Request a Free Claim Review by an APPLE AIRTAG LAWYER

"*" indicates required fields

Step 1 of 2

0%

Instagram

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

1. Were you tracked using an Apple AirTag without your permission?*

---YesNo, but I have questionsUnsure

2. How did you discover the AirTag tracking?*

---I found an AirTag on my vehicle or belongingsMy phone alerted me that an AirTag was moving with mePolice or law enforcement confirmed an AirTag was usedSomeone told me I was being tracked with an AirTagOtherNo AirTag was found, but I have questions

3. What happened as a result of the tracking? (select all that apply)

Physically Attacked or Assaulted

Verbally Threatened with Physical Harm

Repeatedly Stalked or Harassed

Emotional distress from being tracked

Property Damage

None of the above

Next ›

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.

‹ Previous Submit

*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.

As a result, the product liability lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk are now pursuing Apple AirTag lawsuits for victims who were tracked, seeking to hold Apple accountable for introducing the technology without ensuring there were adequate safeguards to protect against foreseeable stalking, assault and sexual abuse.

Apple AirTags can be hidden in vehicles, bags, clothing and other belongings, allowing an abusive partner or other stalker to monitor someone’s location through Apple’s Find My network without remaining physically nearby.

The claims against Apple allege the company knew this type of misuse was foreseeable, but released AirTags without available safety features that could have quickly alerted victims, helped them locate a concealed device and stop unwanted tracking before serious harm occurred.

In this post, we will explain why Apple may face liability when AirTag tracking contributes to serious injuries, what our lawyers will investigate, what compensation may be available and why evidence involving the stalking and resulting assault can be important to the claim.

If you or a loved one have been the victim of an AirTag stalking incident, request a free and confidential consultation with our law firm today or call us toll-free at 1-800-522-0102.

While that is an important part of each claim, recouping gambling losses is not the only compensation we consider when pursuing a sports betting lawsuit for our clients.

The predatory marketing and addictive designs of modern mobile sports betting platforms can cause damages that reach far beyond the gambling losses, with consequences often continuing long after the final wager is placed. Individuals may be left with high-interest debt, damaged credit, treatment expenses, academic setbacks, lost income and other serious emotional harm.

Request a Free Claim Review by an SPORTS BETTING ADDICTION LAWYER

"*" indicates required fields

Step 1 of 2

50%

X/Twitter

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

Next ›

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.

‹ Previous Submit

*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 amount of sports betting lawsuit compensation obtained in each claim will depend on the full impact the gambling addiction had on each individual’s finances, education, career and personal life.

In this post, we will explain the factors that may be considered in negotiating a settlement with FanDuel, DraftKings or other gambling platforms, which will impact the value of a sports betting claim.

If you or a loved one are struggling with a gambling addiction and suffered financial losses, contact our sports betting addiction lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk to learn more about these lawsuits. Our attorneys are pursuing claims for individuals who:

• Began using sportsbook or gambling apps between the ages of 18 and 30, and
• Suffered at least $10,000 in gambling losses or debt

Lawsuits are being pursued against DraftKings, FanDuel, Caesars Sportsbook, BetMGM, ESPN Bet, Fanatics, Bet365 and other online betting platforms that allegedly encouraged vulnerable users to continue depositing and wagering, even after there were clear signs of harmful or compulsive gambling.

To see if you may qualify for a future sports betting settlement, request a free case evaluation with our law firm today or call us toll-free at 1-800-522-0102.

Saiontz & Kirk has extensive experience pursuing pesticide and herbicide claims involving Parkinson’s disease. Our attorneys represented individuals exposed to Paraquat before thousands of similar lawsuits were centralized in the federal court system, and we have remained deeply involved in the litigation as the scientific and legal issues developed.

Request a Free Claim Review by a CHLORPYRIFOS LAWYER

"*" indicates required fields

Step 1 of 2

0%

Facebook

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

1. Were you or a loved one diagnosed with Parkinson's disease?*

---YesNo, but have symptomsNo

2. Which best describes the level of exposure to chlorpyrifos (ex: Dursban, Lorsban, other pesticide)?*

---Mixed, sprayed or directly handled pesticidesPesticides were applied inside a home where they livedLived or worked on a farm where pesticides were appliedWorked at construction sites where pesticides were appliedWorked on a golf course where pesticides were appliedOther exposureUnsure about exposure, but I have questionsNo exposure

3. Was the potential exposure during deployment in the First Gulf War between 1990 and 1992?*

---YesNoUnsure

Next ›

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.

‹ Previous Submit

*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.

Similar to the Paraquat lawsuits, chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s disease claims raise serious questions about what manufacturers knew, when they knew it and whether users received adequate warnings about the potential for permanent neurological damage. However, chlorpyrifos exposure was not limited to agricultural workers. The insecticide was also used inside homes, for termite treatments, around construction sites, on golf courses and at military locations.

The chlorpyrifos lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk are now reviewing potential Parkinson’s disease lawsuits for individuals diagnosed with this devastating condition after:

• Routinely mixing, loading, handling or spraying chlorpyrifos pesticides
• Working around crops, buildings, construction sites or golf course grounds treated with insecticides
• Cleaning pesticide tanks, hoses, pumps or spraying equipment
• Living in or being present inside a home where insecticides were sprayed
• Living in a residence treated for termites, particularly before most residential chlorpyrifos uses ended in 2000
• Serving in the Gulf War and later developing Parkinson’s disease
• Using or encountering Lorsban, Dursban, Cobalt, Nufos, Bolton, Stallion, Lock-On, Warhawk or another chlorpyrifos product

If you or a loved one developed Parkinson’s disease following years of Chlorpyrifos exposure, financial compensation may be available through an insecticide lawsuit. Call Saiontz & Kirk at 1-800-522-0102 or complete our free claim-review form to speak with a Chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s disease lawyer.

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%

LinkedIn

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

Next ›

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.

‹ Previous Submit

*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%

Instagram

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

Next ›

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.

‹ Previous Submit

*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%

Facebook

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

Next ›

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.

‹ Previous Submit

*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%

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

Next ›

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.

‹ Previous Submit

*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%

LinkedIn

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

Next

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.

‹ Previous Submit

*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%

Comments

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

Next ›

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.

‹ Previous Submit

*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.