The first Covidien hernia mesh bellwether trial is set to begin next month, after the U.S. District Judge overseeing the litigation ruled that key injury claims involving the company’s Symbotex mesh can proceed before a jury.

Covidien, a Medtronic subsidiary, faces more than 2,400 hernia mesh lawsuits from individuals across the country who allege that various versions of the company’s mesh products are defectively designed, putting patients at risk of chronic pain, infections, adhesions, hernia recurrence and the need for revision surgery.

U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, in the District of Massachusetts, has overseen all Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits since June 2022, as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Over the past months, Judge Saris has directed the parties through preparation of a small number of representative cases to serve as “bellwether” trials. These early test cases allow each side to present evidence before juries and evaluate how key legal and factual arguments are received, often shaping the direction of potential settlement discussions.

The first Covidien hernia mesh bellwether trial will involve a Symbotex lawsuit brought by Larry Patterson of Alabama, who underwent hernia repair surgery in July 2017 and later suffered adhesions, a bowel obstruction and a recurrent hernia. According to the court’s order, Symbotex is made from a non-absorbable polyester textile with an absorbable porcine collagen coating, which is intended to reduce tissue attachment if the mesh contacts organs or tissue in the abdomen.

Patterson alleges the collagen barrier degraded too quickly after surgery, exposing his bowel to the underlying polyester mesh before his body had time to heal. He required additional surgery in July 2020, during which doctors removed the mesh, repaired the recurrent hernia and resected part of his bowel where it had adhered to the old repair.

The Patterson trial is scheduled to begin July 13, following a postponement from earlier this year. Before the case could go before a jury, Covidien filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to narrow the claims or have the lawsuit dismissed.

However, in a June 2 memorandum and order (PDF), Judge Saris denied much of the request, finding that Patterson had presented enough evidence for a jury to consider whether Covidien failed to adequately warn about Symbotex’s risks.

“Plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Covidien failed to adequately warn about Symbotex’s dangers.”

– U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris

Judge Weighs Evidence About Symbotex Warnings 

A key issue in the ruling was whether Covidien adequately warned doctors about how long Symbotex’s collagen barrier would remain in place after surgery. While the product’s instructions indicated the barrier would degrade in less than one month, and Covidien trained sales representatives that it would fully resorb in 30 days, Patterson presented internal evidence suggesting the barrier may break down much sooner. That included a Covidien animal study involving a similar mesh, which found the porcine collagen film was fully resorbed after seven days.

Judge Saris found that a jury could decide whether Covidien’s warnings understated the risk of adhesions, bowel obstruction and hernia recurrence if the barrier degraded before it finished protecting the bowel from the underlying mesh. The court also found that Patterson’s failure to warn claims could proceed even though his surgeon did not remember reading the Symbotex instructions, since a jury could determine he learned about the 30-day barrier claim from Covidien sales representatives or marketing materials.

Judge Saris denied Covidien’s request to dismiss most of Patterson’s claims, including those involving failure to warn, negligence, misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranty, loss of consortium and punitive damages. However, she reserved ruling on Patterson’s design defect claims, which remain tied to a separate expert testimony dispute.

Serving as a bellwether trial, the outcome of the Patterson case will not be binding on other Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits, but will be closely watched to see how the jury interprets evidence and testimony from both sides. Since the case is supposed to be broadly representative of circumstances shared throughout thousands of similar claims, it is hoped that the outcome of these bellwether trials will help the parties reach a Covidien hernia mesh settlement agreement.

If no settlement is reached once the bellwether trials have concluded, Judge Saris may begin remanding lawsuits back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

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

An Illinois woman has filed a wrongful death lawsuit following the death of her husband, which she claims was due to his use of contaminated Nurse Assist SteriCare saline products.

The complaint (PDF) was originally brought by Teresa Rudnick on behalf of herself and her deceased husband, Bruce, late last year in Cook County Circuit Court.

However, the lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 2 by the defendants, which include Nurse Assist LLC, I.V. Solutions LLC, IV Ventures Incorporated, Byram Healthcare Centers Inc., Tower Three Partners LLC, BPGC Management LP, Spinnaker International LLC and R Investments LLC.

Rudnick alleges that contaminated Nurse Assist SteriCare saline solution used by her husband to flush a PICC line and treat a foot wound repeatedly exposed him to bacteria, eventually leading to his death shortly after the FDA recalled the products.

Nurse Assist Recall

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the Nurse Assist saline and sterile solution recall in November 2023, warning that the products’ packaging seals were defective and could fail, potentially allowing bacterial contamination. The agency called for healthcare providers and consumers to stop using the products due to the risk of infections, but for many others conducting wound care after surgery, the damage was already done.

Many plaintiffs who have lost loved ones or battled infections themselves, have since filed Nurse Assist SteriCare lawsuits in courts nationwide, alleging the manufacturers distributed defectively packaged sterile products that made wounds worse instead of helping them to heal.

SteriCare Wrongful Death Allegations

According to the complaint, Bruce Rudnick began using SteriCare in September 2022 after being implanted with a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) for the administration of antibiotics. He used the defendants’ sterile saline solutions to flush the catheter after each injection of antibiotics.

In addition to the catheter, he also developed a wound on his left foot that was treated with SteriCare.

Over the remainder of that year and throughout 2023, he suffered repeated bouts of sepsis, although doctors were unable to identify the source of the infection. Each time, he was hospitalized and treated with antibiotics before being sent home, only for the infection to return and require another hospitalization.

In November 2023, Rudnick was again hospitalized with severe sepsis, bacteremia and suspected endocarditis, undergoing partial left foot amputation. That same month, the FDA announced the Nurse Assist recall. Bruce Rudnick died of endocarditis, sepsis infection and multisystem organ failure on December 14, 2023.

One week before his death, his wife was notified of the Nurse Assist recall.

“On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff received notification from Byram Healthcare regarding the Nurse Assist recall, confirming the Product utilized by Decedent, which was manufactured, imported, sold, marketed, labeled, and distributed by Nurse Assist; sold, distributed, and supplied by I.V. Solutions and Byram Healthcare; and financially controlled by Tower Three, BPGC, Spinnaker, and R Investments, was subject to the voluntary recall initiated by Defendants.”

– Theresa Rudnick v. Nurse Assist LLC et al.

The lawsuit presents claims of wrongful death, failure to warn, defective design and manufacture, negligent design and manufacture, negligent failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. It seeks compensatory damages.

Nurse Assist SteriCare Lawsuits

As more infections and deaths are linked to the recalled sterile solutions, lawsuits continue to be filed against Nurse Assist and other distributors, pursuing claims that the manufacturers failed in their duty to make sure the products were sterile.

Individuals who developed infections after using the recalled products may qualify for compensation. Product liability lawyers are currently reviewing claims on behalf of individuals who 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 Texas woman has filed a lawsuit, alleging that design defects and inadequate safety protections on the Roblox and Snapchat platforms allowed an adult predator to groom and sexually exploit her when she was only 12 years old.

The complaint (PDF) was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 2, by a 19-year-old plaintiff identified only as AW-0012. It names Roblox Corporation and Snap Inc. as defendants.

AW-0012 claims the two platforms knowingly created environments that made it easy for adults to contact, manipulate and exploit children.

Roblox Child Safety Concerns

Roblox has grown into one of the world’s largest online gaming platforms, attracting millions of daily users, most of which are children and teenagers. The platform allows users to create personalized avatars, interact with others through text and voice communications, and participate in a vast library of user-generated games and experiences.

However, child safety advocates, researchers and consumer watchdog groups have increasingly raised concerns that the platform’s communication tools and social features may expose minors to online predators. Critics contend that inadequate age-verification measures and insufficient safeguards may allow adults to pose as younger users, communicate directly with children and engage in grooming behavior.

Those concerns have resulted in more than 160 Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits being filed in federal courts across the country. The complaints generally allege that the company failed to implement reasonable protections to prevent inappropriate interactions between adults and minors, despite knowing of ongoing risks associated with the platform.

According to the lawsuits, the alleged shortcomings have contributed to incidents involving online grooming, sexual coercion, sextortion and the exchange of explicit material involving minors. Some claims also involve allegations of sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking linked to contacts first established through the platform.

Roblox and Snapchat Safety Allegations

In the lawsuit, AW-0012 claims she began using Roblox at about age 12 after her mother believed company marketing that claimed the online gaming platform was a safe environment for children and allowed her to play. In February 2019, the child was allegedly contacted through Roblox by an adult predator who falsely claimed to be a 13-year-old boy.

The complaint alleges the predator used Roblox’s chat features to establish trust and build an emotional connection before convincing the girl to communicate through Snapchat. Over the next year, the man allegedly groomed her through daily interactions on both platforms, gradually introducing sexual conversations, requesting explicit images and threatening to kill her if she disclosed the communications to anyone.

After gaining her trust, the predator allegedly coerced the plaintiff into sending images of herself and used Snapchat to send sexually explicit videos and photographs of himself. The filing indicates the girl eventually realized she had been communicating with an adult after receiving images depicting a bearded, bald man who clearly did not match the age and identity he had previously claimed.

The lawsuit claims Roblox and Snapchat repeatedly assured parents that their platforms were safe for children while failing to implement basic safeguards that could have prevented adult predators from accessing minors. The complaint specifically criticizes the companies for relying on self-reported ages, failing to require meaningful identity verification and allowing direct communications between adults and children.

According to the filing, Roblox and Snap prioritized user growth and engagement over child safety, despite knowing their platforms were being used by predators to locate and groom vulnerable minors. The lawsuit alleges both companies could have adopted stronger age-verification systems and other safety measures but chose not to do so.

The plaintiff claims her mother would never have allowed her to use Roblox or Snapchat had the companies disclosed the risks posed by predators on their platforms. The lawsuit further alleges that basic screening and verification measures could have prevented the predator from contacting her in the first place.

The complaint indicates AW-0012 continues to suffer severe emotional and psychological injuries from the exploitation, including anxiety, social withdrawal and academic difficulties that required an individualized education program at school. She also allegedly engaged in self-harm that resulted in extended inpatient hospitalization.

“Had Defendants implemented even the most basic system of screening or age and identity verification, as well as other commonsense safety measures, Plaintiff never would have been targeted by this predator and never would have suffered the devastating harm that she did. Plaintiff’s life has been profoundly altered as a direct result of Defendants’ conduct.”

— AW-0012 v. Roblox Corporation et al.

The case raises allegations of fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, failure to warn, unreasonable design, negligent undertaking and design defect. It seeks general, economic and special damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress and medical treatment.

Roblox Sexual Exploitation Lawsuits

As the number of Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits has grown, federal courts consolidated the claims late last year before U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District of California, establishing a multidistrict litigation (MDL) designed to streamline discovery and other pretrial proceedings.

Judge Seeborg is expected to develop a bellwether trial process that will focus on a small group of representative cases selected for early trial dates. Those proceedings are intended to provide insight into how juries may evaluate common evidence, legal arguments and allegations that are likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

While any bellwether verdicts would apply only to the individual cases selected for trial, the outcomes often influence settlement negotiations by helping both sides assess the risks and potential value of unresolved claims.

In an effort to move the litigation toward resolution, plaintiffs earlier this year asked the court to appoint a special master to facilitate initial settlement discussions. If productive, those negotiations could provide a pathway for children and young adults to resolve claims without waiting through years of additional litigation.

Roblox sexual exploitation lawyers continue to review potential claims on behalf of families and individuals who allege they were harmed through interactions on the platform. Case evaluations are free and confidential, and no legal fees are charged unless compensation is recovered.

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

A West Virginia woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a defective 2017 Kia Rio lost brake function and caught fire while she was driving, causing a crash that left her with severe burn injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Rebecca L. Williams in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on June 6. It names Kia Corporation, Kia America Inc. and Friendship Automotive Inc., doing business as Friendship Kia of Beckley, as the defendants.

Williams claims the Kia’s Hydraulic Electronic Control Unit (HECU) short-circuited while she was driving, causing the brakes to fail and sparking a fire in the engine compartment. The malfunction led to a crash that trapped her inside the burning vehicle and left her with severe burn injuries, requiring multiple surgeries.

The HECU is a component of the vehicle’s anti-lock braking system that helps regulate brake pressure and stability functions. An electrical short within the unit can cause it to overheat, increasing the risk of an engine compartment fire.

In 2023, more than 3.3 million Kia and Hyundai vehicles were recalled due to faulty anti-lock braking system (ABS) modules and HECUs that may be prone to electrical shorts, increasing the risk of vehicle fires.

Kia Brake Fire Allegations

According to the complaint, Williams was on her way to a maintenance and service appointment in her 2017 Kia Rio on November 24, 2025, when she applied the brakes near the bottom of a mountain. At that point, the vehicle began smoking and failed to respond, causing her to lose control and collide with an embankment. After the impact, fire rapidly spread from the engine compartment into the cab of the vehicle, where she was trapped.

After being removed from the burning vehicle, Williams indicates she underwent multiple debridement and skin graft surgeries on her legs due to the severity of her burn injuries. She says that she is expected to have permanent scarring and suffer from related comorbidities for the remainder of her life.

The complaint notes that Williams brought the defective vehicle to Friendship Kia of Beckley for maintenance on nine separate occasions after purchasing it. However, she alleges she was never informed about the recall or the fire risks associated with the defective HECU.

As a direct and proximate result of these occurrences Williams indicates she has incurred, and continues to incur medical expenses, lost wages and loss of future earning capacity. She also says that she has undergone and continues to undergo great pain and suffering.

“Neither the Kia Defendants nor Defendant Friends Automotive properly notified Plaintiff of the recall. Thus, Plaintiff was unaware of the extreme risk of fire associated with driving the subject vehicle with the defective, recalled HECU.”

— Rebecca Williams v. Kia Corporation et al

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict product liability, negligence and breach of warranty. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the court deems appropriate.

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

Years after an industry shake-up over duodenoscope infections changed the devices’ designs and how they are sanitized, a lawsuit filed by the widow of a Washington man links an Olympus scope to continuing infections and her husband’s death.

Michelle Bruto Da Costa brought the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 5. Defendants include Olympus Corporation and multiple subsidiaries facing claims that they designed and manufactured a defective medical device and failed to warn doctors or patients about the potential risk of infections.

According to the lawsuit, Bruto Da Costa’s husband, Mark Bruto Da Costa died on June 28, 2023, after being diagnosed with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE). His infection and death was caused by the Olympus duodenoscope spreading the infection to him during an endoscopic procedure

Endoscope, Colonoscopy and ERCP Infections

Duodenoscopes and other endoscopes are reusable medical scopes used during procedures such as ERCP, colonoscopy, upper endoscopy and bronchoscopy. The devices, which are manufactured by Olympus, Fujifilm and others, contain small cameras, lights, long narrow channels and moving parts that allow doctors to examine internal organs, diagnose medical conditions and perform certain treatments without open surgery.

More than 22 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are performed in the United States every year, including roughly 15 to 19 million colonoscopies and more than 650,000 ERCP procedures. An estimated 50 million colonoscopies are performed annually around the world. Since these devices are often used on multiple patients, the scopes must be thoroughly cleaned, disinfected and reprocessed after each procedure.

However, lawsuits and safety investigations have raised concerns that bacteria, biofilm, tissue and other debris may remain trapped inside the scopes, especially in narrow channels or damaged areas that are difficult to inspect, allowing infections to pass from one patient to another.

As a result, Olympus scope infection lawsuits are now being filed over allegations that contaminated reusable endoscopes were defectively designed, because they could not be reliably cleaned and sanitized even when hospitals followed the manufacturer’s reprocessing instructions. Plaintiffs claim these design and warning failures exposed patients to serious bacterial infections, sepsis, organ failure and in some cases, even death.

Olympus Scope Infection Allegations

The new lawsuit indicates Mark Bruto Da Costa underwent an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, known as ERCP, on June 12, 2023, at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle. The procedure involved the use of an Olympus TJF-Q190V duodenoscope.

Four days later, on June 16, Bruto Da Costa presented for paracentesis, and blood cultures were obtained showing gram-positive cocci. On June 18, an infectious disease specialist noted that Bruto Da Costa had taken “a definitive turn for the worse,” with significant weight loss, persistent leukocytosis and worsening hyperbilirubinemia.

The complaint alleges VRE was not present on any of Bruto Da Costa’s extensive bloodwork before the June 12 ERCP procedure using the Olympus duodenoscope. Plaintiffs claim he acquired VRE from the endoscope device, and that the infection could not be eradicated despite varied efforts and treatment.

Bruto Da Costa died on June 28, 2023. His wife’s lawsuit alleges he died due to organ failure and septic shock caused by VRE introduced by the Olympus endoscope device.

The lawsuit accuses Olympus of failing to address contamination issues and update the design of its endoscopes adequately enough to prevent infections, despite years of knowing there were problems with reusable scope devices.

The complaint notes that a 2022 post-market surveillance study ordered by the FDA found only 34.8% of sampled endoscopes contained no contamination at all.

“Defendants knew or should have known that available research has demonstrated that, using magnification and borescopes inspection, 100% of endoscopes with narrow channels, like Defendants’ Endoscope, showed visible damage, residue, and/or debris, requiring repair 76% of the time. In endoscopes, like Defendants’ Endoscope, channel shredding, scratches, and/or defects appear within a few uses, requiring repair. These grooves and defects allow buildup of biofilm and the proliferation of bacteria.”

– Michelle Bruto Da Costa v. Olympus America Inc. et al.

The lawsuit further alleges Olympus failed to recommend or require additional monitoring tools that could detect contamination, moisture or damage inside reusable scopes, including borescope inspections, dryness indicator tests, adenosine triphosphate testing and microbial culturing.

Plaintiffs claim the Olympus endoscope’s narrow channels, complex tip, forceps elevator and repeated use made it difficult to clean, allowing bacteria to survive reprocessing and transfer to later patients.

Olympus Endoscope Defect and Failure to Warn Claims

Bruto Da Costa’s wife presents claims of defective design, failure to warn, manufacturing defect, negligence, gross negligence, breach of warranty, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, outrage, loss of consortium and wrongful death.

The lawsuit argues Olympus failed to warn doctors, patients and medical providers that its endoscope devices could harbor microorganisms, including multidrug-resistant organisms, even after users followed the company’s reprocessing instructions.

The complaint also alleges Olympus failed to disclose the severity of complications that could arise from contaminated endoscope use, including severe infection, sepsis, organ failure, septic shock and death.

According to the lawsuit, Olympus represented that its devices were safe and effective for endoscopic procedures, while allegedly minimizing or concealing the true risks. Plaintiffs argue that if Bruto Da Costa or his healthcare providers had been properly warned about the dangers, the Olympus device would not have been used.

The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as damages for wrongful death, loss of consortium, medical expenses, funeral expenses, pain and suffering, emotional distress and other losses.

Olympus Scope Infection Lawsuits

Olympus scope infection lawsuit lawyers are reviewing claims for individuals nationwide who suffered serious infections after an ERCP or other endoscopic procedure involving a potentially contaminated reusable scope.

You may be eligible to file a claim if you or a loved one suffered any of the following after a colonoscopy, endoscopy, ERCP or bronchoscopy:

• Sepsis
• Bloodstream infections
• Pneumonia
• Organ failure
• Wrongful death
• Extended hospitalization
• Emergency medical treatment
• E. coli or other bacterial infections
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE)
• Blood-borne infections, including HIV or tuberculosis
• Exposure to drug-resistant bacteria or infectious diseases

All contaminated scope infection lawsuits are handled on a contingency fee basis. This means there are no upfront costs to have a lawyer investigate your potential claim, and no legal fees or expenses are paid unless a settlement or recovery is obtained.

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

A panel of federal judges has determined that all Dupixent injection lawsuits brought over the risk of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) will be centralized before one U.S. District Judge in New Jersey for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings, as part of a new federal multidistrict litigation (MDL).

Dupixent (dupilumab) is a blockbuster medication sold by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi-Aventis U.S., which was originally approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, commonly known as eczema. However, its approved uses have expanded substantially in recent years, and Dupixent is now prescribed for a number of inflammatory conditions affecting the skin and respiratory system, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, and other conditions involving overactive immune responses.

The medication works by targeting certain immune system pathways involved in inflammation. While promoted as an important treatment option for patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, a series of Dupixent lawsuits are now being filed, alleging that the manufacturers failed to adequately investigate and disclose evidence that the drug may cause, accelerate or mask symptoms of rare T-cell lymphomas.

Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) is a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that primarily affects the skin. Symptoms may resemble eczema or other inflammatory skin conditions, which plaintiffs allege can make the cancer difficult to diagnose in those being treated with Dupixent for atopic dermatitis. Some complaints claim individuals continued receiving Dupixent while their CTCL progressed, because doctors and patients were not adequately warned to monitor for signs that the drug may be worsening or revealing an underlying malignancy.

Since the release of the study, more than a dozen lawsuits over Dupixent T-cell lymphoma side effects have been filed in various U.S. District Courts nationwide. Each claim alleges that the manufacturers failed to provide adequate warning about the cancer risks and also failed to instruct healthcare providers to take appropriate medical monitoring steps while their patients are using Dupixent.

Dupixent Injection Lawsuit MDL

In February, plaintiffs asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to establish a federal Dupixent injection lawsuit MDL in the Northern District of Georgia, so that one judge could oversee discovery and pretrial proceedings. The defendants agreed, indicating both sides believe consolidation would prevent contradictory rulings, duplication of discovery efforts, and serve the convenience of common parties, witnesses and the courts.

However, Regeneron and Sanofi disagreed with plaintiffs over where the cases should be transferred, suggesting that it would be more convenient if the claims were consolidated in the Southern District of New York.

Following oral arguments held late last month, the JPML issued an order (PDF) on June 4, indicating that the Dupixent injection litigation would benefit from consolidation into an MDL, determining that the lawsuits should be centralized before U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi in the District of New Jersey. The panel noted that Sanofi’s principal place of business is in the district’s boundaries, and that Regeneron has corporate offices in New Jersey as well, and its headquarters are nearby in Tarrytown, New York.

“Relevant witnesses and evidence are thus likely to be in or near the District of New Jersey, which is also easily accessible for the parties and witnesses in this nationwide litigation.”

– Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

The panel also addressed a dispute over how broadly the MDL should be defined. Defendants asked the JPML to limit the centralized litigation to lawsuits involving CTCL, excluding claims involving other lymphomas or malignancies. Plaintiffs agreed that the MDL should not include claims involving B-cell lymphoma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma or diseases that are not T-cell lymphomas.

However, they opposed limiting the MDL only to CTCL, arguing that scientific literature also links Dupixent to other T-cell lymphomas, including peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) and anaplastic large cell lymphoma.

For now, the JPML declined to decide whether future non-CTCL T-cell lymphoma claims should be included in the MDL. The panel noted that all lawsuits currently before it involve CTCL or a CTCL subtype, even though some complaints cite literature involving other T-cell lymphoma diagnoses.

If future Dupixent lawsuits are filed over peripheral T-cell lymphoma, anaplastic large cell lymphoma or other non-cutaneous T-cell lymphomas, the JPML indicated those cases can be considered through the conditional transfer process.

As part of the coordinated management of the Dupixent MDL, Judge Quraishi will handle the discovery process, pretrial motions, and is expected to direct the parties to prepare several cases representative of the litigation as a whole to serve as bellwether trials. These early test trials would give the parties a chance to see how juries interpret the evidence and testimony that would be key in claims throughout Dupixent injection lawsuits.

The results of these trials are not binding on other cases, but the outcomes could help the parties form the basis of a Dupixent injection lawsuit settlement agreement.

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

A Louisiana mother has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that cow’s milk-based infant products sold under the Similac and Enfamil brand names caused her premature child to develop a life-threatening gastrointestinal disease.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Merissa Mahan, individually and on behalf of Minor Child W.D., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 3. It names Abbott Laboratories Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Mead Johnson & Company LLC and Mead Johnson Nutrition Company as defendants.

Mahan claims the manufacturers knew for years that premature infants fed cow’s milk-based formulas and fortifiers face a significantly increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) compared to infants receiving an exclusive human milk diet, yet continued to aggressively market the products as safe and beneficial.

Cow’s Milk-Based Formula NEC Risks

Necrotizing enterocolitis is a severe gastrointestinal condition that primarily affects premature and low birth weight infants. The disease causes inflammation and destruction of intestinal tissue, which can lead to bowel perforation, life-threatening infections, the need for emergency surgery and death.

Over the last several years, a growing number of Similac lawsuits and Enfamil lawsuits have been filed against Abbott and Mead Johnson, alleging that the manufacturers failed to warn hospitals and parents that premature infants fed cow’s milk-based formulas and fortifiers face a substantially increased risk of developing NEC.

Across much of the infant formula litigation, plaintiffs claim that cow’s milk based products have been aggressively marketed as safe and beneficial for premature babies despite decades of scientific research linking these products to a higher incidence of NEC, when compared to an exclusive human milk diet.

Enfamil, Similac NEC Allegations

According to the lawsuit, W.D. was born prematurely at Lake Charles Memorial Hospital for Women in Louisiana in November 2017 and was fed cow’s milk-based infant formula while receiving treatment in the neonatal intensive care unit. The complaint alleges the infant developed NEC shortly after receiving the products, resulting in catastrophic injuries.

The filing accuses Abbott and Mead Johnson of marketing Similac and Enfamil as safe, medically endorsed nutrition options for premature infants, while failing to disclose research allegedly linking cow’s milk-based formula to an increased risk of NEC. The companies also allegedly promoted the products to parents and healthcare providers by emphasizing growth and development benefits for premature babies.

Mahan further alleges the manufacturers failed to provide adequate warnings on product labels, failed to recommend that parents be informed of NEC risks before the products were used in NICUs and continued selling the formulas despite the availability of safer human milk-based alternatives.

“As a direct and proximate result of the inadequacy of the warnings and the pervasive marketing campaigns suggesting the safety and necessity of their products, W.D. was fed cow’s milk-based products, which caused W.D. to develop NEC.”

— Merissa Mahan v. Abbott Laboratories Inc. et al.

The lawsuit presents claims of design defect, failure to warn, negligence, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties and violation of the Louisiana Products Liability Act. Mahan seeks compensatory damages for past, present and future emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of consortium and other non-economic losses.

Infant Formula NEC Lawsuits

Due to the growing number of NEC infant formula lawsuits filed by families nationwide, all federal claims have been centralized since April 2022 in a multidistrict litigation, or MDL, before U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer in the Northern District of Illinois. The consolidation is designed to avoid duplicative discovery, inconsistent pretrial rulings and unnecessary delays, since the lawsuits raise similar allegations involving cow’s milk-based formulas and fortifiers sold by Abbott and Mead Johnson.

The litigation now includes hundreds of claims brought by families who allege the manufacturers failed to adequately warn that products like Similac and Enfamil may increase the risk of NEC when given to premature infants. While each lawsuit involves a different child and set of injuries, the cases share common questions about what the companies knew, what warnings were provided to hospitals and parents, and whether safer human milk-based alternatives should have been recommended.

As part of the coordinated proceedings, Judge Pallmeyer has scheduled a series of early bellwether trials to help the parties evaluate how juries may respond to evidence that will likely be repeated throughout the litigation. The first federal bellwether trial is scheduled to begin on July 6, involving claims brought by Alexis Inman. A second bellwether trial is scheduled for August 10, involving a lawsuit filed by Mary Kelton of California.

The outcomes of these early trials will not be binding on other families pursuing NEC lawsuits. However, they will be closely watched by both sides, since the verdicts may help shape future settlement negotiations and determine whether Abbott and Mead Johnson continue defending claims individually or move toward a broader resolution of the litigation.

Infant Formula NEC Verdicts

In addition to the federal litigation, a series of infant formula NEC lawsuits involving Similac products have also been filed in state courts, with several having already gone to trial.

In one of the earliest trials, a Missouri jury awarded nearly $500 million to a family in the summer of 2024. Later that year, a second Missouri case initially resulted in a defense verdict, but the trial judge overturned that outcome after finding that Abbott Laboratories introduced improper evidence and ordered a new trial. More recently, an Illinois state court jury in Cook County awarded four mothers a combined $70 million in damages.

In a separate case involving the Enfamil formula, another Cook County jury returned a $60 million verdict in 2024.

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

A product liability lawsuit filed against Amazon claims that an electric heated blanket sold through the online marketplace erupted in flames while an Ohio man slept, leaving him with severe burns and life-altering injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Douglas Lamb in the Knox County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas on April 29, naming Amazon Fulfillment Services Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on June 2.

Lamb claims Amazon negligently allowed an unverified third-party seller to use its online marketplace to sell a defective heated blanket, exposing himself, and other consumers, to the risk of electrical malfunctions, overheating and fire hazards.

Heated Blanket Recalls

Heated electric blankets are designed with built-in wiring that generates warmth, making them popular during colder months for consumers looking for added comfort or supplemental heat. However, the products can pose serious risks when electrical components are defectively designed, poorly manufactured or lack adequate safety controls.

In recent years, a number of heated blanket recalls have been issued after manufacturers identified defects that may cause the blankets to overheat, creating a risk of burns, fires or other serious injuries.

In November 2023, nearly 30,000 Berkshire Blanket heated throws and blankets were recalled due to a manufacturing defect that could cause the products to overheat and potentially ignite. That same year, about 43,000 Sunbeam heated blankets were recalled after reports that the products were overheating during use.

In June of last year, approximately 8,500 MaxKare electric blankets sold through Walmart were recalled following dozens of reports involving overheating incidents, including fires and burn injuries.

Those safety concerns have also led to product liability lawsuits against manufacturers, retailers and online marketplaces like Amazon, which have been accused of failing to prevent dangerous heated blankets from reaching consumers. In October 2025, a Washington woman claimed a Threshold Heated Throw from Target was defectively designed, reaching temperatures high enough to cause second-degree burns on her toes.

Heated Blanket Fire Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Lamb purchased a CHRUN twin-size electric heated blanket through Amazon’s online marketplace on April 21, 2023. He claims the blanket was used in a normal and intended manner after it was delivered and showed no signs of misuse.

The lawsuit indicates that on January 28, 2025, the blanket suddenly caught fire while Lamb was sleeping, causing fourth-degree burns to his right shoulder and both legs. The complaint states that the severe burn injuries ultimately left him paraplegic.

Lamb claims that the blanket was sold by a third-party seller identified as “CHRUN,” which the lawsuit describes as an unverified and effectively anonymous vendor operating through Amazon’s marketplace. The complaint alleges Amazon failed to adequately investigate the seller, verify the origin and safety of the product, or take reasonable steps to prevent potentially dangerous electrical products from being offered for sale.

The lawsuit argues that Amazon exercised substantial control over the sale of products offered through its marketplace, including approving sellers, managing product listings, processing payments, monitoring customer complaints and, in some instances, storing and shipping products through its fulfillment network. Lamb alleges those activities created a duty to protect consumers from unsafe products sold through the platform.

Lamb claims that Amazon knew or should have known electric heated blankets pose a significant risk of fires and burn injuries if defectively designed or manufactured. Despite those risks, the lawsuit indicates the company allowed the CHRUN heated blanket to remain available for purchase without adequately verifying its safety, compliance history or manufacturing controls.

“Specifically, had Amazon exercised reasonable care in screening sellers, verifying product safety, and preventing the sale of untraceable electrical products, the subject heated blanket would not have been made available for purchase through its platform, and the incident giving rise to this action would not have occurred.”

— Douglas Lamb v. Amazon Fulfillment Services Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence and negligent undertaking. It seeks damages for severe and permanent injuries, pain and suffering, medical expenses and other losses allegedly resulting from the heated blanket fire.

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

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has announced that all Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits brought throughout the federal court system wil be centralized before one judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. However, similar claims brought against other stimulator manufacturers will not be included in the new MDL.

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are widly used medical devices, which are surgically implanted to treat chronic and hard-to-manage pain by sending mild electrical pulses to the spinal cord, where they are intended to interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain.

Boston Scientific is one of the most prominent manufacturers in the spinal cord stimulation market, offering several popular systems including the WaveWriter Alpha, Precision Montage and Spectra WaveWriter models. The devices are advertised for patients with conditions such as failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, chronic low back pain, leg pain, diabetic peripheral neuropathy and other nerve-related pain disorders.

Despite the widespread adoption within the pain management community, serious questions have emerged over the past decade about the safety and long-term reliability of spinal cord stimulators, with tens of thousands of adverse event reports submitted to the FDA, including problems where the devices failed to provide pain relief, caused unnecessary electric shocks or otherwise malfunctioned, often resulting in the need for revision surgery.

In recent months, a growing number of individuals have begun filing spinal cord stimulator lawsuits against Boston Scientific, as well as other leading manufacturers, including Abbott, Medtronic and Nevro.

Each of the claims raises similar allegations that the manufacturers relied on decades-old FDA premarket approvals while continuing to make substantial changes to the design, components and programming of their spinal cord stimulators. Plaintiffs claim those modifications were not adequately tested, and that patients and doctors were not properly warned about the new risks before the devices were implanted.

Many of these complications have allegedly required patients to undergo additional surgery to remove the spinal cord stimulators from their spines, despite them being designed for permanent implantation.

Due to the common questions of fact and law raised in complaints brought throughout the federal court system, a group of plaintiffs filed a motion to establish a spinal cord stimulator MDL (multidistrict litigation) in February 2026, calling for the consolidated management of all current and future claims filed against Boston Scientific and Abbott.

The plaintiffs argued that consolidation is necessary to eliminate the risk of contradictory rulings from different judges and avoid duplication of discovery into common issues, while serving the convenience of the parties, witnesses and the court.

In subsequent filings, some plaintiffs called for the creation of an industry-wide MDL, which would also include lawsuits against Medtronic and Nevro.

Manufacturers of the devices opposed consolidation, arguing that the lawsuits involve different products, different alleged defects and that several cases are already at varying stages of litigation.

Boston Scientific Stimulator Lawsuits Consolidation

Following oral arguments held at the end of May, the JPML issued a transfer order (PDF) on June 5, consolidating the Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. However, the panel determined that claims against Abbott, Medtronic and Nevro will not be included in the MDL.

At the time the original motion was filed, there were at least 10 Boston Scientific stimulator lawsuits and four Abbott stimulator lawsuits. However, the parties notified the Panel that the litigation has grown to include at least 46 related spinal cord stimulator actions pending in 14 federal districts.

By the time the JPML issued its order, there were 23 cases pending against Boston Scientific in nine districts, which the Panel found were similar enough to warrant centralization.

The Panel found that the Boston Scientific lawsuits share common factual questions involving allegations that the company:

• Relied on literature concerning competitors’ devices instead of independent clinical studies
• Used the FDA’s PMA supplement process to introduce substantially modified stimulators without additional testing
• Failed to adequately disclose risks associated with the devices

The JPML also pointed to shared allegations involving Boston Scientific sales representatives, who plaintiffs claim routinely participated in implantation procedures, advised surgical staff on lead positioning and stimulation testing, and helped program device settings. The lawsuits allege that this conduct amounted to the unauthorized practice of medicine, although the Panel acknowledged that the specific interactions may vary from case to case.

The Panel further stated that the FDA has been named as a defendant in more than 30 actions and potential tag-along claims involving spinal cord stimulators. However, the agency took no position on centralization and stated that it was improperly named as a defendant.

The litigation has been centralized before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton, who will preside over coordinated pretrial proceedings and discovery. As the cases move forward, the parties will likely identify a small group of representative claims to prepare for early bellwether trials, which are commonly used in mass tort litigation to help gauge how juries may respond to key evidence and testimony.

While the results of any bellwether trials would not be binding on other plaintiffs, they could play an important role in shaping the litigation. The outcomes may help the parties evaluate the strength of the claims, potential liability and the range of damages juries may award, which could eventually support settlement negotiations aimed at resolving large numbers of cases without the need for dozens of individual trials.

Why Abbott, Nevro and Medtronic Stimulator Lawsuits Were Excluded

Although plaintiffs had sought broader coordination involving multiple spinal cord stimulator manufacturers, the JPML found that an industry-wide MDL was not warranted because the cases did not involve coordinated conduct among the different companies.

“Proponents of an industry-wide MDL have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that creating an MDL with such a wide scope is appropriate here. While plaintiffs allege similar conduct on the part of each manufacturer, they do not allege the manufacturers acted in concert.”

– U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

The Panel explained that each manufacturer has its own line of spinal cord stimulators and a separate regulatory history, which would limit overlap in discovery. It also declined to create an Abbott-only MDL at this stage, finding that the four Abbott cases included in the original motion were all pending in the Northern District of Illinois.

Since Section 1407 centralization requires actions pending in different federal districts, the JPML denied centralization of the Abbott claims, but indicated those lawsuits could still be centralized later if the litigation grows.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Lawyers

As the JPML moves forward with centralizing the Boston Scientific claims, spinal cord stimulator lawyers are pursuing cases for those who received a Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott or Nevro spinal cord stimulator, and suffered any of the following injuries:

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 cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, which means there are no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained in your case.

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

Three Louisiana residents have filed a tabletop fire pit lawsuit claiming they suffered severe burns when bioethanol fuel suddenly erupted in flames as they refilled a fire pit purchased at Walmart.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Reginald Valentine, Karman Valentine and Kelbie Green in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on June 4, naming Walmart Inc. as the sole defendant.

The plaintiffs claim Walmart continued to market and sell ZIB Tabletop Fire Pits despite a federal safety warning that urged retailers to stop selling similar products because of the risk of “flame jetting” explosions.

Tabletop Fire Pit Safety Concerns

Tabletop fire pits have become increasingly popular in recent years as decorative products for patios, backyards and indoor living spaces. Many models use liquid fuels, such as ethanol or isopropyl alcohol, to produce an open flame in a compact, portable design.

However, safety experts have warned that certain liquid-fueled fire pits may present serious burn and fire hazards if they are not properly designed. In some cases, flammable vapors can ignite unexpectedly during refueling, triggering flash fires, flame jetting events or explosions that have resulted in severe tabletop fire pit burn injuries and deaths.

Those concerns have led to a growing number of tabletop fire pit lawsuits being filed in recent months, each raising similar allegations that certain products contain dangerous design defects, fail to comply with applicable safety standards and do not adequately warn consumers about the risks associated with their use.

Fire Pit Explosion Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Karman Valentine purchased the tabletop fire pit from Walmart.com on May 29, 2025. The plaintiffs claim the device was among a category of liquid-burning fire pits that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) had already identified as hazardous because they require users to pour flammable liquid fuel into an open reservoir where it is later ignited.

The alleged incident occurred on June 15, 2025, while Reginald Valentine was adding bioethanol fuel to the fire pit’s reservoir. Plaintiffs claim a flame suddenly traveled out of the fuel container and into the surrounding area, striking Reginald, Karman and Kelbie.

Reginald suffered second-degree burns to his hands and right forearm, while Karman sustained second-degree burns to both forearms. The lawsuit indicates Kelbie suffered the most serious injuries, including second- and third-degree burns to her face, neck, chest and upper extremities, covering approximately 20% to 25% of her body. She continues to suffer facial scarring.

Plaintiffs contend the injuries were caused by a phenomenon known as flame jetting, which can occur when vapors from flammable liquids ignite during refueling, causing a sudden burst of flames to shoot from a container.

“The subject fire pit and its manual are devoid of any description of flame jetting; feature no depiction or illustration of flame jetting; and no warning regarding flame jetting can be found.”

— Reginald Valentine et al. v. Walmart Inc.

The lawsuit leans heavily on a December 2024 CPSC consumer alert that warned consumers and retailers about liquid-burning fire pits that use isopropyl alcohol, ethanol or similar fuels. According to the complaint, the agency warned that the products violate ASTM F3363-19 voluntary safety standards and present risks of both pool fires and flame jetting events.

The CPSC described the products as “extremely dangerous” and urged sellers to stop offering them for sale. The agency also noted that similar products had been associated with at least 60 injuries and two deaths since 2019, according to the complaint.

Plaintiffs allege Walmart ignored those warnings and continued selling the fire pits through its online marketplace months later.

The lawsuit raises allegations of violations of the Louisiana Products Liability Act. It seeks damages for physical injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering, emotional distress, disfigurement and loss of enjoyment of life.

Tabletop Fire Pit Injury Lawsuits

As reports of accidents continue to emerge, attorneys are reviewing claims for tabletop fire pit lawsuits involving consumers who suffered burns and other injuries during incidents involving unexpected flare-ups, flash fires and flame jetting events.

Alleged injuries associated with these products have included:

• Second- and third-degree burn injuries
• Permanent scarring and disfigurement
• Nerve damage and loss of mobility
• Smoke inhalation and respiratory injuries
• Burns affecting children and nearby bystanders
• Fires occurring while fuel was being added to the device
• Fatal injuries resulting from fire pit explosions
• Lost wages and diminished earning capacity
• Ongoing medical treatment, rehabilitation and reconstructive procedures
• Psychological trauma and emotional distress

Individuals who have suffered a tabletop fire pit injury may be eligible to pursue compensation through a product liability lawsuit. Attorneys investigating potential claims can help identify the product involved, determine whether it was subject to safety warnings or recalls, and evaluate available legal remedies.

Lawyers handling tabletop fire pit cases work on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs and attorney fees are only collected if a recovery is obtained.

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

A Nebraska man has filed a wrongful death lawsuit, alleging that the premature failure of a Trifecta GT tissue heart valve caused his wife’s rapid decline into congestive heart failure, ultimately leading to her death after emergency replacement surgery.

The complaint (PDF) was originally brought by Charles R. Warren, individually and as administrator of the estate of his wife, Jean Boletta Warren, in Nebraska District Court late last year. It names Abbott Laboratories Inc. and St. Jude Medical LLC as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska on June 1.

Charles claims the defendants failed to properly monitor post-market safety data, investigate reports of premature valve failures involving the Trifecta GT valve or provide timely warnings to physicians and patients. As a result, he alleges his wife’s device failed prematurely, setting off a chain of events that included heart failure, repeat surgery, postoperative complications and her death.

Trifecta Heart Valve Complications

In 2017, Abbott Laboratories acquired St. Jude Medical, the original manufacturer of the Trifecta Heart Valve. This prosthetic device is used to replace diseased or damaged aortic valves, which regulate the flow of oxygenated blood from the heart to the rest of the body.

The original Trifecta valve received federal approval in 2011, followed by the next-generation Trifecta GT model in 2016.

However, Abbott halted sales and distribution of all Trifecta heart valves in the United States on July 31, 2023, amid growing concerns about premature structural valve deterioration (SVD). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that certain Trifecta devices appeared to experience early valve failure at higher rates than other commercially available bioprosthetic replacement valves.

According to federal regulators, nearly 3,000 adverse event reports involving Trifecta valves were submitted between 2011 and 2023, including more than 2,100 injury reports and at least 191 deaths.

Trifecta Valve Failure Risks

According to the lawsuit, Jean underwent surgical aortic valve replacement at Nebraska Methodist Hospital in Omaha on September 10, 2018, in which she  received a Trifecta GT Tissue Heart Valve. The complaint indicates the device functioned normally following implantation and was expected to provide long-term durability.

However, the lawsuit alleges the valve began to fail approximately five years later, causing severe stenosis and acute congestive heart failure. Warren was hospitalized in December 2023 and underwent urgent repeat aortic valve replacement surgery on December 22, 2023.

Following the procedure, she suffered cardiogenic shock, progressive hypoxia, multi-organ failure and other severe complications before dying on December 26, 2023, at age 78. Prosthetic aortic valve stenosis was identified on her death certificate as part of the chain of events leading to her death.

The lawsuit claims Abbott and St. Jude knew or should have known for years that Trifecta-family heart valves were susceptible to premature structural valve deterioration, or SVD, due to their externally mounted leaflet design.

Warren indicates that post-market data, adverse event reports and published medical literature revealed that some Trifecta valves were failing within three to five years of implantation, far sooner than physicians reasonably expected.

The filing cites a 2025 Cleveland Clinic study that found Trifecta valves demonstrated reduced durability and heightened susceptibility to premature deterioration compared to other surgical bioprosthetic valves. Researchers identified the externally mounted leaflet design as a factor associated with early failure.

“Defendants’ failure to timely translate known early-failure data and identified failure mechanisms into meaningful warnings, labeling updates, and risk-mitigation guidance was a substantial factor in causing Decedent’s injuries and death.”

