published in Annales de Dermatologie et de Vénéréologie. Those findings detailed how a woman developed CTCL after just three months of Dupixent treatment. A similar case report linking Dupixent use to a CTCL diagnosis was published in May 2019.

“One month of Dupixent treatment failed to alleviate atopic dermatitis symptoms, and instead induced a flare-up of cutaneous lesions. This exacerbation of erythematous lesions prompted physicians to order a skin biopsy. Based on the results of histopathology and computed tomography scans, the patient was diagnosed with Mycosis fungoides and Dupixent was discontinued. Despite a long history of atopic dermatitis, these authors proposed that this patient may have had Mycosis fungoides that was misdiagnosed as atopic dermatitis.”

– Anne Gibson v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC. et al.

A series of studies have followed over the years, with many warning that Dupixent seemed to cause, or accelerate CTCL. Despite that, no warnings were supplied, even as the drug’s use became more widespread. Gibson and other plaintiffs indicate the company is consciously placing patients at risk in order to preserve profits.

According to a fourth quarter report released by Regeneron on July 30, Dupixent brought in $6 billion in sales over the last year, increasing by 38%. The sales overall pushed Regeneron, which received a $2.11 billion cut of the revenue, to a 17% revenue increase.

The lawsuit raises allegations of failure to warn, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Dupixent CTCL Lawsuits

Gibson’s complaint will be merged with other Dupixent CTCL lawsuits in the District of New Jersey before U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Quraishi will eventually be expected to have attorneys prepare several representative Dupixent claims to serve as possible early test trials. These “bellwether” cases would provide an opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

Although the results of those trials will not be binding on other claims, the outcomes will be closely watched and could be key in potential Dupixent settlement negotiations.

However, if no such settlement or other resolution is reached after the pretrial proceedings and test trials, Judge Quraishi could begin remanding the cases back to their original districts for individual trial dates.

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

A federal judge has rejected a last-minute effort by Mead Johnson to dismiss an Enfamil necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) lawsuit, which is set for jury selection to begin later this week.

The manufacturer and its competitor, Abbott Laboratories, collectively face more than 800 Enfamil NEC lawsuits and Similac NEC lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide. Each case argues that the manufacturers provided hospitals with specialized formula products supposedly designed to provide nutrition to premature infants without warning the institutions or parents that the cow’s milk-based products increased risks of the potentially deadly condition.

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a condition where harmful bacteria infiltrates and attacks the walls of the intestines. Preterm newborns are particularly susceptible due to their often under-developed gastrointestinal system.

The condition causes necrosis (tissue death) in the intestines, which can lead to severe health complications and death. Treatment can involve heavy use of antibiotics and surgery to remove portions of the newborn baby’s intestines, often leaving those who survive with life-long health problems and the need for continuous medical treatment.

In recent years, numerous studies have linked the use of cow’s milk in infant formula like Enfamil and Similac to a substantially increased risk of the condition. As a result, many researchers have urged hospitals and parents to rely on breast feeding, human donor milk or other human milk substitutes for numerous health reasons, including a reduced risk of contracting NEC.

All federal necrotizing enterocolitis lawsuits brought against the makers of Enfamil and Similarc have been consolidated as part of a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL), where U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer is presiding over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois.

For the last couple years, Judge Pallmeyer has led the parties through the preparation of a series of representative cases to serve as early test trials. These “bellwether” cases will provide an opportunity to see how evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation may be interpreted by juries nationwide. Seeing how the juries respond to these commonalities could provide enough insight for attorneys to hammer out an Enfamil lawsuit settlement agreement.

After several delays, jury selection for the first bellwether trial will begin on Wednesday, involving claims filed by Alexis Inman, whose infant son, Daniel, allegedly died due to necrotizing enterocolitis after being fed Enfamil Premature Formula.

Enfamil Lawsuit Preemption Rejected

According to a memorandum opinion and order (PDF) Judge Pallmeyer issued on August 5, Mead Johnson recently filed a motion to dismiss, claiming Inman’s wrongful death lawsuit was preempted by federal law. The company’s arguments rested on a recent Supreme Court decision known as Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, which provided the manufacturers of the weed killer Roundup immunity from future product liability lawsuits.

However, Judge Pallmeyer rejected the motion, noting that the Monsanto case involved the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which specifically includes a preemption clause.

“In contrast, Mead wields Durnell against Inman’s defective design claim, in a case where the FDA need not approve a design before it goes on the market. Durnell thus does not disrupt this court’s conclusions on preemption.”

– U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, Northern District of Illinois

She noted that Mead Johnson’s defense was based on a new theory that the company should have brought up before, suggesting that if the manufacturer’s attorneys have evidence supporting their theory, they will be allowed to file a post-trial motion.

Necrotizing Enterocolitis Infant Formula Trials

While the decision clears the lawsuit to proceed as the first federal bellwether trial, several cases have already played out in various state courts.

A 2024 trial in Missouri ended in a jury ordering Abbott to pay nearly $500 million to a woman whose daughter suffered brain damage due to the condition. That same year, another Missouri case initially ended in a defense verdict. However, the judge ordered a new trial after finding Abbott improperly introduced certain evidence.

In April, a Cook County, Illinois, jury handed down a $70 million verdict in a Similac lawsuit. Another Cook County jury returned a $60 million verdict against Mead Johnson in a lawsuit involving Enfamil formula, yet an appeals court tossed that verdict out on June 12 and ordered a new trial.

Although none of these bellwether trial results are binding on other cases, the outcomes are being carefully watched since they could help attorneys reach a future Enfamil or Similac infant formula settlement agreement. If the litigation is not resolved by the end of the bellwether trials or pretrial proceedings, Judge Pallmeyer is likely to begin remanding cases back to their originating federal districts for individual trial dates.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive infant formula necrotizing enterocolitis lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

An insurance company has filed a lawsuit alleging a defective Gree dehumidifier ignited a fire in an Ohio couple’s home that caused more than $630,000 of damage.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, as Subrogee of Mark and Michelle Neal, in Ohio Civil Court on June 26, naming Gree USA Inc. as the sole defendant. Gree removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on August 5.

State Farm claims the dehumidifier contained the same defective materials that prompted Gree to recall more than 2.2 million units over the past decade. These recalls were linked to nearly 700 reports of overheating, including dozens of fires. The largest recall came in 2023, when more than 1.5 million units sold under brands including GE, Kenmore, Soleus Air and Norpole were pulled from the market.

Gree is not the only dehumidifier manufacturer facing these kinds of claims. Similar allegations have also been raised in lawsuits involving other companies. In April, a lawsuit alleged a Walmart dehumidifier malfunctioned, sparking a fire that caused more than $2.3 million in damage to a New Jersey home.

Gree Dehumidifier Fire Allegations

According to the lawsuit, the Gree dehumidifier suddenly ignited at the Neals’ Nashport, Ohio, home on April 7, 2023, causing more than $630,000 in property damage.

State Farm says it paid to repair or replace the damaged property, along with other covered losses, and is now seeking to recover those insurance payments from Gree.

As evidence the company knew about the alleged defect years earlier, the complaint points to a 2012 incident in which Gree USA’s CEO received video showing one of the dehumidifiers catching fire. According to the filing, the CEO forwarded the video to Gree Hong Kong and Gree China, labeling it “urgent” and describing it as a “very serious issue with product quality.”

Despite that warning, State Farm alleges Gree continued selling dehumidifiers it knew were defective, failed to notify the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) about the alleged hazard and did not warn consumers.

The lawsuit further claims the dehumidifier contained the same defective plastic materials that prompted nationwide recalls after similar units were linked to dozens of residential fires.

Federal regulators also investigated Gree over allegations the company failed to report a known defect and unreasonable fire risk. The complaint indicates Gree later acknowledged the recalled dehumidifiers did not comply with applicable safety requirements.

State Farm also claims Gree falsely represented that the plastic housing met UL 94 fire-resistance standards, even though the material allegedly failed to satisfy those certification requirements and could ignite and sustain combustion.

As a result, the lawsuit contends Gree knowingly marketed dehumidifiers that failed to meet safety standards, concealed the alleged defect from regulators and consumers, and continued selling the products despite recognizing they posed an unreasonable fire hazard.

“At all times pertinent hereto, Gree USA knew or should have known that the Subject Dehumidifier created a dangerous and unreasonable risk of harm of overheating and igniting a fire during the normal, intended, and foreseeable use because the Subject Dehumidifier did not meet the certification standards which it purported to meet.”

— State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Gree USA Inc.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence and violations of the Ohio product liability act. State Farm is seeking compensation for costs and fees it paid to cover the Neals’ claim, punitive damages and other compensation paid to reimburse the losses sustained by the Neals.

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

Although there are a rapidly growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits being brought throughout the federal court system, Abbott Laboratories has told a panel of judges that claims involving its products should not be consolidated for pretrial proceedings, opposing a motion brought by a group of plaintiffs to establish an MDL (multidistrict litigation).

There are currently about two dozen product liability lawsuits filed against Abbott Laboratories, which are pending in various different U.S. District Courts, each raising similar allegations that widely sold spine stimulators contain dangerous defects.

Each lawsuit claims that the manufacturer failed to properly test the devices or provide adequate warnings about the potential problems patients may experience. In addition, many of the plaintiffs also accuse Abbott sales representatives of changing spinal cord stimulator settings without the guidance or authorizations of treating physicians.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Concerns

Spinal cord stimulators are implants used to treat chronic pain. They consist of electrodes and a battery-powered pulse generator placed under the skin, near the spine, plus an external remote control. The implants are designed to block pain signals before they reach the brain, and are supposed to be permanent implants.

However, Abbott Laboratories and other spinal cord stimulator manufacturers, including Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Nevro, have recently faced increasing reports of problems and complications experienced by patients implanted with the devices. These include unnecessary electric shocks, burning sensations, lead migration and total device failures.

The manufacturers are now facing a series of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide. All of the complaints allege that the companies were aware of problems with their spine implants and withheld information about the risks from patients and medical professionals, as a ploy to keep sales and profits high.

In early June, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) established a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuit MDL in the Central District of California, centralizing all claims brought against that manufacturer before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. The order came after the JPML rejected a request to create one industry-wide MDL for claims brought against various different manufacturers.

Weeks later, two plaintiffs with pending Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed a motion to transfer with the JPML, asking that the court establish a separate MDL for products manufactured by Abbott, but assign the claims to the same federal district.

MDL consolidation is common in complex litigation where the same medical device or product is linked to injuries affecting numerous patients. Plaintiffs argue that Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuit consolidation would serve the convenience of the parties, witnesses and the court, as well as likely eliminate contradictory rulings and prevent duplicate discovery efforts.

Abbott Opposes Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit MDL

In a response (PDF) to the motion filed on August 4, Abbott urged the JPML to reject the plaintiffs’ request, claiming that there was not enough in common for consolidation to provide increased efficiency.

Abbott argues that the cases are “highly individualized” and “plaintiff-specific” with various injuries and no common claim of a specific device defect common to all of the lawsuits. According to the response, Abbott currently faces about 23 spinal cord stimulator claims.

“Abbott does not shy away from MDL consolidation when it is necessary for the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. But centralization is not warranted here, where Plaintiffs’ cases share no common theory of defect and where Plaintiffs allege no common injury. The Panel should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion.”

-Abbott Laboratories, Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Transfer of Actions

If the JPML sides with the plaintiffs and agrees to form an Abbott Laboratories spinal cord stimulator MDL, all cases would remain individual claims even as they go through pretrial proceedings together. This means plaintiffs will still have to individually prove that their injuries were caused by the spinal implant.

Once consolidated, the presiding U.S. District Judge would be expected to instruct the parties to begin preparing a group of representative claims for bellwether trials. These early test trials would give plaintiffs and defendants a look at how juries nationwide could interpret evidence and testimony that may be repeated throughout the litigation.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

In addition to the petition by Abbott plaintiffs, a similar request has been filed calling for a Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuit MDL as well, also in the Central District of California.

Since one MDL has already been justified for Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, the chances of Abbott and Nevro SCS multidistrict litigations are significantly improved. In the interim, spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to review plaintiffs’ claims of injuries caused by spinal cord stimulator problems, including:

Individuals who believe they may qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit can request a free case evaluation. Attorneys handling these claims work on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs and fees are only collected if compensation is recovered.

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

The makers of Crock Pot pressure cookers have reached a settlement to resolve a product liability lawsuit filed by the mother of a child who was doused with scalding liquid and suffered severe burns after one of the appliances exploded unexpectedly.

The original complaint (PDF) was filed by Lacey Hall of Michigan, naming Sunbeam Products Inc. and Newell Brands Inc. as the defendants. It accused the companies of producing and distributing a defective appliance prone to explosions.

The lawsuit indicates Hall was using the Crock-Pot Express Multicooker as directed while preparing food in October 2019 when it suddenly exploded, ejecting scalding liquid and steam onto her daughter, Blayke Hall, causing severe facial burns that left the child permanently disfigured.

About one year after the incident, Sunbeam recalled the Crock-Pot Express Multicooker after warning that the lid could suddenly detach while the appliance was in use, posing a serious burn hazard.

Hall’s case went to trial, along with two other individuals with similar claims, in late May in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and was still underway when the settlement was announced. However, there are no reports that pressure cooker settlements have been reached to resolve claims brought by the other two plaintiffs involved in the trial, Malcolm Fuller and Ashley Boladeres.

Pressure Cooker Explosion Risks

Hall’s claim is one of a growing number of pressure cooker injury lawsuits filed in recent years against the makers of Crock-Pots and other popular devices. Many of these complaints allege the appliances exploded unexpectedly or allowed the lid to be opened while the contents remained pressurized, releasing scalding food and liquid that caused severe burn injuries.

In addition to Crock-Pot pressure cookers, the litigation has involved numerous other major brands, including Instant Pot, Ninja Foodi and others. Across the filings, plaintiffs generally allege manufacturers failed to incorporate adequate safety features and falsely assured consumers the appliances could not be opened while dangerous pressure remained inside.

Pressure Cooker Injury Settlement

Hall filed an unopposed motion (PDF) on August 4, seeking approval for the pressure cooker settlement with Sunbeam and Newell Brands, which would resolve her and her daughter’s part in the litigation.

According to the proposed motion, the settlement details are currently being kept confidential, so the amount of payout and any other proposed stipulations are not available to the public.

On June 26, the court appointed Kenneth J. Bush as Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), to ensure Blayke’s individual rights and interests are fully protected by the settlement agreement.

The motion indicates Bush independently reviewed the proposed settlement and the planned distribution of funds before concluding the agreement was fair and in the child’s best interests.

“The GAL has also reviewed materials pertaining to the claims made in this case, as well as the proposed settlement and the manner in which the settlement funds will be apportioned on behalf of the minor child. After conducting his evaluation, the GAL has determined that the confidential settlement and disbursement of settlement funds in this matter is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the minor child, Blayke Hall.”

– Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Approve Minor Child’s Confidential Settlement

The proposed agreement would resolve only Hall’s claims. Trial proceedings are expected to continue for the remaining plaintiffs, whose cases have not yet been settled.

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

An Oregon woman has filed a lawsuit against Gold’s Gym alleging a cable weight machine catastrophically failed during normal use, throwing her backward and causing a traumatic brain injury, spinal injuries and other permanent complications.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Angel Saucier in Oregon Circuit Court on July 31. It names TGD Fitness LLC, doing business as Gold’s Gym Tigard, and Gym 80 USA Inc., the alleged manufacturer of the cable machine, as defendants.

Saucier alleges the gym failed to properly inspect, maintain and remove unsafe equipment from service, while Gym 80 manufactured and sold a defective cable machine that failed during foreseeable use.

Weight Machine Injury Risks

Cable weight machines are common pieces of fitness equipment found in commercial gyms, using steel cables, pulleys and weight stacks to provide adjustable resistance during strength training exercises.

Because the equipment relies on cables subjected to repeated stress, manufacturers and fitness facilities are generally expected to inspect the machines regularly, replace worn components and remove equipment from service if signs of excessive wear or deterioration are discovered.

When those precautions are not followed, a cable failure can cause a sudden loss of resistance, potentially throwing users off balance and resulting in serious head, neck and back injuries, including traumatic brain injuries.

Gold’s Gym Cable Machine Lawsuit

According to the complaint, Saucier was using a cable weight machine at Gold’s Gym in Tigard, Oregon, when the machine’s cable allegedly snapped without warning during a routine exercise.

The lawsuit indicates the sudden failure caused Saucier to be violently thrown backward, resulting in a traumatic brain injury and numerous additional injuries.

Among the injuries identified in the complaint are a cerebrospinal fluid leak, concussion, cervical instability at C1-C2, herniated cervical discs, thoracic sprain and other neurological and spinal complications.

The complaint alleges Gold’s Gym failed to properly inspect the equipment, replace worn cables and other components, maintain inspection and maintenance records, follow the manufacturer’s maintenance recommendations and remove unsafe equipment from service.

Saucier also claims the gym failed to adequately train employees to inspect high-use cable machines, failed to discover dangerous conditions that would have been identified through reasonable inspection and failed to warn members about known or reasonably discoverable hazards.

“Gold’s Gym knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that cable weight machines require periodic inspection, maintenance, replacement of worn components, and removal from service when excessive wear is present.”

— Angel Saucier v. TGD Fitness LLC et al.

