According to a leading medical publication, Medtronic and physicians on its payroll were aware during clinical trials that the use of Infuse bone graft could cause serious side effects, but chose to downplay these effects.  Even more damning, Medtronic paid physicians a significant amount of money during these trials.

The allegations are contained in a report by the Spine Journal, the official publication of the American Spine Society.  According to the Journal, doctors underreported the significant side effects of the use of Infuse during clinical trials.  These side effects include sterility, neurological injuries, and excessive bone formation.  Instead, doctors and physicians asserted that there were few side effects from the use of Infuse.  Los Angeles personal injury lawyers have been aware of these side effects for a while now.

Moreover, the report in the Spine Journal says that doctors were paid millions of dollars in royalties during these studies.  In one large study of Infuse bone graft, one of the physicians received $10 million in royalties.  Those are huge sums of money in compensation even in the medical industry, where such practices are rampant.  According to the Spine Journal researchers, they haven’t seen such excessive compensation paid to doctors in all their years in the industry.

Medtronic currently faces product liability lawsuits from people who suffered serious injuries from the use of the Infuse bone graft product.  Some of the most serious injuries involved swelling in the neck and throat region, some ultimately causing death.  In some instances, patients had excessive bone formation after Infuse was used, and some of these cases were so severe that the patient needed additional surgery in order to remove the bone.

Medtronic is currently under investigation by a congressional committee that is probing the extent of the company’s payments to doctors and physicians and whether it downplayed the complications from the use of the graft.

The Darvocet lawsuits continue to pile up.  The family of a Louisiana woman who suffered a fatal heart attack after prolonged use of the painkiller Darvocet, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against a number of pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly and Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals.

According to this particular lawsuit, the woman’s death was caused by a heart attack brought on by Darvocet use.  The lawsuit has been filed in a New Orleans court.

The increased risk of cardiac injuries or heart attack from prolonged use of Darvocet and Davon has been at the core of hundreds of lawsuits filed by persons injured by the use of these painkillers.  Darvocet is a painkiller that contains a combination of acetaminophen and propoxyphene.  Darvon, on the other hand contains only propoxyphene.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration announced a recall for both Darvon and Darvocet, after studies concluded that both of these painkillers increased the risk of heart attacks. Specifically, the study concluded that the prolonged use of these medications caused a change in electrical cardiac activity, increasing the risk of the person suffering from cardiac arrhythmias.  The person’s risk of other conditions, including myocardial infarction, also was found to increase with Darvocet use.

Both painkillers have since been pulled from the market, but not before possibly thousands or hundreds of thousands of Americans were exposed to their effect.

Cardiac injuries are not the only kind of side effects that California Darvocet recall lawyers associate with Darvocet use.  These painkillers have also been linked to a number other minor side effects, including dizziness, fatigue, nausea, vomiting and constipation.  More serious side effects include anxiety, loss of appetite, severe weight loss, and fatigue.  Darvocet has also been linked to the risks of addiction.

External cardiac defibrillators were developed to help trigger a normal heart rhythm in persons suffering from a heart attack. A number of these devices are available in the market, but most of these have a simple basic design – they emit a tiny electric shock to the heart in emergency situations when there is an irregularity in the heart rhythm. Unfortunately, these devices have been in the news over the past few years, and almost always for the wrong reasons.

Now, the Food and Drug Administration has announced strong recommendations aimed at reducing the number of adverse incidents involving these devices. Last Friday, the Food and Drug Administration announced on its website that makers of these cardiac defibrillators would be required to submit more data to the agency. They would also be required to undergo inspections at their manufacturing facilities before they launch a new product.

Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are available at schools, hospitals, airports and any number of other public facilities. The problem when these devices malfunction is that they’re so heavily relied upon when a person is having a cardiac arrest.  A cardiac defibrillator is needed to jolt the heart back into a normal rhythm. According to estimates, device malfunction may have been responsible for several cases of deaths or serious injuries caused to patients who had collapsed from cardiac arrest.

The current process for the approval of these cardiac defibrillators is through the much-maligned 510(k) system. This system allows a fast-track approval of a device, if the manufacturer can prove that the device is similar to another one already available in the market. What the Food and Drug Administration is now proposing is a stronger and stricter approval process for these devices.