— Charles R. Warren v. Abbott Laboratories Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, failure to warn, manufacturing defect and breach of warranty. It seeks to recover all damages available under Nebraska’s survival statute, as well as wrongful death and other damages.

Trifecta Heart Valve Lawsuits

Following the withdrawal of Trifecta and Trifecta GT heart valves from the U.S. market, attorneys have been reviewing potential Trifecta heart valve lawsuits on behalf of patients who experienced premature valve failure, required revision or replacement procedures, suffered serious injuries, or lost a loved one after receiving one of the devices.

Individuals who believe they were harmed by an early Trifecta valve failure may qualify to seek compensation through a product liability lawsuit. Case evaluations are available at no cost, and attorneys’ fees are only collected if compensation is recovered on the claimant’s behalf.

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

An Illinois woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging she suffered severe burn injuries that required skin grafts and hospitalization, after a defective NuWave Nutri-Pot pressure cooker opened while still pressurized, causing the scalding hot contents to spew all over her body.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Tanieka Manoloff in the U.S. District Court of Illinois on June 4, naming NuWave LLC as the defendant.

The NuWave Nutri-Pot Digital Pressure Cooker is a consumer kitchen appliance that uses high pressure to rapidly cook food. Like many other modern electronic pressure cookers, it is designed with a lid safety system that is intended to prevent the cooker from being opened while the contents remain under pressure.

When a pressure cooker lid opens before internal pressure has been released, superheated steam, liquid and food can erupt from the pot with tremendous force. Users standing near the appliance may have little time to react, often suffering burns to their face, arms, chest or other exposed areas.

Amid hundreds of reports involving severe burns suffered by consumers nationwide, a growing number of pressure cooker lawsuits have been filed in recent years, each involving similar allegations that design defects caused the lid safety feature to fail.

Pressure Cooker Burn Injury Allegations

According to Manoloff’s lawsuit, she was using her NuWave pressure cooker on September 7, 2025, when she was able to open the lid without any indication that the device was still under pressure.

The complaint indicates the lid’s Sure-Lock Safety System feature failed due to a design defect. As a result, she suffered severe second- and third-degree burns to her torso and breast, which required extensive medical treatment, hospitalization and surgical intervention, including a skin graft procedure.

Manoloff states that NuWave aggressively markets the pressure cooker for its safety features, and claims the lid cannot be opened while in use or while there is built up pressure in the device.

She goes on to claim the company knew or should have known about the design defect, yet continued to sell the product and failed to warn consumers or issue a Nutri-Pot recall. Instead, the defective Sure-Lock Safety System allowed the pressure cooker to be opened and spew scalding contents onto users.

The filing also alleges NuWave failed to redesign the pressure cooker and failed to properly test it despite claiming “safety is a core value” of the company.

“Defendant 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.”

— Tanieka Manoloff v. NuWave LLC

The complaint raises allegations of strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Manoloff is seeking compensation for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement and loss of enjoyment of life.

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

A Tennessee woman has filed a lawsuit against Pfizer and other drug makers, indicating that she was left with permanent injuries after receiving Depo-Provera birth control injections, which resulted in the development of a pituitary meningioma that required her to undergo brain surgery to remove the tumor.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Maryann Turk in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on June 1. It names Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, and Pharmacia LLC as the defendants.

Turk claims that scientific studies established a link between the ingredients and hormones in Depo-Provera and brain tumor development years before the injections reached the market. She goes on to allege that while she and other recipients of the shots did not know that, Pfizer did.

Depo-Provera Brain Tumors

Depo-Provera is a hormonal birth control injection containing medroxyprogesterone acetate, a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone. Approved in 1992, it was originally developed by Pfizer before being released by other drug manufacturers in generic form. The injections are supposed to work by inhibiting ovulation, thickening cervical mucus to block sperm, thinning the uterine lining to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, and thus preventing pregnancy.

The injections are administered to recipients four times a year and have been used by tens of millions of women worldwide.

However, The BMJ published a French study in March 2024, which found that women receiving Depo-Provera injections faced a more than five-fold increased risk of intracranial meningioma, a form of brain tumor that can grow when exposed to certain hormones commonly used in birth control products.

That study, and others, have sparked a wave of Depo-Provera meningioma lawsuits from women across the United States. Each complaint indicates Pfizer and other drug makers failed to provide adequate warnings about the injections’ brain tumor risks, which can cause severe cognitive problems as well as other adverse health conditions, some of which can become life threatening.

Depo-Provera Meningioma Side Effect Allegations

Turk indicates her lawsuit that Depo-Provera injections were first administered for the purpose of birth control in 1995, and she continued to receive the Depo shots regularly until 2000.

In July 2025, a CT scan revealed Turk was suffering from a pituitary meningioma, which is a form of brain tumor that develops adjacent to the pituitary gland and optic nerves. She underwent extensive brain surgery in January 2026 to remove it.

Following the surgery and recovery period, Turk continued suffering from debilitating migraines, loss of her sense of smell and cognitive impairment. These problems could potentially persist for the rest of her life, she claims.

The complaint indicates that adequate warning could have led to the choice of another form of contraception, or at least allowed her doctors to diagnosis the meningioma earlier if they had been told about the importance of monitoring for brain tumors. Instead, the lawsuit claims manufacturers chose profits over patient safety and downplayed the risks.

“Furthermore, despite studies being published over the course of decades, providing evidence of the meningioma-related risks and dangers of progesterone and progestins specifically Depo-Provera, Defendants have failed to adequately investigate the threat Depo-Provera poses to patients’ well-being or warn the medical community and patients of the risk of intracranial meningioma and sequelae related thereto.”

– Maryann Turk v. Pfizer Inc. et al.

Turk presents claims of failure to warn, design defect, negligence, negligent failure to warn, negligent design defect, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of warranty. She seeks compensatory damages for physical pain and mental suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, medical and incidental expenses, and loss of earnings and earning capacity.

Depo-Provera Meningioma Lawsuits

Pfizer faces more than 6,000 lawsuits over meningioma from Depo-Provera in federal and state courts nationwide. Turk’s complaint will be consolidated with all other federally filed Depo-Provera lawsuits in the Northern District of Florida, before U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers, who is overseeing coordinated discovery, pretrial proceedings and preparations for early bellwether test trials.

Judge Rodgers previously ordered the parties to prepare five “pilot” cases for these early trials, which are designed to give participants a chance to see how juries will interpret testimony and evidence in cases that represent the majority of circumstances throughout the litigation.

The first Depo-Provera bellwether trial is currently scheduled to begin on December 7, with additional trials slated for 2027. While the outcomes of these trials are not binding on other women pursuing claims, they will be closely watched since the juries’ determinations could play a significant role in any potential Depo-Provera settlement negotiations.

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

The plaintiff in the very first Bard PowerPort lawsuit bellwether trial is asking the U.S. District Judge presiding over the consolidated litigation to grant him a new trial, arguing that the jury was given improper instructions that led to the defense verdict.

C.R. Bard and Becton Dickinson’s PowerPort is a port catheter, consisting of a small injection port implanted below the skin, and a polyurethane catheter. The device is commonly used for patients who need regular drug or fluid infusions, such as chemotherapy patients, allowing treatment to be delivered without a new needle stick each time.

However, numerous reports in recent years have claimed that the devices are prone to complications involving infections, fractures, failures and migration, allegedly linked to defects in the design and materials used in the implants.

Those allegations have led to more than 3,000 Bard PowerPort lawsuits being brought nationwide. The filings contend that the manufacturers marketed the port catheters as safe and effective despite knowing they were prone to failure. 

These claims also indicate that the companies did not correct the design or adequately warn patients and physicians about risks such as pulmonary embolism, blood clots, infections and the need for surgical removal of failed implants.

Questions of common facts and law shared throughout the litigation led to all federal Bard PowerPort lawsuits being consolidated nearly three years ago in the District of Arizona, where U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell has led the litigation through coordinated discovery, pretrial proceedings and preparation of six representative cases to serve as early test trials.

A lawsuit brought by Robert Cook, of Minnesota, was chosen to be the first of these bellwether trials, which are designed to give the parties a chance to see how juries weigh the evidence and arguments that would likely be shared throughout the litigation. These types of trials are intended to help the parties work out potential settlement agreements that would resolve the litigation, instead of having thousands of expensive and time-consuming trials flood the federal court system.

Following the trial of Cook’s claim, an Arizona jury returned a verdict in early May in Bard’s favor, determining that the manufacturers were not liable for failing to warn about potential PowerPort risks. However, the jury was deadlocked on whether the port catheter was defectively designed.

On June 3, Cook filed a motion for a mistrial (PDF), seeking a new trial and a judgment as a matter of law. The motion argues that the defense verdict and deadlocked jury were due to faulty instructions.

“Plaintiff seeks a new trial on all four claims because the Court coerced a verdict by instructing the jury that unanimity was not required and failing to correct the jury’s misimpression that deliberations had a deadline. Moreover, the instruction permitting a partial verdict was premature and legally incorrect.”

– Robert Cook v. Becton, Dickinson and Company et al., Motion for mistrial

The motion points out that the jury was told that the trial would end by May 8, pressuring them to turn over a verdict. It also notes that Cook’s attorneys objected to the instructions on design defect, failure to warn or instruct, and superseding cause.

Cook notes the jury deliberated for only 11 hours, turning in a partial verdict. During deliberations, the jury had to repeatedly ask for clarification on those same issues, which the motion claims supports the claim the instructions were inadequate.

Port Catheter Lawsuit Bellwether Trials

Currently, the second Bard PowerPort lawsuit bellwether trial is scheduled to begin on August 18, involving claims by Kimberly Divelbliss. Additional trials are scheduled to begin on October 13, December 1, and February 2, 2027.

Additionally, more than 300 similar Angiodynamics port catheter lawsuits claim that the company’s series of port catheters, including the SmartPort, Vortex Port and Xcela Port, suffer from the same design problems. These claims are consolidated in a separate MDL before U.S. Judge Jinsook Ohta in the Southern District of California, where she is also expected to begin a bellwether process.

In both litigations, if the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings end without a settlement agreement or other resolution, the judges would likely begin remanding the cases back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

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

A Wisconsin woman has filed a hip replacement lawsuit, alleging that a Smith & Nephew metal-on-metal implant system caused toxic debris to accumulate in her body, resulting in a diagnosis of “dusky metal disease” and failure of the hip replacement that required revision surgery.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Cheryl A. Miller in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on May 28, naming Smith & Nephew Inc. as the sole defendant. 

Miller claims Smith & Nephew marketed and promoted an unapproved metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (THA) system for years, despite mounting evidence that similar implants were linked to elevated failure rates, metal toxicity and severe tissue damage.

Hip Replacement Device Concerns

For decades, concerns have surrounded metal joint replacement devices, particularly metal-on-metal hip implants, which can release cobalt, chromium and other metal ions into the body as components wear against one another. The resulting buildup of metal debris, a condition known as metallosis, has been associated with serious complications, including soft tissue destruction, pseudotumors and other adverse health effects.

Federal regulators began scrutinizing these risks more than a decade ago. In May 2011, the FDA directed manufacturers of metal-on-metal hip implants to conduct additional studies on the release of metal particles and their potential health consequences. The following year, the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) advised recipients of metal-on-metal hip implants to undergo annual blood testing to monitor for elevated metal ion levels and signs of metallosis.

Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Failure Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Miller received a Smith & Nephew cobalt-chrome femoral head, Synergy femoral stem and modular neck sleeve during a left hip replacement procedure performed in December 2011 at Aurora Medical Center in Grafton, Wisconsin.

More than a decade after receiving the implant, Miller allegedly began suffering complications that required revision surgery on November 19, 2024. According to the complaint, orthopedic surgeon Dr. Jesse Bauwens documented “dusky metal disease,” trunnionosis, wear of the trunnion sleeve and elevated cobalt and chromium levels in Miller’s hip joint.

The lawsuit claims those findings were caused by the failure of the implant system, which allegedly generated microscopic metal debris as its components rubbed against one another inside her body. The complaint alleges the resulting cobalt and chromium particles entered Miller’s bloodstream and surrounding tissue, causing inflammation, tissue destruction and an adverse local tissue reaction that led to device failure.

Smith & Nephew’s modular femoral head system allegedly suffered from the same design problems that plagued other metal-on-metal hip implants, including devices manufactured by DePuy, Zimmer Biomet and Wright Medical, many of which were later recalled or removed from the market.

The complaint alleges metal wear debris generated by these implants is biologically reactive and toxic to human tissue, causing cell death, inflammation and premature implant failure. It further claims Smith & Nephew knew about concerns involving metal-on-metal hip systems for years but continued promoting the products without adequately warning physicians or patients about the risks.

“Had she known that the THA device carried a risk of metal toxicity, Plaintiff would have elected to have a total hip system with traditional materials such as ceramic or polyethylene implanted in [her] body.”

— Cheryl A. Miller v. Smith & Nephew Inc.

Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacement Device Warning Claims

The lawsuit further alleges Smith & Nephew repeatedly failed to obtain FDA approval for use of the modular femoral head as part of a metal-on-metal total hip replacement system, yet continued marketing the device for that purpose. The company is accused of withholding information about failure rates, metal toxicity risks and concerns raised by regulators and joint replacement registries in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom.

As early as 2012, foreign health authorities allegedly warned that certain Smith & Nephew metal-on-metal hip systems were associated with higher-than-expected revision rates and should no longer be recommended for total hip replacement surgery.

The filing also points to a series of FDA communications issued between 2011 and 2013 warning that metal-on-metal hip implants can release metal particles that damage bone and soft tissue, loosen implants and increase the likelihood of revision surgery.

Miller raises allegations of defective manufacturing, defective design, defective warning, defective due to nonconformity with representation and strict liability. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages for injuries allegedly caused by the failed implant, including pain, suffering, medical expenses and the need for revision surgery.

Hip Implant Lawsuits

As Miller’s complaint indicates, metal-on-metal hip replacement system recalls have resulted in widespread safety concerns over the past two decades, with patients reporting premature failures, metallosis and other serious complications.

In addition, researchers and regulators have examined whether metal debris released by these implants may contribute to the formation of pseudotumors and other long-term health risks.

Many of these concerns have led to large-scale product liability litigation. Nearly 12,000 DePuy ASR hip implant lawsuits were filed after those devices were withdrawn from the market in 2010. The manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, later agreed to pay more than $2 billion to resolve the claims.

Similar allegations have also been raised in litigation involving other metal-on-metal hip systems, including the DePuy Pinnacle, Biomet Magnum and other implants.

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

Merck & Co. has reached an agreement to pay $50 million to settle hundreds of Gardasil lawsuits, which raise allegations that the controversial HPV vaccine’s side effects left young adults with serious neurological and other adverse health problems.

The Gardasil settlement was reported by Bloomberg News on June 4, indicating that the deal was confirmed in an emailed statement from Merck officials. Following years of litigation, Merck claims that the payouts should resolve all lawsuits over the HPV vaccine, except for one remaining case.

First introduced in 2006, Gardasil is a widely used vaccine administered to young girls and boys for the prevention of human papillomavirus, or HPV, infections, which can cause cervical cancer and other forms of cancer. HPV is sexually transmitted, and the vaccine has been promoted as an important tool for preventing HPV-related cancers later in life.

Despite the company’s claims that the vaccine is safe, Gardasil side effect lawsuits have been filed over postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), premature ovarian insufficiency (POI), premature menopause, seizures and other autoimmune disorders, which allegedly emerged shortly after patients received the injections. These allegations resulted in hundreds of claims being filed nationwide by former Gardasil recipients and their families.

All claims filed in federal court involving the vaccine’s alleged side effects have been consolidated in the Western District of North Carolina since August 2022, where U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell presided over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The litigation was originally expected to include a series of bellwether trials, which were designed to test the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ evidence before actual juries and help guide potential settlement negotiations.

However, as the bellwether trials were being prepared, Merck filed a motion for summary judgment in early March 2025, asking the court to dismiss many of the claims before trial. Judge Bell agreed that the Gardasil manufacturer should be immune from state law-based failure to warn claims involving POTS and POI injuries, which made up the majority of claims in the litigation, determining that those claims were preempted by federal law.

The ruling effectively removed many of the central claims from the Gardasil MDL, finding that plaintiffs could not pursue warning-based allegations under state law because the claims conflicted with the federal regulatory framework governing vaccine labeling. Last July, the plaintiffs whose cases were dismissed filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, but the appeals court rejected the motion in September.

According to Bloomberg’s report, the dismissed POTS and POI cases will be included in the $50 million Gardasil settlement, which will address more than 200 total claims. The manufacturer first reported a potential settlement in its annual earnings report in February, indicating at the time that the deal would only be finalized if enough Gardasil plaintiffs approved the agreement.

Merck indicates the agreement is not a confession of liability, stating that the settlement is significantly cheaper than continuing to defend every lawsuit in court. The company has maintained that Gardasil remains safe and effective, and that it stands behind the vaccine’s safety profile.

A Georgia couple has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a defective 2017 Land Rover Range Rover spontaneously caught fire while parked, destroying their home and causing injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Samuel Brett Mitchell and Joy Mitchell in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia on May 29. It names Jaguar Land Rover Limited, Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC, Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC, and Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Limited as the defendants. 

The Mitchells claim the Range Rover contained a defective Infotainment Master Controller (IMC), which is a module that manages touchscreen and connectivity features in the vehicle.

Vehicle Fire Risks

In recent years, multiple recalls and lawsuits have linked vehicle fires to serious property damage and injuries.

At least two vehicle recalls have been issued over the past year, involving defects that could potentially cause fires. In January 2026, more than 120,000 Ford vehicles were recalled, following at least 50 reported fires. In addition, more than 320,000 Jeep Wrangler and Grand Cherokee SUVs were recalled in November 2025, after at least 19 fires were linked to battery defects.

Tesla has also been named in separate lawsuits. In one such case brought late last month, a woman alleged her Tesla vehicle suddenly caught fire while she was driving, causing a crash that left her and her passengers with serious and permanent injuries.

Range Rover Fire Allegations

In their lawsuit, the Mitchells allege that on December 24, 2024, their 2017 Land Rover Range Rover was parked in the carport connected to their house when it suddenly and without warning caught fire. The fire spread rapidly to the home while they and their children were inside.

The complaint indicates the Mitchells had parked the Range Rover in the attached carport after it was last driven on December 22, 2024. After noticing smoke coming from the driver’s side of the vehicle, Samuel indicates that he attempted to extinguish the fire with a garden hose. However, the flames quickly spread from the SUV to the home.

The lawsuit says firefighters battled the blaze for more than seven hours, yet the fire ultimately destroyed a home that was under contract to be sold for $5.75 million, along with more than $1.28 million in personal property.

According to the filing, one child suffered head trauma after running into a door while fleeing the home, another fell down a flight of stairs and sustained head and neck injuries, and another fell in a stairway and injured a knee. Samuel allegedly suffered superficial facial burns. The complaint claims all family members suffered psychological trauma from the incident.

A subsequent engineering investigation allegedly traced the origin of the fire to the Infotainment Master Controller (IMC) beneath the driver’s seat, where evidence indicated overheating was caused by a malfunction in the module or the vehicle’s quiescent current system.

“Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages were directly and proximately caused by the defective condition of the Vehicle and/or its component parts, systems, and assemblies when it was sold to Plaintiffs and not by any subsequent alteration, misuse, or unforeseeable abuse of the product by Plaintiffs.”

— Samuel Brett Mitchell et al. v. Jaguar Land Rover Limited et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict products liability, negligence and breach of warranty. It seeks damages, along with pre and post judgment interest, costs and expenses and any other relief the court deems appropriate.

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

A Louisiana woman has filed a lawsuit indicating that five years of Dupixent injections are responsible for the development of a rare form of cancer that has transformed her life.

Gabrielle Jackson brought the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 27. It names Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC as the defendants.

According to Jackson, the side effects of Dupixent led to a form of T-cell lymphoma known as cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), which is a subtype of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Dupixent Injection Cancer Risks

Originally approved in 2017, Dupixent (dupilumab) was designed to treat moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, commonly known as eczema. The label has since been greatly expanded, approving Dupixent for the treatment of asthma, chronic sinus inflammation, eosinophilic esophagitis and other conditions. It has become one of the world’s best-selling prescription drugs.

Despite being marketed as safe and effective, a growing number of reports have linked Dupixent side effects with rare T-cell lymphomas like CTCL and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), both of which can impact the immune system.

Jackson’s complaint is one of an increasing number of Dupixent injection lawsuits being pursued by individuals nationwide. Plaintiffs claim that the manufacturers knew, or should have known, that the side effects of Dupixent could cause, or exacerbate, T-cell lymphoma, yet failed to provide the medical community or patients with adequate warnings.

Dupixent CTCL Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Jackson began using Dupixent after suffering from a rash that led to her receiving an eczema diagnosis. She received Dupixent injections for five years, before being diagnosed with CTCL in 2022.

To fight her cancer, Jackson has undergone total body skin radiation and chemotherapy treatments, which she says could have been avoided if the drug makers had provided sufficient warnings about the potential cancer risks.

Instead, the lawsuit argues that the defendants intentionally misrepresented both the safety and effectiveness of Dupixent injections, despite reports that should have raised serious concerns.

“Defendants knew or should have known that Dupixent, when taken as prescribed and intended, causes and/or exacerbates T-cell lymphoma, including CTCL. Numerous case reports and scientific studies have established that Dupixent causes T-cell lymphoma, including CTCL, and/or accelerates its progression.”

– Gabrielle Jackson v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.

Jackson presents claims of failure to warn, negligence and breach of express warranty. She seeks compensatory damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of earnings, mental anguish and emotional distress.

Dupixent Injection Lawsuits

The complaint comes as a panel of federal judges considers a motion by other plaintiffs who are seeking to consolidate all federal Dupixent injection lawsuits before one U.S. District Judge for pretrial proceedings and coordinated discovery. The manufacturers have opposed the motion.

Last week, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) heard oral arguments over Dupixent lawsuit consolidation, and is still weighing a decision at the present time. If the panel agrees to centralize the litigation, a federal judge would likely be assigned to oversee the coordinated proceedings and organize a series of early bellwether trials involving representative cases.