The lawsuit separately raises strict product liability claims against Gym 80, alleging the manufacturer designed, manufactured, assembled, distributed or sold a cable weight machine that was defective when it left the company’s control.

Saucier indicates she has already incurred more than $85,000 in medical expenses and expects to require substantial additional treatment. The complaint also alleges the injuries have impaired her ability to work as a professional fitness model and IFBB bodybuilder, resulting in lost income and diminished earning capacity.

The filing raises allegations of negligence, gross negligence and strict products liability. It seeks compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, emotional distress and other damages resulting from the alleged cable machine failure.

Fitness Center Lawsuits

Saucier’s complaint comes as fitness centers face increased scrutiny over equipment maintenance, inspection practices and gym layouts intended to protect members from preventable injuries.

In April, a California woman brought a lawsuit against 24 Hour Fitness alleging her husband suffered a traumatic brain injury after falling from a treadmill, and claiming the gym’s equipment placement and inadequate safety precautions contributed to the incident that left him permanently disabled.

Another complaint filed late last year alleged a New Jersey Life Time Fitness location failed to properly inspect and maintain its spin bikes and other exercise equipment, resulting in injuries to a member.

Earlier in 2025, a Pennsylvania couple brought a Planet Fitness lawsuit after the cable on an upright rowing machine allegedly snapped, throwing the husband backward into adjacent exercise equipment that was positioned too closely together. According to the complaint, he suffered a fractured vertebra, a broken rib and a collapsed lung.

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

A Pennsylvania man has filed an AngioDynamics SmartPort lawsuit alleging defects in an implanted port used to administer chemotherapy caused a severe infection that spread and resulted in sepsis only weeks after the device was implanted.

Mark Richard Stevens brought the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 28, naming AngioDynamics Inc. and Navilyst Medical Inc. as defendants. .

Stevens argues the companies knew or should have known that defects affecting their SmartPort catheters could increase the risk of bacterial growth, infection and other serious complications. He goes on to claim those problems caused him to develop a Pseudomonas infection, cellulitis, severe neutropenia and sepsis, requiring hospitalization and surgical removal of the entire SmartPort system.

AngioDynamics SmartPort Infection Concerns

Implantable port catheters are surgically positioned beneath the skin to provide repeated access to the bloodstream for patients who require chemotherapy, medications, blood transfusions or other intravenous treatments. Products such as the AngioDynamics SmartPort, Vortex Port and Xcela generally feature a small reservoir connected to a catheter that carries medications and fluids into a vein.

However, AngioDynamics and other port manufacturers, including C.R. Bard, have faced hundreds of port catheter lawsuits in recent years involving bloodstream infections, blood clots, catheter fractures, vascular damage and other serious complications. Lawsuits allege defects in certain port catheter systems can cause the material to deteriorate after implantation, creating irregular surfaces where bacteria and blood products may collect and contribute to infections and other problems.

Individuals pursuing AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits maintain the company was aware, or should have been aware, of the potential for these complications but continued selling and promoting the devices without providing adequate warnings to patients and the medical community about the alleged risks.

SmartPort Infection Lawsuit

In the complaint, Stevens indicates he underwent surgery on June 7, 2021, to have an AngioDynamics SmartPort implanted through his left internal jugular vein. The device was intended to provide vascular access for chemotherapy treatments he was receiving for lymphoma.

Only two weeks later, on June 21, Stevens went to Indiana Regional Medical Center in Pennsylvania complaining of pain around the SmartPort site that radiated into his neck, along with symptoms consistent with an infection.

Wound cultures taken from the port site subsequently tested positive for Pseudomonas, according to the lawsuit. Stevens was diagnosed with cellulitis, severe neutropenia and sepsis. Two days later, doctors surgically removed the entire SmartPort and catheter because of the infection, cellulitis, sepsis and positive Pseudomonas cultures.

Stevens alleges the SmartPort had been implanted and used as intended and had not been improperly altered or misused before the infection developed.

The complaint maintains AngioDynamics knew or should have known its SmartPort devices were susceptible to infection, thrombosis, fractures, migration and other failures, but continued to market the products as safe and reliable vascular access devices.

“As a direct and proximate result of the defective SmartPort and the wrongful acts and omissions of the Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff was injured due to the use of the SmartPort, which caused Plaintiff various physical, mental, and emotional injuries and damages.”

— Mark Richard Stevens v. AngioDynamics Inc. et al.

Stevens also alleges AngioDynamics received adverse event reports involving SmartPort infections and other serious complications, yet failed to adequately warn patients or doctors about the risks.

According to the lawsuit, some adverse events involving AngioDynamics implanted port products were submitted through the FDA’s former Alternative Summary Reporting program, which allowed certain medical device incidents to be reported in a manner that was not readily visible to doctors and the public.

Stevens claims he was unaware that a defect in the SmartPort may have contributed to his infection and sepsis until late 2025, when he encountered information concerning recently identified risks involving SmartPort and similar port catheter devices.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, failure to warn, design defect, breach of implied and express warranties, fraudulent concealment and violations of Pennsylvania consumer protection laws. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages, maintaining the SmartPort infection caused substantial physical and mental pain, permanent injuries, additional surgery, medical expenses and other economic losses.

AngioDynamics Port Catheter Lawsuits

Stevens’ complaint joins hundreds of other AngioDynamics port catheter claims consolidated before U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta in the Southern District of California, where the parties are conducting coordinated discovery and addressing common pretrial issues involving allegations that the company marketed defective implantable port systems.

As the litigation moves forward, the court is expected to identify a limited number of representative claims for early bellwether trials. Although those verdicts will not determine the outcome of other cases, they may provide insight into how juries view recurring evidence and allegations, potentially shaping future AngioDynamics port catheter settlement negotiations.

Thousands of similar Bard PowerPort lawsuits are also pending in a separate federal multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell in the District of Arizona. Those lawsuits allege design and manufacturing problems make the implanted catheters prone to fractures, blood clots, infections and other potentially serious injuries.

The first Bard PowerPort bellwether case went before a jury earlier this year, ending in a mixed result in May. Jurors ruled against the plaintiff on failure-to-warn and consumer fraud claims but were unable to reach a unanimous decision on allegations involving a defective design. The plaintiff subsequently asked the court for a new trial, maintaining that improper jury instructions affected the deliberations.

More Bard PowerPort bellwether trials are planned throughout 2027. If the test cases and settlement negotiations fail to produce a broader resolution, individual claims could eventually be sent back to their originating federal courts for separate trials.

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

A Washington woman has filed a wrongful death lawsuit, seeking to hold the makers of recalled SteriCare sterile water and saline solutions liable for her father’s fatal case of sepsis.

The complaint (PDF) was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on August 4, by Susan Green as the administrator of the estate of Harold Doran. Defendants include Nurse Assist LLC, Tower Three Partners LLC, LBC Credit Partners IV L.P., LBC-P Credit Fund L.P., LBC-A Credit Fund L.Pl, CIFC Asset Management LLC and CIFC LLC.

According to Green, her father underwent abdominal surgery in October 2023, during which his abdomen was flushed with SteriCare solution. Following the procedure, Doran developed sepsis and died. The lawsuit alleges bacterial contamination of the SteriCare solution caused the fatal infection.

SteriCare Solution Recall

Weeks after the surgery, in early November 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a Nurse Assist SteriCare saline and sterile solution recall, alerting the public that certain products had been packaged in defective containers with seals that could fail. According to the agency, the compromised packaging allowed some supposedly sterile products to become contaminated with bacteria.

At that time, the FDA urged health care providers and consumers to immediately stop using the recalled solutions, as bacterial contamination could result in infections when the products were used in medical procedures, wound care or other situations requiring sterility. However, the warnings came too late for many.

Those infections can sometimes progress to sepsis, a life-threatening condition in which the body’s response to an infection causes widespread inflammation and organ dysfunction. Individuals with sepsis may experience symptoms including fever, rapid heart rate, low blood pressure, confusion, weakness and shortness of breath. Without prompt treatment, the condition can quickly become fatal.

According to SteriCare infection lawsuits now being filed nationwide, some patients developed severe infections after exposure to the recalled products, including cases that allegedly progressed to sepsis and other life-threatening complications. Plaintiffs contend the manufacturers failed to ensure the supposedly sterile solutions were properly packaged before distribution, resulting in serious infections, prolonged hospitalizations and, in some cases, wrongful death.

SteriCare Death Allegations

According to allegations outlined in this new complaint, Doran underwent emergency surgery and an exploratory laparotomy on October 27, 2023, after being diagnosed with a perforated ulcer while being treated for a stroke. According to Green, healthcare professionals at St. Joseph’s Medical Center flushed his abdominal cavity with between two to three liters of SteriCare solution during the procedure.

The next morning, Doran suffered multisystem organ failure due to sepsis. The lawsuit notes medical staff were unable to stabilize his blood pressure as his lactate levels rose.

On October 29, Duran died after his family decided to remove him from life support, pursuant to his wishes. Days later, on November 6, the FDA announced the SteriCare recall due to the risk of bacterial contamination. Affected lots included those used to flush out Doran’s abdomen. The complaint indicates the hospital announced both the recall and its connection to Duran’s death on November 10.

“St. Joseph’s Medical Center surgical supply closet was only stocked with Nurse Assist saline fluid subject to the recall, and thus, no other saline product could have been used during Decedent’s surgery. Decedent could not, by reasonable care, have averted damage and injury, as a result of using the contaminated Product.”

– Susan Green v. Nurse Assist LLC et al.

As a result, Doran’s daughter alleges her father’s sepsis infection was directly due to the use of the contaminated SteriCare solution.

Green raises allegations of violation of Washington state laws, failure to warn, defective design and manufacture, negligence, gross negligence, negligent failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation and omission, breach of warranty, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, wrongful death and survival action. She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

SteriCare Infection Lawsuits

SteriCare infection lawsuits like Green’s are likely to continue to be filed as more individuals who developed infections or lost loved ones link the incidents to the use of recalled SteriCare products.

Product liability lawyers are currently reviewing claims on behalf of such individuals. Those who developed infections after using recalled SteriCare products may qualify for compensation if they experienced:

• 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 Florida woman has filed a lawsuit against Apple, indicating that the company released its popular AirTag Bluetooth tracking devices without ensuring it contained adequate safeguards, which allowed her former partner to secretly monitor her movements for months.

The complaint (PDF) was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on August 2, pursuing claims on behalf of a woman identified only as “Jane Doe D.C. 1”. 

The lawsuit claims Apple knew before AirTags reached consumers that the small, inexpensive tracking devices could become powerful tools for stalking. However, rather than delaying the product launch until meaningful protections were in place, the company chose to prioritize bringing AirTags to market and provided false assurances to consumers that the devices were effectively “stalker-proof.”

Despite those assurances, the lawsuit alleges AirTags quickly became a preferred tool for abusive partners and stalkers because they could be hidden inside vehicles, luggage, clothing or personal belongings while providing near real-time location information to whoever planted the device.

AirTag Stalking Risks

Apple introduced AirTags in April 2021 as small Bluetooth tracking devices designed to help consumers locate lost items, such as keys, wallets or luggage. About the size of a quarter, each AirTag communicates with Apple’s “Find My” network, which anonymously uses nearby iPhones, iPads and other Apple devices to relay the tracker’s location back to its owner.

However, domestic violence organizations, cybersecurity experts and technology journalists allegedly warned Apple before the product’s release that the Bluetooth tracking network could easily be exploited by stalkers. In addition, critics indicate that Apple’s own internal communications acknowledged the company should have consulted domestic abuse organizations before introducing the product.

In light of these concerns, a number of AirTag stalking lawsuits have been brought in recent years. According to many of these complaints, AirTag stalking reports appeared almost immediately after the product launched and have continued for years.

Plaintiffs allege Apple received more than 40,000 stalking reports between 2021 and 2024, averaging roughly 1,000 complaints each month. Numerous published reports involving AirTags also allude to the devices being used to allegedly facilitate domestic violence, assaults and even homicides.

AirTag Stalking Allegations

According to the complaint, Jane Doe D.C. 1 was repeatedly tracked between 2024 and October 2025 by concealed devices allegedly planted by her former romantic partner during an ongoing child custody dispute.

Court filings show that she first discovered a hidden tracking device inside her daughter’s shoe in 2024. Over the following months, she found additional concealed devices hidden inside a suitcase and a tablet. At least one of those devices was an Apple AirTag.

After months of alleged tracking, the complaint indicates the plaintiff eventually received an alert on her iPhone warning that an unknown AirTag was traveling with her. However, she alleges the notification did not appear until approximately two days after the tracking had already begun, long after her movements had allegedly been monitored.

Jane Doe D.C. 1 says she reported the incidents to the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office and turned over at least one recovered tracking device as evidence. The complaint further alleges her former partner ultimately located her and their daughter, then took the child in violation of an existing custody order.

The filing claims the alleged tracking campaign left the woman fearful for her own safety and that of her daughter, causing severe emotional distress, relocation expenses, lost wages and ongoing anxiety.

“As a direct and proximate result of Apple’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered actual damages, including relocation expenses, lost wages, mental suffering, fear, anxiety, and severe emotional distress arising from being tracked, stalked, and separated from her daughter.”

— Jane Doe D.C. 1 v. Apple Inc.

Jane Doe D.C. 1 alleges Apple repeatedly responded to criticism by introducing software updates instead of redesigning the product before launch. She points out that early AirTag notifications could take up to three days before alerting someone they were being tracked. Although Apple later shortened the delay, the lawsuit contends notifications still often arrive hours after tracking begins, leaving victims vulnerable during the period they are being monitored.

Plaintiff also argues that Android users received even fewer protections because Apple initially failed to provide automatic background detection for non-Apple devices, leaving nearly half of U.S. smartphone users without meaningful warnings for more than two years after AirTags were introduced.

In addition, the lawsuit claims AirTag speakers can be disabled, notification sounds are too quiet or inconsistent, alerts cannot always be manually triggered, firmware updates depend on the AirTag owner’s cooperation, and victims often must physically locate and dismantle a hidden AirTag before tracking can be stopped. The complaint argues Apple could have implemented numerous safer alternative designs before releasing the product yet chose not to do so.

Jane Doe D.C. 1 raises allegations of negligence, strict liability—design defect, violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and invasion of privacy. She is seeking compensation for alleged injuries, in addition to asking the court to require Apple to stop marketing and distributing AirTags without stronger protections against unwanted tracking and stalking.

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

A California woman has filed a lawsuit alleging a 1PLUS S10 electric scooter purchased through Amazon suddenly came apart during normal use, throwing her to the ground and causing severe leg injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Weicheng Lin in California Superior Court on July 31, naming Amazon.com Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, 1PLUS and US-FiveMind as defendants.

Lin claims Amazon, 1PLUS and the other defendants knew or should have known the scooter posed a risk of catastrophic structural failure, but withheld warnings that could have alerted consumers to the danger.

Electric Scooter Risks

Electric scooters are compact, battery-powered vehicles that have become an increasingly popular option for commuting and traveling short distances in cities across the United States. Their affordability, ease of use and availability through shared rental services have helped fuel widespread adoption in recent years.

As more consumers have turned to e-scooters for everyday transportation, concerns have also emerged about the potential for serious crashes and injuries, prompting increased scrutiny of rider safety and product design. A growing number of electric scooter lawsuits have also been filed in recent years, alleging defective designs and manufacturing flaws caused riders to suffer serious injuries.

In June, a lawsuit was filed against Amazon and Aovopro Electric Scooters claiming a Florida man suffered severe injuries after being thrown from a defective Aovopro scooter he bought on the platform.

A separate complaint was filed against Amazon in March, when a woman in Florida suffered severe injuries after being violently thrown from a Volpam electric scooter. In that case, the handlebars suddenly collapsed during normal use, resulting in her suffering permanent injuries.

Electric Scooter Injury Allegations

According to this new complaint, Lin purchased a foldable 1Plus S10 electric scooter on June 21, 2024. The scooter was sold on Amazon by US-FiveMind.

Less than two months later, Lin alleges she was riding the scooter when its folding stem and steering-column mechanism suddenly came apart without warning. The structural failure allegedly caused her to lose control and be thrown violently to the ground, resulting in a displaced spiral fracture of her right tibia and a fracture of her right fibula.

After receiving emergency medical treatment, Lin underwent surgery that included an open reduction with internal fixation and intramedullary nailing, leaving her with permanent orthopedic hardware. The complaint indicates she continues to require follow-up care and physical therapy.

Lin alleges the scooter was defectively designed, indicating that Amazon and US-FiveMind failed to adequately warn consumers about the risk of catastrophic structural failure. Lin contends ordinary users would have no reason to anticipate the folding mechanism could suddenly separate during normal operation, despite the defendants allegedly knowing or having reason to know of the danger.

“The Subject Scooter failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner. An ordinary consumer would not expect an electric scooter to suddenly come apart and structurally fail at its folding stem and steering-column mechanism during ordinary, foreseeable operation.”

— Weicheng Lin v. Amazon.com Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises claims of strict product liability based on alleged manufacturing defects, design defects and failure to warn, as well as negligence and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. It seeks damages for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish and other losses.

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

An Alabama woman has filed a lawsuit over the removal of a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator, alleging the device failed to relieve her chronic pain and instead caused a multitude of serious complications.