Not surprisingly to California pharmaceutical liability attorneys, the agency is already under tremendous pressure from pharmaceutical companies to maintain the fast track standard for their devices.



It’s not just important to make sure that your child is restrained in a child car safety seat or booster seat to prevent injuries in an accident. It is also important that he be restrained according to guidelines that are appropriate for his age. Unfortunately, many California parents fail to follow child car safety seat manufacturer instructions carefully. The result is a child that is unsafely restrained in a child seat or booster seat that is far too big for him.

Other times, California product liability lawyers notice that parents graduate their children too early from child seats to booster seats. Sometimes, children who are not yet the right age or weight to be restrained by lap and shoulder belts, are buckled in, instead of being restrained in a booster seat.

These can be terribly tragic mistakes to make. A child who is restrained in a car seat, booster seat or lap belt system that is not appropriate for his age or weight, is actually at a higher risk of injury. These restraint systems that are meant to protect him, may actually do nothing to protect him, or injure him even further during an accident.

A study just released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has now found an increased risk of injury if you graduate your child too early from a car seat to booster seat, or a booster seat to a lap and shoulder belt. According to the study, there is a higher risk of injury among 3 to 4-year-old children when the children are placed in booster seats and not in child car seats.

Among children between four and eight years of age, there may be a higher risk of injury when they are restrained by lap and shoulder belts instead of being placed in a booster seat. For instance, if the shoulder strap is much too high, it may not protect the child during an accident. A lap belt that is placed much too high may increase the risk of internal abdominal injuries during the collision.

A class-action lawsuit is a lawsuit that is filed on behalf of numerous people who have a single grievance or complaint in common.  In a class-action, all the plaintiffs have a complaint against a single entity.  Therefore, any Viking defective refrigerator class-action lawsuit, will involve people who have had similar experiences with their defective Viking refrigerators.

A Viking refrigerator class-action must involve more than one owner of a Viking refrigerator included in the 2009 recall.  While a number of Viking owners may be included in this lawsuit, it doesn’t necessarily mean that all parties involved in the class-action will be eligible for the same compensation.

Who Can be Included in a Viking Refrigerator Class-Action Lawsuit?

The attorneys at our firm are investigating the possibility of a Viking refrigerator class-action lawsuit.  If you fall into any of the following categories, you may be eligible to file a class-action lawsuit against Viking:

• You are the owner of a Viking 48” and 36” refrigerator included in the 2009 recall for defective door hinges.
• You have sustained property damage from the door falling off the refrigerator.  That would include not just damage to your refrigerator, but also damage to your flooring, countertops and cabinets.
• You have sustained property damage from the repairs that Viking authorized service personnel performed on your refrigerator.  That could include damage to the cabinetry and the surrounding woodwork, floor, as well as badly repaired refrigerator doors.
• You have been put through major inconvenience because you were asked to stop using the refrigerators.
• You have incurred other property damage and losses from leaking refrigerators that leaked water into expensive flooring and cabinetry.
• You have incurred expense in replacing your recalled refrigerator.
• You have incurred expenses in repairing or replacing door hinges, seals or other door parts
• You have incurred other expenses as a result of the faulty hinges and/or the doors not sealing properly.

If you own a Viking refrigerator that was included in the recall last year, consult with a class-action lawyer at our firm.  There is no cost or obligation.

Parents, federal regulators and crib recall lawyers in the US have become tiresomely familiar with crib recalls.  Over the past two years alone, over 9 million cribs have been recalled for defects that contributed to entrapment and suffocation hazards.  However, some Canadian distributors of the same brand names involved in the American recalls, are quite annoyed.  They believe that Canadian regulators are too quick to recall cribs and other children’s products that have been subjected to a recall action in the US.  According to the investigators, Health Canada, the Canadian consumer safety agency, “blindly” follows American children’s product recalls.

This week, one of Canada’s  largest children’s product distributors accused Health Canada of ceding its sovereignty to the US government over the recalls.   Elfe is a Montréal-based company that distributes a variety of children’s products, including cribs, under the brand name Graco.  The company wrote a letter to Health Canada, blasting the agency for pressuring the company to announce a recall of its own products just before a massive stroller recall in the United States.  According to Elfe, Health Canada pressured the company to announce the recall in order to meet the American recall timeline. That stroller recall was linked to the possibility of finger amputations and Elfe did not believe that the recall was necessary in Canada because the problem wasn’t that severe.