The trials are expected to help the parties evaluate how juries may respond to evidence and testimony that will likely be repeated throughout the litigation. While the outcomes would not be binding on other cases, they may provide a framework for negotiating potential Dupixent injection settlements.

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

A New Jersey cosmetologist is pursuing a hair dye lawsuit claiming that decades of exposure to toxic chemicals in L’Oreal, Redken, Clairol and other products led to the development of bladder cancer.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Leonardo Rocco in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on May 29. It was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by the defendants, which include Wella Operations US LLC, L’Oreal USA Inc., L’Oreal USA Products Inc., Joico, Clairol, Henkel Corporation and Henkel AG & Co. KGaA.

According to the complaint, Rocco began working as a cosmetologist in 1998 and has worked at several hair salons throughout New Jersey for nearly 30 years. However, the link between hair dye exposure and the risk of bladder cancer has only come to public attention in the last couple years.

Approximately 83,000 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with bladder cancer every year, and about 16,000 die from the malignancy.

Hair Dye Cancer Risks

Concerns over the safety of hair dye products began to arise following recent studies that raised long-term exposure cancer risks. One large meta-analysis of dozens of occupational studies found that hair dressers and salon workers faced a 30% higher overall risk of bladder cancer, which increased to 70% higher for hairdressers who have worked in the field for a decade or more.

Rocco’s claims join those of other cosmetologists who have filed hair dye bladder cancer lawsuits, each alleging that manufacturers knew, or should have known, that the chemicals in their hair dye products could cause bladder cancer with long-term exposure, yet failed to warn cosmetologists and salon workers to take proper precautions.

Hair Dye Cancer Allegations

According to his complaint, Rocco worked with hair dye products including Wella Color Grey, Majirel, Matrix – So Color, Miss Clairol and Igora Royal for years, yet he was unaware he was being exposed to potentially cancer-causing chemicals. Rocco indicates that if he had known about the risks he would have either used different products or taken proper precautions.

In June 2023, Rocco was diagnosed with bladder cancer, which the lawsuit argues was caused by the unreasonable formulations of the hair dye products.

“Specifically, as a result of Plaintiff’s repeated, prolonged use of the products described above, Plaintiff was unknowingly exposed to carcinogenic compounds, including, but not limited to, 4-Aminobiphenyl and Ortho Toluidine. Plaintiff was repeatedly exposed to 4- Aminobiphenyl and Ortho Toluidine as a direct and proximate result of his use of the products described above.”

– Leonard Rocco v. Wella Operations US LLC et al.

Rocco alleges cosmetologists were never warned about the cancer risks, even though manufacturers knew, or should have known, about the dangers since at least 1975, when a study found that “nearly 90% of commercially available hair dyes were mutagenic indicating a potential to cause DNA damage which could lead to cancer development.”

At the time, manufacturers claimed they had taken the carcinogenic ingredients out of their products. However, studies conducted since then have found that many of the cancer-causing chemicals are still there.

Rocco’s lawsuit presents claims of failure to warn, design defect, negligent failure to warn, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and violation of consumer protection statutes. He seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Hair Dye Bladder Cancer Lawsuits

Individuals like Rocco who have been diagnosed with bladder cancer after years of working with permanent hair dye chemicals may be eligible to pursue financial compensation for medical expenses, lost wages and other damages.

Hair dye bladder cancer lawyers are currently reviewing similar claims nationwide for individuals who were routinely exposed to chemicals in permanent hair dyes while working in salons or other professional settings, particularly among those working as:

• Hairdressers
• Cosmetologists
• Hair stylists
• Hair colorists
• Hair technicians
• Other salon professionals who regularly handle hair dye products

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

A Mississippi family has filed a video game addiction lawsuit alleging a 12-year-old boy suffered neurological and psychological harm after becoming addicted to Roblox, Fortnite and Minecraft.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by A.H., a minor, through his parent and legal guardian, Bridgette Williams, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 27. It names Roblox Corporation, Epic Games, Microsoft Corporation and Mojang AB as defendants.

A.H. and his mother claim those companies’ games were intentionally designed to keep children playing through the use of manipulative behavioral conditioning systems.

Internet Gaming Disorder Concerns

Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) is characterized by compulsive and excessive video game use that begins to interfere with everyday life, personal interests and important responsibilities. The condition has been formally recognized as a mental health disorder in both the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Symptoms commonly associated with IGD include difficulty controlling the amount of time spent gaming, obsessive focus on video games, loss of interest in other activities, hiding gaming habits from family or friends and continuing to play despite negative consequences. The disorder can affect nearly every aspect of a person’s life, contributing to academic struggles, social isolation, damaged relationships and problems maintaining employment or progressing toward independence in adulthood.

As concerns grow that popular games are intentionally designed to maximize engagement among young users, a rising number of families are filing video game addiction lawsuits. The claims allege companies behind titles such as Roblox, Fortnite and Minecraft prioritized profits and user retention over the mental health and safety of children and teenagers.

Video Game Addiction Allegations

According to the complaint, A.H. began playing Roblox, Minecraft and Fortnite in 2021, when he was 8 years old, and quickly developed a compulsive relationship with the games.

The lawsuit indicates the child often played for extended periods, exceeding 10 hours per day, becoming unable to stop using the products despite suffering serious emotional and behavioral consequences.

Plaintiffs allege the games’ reward systems, randomized challenges, feedback loops and social interaction features were specifically designed to encourage continuous play and reinforce addictive behavior patterns.

As a result of the alleged addiction, the lawsuit claims A.H. developed “gamer’s rage,” behavioral issues at school, nightmares, anxiety, depression, diminished social interaction and suicidal ideation.

The complaint further alleges that in 2025 the child took a knife from the kitchen and threatened to harm himself after the games were taken away from him.

According to the lawsuit, A.H. currently continues to play the games for approximately six hours per day on school days and up to 10 hours per day on weekends, despite receiving therapy from a mental health provider.

The family maintains they were unaware the games allegedly used behavioral modification techniques designed to encourage compulsive use and did not know those features could cause long-term neurological and psychological harm.

“Each Defendant enlisted licensed psychologists and psychiatrists to incorporate the Cognitive Behavior Therapy technique of operant conditioning into its video game products, thereby exposing minor children to psychological techniques without adequate warning, contrary to the standards applicable to those licensed mental health professionals that require informed consent.”

— A.H. v. Roblox Corporation et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict product liability, design defect, failure to warn, negligence, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and fraud. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages for alleged physical, neurological, psychological and emotional injuries linked to the child’s compulsive gaming behavior.

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

Federal regulators have issued an early alert for certain Abiomed catheter introducer kits used with Impella heart pumps, after reports of blood clot formation led to at least three serious injuries.

A catheter introducer kit is a medical device used to create and maintain access to a blood vessel so that a catheter or other device can be inserted into the body. The affected Abiomed introducer kits are specifically designed to introduce the Impella heart pump into a patient’s left ventricle.

Impella heart pumps are small catheter-based heart pumps that are used to maintain blood flow in patients suffering cardiogenic shock or undergoing certain high-risk cardiac procedures. However, the devices have been linked to a series of problems in recent years, which have been blamed for causing multiple patient injuries and deaths.

In the affected catheter introducer kits for Impella devices, clots may form within the introducer sheath during prolonged use, potentially disrupting blood flow. If a clot becomes dislodged, it can block blood vessels and cause ischemia.

Ischemia occurs when the blood supply is restricted to a part of the body, depriving tissues of oxygen and nutrients. It requires urgent medical intervention, and in rare cases may result in permanent injury if not promptly corrected.

Impella Catheter Introducer Kit Alert

Customers affected by the recall were notified by letter on May 22 and instructed to review their inventory for impacted kits, quarantine those products for return to Sedgwick, and notify anyone who manages, transports or stores the compromised devices.

The FDA is advising providers not to use the following products:

• 14 Fr x 13 cm Low Profile Introducer Kit for Impella CP, product code 1000434, UDI 00813502012996 
• 14 Fr x 25 cm Low Profile Introducer Kit for Impella CP, product code 1000435, UDI 00813502013009 
• Impella CP Set with SmartAssist (10th Generation), product code 1000413, UDI 00813502013566 

Consumers in the U.S. who have experienced adverse reactions, quality issues, or have questions about the recall may contact Abiomed at OneMD-Field-Actions@its.jnj.com.

Adverse reactions or quality problems can also be reported to the FDA’s safety information and adverse event reporting program, MedWatch.

Impella Heart Pump Recalls

The new warning over catheter introducer kits for Impella heart pumps adds to a growing number of FDA recalls and safety communications involving the Abiomed systems. These alerts have repeatedly raised concerns about device failures that may interrupt treatment or cause a sudden loss of circulatory support.

Federal regulators issued a warning last week involving certain Impella CP Sets with SmartAssist, following at least three reports of device failures as a linked to low purge pressure events that resulted in at least one death.

The prior week, Abiomed also warned that a software defect affecting Automated Impella Controllers (AICs) could cause the devices to unexpectedly reboot during use, potentially disrupting blood flow support for critically ill patients. The FDA indicated that the problem had already been linked to two serious injuries and one death.

In 2023, a recall involving Impella 5.5 with SmartAssist devices warned that purge fluid leaks could increase the risk of pump malfunctions, heart valve damage and other serious complications, with regulators citing at least 179 adverse event reports.

That same year, the FDA issued a Class I recall for Impella Left Sided Blood Pumps after receiving reports linking the devices to perforations of the heart wall, a problem associated with at least 129 injuries and 49 deaths.

Federal regulators also announced a Class I recall for Impella RP Flex catheter systems in June 2023, warning that inadequate instructions regarding blood clot risks could expose patients to severe or potentially fatal complications. At the time, the FDA said the issue had been tied to at least 12 reported injuries.

Impella Heart Pump Lawsuits

Impella heart pump lawyers are investigating potential Impella heart pump lawsuits on behalf of patients and families affected by severe complications allegedly associated with the devices, including:

Individuals who experienced serious injuries or lost a loved one following treatment with an Impella heart pump may be eligible to pursue compensation through a product liability lawsuit. Case evaluations are free and confidential, and no legal fees are charged unless compensation is recovered.

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

A Nevada woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that defects with an AngioDynamics Xcela port catheter caused thrombosis in her jugular vein, requiring removal of the implanted vascular access device.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Victoria Whiteford in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 21, naming AngioDynamics Inc., Navilyst Medical Inc. and PFM Medical Inc. as defendants.

Whiteford claims she received an Xcela Power Injectable port catheter in March 2018 for long-term intravenous access during medical treatment. However, little more than a year later, she developed swelling and clotting in her neck, with imaging studies revealing thrombosis in her right internal jugular vein, which she alleges was caused by the device.

Port Catheter Thrombosis Risks

Implantable port catheter systems are medical devices designed to provide long-term vascular access for patients requiring repeated infusions of medications, fluids, nutrition or blood products. The systems typically consist of a port implanted beneath the skin and a catheter inserted into a major blood vessel.

The AngioDynamics Xcela catheter was manufactured with a polyurethane material combined with barium sulfate, which was intended to make the device visible on imaging scans. However, a series of port catheter lawsuits allege the barium sulfate particles can weaken the structural integrity of the devices over time, creating pits, fissures and cracks on the surface.

Those defects could increase the risk of thrombosis, infections, biofilm buildup and other serious complications by allowing fibrinous blood products to collect on the degraded catheter surface.

As a result, hundreds of AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits are now being pursued by patients nationwide, each involving similar allegations that the manufacturers were aware for years that the devices were associated with serious failure risks, yet continued marketing the products as safe and effective without adequately warning physicians or patients about the potential dangers.

Xcela Port Catheter Failure Allegations

According to the complaint, Whiteford underwent implantation of the Xcela catheter on March 9, 2018, at MountainView Hospital in Las Vegas for long-term IV access.

The lawsuit alleges that on May 1, 2019, Whiteford returned to the hospital with complaints of swelling and clotting in the right side of her neck. An ultrasound allegedly confirmed thrombosis in the right internal jugular vein, leading physicians to remove the Xcela port two days later.

Whiteford claims the manufacturers knew for years that Xcela devices were linked to increased reports of thrombosis, infections, catheter fractures and migration problems, yet continued to market the products as safe and effective while failing to warn doctors or patients about the potential for complications.

The filing further claims the manufacturers concealed reports of device failures submitted through the FDA’s Alternative Summary Reporting program, which allegedly prevented physicians and patients from learning about the true scope of complications associated with the port catheter systems.

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

— Victoria Whiteford v. AngioDynamics Inc. et al.

The complaint raises allegations of negligence, strict product liability, failure to warn, design defect, breach of implied and express warranties, fraudulent concealment and violations of Nevada deceptive trade practices laws. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages for physical injuries, pain and suffering, medical expenses and other losses allegedly caused by the device.

Port Catheter Lawsuits

Whiteford’s lawsuit will move forward as part of an AngioDynamics port catheter multidistrict litigation (MDL), which is centralized in the Southern District of California before U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings involving similar claims filed throughout the federal court system.

As part of the MDL, the court is expected to establish a bellwether process involving a small group of representative lawsuits selected for early trial dates. Those cases are intended to help the parties assess how juries may respond to evidence and legal arguments expected to recur throughout the litigation.

Similar allegations have been raised in thousands of Bard PowerPort lawsuits consolidated in the District of Arizona, where more than 3,000 plaintiffs claim C.R. Bard and parent company Becton, Dickinson and Company sold implantable port devices made with barium sulfate that were prone to fracture, thrombosis and other serious complications. 

Earlier this month, the first Bard PowerPort bellwether trial ended with a defense verdict after jurors found the manufacturers were not liable for failure-to-warn claims or alleged consumer fraud violations. However, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision on whether the PowerPort devices were defectively designed or whether the companies violated unlawful trade practices laws.

The split verdict is expected to place increased focus on future bellwether trials, which may provide additional guidance on how juries evaluate the scientific evidence and competing claims presented in the litigation.

Additional Bard PowerPort bellwether trials are currently scheduled to begin on July 7, August 18, October 13, December 1, and February 2, 2027. If the proceedings do not lead to settlements or other resolutions, the court may eventually begin remanding individual lawsuits back to federal district courts nationwide for separate trial dates.

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

An Ohio woman has filed a Bard Ventralight hernia mesh lawsuit, claiming that defects in the polypropylene implant caused her to suffer chronic pain, a recurrent hernia and ongoing physical disabilities.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Jerica Weaver in New Jersey Superior Court on May 28, and removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey that same day by the defendant, C.R. Bard Inc.

Weaver claims the manufacturer sold and marketed the Ventralight ST mesh as a safe and effective treatment for hernias, despite knowing the device was prone to failure and serious complications.

Hernia Mesh Failure Risks

The Ventralight ST Mesh is used primarily in laparoscopic surgeries to repair ventral, incisional and umbilical hernias. It is designed to reinforce the abdominal wall and allow for tissue ingrowth while protecting sensitive internal organs.

The mesh is a dual-sided hernia repair implant designed with two distinct surfaces intended to serve different functions after placement. One side is coated with a temporary bioresorbable hydrogel barrier intended to reduce the formation of adhesions between the mesh and nearby organs during the healing process. The opposite side consists of a permanent polypropylene mesh that is meant to integrate with surrounding tissue and provide long-term reinforcement of the abdominal wall.

However, more than 25,000 hernia mesh lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturer over the past decade, each raising similar allegations that the polypropylene material in the Ventralight and other similar products can trigger adverse biological reactions. Lawsuits allege these reactions may lead to complications such as chronic inflammation, adhesions, infection, mesh shrinkage, erosion and persistent pain, often requiring additional surgery.

Bard Ventralight Hernia Mesh Failure Allegations

According to the claims, Weaver underwent ventral hernia repair surgery in July 2022, when surgeons implanted a Bard Ventralight ST mesh. Less than two years later, she allegedly required extensive revision surgery to address a recurrent incisional hernia and other abdominal complications. The complaint indicates she continues to experience chronic pain and limitations that impair daily activities.

The lawsuit claims Bard’s Ventralight ST hernia mesh was defectively designed and manufactured because it contains polypropylene, a material plaintiffs allege is biologically incompatible with human tissue and can trigger chronic inflammation, degradation, contraction and other complications after implantation. 

The complaint further alleges Bard failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about these failure risks, which may lead to infection, adhesions, hernia recurrence and the need for additional surgeries. 

Weaver contends Bard knew or should have known that polypropylene mesh devices could degrade, shrink and trigger prolonged foreign-body reactions after implantation, yet continued to market the products as safe and effective. The lawsuit further alleges the company failed to conduct adequate testing and concealed information about the frequency and severity of complications linked to its hernia mesh devices.

“As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s defective design, manufacturing, marketing, distribution, sale and warnings concerning the Ventralight ST Mesh, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, injuries and damages, including: past, present and future physical and mental pain and suffering; physical disabilities; and past, present, and future medical, hospital, rehabilitative, and pharmaceutical expenses; as well as other related damages.”

— Jerica Weaver v. C.R. Bard Inc.

Weaver raises allegations of strict liability—failure to warn. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as compensation for future medical treatment and other losses.

Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

Since 2018, more than 25,000 hernia mesh lawsuits have been filed against C.R. Bard over a variety of products, including the Ventralex, Ventralight, PerFix Plug and 3DMax lines. Plaintiffs throughout the litigation maintain that the manufacturer failed to adequately test its products or warn patients and physicians about known risks associated with polypropylene mesh implants. 

Although Bard reached a broad hernia mesh settlement in October 2025 to resolve a substantial portion of the pending litigation, the claims have not fully ended. 

Payouts are expected to occur over several years, and new lawsuits continue to emerge as individuals with Bard mesh implants experience recent failures or develop complications after years of use. 

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

A U.S. District Judge has set key dates that clear the way for a Nurse Assist saline solution infection lawsuit to move forward toward trial by the end of next year, unless the parties reach an agreement to settle or otherwise resolve the claim.

The sterile saline solution infection lawsuit was first filed in late February by Frances M. Wilbers in Georgia Superior Court, but was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in April by the defendants, which include Nurse Assist LLC, multiple Cardinal Health Inc. subsidiaries, Orthodynamix Company Inc., and several unidentified entities.

According to Wilbers, she developed a life-threatening infection after using contaminated Nurse Assist saline solution as part of her wound care routine for the driveline leading to her mechanical heart.

Nurse Assist Sterile Solution Recall

The lawsuit came after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a Nurse Assist saline and sterile solution recall in late 2023, indicating that certain products’ packaging seals could break, compromising sterility and exposing the fluids to bacterial contamination.

The agency called for healthcare providers and consumers to stop using and distributing the potentially contaminated products, but for many recovering from surgery and conducting wound care, the recall came too late.

Multiple plaintiffs have come forward to file Nurse Assist infection lawsuits since the recall was announced, each alleging the manufacturer failed to make certain the packaging of supposedly sterile products were properly manufactured.

Wilber’s case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. On May 6, the parties delivered to Judge Thrash a joint preliminary report (PDF) and discovery plan, stating that they were ready to proceed with discovery and prepare the case for trial, while noting that settlement may be possible after discovery is complete. 

Plaintiffs and defendants reported no current hindrances to a possible settlement. However, both sides stopped short of indicating that a deal is on the table or that negotiations are nearing a resolution.

In response, Judge Thrash issued a scheduling order (PDF) on May 11, giving the parties a discovery deadline of March 16, 2027, and requiring that any motions to amend the pleadings be filed by June 8. Motions for summary judgment are due by April 16, 2027, but if no such motion is filed, the parties must submit a Proposed Consolidated Pretrial Order by the same date.

No trial date has yet been announced.

Nurse Assist Infection Lawsuits

Individuals nationwide are continuing to learn that their infections may have been caused by contaminated wound care solutions used during treatment. Those affected continue to file lawsuits against Nurse Assist and other defendants for failing to ensure the sterility of products applied directly to patients’ open wounds.

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

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

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

An Illinois woman has filed a class action lawsuit alleging Electrolux knowingly sold defective Frigidaire gas ovens with a delayed ignition defect that allowed gas to build up, which could result in flames shooting out of the oven.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Megan Kelly in the U.S. District Court for the District of Illinois on May 29, naming Electrolux Consumer Products Inc. as the sole defendant.

Kelly claims Electrolux knew of a design defect plaguing its Frigidaire gas ranges since at least 2025, yet failed to issue a prompt recall or warn consumers of the problem. The lawsuit further indicates the issue led to a number of injuries linked to Electrolux Frigidaire gas ranges in recent years.

Earlier this year, a separate wrongful death lawsuit alleged a 62-year-old woman died in a house fire caused by the same Frigidaire range defect. According to that complaint, gas was able to build up inside the appliance and ignite, sparking the fatal fire.

Electrolux issued a Frigidaire range recall in March, after reports of at least 30 burn injuries. The recall affected nearly 175,000 units.

Frigidaire Class Action Lawsuit

Kelly’s lawsuit indicates she purchased a Frigidaire range in December 2025 from Home Depot for $1,300. She states that neither Home Depot nor Electrolux provided a warning about the defect at the time.

By the end of December 2025, Kelly notes her house had a continuous smell of gas while the oven was in use. Additionally, the oven would fill with gas, and once the burner ignited, it would cause a loud sound. If the oven door was open, a large flame would shoot from the oven through the open door.

Kelly indicates she contacted the gas company to inspect the pipes in the home. However, the company determined the pipes were safe and operating normally, indicating that the range was likely the cause of the problem.

In January 2026, the plaintiff claims to have contacted a local plumber for a second opinion who told her the same thing. She then says that she contacted Home Depot and reported the issue. However, neither Home Depot nor Electrolux offered a solution to the issue.

Kelly’s complaint alleges Electrolux knew about the range defect for years before it issued the recall in March, having received at least 62 reports of the delayed ignition problem and 30 reports of burn injuries due to the defect.

In addition, the company received other complaints, repair orders, warranty claims and orders for replacement, all of which should have indicated there was a problem with the ranges’ design. The complaint indicates Electrolux also tracks online complaints, monitors forums, message boards and review pages, suggesting Electrolux was aware of the problem by at least mid-2025.