Kathleen Poore brought the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 30, naming Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation as defendants.

Poore claims problems emerged after she received a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator in October 2023, leaving her with worsening pain and neurological symptoms that ultimately required another surgery to remove the entire system.

However, she maintains the removal did not resolve all of her problems, and she continues to experience pain and other symptoms allegedly caused or worsened by the implant.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Problems

Spinal cord stimulators are implantable medical devices designed to treat chronic pain by delivering electrical impulses to the spinal cord, interfering with pain signals before they reach the brain.

The systems generally consist of an implantable pulse generator, electrical leads placed near the spinal cord and an external controller that allows stimulation settings to be adjusted.

However, spinal cord stimulators have been linked to serious complications, including lead migration, fractures, battery problems, infections, painful stimulation and failure to provide adequate pain relief.

In light of these concerns, a number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits now allege manufacturers introduced modified versions of the devices through certain FDA regulatory processes that allowed them to reach patients without extensive clinical trials evaluating the safety of each design change.

Many of the Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed to date maintain manufacturers failed to sufficiently test the devices or warn patients and doctors about the potential for malfunctions and serious injuries. Some claims also question the involvement of company representatives in patient treatment, alleging they exaggerated potential benefits, downplayed known complications and made programming changes despite lacking the necessary medical qualifications to provide clinical care.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Removal Lawsuit

According to the lawsuit, Poore received a Boston Scientific Model SC-1232 spinal cord stimulator in October 2023 to treat chronic pain.

However, the implant allegedly failed to provide the expected pain relief. Instead, worsening pain, numbness in her legs and electric shock sensations began to develop following the procedure. As her condition deteriorated, the symptoms reportedly made it necessary for Poore to begin using a cane, which she continues to require.

The complaint also indicates she was diagnosed with bladder incontinence, which is alleged to have been caused by the spinal cord stimulator. Poore maintains she was not warned the device could cause the condition and only recently learned it may have contributed to her bladder problems.

Multiple meetings with a Boston Scientific device representative followed in an effort to address the complications. The lawsuit indicates the representative characterized Poore’s experience as uncommon and repeatedly assured her that adjustments to the device’s programming would eventually provide effective pain relief.

Those reprogramming attempts allegedly failed to improve her condition. The spinal cord stimulator remained ineffective at controlling her underlying pain, while the worsening symptoms and electric shock sensations continued.

Ultimately, the lack of pain relief and ongoing complications led Poore to undergo another surgical procedure to remove the spinal cord stimulator system. Despite the removal, the complaint indicates she continues to suffer pain and other symptoms allegedly caused or aggravated by the implant.

“Due to the device’s failure to provide therapeutic pain relief and the injuries described above, Plaintiff underwent surgical removal of the SCS system. Plaintiff continues to suffer from pain and other symptoms caused and exacerbated by the device.”

— Kathleen Poore v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al.

The filing raises allegations of strict product liability, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and violation of consumer protection laws. It seeks damages for Poore’s physical injuries, pain, medical expenses and other losses.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Poore’s case will join other Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits consolidated before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton in the Central District of California, where the parties will address common discovery and other pretrial matters.

As the litigation moves forward, Judge Staton is expected to direct the parties to identify a group of representative claims for early bellwether trials. Although the outcomes will not determine how other cases are resolved, the test trials may provide insight into how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be presented repeatedly throughout the litigation.

The results may also influence spinal cord stimulator claims involving other manufacturers, including Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic and Nevro, which face similar allegations involving complications with their devices.

Spinal cord stimulator attorneys are currently reviewing potential claims for individuals who received spinal cord stimulators manufactured by Abbott, Boston Scientific, Nevro or Medtronic and subsequently experienced complications such as:

Individuals who experienced problems following an SCS implant may be eligible to pursue a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit. Case reviews are available at no cost, and claims are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning attorneys are paid only if compensation is recovered.

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

A Pennsylvania man who says a diet high in ultra-processed foods caused him to develop childhood diabetes and liver disease, wants an appeals court to overturn a ruling that dismissed his lawsuit that sought to hold food manufacturers liable.

The lawsuit was first filed by Bryce Martinez in December 2024, alleging that several of the country’s largest food producers used deceptive marketing to get children addicted to unhealthy ultra-processed foods filled with sugar and chemical additives. Defendants included Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola and General Mills.

Martinez claims he became addicted to ultra-processed foods as a child and was later diagnosed with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and childhood diabetes. However, U.S. District Judge Mia R. Perez of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the lawsuit in August 2025, finding that it lacked sufficient details to establish liability. The judge concluded Martinez failed to identify the specific products he consumed or the quantities involved, making it difficult to determine how damages should be allocated.

Ultra-Processed Food Health Concerns

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) consist of industrial ingredients, such as artificial flavors, colors and preservatives, used to enhance flavor, extend shelf life and improve texture. However, a steady stream of research in recent years has linked regular UPF consumption to an increased risk of diabetes and other metabolic diseases. Mounting evidence suggests children are particularly at risk, since their diets in the U.S. often consist of a substantial amount of UPFs.

A study published in March 2024 found a strong association between ultra-processed foods and diabetes among children. Additionally, the researchers found other UPF side effects could include sleep disturbances, respiratory problems and depression. A month earlier, a study published in the Lancet had warned that UPF consumption was linked to a higher risk of heart attacks, heart disease and other cardiovascular problems.

Martinez’s lawsuit, which could be the first of many if reinstated, alleged that food manufacturers intentionally and knowingly fostered unhealthy addictions in children, sacrificing their health for the sake of profits. His complaint is being closely watched to determine whether the food industry can be held liable for declining health among the nation’s children.

Ultra-Processed Foods Lawsuit Appeal

In late September, Martinez filed a motion calling for the reinstatement of his UPF diabetes lawsuit, offering to identify each product he consumed. He listed numerous items, many promoted as being fat-free, lite or zero sugar products, including Boca Burger, Wheat Thins, Cheez-Its, Nature Valley Granola bars and Kraft House Italian Dressing.

Judge Perez responded in a June 30 order (PDF), rejecting the motion and refusing to reinstate Martinez’s lawsuit. According to her ruling, Martinez’s lawsuit rests on the premise of correlation between Type 2 diabetes and the products, but not causation.

The judge indicated that there is no official or legal classification of what constitutes a UPF, which makes being able to prove causation to any specific health problem difficult.

On July 22, Martinez submitted a Notice of Appeal (PDF), indicating he has asked the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to overturn Judge Perez’s August 2025 dismissal.

The appellate court’s decision could have significant impact not only on Martinez’s lawsuit, but on any future UPF diabetes lawsuits, potentially determining which types of cases can be filed, as well as how they must be legally structured.

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

A California man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a defective Anker portable power bank sold at Target exploded while in his pocket, causing serious burns and property damage.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Hector Cabrera in the Superior Court of the State of California on August 3, naming Anker Innovations Limited, Power Mobile Life LLC, Fantasia Trading LLC and Target Corporation as the defendants.

According to the lawsuit, a defectively designed and manufactured lithium-ion battery caused the power bank to overheat and enter thermal runaway. The resulting fire ignited Cabrera’s clothing and left him with severe burn injuries.

Portable Charger Dangers

Portable power banks have become a popular way for consumers to keep smartphones and other electronic devices charged on the go. Most models are powered by lithium-ion battery cells, which can store substantial amounts of energy in a small package.

However, if a lithium-ion battery has design or manufacturing defects, poor quality components or insufficient safety features, it can overheat, experience a short circuit or enter thermal runaway, which increases the risk of fires and explosions.

Federal safety officials have issued several recalls and warnings in recent years involving portable chargers and power banks. Last year, more than 1.1 million Anker power banks sold on Amazon were recalled after the company received at least 19 reports of the devices catching fire or exploding, resulting in two burn injuries and 11 reports of property damage.

In March, a separate lawsuit was filed against Amazon alleging that a defective Aukey portable power bank malfunctioned without warning, igniting a residential fire that caused more than $2 million in property damage and other losses.

Anker Power Bank Fire Allegations

According to this recently filed lawsuit, Cabrera was carrying an Anker MagGo Power Bank, Model No. A1652, that had been purchased from Target, when the device allegedly exploded without warning on January 17, 2025.

The complaint states Cabrera attempted to extinguish the flames on his clothing by rolling on the floor before running to a shower after the fire spread to nearby carpeting. He alleges the incident resulted in severe burn injuries and more than $35,000 in damages.

At the center of the lawsuit are allegations that the power bank was defectively designed and lacked adequate safety features to prevent overheating and internal failures. The defendants are also accused of failing to provide sufficient warnings about the alleged risks of overheating, thermal runaway and explosion.

“Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Power Bank lacked adequate warnings regarding its defective design and manufacture and that its defects created a substantial and foreseeable risk that when used in a foreseeable manner it would enter thermal runaway and explode.”

— Hector Cabrera v. Anker Innovations Limited et al.

The lawsuit alleges that Anker marketed the power bank as featuring advanced safety technology designed to prevent overheating and thermal runaway. However, Cabrera claims the lithium-ion battery lacked critical safeguards, including adequate cell insulation, thermal barriers, pressure vents, current-limiting devices and a battery management system capable of preventing dangerous temperature increases.

According to the complaint, Anker later recalled certain power banks over alleged design defects after Cabrera’s device exploded.

The lawsuit presents claims of negligence and strict product liability, seeking economic and non-economic damages, prejudgment interest, legal costs and any other relief the court deems appropriate.

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

Medtronic and its Covidien subsidiary have been ordered to pay $88 million in damages to an Alabama man and his wife, after a federal jury found that the company failed to adequately warn about the risks associated with its Symbotex hernia mesh.

The verdict came after a three-week trial involving allegations that the mesh adhered to Larry Patterson’s bowel, causing an obstruction, a recurring hernia and the need for additional surgery. It was the first of more than 2,400 Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits pending in the federal court system to go before a jury.

Symbotex is a composite hernia repair mesh made from a permanent polyester textile covered by an absorbable collagen barrier derived from porcine tissue. The coating is supposed to temporarily prevent the mesh from attaching to the bowel and other organs while tissue grows over the implant.

However, lawsuits filed against Covidien allege the protective coating may degrade too quickly, leaving the polyester mesh exposed before the healing process is complete. Plaintiffs claim this can cause the implant to attach to internal organs, resulting in adhesions, bowel obstructions, infections, recurring hernias, chronic pain and revision surgery.

Similar allegations have been raised over Symbotex, Parietex, ProGrip and other Covidien hernia mesh products. As the number of complaints increased, the federal claims were consolidated as part of a multidistrict litigation established in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts before U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris.

Symbotex Mesh Failure Lawsuit

Patterson originally filed his complaint in 2017, alleging that complications developed after he received a Symbotex implant during hernia repair surgery that year.

According to the lawsuit, the collagen coating degraded too quickly and exposed his bowel to the polyester mesh underneath. The implant allegedly adhered to the bowel, causing an obstruction and a recurring hernia.

The complaint indicates that Patterson required another operation in 2020 to remove the mesh, separate it from his bowel and resect part of his intestines. He maintained that Covidien failed to adequately warn surgeons that the protective coating could disappear before tissue formed over the implant.

Patterson’s case was the first in a series of hernia mesh bellwether trials, which are part of a plan by Judge Saris to give attorneys from both sides the opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

Covidien Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Verdict

The trial got underway in mid-July in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts before Judge Patti B. Saris. Over three weeks, 61-year-old Larry Patterson argued that the Covidien Symbotex hernia mesh he received in 2017 was defectively designed.

On Tuesday, following a three-week trial, a federal jury returned an $88 million verdict in Patterson’s favor. The award included:

• $77 million for Patterson’s injuries and related damages
• $11 million for his wife, Tammy Patterson, for loss of consortium

The entire $88 million verdict was compensatory, with the jury declining to impose punitive damages, which could have substantially increased the hernia mesh lawsuit payout to punish the manufacturer for gross negligence.

Medtronic has promised to challenge the verdict before Judge Saris and appeal the decision to a higher court if she does not throw out the jury’s decision, claiming the award was excessive. However, Judge Saris had already denied many of the company’s claims before the trial, rejecting Covidien’s request for a summary judgment.

Although the verdict is not binding on other Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits and does not guarantee similar results in future cases, the $88 million payout award represents a significant early victory for plaintiffs with pending claims. It may strengthen their position in settlement negotiations by demonstrating that a jury was willing to hold Covidien liable and award substantial compensation based on allegations involving Symbotex.

Additional bellwether trials are expected to test similar evidence and claims. However, if those proceedings do not lead to a global settlement or another resolution, Judge Saris may begin remanding individual lawsuits to the federal courts where they were originally filed for separate trial dates.

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

A group of eight plaintiffs, including the family of a teen who committed suicide, have filed a social media addiction lawsuit against the owners of Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Discord and Snapchat, claiming the websites are intentionally designed to exploit children’s mental health for the sake of profit.

The complaint (PDF) was brought in the Superior Court of California on July 28, naming Meta Platforms Inc., Instagram LLC, Facebook Payments Inc., Siculus Inc., Facebook Operations LLC, Snap Inc., Bytedance LTd, BytenDance Inc., Tiktok Ltd., Tiktok LLC, Tiktok Inc., Google LLC, YouTube LLC, Discord Inc. and Roblox Corporation as defendants.

According to the lawsuit, these companies knowingly and intentionally placed products that were dangerous and destructive for children on the market, using powerful algorithms to collect their private data, and using that information to foster social media addiction. These tools include notifications, endless scrolling and other features designed to keep young users repeatedly returning to the apps.

These companies already face about 3,000 social media addiction lawsuits over their alleged impacts on youth and young adults. Many filings claim the sites’ addictive design features can cause children and teens to experience anxiety, depression, eating disorders, lower academic performance, behavioral problems, self-harm and suicide.

Social Media Suicide Allegations

One of the plaintiffs in this new lawsuit is Kaira Rysdam, who is pursuing damages on behalf of Brehnan “Bear” Rysdam, of Oregon, who allegedly became addicted to social media, leading to depression and eventual suicide. The filing claims the addiction was gradual and assisted by the widespread use of social media in school, by friends, and by groups such as his lacrosse team, which led to his parents consenting to the use of more and more apps.

Rysdam’s mother alleges algorithms on sites like Instagram detected that her child was watching content about depression and suicide and, instead of recommending help, began referring him to even more content about ending one’s life. Kaira Rysdam only discovered this when she began scrolling through her son’s phone.

“She scrolled further and saw advertisements and recommendations (that is, not for accounts he followed) pushing self-harm quotes, depression, and suicidality. Tons and tons of content. Messages conveying that Bear was worthless, and that it was his time to not be here anymore. And Instagram organized and displayed all of it to him in a manner that was overwhelming and harmful in itself.”

— Kaira Rysdam et al. v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al.

Rysdam took his own life on November 9, 2025. His mother noted that she checked his phone less than two months after his death and found that, in that short time, Rysdam had received 426 YouTube notifications. In one day alone she noted he received 37 Facebook notifications, 3 Instagram notifications, another three from YouTube and six from Snapchat.

Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Germany Leazer of North Carolina and Sheilia Adams from California. Additionally, there are several plaintiffs identified only by initials, including S.B. and N.B. from Hawaii, N.G. and S.G. from New York, B.H. and S.H. of Indiana, V.T. and L.M. from Florida, and Y.G. and G.B. of Arizona.

All of the plaintiffs share similar stories of growing social media addiction and mental health damage suffered by minors allegedly due to the design of the social media platforms. The lawsuit presents claims of design defect, failure to warn, negligence – design, negligence – failure to warn, negligence, fraudulent concealment, negligence per se, wrongful death, loss of consortium and survival action. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Social Media Addiction Lawsuit Trials

The complaint was filed in California state court, which is hosting hundreds of similar social media addiction lawsuits. At the federal level, all similar claims have been consolidated in the Northern District of California under U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Both California state court and Judge Rogers have begun holding a series of “bellwether” social media addiction trials. These early test cases will provide an opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation. In many cases, most social media companies have settled before trial, with the exception of Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.

In March, a California jury ordered Meta and Google to pay $6 million to a woman who alleged she developed anxiety and depression after becoming addicted to social media as a minor. That verdict came after a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay the state $375 million after finding the company liable for contributing to teen social media addiction and related mental health problems.

The first federal bellwether trial was supposed to begin in June, but Meta reached a settlement with the Breathitt County School District, leading to the trial being cancelled. The next federal bellwether trial is scheduled to begin February 8.

None of the outcomes of these trials are binding on other cases, but they are being closely watched, as the results could help contribute to negotiations for a social media addiction settlement.

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

A California man has filed a lawsuit alleging he suffered severe injuries and nerve damage to his hand after his finger became caught in the hinge of a defective tow handle of an Igloo Cooler.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by David Bruce in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 29, naming Igloo Products Corp. as the sole defendant.

Bruce alleges a defect in the Latitude 90 Roller Cooler caused the hinge to pinch and crush his finger. He claims Igloo knew or should have known about the danger but failed to adopt safer alternative designs that were available.

Igloo Cooler Recall

Igloo recalled more than 1 million rolling coolers on February 13, 2025, following reports that the handle design could pinch users’ fingertips and cause serious injuries. The recall impacted several cooler models, including the Latitude 90 Roller Cooler purchased by Bruce.