In the letter, Elfe also mentions the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s 2009 recall of 2 million drop-side cribs  after reports of strangulation and suffocation.  There was plenty of media attention on Simplicity’s 400,000 U.S. cribs, but Elfe Juvenile Products assured customers in Canada that the drop-side cribs could be used safely as long as they were assembled properly.  However, Elfe says that when it advised Health Canada that its products were under the same brand name, but manufactured to different specifications and that the components were different, the Canadian agency refused to listen and insisted on a recall because of all the negative attention surrounding Simplicity cribs in Canada.

More information about the crib recall can be found at www.unsafecribs.com.

Fire hazards are some of the most common defective product related risks. Typically, fires are related to defective electronic appliances, although there have been fatal incidents involving seemingly benign items, like clothing. Last year, several people suffered fatal burn injuries after their chenille bathrobes burst into flames. The bathrobes had been manufactured overseas, using flammable material.

Fire hazards are also behind the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s latest recall, although this one is not related to clothing. This time, it’s 900,000 units of General Electric coffeemakers sold at Walmart that have been recalled by the federal agency.

According to the CPSC, the coffeemakers are susceptible to overheating, and could possibly lead to a fire. Users could be at a high risk for burns. The agency has 83 confirmed reports involving the General Electric coffeemakers overheating and either bursting into flames, smoking or melting. Out of these, at least three of the reports involved persons who suffered minor burn injuries to the hands, feet and torso. There are also reports of substantial property damage, including one major kitchen fire, and other reports of fire damage to cabinets, countertops and a wall.

The coffeemakers involved in the recall are the General Electric 12-cup coffee makers. The coffeemakers were sold in black and white colors. These were sold exclusively at Walmart stores between March 2008 and January 2010 for about $30. The coffeemakers were manufactured in China. The agency is advising consumers to stop using the coffeemakers immediately, and return them to Walmart for a full refund.

Typically, a California mass torts attorney comes across fires caused by the following defective products:

• Ovens
• Grills
• Gas ranges
• Toasters
• Heaters
• Boilers
• Water coolers
• Extension cords
• Vaporizers

There isn’t much that a consumer can do to prevent the risk of burn injuries if the defective appliance overheats, or short circuits, causing a fire. However, there are basic steps you can take to minimize your risks of a burn injury while using a coffeemaker.

• Never place your coffeemaker or cord in liquid.
• Never touch any of the hot surfaces. Instead, use handles or knobs to hold the appliance.
• Keep coffeemakers out of reach of little children. Tuck cords away where they cannot be reached by little hands.
• Place the coffeemaker on a flat surface.
• Unplug the coffeemaker before cleaning it.

As Chrysler minivans prepare for a recall, somewhere Toyota executives are breathing a sigh of relief.  Some of the heat Toyota is feeling will be lifted as over 350,000 Chrysler minivans are recalled in a safety campaign launched by the automaker and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  The defect in the minivans could be fatal for drivers in colder climates.

The minivans in question are models made between 2005 and 2006, the extremely popular Grand Caravan, Dodge Caravan, and Chrysler Town & Country.   All three models are being recalled for airbag issues.  The recall will only affect models that were sold in 28 “salt belt states,” as well as parts of Canada, where winter conditions require salting of the roads and highways.  In states with severe weather conditions and rough roads, airbag sensors in the minivans can crack causing them to get wet or damaged and putting the lives of drivers and passengers at risk. When the sensors are wet, the airbag might become inactive causing it to fail to deploy.  Chrysler insists that this recall is a precautionary measure and notes that the minivans are all equipped with warning lights that will alert drivers of any malfunction. So far, no accidents or injuries caused by the malfunctioning airbags have been reported.

While it is unclear if this airbag issue is the first of many for Chrysler, it is certain that tougher standards for automakers and recall mania will continue. Even if it is a huge pain for big car companies, this is great news for drivers concerned with feeling safe on the road.