The lawsuit asserts that the Frigidaire range is unreasonably dangerous and cannot be used for its intended use, despite being advertised as safe and reliable. Furthermore, the company refused to provide a refund for the defective ranges and only offered a scheduled home installation of a new bake burner.

“Defendant concealed the fact that Frigidaire ranges contain a serious safety hazard and risk to property and marketed its products as reliable, safe, and of high quality. Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied on Defendant’s marketing and representations in purchasing Frigidaire ranges. As a result of Defendant’s deception, Plaintiff and Class members were deprived of the benefit of their bargain.”

— Megan Kelly v. Electrolux Consumer Products Inc.

The class action lawsuit raises allegations of breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Kelly seeks class certification for the complaint, holding Electrolux financially responsible for notifying all consumers of the defect and repairing the defect, as well as compensating class members for repairs or the full purchase price for the ranges, compensatory damages, restitution and attorneys’ fees.

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

An Arizona man has filed a product liability lawsuit stating that problems with his spinal cord stimulator leads caused heart problems, pain, fainting and additional surgeries to remove the failed back pain implant.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Ethan Schwartz in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on May 28, naming Abbott Laboratories, the manufacturer, as the sole defendant.

Schwartz’s claim now joins a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits being pursued against Abbott and other manufacturers, each raising similar allegations that the leads may be prone to fail and cause severe injuries.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Malfunction Risks

Spinal cord stimulators are medical implants designed to manage chronic pain. They are made of a small, battery-powered pulse generator that is placed under the skin, thin electrodes implanted near the spinal cord and connected to the generator, and a remote control for adjusting stimulation levels to maximize pain relief. Designed to be a permanent implant, spinal cord stimulators work by interfering with pain signals before they reach the brain.

For years, multiple medical device manufacturers have claimed that spinal cord stimulators are safe and effective. However, those assertions have come under doubt with a growing number of reports of device failures, worsening pain, electric shocks, problems with leads migrating out of position and other complications.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lead Problem Allegations

This recently filed lawsuit indicates Schwartz was surgically implanted with a permanent spinal cord stimulator in May 2018. While he first went through a trial period with a temporary implant to see if it worked, Schwartz indicates he was encouraged to overstate the effectiveness of the pain relief by a company sales representative, who said it would help get his insurance to cover the costs.

However, the permanent implant led to worsening pain, electric shocks, numbness in his extremities, fainting, atrial fibrillation and other heart problems.

In June of 2024, doctors determined that there were problems with the spinal cord stimulator leads and indicated the implant had to be surgically removed. During the surgery, doctors had to cut bones to remove the defective leads, and Schwartz suffered a cardiac event.

It was only after the surgery that Schwartz began to learn about the large number of spinal cord stimulator lead problems being experienced by users, which the complaint indicates the manufacturer intentionally downplayed to increase profits at the expense of patients.

“Abbott’s conduct was knowing, deliberate, and reckless. It knowingly placed a materially altered medical device into the stream of commerce, misrepresented its safety and approval status, and failed to correct known defects through regulatory pathways available under federal law.”

— Ethan Schwartz v. Abbott Laboratories

The lawsuit states that until he became aware of other patients’ problems, Schwartz thought his injuries were an aberration unique to himself.

Schwartz presents claims of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and violation of consumer protection laws. He seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lead Lawsuits

The complaint may eventually be consolidated with similar spinal cord stimulator lead lawsuits being filed nationwide. In April, a group of plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate all spinal cord stimulator claims involving Abbott and its competitor, Boston Scientific, before one judge in the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

However, the manufacturers have asked the panel to reject the request, arguing that the various lawsuits do not identify a specific, common defect across multiple products, while also arguing that the litigation is too far along for consolidation to provide any benefits.

As more lawsuits are being filed against Abbott, Boston Scientific and other SCS manufacturers, spinal cord stimulator injury attorneys continue evaluating claims for individuals who experienced serious complications, including:

• Lead wire fractures or migration
• Painful electrical shocks or overstimulation
• Unexpected loss of pain relief
• Increased back pain or worsening nerve symptoms
• Revision procedures or surgical device removal
• Permanent nerve injuries
• Long-term spinal cord damage

All spinal cord stimulator injury lawsuits are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs and legal fees are only collected if compensation is recovered through a settlement or trial verdict.

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

A panel of federal judges has determined that a Missouri class action lawsuit at the center of a proposed $7.2 billion Roundup settlement agreement should be transferred from state court to the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL), where it will be consolidated with thousands of other claims in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Over the past decade, Bayer and its Monsanto subsidiary have faced more than 120,000 Roundup lawsuits filed in federal and state courts nationwide, each involving former users of the controversial weedkiller who developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL).

The claims raise similar allegations that the manufacturers knew or should have known that Roundup exposure increased the risk of cancer, yet Monsanto concealed those risks from consumers to protect profits at the expense of public health.

The litigation has gone through years of legal maneuvers, in addition to several trials held in state and federal courts. In many of the trials, plaintiffs were awarded multimillion, and sometimes multibillion dollar verdicts, though some judges have reduced the largest of those.

The first Roundup cancer trial was held in California state court in August 2018, resulting in a $289 million verdict for a school groundskeeper that was later reduced to $78 million. The first Roundup case to go before a federal jury was held in 2019, ending in an $80 million verdict. Later that year, another California state trial led to a $2 billion verdict for a couple who both developed cancer after working with Roundup for years. That award was later reduced to $87 million.

Roundup NHL Settlement Agreement

In February, Monsanto announced that it had reached a $7.25 billion settlement agreement to resolve a class action lawsuit filed by Randall King, who seeks to pursue damages for individuals nationwide who have developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after regular exposure to glyphosate contained in Roundup.

One month later, a Minnesota state court judge granted preliminary approval to the settlement plan, which is designed to resolve both current and future Roundup cancer claims.

On May 28, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a conditional transfer order (PDF), sending the lawsuit at the center of the class action settlement to the Northern District of California. The case will be consolidated with thousands of other federal Roundup claims pending before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria as part of the MDL where coordinated pretrial proceedings are underway.

The transfer may make the proposed settlement more relevant to the broader litigation, since the class action will now proceed before the same judge overseeing the federal Roundup cancer lawsuits.

The proposed class settlement will pay declining capped annual payments over the next 21 years, totaling $7.25 billion. Bayer said immediate financing for the settlement and other litigation-related obligations would be secured through an $8 billion bank loan facility.

Roundup Settlement Opposed

Transferring the class action to the federal MDL makes it more likely that the agreement can be applied to other claims, and could help anchor a global settlement that resolves years of litigation. However, some plaintiffs have opposed the deal.

In April, a motion was filed in the Northern District of California calling for injunctive relief for plaintiffs whose Roundup cancer lawsuits were filed or transferred into the MDL.

The motion indicated that the Missouri judge’s approval of the deal should not affect cases in the MDL, arguing that the judge overstepped his authority by approving a class-wide agreement. Some plaintiffs also argue that the process for opting out was made intentionally complicated to dissuade plaintiffs and make it harder for those unsatisfied with the deal from overturning it.

The decision by the JPML to transfer that particular claim to the MDL works directly against that motion. Meanwhile, plaintiffs supporting the settlement claim they represent more than 60% of all Roundup lawsuit plaintiffs and allege that the firms calling for the injunctive relief represent less than 1% of plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs supporting the deal have noted that the vast majority of claims have all been sent to Missouri state court in recent years following the bellwether trials, leaving only 250 Roundup cancer lawsuits in the federal MDL at this stage.

Bayer Seeks Lawsuit Immunity From Supreme Court

The decision comes about a month after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether Monsanto and Bayer should be granted immunity from litigation. The manufacturers claim the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of Roundup and its label warnings preempt any failure to warn lawsuits, while plaintiffs argue the approval in no way blocks state courts from requiring stronger warning labels.

Numerous parties, including the federal government and more than a dozen state attorneys general have filed briefs in support of Bayer’s call for immunity, following an intense, multi-state lobbying campaign.

Previously, Bayer indicated it would remove glyphosate from Roundup products sold in the U.S. However, in February the White House announced plans to encourage ramped up production, claiming the need for the weed killer was a matter of national security.

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

A Florida man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a battery from a Bigniu electric bike sold by Amazon burst into flames while charging, causing severe burn injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Saul Santiago Hernandez in Florida Circuit Court last month, naming Amazon.com Inc. and Bigniu Technology Inc. as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Florida on June 1.

Hernandez alleges the Bigniu e-bike’s lithium-ion battery was defectively designed and that Amazon and Bigniu were negligent in allowing the product to be sold on the U.S. market.

Lithium-Ion Battery Fire Risks

Lithium-ion batteries have been linked to overheating and thermal runaway reactions in e-bikes and numerous other products in recent years. These incidents have led to fires, property damage, injuries and even deaths.

Thermal runaway occurs when a battery cell overheats and triggers a self-sustaining chain reaction, causing the temperature to rapidly increase. This process can lead to the battery catching fire or even exploding, particularly when multiple cells are involved.

The risks of thermal runaway are particularly high with low-quality lithium-ion products, which may use substandard materials or lack rigorous safety testing. These defects increase the likelihood of fires, explosions and severe injuries, which have resulted in numerous recalls and lawsuits.

Last month, a wrongful death lawsuit was filed in Alabama, where the plaintiff claims that the battery from a Rad Power e-bike caught fire while charging, causing a blaze that injured a woman and killed her husband. Rad Power e-bikes had previously been recalled by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in November 2025, following at least 30 fires and $700,000 in property damage.

Amazon E-Bike Battery Fire Allegations

This recent Amazon e-bike lawsuit indicates Hernandez purchased a Bigniu BG10 electric bike on May 10, 2024, through the popular retail website. On July 25, 2024, while charging the e-bike at his home in Boca Raton, Florida, the battery allegedly exploded, setting both Hernandez and the room on fire.

Hernandez required immediate medical attention and suffered serious and permanent burns and other injuries to his body.

The complaint alleges the defective design rendered the bike unreasonably dangerous for normal use. It also claims Bigniu and Amazon failed to properly test the battery before placing it on the market for sale and did not warn consumers of the potential risks.

“Defendant, Amazon, owed a duty to adequately test, inspect, monitor, and assure the quality of the subject E-Bike before placing the subject E-Bike into the stream of commerce.”

— Saul Santiago Hernandez v. Amazon.com Inc. et al.

The complaint raises allegations of strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability against both Amazon and Bigniu. Hernandez is seeking compensation for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of capacity to lead and enjoy normal life, mental and physical anguish, physical impairment and loss of income.

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

Federal health officials are warning consumers to avoid a growing number of skin lightening products found to contain mercury, hydroquinone or both ingredients, indicating the cosmetics may pose serious health risks and are being sold through major online marketplaces despite longstanding safety concerns.

In an FDA consumer alert announced on June 1, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that investigators and state health officials have identified numerous skin lightening, whitening, bleaching and brightening products that contain potentially harmful ingredients.

The products were found to be available through online retailers, including Amazon, Etsy, eBay, Walmart and other websites. They include African Queen Strong Bleaching Treatment, Omni Gold, Face Fresh Beauty Cream and others. A full list of affected brands can be found in the FDA alert.

The FDA warns that repeated use of products containing mercury or hydroquinone can result in the chemicals accumulating in the body, potentially leading to serious health complications affecting the nervous system, kidneys and other organs.

Skin Lightening Product Warnings

This is not the first time researchers have warned consumers about the dangers of skin lightening products. In 2023, a study highlighted the serious health risks that women of color face from ingredients in skin lightening products.

In addition, a CNN report from 2022 highlighted research showing that some skin lightening products contain dangerous levels of mercury. The report indicated that the FDA had monitored cases of mercury poisoning dating back to 2012. At the time, the California Department of Public Health had also received more than 60 reports of methyl mercury poisonings related to skin care products over the prior decade.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also issued a warning about skin bleaching products in 2019 after reviewing a case study involving a 47 year-old woman from Sacramento, California, who became comatose after reportedly using an imported skin lightening cream.

Skin Lightening Product Risks

Skin lightening products are often marketed as treatments for uneven skin tone, acne scars, age spots, freckles and wrinkles. They are commonly sold as creams, lotions, soaps and powders, and may be labeled as whitening, fading, brightening or evening products.

According to the FDA, mercury and hydroquinone work by reducing the skin’s production of melanin, the pigment responsible for skin color. However, exposure to either ingredient can result in adverse health effects, particularly when products are used repeatedly over long periods of time.

The agency warns that mercury exposure has been linked to neurological damage, kidney injury, mood changes, memory problems, numbness and tremors. Hydroquinone has also been associated with serious side effects, including skin irritation and ochronosis, a potentially permanent darkening and thickening of the skin.

“The longer and more frequently these products are used, the greater the risk of harm. Certain groups, including children and pregnant individuals, face heightened risks and should avoid exposure to these products.”

— U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Federal regulators note that no over-the-counter skin lightening products containing hydroquinone are approved for sale in the United States. While some prescription products contain hydroquinone under medical supervision, over-the-counter products marketed with the ingredient are considered unapproved drugs. Mercury is generally prohibited in cosmetic products.

As a result, the FDA recommends consumers carefully review product labels and avoid any skin lightening products listing ingredients such as mercury, mercurous chloride, calomel, mercuric compounds or hydroquinone. Consumers are also advised to avoid products with missing ingredient lists, labels written in foreign languages without English translations or products making exaggerated whitening claims.

Health officials indicate that many of the products identified were imported from overseas and sold through third-party online sellers, making enforcement efforts difficult. The agency encourages consumers who experience adverse reactions to contact a health care professional or the Poison Center at 1-800-222-1222, available 24 hours a day. 

The warning is part of the FDA’s ongoing “Skin Facts!” public education campaign, which aims to increase awareness about the risks associated with illegal skin lightening products and help consumers identify potentially dangerous ingredients before purchasing cosmetic products online.

Hair Relaxer Lawsuits

In addition to lightening skin, some women of color also use hair straighteners to better adhere to Western beauty standards. However, these products have been known to contain formaldehyde and other chemicals that have been linked to an increased risk of certain forms of reproductive cancer. As a result, a series of hair relaxer lawsuits have been brought against Dark and Lovely, Just for Me and other popular hair relaxer manufacturers in recent years.

Since the number of hair relaxer lawsuits has grown, all federal cases were centralized in 2023 before U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL), streamlining discovery and other pretrial proceedings. Judge Rowland has since been managing coordinated litigation efforts involving claims that chemical hair straightening products increased users’ risk of developing cancer and other reproductive health problems.

The court is currently preparing 32 representative cases for a series of bellwether trials, which are designed to test how juries may respond to common evidence and legal arguments expected to be repeated throughout the litigation. Although the outcomes will apply only to the individual plaintiffs involved, the trials are expected to provide valuable insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and defenses. These findings could help guide future hair relaxer cancer lawsuit settlement discussions.

If the parties are unable to reach a global resolution following the bellwether process and completion of pretrial proceedings, cases that remain unresolved may ultimately be returned to the federal courts where they were originally filed for separate trials.

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

Two men pursuing sports betting addiction lawsuits against FanDuel and DraftKings have updated their complaints to include additional state-law claims against the sportsbooks for intentionally marketing their products toward people with signs of problem gambling.

Originally filed in March, the FanDuel and DraftKings lawsuits were brought on behalf of Daniel Arroyo and Yanos Tewolde in Massachusetts Superior Court. The complaints named DraftKings Inc., Crown MA Gaming LLC, Flutter Entertainment PLC, Betfair Interactive US LLC and FanDuel Inc. as defendants.

Arroyo and Tewolde allege that, after placing small bets on DraftKings and FanDuel, they were targeted and encouraged to wager financially damaging amounts of money on the platforms, even after the sites’ algorithms detected they were potential problem gamblers.

Sportsbook Gambling Addiction

FanDuel and DraftKings are only two of many online sports betting apps and websites that have risen to prominence after the U.S. Supreme Court made it legal for states to allow sports gambling. As states continue to legalize the practice one by one, sportsbook wagering has exploded, particularly among young people who are comfortable with digital payments through mobile apps on their smart devices. 

However, according to various plaintiffs nationwide, that growth has been fueled by platforms that take advantage of consumers through the use of aggressive promotions and data-driven algorithms that track behavior and tailor incentives to encourage more frequent and higher wagers.

As a result, a growing number of FanDuel and DraftKings gambling addiction lawsuits have been filed claiming that the platforms intentionally encourage compulsive and self-destructive gambling to raise their profit margins.

Online Gambling Marketing Allegations

Arroyo and Tewolde’s lawsuits indicate both started using the sites in 2023 and soon racked up significant debt and signs of gambling addiction. Once their gambling habits were noticed, instead of warning them, they say the websites exploited them.

The men began receiving special promotions, gambling credits, and were even assigned personal “VIP Managers” who offered them tailored promotions.

The original complaints presented claims for failure to warn, defective design, negligent design, negligent failure to warn, negligence, intentional misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. However, on May 15, both Arroyo (PDF) and Tewolde (PDF) submitted amended complaints that added a new claim for Unfair or Deceptive Practices under Massachusetts consumer protection law, alleging the companies recklessly marketed their services to problem gamblers.

The amended complaints indicate the plaintiffs sent the defendants written demand letters on April 8, 2026, as required under Massachusetts law before pursuing the unfair trade practices claims. The letters gave the companies 30 days to respond with a reasonable settlement offer, but the plaintiffs say no reasonable response was provided, clearing the way for the new claims.

As part of the expanded request for relief, Arroyo and Tewolde are now seeking double or treble damages, attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. Double or treble damages are a severe statutory penalty available under Massachusetts law when consumer violations are proven to be willful or knowing.

Sportsbook Gambling Addiction Lawsuits

Sports betting addiction lawyers anticipate that thousands of similar lawsuits will be filed in the coming months and years by consumers nationwide who have found themselves facing severe financial losses due to predatory algorithms and promotions used by FanDuel, DraftKings and similar online sportsbooks.

Sportsbook gambling addiction lawsuits are being investigated nationwide, focusing on whether the apps intentionally foster compulsive gambling in order to profit from gamblers’ addictions. Platforms named in various sportsbook lawsuits and investigations include:

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

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

A new lawsuit alleges that Roblox Corporation built one of the world’s most popular online gaming platforms for young users while misleading parents about the strength of its safety protections, leaving minors exposed to predators, sexual content and exploitation.

The complaint (PDF) was filed on May 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by a minor identified as AW-0010, through her proposed court-appointed guardian, AW-GAL-0010. Roblox Corporation and Snap Inc. are named as defendants.

Plaintiffs claim Roblox repeatedly marketed itself as a safe, family-friendly online environment, despite knowing that inadequate moderation systems and weak account protections allowed adults to regularly communicate with minors on the platform.

Roblox Child Safety Concerns

Roblox, which says it attracts about 150 million daily active users worldwide, has become one of the most popular online gaming and social hubs for children and teenagers. Users can create customizable avatars, communicate through text and voice chat features, and access millions of games created by other users.

For years, consumer watchdogs and child safety advocates have warned that Roblox may allow sexual predators to identify, contact and groom minors. Critics have raised particular concerns about whether its messaging and voice communication features permit adults to interact directly with young users without sufficient monitoring, identity checks or age verification safeguards.

Those concerns have now led to approximately 150 Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits being filed in federal courts nationwide. The complaints generally accuse the company of failing to adopt sufficient protections to prevent adults from posing as minors, communicating with children through the service and engaging in predatory behavior or inappropriate interactions.

According to the lawsuits, those alleged failures have contributed to incidents involving online grooming, coercion, the exchange of explicit images involving minors and extortion. Some complaints also include allegations involving sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking.

Roblox Sexual Predator Allegations

In this recently filed lawsuit, AW-0010 claims she started playing Roblox at the age of 12, when she was targeted by an adult predator who claimed to be a 17-year-old boy. The predator allegedly convinced the girl to run away from her aunt’s home to meet him in person, at which point, she was forced to engage in sexual acts with him.

The following year, a different adult predator, who was a 50-year-old man posing as a minor on the Roblox platform, convinced AW-0010 to send him explicit photos through Snapchat.

The filing contends that Roblox spent years assuring parents the platform was a safe “virtual playground” where children could “safely interact, create, have fun, and learn,” while executives publicly promoted the company’s safety systems and parental controls. However, AW-0010 and her guardian claim those statements were deceptive because Roblox allegedly failed to implement basic safeguards widely used by other platforms aimed at children.

The complaint alleges Roblox knowingly allowed children and adults to communicate without meaningful age verification, while also making it easy for users to create anonymous accounts in less than a minute. Plaintiffs claim the company avoided requiring names, email addresses or verifiable parental consent during sign-up in order to accelerate user growth and avoid friction that could reduce engagement.

The lawsuit further claims Roblox executives rejected simple safety measures that could have limited predator activity, including stronger account verification tools, pop-up safety warnings and systems designed to block repeat offenders from creating multiple accounts.

Plaintiffs also allege Roblox’s virtual currency system, known as Robux, created opportunities for predators to manipulate children by offering digital rewards in exchange for inappropriate conduct or communications. The complaint cites reports indicating some children told strangers they would do “anything for Robux.”

“Plaintiff has suffered profound harm as a direct result of the grooming, manipulation, and sexual exploitation she experienced through Defendants’ apps.”

— AW-0010 v. Roblox Corporation et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, failure to warn, unreasonable design, negligent undertaking, design defect, fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. It seeks past, present and future general, economic and special damages.

Roblox Sexual Exploitation Lawsuits

Late last year, the increasing number of Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide were consolidated before U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District of California for coordinated discovery and pretrial management.

As the proceedings move forward, the court is expected to establish a bellwether program involving a small selection of representative lawsuits prepared for early trial dates. Those cases are intended to help the parties evaluate how juries may respond to recurring evidence and allegations expected to arise throughout the broader litigation.

Although the results of bellwether trials will not directly determine the outcome of other lawsuits, they often play a significant role in shaping future settlement discussions by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the competing claims and defenses.

In an effort to accelerate potential resolutions, plaintiffs earlier this year requested that the court appoint a special master to oversee preliminary Roblox settlement discussions. If successful, those negotiations could allow children and young adults to resolve claims without enduring years of ongoing litigation.

Roblox sexual exploitation lawyers continue to investigate cases involving children allegedly harmed through interactions on the platform. Attorneys reviewing potential claims are offering free and confidential case evaluations, with no attorney fees or upfront costs unless compensation is recovered.