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Igloo received 12 reports of injuries involving the recalled coolers, including fingertip amputations, bone fractures and lacerations.

In April 2025, another lawsuit was filed against Igloo alleging that a California child suffered fingertip crush and pinch injuries due to the defective handle design on an Igloo cooler.

Igloo Cooler Handle Defect Allegations

According to the complaint, Bruce was camping with his family at Lake Alpine, California, on August 11, 2024, when he attempted to remove the Igloo cooler from a bear box.

As he slid the cooler forward, the tow handle caught on the bottom of the box and began to rise. Bruce’s left index finger became trapped in the hinge and was crushed between the handle and the cooler.

The injury caused substantial bleeding, tore off his fingernail and amputated a large portion of the fingertip, the lawsuit states.

Bruce alleges the cooler was defectively designed because the tow handle created a pinch point capable of crushing a user’s fingers during the normal and intended use of the product. He claims Igloo knew or should have known about the danger based on prior consumer injury reports but continued selling the cooler without adequate warnings.

The complaint also maintains that safer alternative handle designs were available that could have prevented the injury. However, Bruce alleges Igloo placed profits ahead of consumer safety by failing to adopt those designs or warn customers about the risk.

As a result, Bruce claims he suffered severe and permanent injuries, including disfigurement and nerve damage, and continues to experience pain and numbness in his left index finger.

“As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s intentional concealment of such defects, it’s failure to warn consumers of such defects, its failure to timely remove a product with such defects from the stream of commerce, and its negligent design of such products, Plaintiff used an unreasonably dangerous Cooler, which resulted in significant and painful bodily injuries.”

— David Bruce v. Igloo Products Corp.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict products liability—design defect and negligence/negligent product liability—negligent design defect. It seeks compensation for damages for significant and painful bodily injuries, past and future medical expenses, physical pain, mental anguish, disfigurement and diminished enjoyment of life.

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

After decades of chlorpyrifos use in Gulf War military camps, homes, businesses and agricultural operations throughout the United States, new research has identified evidence that the pesticide may cause neurological side effects, supporting a growing number of Chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s disease lawsuits now being filed.

Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide introduced in the 1960s and sold under brand names including Dursban, Lorsban, Cobalt, NuFos, Bolton, Stallion, Lock-On and Warhawk.

The pesticide has been heavily used across multiple industry settings. Chlorpyrifos was used during the Gulf War to control insects around military camps and facilities, and was also widely applied in homes, schools, businesses and other properties for termite treatments and general pest control.

Agricultural formulations were sprayed on a broad range of crops, exposing farmers, pesticide applicators, equipment workers and nearby residents through mixing, spraying, contaminated equipment, drift and residue.

For years, that widespread use continued even as concerns mounted over whether chlorpyrifos could harm the human nervous system at exposure levels far below those associated with immediate pesticide poisoning.

Chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s Disease Lawsuits

Federal regulators have repeatedly moved to restrict chlorpyrifos, including a 2021 EPA ban on its use in food and crops that was later overturned by a federal appeals court. Although those uses were reinstated, the agency has continued to consider additional restrictions as concerns about the pesticide’s neurological effects have intensified.

However, those concerns now extend beyond developmental injuries. A growing body of research links chlorpyrifos exposure to oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction and the loss of dopamine-producing brain cells, with one recent study finding that long-term residential exposure was associated with more than double the risk of Parkinson’s disease.

As a result, chlorpyrifos lawyers are investigating Parkinson’s disease claims against the pesticide manufacturers for Gulf War veterans, farmers, agricultural workers, pesticide applicators, pest control technicians and others who developed Parkinson’s disease after repeatedly handling the pesticide or spending time near areas where it was applied.

Chlorpyrifos Side Effect Studies

The case against chlorpyrifos does not rest on a single study. Researchers have approached the question from several directions, examining disease rates among exposed individuals, testing the pesticide in laboratory models and revisiting older industry studies that regulators relied on for years.

Together, the findings provide evidence that chlorpyrifos may increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease, damage the same brain cells destroyed by the condition and produce neurological effects at exposure levels previously characterized as safe.

Chlorpyrifos Exposure Linked to 2.5 Times the Parkinson’s Disease Risk

The most direct evidence emerged from a 2025 study published in Molecular Neurodegeneration, titled “The pesticide chlorpyrifos increases the risk of Parkinson’s disease“. Researchers compared 829 people diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease with 824 individuals who did not have the condition.

Using California pesticide records and decades of residential and workplace histories, researchers found that long-term chlorpyrifos exposure was associated with more than a 2.5-fold increased risk of Parkinson’s disease. The likelihood of developing the condition also rose as the duration of exposure increased.

The researchers then went a step further. In mice and zebrafish, chlorpyrifos caused movement problems, brain inflammation, abnormal alpha-synuclein buildup and the loss of dopamine-producing neurons, which are the same cells progressively destroyed by Parkinson’s disease.

That combination of human and laboratory evidence makes the study particularly important to the lawsuits. It not only identified an increased risk among exposed individuals, but also demonstrated how chlorpyrifos may produce the underlying brain damage.

Chlorpyrifos Disrupted Genes Tied to Parkinson’s Disease

Earlier research had already raised concerns that chlorpyrifos could interfere with biological processes involved in Parkinson’s disease.

A 2011 study titled “Developmental exposure to organophosphates triggers transcriptional changes in genes associated with Parkinson’s disease in vitro and in vivo” exposed developing neuron-like cells to chlorpyrifos and examined changes in genes associated with the condition. Researchers found significant alterations in the activity of several Parkinson’s-related genes.

The findings suggest chlorpyrifos may disrupt neurological functions long before a person develops visible symptoms. That is relevant to claims involving Parkinson’s disease, which may not be diagnosed until years or decades after the pesticide exposure occurred.

Independent Researchers Challenged Dow’s Human Safety Study

One of the studies used for years to evaluate chlorpyrifos safety involved volunteers who were intentionally given measured doses of the pesticide.

Dow Chemical, the manufacturer of Lorsban and Dursban, sponsored that study in 1972. The researchers concluded that participants exposed below a certain dose showed no harmful effects, and federal regulators later relied on that finding when setting acceptable exposure levels.

University of Washington researchers revisited the study in 2020 and found that the original analysis left out important information about the participants’ health before they were exposed. Without those baseline measurements, it was more difficult to recognize changes that occurred after the pesticide was administered.

When the missing information was included, the data showed effects at doses Dow had characterized as causing no harm. The researchers also concluded that modern statistical methods would have detected changes even among participants who received the lowest dose.

The reanalysis raises questions about whether regulators were given an accurate picture of the risks when they established chlorpyrifos exposure limits.

Independent Review Found Brain Changes at Every Dose Tested

Questions were also raised about an animal study Dow relied on to argue that chlorpyrifos did not cause developmental brain damage.

That study, titled “Safety Evaluation of Pesticides: developmental neurotoxicity of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl“, involved pregnant rats that were given different doses of chlorpyrifos. Researchers then examined the brains of their offspring and concluded that the pesticide did not cause a distinct pattern of developmental neurotoxicity.

In 2018, independent scientists reexamined the underlying data and found changes in a measurement of the cerebellum at every chlorpyrifos dose tested. The cerebellum is the part of the brain involved in movement, coordination and balance.

The researchers also identified problems with how the original study was designed, analyzed and reported. They concluded that those shortcomings made it less likely the study would detect harmful neurological effects.

The findings suggest that chlorpyrifos may alter the developing brain even at lower exposure levels that do not cause obvious or immediate signs of pesticide poisoning.

Pesticide Parkinson’s Disease Claims

While the research does not establish that chlorpyrifos caused Parkinson’s disease in every person who encountered the pesticide, the findings provide support for claims that repeated exposure may damage the nervous system and contribute to the development of the disease years or decades later.

Chlorpyrifos lawsuits are being investigated for individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease who experienced repeated or direct exposure to the pesticide. Potential claims may involve individuals who:

• Personally mixed, loaded or applied a known chlorpyrifos insecticide on at least five occasions
• Lived in or were present inside a home where chlorpyrifos was sprayed for termites or general pest control
• Experienced repeated pesticide drift while living or working on or near a farm
• Encountered chlorpyrifos while working at construction sites where soil, foundations or building perimeters were treated
• Experienced repeated exposure while working on golf courses, landscaping crews or other treated grounds
• Served in the military during the First Gulf War between 1990 and 1992, when chlorpyrifos was used for insect control around camps and facilities

A lawyer can help you review the products involved, the frequency and duration of exposure, the location where it occurred and the individual’s medical history to determine whether you may be entitled to pursue compensation through a chlorpyrifos lawsuit settlement.

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

Attorneys representing consumers sickened during the 2026 cyclospora outbreak are asking a federal judicial panel to consolidate all related lawsuits against Taco Bell and Taylor Farms before one judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The motion (PDF) was filed with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) on July 31, requesting creation of a new multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California.

According to the filing, at least three federal class action lawsuits are pending in California, Michigan and Ohio. Each raises similar allegations that lettuce and other produce distributed by Taylor Farms was contaminated with Cyclospora before being served to customers at Taco Bell restaurants nationwide.

The plaintiffs maintain that the lawsuits involve overlapping factual and legal questions and should be centralized to streamline discovery, prevent conflicting pretrial rulings and reduce unnecessary costs for the parties and the courts.

2026 Cyclospora Outbreak

Cyclospora is a microscopic parasite that causes cyclosporiasis, an intestinal illness typically spread through contaminated fresh produce. Symptoms often include severe diarrhea, stomach cramps, nausea, fatigue, loss of appetite and weight loss, with illnesses sometimes lasting for weeks or recurring if left untreated.

The litigation started after a multistate cyclospora outbreak emerged earlier this year, which federal and state health officials linked to contaminated lettuce served at Taco Bell restaurants, which was supplied by Taylor Farms.

Since July 2026, consumers have filed a number of cyclospora illness lawsuits alleging the companies failed to implement adequate food safety measures to prevent contaminated produce from entering the food supply. The complaints seek compensation for consumers who became seriously ill after eating at Taco Bell locations during the outbreak.

Plaintiffs Seek Cyclosporiasis MDL

In the motion, plaintiffs indicate the three currently pending federal lawsuits all arise from the same alleged contamination event and present common questions regarding the source of the outbreak, the defendants’ knowledge of the contamination and whether adequate safeguards were in place to prevent contaminated produce from reaching consumers.

According to the filing, the cases involve common factual issues, including:

• Whether the defendants sold food contaminated with Cyclospora;
• Whether they knew or should have known the products were contaminated;
• Whether their food safety procedures were adequate to prevent the outbreak;
• The geographic scope of the contaminated products; and
• The damages allegedly suffered by consumers.

The plaintiffs argue consolidating the lawsuits before one judge will eliminate duplicative discovery into common issues in the claims, reduce the risk of inconsistent pretrial rulings and conserve judicial resources.

The motion requests that all federal cases be transferred to the Northern District of California, arguing that it is a convenient forum given Taylor Farms’ and Taco Bell’s West Coast locations, as well as the court’s accessibility to others involved in the litigation.

If the JPML grants the request, one federal judge would oversee coordinated discovery, pretrial motions and other common proceedings for all federal cyclospora lawsuits filed nationwide.

Cyclospora Outbreak Lawsuits

The number of cyclospora lawsuits is expected to grow as additional consumers who became ill after eating contaminated food seek compensation for medical expenses, lost wages and other damages.

Should an MDL be established, the court will likely appoint leadership attorneys to coordinate the litigation and may later select several representative lawsuits for early bellwether trials.

Those test cases would not determine the outcome of other lawsuits, but they could help the parties evaluate how juries respond to evidence common to the litigation and potentially guide future cyclospora outbreak settlement discussions.

If the coordinated proceedings do not result in a global resolution, individual lawsuits could ultimately be returned to the federal courts where they were originally filed for separate trial dates.

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

The makers of Nexium face a wrongful death lawsuit brought by a Pennsylvania widow, who says that side effects of the widely used heartburn drug caused her husband’s stomach cancer diagnosis.

Darlene Turnbaugh filed the complaint (PDF) on July 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of herself and her late husband, Winford Eugene Turnbaugh. The defendants include AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, AstraZeneca LP and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC.

The lawsuit claims the manufacturers actively hid knowledge about the potential Nexium stomach cancer side effects from consumers and the medical community to boost profits. Darlene Turnbaugh says this reckless disregard for the health and safety of users led to her husband enduring cancer, harsh chemotherapy treatments and ultimately resulted in his death.

PPI Health Risks

Nexium is one of a class of heartburn drugs known as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), which also includes Prilosec, Prevacid and others. They are widely used to reduce stomach acid and to treat symptoms of heartburn, ulcers and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) by blocking the proton pumps in the stomach’s lining, which produce stomach acid. PPIs are available both by prescription and over the counter.

As they have grown in popularity, studies in recent years have linked PPIs to a number of potential health risks, including acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease and kidney failure. These incidents have resulted in thousands of Nexium lawsuits, Prilosec lawsuits and claims involving other PPIs. Each involves similar allegations that plaintiffs and their doctors were deceived into believing the drugs were safe due to the lack of adequate label warnings.

In 2023 AstraZeneca agreed to pay $425 million to resolve 11,000 claims of Nexium and Prilosec kidney injuries. The agreement followed similar settlements with GlaxoSmithKline, Procter & Gamble and Pfizer, totaling $108 million.

Aside from kidney problems, concerns about Nexium stomach cancer emerged in 2017, when researchers from Hong Kong published a study in the medical journal Gut, suggesting long-term use of proton pump inhibitors could increase the risk of gastric cancer after treatment for Helicobacter pylori infections. That same year, Swedish researchers determined that maintenance use of PPIs was linked to triple the risk of gastric cancer when compared to the users’ peers.

Nexium Stomach Cancer Allegations

According to this recently filed lawsuit, Winford Eugene Turnbaugh began taking Nexium after his doctor prescribed the drug in about 2004. He allegedly purchased and used Nexium regularly until 2014.

The complaint claims his long-term use of the heartburn medication caused him to develop gastric adenocarcinoma. Despite undergoing chemotherapy, Winford Eugene Turnbaugh died from the disease in January 2021.

The lawsuit alleges Nexium can cause clinically significant hypergastrinemia, or elevated gastrin levels, by suppressing the production of stomach acid over extended periods. According to the complaint, reduced stomach acid weakens the body’s natural defenses against bacterial infections, allowing gastrin levels to accumulate and increasing the risk of cancer developing in the stomach lining, known as the mucosa.

Darlene Turnbaugh maintains evidence linking hypergastrinemia to an increased risk of stomach cancer emerged as early as 1980. By the late 1980s, the complaint indicates stomach tumors had been identified in patients exposed to PPIs over extended periods.

However, the lawsuit claims AstraZeneca concealed evidence linking Nexium to hypergastrinemia and gastric cancer rather than warning patients, doctors and the medical community. Darlene Turnbaugh indicates she remained unaware for years that her husband’s Nexium use may have contributed to his illness and death because of the manufacturers’ alleged efforts to hide the risk.

“Despite their knowledge of the risks of stomach cancer associated with their proton pump inhibitor, Nexium, Defendants took no action to inform Decedent or Decedent’s physicians of this known risk. Instead, Defendants continued to represent that Nexium did not pose any risks of stomach cancer in humans.”

– Darlene Turnbaugh et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al.

Darlene Turnbaugh’s filing indicates that gastric cancer is the third deadliest cancer worldwide, with approximately five to six new cases diagnosed annually for every 100,000 people in the United States. Although the overall five-year survival rate is about 29%, it rises to between 88% and 94% when the disease is detected early and falls to between 0% and 4% for patients diagnosed with Stage IV cancer.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, design defect, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment and violations of Pennsylvania consumer protection laws. It also brings wrongful death and survival claims on behalf of Darlene Turnbaugh, her late husband’s estate and their three children.

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

A Texas woman has filed a lawsuit alleging that an Icy Hot pain-relief product caused her daughter to suffer severe chemical burns and permanent injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Kirsten Hokanson on behalf of her 12-year-old daughter LJR in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on July 28, naming Chattem Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC as defendants.

According to the lawsuit, LJR applied Icy Hot to her leg and then covered the area with a sock. Hokanson alleges Chattem failed to warn that covering treated skin could increase the risk of serious burns, causing her daughter to suffer chemical injuries that required painful wound debridement and left permanent discoloration.

Topical Pain Reliever Risks

Icy Hot is a topical pain reliever marketed to provide temporary relief from minor muscle and joint pain. Its active ingredients, which may include menthol, methyl salicylate or camphor, create cooling and warming sensations intended to ease discomfort.

However, Icy Hot and similar topical pain-relief products have also been associated with reports of serious chemical burns and other skin injuries.

In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that widely used creams and gels, including Icy Hot, Bengay and Flexall may cause severe burns. Reported injuries included first-, second- and third-degree chemical burns.

Icy Hot Chemical Burn Allegations

Hokanson’s lawsuit indicates her daughter, LJR, attended dance class on February 4, 2026, where she twisted her ankle. To relieve the pain, the 12-year-old applied Icy Hot Original Strength topical analgesic to her right lower leg and ankle, letting the product dry before putting on a sock and going to sleep.

However, the filing states that LJR awoke later in severe pain. The girl was taken to urgent care the next morning and treated for skin breakdown from severe chemical burn reactions.

