The settlement came after hard-fought litigation and repeated attempts by the defendant to avoid responsibility, by arguing that our client was barred from obtaining any compensation at all under Maryland contributory negligence law. However, Fran and Katelyn were able to aggressively and strategically pursue the claim, making it clear that these liability defenses would fail at trial.

This case and settlement highlight why the Maryland legislature needs to adopt changes to the state’s contributory negligence laws for vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, which our law firm has been advocating for years.

Defendants Initially Refused to Offer Any Compensation

This accident occurred as our client was walking along a sidewalk, and a commercial truck made a tight right turn while exiting a driveway. After the truck stopped, our client proceeded across the driveway, but the driver suddenly moved forward again, without properly checking for a pedestrian and ran over both of her legs. One leg ultimately had to be amputated, while the other was left severely mangled.

The defendants relied on disputed witness accounts to argue that our client contributed to her own injuries by walking into the truck and failing to pay attention while walking down the sidewalk. Based on those allegations, they argued that she was barred from receiving any financial compensation for her catastrophic injuries under Maryland’s contributory negligence law.

Before the lawsuit was filed, the defendants and their insurance carriers made no settlement offer. They continued to deny liability after the lengthy litigation process got underway, until our lawyers were able to establish that a jury would reject these arguments and find that the driver was the only negligent party.

The case demonstrates why an insurance company’s initial denial should not be treated as the final word. Pedestrian accident claims often involve conflicting witness accounts and sharply disputed questions about visibility, right-of-way and driver attention, requiring attorneys prepared to develop the evidence and continue litigating, even when the defense refuses to accept responsibility.

It also highlights how insurance companies in Maryland are able to abuse this state’s contributory negligence laws by forcing severely injured parties through a lengthy litigation process.

Documenting the Full Value of Catastrophic Injuries

Establishing liability was only one part of the case. Fran and Katelyn also had to document the full financial impact of injuries that will affect the client for the rest of her life.

Maryland law limits recovery for noneconomic damages such as pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. However, the economic damages associated with an amputation, severe disability to the remaining leg and lifelong medical needs may continue for decades.

With more than three decades of experience as a Maryland personal injury lawyer, Francis Lanasa developed a detailed economic damages claim, including a life care plan addressing future medical treatment, rehabilitation, prosthetic care, assistance and other long-term needs. That work demonstrated the true value of the client’s losses and helped support the $5 million settlement reached during a mediation process.

Maryland Law Can Place Injured Pedestrians at a Severe Disadvantage

The defendants’ refusal to accept responsibility also reflects a broader challenge facing pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users in Maryland. The state still follows contributory negligence, a doctrine often called the “1% rule” because an injured person may be denied all compensation if the defense proves that the person contributed to the accident in any legally significant way.

Unlike comparative negligence systems, which reduce compensation according to each person’s share of fault, Maryland’s rule can completely bar recovery even when a driver bears most of the responsibility. In pedestrian accident cases, insurers may rely on allegations that the injured person failed to use a crosswalk, entered the roadway too quickly, wore dark clothing or did not maintain a proper lookout.

Those arguments can turn a relatively small dispute over a pedestrian’s conduct into a complete defense to the claim. As a result, seriously injured people may be forced into prolonged litigation simply to establish that they are entitled to any compensation at all.

Maryland lawmakers have considered narrowing that rule for vulnerable road users. In 2025, House Bill 594 proposed allowing pedestrians, cyclists and certain other roadway users to recover reduced compensation when they were partially at fault, rather than automatically losing the entire claim. The bill did not advance.

A similar proposal returned in 2026 as House Bill 466. It was referred for further study but did not become law, leaving Maryland’s contributory negligence rule unchanged.

That legal backdrop helps explain why this case required such protracted litigation. The defendants relied on Maryland law to deny liability and made no settlement offer before the lawsuit was filed. Saiontz & Kirk attorneys Francis Lanasa and Katelyn Wallace continued developing the evidence and challenging those defenses, forcing the defendant to pay the financial compensation our client was entitled to receive.