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

A federal judge has cleared the way for a lawsuit over LINX device complications to go before a jury in two years, involving a woman’s claims that the recalled acid reflux implant was defectively designed and that the manufacturer knew about the risks.

The original LINX device lawsuit was filed by Janet Wingett in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in February 2026, pursuing claims against Torax Medical Inc. and Ethicon Inc., who are named as the defendants. The complaint accuses the manufacturers of selling a defectively designed LINX device without adequate warnings, and failing to fully remove the implants from the market after a recall was announced.

LINX Device Injury Risks

First released by Torax in 2017, the LINX Reflux Management System consisted of a small ring of magnetic beads connected by titanium wires. The devices were designed to be implanted around the lower esophageal sphincter to prevent stomach acid from flowing back into the esophagus, as a treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease, or GERD.

While originally marketed as safe for patients, reports began to emerge of LINX device complications where the magnetic beads had become disconnected from the titanium wires. As the reports continued to mount, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that the LINX device problems were likely the result of a manufacturing defect that could lead to the damage of nearby organs, the need for revision surgery and other adverse health effects. 

Amid the growing number of adverse events, Torax ultimately announced a LINX device recall in May 2018. However, Wingett is one of several individuals pursuing LINX device complication lawsuits, each raising similar claims that the implant can break inside the body, leading to serious injury risks.

LINX Device Trial

In a pretrial scheduling order (PDF) released last month, U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright instructed the parties to prepare the case for trial by May 12, 2028. She directed the parties to narrow disputed issues where possible, cooperate in good faith during discovery and keep the court informed of any developments that could affect the schedule as the litigation moves forward.

“The parties are expected to work cooperatively throughout this litigation to narrow the issues in dispute, to use reasonable, good faith and proportional efforts to preserve, request, identify and produce relevant information and resolve discovery disputes, and to keep the Court timely informed of developments in the case that could significantly affect the case management schedule.”

— U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright

The scheduling order sets a series of key deadlines the parties must meet in preparation for the trial, with fact discovery to be completed by July 14, 2027. Expert discovery is scheduled to be concluded by November 12, 2027, with all non-dispositive motions relating to expert discovery due by November 30 of that same year.

Judge Wright also indicated that the parties may be required to hold settlement negotiations before the trial to see if it can be resolved beforehand. If there is no resolution and the lawsuit goes before a jury as planned, the trial is expected to last only three days.

LINX Device Complications Lawsuits

Even though the LINX device was recalled in 2018, it was still for sale in some foreign markets until September 2025, raising questions as to how many additional patients will experience complications in the years to come.

Due to the seriousness of the reported problems, attorneys are reviewing LINX injury claims and pursuing compensation for those who experienced complications, including:

• The need for revision surgery or removal of the device
• Device breakage or mechanical failure
• Migration of the implant
• Organ punctures or tissue damage

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

A Pennsylvania man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that heated underwear he purchased on Amazon overheated while he was wearing it, causing severe burns and other permanent injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Nicholas Evangelista in the U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania on May 27, naming Amazon.com Services LLC as the only defendant.

Evangelista alleges he was wearing the Savior heated underwear while shoveling snow, but instead of keeping him warm, the product overheated and caused severe burns, which left him permanently disfigured.

Heated Apparel Burn Injuries

Savior heated underwear comes equipped with electrically heated coils, which is intended to be worn under clothing to help keep the user warm. However, Evangelista’s lawsuit joins a series of complaints filed in recent months over various electrically heated garments. Many of these filings allege that battery-powered devices meant to provide comfort have instead caused fires, severe burns and other lasting harm.

A number of recent heated insole lawsuits claim that inadequate safeguards in foot warmer devices have allowed those products to overheat while being worn, leading to serious burn injuries that often result in nerve injuries and surgical debridement. Many of these claims focus on Amazon’s role in selling and distributing heated socks and other battery-powered warming apparel.

Heated Underwear Injury Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Evangelista purchased a pair of Savior heated underwear in December 2025 and wore the product on February 9, 2026, while shoveling snow. During use, the underwear allegedly overheated without warning and reached extreme temperatures, causing serious burns to his body.

As a result, Evangelista claims he suffered painful burn injuries that left him permanently disfigured. The lawsuit indicates he experienced skin discoloration and hyperpigmentation, as well as disability, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and a reduced ability to enjoy daily life. He also required extensive medical treatment for his injuries.

The complaint alleges the heated underwear was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, and that Evangelista’s injuries could have been prevented if safer design features or adequate safeguards had been used.

The lawsuit further claims Amazon knew or should have known about the alleged defect, but negligently allowed the heated underwear to continue being sold through its website, exposing consumers to a risk of serious injury.

“The Heated Underwear failure was such that would not have occurred in the absence of a defect or unreasonably dangerous condition within it.”

– Nicholas Evangelista v. Amazon.com Services LLC

The complaint raises allegations of strict product liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and failure to warn. It is seeking compensation for past and future medical treatment, emotional pain and suffering, disability and physical pain.

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

A second Bard PowerPort lawsuit will go before a federal jury in August 2026, as the court continues moving through a series of early test trials that may help determine whether thousands of claims are resolved through settlements, or sent back to federal district courts nationwide for individual trials.

U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell has decided to hold only five Bard PowerPort bellwether trials, after a plaintiff whose case was scheduled for trial in July died and her family elected not to continue pursuing the claim.

C.R. Bard and its parent company, Becton Dickinson, currently face more than 3,000 Bard PowerPort lawsuits brought throughout the federal court system, each raising similar allegations that the implantable port catheters were defectively designed with barium sulfate, which may cause the polyurethane catheter material to degrade over time and make the devices more prone to failure.

The port catheters named in the lawsuits are small medical devices implanted under the skin for patients who need repeated medication or fluid infusions, such as chemotherapy. The devices include an injection port connected to a catheter, allowing doctors to access the bloodstream without using a new needle for every treatment.

However, according to the lawsuits, Bard marketed the PowerPort as safe and effective, while failing to correct known design and material problems or adequately warn doctors and patients about the risk that the catheter may fracture or migrate through the body. Plaintiffs claim those failures have led to infections, blood clots, emboli, revision surgeries and other potentially life-threatening injuries.

Bard PowerPort Bellwether Trials

All federal Bard PowerPort lawsuits are currently consolidated as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the District of Arizona before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell, who has been working with the parties for months to prepare a series of bellwether trials. These early test cases will give the parties an opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

Judge Campbell originally selected six Bard PowerPort cases for trial, including claims brought by Wanda Miller. However, Miller died in February due to cancer, and according to a case management order (PDF) issued on May 19, her family has decided not to continue pursuing the case.

Plaintiffs asked Judge Campbell to replace Miller’s case with an alternate claim brought by Peter James, arguing it would provide a useful comparison point for valuing catheter fracture claims. James alleges his Bard port catheter fractured after it was implanted through the internal jugular vein, while the only remaining fracture bellwether claim, brought by Kimberly Divelbliss, involves a subclavian placement.

Plaintiffs said that distinction mattered because Bard may argue the Divelbliss’s fracture resulted from improper implantation or “pinch-off,” where the catheter is compressed between the clavicle and first rib.

However, Bard opposed adding the James case, arguing that the Divelbliss trial already involves a Bard silicone Groshong catheter fracture, and that an Arizona state court trial scheduled for August 2026 will involve an internal jugular fracture claim. The company also said preparing James’s case for trial would require substantial additional discovery and expert work, after Bard had already spent more than $1 million preparing the Miller case.

On that same day, Judge Campbell issued a separate case management order (PDF) reducing the number of planned Bard PowerPort bellwether trials from six to five, finding that the remaining cases will still provide a meaningful test of the claims and defenses in the litigation.

The judge noted that fracture claims currently make up only about 12% of the Bard PowerPort MDL inventory. Allowing two fracture cases to proceed among six bellwether trials would mean that one-third of the early test cases focused on an injury category that represents a much smaller share of the overall litigation.

“The five scheduled bellwether trials will provide a meaningful and representative test of the claims and defenses in this MDL. As in the previous Bard MDL, cases that are not resolved by settlement after these bellwethers, and within a schedule to be set by the Court, will be transferred or remanded to their home districts for resolution.”

– U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell, District of Arizona

The second bellwether trial will now begin on August 18, involving port catheter fracture allegations brought by Kimberly Divelbliss.

The first bellwether trial ended in a defense verdict several weeks ago, after a jury found Bard was not liable for failing to warn or instruct about potential PowerPort risks and rejected the consumer fraud claim. However, jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on whether the PowerPort was defectively designed or whether the manufacturers engaged in unlawful trade practices.

In addition to Bard PowerPort port catheter lawsuits, more than 300 similar AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits claim that company’s series of port catheters, including the Vortex Port, SmartPort and Xcela Port, suffer from a similar problem as the Bard PowerPort. These lawsuits are consolidated in a separate MDL in the Southern District of California before U.S. Judge Jinsook Ohta, who is expected to begin a similar bellwether process in hopes of resolving those claims as well.

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

An Arizona man has filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the U.S. government, claiming he was implanted with a spinal cord stimulator during a VA clinical study, which caused him to lose his ability to walk and control his bladder.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Christopher Thomas on May 20 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, naming the United States of America as defendant, as the study was conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

Thomas claims VA personnel failed to properly respond to signs that he had suffered a spinal injury and advised him against removing the implant even as his symptoms worsened. He also alleges VA officials later determined he should never have been enrolled in the study, which he says left him with permanent injuries.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Complications

Spinal cord stimulators are sold by several medical device manufacturers, including Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific and Medtronic, among others. Each system includes a small, battery-powered pulse generator placed beneath the skin, which is attached to thin electrodes positioned near the spinal cord, and a remote control that allows adjustment of stimulation levels.

Designed to treat chronic pain by disrupting nerve signals to the brain, the implants are meant to be permanent. Therefore, most recipients go through a trial period involving a temporary implant first, to ensure that the permanent device will be effective.

For years, manufacturers have claimed that the implants are safe. However, in recent months, a growing number of patients have filed spinal cord stimulator lawsuits against device manufacturers, alleging that the devices are defectively designed and linked to failures, worsening pain, electric shocks, electrodes protruding from the skin and the need for revision surgery.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Thomas indicates he was invited to participate in a research study by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in June 2023. He agreed to be a part of the study, which was an attempt to determine the best ways to predict lower back pain and whether that pain is treatable with a spinal cord stimulator.

According to the complaint, Thomas was informed that the study was not designed to provide any direct pain benefits, yet he was told the data could help others, including other veterans, suffering from chronic pain. He underwent implantation in October 2023 at the VA hospital in Tucson, Arizona.

After the surgery, however, Thomas discovered he could no longer walk.

“When Plaintiff awoke in the recovery room immediately after the procedure, Plaintiff complained that he could not feel his legs and was experiencing incontinence. Plaintiff’s left leg began moving involuntarily. Despite Plaintiff’s complaints, Plaintiff was soon thereafter discharged home.”

– Christopher Thomas v. United States of America

Having walked into the facility with no mobility problems, Thomas went home in a wheelchair, unable to walk on his own. Once home, Thomas also discovered that he could not control his bladder, causing him to frequently urinate on himself.

The VA directed him to go to the Emergency Department. However, Thomas states that the study’s principal investigator advised him to leave the spinal cord stimulator in place despite signs of a spinal injury, claiming revision surgery could do more harm than good.

In July 2024, Thomas was diagnosed with myelomalacia, which is a softening of the spine usually caused by low blood supply due to an injury. Treatment of the condition depends heavily on early detection, as the damage is usually irreversible and best caught and treated as early as possible to prevent further deterioration.

The next month, he was referred to the Spinal Cord Injury Clinic, which determined that Thomas had not been a viable candidate for the study. According to his lawsuit, the placement and management of the spinal cord stimulator was done negligently, leading to significant and permanent injuries.

Thomas presents claims of medical negligence, seeking compensatory damages for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of consortium. The failed implant remains in place.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Consolidation Hearing

Although Thomas’s complaint is a medical malpractice claim, many other spinal cord stimulator injury lawsuits are being pursued as product liability cases brought against the device manufacturers.

Given similar questions of fact and law raised in spinal cord stimulator lawsuits brought throughout the federal court system over the past year, a motion was filed earlier this year seeking to consolidate all cases brought against Abbott and Boston Scientific before one judge, as part of a multidistrict litigation, or MDL.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) heard oral arguments on the spinal cord stimulator lawsuit MDL motion on Thursday at the United States Courthouse and Federal Building in Milwaukee. If the panel agrees with plaintiffs, the lawsuits will be placed before one judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings, designed to serve the convenience of the parties, witnesses and court.

The appointed judge would likely call on the parties to select several representative cases to serve as potential “bellwether” trials. These early test cases are designed to give the parties an opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony that would be repeated throughout the litigation, which could help lead to a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit settlement agreement.

However, if no settlement is reached after the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings, the judge may then remand the cases back to their originating federal districts for individual trial dates.

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

A New Hampshire couple has filed a product liability lawsuit claiming that a leg press and hack squat machine sold and installed by Top Fitness Store failed during the first use, resulting in severe and disabling injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Renee and John Ferreira in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire on May 13. It names Seattle Home Fitness LLC, doing business as Top Fitness Store, and Hudson Steel Co., the manufacturer of the Leg Press/Hack Squat Station, as defendants.

The Ferreiras allege the exercise machine was defectively designed and manufactured, inadequately tested and sold without sufficient warnings. They also indicate the system was improperly installed as a result of mislabeled components that allegedly caused the locking system to be assembled incorrectly.

Home Gym Equipment Safety Concerns

Leg press and hack squat machines are designed to allow users to safely perform lower-body strength exercises by lifting heavy weights along a guided track. The machines typically include locking mechanisms intended to hold the weights securely in place until the user manually releases them to begin an exercise.

However, if those locking systems fail, the loaded weights can fall without warning, creating a substantial risk of crushing injuries, fractures and other serious trauma. Although the Ferreiras’ alleged defect occurred with a home gym machine, their complaint comes amid a number of exercise injury lawsuits filed in recent months, which highlight risks associated with the equipment.

Plaintiffs in many of these cases often allege that dangerous incidents and injuries can result from exercise equipment at home and in gyms that have defective designs, manufacturing errors, improper assembly and inadequate warnings and instructions.

Leg Press Machine Injury Allegations

According to the complaint, the Ferreiras purchased a Hudson Steel Leg Press/Hack Squat Station from the Top Fitness retail store in Salem, New Hampshire. The machine was delivered and installed in their home on May 9, 2025.

That same day, Renee Ferreira began using the machine for the first time. After completing several warm-up sets and loading an appropriate amount of weight, she sat down to start her workout. Before she could manually release the weight stack or begin exercising, the locking mechanisms allegedly failed, causing the loaded weights to crash down and crush her legs.

The lawsuit indicates that after the incident, the plaintiffs contacted Top Fitness, which returned to inspect the equipment. Representatives determined that parts of the locking mechanism had been mislabeled, resulting in improper installation and allowing the safety system to fail.

Ferreira alleges the machine was defectively designed and manufactured, inadequately tested, sold without sufficient warnings and improperly installed. The complaint claims both defendants knew or should have known that the leg press was unreasonably dangerous, yet placed the product into the stream of commerce without correcting the defects.

“Due to a defect in its design, manufacture, warnings and/or installation, the locking mechanisms of the leg press failed to hold the weight in place at the top of the machine before Plaintiff Renee Ferreira moved to begin her exercise and caused the weight to come crashing down upon her.”

— Renee Ferreira et al. v. Seattle Home Fitness LLC d/b/a Top Fitness Store et al.

The lawsuit presents claims for strict product liability, manufacturing defect, negligence, breach of warranty of merchantability and loss of consortium on behalf of Renee’s husband, John. It seeks compensatory damages for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, permanent impairment and other losses.

Gym Equipment Lawsuits

The Ferreiras’ complaint comes amid a number of lawsuits brought in recent months, impacting both home exercise systems and gym equipment located in various fitness centers.

In April, a New York woman filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a defective Technogym upper body ergometer exercise machine caused her to suffer severe and permanent injuries when the seat unexpectedly gave way during use. 

That same month, a 24 Hour Fitness lawsuit filed by a California woman alleged that the placement of a treadmill and the absence of adequate safety measures at one of that company’s gyms caused her husband to suffer a traumatic brain injury that left him permanently disabled and in need of ongoing care.

A separate case brought at the end of last year claimed that a Life Time Fitness member in New Jersey was injured because the facility failed to properly inspect and maintain its spin bikes and other exercise equipment.

Earlier in 2025, a Pennsylvania couple claimed that the equipment layout at a Planet Fitness gym contributed to severe injuries after the cable on an upright rowing machine allegedly snapped, throwing the husband backward into nearby machines that were positioned too closely together. He reportedly suffered a broken rib, a fractured vertebra and a collapsed lung.

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

A Tennessee couple has filed a lawsuit alleging that a Midea air conditioner sold through Home Depot was defectively designed, allowing moisture to accumulate inside the unit and create mold growth that caused severe respiratory injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Collin Vallatini and Rebecca Vallatini in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey on May 26, naming Midea America Corp., GD Midea Air Conditioning Equipment Co. Ltd., and Home Depot U.S.A Inc. as defendants.

The Vallatinis allege Midea and Home Depot knew or should have known about the design defects that led to the mold issues, and that Midea failed to properly test the product or warn consumers about the mold growth.

Midea Air Conditioner Recall

The Midea air conditioner is intended for installation in a window or wall opening to cool individual rooms. It features a U-shaped design that allows the window to close through the center of the unit, helping to keep the compressor outside and reduce indoor noise.

However, Midea recalled 1.7 million A/C units from the market last year due to mold growth problems caused by pooled water. The recall affected units sold at major retailers including Home Depot, Amazon and Costco.

Since the recall, a number of A/C mold growth product liability lawsuits have been filed nationwide, with many of the claims indicating that users were left with severe respiratory side effects, including infections, allergic reactions and coughing.

A separate class action recall lawsuit was filed following more than 150 reports of mold contamination, including 17 cases of respiratory infections and other severe symptoms.

Midea Air Conditioner Lawsuit

In this recent lawsuit, the Vallatinis allege that they purchased a Midea U-shaped window air conditioner, model MAW08V1QWT, from Home Depot on September 7, 2023.

Although they began using the A/C unit to cool their home, they allege that pooling water in the unit did not drain fast enough, which allowed mold to grow.

The couple claims they began to suffer from severe respiratory issues that required medical treatment. As a result of these issues, they indicate that they experienced disability, mental anguish and the loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.

The complaint alleges that the A/C unit’s product design was faulty, since it allowed water to pool easily without draining. The defective design is what allegedly led to the mold growth. Furthermore, the Vallatinis claim the company knew or should have known about the design issue, yet failed to warn consumers.

“Specifically, the A/C Unit was unreasonably dangerous and/or defective in that… a reasonably prudent manufacturer would not have put it on the market assuming that manufacturer knew of its dangerous condition.”

— Collin Vallatini et al. v. Midea America Corp. et al.

The complaint presents claims of violation of the New Jersey products liability act, defective design, failure to warn and breach of express warranty. It seeks compensatory damages for pain and suffering, disability, loss of enjoyment of life and attorneys’ fees.

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

A Delaware woman has filed a Dupixent lawsuit alleging the widely prescribed eczema drug caused her to develop cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that she claims can be triggered or accelerated by the biologic medication.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Joyce Filppi in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on May 20, naming Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC as defendants. 

Filppi claims the manufacturers failed to adequately warn patients and the medical community that Dupixent may trigger, worsen or accelerate CTCL in patients being treated for eczema and other inflammatory skin conditions.

Dupixent Cancer Risks

Dupixent (dupilumab) was first approved by the FDA in 2017 for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, commonly known as eczema. Since then, the injectable biologic has gained additional approvals for asthma, chronic sinus inflammation, eosinophilic esophagitis and other conditions, becoming one of the world’s best-selling prescription drugs.

Marketed as a safe and effective treatment, Dupixent rapidly became one of the most commonly prescribed and commercially successful therapies in the United States. However, mounting reports have associated Dupixent side effects with rare T-cell lymphomas like CTCL and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), which are both cancers that involve immune system white blood cells.

Filppi’s complaint joins a growing wave of Dupixent cancer lawsuits now being pursued nationwide. Many of the complaints allege that the drug makers knew or should have known about the potential lymphoma risks but failed to adequately warn doctors and patients about the possibility of serious, permanent or potentially fatal injuries.

Dupixent CTCL Allegations

In the lawsuit, Filppi claims the defendants knew or should have known that eczema symptoms may overlap with early manifestations of CTCL, and that treatment with Dupixent could delay accurate diagnosis or worsen the disease course in affected patients.

The complaint cites published case reports, retrospective analyses and adverse event reports dating back to 2018. These reports often identified CTCL diagnoses emerging after Dupixent treatment, even as the manufacturers continued aggressively marketing the drug as a breakthrough therapy.

Researchers referenced in the lawsuit include physicians from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Tulane University and several international dermatology centers. In one analysis published in 2024, researchers found patients previously treated with Dupixent faced a significantly higher risk of advanced-stage CTCL at diagnosis.

Other studies cited in the complaint found that some patients who failed to respond adequately to Dupixent treatment were later diagnosed with mycosis fungoides, the most common form of CTCL, after undergoing additional testing and biopsies.

The lawsuit also references reports involving patients who allegedly experienced rapid disease progression after beginning Dupixent treatment, including some who later died from advanced CTCL complications.

According to the complaint, the manufacturers received multiple postmarketing adverse event reports involving CTCL shortly after Dupixent entered the market, including reports submitted by physicians and healthcare professionals in the United States and Europe. Several allegedly identified Dupixent as the “primary suspect product” associated with the CTCL reactions.

Despite the mounting evidence, the lawsuit claims the manufacturers failed to update Dupixent warnings, recommend additional screening measures or advise physicians to conduct more extensive testing before prescribing the drug to patients with atypical or treatment-resistant dermatitis symptoms.

“As a direct and proximate result of the dangerous and defective nature of Dupixent as described herein, Plaintiff suffered severe bodily injury, and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and expense of hospitalization and treatment.”