LJR was discharged with instructions to perform daily wound care using Silvadene ointment. Her family later sought a second opinion at Shriners Children’s Texas, where she was diagnosed with a second-degree chemical burn covering 1% of her total body surface area on her right lower leg.

She subsequently underwent invasive wound debridement and was administered hydrocodone and midazolam during treatment. The lawsuit alleges the burn also left her with permanent skin depigmentation.

The complaint indicates Icy Hot contains 16% menthol and methyl salicylate as its active ingredients. It is formulated for topical application to the skin for temporary relief of minor aches and pains of muscles and joints. The label contains a warning that says “rare cases of serious burns have been reported.”

However, Hokanson argues there is no warning against covering the treated areas with socks, wraps, bandages, clothing or any other occlusive material. Instead, a warning indicates “do not bandage tightly,” indicating potential dangers from compression, not occlusion.

The filing claims that as an expert in topical pharmaceutical analgesic formulations, Chattem knew or should have known of the product’s risks. It goes on to say the company knew to warn against using a heating pad with Icy Hot but did not include a comparable warning for covering treated areas with any type of material. Therefore, Hokanson states the product lacked adequate warnings and instructions, creating an unreasonable risk of chemical burns to users. Furthermore, she alleges safer designs were available, including formulations with reduced concentrations of active ingredients.

“Chattem is held to the standard of an expert in topical pharmaceutical formulations and is presumed to possess knowledge of the risks attendant to its analgesic formulations, including the risk of occlusion-enhanced chemical injury. The risk of burns from concentrated topical analgesic ingredients under occlusive conditions was known or knowable by application of reasonably developed scientific knowledge at the time the Product was marketed.”

— Kirsten Hokanson v. Chattem, Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict liability—marketing defect and failure to warn, design defect, negligence gross negligence against Chattem, breach of implied warranty of merchantability against both defendants, and products liability as a non-manufacturing seller against Walmart as the retail agent.

Hokanson is seeking compensation for physical pain and suffering in the past and future, mental anguish, physical impairment, physical disfigurement, medical expenses and exemplary damages for gross negligence.

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

A Florida woman has filed a product liability lawsuit claiming she suddenly lost her eyesight after being prescribed Ozempic to treat her diabetes.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Caryn Schollmeyer in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 28, naming the manufacturers, Novo Nordisk Inc. and Novo Nordisk A/S, as defendants.

As a result of using Ozempic for less than two years, Schollmeyer alleges she developed non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), resulting in permanent vision loss.

Ozempic NAION Risks

Ozempic (semaglutide) is a member of a class of diabetes treatments known as GLP-1 receptor agonists, which have skyrocketed in popularity in recent years, particularly after the drugs were linked to significant weight loss and other metabolic improvements. This led to the class being expanded into weight loss medications, with Novo Nordisk fielding a diet version of Ozempic called Wegovy, and its competitor Eli Lilly releasing a weight loss version of its diabetes drug Mounjaro known as Zepbound.

However, lawsuits began being filed following the publication of a study in July 2024 linking GLP-1 use to NAION, which is caused by a lack of sufficient blood flow to the optic nerve. Ozempic and Wegovy were associated with a seven-fold increased risk in the condition when compared to other drugs. Research has also seen increased risks across most of the GLP-1 class of medications.

In light of these concerns, Schollmeyer is one of dozens of plaintiffs who have filed Ozempic NAION lawsuits, each alleging the companies placed profits ahead of patient safety by failing to adequately test GLP-1 drugs’ side effects.

Ozempic Vision Loss Allegations

According to the complaint, Schollmeyer was prescribed Ozempic for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes in September 2019. She continued using the drug until January 2021, when she experienced sudden vision loss.

The lawsuit notes that there was no label warning tying Ozempic use to the risk of NAION, despite the manufacturer allegedly having longstanding knowledge of the potential vision risks. She points out that Ozempic’s prescribing information has been revised numerous times since approval, but none of the updates warned physicians or patients about the risk of NAION.

“According to the Drugs@FDA website, the label for Ozempic has been updated on at least thirteen (13) occasions since 2017, with the most recent update on January 28, 2025. Despite the fact there are at least fourteen (14) iterations of the Ozempic label, Defendant’s labels have not contained any warning or any information whatsoever on the increased propensity of Ozempic to cause NAION and permanent vision loss suffered by Plaintiff.”

– Caryn Schollmeyer v. Novo Nordisk Inc. et al.

Schollmeyer states that her vision loss is permanent and that she will “never see clearly again as a result of her usage of Ozempic.”

The filing presents claims of failure to warn, design defect, negligent failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and marketing, breach of warranty, and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices/Consumer Fraud Act. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Ozempic NAION Lawsuits

Schollmeyer’s complaint will be consolidated with other Ozempic NAION lawsuits in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where cases brought throughout the federal court system have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Karen Marston for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL). Judge Marston, who is also overseeing a similar MDL involving GLP-1 stomach paralysis lawsuits, is expected to order attorneys to prepare a number of representative cases for potential bellwether trials.

These early test trials are designed to give both sides an opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation. The outcomes of these bellwether trials could provide the basis for a potential Ozempic NAION settlement agreement.

Before those trials can begin, the parties must complete a discovery process in which they collect evidence, records and testimony in support of their arguments. This involves both sides exchanging clinical trial data, patient use histories, medical reports and other relevant documents, as well as taking depositions from expert witnesses.

However, Judge Marston is expected to first schedule bellwether trials for thousands of GLP-1 stomach paralysis lawsuits. These claims allege Ozempic, Wegovy and similar GLP-1 medications caused severe gastrointestinal injuries, including gastroparesis, intestinal blockages and other digestive complications. Although many of the same manufacturers are defendants in both proceedings, the vision loss and gastrointestinal cases remain separate MDLs involving different injuries, scientific evidence and legal issues.

If the bellwether trials end without the GLP-1 lawsuits being resolved, federal cases may be remanded back to their original federal courts for individual trial dates.

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

A California man has filed a hernia mesh failure lawsuit alleging a Covidien ProGrip implant used to repair an inguinal hernia contained design defects that left it prone to breaking apart and losing strength inside the body.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Jon R. Turner Jr. in Massachusetts Superior Court on July 27, naming Covidien LP and Sofradim Corp. as defendants.

Turner claims the polyester used to manufacture ProGrip is too brittle for permanent implantation and can develop fatigue fractures under repeated stress. He also alleges the device’s resorbable microgrips can cause an excessive inflammatory response as they dissolve.

ProGrip Hernia Mesh Problems

ProGrip is a self-fixating hernia mesh designed to reinforce weakened tissue following hernia repair surgery. Rather than relying entirely on sutures or surgical tacks, the implant uses thousands of small, resorbable microgrips to attach the mesh to surrounding tissue.

However, patients have reported complications involving both the mesh and the body’s response to the implant. Potential problems may include chronic pain, infection, inflammation, fluid buildup, tissue contraction and recurrent hernias, as well as movement, deformation or attachment of the mesh to nearby tissue.

When these complications become severe, patients may require additional surgery to remove or replace the implant. Revision procedures can be particularly difficult once the mesh has become incorporated into surrounding tissue, increasing the risk of damage to healthy tissue during removal.

Similar concerns have led to tens of thousands of hernia mesh lawsuits against Covidien and other manufacturers, with plaintiffs alleging various implants were made with defective materials or designs that allowed the mesh to shrink, migrate, buckle, break apart or adhere to nearby organs and tissue.

ProGrip Mesh Failure Lawsuit

According to the lawsuit, Turner received a ProGrip implant during surgery to repair an inguinal hernia. His surgeon allegedly followed the manufacturers’ instructions and accepted standards of medical care, but the mesh later failed.

Turner attributes that failure in part to the polyethylene terephthalate, or polyester, used to manufacture the implant. The complaint alleges the material is more vulnerable to fatigue fractures and other mechanical problems than alternative polymers available for permanent hernia mesh products.

To support those claims, the lawsuit cites scientific literature that has raised concerns about the long-term durability of polyester inside the body. Turner maintains the material may gradually lose strength, while the ultrathin fibers used in ProGrip can be damaged during implantation or break along the edges of the mesh.

Fragments released from the implant may then migrate into surrounding tissue and become difficult for surgeons to locate or remove. According to the complaint, those particles can trigger a foreign-body response and damage tissue around the hernia repair.

Separate concerns are raised about the polylactic acid microgrips used to hold ProGrip in place. As the grips dissolve, Turner alleges they may contribute to pain, infection, delayed healing, fluid buildup and tissue contraction.

Based on these alleged risks, the lawsuit maintains that safer alternative designs were available that could have reduced the likelihood and severity of Turner’s injuries.

“At each of the times the ProGrip product was implanted in Plaintiff, there were safer feasible alternative designs for hernia mesh products that would have reduced the likelihood, severity, frequency and duration of the injuries Plaintiff suffered.”

— Jon R. Turner Jr. v. Covidien LP et al.

Turner alleges Covidien and Sofradim failed to adequately test ProGrip or warn surgeons about the durability of its polyester fibers and the potential effects of the degrading microgrips.

He also claims the manufacturers promoted the device as providing immediate, tension-free fixation and reduced pain compared with traditional repair methods, and did not adequately disclose its risks.

The lawsuit presents claims for defective design, failure to warn, negligence and punitive damages. Turner seeks compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering and other losses allegedly caused by the failed implant.

Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

In addition to Turner’s complaint, Covidien currently faces more than 2,400 hernia mesh lawsuits involving several different products, with plaintiffs alleging the implants can cause serious complications such as adhesions, infections, bowel injuries and recurrent hernias, often requiring additional surgery.

Federal claims have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris in the District of Massachusetts, where the first bellwether trial is underway. The verdict may help the parties evaluate how juries are likely to respond to similar evidence and allegations presented in other pending cases.

In addition to lawsuits against Covidien, C.R. Bard currently faces more than 23,000 hernia mesh lawsuits over implants that allegedly degraded, migrated, contracted or became attached to surrounding organs after surgery. Plaintiffs allege the company did not sufficiently test its polypropylene mesh products or adequately warn patients and surgeons that the implants could cause painful complications requiring additional surgery.

Bard agreed to a hernia mesh settlement in October 2025 that was expected to resolve a large number of pending claims. However, patients may continue to file new lawsuits if they were not covered by the agreement, including individuals who only recently developed complications or experienced mesh failures years after their original hernia repair.

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

Amgen is pushing back against federal regulators who want to recall Tavneos from the market, claiming that any health risks associated with the autoimmune drug are outweighed by its benefits.

Tavneos (avacopan) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in October 2021 to treat adults with severe active anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis. The rare autoimmune disease causes inflammation in small blood vessels and may lead to serious kidney and lung damage.

Amgen marketed Tavneos as a treatment that blocks receptors involved in the inflammatory response. However, the FDA issued a drug safety communication in February 2027, warning that Tavneos side effects may cause liver damage among users.

The warning followed at least 74 reports of serious liver injuries linked to Tavneos, including 54 hospitalizations and eight deaths. It also came amid allegations that researchers may have used false or manipulated data to make the drug appear more effective.

Post-marketing reports have linked Tavneos to vanishing bile duct syndrome (VBDS), a severe liver condition in which the small bile ducts inside the liver are progressively damaged and disappear. This can cause chronic cholestasis, prevent bile from flowing properly and lead to irreversible liver damage, liver failure or death. Some patients who develop VBDS may ultimately require a liver transplant.

The agency has proposed issuing a Tavneos recall, pressuring Amgen to remove the drug from the market.

European regulators initiated a comparable move in June, when the European Medicines Agency (EMA) made similar determinations about Tavneos’s safety profile, both about the drug’s effectiveness and the questionable validity of the clinical trial data.

Tavneos Recall

However, Amgen has resisted calls for a Tavneos recall, issuing a press release in opposition to the FDA’s stance on July 24.  According to the manufacturer, it submitted new data (PDF) in support of the drug’s effectiveness on July 23, seeking to address allegations that the original drug maker, ChemCentryx, provided a misleading analysis of the clinical trial data to get regulators to approve Tavneos for use with patients in the U.S.

The FDA claims the original data manipulation was performed because Tavneos’s benefits are not statistically significant. The agency indicated that if it had received accurate data, Tavneos would have never been approved for public use.

In its press release, Amgen, who now owns ChemCentryx, disagreed with the agency’s assessment.

“The totality of evidence for TAVNEOS comes from clinical trials, post-marketing real-world evidence, and post-marketing safety data. Since its approval in 2021, the evidence base supporting a consistent, favorable benefit-risk profile of TAVNEOS has continued to build to include more than 70 published real-world studies globally involving more than 2,200 reported patients.”

– Amgen

The press release points to several studies published in recent years that support Tavneos effectiveness. It indicates that the data tells a different tale than the FDA warning, claiming it supports the overall benefit-risk profile of Tavneos.

Amgen argues that, despite recent revelations, the data from the Tavneos clinical trials remain valid. The company claims that the data revealed patients on Tavneos had a lower risk of relapse and kidney injuries. It also pushes back against the assertion that the data was manipulated, claiming researchers “correctly and consistently” applied the proper protocols and that no underlying data was altered.

The manufacturer has called for a judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that the FDA’s request does not meet the statutory criteria for removing Tavneos from the market. Amgen called for a hearing on the issue, which it hopes will address the benefit-risk profile, whether there is substantive evidence that Tavneos works, and whether continued approval is warranted.

Tavneos Liver Injury Lawsuits

Despite the manufacturers assertions, Tavneos injury lawsuits are now under review nationwide for those who have suffered liver injuries, lost loved ones or needed a liver transplant due to the drug’s side effects.

Compensation could be available through a product liability lawsuit for those who have suffered:

• Acute liver injury
• Liver failure
• Vanishing Bile Duct Sytndrome (VBDS)
• Chronic cholestasis
• The need for liver transplantation
• Death

Consultations are free, and all claims are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning attorneys are only paid if a Tavneos settlement or trial verdict is reached.

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

A group of insurance companies have filed a product liability lawsuit, alleging that a defective battery management system allowed a 2024 Kia EV9 to overheat and explode.

The complaint (PDF) was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee, by three insurers seeking reimbursement for losses paid to their policyholders. The plaintiffs are Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, on behalf of George Edrington; Progressive Hawaii Insurance Corporation, on behalf of Terry Messina; and Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company, on behalf of Rhema Technologies Inc.

The lawsuit names Kia America Inc. as the defendant and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on July 21.

Plaintiffs allege the EV9’s battery management system failed while the vehicle was charging, allowing the battery to overheat and enter thermal runaway. The resulting fire destroyed the Kia and damaged two nearby vehicles, causing more than $200,000 in losses.

Kia Battery Fire Allegations

The complaint alleges that on or about November 22, 2024, a 2024 Kia EV9 owned by Edrington was charging in a parking garage when a safety control failure allegedly caused the battery to go into sudden thermal runaway, resulting in an explosion.

Plaintiffs allege the fire resulted from a defect in the EV9’s battery management system, which is designed to monitor battery cell temperatures and prevent overheating during charging. According to the complaint, the system failed to detect or control rising temperatures, allowing the battery to enter thermal runaway and ignite.

The fire allegedly damaged several vehicles and other property inside the garage. The claimed losses include more than $130,000 in damage to Edrington’s EV9 and 2025 Kia Telluride, nearly $13,000 in damage to Messina’s 2014 Ford Escape and more than $140,000 in damage to three Toyota Land Cruisers owned by Rhema Technologies.

After paying the insurance claims arising from the fire, the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit seeking reimbursement from Kia. The automaker denies liability.

“Kia also failed to provide adequate safeguards, warnings, instructions, monitoring systems, and fail-safe protections to prevent or reduce the risk of overheating, thermal runaway, explosion, and fire during foreseeable charging, parking, and use of the EV9.”

— Progressive Casualty Insurance Company et al. v. Kia America Inc.

The lawsuit raises allegations of product liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties. It seeks compensatory damages totaling $208,194, in addition to prejudgment and post-judgment interest, taxable costs, and other relief the court deems appropriate.

Vehicle Battery Fire Risks

The Kia EV9 lawsuit is one of several recent product liability claims and safety actions involving battery fires in electric and hybrid vehicles.

In May, a lawsuit was filed against Tesla alleging that one of its electric vehicles suddenly caught fire while being driven. According to the complaint, the fire caused the driver to lose control and crash, leaving the driver and passengers with serious injuries.

Battery defects have also resulted in large-scale vehicle recalls. More than 300,000 Jeep Wrangler 4xe and Grand Cherokee 4xe plug-in hybrid vehicles were recalled last year because their high-voltage batteries could fail and ignite. The recall followed reports of nearly 20 fires involving the affected vehicles, including some that occurred while the vehicles were parked and turned off.

These incidents have raised concerns about whether battery management systems and other safety features can adequately detect overheating, isolate damaged battery cells and prevent thermal runaway before a fire begins.

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

As the U.S. District Judge presiding over all federal Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits continues to establish procedures for the recently formed multidistrict litigation (MDL), plaintiffs’ attorneys have proposed an organizational leadership structure they say will help serve all individuals with pending claims.

The medical device manufacturer currently faces a growing number of product liability lawsuits over its line of spinal cord stimulators, which were marketed as a treatment for chronic pain. The implants use mild pulses of electricity to disrupt pain signals on the way to the brain, consisting of electrodes and a battery-powered pulse generator implanted under the skin and near the spine, as well as a remote control for adjusting stimulation levels.