Maryland Residents Can Push for Negligence Law Revisions

Saiontz & Kirk has previously discussed the legal challenges facing vulnerable road users in Maryland, including the state’s contributory negligence doctrine, the Boulevard Rule and the need for stronger protections for people walking and biking.

Those issues are not abstract legal debates. They directly affect whether a severely injured pedestrian or cyclist can obtain compensation after an accident.

The failure of House Bill 594 in 2025 and the referral of House Bill 466 for further study in 2026 do not mean efforts to change Maryland’s contributory negligence rule are over. House Bill 466 may be reconsidered in a future legislative session, and Maryland residents can encourage lawmakers to support protections for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

Residents can use the Maryland General Assembly’s Find My Representatives tool to identify the state senator and delegates representing their legislative district. Each legislator’s official page provides contact information that constituents can use to call, email or write their representatives.

When contacting lawmakers, residents can ask them to support comparative negligence legislation for vulnerable road users and explain why an injured pedestrian should not lose the right to compensation based on a minor allegation of fault.

Maryland Pedestrian Accident Lawyers

Pedestrian accident claims in Maryland often require a thorough investigation, especially when an insurance company attempts to blame the injured person and deny compensation under the state’s contributory negligence rule.

The Maryland pedestrian accident lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk examine how the crash occurred, challenge disputed witness accounts, evaluate the driver’s conduct and identify all available sources of recovery. In catastrophic injury cases, we also document the full value of medical expenses, lost income, future care and other lifelong losses.

As this $5 million settlement shows, an insurance company’s initial refusal to pay does not determine the outcome of a claim.

This litigation involves problems with a number of different spinal cord stimulators manufactured and sold over the past decade by Boston Scientific, Abbott, Medtronic and Nevro, which were marketed as permanent implants to help manage chronic back pain or nerve pain.

Request a Free Claim Review by a SPINAL CORD STIMULATOR LAWSUIT

"*" indicates required fields

Step 1 of 2

0%

Comments

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

1. How long ago was the Spinal Cord Stimulator implanted?*

---0-5 years ago6-10 years agoOver 10 years agoUnsure when implantedDid not have spinal cord stimulator, but have questions

2. Which best describes the complications experienced after the Spinal Cord Stimulator?*

---Burns or shocksDevice migrationLead wires problemsOther malfunction or injuryNo complications, but I have questions

3. Did the complications require medical treatment or surgery (including removal of the device)?*

---Yes, Medical Evaluation or TreatmentYes, Removal SurgeryNo, but I plan to seek treatmentNo treatment or surgery

Provide your contact information below to receive your free consultation and claim evaluation.

First Name:*

Last Name:*

Phone Number:*

Email:*

Details About Case:*

SMS Consent

I agree and consent to the conditions below.

By checking this box you expressly consent to receive text messages to the numbers provided from Saiontz & Kirk, LLC or their co-counsel, regarding this inquiry.  Consent is not a condition to acceptance of services.  Msg/data rates apply.  Msg frequency may vary.  Text HELP for help.  Text STOP to cancel.

*By submitting, you authorize Saiontz & Kirk to send text messages to the numbers provided, including information & offers, possibly using automated technology. Message/data rates apply. Consent is not a condition for acceptance of services.

In many cases, our clients report that the manufacturers were not only making programming decisions and changes without doctors involved, but that sales reps were “coaching” them about how to describe the treatment to obtain insurance approval for the expensive devices, which were not actually working.

The spinal cord stimulator changes made by the sales representatives went beyond providing “technical support”, often involving direct changes to the device and responding to complaints about problems that should have been evaluated by a doctor, including:

• Painful shocks;
• Burning sensations;
• Worsening pain;
• and other signs the spinal cord stimulator was malfunctioning.

The direct involvement of spinal cord manufacturer sales reps in the treatment decisions raises serious questions, and in this post we will explain how this decision to place profits before the best interests of patients is likely to play an important role in these lawsuits and the amount of compensation manufacturers may be required to pay in the future.