— Joyce Filppi v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict liability—failure to warn, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. It seeks general, special, exemplary and punitive damages.

Dupixent Cancer Lawsuits

Due to the steady number of claims being filed, several plaintiffs asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate all federal Dupixent CTCL lawsuits before one judge in the Northern District of Georgia for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings in a multidistrict litigation, or MDL.

The JPML announced on April 16 that it will hear oral arguments on the consolidation request during a hearing scheduled for May 28. If the panel agrees to centralize the litigation, one federal judge would likely oversee the coordinated proceedings and organize a series of early bellwether trials involving representative cases.

Those bellwether trials are designed to help the parties evaluate how juries may respond to evidence and legal arguments expected to be repeated throughout the litigation. While the outcomes would not directly affect other plaintiffs’ claims, the results often shape the course of settlement negotiations and broader case resolutions.

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

Nearly 4,000 women are now pursuing claims against Uber over alleged sexual assaults by drivers, as the rideshare company prepares for another key trial that may help shape the future of the litigation.

Uber sexual assault lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts nationwide, with plaintiffs alleging they were sexually harassed, molested, raped or kidnapped after using the Uber app. Each complaint raises similar allegations that Uber failed to adopt adequate safety measures or background checks that could have better protected passengers from potential sexual predators.

Plaintiffs claim those measures should have included stronger background checks, sexual harassment training for drivers, surveillance cameras in vehicles, and an option allowing passengers to choose a driver’s gender through the Uber app. 

Uber Sexual Assault MDL

By October 2023, the litigation had already grown large enough that a panel of judges consolidated all federal Uber sexual assault lawsuits in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. 

Early in the litigation, Judge Breyer announced that there would be a series of test cases prepared for bellwether trials to give the parties an indication of how juries are likely to respond to evidence and testimony common throughout the various claims, with the first trials getting underway earlier this year.

On May 21, the parties submitted a joint case management statement (PDF), indicating that there are now 3,057 claims filed in the federal MDL, with another 854 cases pending in California state court. The report notes this includes 330 additional claims filed in recent weeks, but also indicates more than 200 claims have been dismissed over the same period.

According to the statement, the next bellwether trial is set to begin jury selection on September 14, 2026, with the trial expected to last about three weeks. It involves claims by a woman identified only as B.L., who says she was raped by her Uber driver in the back seat of his vehicle in San Jose, California, in August 2022. Her complaint indicates Uber rehired him despite a warrant out for his arrest over the incident after he fled to Columbia.

Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit Trial Results

Several trials, including two bellwether cases, have already been held at the state and federal level, but the outcomes have failed to provide a clear picture on which direction the litigation will go.

The first Uber sexual assault lawsuit to go to trial was in California state court in September 2025, with the jury determining that Uber had been negligent in protecting its passengers. However, the jury found that Uber’s negligence did not substantially contribute to the plaintiff’s attack, and no damages were awarded.

In February, the first federal Uber sexual assault lawsuit to go to trial, brought by Jaylynn Dean, ended with an $8.5 million verdict after the jury determined Uber drivers are agents of the company under common carrier laws. However, the jury rejected claims of negligence on the company’s behalf and refused to award punitive damages.

A second bellwether trial ended in April, with plaintiff Brianna Mensing being awarded $5,000. Mensing never stated a dollar amount for damages and testified during trial that she wanted an apology from Uber more than she wanted money.

While the outcomes of these trials are not binding on other claims, they are being closely watched for signs of how juries may evaluate the evidence and what damages they may award. The results could have a significant impact on ongoing settlement negotiations, and some Uber sexual assault lawsuits have already reportedly been resolved through confidential settlements.

Following the bellwether trials, if the parties have not settled or otherwise resolved the majority of the litigation, Judge Breyer will likely begin remanding claims back to their original federal courts for individual trials.

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

An Oregon man has filed an Andexxa lawsuit against several health care professionals, accusing them of malpractice, saying they misused the blood thinner reversal agent, which resulted in serious injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Michael Cassel in Oregon Circuit Court on May 11. It names Radiology Associates PC, Dr. Bernardo H. Isuani, McKenzie Physician Services, Dr. Andre C. McIvor and Alex C. Bauer as defendants.

Cassel indicates he was taking Xarelto, a newer-generation blood thinner prescribed to treat atrial fibrillation, when he went to the emergency room in May 2024. Before surgery to address his pain, doctors allegedly administered Andexxa to reverse the blood-thinning effects of Xarelto and reduce the risk of serious bleeding complications.

However, Cassel claims Andexxa carries a known risk of thrombotic events, which may occur in about 7% of patients, and indicates that the reversal agent was never approved for use as a preventive treatment before any bleeding had actually occurred.

Andexxa Blood Clot Risks

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved Andexxa (andexenet) in 2018, through a fast-track review process. The drug was designed to stop uncontrollable bleeding events linked to a new generation of direct oral anticoagulants, including Xarelto and Eliquis. Unlike their older predecessor warfarin, these drugs’ blood thinning effects could not be stopped through the use of vitamin K, and doctors often found themselves in situations where they could not prevent patients from bleeding out.

However, Andexxa was launched carrying a black box warning for certain thromboembolic risks, like blood clots, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. In December, the FDA issued an Andexxa safety communication, indicating that the risk of blood clots was much higher than originally anticipated. This resulted in the manufacturer, AstraZeneca, issuing an Andexxa recall, removing the drug from the market.

FDA analysis of post-marketing data indicated that taking Andexxa more than doubled the risk of thrombosis, or blood clots, with 14.6% of Andexxa patients experiencing clotting, as opposed to 6.9% of patients who underwent standard medical care. Andexxa patients were also more than twice as likely to die than those given standard care, with 2.5% of patients dying on the Andexxa side of the trial, compared to just 0.9% treated via standard care.

Andexxa Thrombosis Allegations

According to the medical malpractice claims, Cassel was diagnosed with an inflamed gallbladder after suffering severe abdominal pain. Doctors decided that the organ needed to be removed yet was too inflamed to do so at the time. Therefore, they decided to try decompression of his gallbladder first.

Cassel indicates that he was given Andexxa as a prophylactic, before any bleeding problems were diagnosed. However, the drug was never designed, nor approved, to be used in that capacity.

Following placement of a percutaneous cholecystostomy tube by Dr. Isuani on May 27, 2024, Cassel says he underwent sudden heart problems, resulting in ventricular fibrillation arrest that required emergency resuscitation. An examination and cardiac catheterization revealed he suffered severe blood clots, which blocked vital arteries, including the right coronary artery (RCA) and left anterior descending (LAD) artery. Both were 99% to 100% blocked.

The filing indicates these symptoms are consistent with an acute thrombotic event, which could have been caused by Andexxa.

While Cassel’s lawsuit focuses on malpractice allegations, it comes as a number of other Andexxa lawsuits are being investigated by lawyers, although most claims are likely to target the drug’s manufacturers rather than the physicians who prescribed it.

Cassel presents claims of medical negligence and lack of informed consent. He seeks nearly $11 million in economic and noneconomic losses.

Andexxa Lawsuits

In the wake of the market removal, product liability lawyers are investigating potential Andexxa lawsuits over injuries and wrongful deaths linked to the reversal agent’s side effects and complications, which can include:

• Stroke
• Heart attack
• Pulmonary embolism
• Deep vein thrombosis (DVT)
• Other dangerous blood clots requiring emergency treatment
• Sudden or unexpected clotting shortly after Andexxa was administered
• Death caused by a blood clot or clot-related complication

Lawyers are offering free consultations and claim evaluations to help families determine whether financial compensation may be available through an Andexxa lawsuit, as a result of the drug makers failure to adequately research the side effects and warn about potential risks associated with the reversal agent.

All lawsuits over Andexxa side effects are being investigated on a contingency fee basis, which means there are no upfront costs to hire a lawyer, and no fees or expenses are charged unless a recovery is obtained through an Andexxa settlement or verdict.

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

A Texas man has filed a Farberware pressure cooker lawsuit claiming the appliance exploded while he was cooking, causing permanent burn injuries to his face, chest and arms.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Andre Owens in the U.S. District Court of Texas on May 21, naming Walmart Inc., the manufacturer and seller of the pressure cooker, as the defendant.

The Farberware 7-in-1 Programmable pressure cooker is a consumer kitchen appliance that uses high pressure to cook food rapidly. The device is typically designed with interlocking safety features intended to keep the lid secure when pressure builds to prevent users from opening the cooker while it is pressurized.

Although the devices have become increasingly popular over the past decade, numerous recalls and pressure cooker lawsuits have alleged that faulty safety features may allow the devices to explode or open while pressurized, spewing scalding contents onto users and causing severe burns.

Pressure Cooker Injury Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Owens used the Farberware pressure cooker on May 25, 2024 to prepare chicken and dumplings. After the cooking cycle ended, he attempted to open the lid, when the pressure cooker suddenly exploded.

Owens indicates the pressure cooker lid blew off with extreme force, despite the failsafe features of the product. The explosion spewed scalding liquid and steam across his body causing serious burn injuries to his abdomen, chest, neck, face, chin and arms.

The filing states that Farberware’s safety manual says the lid can only be removed once the pressure level lowers to required levels. However, Owens was able to remove the lid with built-up pressure still inside the unit.

Moreover, Walmart was allegedly aware of other exploding pressure cooker incidents linked to the defective design of the safety features, yet failed to take corrective action of any kind, including warning consumers or issuing a product recall.

“Defendant was previously aware of other incidents of exploding pressure cookers due to the identical design and manufacturing defects in the pressure cooker that maimed Plaintiff, yet Defendant failed to take adequate corrective action, including providing supplemental warnings, remedying the defect, withdrawing the product from sale, or otherwise protecting consumers from the latent danger caused by those known defects.”

— Andre Owens v. Walmart Inc.

The lawsuit presents claims of strict products liability design defect, manufacturing defect, marketing defect, failure to warn, negligence and post-sale failure to warn, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, gross negligence and deceptive trade practices.

It seeks punitive and compensatory damages for Owens’ physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment, disfigurement, medical expenses, future medical expenses, lost wages and loss of earning capacity.

Pressure Cooker Injury Lawsuits

Owens’ complaint is one of many pressure cooker explosion lawsuits filed in recent years against major brands and retailers, including Instant Pot, Shark Ninja, Crock-Pot and others. 

The lawsuits allege the electric kitchen devices suffer from major safety design flaws that allow for unsafe cooking conditions.

Pressure cooker injury attorneys are investigating potential claims on behalf of consumers harmed by the exploding devices. Individuals who suffered burns or other serious complications following one of these incidents may be eligible to pursue compensation for their damages.

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

Federal regulators have issued a new Impella heart pump warning involving certain Abiomed Impella CP Sets with SmartAssist, after reports that manufacturing problems may cause low purge pressure events capable of interrupting life-sustaining circulatory support.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the Impella CP early alert on May 27, following three reports of device failures that could have led to serious injuries and resulted in at least one death.

Impella devices are temporary mechanical heart pumps used to maintain blood flow in patients suffering cardiogenic shock or undergoing certain high-risk cardiac procedures. The systems are designed to reduce the workload on the heart while helping stabilize critically ill patients.

However, the devices have been linked to a series of problems in recent years, which have been blamed for causing multiple patient injuries and deaths. These adverse events have prompted a series of recalls and safety alerts by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Impella heart pump lawsuits are now being filed by patients and families who allege that defects with Abiomed Impella heart pumps caused severe injuries or deaths that may have been avoided with stronger warnings or earlier corrective action.

Impella CP Set Warning

According to the FDA, the affected Impella CP Sets may experience persistent low purge pressure alarms, which in some cases could lead to interruption or complete loss of mechanical circulatory support. Regulators warn that sudden loss of support may force emergency pump exchanges, cause hypotension, reduce blood flow to vital organs and increase the risk of death if not rapidly corrected.

The alert specifically involves certain Impella CP with SmartAssist Sets used during elective or urgent high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention procedures in patients with severe coronary artery disease. The affected devices all have product code 0048-0003, unique device identifier (UDI) 00813502012279 and the following serial numbers:

• 613525
• 644314
• 645428
• 644591
• 672986
• 673252
• 677223

Abiomed sent customers an urgent correction notice on May 18, advising hospitals and medical facilities to immediately review inventory and quarantine affected Impella CP Sets. The company instructed customers not to use impacted products and to return the devices through Sedgwick, the recall logistics coordinator.

The FDA also advised healthcare facilities to distribute the warning to all personnel responsible for storing, transporting or using the devices and to prominently post the notice within affected departments.

U.S. customers who experience adverse events, product quality concerns or have questions about the issue are encouraged to contact Abiomed through the company’s email support channel at OneMD-Field-Actions@its.jnj.com.

Healthcare providers and consumers can also submit reports involving adverse events or product quality concerns associated with the devices through the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

Impella Heart Pump Recalls and Warnings

The new Impella CP Set warning is the latest in a series of FDA recalls and safety alerts involving Abiomed heart pumps, which have raised concerns about device malfunctions, treatment interruptions and sudden loss of circulatory support.

An alert involving Automated Impella Controllers (AICs) was announced by federal regulators last week, warning that a software error could force the controller to unexpectedly restart during treatment, potentially interrupting circulatory support for critically ill patients. Regulators said that issue had already been associated with at least two serious injuries and one death.

Earlier this year, the FDA initiated a recall involving Impella Generation 1 Purge Cassettes after identifying an increased risk of purge leaks that could lead to pump stoppage and sudden loss of hemodynamic support. That issue was linked to at least four serious injuries.

In addition, a 2023 recall affected Impella 5.5 with SmartAssist systems after purge fluid leaks were found to increase the risk of device malfunctions, heart valve damage and other severe complications. The FDA indicated the issue had generated at least 179 adverse event reports.

Earlier that same year, the FDA issued a Class I recall for Impella Left Sided Blood Pumps. The announcement came after reports linked the devices to perforations of the heart wall. Regulators said the problem had already been associated with at least 129 injuries and 49 deaths.

Federal regulators also issued a Class I recall for Impella RP Flex catheter systems in June 2023, cautioning that insufficient instructions regarding blood clot risks could expose patients to potentially fatal injuries. At the time, the agency said the issue had been connected to at least 12 reported injuries.

Impella Heart Pump Lawsuits

Impella heart pump lawyers are investigating potential claims involving patients who suffered severe complications after receiving the heart pump systems, including:

If you or a loved one were injured after receiving an Impella heart pump, submit information about your potential claim for a lawyer to review to determine if you have a claim.

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

Federal regulators announced another Omnipod recall this month, which expands a prior warnings issued earlier this year to include another 7 million insulin delivery pods, following increased reports that defects may prevent the devices from delivering insulin properly.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the Omnipod recall update on May 26, indicating that Insulet Corporation is removing additional Omnipod 5 Pods from use after identifying problems linked to insulin under-delivery.

Omnipod Failure Risks

Omnipod 5 systems are wearable insulin delivery devices used by individuals with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes. The system uses disposable pods that continuously deliver insulin through a small cannula inserted beneath the skin, helping users manage blood glucose levels without multiple daily injections.

When functioning properly, Omnipod 5 systems automatically adjust insulin delivery based on continuous glucose monitor (CGM) readings. However, if insulin delivery is interrupted or reduced without the user realizing it, blood glucose levels may rise rapidly, potentially triggering severe metabolic emergencies.

According to the FDA, certain Omnipod 5 Pods may contain a manufacturing defect involving small tears in the internal tubing or soft cannula responsible for insulin delivery. If the tubing becomes damaged, insulin may leak inside the pod instead of being delivered into the body as intended, causing dangerous spikes in blood sugar levels.

Federal regulators warn that prolonged insulin under-delivery may lead to diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), a serious medical emergency that can result in hospitalization, coma or death if not promptly treated.

Omnipod Recall Injuries

The current Omnipod recall significantly expands a March 2026 medical device correction involving certain Omnipod 5 Pods distributed nationwide. At the time of the original recall, Insulet reported 18 serious adverse events involving high blood glucose levels, hospitalizations and diabetic ketoacidosis.

However, that number jumped dramatically in the following weeks, with the FDA eventually announcing there were at least 476 reports of serious injuries linked to the Omnipod 5 pods.

Insulet later clarified that the FDA’s announcement of 476 serious injury reports involved potential, rather than confirmed cases. Federal regulators now indicate the number of confirmed injuries has reached 24, and the recall impacts approximately 7 million pods distributed throughout the United States.

Potential complications associated with Omnipod 5 pod malfunctions may include:

• Severe hyperglycemia: If the pod delivers too little insulin, blood sugar levels may increase rapidly, sometimes before users realize the device is malfunctioning. Regulators caution that interruptions in insulin delivery may not always be immediately noticeable, potentially delaying treatment.
• Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA): DKA is a life-threatening emergency that develops when the body lacks sufficient insulin to process glucose, forcing it to break down fat and produce dangerous ketone levels. Symptoms may include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, confusion, rapid breathing and fruity-smelling breath. Without immediate treatment, DKA can lead to dehydration, organ failure or death.
• Hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS): HHS is another severe diabetes-related emergency caused by extremely elevated blood sugar levels, most commonly affecting individuals with Type 2 diabetes. The condition may result in profound dehydration, neurological complications, seizures, coma or death.
• Hospitalization and emergency intervention: Both DKA and HHS often require urgent medical care, including intravenous fluids, insulin administration and treatment to restore electrolyte balance. Delays in care may increase the risk of serious long-term health consequences.
• Diabetic coma or fatal complications: In the most serious cases, defective pods that interrupt insulin delivery may lead to diabetic coma or death, particularly when users are unaware the device is no longer functioning correctly.

Omnipod Failure Indicators

The FDA has classified the Omnipod action as a Class I medical device recall, indicating use of the affected products may cause serious injuries or death.

Regulators say users of the affected pods may notice moisture on their skin or around the pod adhesive, or detect the odor of insulin leaking from the device. They also caution that the malfunction may not always be obvious and, in some cases, could occur without the user realizing it.

Insulet has instructed users not to use pods from affected lot numbers and to immediately check product packaging or pod tray labels to determine whether devices are included in the recall. The company warns that the risk of insulin under-delivery may increase if patients use more than one defective pod in succession.

The company is advising anyone currently using a pod from an affected lot to stop using it immediately and replace it with a pod from an unaffected lot. Customers can confirm whether their pod is included in the voluntary correction by visiting Insulet’s online lot checker. 

Consumers in the United States who experience adverse reactions, product defects or have questions about the recall can contact Insulet customer support at 1-800-641-2049 or speak with a representative through the live chat feature on the company’s website.

Federal regulators are advising users experiencing unexplained high blood sugar levels, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, confusion or difficulty breathing to seek immediate medical attention, as those symptoms may indicate diabetic ketoacidosis.

Omnipod Recall Lawsuits

Following the expanded Omnipod recall, lawyers nationwide are reviewing potential Omnipod 5 lawsuits on behalf of diabetic patients who suffered serious injuries allegedly caused by insulin delivery failures.

Individuals who have been injured after using an Omnipod 5 pod may be eligible to pursue compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering and other damages, particularly in cases involving:

• Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA)
• Hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS)
• Hospitalization
• Diabetic coma
• Other serious complications

Consumers who believe they may qualify for an Omnipod 5 lawsuit can request a free case evaluation, during which attorneys review the circumstances of the injury, discuss potential legal options and determine whether a claim may be pursued.

Attorneys handling Omnipod cases work on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no fees or expenses unless a settlement or recovery is obtained.

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

The U.S. District Judge presiding over all federal hair relaxer lawsuits being pursued by women who allege they developed cancer from popular chemical straighteners has reappointed dozens of plaintiffs’ lawyers to leadership positions as the litigation moves toward the first bellwether trials.

Cosmetics manufacturers like L’Oreal, Revlon and Strength of Nature face more than 11,000 product liability lawsuits brought by women nationwide, each involving similar allegations that they developed reproductive cancers from hair relaxers following years of exposure to toxic chemicals in Just for Me, Dark & Lovely, Optimum and other popular products.

The lawsuits allege that the manufacturers knew, or should have known, their products increased the risk of uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and other injuries, yet failed to provide adequate warning to consumers.

Lawsuits first began to be filed following a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in October 2022, which found that women who use hair relaxers more than four times per year face a 156% increased risk of developing uterine cancer. Even infrequent use of between one and four times per year was found to increase the risk of uterine cancer by 54%.

According to plaintiffs, the products were heavily marketed toward women of color in an attempt to financially capitalize on pressure for them to conform to western societal hair beauty standards. However, these actions led to disproportionate exposure to toxic and cancer-causing chemicals, including phthalates, parabens and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals, which have been associated with hormone disruption and the development of tumors in reproductive tissues.

Hair Relaxer Lawyer Reappointments

Since March 2023, all federal complaints have been consolidated into a hair relaxer cancer lawsuit multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

When the litigation was first consolidated, Judge Rowland appointed a group of 35 plaintiffs’ attorneys to serve in leadership positions that would represent the interests of all plaintiffs involved in the litigation. These hair relaxer cancer lawsuit attorneys have taken actions during the coordinated pretrial proceedings that have benefitted all women pursuing a hair relaxer injury claim.

Late last week, Judge Rowland issued a court order (PDF) reappointing those lawyers for another year, including four attorneys to serve as co-lead counsel, one plaintiffs’ liaison counsel, an eight-person Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, a 25-person Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and a leadership development committee that includes two co-leads, seven members and a five-member leadership development subcommittee.

The reappointments will last one year, at which time Judge Rowland will decide whether to continue the appointments.

Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Bellwether Trials

The decision to reassign the leadership attorneys comes as Judge Rowland directs the parties to prepare 32 hair relaxer lawsuits for potential bellwether trials, intended to help the court and parties evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their claims, potentially facilitating settlement negotiations to resolve the litigation.

In early April, the Judge selected 10 cases to move forward as bellwether trials. However, on May 21, the parties issued a joint status report (PDF) indicating they face a number of disagreements over the ongoing discovery process, despite a June 10 deadline for fact discovery to be completed. It is currently unclear when the first bellwether trials will take place.

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

If the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings end with no settlement or other resolution to the litigation, the lawsuits may be remanded back to their originating federal district courts for individual trial dates.