However, claims have been filed over problems with Boston Scientific’s WaveWriter Alpha, Precision Montage and Spectra WaveWriter models. Recipients of the spinal cord stimulators often indicate the pain relief either never came or did not last. Additionally, many report the implants, which are supposed to be permanent, caused unnecessary electric shocks or otherwise malfunctioned, often resulting in the need for revision surgery. In some cases, the electrodes or the pulse generator migrated out of position and protruded out of the skin.

Separate spinal cord stimulator lawsuits have also been filed against Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic and Nevro, although those claims are not included in the recently formed Boston Scientific MDL. The complaints raise similar allegations that the manufacturers relied on the FDA’s substantial-equivalence clearance process to introduce the devices and later made significant design changes without adequate clinical testing or regulatory review.

Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator MDL

In early June, following a request by plaintiffs, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) established a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuit MDL in the Central District of California, where U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton has been assigned to oversee coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings for claims brought throughout the federal court system.

Judge Staton has set an initial scheduling conference for August 5, 2026, where she is expected to address the leadership structure and the appointment of Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel. Such appointments involve selecting several plaintiffs’ attorneys to serve in MDL leadership roles and represent the interests of everyone with a pending claim. This structure is common in mass tort litigation, helping ensure plaintiffs are represented consistently while channeling key information and decisions through a small group of lawyers rather than every firm involved nationwide.

The judge also called for all plaintiffs’ counsel to meet on July 24 to propose a leadership structure for the MDL. On that day, attorneys submitted a plaintiffs’ organization of counsel report (PDF), detailing their proposed leadership plan.

The plan calls for three attorneys appointed to serve as co-lead counsel: one liaison counsel, who would also be a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and a Leadership Development Committee.

The deadline for applications for plaintiffs lead and liaison counsel positions was July 24. In addition to announcing leadership positions at the August scheduling conference, Judge Staton indicates the conference will also cover any outstanding motions, preliminary case management issues, set a schedule of regular status conferences, and address any other issues “requiring prompt resolution.”

On the same date, the parties submitted a joint preliminary report (PDF) laying out legal positions and the status of the litigation. The FDA, which contributed to the report and has been named as a defendant in several claims, asked to be dismissed from the lawsuit, arguing that the litigation should solely be between the plaintiffs and Boston Scientific.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Like Boston Scientific, Abbott Laboratories and Nevro also face an increasing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, which has led to separate requests for two additional MDLs based on claims against those manufacturers.

The request for an Abbott spinal cord stimulator MDL was filed by two plaintiffs on June 2 and another petition was filed seeking similar consolidation for federal Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits. Both requests seek to have the cases assigned to the Central District of California alongside the Boston Scientific claims.

If the JPML approves the additional MDL consolidations, the courts would coordinate discovery and pretrial proceedings and then likely begin a process of selecting representative cases for early bellwether trials.

The outcomes of those trials would not be binding on other claims, but could help provide the parties with a basis for spinal cord stimulator settlement negotiations.

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

Federal safety officials are urging consumers to immediately stop using Ocoopa rechargeable hand warmers, warning that the devices may overheat, posing a risk of fires and burn injuries to users.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the Ocoopa rechargeable hand warmer recall on July 30, following at least 1,480 reports of hand warmers overheating, resulting in 15 fires and 350 burn injuries, including the death of an 83-year-old consumer.

Rechargeable hand warmers are portable, battery powered devices designed to provide warmth to users’ hands during cold weather. The products contain rechargeable batteries and internal heating elements that generate heat when activated to help keep hands warm during outdoor activities or cold weather.

However, officials are warning the recalled hand warmers’ lithium-ion batteries can overheat and ignite, which may lead to serious injury or death from fire and burn hazards.

Rechargeable Hand and Foot Warmer Dangers

These incidents are not the first safety concerns involving battery-powered hand warmers and other heating devices. A rechargeable hand warmer lawsuit filed against Amazon in May claims an Ocoopa device ignited unexpectedly and caught fire, causing a woman to suffer severe thermal injuries that resulted in her death less than a week later.

Similar products, including heated gloves and foot warmers, sold through Amazon and other online retailers have also been linked to burn injuries, prompting safety warnings and product recalls.

These issues have resulted in a number of heated insole lawsuits filed by consumers who claim defective designs in these products caused serious burn injuries, resulting in painful surgical debridement surgeries, permanent nerve damage, chronic pain, loss of sensation and lasting mobility problems.

Many of the claims focus on Amazon’s role in selling and distributing the products, with several complaints alleging the online retailer helped place dangerous battery-powered warming devices into consumers’ hands.

Ocoopa Hand Warmer Recall

Regulators indicate the Ocoopa hand warmer recall affects an estimated 1.5 million rechargeable devices.

The products are sold in packs of two that magnetically attach together and include a charging cable. They feature dual-sided heating, adjustable heat settings, LED indicator lights, a hard plastic shell and a silicone lanyard. “OCOOPA” is printed on the top of each hand warmer and the product packaging, while the model and three digit batch numbers are printed on the underside of each unit. Affected model numbers include:

• UT3053
• UT3056
• ZLS-118
• ZLS-118S
• ZLS-118D
• H01
• H01(PD)

The devices were manufactured in China and sold online through Amazon.com, Ocoopa.com, Ocoopa.net and Walmart.com from September 2018 through May 2026 for between $15 and $60.

Individuals are advised to immediately stop using the recalled hand warmers and contact Ocoopa Direct for a full refund. To receive the refund, customers will be asked to write “RECALLED” in permanent marker on the hand warmer and submit a photo showing the marking, model number and three digit batch number through the Ocoopa Direct recall page. 

Consumers should dispose of the recalled products in accordance with applicable local and state hazardous waste regulations regarding lithium-ion batteries.

For more information, Ocoopa Direct may be reached via email at ocooparecalls@ocoopa.cc or online through the company website.

The CPSC is also urging consumers to report any related incidents to the agency at www.SaferProducts.gov.

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

Attorneys have finished hammering out the details of a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) that seeks to resolve thousands of pending Depo-Provera meningioma lawsuits brought by women who say the popular birth control shot caused them to develop debilitating brain tumors. However, information about the Depo-Provera settlement will not be presented until a town hall meeting is scheduled.

Depo-Provera is a long-acting birth control injection that has been available since the 1990s and used by tens of millions of women. It contains medroxyprogesterone acetate, a synthetic form of progesterone that provides contraceptive protection for about three months after each injection.

The litigation emerged after a study was published in 2024, indicating that Depo-Provera increased a woman’s risk of an intracranial meningioma by a factor of five. These brain tumors develop in the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord. Although usually non-cancerous, they can still grow large enough to cause serious complications as they press on parts of the brain and nerves. Treatment often requires intricate and complex brain surgery, life-long medical monitoring or both.

According to recent court documents, nearly 6,300 Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuits filed in the federal court system may be eligible to participate in a global settlement agreement intended to resolve the litigation.

Depo-Provera Settlement Agreement

Due to common questions of fact and law, the claims have been consolidated as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Florida, where U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers has been presiding over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Counsel for plaintiffs and Pfizer first announced a tentative Depo-Provera settlement agreement in June 2026. However, details of the settlement have not yet been publicly released, leaving potential claimants uncertain of the eligibility requirements, potential payout amounts and how individual claims will be evaluated.

On July 27, Judge Rodgers held a case management conference with lead attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants. New York Justice Sabrina Kraus, who is overseeing 132 related state court claims, and Delaware Judge Kathleen Vavala, whose court is handling another 337 cases, also participated.

A joint status report (PDF) issued on July 27 noted that there are also 118 claims in California state court, 13 cases in Connecticut representing 76 plaintiffs, 72 lawsuits in Minnesota state court that represent 6,899 plaintiffs, 12 claims in Illinois, two in New Mexico and one each in New Hampshire, Washington state and Wisconsin.

According to a case management order (PDF) issued by Judge Rodgers that same day, the Court was briefed on the details of the Depo-Provera settlement agreement, including eligibility requirements, but noted that the settlement involves a confidentiality agreement preventing that information from being released to the public.

The order notes that the detailed Depo-Provera settlement information will be presented to plaintiffs at an upcoming town hall meeting. However, the order does not contain a scheduled date for that meeting.

“The Parties represent that Settlement registration should be completed in November 2026, with the claims process beginning to be completed and payments beginning to roll out by the first quarter of 2027.”

– U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers, Northern District of Florida

Judge Rodgers indicated plaintiffs defined as eligible in the MSA will not have their eligibility affected by any future court rulings. However, Pfizer has filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that plaintiffs cannot prove Depo-Provera use caused patients’ brain tumors.

Regardless of the outcome of that order, everyone who currently qualifies will still be allowed to participate in the settlement, the judge explained.

Plans for Depo-Provera “Pilot” Trials Proceed

Early in the litigation, Judge Rodgers ordered attorneys to prepare five “pilot” lawsuits for bellwether trials. These early test cases are designed to give plaintiffs and defendants an opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony that would be repeated in thousands of claims if they were to go to trial.

However, the order indicates that the plaintiffs in all five lawsuits are eligible for the settlement agreement. According to the judge and counsel for both sides, the trials should move forward, but with different cases chosen from the remaining claims involving circumstances that make the plaintiffs ineligible for the settlement terms.

Counsel and the judge agreed to select claims filed by Christina Yeager, Vivian Davis and Katherine Allison Ponder to serve as the new pilot cases.

If the remaining claims cannot be resolved through the settlement or following the bellwether trials, Judge Rodgers may remand any remaining complaints back to the federal District where they originated for individual trial dates.

The next case management conference is scheduled for September 18, 2026. Judge Rodgers has requested a Joint Agenda Letter be submitted by September 14 to the MDL court, as well as to the courts of New York, Delaware and California.

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

A federal appeals court has refused to reinstate a Similac necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) wrongful death lawsuit filed by the mother of a newborn who died after being fed the infant formula, indicating that the hospital had no other food to feed her child.

The lawsuit was brought by Ericka Mar on behalf of herself and her deceased infant, RaiLee Mar, who was born 12 weeks premature on New Year’s Day in 2014. After RaiLee’s mother was unable to provide human milk about a week after the child was born, the hospital began feeding her Similac infant formula.

The child contracted NEC and died a day later, which her mother blames on Similac side effects. She filed the lawsuit in January 2022, presenting claims of strict liability, design defect, negligence and failure to warn. However, Abbott was granted a motion for summary judgment by a federal judge after arguing the hospital had no alternatives for feeding the child, making the lack of a label warning moot.

Infant Formula NEC Risks

NEC is a dangerous condition that occurs when bacteria breaches the walls of the intestines, which can cause tissue inflammation and necrosis. Infants, particularly preterm, already face an increased risk of NEC due to their underdeveloped gastrointestinal systems, but health researchers worldwide warn that cow’s milk-based formula, like Similac, carries a much higher risk of the condition than human milk.

Newborns with NEC often require emergency surgery that could involve the removal of parts of the intestinal tract, often leaving the child with life-long health problems. In many cases, the infant does not survive.

Mar’s complaint is one of thousands of infant formula NEC lawsuits filed against Abbott Laboratories and its competitor, Mead Johnson, the makers of Enfamil. Each claim alleges the manufacturers placed profit ahead of infant safety by failing to provide adequate warnings of the products’ true risks.

Infant NEC Injury Appeal

After U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer dismissed the case in the Northern District of Illinois, Mar appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Following oral arguments on May 20, the appeals court issued an opinion (PDF) on July 24 affirming the lower court’s decision and refusing to reinstate Mar’s wrongful death lawsuit.

Chief Judge Michael B. Brennan wrote the opinion, indicating that the hospital’s policy and a lack of human donor milk at the time meant there was no other choice of food to give to RaiLee.

“The hospital turned to the Abbott formula at issue because it had no donor milk. Another patient at the hospital who had recently given birth offered to donate some of her breast milk to RaiLee. But hospital policy forbade sharing milk because diseases can be transmitted without first treating the milk.”

– Chief Judge Michael B. Brennan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

According to the opinion, Mar argued that if Similac carried a stronger label warning, the hospital would have chosen to use the unpasteurized donor milk instead of putting RaiLee at risk of NEC. However, the judges disagreed, saying the hospital’s policy of not sharing untested breast milk would not likely have changed.

Abbott also asked the judges to find there was insufficient evidence that Similac caused the child’s fatal case of NEC, a ruling that could have affected other infant formula lawsuits. However, the panel declined to decide that issue, finding it was sufficient for the appeal to conclude that Mar’s proposed alternative warning would not have prevented RaiLee’s death.

Infant Formula NEC Lawsuits

Judge Pallmeyer, who dismissed Mar’s lawsuit, is also overseeing the federal infant formula NEC litigation, where hundreds of similar claims have been consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings and discovery. She is expected to preside over a series of early bellwether trials involving representative cases, which are intended to help both sides evaluate how juries may respond to evidence and arguments that could arise throughout the litigation.

The first federal Enfamil NEC lawsuit trial began on July 6, involving claims filed by Alexis Inman. A second trial is scheduled to start on August 10, focusing on claims brought by Mary Kelton.

Several trials have already been held at the state level, including a 2024 trial in Missouri that led a jury to order Abbott to pay nearly $500 million to a woman whose daughter suffered brain damage due to NEC. Also in 2024, another Missouri case initially ended in a defense verdict. However, the judge ordered a new trial after finding Abbott improperly introduced certain evidence.

In April, a Cook County, Illinois, jury handed down a $70 million verdict in a Similac lawsuit. Another Cook County jury returned a $60 million verdict against Mead Johnson in a lawsuit involving Enfamil formula, yet an appeals court tossed that verdict out on June 12 and ordered a new trial.

While the results of these bellwether trials are not binding on other cases, the outcomes are being carefully watched since they could help attorneys reach a future Similac infant formula NEC settlement agreement. If the litigation is not resolved by the end of the bellwether trials or pretrial proceedings, Judge Pallmeyer is likely to begin remanding cases back to their originating federal districts for individual trial dates.

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

A Florida woman has filed a lawsuit against Apple, alleging an iPhone exploded and caught fire while resting on her bed, causing flames to spread, which left her with serious injuries and property damage.

The complaint (PDF) was originally brought by Donyale Swann in Florida Circuit Court on June 17. It names Apple Inc., Apple South Asia (Thailand) Ltd., Huizhou Desay Battery Co. Ltd., T-Mobile South LLC and T-Mobile US Inc. as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on July 23.

Swann claims the fire was caused by defects in the iPhone’s design, manufacture or warnings, resulting in excruciating burn injuries, permanent bodily harm, pain and suffering, scarring, disfigurement, emotional distress and other long-term damages.

Lithium-Ion Battery Risks

Although iPhones are generally considered safe, they rely on rechargeable lithium-ion batteries that can pose a serious fire risk when damaged, defective or exposed to excessive heat.

One potential failure is known as thermal runaway, a chain reaction in which an internal short circuit, manufacturing defect or heat-management problem causes the battery temperature to rise uncontrollably. The process can generate extreme heat, flames and flammable gases within seconds, sometimes without any advance warning.

Similar battery failures have prompted prior product liability lawsuits, including a claim filed earlier this year alleging a defective Samsung smartphone experienced thermal runaway and caused severe burn injuries.

iPhone Fire Lawsuit

According to the complaint, Swann purchased the new iPhone from a T-Mobile retail store in Orlando and never altered or modified the device after taking ownership. The complaint alleges she had read and understood the warnings and instructions provided with the phone, which was being used in an intended and reasonably foreseeable manner on June 25, 2024, when it suddenly caught fire.

The lawsuit claims the iPhone remained in substantially the same condition as when it left the defendants’ control, and that defects in its design, manufacture or warnings caused the fire and resulting injuries. Swann alleges she suffered permanent bodily injuries, scarring, disability, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and substantial medical expenses after the incident.

Swann maintains the defendants failed to design and manufacture the iPhone with adequate safety features, failed to properly test the device and failed to warn consumers about the risk that it could overheat, ignite or explode during normal use.

“At the time the Subject iPhone was designed and manufactured and placed into the stream of commerce by Defendant, APPLE, it contained design defects which rendered the Subject iPhone unreasonably dangerous to persons, such as the PLAINTIFF, and other intended and foreseeable users.”

— Donyale Swann v. Apple Inc. et al.

The filing raises allegations of strict product liability, manufacturing defects, defective warnings and instructions, design defects and negligence. It seeks compensatory damages for Swann’s injuries and other losses.

Lithium-Ion Battery Lawsuits

As reports of lithium-ion battery failures and thermal runaway events continue to emerge across a wide range of consumer devices, product liability attorneys are investigating claims for individuals who suffered burn injuries, fires or other losses allegedly caused by defective rechargeable batteries.

A growing number of heated insole lawsuits allege rechargeable foot warmers contained defective lithium-ion batteries that overheated, ignited or exploded during ordinary use or while charging. Consumers claim the defects resulted in severe burns to their feet and lower legs due to the manufacturers’ and distributors’ failures to adequately warn consumers.

Similar litigation has also been filed over portable power banks, with plaintiffs alleging defective battery packs sold through major retailers overheated and ignited during normal use or while charging. Many of the lawsuits claim the products caused residential fires, extensive property damage and serious personal injuries.