If you have additional questions or experienced problems after receiving a spinal cord stimulator implant, we encourage you to call our law firm toll free at 1-800-522-0102 or complete our free case review form today to find out if you qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit settlement.

The litigation centers on evidence that reusable Olympus scope devices widely found in hospitals and medical facilities nationwide were not properly sterilized between patients, allowing bacteria or biological material to remain trapped inside the devices and transmit from one patient to the next. However, these claims are not being pursued as medical malpractice lawsuits, but rather as product liability claims against the scope manufacturer.

Request a Free Claim Review by a SCOPE INFECTION LAWYER

"*" indicates required fields

Step 1 of 2

0%

Company

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

1. Did you or a loved one develop an infection resulting in hospitalization after a scope procedure?*

---YesNoUnsure

2. Which type of scope procedure did you have*

---Colonoscopy (colon exam)Upper Endoscopy (stomach scope through the mouth)ERCP (bile duct or pancreas procedure)Cystoscopy (bladder or prostate scope)Ureteroscopy (kidney stone scope)Bronchoscopy (lung scope)Sinus Endoscopy (sinus scope)Hysteroscopy (uterine scope)Laparoscopic surgeryNot sure / Other scope procedureNo scope procedure

3. How long after the procedure did the infection start?*

---Within 1 week1 to 4 weeks1 to 6 months6 to 12 monthsMore than 12 monthsNot sureNo infection, but I have questions

Provide your contact information below to receive your free consultation and claim evaluation.

First Name:*

Last Name:*

Phone Number:*

Email:*

Details About Case:*

SMS Consent

I agree and consent to the conditions below.

By checking this box you expressly consent to receive text messages to the numbers provided from Saiontz & Kirk, LLC or their co-counsel, regarding this inquiry.  Consent is not a condition to acceptance of services.  Msg/data rates apply.  Msg frequency may vary.  Text HELP for help.  Text STOP to cancel.

*By submitting, you authorize Saiontz & Kirk to send text messages to the numbers provided, including information & offers, possibly using automated technology. Message/data rates apply. Consent is not a condition for acceptance of services.

While some infections after colonoscopy, endoscopy or ERCP procedures may involve evidence of medical negligence, in this post we will explain how these lawsuits allege that the problem lies with the design of the Olympus scope and reprocessing instructions provided to hospitals and medical facilities.

Lawsuits allege Olympus manufactured and sold reusable medical scopes without adequate safeguards, warnings or reprocessing instructions to ensure the devices could be reliably cleaned and disinfected between patients.

⚖️ Olympus Scope Infection Lawyers

As a result, our product liability lawyers are pursuing Olympus scope lawsuits for individuals throughout the U.S. who suffered serious complications and infections, including:

• Sepsis
• Bloodstream infections
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE)
• E. coli infections
• HIV
• Tuberculosis
• Wrongful death

If you or a loved one developed a colonoscopy infection, endoscopy infection or ERCP infection, financial compensation may be available through a lawsuit against the medical device manufacturer. Request a free case evaluation or call 1-800-522-0102 today to speak with a surgical scope infection lawyer.

The recalls involve defects that may cause insulin to leak inside the pod or outside the infusion site, instead of reaching the body. If insulin is under-delivered, blood glucose levels may rise quickly, increasing the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS), hospitalization, diabetic coma or death.

For individuals who experienced a serious diabetic injury, determining whether the pod came from a recalled lot may be one of the most important first steps. The affected OmniPod 5, OmniPod DASH and original OmniPod Eros pods were identified by lot number, which means the product name alone is not enough to confirm whether a specific pod was recalled.

That information may still be available even if the pod has already been discarded. Users may be able to locate the lot number on the five-pack box, individual pod tray, pod itself, controller history, mobile app records, pharmacy documents, supplier records, shipping records or photographs of the packaging.