Related:  Oakland, CA Defective Products Lawyer

Do pharmacies make mistakes filling your prescription?  They sure do.  Do drug companies make mistakes labeling their drugs?  They sure do.  And worse, these mistakes which often produce fatal results, are occurring at an alarming rate.  The chance of you becoming the next victim is also increasing.  Here’s why.  The era of your friendly and wise neighborhood pharmacist adorned with lab coat and grey mustache, carefully analyzing your medicinal dose, has all but vanished.  The corner drug store of yesterday has been replaced by the modern day assembly line of chain store pharmacies.  Feeding these chain stores is the multi-billion dollar drug industry, pumping more pharmaceuticals into the stream of commerce than at any time in history and likewise, the chain store pharmacies are in the business of selling those drugs.  Selling has trumped service, with volume, and lots of it, being the bulls-eye.  Now add to this reality the fact that as we get older, we consume more and more of these drugs to treat our progressive ailments.  Based on numbers alone, the odds are increasing that you will become a victim of pharmaceutical negligence.

Pharmacy errors run the gamut from putting the wrong medication or the wrong dosage in the bottle to incorrectly labeling the prescription instructions.  Here are some practical tips to help you from becoming a victim.  If you’re being prescribed a medication for the first time, ask your doctor to identify the medicine, the dosage and the frequency of use.  Write it down so you have something to compare to your prescription later.

If you get a prescription refilled and it looks difference from what you’ve been taking before, tell your pharmacist, “these pills don’t look the same”.  He or she should visually confirm that your prescription is correct.  If the dosage or frequency of taking your medication has changed, call your doctor to confirm the change.

Be especially careful if your prescription calls for compounding.  Compounding is a process where your prescription is formulated or mixed by the pharmacist.  Statistics clearly reveal that the potential for human error significantly increases whenever a pharmacy undertakes the compounding of medications.  Because many compounding errors are not detected until after one suffers an adverse reaction, your best protection is to ask your doctor to recommend the name of a specific compounding pharmacy to formulate your medication.

If the medication you receive from your pharmacy doesn’t come in the familiar brown, plastic pill container but instead, is in what appears to be in the drug manufacturer’s original container with the pharmacy’s label placed over it, compare the pharmacy label with the manufacturer’s label to make sure they are the same.  If they’re not, ask your pharmacist to explain the difference.  The difference may be that one of the labels contains a generic description of drug while the other contains the trade name.  Or the difference may be that you discovered pharmacy negligence before you became a victim.

Negligence by a drug manufacturer may come in the form of its failure to provide adequate warning of adverse reactions, as well as in cases involving antidepressants prescribed for children and teens which have been found to increase the risk of suicide in pediatric patients.

Whether the negligence is committed by a pharmacy or a drug manufacturer, the law provides a remedy allowing for, among other things, money damages.  However, pharmaceutical cases are complex and the laws pertaining to physical and emotional injuries are subject to strict deadlines called Statutes of Limitation.  Anyone who has suffered a pharmaceutical related injury should contact a lawyer immediately to make sure their rights are properly protected.

Obviously the best course of action is always prevention.  Be alert when you receive your next prescription.  Pharmacy negligence and drug manufacturer negligence is an escalating reality.  The Food & Drug Administration says adverse event reporting is as low as 10% for some drugs.  Your vigilance could make the difference between healthy treatment or a disaster.

Agency Also Sends Warning Letter to Manufacturer of Products for Selling Dangerous Product

July 28, 2009 — The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a nationwide alert warning consumers to cease purchasing and consuming body building supplements that contain steroids.  Furthermore, the agency has contacted the manufacturer of the supplements, American Cellular Laboratories Inc., and issued them a warning letter for selling these synthetic steroids as “diet supplements.”  Per the FDA, these products are not diet supplements, but rather misbranded drugs.

See the complete FDA press release

The products listed in the warning letter are as follows:

-TREN-Xtreme
-MASS Xtreme
-ESTRO Xtreme
-AH-89-Xtreme
-HMG Xtreme
-MMA-3 Xtreme
-VNS-9 Xtreme
-TT-40-Xtreme

These products are sold on the Internet and in some stores and the FDA is strongly urging consumers to stop taking these supplements immediately because they contain unapproved new drugs and they have not been recognized as safe and effective.  Consumers taking body building supplements that claim to contain steroids or steroid-like substances should stop taking them immediately. Consumers should also consult a health care professional if they suspect they are experiencing problems associated with the products.

If you or someone you know has suffered an  injury from a dangerous drug or defective product, you may be entitled to compensation for your damages and injuries.