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

A settlement announced this week could resolve nearly 80,000 talcum powder lawsuits, bringing an end to more than a decade of litigation involving allegations that asbestos-contaminated talc products caused ovarian cancer among women who used the products around their genital areas.

In a press release issued on July 27, Johnson & Johnson said it reached a proposed $5.5 billion agreement with leading plaintiff law firms involved in the federal multidistrict litigation and related state court proceedings. The deal remains contingent on several conditions, including participation by at least 95% of the remaining claimants.

The company currently faces approximately 76,000 Johnson’s Baby Powder lawsuits and Shower-to-Shower lawsuits pending in courts nationwide. The claims generally allege that long-term use of talc-based products contributed to the development of ovarian cancer and other reproductive cancers, and that Johnson & Johnson knew about the potential health risks for decades while continuing to market the products for feminine hygiene use.

Due to the mounting number of claims filed, consolidated federal litigation was established more than 10 years ago, when the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the claims in the District of New Jersey as part of a talcum powder lawsuit MDL, which is being overseen by U.S. District Judge Michael A. Shipp.

As the litigation faced repeated hurdles, including Johnson & Johnson’s unsuccessful efforts to resolve the claims through bankruptcy proceedings, Judge Shipp appointed a special mediator in 2025 and directed the parties to participate in settlement negotiations, including a mediation session scheduled for April 2026.

Talcum Powder Lawsuit Settlement Offer

Those negotiations have now resulted in a proposed resolution. According to Johnson & Johnson’s July 27 press release, the company has committed at least $5.5 billion to resolve the ovarian cancer claims currently pending in federal and state courts, with an initial payment of up to $3 billion scheduled for 2027. No additional payments would be due before 2028.

The agreement is not structured as a typical settlement that caps Johnson & Johnson’s total liability at $5.5 billion. Instead, that amount represents the minimum commitment for existing claims, with individual payments expected to be determined by qualifying criteria and the severity of each claimant’s diagnosis and injuries.

The total cost could exceed $5.5 billion if additional qualifying cases are included. The agreement also would not prevent women from filing future talcum powder lawsuits or potentially receiving compensation if they are later diagnosed with ovarian cancer after using Johnson’s Baby Powder, Shower-to-Shower or other talc-based products.

The proposed agreement comes after prior attempts were made to settle talcum powder lawsuits through bankruptcy proceedings, including a prior $9 billion offer that would have not only resolved current lawsuits but also provided a fund for women diagnosed in the future. That effort was rejected after the court found the bankruptcy strategy was an improper attempt to resolve the company’s talc liabilities.

Johnson & Johnson attributes the reduced amount to recent developments in the federal litigation, including the withdrawal of plaintiffs’ specific-causation experts in two planned bellwether cases. The company argues those experts were necessary to establish that talcum powder use caused each individual claimant’s ovarian cancer.

Before the settlement can move forward, participating law firms must represent at least 95% of the remaining ovarian cancer claims. Johnson & Johnson continues to maintain that its talc products are safe and do not cause cancer, despite discontinuing talc-based Baby Powder worldwide in 2023 and separating its consumer products business into Kenvue that same year.

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

A Virginia woman has filed a lawsuit against the makers of the eczema drug Dupixent, alleging it only took a few injections for her to develop a life-changing form of T-cell lymphoma.

Carolnette Walker brought the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 17, naming Sanofi-Aventis LLC, Genzyme Corporation and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. as the defendants.

According to the lawsuit, Walker began using Dupixent to treat atopic dermatitis in October 2023 without ever being warned that the medication could increase the risk of cancer.

Dupixent Cancer Risks

Originally designed for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, a form of eczema, Dupixent (dupilumab) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in March 2017. However, over the years the agency has expanded the approved uses of the drug to include numerous inflammatory conditions affecting the skin and respiratory system such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other health problems caused by overactive immune systems.

The drug has faced increased scrutiny in recent years due to reports that Dupixent side effects are causing, or accelerating, the development of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL). The malignancy is similar to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma but primarily affects the skin.

Dupixent-linked CTCL can be difficult to diagnose because its symptoms often resemble eczema and other skin conditions the drug is intended to treat, making the cancer easy to overlook if doctors are unfamiliar with the warning signs. In some cases, patients have continued receiving Dupixent injections while their CTCL continued to progress.

Walker joins a number of plaintiffs who are pursuing Dupixent CTCL lawsuits, each alleging that the manufacturers failed to properly inform doctors or patients about the drug’s cancer risks, which would have put healthcare professionals on alert to look for early signs of the condition. Instead, they say the companies disregarded patient safety and health to increase profits.

Dupixent CTCL Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Walker began taking Dupixent injections in October 2023 for her atopic dermatitis, and continued using the drug until August 2024.

However, in February 2026, Walker was diagnosed with the most common form of CTCL, mycosis fungoides. She has since required extensive cancer treatment, including chemotherapy, phototherapy and topical medications.

Walker indicates her doctors have told her she will require ongoing medical treatment and healthcare for the rest of her life.

The lawsuit states her diagnosis was unnecessary and could have been avoided if proper warnings had been given, arguing that the manufacturer had exactly such information in its possession for years, but deceived regulators and the public about the safety of Dupixent.

“At the time Plaintiff, Carolnette Walker was first prescribed Dupixent, the available scientific data were adequate to put Defendants on notice that there existed reasonable evidence of causal association between Dupixent and development and progression of CTCL.”

– Carolnette Walker v. Sanofi-Aventis LLC et al.

Before November of 2018, less than two years after Dupixent had been placed on the market, the manufacturers were aware of at least 10 reports of Dupixent patients developing CTCL. That number has continued to increase over the years, with more than 200 cases reported by the end of 2024.

Walker indicates that, despite multiple calls for additional testing into Dupixent-induced CTCL, the manufacturers failed to allocate appropriate resources to investigate the problem. She claims the companies have still not placed an appropriate warning on the drug’s label.

The lawsuit presents claims of failure to warn, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Dupixent CTCL Lawsuits

Walker’s complaint will be consolidated with other Dupixent cancer lawsuits in the District of New Jersey before U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL). Judge Quraishi has been appointed to oversee coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings for the centralized litigation.

The judge is eventually expected to order the parties to prepare several representative cases to serve as potential bellwether trial candidates. These trials will give plaintiffs and defendants the opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony that would be repeated throughout the litigation.

The outcomes of these trials are not binding on other Dupixent CTCL lawsuits, but the results could have a significant impact on any settlement negotiations. However, if the sides do not reach a settlement agreement or otherwise resolve the litigation by the end of the bellwether trials, Judge Quraishi could begin remanding the cases back to their original federal district courts for individual trial dates.

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

A Texas woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging she suffered severe bodily injuries after an Instant Pot electric pressure cooker ejected scalding liquid and other contents onto her body, after advertised safety features failed.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Mylasia Hadnot in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on July 23. It names Instant Brands LLC, Instant Brands Inc. and Corelle Brands LLC as defendants.

Hadnot claims the Instant Pot has a defective design that allows the lid to be opened while the device is still pressurized. Furthermore, she argues the product’s advertised safety features do not protect consumers.

Electric Pressure Cooker Lawsuits

The case joins a growing number of pressure cooker lawsuits filed in recent years, which raise similar allegations against manufacturers of several different major brands, including Instant Pot, Ninja and Crock-Pot, indicating that defective designs may cause consumers to experience serious burn injuries.

The complaints generally involve incidents where pressure cooker lids opened before the internal pressure was fully released, causing scalding food, steam and liquid to erupt from the appliance.

Plaintiffs claim the locking mechanisms and other safety features can fail to prevent the cookers from being opened while still pressurized. These alleged defects have resulted in pressure cooker explosions, severe burns, permanent scarring and other life-altering injuries.

Instant Pot Duo Nova 60 Allegations

Hadnot’s lawsuit indicates that on July 18, 2021, she was using an Instant Pot Duo Nova 60 Pressure Cooker when the safety features failed, allowing the lid to be released while the internal contents were still under intense pressure.

When she opened the lid, scalding hot contents were ejected from the device onto her, causing serious and substantial bodily injury and damages.

The filing points out that Instant Pot is marketed as “easy to use” and having “proven safety features.” The product is also advertised as having pressure locking lids, which is supposed to ensure the lid remains in place when pressurized, with 10 safety features to prevent injuries.

However, Hadnot argues these safety features that are so prominently advertised often fail to keep consumers safe.

Moreover, the complaint indicates Instant Brands knew or should have known of the defects, yet the company put profit over safety, ignoring or concealing its knowledge of the defects while continuing to sell the defective product.

Additionally, Instant Brands allegedly failed to redesign the pressure cooker, even though there were safer, more economical designs available.

“Defendants ignored and/or concealed its knowledge of these defects in its pressure cookers from the Plaintiff in this case, as well as the public in general, in order to continue generating a profit from the sale of said pressure cookers, demonstrating a callous, reckless, willful, depraved indifference to the health, safety and welfare of Plaintiff and consumers like her.”

— Mylasia Hadnot v. Instant Brands LLC et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and punitive damages. It seeks compensation for significant and painful bodily injuries, medical expenses, physical pain, mental anguish, economic losses and diminished enjoyment of life.

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

A California man has filed a chlorpyrifos lawsuit alleging that a decade of occupational pesticide use, combined with years of broader exposure, caused him to develop Parkinson’s disease.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Robert Ranney and his wife, Jennifer Ranney, in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on July 23, and the manufacturer removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania the following day.

Ranney names several chlorpyrifos manufacturers as defendants in the lawsuit, including Corteva Inc., Corteva Agriscience LLC, The Dow Chemical Company and FMC Corporation.

The lawsuit alleges the manufacturers failed to adequately study whether repeated chlorpyrifos exposure could cause chronic neurological damage in adults, including Parkinson’s disease. It also accuses them of minimizing evidence of neurotoxicity and failing to warn agricultural workers, consumers and the medical community as those risks became known.

Chlorpyrifos Exposure Risks

Chlorpyrifos was first introduced in the U.S. in 1965 as a broad-spectrum organophosphate insecticide that kills pests by interfering with enzymes needed for normal nervous system function.

The pesticide has been sold under various brand names, including Dursban, Lorsban, Cobalt, Bolton, Nufos and Stallion. In addition, the chemical has been commonly mixed and applied by farmers, farmworkers, pesticide applicators, pest control employees and groundskeepers using handheld sprayers, truck-mounted tanks and agricultural equipment.

The pesticide was also widely sold for residential use until 2000, when most household applications were phased out. Homeowners, renters and pest control technicians used chlorpyrifos products inside and around homes to kill termites, roaches, ants, fleas and other insects, potentially exposing residents through indoor spraying, treated surfaces, contaminated dust and perimeter or foundation treatments. The complaint indicates that, by 1992, household surveys estimated chlorpyrifos was used in 17% of American homes, with approximately 200 million household-related applications performed each year.

Chlorpyrifos was also heavily used during the first Gulf War to control mosquitoes, flies and other disease-carrying insects around military camps, living quarters and operational areas. Service members may have been exposed to chlorpyrifos pesticides while working near treated areas or coming into contact with contaminated equipment, clothing and surfaces.

However, recent research has strengthened concerns about the pesticide’s long-term neurological effects. A UCLA-led study found that individuals with prolonged chlorpyrifos exposure had more than 2.5 times the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. Laboratory testing also found movement impairment, inflammation, abnormal protein accumulation and the loss of dopamine-producing brain cells associated with the disease.

In recent months, a growing number chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s disease lawsuits have been filed nationwide, each alleging the manufacturers failed to provide adequate label warnings about the risks of neurological damage.

Chlorpyrifos Illness Allegations

According to his lawsuit, Ranney has been exposed to chlorpyrifos through agricultural use from 1965 until 2020, living next to farms where the chemical was regularly sprayed. From 1995 through 2005, he became an end-user, personally mixing and spraying the pesticide as part of his agricultural work.

Earlier this year, Ranney was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, which the lawsuit says is due to his years of chlorpyrifos exposure.

“Plaintiff’s Parkinson’s disease will progress to become entirely debilitating. Plaintiff will lose the ability to control his motor functions. They are or will become unable to live independently. Parkinson’s disease has or will result in permanent physical injuries, pain, mental anguish, and disability. These injuries will continue for the rest of Plaintiff’s life.”

– Robert Ranney et al. v. Corteva Inc. et al.

The profound life changes caused by the disease will result in Ranney suffering significant medical expenses and losing his ability to work and hold a steady job, the lawsuit notes. Ranney indicates there were safer alternatives available but alleges he was robbed of the opportunity to make those choices due to the manufacturers’ deceptive marketing about the risks of chlorpyrifos.

The complaint also points to earlier regulatory actions involving the marketing and reporting of chlorpyrifos risks. It alleges Dow failed to timely report 249 adverse health events to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and previously agreed to stop making certain safety claims following investigations by the New York Attorney General.

Ranney presents claims of negligence, design defect, public nuisance and breach of implied warranty and merchantability. The couple seeks both punitive and compensatory damages.

Chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s Disease Lawsuits

Chlorpyrifos attorneys are currently reviewing potential product liability lawsuits for individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease after long-term exposure to the pesticide through:

• Personally mixing or applying chlorpyrifos
• Working on a farm during or after chlorpyrifos applications
• Living on a farm where chlorpyrifos was regularly used
• Using chlorpyrifos as a residential insecticide
• Working near chlorpyrifos spraying or pesticide drift
• Occupational exposure through pest control, construction, golf course maintenance or military service during the Gulf Wars

Free consultations and claim evaluations are available for individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Attorneys will review the treatment history and products involved, as well as location, duration and circumstances of exposure to determine whether the individual qualifies to pursue a claim.

All chlorpyrifos lawsuits are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees or expenses, and attorneys are paid only if they successfully obtain compensation.

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

A California woman has filed a Boston Scientific pelvic mesh lawsuit, claiming the company’s Lynx mesh products are prone to shrinkage, contraction and deformation, which caused her to suffer severe internal injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Tina Hinojosa in California Superior Court on July 23, naming Boston Scientific Corporation as the defendant, as well as unidentified individuals the plaintiff expects to identify during the discovery process.

Hinojosa alleges that the Boston Scientific Lynx mesh eroded into her bladder, resulting in pain, suffering and the need for multiple corrective surgeries.

Transvaginal Mesh Problems

The Boston Scientific Lynx Suprapubic Mid-Urethral Sling System is one of numerous pelvic mesh products marketed and sold by medical device manufacturers to support the bladder and address issues such as pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

However, more than a decade ago, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began warning about transvaginal mesh problems, such as the mesh eroding into the vagina, contracting or shrinking, which can lead to infections, pelvic pain, vaginal scarring and other painful complications.

In 2019, the results of an FDA investigation determined that transvaginal mesh carried higher risks than benefits, and subsequently ordered all transvaginal mesh products to be pulled from the market, indicating manufacturers had failed to show the agency that the implants’ benefits were worth the potentially life-changing medical risks.

As a result of design defects associated with the products, more than 100,000 transvaginal mesh lawsuits have been filed in prior years against Boston Scientific and other manufacturers, who have paid billions in settlements to resolve the litigation. Despite the transvaginal mesh settlements, hundreds of individual cases are still proceeding through state and federal courts.

Lynx Mesh Defect Allegations

Hinojosa’s lawsuit states she was first implanted with the Boston Scientific Lynx mesh in April 2024. She notes that the FDA had warned about the potential risks of similar designs since 2011, indicating that they were associated with “contraction with vaginal shortening, vaginal tightening and vaginal pain.”

According to the complaint, the Lynx mesh malfunctioned, eroding into Hinojosa’s bladder, causing pain, suffering and the need for additional medical care. On August 14, 2024, months after the mesh was first implanted, she had to undergo multiple corrective surgeries.

“Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products contain monofilament polypropylene mesh and/or collagen. Despite claims that polypropylene is inert, the scientific evidence shows that this material as implanted in Tina Hinojosa is biologically incompatible with human tissue and promotes a negative immune response in a large subset of the population implanted with the Products.”

– Tina Hinojosa v. Boston Scientific Corporation

Hinojosa indicates the negative response by the human body allegedly causes inflammation of pelvic tissue, which can result in severe adverse reactions. Additionally, the filing points out that the Lynx mesh can also cause hyperinflammatory responses, resulting in chronic pain and fibrotic reactions, as well as disintegration after implantation.

The complaint indicates Boston Scientific knew of these problems yet failed to provide adequate warnings to patients or medical professionals. It presents claims of negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect and failure to warn. Hinojosa seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

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

An Illinois man has filed an Alphatec Spine lawsuit alleging a defectively designed pedicle screw fractured, leaving part of the implant lodged in his spine and requiring a second operation days later to remove the broken hardware.

The complaint (PDF) was originally brought last year by Matthew Gaughan in Illinois Circuit Court. However, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 20, 2026, after medical malpractice claims being pursued against Rush University Medical Center were dismissed, leaving Alphatec Spine as the sole defendant.

The remaining product liability claims allege that Alphatec negligently designed, manufactured, tested and inspected the pedicle screw, and failed to adequately warn surgeons and patients about the risk that the implant could fracture during normal use. 