Find Out If You Qualify for an
OMNIPOD LAWSUIT

"*" indicates required fields

Step 1 of 2

0%

Email

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

1. Did you or a loved one use an Omnipod 5 insulin pump?*

---YesNoUnsure

2. Which best describes the complications experienced after using an Omnipod insulin pump?*

---Diabetic Ketoacidosis (DKA)Hyperosmolar Hyperglemic State (HHS) requring hospitlizationDiabetic comaDeathOther injuryNo complications, but I have questions

3. Has a recall notice or letter been received regarding the Omnipod insulin pump?*

---YesNoUnsure

Provide your contact information below to receive your free consultation and claim evaluation.

First Name:*

Last Name:*

Phone Number:*

Email:*

Details About Case:*

SMS Consent

I agree and consent to the conditions below.

By checking this box you expressly consent to receive text messages to the numbers provided from Saiontz & Kirk, LLC or their co-counsel, regarding this inquiry.  Consent is not a condition to acceptance of services.  Msg/data rates apply.  Msg frequency may vary.  Text HELP for help.  Text STOP to cancel.

*By submitting, you authorize Saiontz & Kirk to send text messages to the numbers provided, including information & offers, possibly using automated technology. Message/data rates apply. Consent is not a condition for acceptance of services.

In this post, we will explain how to find and verify recalled OmniPod lot numbers after a diabetic injury, and what records should be preserved if a lawsuit may be pursued.

⚖️ OmniPod Recall Lawyers

If your OmniPod 5, OmniPod DASH or original OmniPod Eros pod was impacted by the recall, and you suffered serious diabetic complications after the device failed to properly deliver insulin, you may be eligible to file a claim for financial compensation.

Our product liability lawyers are pursuing OmniPod recall lawsuits for individuals throughout the U.S. who suffered injuries that may have been caused by insulin under-delivery, including:

• Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA)
• Hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS)
• Severe hyperglycemia
• Hospitalization
• Diabetic coma
• Wrongful death

If you or a loved one suffered injuries after using a recalled OmniPod insulin pod, financial compensation may be available through a lawsuit against the medical device manufacturer. Request a free case evaluation or call 1-800-522-0102 today to speak with an OmniPod recall lawyer.

Known as an “MDL” or multidistrict litigation, the decision marks a major step forward in the rapidly growing litigation, allowing the court to effectively manage a large number of Boston Scientific SCS lawsuits brought by individuals throughout the U.S. who suffered devastating injuries after one of the company’s implanted pain management devices malfunctioned or failed.

While the decision only gives Boston Scientific lawsuits a central courtroom and a single federal judge to oversee discovery, motions and other pretrial proceedings, it does not shut the door on claims involving other spinal cord stimulator manufacturers.

Our lawyers are still investigating and pursuing similar Abbott SCS lawsuit, Medtronic SCS lawsuits and Nevro SCS lawsuits, which will continue to move forward in state and federal courts nationwide without coordination, at least for now.

Find Out If You Qualify for an
SCS LAWSUIT

"*" indicates required fields

Step 1 of 2

0%

Name

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

1. How long ago was the Spinal Cord Stimulator implanted?*

---0-5 years ago6-10 years agoOver 10 years agoUnsure when implantedDid not have spinal cord stimulator, but have questions

2. Which best describes the complications experienced after the Spinal Cord Stimulator?*

---Burns or shocksDevice migrationLead wires problemsOther malfunction or injuryNo complications, but I have questions

3. Did the complications require medical treatment or surgery (including removal of the device)?*

---Yes, Medical Evaluation or TreatmentYes, Removal SurgeryNo, but I plan to seek treatmentNo treatment or surgery

Provide your contact information below to receive your free consultation and claim evaluation.

First Name:*

Last Name:*

Phone Number:*

Email:*

Details About Case:*

SMS Consent

I agree and consent to the conditions below.

By checking this box you expressly consent to receive text messages to the numbers provided from Saiontz & Kirk, LLC or their co-counsel, regarding this inquiry.  Consent is not a condition to acceptance of services.  Msg/data rates apply.  Msg frequency may vary.  Text HELP for help.  Text STOP to cancel.