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

A wrongful death lawsuit alleges Amazon ignored clear signs that a Georgia woman was purchasing flavored nitrous oxide canisters and inhalation accessories for recreational use, leading to abuse of the gas that resulted in severe neurological injuries and her eventual death.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Christopher Good individually and as the administrator of the estate of his daughter, Rylie Good, as well as the deceased woman’s mother, Elisa Good, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 13. It names Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon.com Inc. as defendants.

The Goods contend that Amazon should have recognized from Rylie’s repeated orders of candy-flavored canisters, masks, tubing and regulator valves that nitrous oxide products distributed through the platform were being used for recreational inhalation. Yet the retailer placed a desire for profits before the health and safety of consumers, by continuing to sell the nitrous oxide gas canisters.

Nitrous Oxide Inhalation Risks

Nitrous oxide is a colorless gas commonly used as an anesthetic in dentistry and medicine, and as a propellant in whipped cream dispensers. Although those uses are lawful, the gas is also widely misused for its brief euphoric effects. Inhaling nitrous oxide can displace oxygen in the body, creating risks that include loss of consciousness, neurological damage and death.

According to a number of recent nitrous oxide lawsuits, certain manufacturers and distributors sell the gas in large canisters with flavors such as cotton candy, blue raspberry and strawberry, which many plaintiffs say have no legitimate culinary purpose and are designed to encourage inhalation rather than food preparation.

These lawsuits allege that companies such as Galaxy Gas, Whip-It!, Miami Magic and others are selling flavored nitrous oxide products despite knowing they are widely misused for recreational inhalation. The complaints claim the products remain readily available through Amazon and brick-and-mortar smoke shops, with inadequate warnings and few safeguards to prevent purchases by individuals seeking to abuse the gas.

Nitrous Oxide Wrongful Death Allegations

According to the complaint, Rylie Good, a mother of three young children, was in her mid-20s when she began buying flavored Galaxy Gas nitrous oxide canisters through Amazon in late 2023. Her parents say the volume and frequency of those purchases, along with orders for masks, tubing and regulator valves, should have made it clear the products were being used for recreational inhalation rather than cooking.

The lawsuit alleges Rylie inhaled nitrous oxide daily for several months before she was hospitalized in December 2023 with severe nerve damage that left her unable to walk without a walker. She later received treatment for vitamin B12 depletion, peripheral neuropathy, cognitive impairment and other neurological injuries, before dying from a pulmonary embolism on May 14, 2024, while undergoing rehabilitation.

Her parents claim Amazon and the other defendants failed to provide adequate warnings or safeguards, despite evidence that customers were using the products to get high. The complaint points to Amazon purchase data, product reviews and related-product recommendations for nozzles and other accessories, which plaintiffs say showed the canisters were being used for inhalation rather than any legitimate culinary purpose.

The Goods argue Rylie’s injuries and death could have been prevented if Amazon had monitored unusually frequent purchases, restricted sales and provided stronger warnings about the risks of hypoxia, nerve damage and death.

“At no time did Defendants adequately instruct Decedent not to inhale nitrous oxide or adequately warn Decedent about the dangers of using nitrous oxide as a recreational drug. Defendants failed to include adequate warnings regarding the risks of inhaling nitrous oxide in the product’s packaging or promotional materials. Defendants also failed to include adequate warnings regarding the risks of inhaling nitrous oxide on the Amazon website and related platforms.”

— Christopher Good et al. v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict product liability, design defect, failure to warn, negligence and outrage. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Nitrous Oxide Abuse Lawsuits

Manufacturers and distributors are now facing a growing number of nitrous oxide injury lawsuits over canisters allegedly marketed and sold for recreational inhalation. Many of the complaints also name Amazon.com as a defendant, claiming the online marketplace helped make the products widely available despite signs they were being abused.

The lawsuits allege these companies knowingly enabled the unlawful sale of nitrous oxide for non-medical and non-culinary use, even as evidence mounted that customers were buying the canisters to inhale the gas rather than use it for food preparation.

Nitrous oxide 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.

The parents of a 5-year-old girl from England have filed a product liability lawsuit, indicating that a recalled Bivona pediatric tracheostomy tube catastrophically failed while the child slept, causing fatal injuries.

Selma Akhtar and Kamran Mehram brought the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 7, pursuing wrongful death and survival claims over the death of their daughter, Umaima Mehram.

The lawsuit names ICU Medical Inc. as the defendant, which took over as the manufacturer of Bivona tracheostomy tubes following the company’s 2022 acquisition of Smiths Medical. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 15.

Akhtar and Mehram contend that their daughter, Umaima, depended on a Bivona FlexTend 3.5 uncuffed pediatric tracheostomy tube to receive life-sustaining ventilation while sleeping and napping. However, a product defect eventually caused the tube to become dislodged, leaving her without oxygen for nearly an hour before she ultimately died from severe brain injuries

Bivona Tracheostomy Tube Recall

Bivona tracheostomy tubes are silicone airway devices used in children and adults who require long-term breathing support through a surgically created opening in the neck. The tubes are designed to remain securely in the airway through a flange that rests against the patient’s neck and is attached to ties that keep the device in place.

However, Smiths Medical initiated a worldwide recall of dozens of Bivona neonatal, pediatric and adult tracheostomy tubes on May 31, 2024, after identifying manufacturing defects that could cause the flange to crack, tear or separate. These defects could result in airway dislodgement and potentially life-threatening loss of ventilation. As of the recall notice, ICU Medical had received at least 35 reports of serious injuries and one death associated with the affected devices.

The complaint notes that the same size 3.5 pediatric FlexTend model used by Umaima was specifically included in the recall.

Tracheostomy Tube Wrongful Death Allegations

According to the complaint, Umaima was born with complex heart and airway abnormalities, forcing her to rely on a tracheostomy tube since infancy. By late 2022, her condition had improved substantially, and doctors were optimistic that she might eventually be weaned off mechanical ventilation altogether.

However, the lawsuit indicates that the Bivona tracheostomy tube Umaima used had the same defective securement flange issue described in the company’s May 2024 recall announcement.

The flange is designed to hold the tube in place. In Umaima’s case, the lawsuit alleges that it sheared away from the tube body on the morning of December 9, 2022, causing an accidental decannulation that cut off her airway.

Although her mother immediately began CPR and emergency responders were able to restore a weak pulse after 58 minutes, Umaima allegedly suffered irreversible hypoxic brain damage and died at Birmingham Children’s Hospital on January 3, 2023.

The lawsuit indicates that ICU Medical acquired Smiths Medical in January 2022, assuming responsibility for the design, manufacture and distribution of Bivona tracheostomy tubes. The complaint also alleges that the company inherited longstanding regulatory concerns, including a 2021 FDA warning letter citing deficiencies in complaint handling and corrective action procedures.

The two parents claim Umaima’s mother repeatedly reported defects involving her daughter’s Bivona tubes throughout 2022, including a protruding spring wire and multiple cracks in the connection between the securement flange and tube body. Medical staff allegedly submitted formal complaints to ICU Medical and the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, yet the company failed to act with sufficient urgency.

“At all times relevant to this action, ICU Medical misrepresented the safety of its tracheostomy tubes and securement flanges and negligently manufactured, marketed, advertised, promoted, and sold its tracheostomy tubes.”

— Selma Akhtar et al. v. ICU Medical Inc.

The filing indicates that ICU Medical’s own internal investigation identified several potential manufacturing failures. Those included an undocumented practice in which workers allegedly used scissors to cut defective flange components before returning them to production. The investigation also identified worn molds that may have created sharp edges capable of damaging the silicone flanges.

Akhtar and Mehram raise allegations of strict products liability, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, wrongful death and survival action. They are seeking general, special and statutory damages.

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

An Oregon woman has filed a product liability lawsuit, alleging her Tesla vehicle suddenly caught fire while she was driving, causing her to lose control and crash.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Maria Salcedo in Oregon Circuit Court on May 1, naming Tesla Inc. as the sole defendant. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on May 18.

Salcedo claims the Tesla caught fire without warning while she was driving with her children and a friend, causing a crash that left her with a concussion, severe psychological trauma and injuries requiring surgery. Her passenger, Jewlien Battles, allegedly helped Salcedo and her children escape the burning vehicle, suffering permanent second-degree burns to his hands, arms, neck and abdomen, as well as a concussion.

Tesla Battery Fire Risks

According to the complaint, the fire was due to a dangerously defective battery system that allegedly caused the vehicle’s lithium-ion battery to spontaneously combust.

Similar allegations of battery fires have been raised in other lawsuits involving Tesla cars and trucks. In one case, a California man claims he suffered severe and life threatening injuries when the electronic door locks on his Tesla Model Y failed after the vehicle crashed and caught fire, preventing his escape.

In a separate wrongful death lawsuit, the daughters of a California man allege malfunctioning electronic door handles in a 2023 Tesla Model Y trapped their father inside the burning vehicle after it crashed while on Autopilot.

Tesla Battery Fire Allegations

Salcedo alleges that on January 8, 2025, she was driving her Tesla under normal conditions when the vehicle suddenly caught fire without warning, causing her to lose control and strike a median barrier.

Battles, who was a passenger, then assisted Salcedo and her children in escaping the burning vehicle, sustaining substantial permanent second degree burns to his hands, arms, neck and abdomen, along with a concussion. Salcedo also suffered a concussion and psychological trauma requiring surgical treatment.

The complaint further states that Salcedo involuntarily urinated on herself from the impact and fear, and now suffers from nightmares, anxiety and a persistent fear of driving or riding in vehicles after witnessing her children and friend nearly perish in the fire.

Salcedo claims the fire was caused by defects in the vehicle’s battery or energy management system and was not the result of driver error or any outside force.

“Plaintiff alleges that Tesla’s design, manufacturing, and/or failure to warn of the dangers of its vehicle’s energy systems directly resulted in the fire, injuries, and resulting trauma.”

— Maria Salcedo v. Tesla Inc.

The lawsuit raises allegations of product liability and negligence. It seeks at least $250,000 in general damages, more than $50,000 in medical expenses and over $500,000 in non-economic damages for pain, suffering and emotional distress, along with interest, costs and other relief the court deems appropriate.

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

A growing number of women nationwide are reporting painful and debilitating GalaFLEX mesh complications, often resulting in the need for breast implant revision or removal surgery, after the surgical mesh product was used off-label during breast augmentation, breast lift or reconstruction surgery.

GalaFLEX Mesh is a resorbable synthetic surgical mesh made from poly-4-hydroxybutyrate, or P4HB, which was cleared by the FDA in May 2014 through the controversial 510(k) approval process. The device was approved as a surgical mesh for soft-tissue support, including repair, elevation and reinforcement where weakness or voids exist, but it is now widely used off-label during breast augmentation or reconstruction.

Although it was never approved for use in the breast, critics claim that manufacturers have sold synthetic mesh products directly to cosmetic and reconstructive surgeons, knowing they would be used as an “internal bra” to support breast implants, reinforce breast tissue and help preserve shape after breast procedures.

Women now claim they were never adequately warned about the risk of breast mesh problems, including design defects that could cause the mesh to fail inside the breast, become painful, shift out of position, promote infections or lead to the need for breast implant removal surgery.

Over the last several years, adverse event reports submitted to the FDA’s MAUDE database have described GalaFLEX complications involving mesh rolling beneath the skin, failure to incorporate into tissue, infection, seroma, hematoma, wound breakdown, implant displacement, bottoming out, chronic pain and breast deformity.

In some reports, these breast mesh side effects allegedly led to explant surgery, implant removal or revision procedures to remove the failed mesh and repair the breast pocket.

As a result, GalaFLEX breast mesh lawsuits are now being filed for women who required additional surgery after receiving synthetic mesh during breast augmentation, breast lift, implant revision or reconstruction procedures. Plaintiffs allege that manufacturers failed to adequately test the products for breast surgery, failed to warn about the risk of mesh failure and continued selling the devices for a use that was never cleared or approved by the FDA.

GalaFLEX Complications Lead to Explant Surgery

GalaFLEX breast mesh does not usually need to be removed simply because a woman is unhappy with the cosmetic outcome. Explant surgery is more likely to become necessary when the mesh is tied to a medical complication, fails to provide the intended support, becomes painful or palpable, or interferes with proper healing of the breast pocket.

FDA MAUDE reports often describe a similar course of events. GalaFLEX is placed during breast augmentation, mastopexy, revision surgery or reconstruction. Weeks, months or even years later, the patient develops problems such as pain, swelling, infection, fluid buildup, wound breakdown, implant displacement or a loss of breast support.

When antibiotics, drainage, observation or other conservative treatment measures fail to resolve the problem, surgeons may need to reopen the breast pocket. In some cases, this involves removing the GalaFLEX mesh, removing or replacing the implant, draining fluid or blood, debriding damaged tissue and attempting to reconstruct the breast pocket.

Complications that may lead to GalaFLEX removal surgery include:

• Nerve damage or chronic pain, especially when mesh becomes palpable, folds, rolls, tightens the breast pocket or irritates nearby tissue.
• Delayed infection or abscess, particularly when infection develops more than 90 days after implantation and involves the mesh or implant pocket.
• Seroma, when fluid builds up around the mesh or implant and cannot be resolved with observation or drainage.
• Hematoma, when blood collects inside the breast pocket and requires drainage, evacuation or additional surgery.
• Mesh migration or displacement, including reports of mesh shifting, folding, rolling, detaching or failing to hold the implant pocket.
• Skin necrosis or tissue breakdown, when skin or breast tissue is damaged, breaks down, becomes infected or fails to heal.
• Reconstructive failure, when the mesh fails to provide lasting support, the implant drops, the breast becomes distorted or the pocket breaks down.
• Implant rupture or implant failure, when the implant is damaged, displaced or no longer supported by the mesh-reinforced pocket.

Real-World GalaFLEX Problems Involving Explant or Revision Surgery

While the FDA MAUDE reports do not prove that GalaFLEX caused the reported injuries, they provide real-world examples of the types of complications women have reported after GalaFLEX was used in breast augmentation, lift, revision or reconstruction procedures.

Together, the reports show why GalaFLEX lawsuits are focused on women who required explant or revision surgery. The concern is that women allegedly suffered complications serious enough to require another operation to remove failed mesh, treat infection, drain fluid or blood, repair damaged tissue, remove or replace the implant, or correct a failed reconstruction.

GalaFLEX Failure to Warn Lawsuits Being Filed

GalaFLEX breast mesh lawsuits are being pursued by women who allege they were never adequately warned about the risks associated with using synthetic mesh in breast augmentation, breast lift, implant revision or reconstruction procedures.

The claims allege that GalaFLEX was promoted and sold for breast surgery without FDA approval or clearance for that specific use. Plaintiffs contend that the product was presented to surgeons and patients as a safe, reliable internal support scaffold, while the manufacturers knew or should have known that the mesh could fail to perform as expected and cause serious complications.

According to recently filed GalaFLEX lawsuits, the mesh may fail to dissolve or incorporate properly into the surrounding tissue, triggering inflammation, chronic pain, infection, seroma formation, tissue damage, implant displacement, loss of breast support and the need for additional surgery. In many cases, women allege they only learned about these risks after suffering complications that required revision surgery, implant removal or GalaFLEX explant surgery.

The failure to warn allegations focus on whether manufacturers provided adequate risk information to doctors and patients before the mesh was implanted. Lawsuits also claim that stronger warnings should have been issued after manufacturers received reports of GalaFLEX complications, mesh failures, infections, painful scarring, failed reconstructions and other adverse outcomes following breast surgery.

Breast Mesh Explant Surgery Lawyers

As more women report GalaFLEX problems requiring additional medical treatment, breast mesh lawyers are investigating whether manufacturers withheld or minimized important safety information that may have changed the decision to use the product.

Financial compensation through a breast mesh lawsuit settlement may be available for women who received an internal bra mesh implant during breast reconstruction, augmentation, or revision surgery and later suffered any of the following;

• Nerve damage
• Infection or abscess
• Seroma
• Hematoma
• Migration or displacement
• Skin necrosis
• Reconstructive failure
• Implant rupture
• Explant or revision surgery

Submit information about your breast mesh complications for review by an attorney to determine whether you may be eligible to file a claim. All consultations are free, and cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no fees or expenses unless a settlement is obtained in your case.

A West Virginia woman alleges her defective Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant (SCI) failed and left her needing a permanent fusion of her left big toe, despite claims that the device could help patients avoid that surgery.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Celena Luster in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia on May 14, naming Cartiva Inc. as the defendant.

Luster claims that a defective Cartiva SCI was marketed to her as a motion-preserving alternative to big toe fusion surgery. However, the product failed within a year of being implanted, causing chronic pain, stiffness, bone loss and limited mobility that required surgeons to remove the device and permanently fuse the joint. 

Cartiva SCI Failure Risks

The Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant was developed to treat hallux limitus and hallux rigidus, degenerative forms of arthritis affecting the big toe. Made from a polyvinyl alcohol-based hydrogel, the device was marketed as a motion-preserving alternative to fusion surgery, which permanently locks the joint in place.

However, after mounting reports of complications and evidence suggesting the implant failed far more often than initially disclosed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a Cartiva recall in October 2024.

The recall has fueled a growing number of Cartiva surgery lawsuits filed by patients who allege they suffered severe toe pain, implant loosening, bone loss and other complications after receiving the device. In many cases, the failures reportedly left patients with no option other than surgery to permanently fuse the big toe, resulting in a significant loss of mobility.

Cartiva Implant Failure Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Luster underwent Cartiva surgery on December 21, 2020, at West Virginia University Medicine, where the device was implanted in her left big toe. The complaint says she chose the implant after being told it would provide faster recovery and preserve movement compared to traditional fusion surgery.

Instead, Luster allegedly developed chronic pain, stiffness and limited range of motion in her foot. Less than one year later, on December 20, 2021, surgeons removed the implant and fused the bones in her big toe together permanently. During the revision surgery, doctors reportedly found significant scarring, osteophytes and breakdown of the cartilage in the joint, which the complaint says is consistent with known Cartiva failure mechanisms.

The lawsuit alleges Cartiva knew long before Luster’s surgery that the device was associated with much higher failure rates than disclosed in its clinical studies and marketing materials. The complaint cites published research and physician reports suggesting that actual failure rates may have been 64%, far above the 13.5% rate reported to the FDA.

Luster further claims Cartiva promoted the implant as a quick, minimally invasive procedure that would reduce pain and preserve toe motion, while failing to adequately warn patients and physicians about the risks of implant shrinkage, migration, bone erosion, loss of mobility and the need for additional surgeries.

“As a result of the implantation of the Defective Device, Plaintiff has suffered additional surgeries and medical expenses and the removal of the implant and subsequent surgery to ‘fuse’ her big toe bones together, all of which was needed to correct the toe deformity and bone loss caused by the Defective Device, and causing additional loss of income, loss of enjoyment of life, and pain and suffering.”

— Celena Luster v. Cartiva Inc.

The complaint raises allegations of strict products liability, negligence, misbranded and adulterated device, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn, and violations of various state laws. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Cartiva Implant Recall Lawsuits

Luster’s lawsuit will be transferred to the federal Cartiva failure multidistrict litigation (MDL), where more than a dozen similar complaints have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker in the Eastern District of Arkansas for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Baker is expected to establish a series of early bellwether trials, which will allow juries to hear representative claims and help both sides gauge how evidence and testimony may be viewed in cases throughout the MDL.

Although the results of these test trials will not directly determine the outcome of other lawsuits, they are expected to play an important role in shaping negotiations over a potential Cartiva lawsuit settlement.

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

The first federal social media addiction bellwether trial, which was scheduled to begin next month, has been cancelled after a Kentucky school district reached a settlement with Meta and other social media platforms.

The lawsuit involved claims brought by Breathitt County Board of Education, accusing the owners of Facebook, Snapchat, TikTok and other sites of causing serious educational, developmental and mental health problems for youths in the school district by designing social media apps to be intentionally addictive and harmful. 

The school district claims social media addictions suffered by its students have caused the board to expend significant resources to combat the problem, including the need to provide tutoring and counseling for those affected.

The complaint is one of 2,500 similar federal social media addiction lawsuits filed by school districts, states and individuals nationwide over the sites’ compulsive properties. Plaintiffs say the platforms were intentionally designed to hook impressionable young minds, regardless of the potential outcomes, which can reportedly include anxiety, depression, eating disorders, behavioral problems, self-harm and suicide.

In addition, much of the litigation alleges that the companies knew their platforms posed mental health risks to children, but continued to prioritize engagement and profits over user safety.

Social Media Addiction Settlement

Given common issues of fact and law, all federal social media addiction lawsuits have been consolidated as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. Judge Rogers is also having the parties prepare for a series of “bellwether” early test trials.

The first federal social media bellwether trial was scheduled to begin on June 15, involving the Breathitt County school district claims. However, on May 21 the parties issued a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal (PDF) to Judge Rogers, announcing they have resolved the litigation through a settlement agreement.

Meta was the last defendant in the Breathitt lawsuit, after Snap, TikTok and YouTube had already settled the litigation earlier. No terms of the settlement were released. However, the school district had been seeking more than $60 million in damages.

Following the settlement announcement, Judge Rogers issued a case management order (PDF) indicating that the next two bellwether trials will involve claims by the Tucson Unified School District and Charleston County School District. The order does not specifically announce which of the two claims will be selected.

“Jury selection shall occur on February 3, 2027 with opening statements and evidence to proceed on Monday, February 8, 2027. The Court will prepare both cases for trial so that in the event the first resolves, the second can proceed.”

– U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Northern District of California

Social Media Addiction Lawsuit Trials

Alongside the federal litigation, a number of social media addiction lawsuits filed in state courts have already gone to trial. In March, a Los Angeles jury found that Meta and Google should pay $6 million in damages to a woman who said she suffered anxiety and depression due to social media addiction fostered by apps like Facebook and YouTube when she was a minor. 

Only a couple days earlier, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million in damages to the state, after finding the company liable for mental health problems linked to social media addiction among teens. 

While all of these trials are being closely watched, the outcomes are not binding on other claims. However, their results could help the parties reach more social media addiction lawsuit settlements, preventing thousands of prolonged and expensive trials.

Following completion of the bellwether trials, if no global settlement or other resolution has been reached to resolve the litigation, Judge Rogers will likely begin remanding lawsuits back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

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