Pedicle Screw Lawsuits

Pedicle screws are specialized metal implants used to stabilize the spine during spinal fusion surgery. Typically made from titanium or other high-strength alloys, the screws are inserted into the vertebrae and connected with rods to hold the spine in proper alignment while bone grafts fuse the affected vertebrae into a single, stable structure.

Spinal fusion procedures are commonly performed to treat degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, scoliosis, herniated discs, spondylolisthesis and other conditions that cause chronic pain or spinal instability. By eliminating movement between damaged vertebrae, the surgery is intended to reduce pain, relieve pressure on nearby nerves and restore stability.

During the operation, surgeons place the screws through the pedicles, which are thick sections of bone that provide secure fixation within each vertebra. Once connected by rods, the hardware is designed to withstand the stresses of normal daily activities while the fusion process occurs over the following months, and in many cases is intended to remain in the body permanently.

However, a number of pedicle screw lawsuits have been filed against certain manufacturers, involving allegations that certain implants may be prone to fracture, loosen or otherwise fail, forcing plaintiffs them to undergo painful revision surgeries. Those additional procedures can expose individuals to increased risks of infection, nerve damage, prolonged recovery and permanent impairment.

Alphatec Spine Lawsuit Allegations

According to the lawsuit against Alphatec, Gaughan underwent spinal fusion surgery at Rush University Medical Center for the treatment of L2-3 degenerative spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis at L2-3 and neuromuscular scoliosis secondary to cerebral palsy on November 22, 2023. During the procedure, surgeons implanted Gaughan with an Alphatec pedicle screw system to stabilize his spine.

However, post-operative X-rays allegedly revealed part of the pedicle screw fractured during the procedure, leaving a broken piece of the implant retained inside his body.

Five days later, Gaughan returned to Rush University Medical Center and underwent a second surgery to remove the broken piece of the pedicle screw from his spine.

The lawsuit alleges the implant failed because Alphatec negligently designed and manufactured the pedicle screw, failed to adequately inspect it before placing it into the stream of commerce and failed to provide sufficient warnings that the device could fracture during normal use.

“As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the aforesaid negligent acts and/or omissions of defendant, Alphatec Spine, Inc., plaintiff, Matthew Gaughan, sustained injuries of a personal, permanent and pecuniary nature.”

— Matthew Gaughan v. Alphatec Spine Inc.

Gaughan maintains the alleged defects caused him to suffer permanent physical injuries, pain and other losses. He seeks compensatory damages to be determined at trial.

Concerns about the safety and reliability of pedicle screw systems have existed for years. More than a decade ago, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration raised safety concerns about certain newly manufactured pedicle screw systems. The agency required producers of some already available devices to conduct post-market surveillance studies while mandating clinical trials before approving newer systems that were in development.

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

A Virginia woman has filed a product defect lawsuit alleging she suffered severe injuries to her face and body after the hand brakes failed on a Luckeep e-bike sold by Amazon.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Kiara Dixon in Virginia Circuit Court on June 23, naming Amazon.com Services LLC, ZX Motors Incorporated, doing business as Luckeep, and LuckeepBike Inc. as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court of Virginia on July 20.

Dixon alleges Amazon and Luckeep knew or should have known that the e-bike was defective and unsafe for consumers. She also claims the companies failed to include a warning to test the hand brakes before using the e-bike.

E-Bike Safety Risks

Electric bicycles combine a traditional bike with a battery-powered motor that provides pedal assistance, helping riders travel farther, tackle steep terrain and maintain faster speeds with less effort. Most models allow users to adjust the level of motor assistance, while some, such as Class 2 e-bikes, also include a throttle that can power the bike without pedaling.

However, prior e-bike lawsuits have raised a number of safety concerns. A complaint filed against Amazon in April claimed an Oregon man suffered facial injuries after the wheel of a Ridstar Q20 e-bike fell off, throwing him violently to the ground.

In addition, a series of reports published in 2025 indicated the number of injuries from e-bike accidents have increased 49-fold since 2017. Many of those accidents resulted in head injuries with long-term health side effects.

Luckeep Folding Electric Bike Allegations

Dixon’s complaint indicates she purchased the Luckeep Folding Electric Bike on June 25, 2024 from Amazon for $900. When she used it for the first time on July 4, to travel down the street and around the block, the hand brakes allegedly failed to engage, causing her to crash.

Dixon claims she was unable to slow the e-bike when the hand brakes did not work. As a result, she crashed into the curb and was violently thrown from the bike, sustaining injuries to her face and body. These injuries are severe, permanent and disabling.

The lawsuit alleges the Luckeep e-bike has a defective braking system and is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. Moreover, Dixon argues Luckeep and Amazon knew or should have known about the defective braking system. Both companies allegedly failed to test the brake system before selling the e-bike.

Dixon claims a warning should have been included with the bike to properly test the braking system before the first use. Since there was no warning, Dixon says she had no knowledge that the hand brakes would not engage and the e-bike posed a risk of her being severely injured.

“Defendants owed Plaintiff and other reasonably foreseeable users a duty to exercise reasonable care in the distribution of the e-bike, including a duty not to distribute or place into the stream of commerce an e-bike that the Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, was defective and unreasonably dangerous.”

— Kiara Dixon v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al.

The complaint raises allegations of negligence, failure to warn and inadequate instruction, and breach of implied merchantability. It is seeking compensation for pain and suffering, disfigurement, mental anguish, medical expenses and loss of income.

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

A Florida man has filed a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit alleging Abbott Laboratories’ customer service and sales representatives repeatedly caused him to suffer severe, disabling pain while making medical adjustments to his implant without proper training or licenses.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Joel Sampson in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on July 21, naming Abbott Laboratories and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the defendants.

Sampson indicates he was implanted with Abbott’s Proclaim system spinal cord stimulator for the treatment of chronic pain. However, he claims the implant’s defective design caused painful neurological symptoms, requiring revision surgery. Despite having the device removed, Sampson says he has suffered permanent injuries.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Complications

The Proclaim system is one of numerous spinal cord stimulators currently offered by several major medical device manufacturers, including Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Nevro. The devices consist of electrodes and a battery-powered pulse generator implanted under the skin, along with an external remote used to adjust the electrical stimulation intended to interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain.

The devices are promoted as a permanent treatment option for patients whose chronic pain has not improved through medication, physical therapy or other forms of care.

However, a growing number of recipients have since reported battery failures, unexpected shutdowns, painful electric shocks, burning sensations, worsening pain and incidents where leads or pulse generators migrated or pierced the skin. These complications have resulted in reports of infections, nerve damage and additional surgery to reprogram, revise or remove the implant.

As a result, spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are now being filed raising allegations that many revised models were allowed onto the market through FDA regulatory pathways that did not require manufacturers to conduct extensive new clinical testing to establish the safety of each modified device before it was implanted in patients.

The lawsuits claim manufacturers failed to adequately test the implants or warn patients and physicians that they could malfunction and cause serious injuries. Some complaints, including Sampson’s, also raise concerns about the prominent role of company representatives, alleging they overstated the devices’ potential benefits, minimized known risks and adjusted programming without the medical qualifications necessary to provide patient care.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Sampson received a Proclaim XR5 SCS system in January 2021 for the treatment of chronic pain. Before receiving the permanent implant, he was placed through a trial period with a temporary device, which Abbott sales representatives told him would operate the same as the permanent implant.

The device worked fine for the first three years, but stopped relieving pain suddenly in August 2024, Sampson states. When he reported the problem, an Abbott sales representative told Sampson he could guide him through the reprogramming process to make the device effective again.

The complaint indicates that the first couple tries at reprogramming seemed to have no effect. On the third attempt, the implant began to electrocute Sampson.

“Plaintiff was in such excruciating pain due to his back spasms caused by the electrocution, all he could do was writhe on the floor for three minutes. During this time, Plaintiff was physically incapable of reaching his controller to turn off the device.”

– Joel Sampson v. Abbott Laboratories et al.

Sampson’s daughter found him on the floor, spasming, and turned off the device while the sales representative apologized over the phone. However, he continued to spasm well after the device was shut down.

The lawsuit notes that the spinal cord stimulator was set to 66, despite a normal setting being between 35 to 45 during the day, and between 15 and 21 at night. Sampson suffered from back and kidney pain, as well as constant diarrhea, for the next two weeks.

In October 2024, another sales representative called to have Sampson’s settings adjusted, this time meeting him at a Florida clinic. At the meeting, the sales representative reportedly told Sampson that his device had never been recalled, until Sampson presented paperwork showing that it had.

The representative then proceeded to attempt reprogramming the device twice more without a doctor present, which again left Sampson spasming on the floor in pain.

Sampson indicates the Abbott employee determined that the device was malfunctioning and also noted that it needed to be surgically removed before Sampson could have an MRI.

On April 9, 2025, Sampson’s Proclaim system was surgically removed due to mechanical and therapeutic failure. He still suffers the original chronic pain and new injuries caused by the allegedly defective spinal cord stimulator.

The lawsuit presents claims of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unauthorized practice of medicine and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Due to a series of similar Abbott Laboratories spinal cord stimulator lawsuits being filed in federal courts nationwide, plaintiffs previously sought to have all of the Abbott Laboratory SCS lawsuits consolidated into a multidistrict litigation for coordinated pretrial proceedings. However, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied such a petition in June, indicating that Abbott SCS lawsuits do not need to be consolidated at this time.

The panel did agree to consolidate all federal Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, which have been centralized in the Central District of California before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Spinal cord stimulator lawyers are continuing to review potential claims for individuals, regardless of brand, who suffered any of the following injuries due to spinal cord stimulators:

To find out whether you or a loved one may qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit, submit information to receive a free case review by a lawyer. All claims are handled on a contingency fee basis, which means there are no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained.

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

A New York woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging her Bard Composix Kugel hernia mesh became densely adhered to her intestines, forcing surgeons to remove eight inches of her small bowel.

The complaint (PDF) was originally filed by Maria Giulianicanal in New York state court in late April, and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on July 17. It names C.R. Bard Inc., Davol Inc. and their parent company, Becton, Dickinson and Company as the defendants.

According to the complaint, Giulianicanal received the Bard Composix Kugel mesh during a hernia repair procedure. Rather than safely reinforcing the weakened abdominal tissue, she claims the implant failed and caused dense adhesions to form between the mesh and her intestines.

Adhesions are bands of internal scar tissue that can bind organs and surrounding tissues together, potentially causing severe pain, bowel obstruction and tissue damage while making surgical removal of the mesh far more difficult.

The complications allegedly required another operation, during which surgeons were forced to remove approximately eight inches of her small intestine. Giulianicanal claims the mesh failure left her with serious and permanent injuries, ongoing pain and the need for additional medical care.

Bard Hernia Mesh Risks

The Bard Composix Kugel is a synthetic hernia repair implant designed to reinforce weakened abdominal tissue and reduce the risk of a hernia returning. The device was cleared for sale in 1996 through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 510(k) process, which allows manufacturers to market certain medical devices without conducting the same clinical testing required for entirely new products.

However, thousands of hernia mesh lawsuits have been filed against Bard and other manufacturers alleging that the products contain design and material defects that can cause the mesh to shrink, migrate, buckle, break apart or adhere to nearby organs and tissue.

The claims have involved several Bard products, including the Composix Kugel, Ventralex, Ventralight, PerFix Plug and 3DMax mesh systems.

Hernia Mesh Failure Allegations

The lawsuit indicates Giulianicanal received a Composix Kugel hernia mesh implant during a prior hernia repair procedure. In September 2025, she noticed a bulge developing in her abdomen, which she claims was a sign that the hernia had returned and the mesh was no longer functioning as intended.

Two months later, Giulianicanal underwent another surgery to remove the failed implant and repair the affected area. During the procedure, healthcare providers allegedly discovered dense adhesions binding the mesh to her small intestine and surrounding tissue.

Because the mesh could not be safely separated from the affected organs, surgeons were forced to perform a small bowel resection and remove her appendix. The lawsuit claims these complications resulted directly from the failure of the Composix Kugel mesh.

“Plaintiff lost approximately eight inches of intestines as a result of the Composix Kugel mesh complications. Plaintiff continues to suffer from bowel dysfunction, pain and emotional distress.”

– Maria Giulianicanal v. C.R. Bard Inc. et al.

Giulianicanal argues that the Composix Kugel hernia mesh was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous for its intended use.

The filing raises allegations of design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence and breach of warranty. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages for severe physical injuries, permanent loss of bowel function, pain, suffering, emotional distress, medical expenses and future medical care needs.

Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

Giulianicanal’s complaint joins more than 25,000 hernia mesh lawsuits filed against C.R. Bard over implants that allegedly degraded, migrated, contracted or became attached to surrounding organs after surgery. Plaintiffs claim the company failed to adequately test its polypropylene mesh designs and did not provide surgeons or patients with sufficient warnings about the risk of painful complications and additional operations.

In October 2025, Bard reached a hernia mesh settlement intended to resolve a substantial portion of the pending litigation. However, the agreement did not prevent new lawsuits from being filed by patients whose complications were diagnosed later or whose implants only recently began to fail, sometimes years after the original hernia repair.

Bard is not the only manufacturer facing similar allegations. Medtronic’s Covidien unit faces more than 2,400 lawsuits involving several of its hernia mesh products, with plaintiffs raising comparable claims involving adhesions, infections, bowel injuries, hernia recurrence and revision surgery.

The federal Covidien cases have been centralized in the District of Massachusetts before U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, where the first bellwether trial is underway. The outcome is expected to provide both sides with an early indication of how juries may respond to evidence and arguments that could be repeated throughout the remaining litigation.

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

A sports betting lawsuit filed by a New Jersey man indicates even FanDuel employees are vulnerable to tactics and algorithms online sportsbooks allegedly use to create gambling addiction in U.S. consumers.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Philip Sylvester in New Jersey Superior Court on July 20. It names DraftKings Inc., Resorts Digital Gaming LLC, Crown NJ Gaming Inc., Flutter Entertainment PLC, Betfair Interactive US LLC, Golden Nugget Atlantic City LLC and Meadowlands Racetrack as the defendants.

Sylvester alleges he lost tens of thousands of dollars after developing an addiction to online sports gambling, despite previously working for FanDuel. His compulsion was allegedly driven by the companies’ aggressive marketing and promotional practices. He contends the sportsbooks knowingly exploit the addictive nature of their platforms to increase profits while disregarding the financial and mental health of consumers.

Sportsbook Compulsive Gambling Addiction

A 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision gave states the authority to legalize sports betting, leading many to do so and fueling the rapid growth and profitability of platforms like DraftKings, FanDuel and BetMGM.

However, the expansion of online sportsbooks has been accompanied by mounting concerns about gambling addiction, particularly among young adults and college-age men. Many of these consumers are living away from home and managing their finances independently for the first time. In addition, their familiarity with instant online transactions may make it easier for them to place impulsive bets.

Critics allege the apps take advantage of these facts through aggressive and deceptive promotions, algorithms and illegal marketing tactics, resulting in young men being disproportionately affected by sports betting addiction. As a result, their losses often escalate quickly before parents, schools or others realize there is a problem.

In light of these concerns, a series of DraftKings lawsuits and FanDuel lawsuits have been filed by individuals nationwide. Many of these claims allege the sportsbooks intentionally foster gambling addiction to increase their companies’ bottom lines.

Online Gambling Addiction Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Sylvester began using both DraftKings and FanDuel in 2018 and was hired as a FanDuel employee in 2021, which prohibited him from gambling on either platform.

Before he was hired by FanDuel, Sylvester estimates he placed $105,000 in wagers on DraftKings, and almost $320,000 on FanDuel. After he stopped working for FanDuel, he resumed gambling, losing an additional $34,000 on FanDuel and $6,300 on DraftKings.

Sylvester indicates the algorithms detected he was developing an “unmanageable, daily addiction” to the sports betting platforms, and then exploited him.

“Their gambling apps track every user interaction including wagers placed, time spent on the app, and even moments of hesitation to create hyper-personalized algorithms. Utilizing this data, they bombard gamblers, including gamblers that Defendants know or should know are problem gamblers, with targeted notifications and advertisements precisely when they’re most susceptible, like late at night or after a big loss.”

– Philip Sylvester v. DraftKings Inc. et al.

The lawsuit states that as Sylvester’s addiction worsened, DraftKings and FanDuel noticed. Instead of warning him or doing anything to prevent gambling addiction damages they provided him with personalized offers, bonus bets and exclusive promotions.

Sylvester presents claims of defective design, failure to warn, breach of warranty, intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. He seeks damages for financial losses, gambling addiction, pain and suffering and lost earnings.

Compulsive Gambling Addiction Lawsuits

The lawsuit comes as the number of sports betting lawsuits continues to increase, claiming online sportsbooks use sophisticated data analytics and behavioral algorithms to monitor users’ betting habits and deliver personalized promotions intended to encourage more frequent wagering and larger bets.

Sports betting addiction lawyers are in the process of reviewing claims for individuals nationwide who experienced substantial financial damages linked to the sportsbooks’ marketing practices, promotional incentives and engagement features.

Lawsuits are being investigated involving a number of online wagering platforms, including:

Individuals who suspect they developed a gambling addiction or suffered significant financial harm due to the action of these platforms can request a free case evaluation to determine whether they may be eligible to pursue a sports betting lawsuit. Attorneys handling these cases work on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees and compensation is owed only if a gambling addiction settlement is recovered.

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