*By submitting, you authorize Saiontz & Kirk to send text messages to the numbers provided, including information & offers, possibly using automated technology. Message/data rates apply. Consent is not a condition for acceptance of services.

Collectively, each of the lawsuits raise very similar allegations that the manufacturers sold dangerous and defective spinal cord stimulators, which caused patients to experience:

• Painful electrical shocks
• Burning sensations or overstimulation
• Loss of pain relief
• Lead migration
• Device failure or shutdown
• Battery or charging problems
• Numbness, weakness or difficulty walking
• Worsening nerve pain
• Neurological injuries
• Revision or removal surgery

As a result of the failure to address known problems with the devices, the lawsuits claim that injured patients should receive financial compensation and spinal cord stimulator settlements to cover medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost income, removal surgery, permanent nerve damage and the long-term impact of living with device-related complications. However, since the questions of fact and law involved in lawsuits against different manufacturers vary, the JPML decided not to create one industry-wide spinal cord stimulator lawsuit MDL.

In this post we will explain why the federal court system centralized Boston Scientific SCS lawsuits at this time, but left lawsuits against Abbott, Medtronic and Nevro out of the MDL, as well as what this means for individuals pursuing compensation.

If you or a loved one experienced complications after receiving a spinal cord stimulator implant and have additional questions, call our law firm toll free at 1-800-522-0102 or complete our free case review form today to find out if you qualify to pursue a claim.

The lawsuits do not claim Amazon is responsible simply because someone purchased nitrous oxide from its website. The claims focus on Amazon’s role as a powerful online retailer that controlled the product listings, processed the sales, promoted related accessories, displayed customer reviews, handled fulfillment for some orders and had the ability to restrict or remove unsafe products from its marketplace.

For years Amazon has profited from selling large nitrous oxide canisters directly to teens and young adults, including brightly colored products with brand names like Galaxy Gas, Looper Whip, Cosmic Gas and others. While these products are supposedly intended for culinary users, the packaging and marketing materials make it clear that illicit users and addicts were the intended targets, with Amazon often recommending related products, like balloons and other paraphernalia that help users inhale the gas for a quick “high.”

Request a Free Claim Review by an NITROUS OXIDE LAWYER

"*" indicates required fields

Step 1 of 2

50%

Instagram

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

1. At what age was Galaxy Gas or other nitrous oxide products first used?*

---Under 18 Years Old18-21 Years Old22-30 Years OldOver 30 Years OldDid not inhale nitrous oxide, but have other questions

2. Did nitrous oxide use result in injuries requiring hospitalization?*

---YesNoUnsure

3. Was paralysis experienced after using nitrous oxide?*

---Yes, I experienced temporary paralysis, but it has resolvedYes, I am currently experiencing temporary or partial paralysisYes, I have permanent paralysisNo, I have not experienced any paralysis

Provide your contact information below to receive your free consultation and claim evaluation.

First Name:*

Last Name:*

Phone Number:*

Email:*

Details About Case:*

SMS Consent

I agree and consent to the conditions below.

By checking this box you expressly consent to receive text messages to the numbers provided from Saiontz & Kirk, LLC or their co-counsel, regarding this inquiry.  Consent is not a condition to acceptance of services.  Msg/data rates apply.  Msg frequency may vary.  Text HELP for help.  Text STOP to cancel.

*By submitting, you authorize Saiontz & Kirk to send text messages to the numbers provided, including information & offers, possibly using automated technology. Message/data rates apply. Consent is not a condition for acceptance of services.

These lawsuits against Amazon allege that the retailer knew, or certainly should have known, that these products were being used in a dangerous way, which could leave nitrous oxide addicts with devastating injuries. The retailer failed to take reasonable steps to prevent bulk or repeated purchases, and failed to adequately warn about the risks associated with inhaling nitrous oxide.

As a result, financial compensation or settlements may be available through an Amazon nitrous oxide lawsuit for individuals who purchased the products and subsequently suffered serious injuries, including:

• Vitamin B12 deficiency
• Nerve damage or neuropathy
• Spinal cord damage
• Paralysis or limb weakness
• Trouble walking, abnormal gait or loss of coordination
• Brain damage or memory problems
• Addiction, oxygen deprivation, asphyxiation or death

In this post, we will explain why Amazon is a key target in these nitrous oxide lawsuits, and outline how the retailer ignored a pattern of warning signs that it was uniquely in a position to identify.

If you or someone you love suffered neurological injury, paralysis, or wrongful death linked to nitrous oxide use or intoxication, contact the nitrous oxide lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk for a free, confidential case evaluation by calling 1-800-522-0102 or submitting the form on this page.

The lawsuits involve allegations that Olympus designed and sold unreasonably dangerous scopes, which contain design defects that make them nearly impossible to properly clean, disinfect or sterilize between procedures.

While many individuals contacting our law firm are just now learning about the Olympus scope infection problems, in this post we will outline the long history of FDA warnings, recalls and hospital infection outbreak reports that have been reported, highlighting the serious risks associated with these devices.

Request a Free Claim Review by a SCOPE INFECTION LAWYER

"*" indicates required fields

Step 1 of 2

0%

LinkedIn

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

1. Did you or a loved one develop an infection resulting in hospitalization after a scope procedure?*

---YesNoUnsure

2. Which type of scope procedure did you have*

---Colonoscopy (colon exam)Upper Endoscopy (stomach scope through the mouth)ERCP (bile duct or pancreas procedure)Cystoscopy (bladder or prostate scope)Ureteroscopy (kidney stone scope)Bronchoscopy (lung scope)Sinus Endoscopy (sinus scope)Hysteroscopy (uterine scope)Laparoscopic surgeryNot sure / Other scope procedureNo scope procedure

3. How long after the procedure did the infection start?*

---Within 1 week1 to 4 weeks1 to 6 months6 to 12 monthsMore than 12 monthsNot sureNo infection, but I have questions

Provide your contact information below to receive your free consultation and claim evaluation.

First Name:*

Last Name:*

Phone Number:*

Email:*

Details About Case:*

SMS Consent

I agree and consent to the conditions below.

By checking this box you expressly consent to receive text messages to the numbers provided from Saiontz & Kirk, LLC or their co-counsel, regarding this inquiry.  Consent is not a condition to acceptance of services.  Msg/data rates apply.  Msg frequency may vary.  Text HELP for help.  Text STOP to cancel.

*By submitting, you authorize Saiontz & Kirk to send text messages to the numbers provided, including information & offers, possibly using automated technology. Message/data rates apply. Consent is not a condition for acceptance of services.

⚖️ Olympus Scope Infection Lawsuits

Despite these repeated warnings and safety issues, Olympus has failed to fix the known design and manufacturing problems that allowed bacteria, tissue or biological material to survive the recommended cleaning and reprocessing steps outlined when these devices were distributed to hospitals and medical clinics.

As a result, our scope infection lawyers are pursuing financial compensation for individuals who have been left with devastating infections and complications, such as:

• Sepsis
• Bloodstream infections
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE)
• E. coli infections
• Exposure to blood-borne infections, including HIV or tuberculosis
• Wrongful death

If you or a loved one experienced problems, find out if you qualify for a colonoscopy infection lawsuit, endoscopy infection lawsuit or ERCP infection lawsuits by calling our law firm toll free at 1-800-522-0102, or completing the form on this page.

All cases are reviewed by our scope infection lawyers on a contingency fee basis, which means that there are no fees or expenses charged unless a settlement or recovery is obtained.

While it is easy for outsiders to look at these sports gambling losses and chalk it up to a lack of self-discipline, in this post we will take a closer look at how the platforms were intentionally developed and designed with sports gambling “features”, which played a critical role in causing these DraftKings and FanDuel addiction problems.

For many users, the harm developed gradually after mobile sportsbook apps made betting feel like a normal part of watching sports. What may have started as a small wager during a game often grew into repeated deposits, live bets, parlays and attempts to win back losses, while app notifications and bonus offers kept pulling users back.

Request a Free Claim Review by an SPORTS BETTING ADDICTION LAWYER

"*" indicates required fields

Step 1 of 2

50%

Comments

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

1. Estimated losses from sports betting / gambling apps:*

---Under $10,000$10,000 to $25,000$25,000 to $50,000$50,000 to $100,000Over $100,000No Gambling Losses, but have other questions

2. Age when first started using sports betting / gambling apps:*

---Under 1818 to 21 years old22 to 25 years old26 to 30 years oldOver 30 years old

3. Has there been any medical treatment or counseling related to gambling addiction?:*

---Yes, diagnosed gambling disorderYes, treatment/counseling related to gambling lossesNo, but I intend to get counselingNo, but I have other questions

Provide your contact information below to receive your free consultation and claim evaluation.

First Name:*

Last Name:*

Phone Number:*

Email:*

Details About Case:*

SMS Consent

I agree and consent to the conditions below.

By checking this box you expressly consent to receive text messages to the numbers provided from Saiontz & Kirk, LLC or their co-counsel, regarding this inquiry.  Consent is not a condition to acceptance of services.  Msg/data rates apply.  Msg frequency may vary.  Text HELP for help.  Text STOP to cancel.

*By submitting, you authorize Saiontz & Kirk to send text messages to the numbers provided, including information & offers, possibly using automated technology. Message/data rates apply. Consent is not a condition for acceptance of services.

DraftKings, FanDuel and other sportsbook platforms have placed online betting in the middle of sports fandom, social media, college life and everyday phone use, creating a gambling environment that can be constant, personalized and difficult to escape.

While these companies all claim they promote “responsible gaming,” lawsuits point out how the apps were actually designed to encourage repeat betting, collect user data and push vulnerable users toward more deposits, more wagers and deeper financial harm.

Saiontz & Kirk is investigating both DraftKings lawsuits and FanDuel lawsuits involving allegations that sportsbook operators used addictive app features, targeted promotions and data driven marketing practices that allowed gambling addiction to overcome restraint among young users.

As a result of these reckless actions, financial compensation may be available for individuals or families dealing with:

• Sports betting losses or gambling app debt totaling $10,000 or more
• Credit damage caused by compulsive betting
• Repeated deposits, bonus offers or VIP incentives
• Academic problems, job loss or missed financial obligations
• Anxiety, depression, emotional distress or suicidal thoughts
• Counseling, therapy or gambling addiction treatment

To see if you qualify for a settlement, request a free case evaluation with a sports gambling addiction lawyer today or call us toll-free at 1-800-522-0102.

The complaints describe dangerous defects associated with the surgical mesh products, which may result in the need for additional procedures to drain fluid or blood, repair damaged tissue or attempt to revise the breast implant due to complications from GalaFLEX, Phasix or other similar products. In many cases, women have required breast mesh explant surgery, leaving them with permanent and disfiguring injuries.

Request a Free Claim Review by a BREAST MESH LAWYER

"*" indicates required fields

Step 1 of 2

0%

Company

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

1. Did you or a loved one undergo breast surgery involving mesh or an internal bra?*

---Yes, breast reconstructionYes, cosmetic breast surgeryUnsureNo, but i have questions

2. How long after the breast surgery did complications first develop?*

---Within first 30 daysMore than 30 days, but within 1 yearMore than 1 yearNo complications, but I have questions

3. Did you require additional surgery to remove the breast mesh or internal bra?*

---Yes, Breast Mesh was surgically removedNo, Breast mesh is too dangerous to removeNo, but I am continuing to treat for problemsNo, removal is not neededUnsure

Provide your contact information below to receive your free consultation and claim evaluation.

First Name:*

Last Name:*

Phone Number:*

Email:*

Details About Case:*

SMS Consent

I agree and consent to the conditions below.

By checking this box you expressly consent to receive text messages to the numbers provided from Saiontz & Kirk, LLC or their co-counsel, regarding this inquiry.  Consent is not a condition to acceptance of services.  Msg/data rates apply.  Msg frequency may vary.  Text HELP for help.  Text STOP to cancel.

*By submitting, you authorize Saiontz & Kirk to send text messages to the numbers provided, including information & offers, possibly using automated technology. Message/data rates apply. Consent is not a condition for acceptance of services.

The breast mesh lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk are actively reviewing claims for women who received a GalaFLEX or Phasix breast mesh, and experienced a number of different problems, including:

• Nerve damage
• Infection or abscess
• Seroma
• Hematomas
• Implant rupture
• Skin necrosis
• Mesh migration or displacement
• Reconstructive failure
• Explant or revision surgery

In this post, we explain why explant surgery is involved in so many cases being investigated by our law firm, the symptoms that may indicate breast mesh removal is needed and the impact failed breast mesh may have on a woman’s overall quality of life.

If you or a loved one have experienced problems from GalaFLEX or another internal bra system, do not hesitate to contact our office today for a free consulation and claim evaluation. Find out whether financial compensation may be available through a breast mesh settlement by calling 1-800-522-0102 or complete the form on this page.

Our lawyers work on a contingency fee basis, which means there are never any fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained in your case.

Request a Free Claim Review by a SPINAL CORD STIMULATOR LAWYER

"*" indicates required fields

Step 1 of 2

0%

Instagram

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

1. How long ago was the Spinal Cord Stimulator implanted?*

---0-5 years ago6-10 years agoOver 10 years agoUnsure when implantedDid not have spinal cord stimulator, but have questions

2. Which best describes the complications experienced after the Spinal Cord Stimulator?*

---Burns or shocksDevice migrationLead wires problemsOther malfunction or injuryNo complications, but I have questions

3. Did the complications require medical treatment or surgery (including removal of the device)?*

---Yes, Medical Evaluation or TreatmentYes, Removal SurgeryNo, but I plan to seek treatmentNo treatment or surgery

Provide your contact information below to receive your free consultation and claim evaluation.

First Name:*

Last Name:*

Phone Number:*

Email:*

Details About Case:*

SMS Consent

I agree and consent to the conditions below.

By checking this box you expressly consent to receive text messages to the numbers provided from Saiontz & Kirk, LLC or their co-counsel, regarding this inquiry.  Consent is not a condition to acceptance of services.  Msg/data rates apply.  Msg frequency may vary.  Text HELP for help.  Text STOP to cancel.

*By submitting, you authorize Saiontz & Kirk to send text messages to the numbers provided, including information & offers, possibly using automated technology. Message/data rates apply. Consent is not a condition for acceptance of services.

Although spinal cord stimulation systems are marketed to manage chronic back and nerve pain, serious risks can arise when lead wires inside the body fracture or malfunction. These thin insulated wires deliver the electrical impulses that interrupt pain signals, and when they break or shift out of position, patients may experience sudden loss of relief, painful shocks, or worsening neurological symptoms.

Despite reports of lead instability, therapy interruption, and device malfunction involving certain systems manufactured by companies such as Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Nevro and others, these devices have remained widely used in chronic pain treatment.

As a result, our spinal cord stimulator lawyers are now pursuing claims for individuals who suffered serious injuries such as:

• Lead wire fracture or migration
• Electrical shocks or overstimulation
• Sudden loss of pain relief
• Worsening chronic back or nerve pain
• Revision surgery or device removal
• Permanent nerve damage
• Long-term spinal cord complications

If you or a loved one experienced complications after one of these pain management devices was implanted, financial compensation may be available through a spinal cord stimulator injury lawsuit. Request a free case evaluation or call 1-800-522-0102 today to speak with a spinal cord stimulator lawyer.