June 10, 2010

IKEA Window Blind Recall

IKEA has issued a recall of 3 million more window blinds after a child was nearly strangled to death. IKEA has previously issued a recall for approximately 1 million blinds. This recall includes all Roman and roll-up blinds sold at IKEA from 1998 through June 2009.

The problem with window blinds is that children are choking on the blinds themselves when they are in reach. Certainly, it is quite hard to imagine how kids do this - it takes a series of "if then" actions on the part of the child. But there are a lot of kids in this country and a lot of window blinds which mathematically leads to outcomes that were unexpected.

The ultimate solution to this problem - automatic window blinds - are cost prohibitive for the average consumer.

April 30, 2010

Spotting a Holdout Juror

I found this link from the Daily Record's blog to a rare Daily Double about spotting a prospective hold out juror; it was both funny and educational. Of course, it would have been a lot more educational if Maryland had a voir dire process that allowed you to actually learn something about the jurors besides their name, rank and serial number.

October 7, 2009

Mediations in Catastrophic Injury Cases

An article that John Bratt and I wrote has been accepted for publication in December in Trial, the flagship publication for the American Association of Justice. The article is about mediations in catastrophic personal injury cases. We finished what I hope is the final draft today.

September 29, 2009

Yaz Birth Control Lawsuit Links

  • Yaz to stay on the market in Switzerland
  • FitSugar talks about the Yaz lawsuits
  • News Inferno reports on Yaz, discussing a Dutch study in the British Medical Journal that found "6.3-fold increase in venous thrombosis – a life-threatening type of blood clot – in women taking drospirenone contraceptives compared with women not taking any type of pill."
  • The New York Times talks about the PR blow to Bayer as a result of the new information coming about about Yaz. “But even if Bayer can adequately respond to the safety and other concerns, some industry analysts say that the avalanche of criticism could tarnish the Yaz line’s image.”
  • My Sex Professor writes about the Yaz/Yasmin/Ocella controversy.
  • FiercePharma writes about the Yaz lawsuits, offering both plaintiffs' lawyers' argument and Bayer's defense of Yaz.

If you or someone you care for has used Yasmin/Yaz and has suffered from blood clots, stroke, DVT, heart attack or gallbladder injury, or you are an attorney with a Yasmin/Yaz case for which you would like to involve co-counsel or you think might be a candidate for a lawsuit or future potential global settlement, please call one of our Yasmin/Yaz attorneys at 800-553-8082 or click here for a free no obligation consultation on your potential Yasmin/Yaz lawsuit.

July 28, 2009

Yaz/Yasmin Lawsuits

John Cord's Drug Recall Lawyer Blog reports that Plaintiffs in 23 Yasmin/Yaz birth control lawsuits filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation requesting consolidation and/or coordination of 32 and counting federal Yasmin/Yaz lawsuits.

June 8, 2009

National Product Liablity Statistics

John Cord's Drug Injury Recall Blog has a post on national product liability claim statistics. As John points out, asbestos cases skews these the results but the statistics are still interesting.

May 27, 2009

Can Lawyers Be Judged by Their Clients?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is getting heat because before she was elected to Congress in 2006, she spend much of her career as a lawyer working at a mega New York law firm representing the world’s largest cigarette company, Philip Morris. She apparently spend a good bit of time between 1995 to 1999 helping Philip Morris fight the Justice Department's efforts to get the tobacco company to produce damaging research and other internal documents regarding its knowledge about the health risks of tobacco products.

My first reaction is that you shouldn't judge people for the clients the represent. I defended drug companies during that same period of time and while I'm not proud of this, I'm not ashamed either. I'm sure Martin O'Malley is not ashamed of defending criminals. But Dorothy Samuels has a different take on it in the New York Times that I think deserves airing:

Professor Stephen Gillers of New York University Law School, one of the country’s leading legal ethics experts, draws a distinction between publicly criticizing lawyers because of the people they represent, which he says he would not do, and how they carry out the representation.

He finds the basic strategy that the tobacco companies pursued — pushing the limits of attorney-client privilege to hide inconvenient truths known to top company insiders about smoking and health — morally offensive, even if it violated no law or official legal ethics rules.

Ms. Gillibrand’s work for Philip Morris came during a pivotal period of mounting criticism and intensified legal scrutiny of the tobacco industry.

She tries to play down her role and suggests that she had no choice. In truth, she had plenty of choice.

Her law firm allowed lawyers to decline work on tobacco cases if they had a moral or ethical objection. It wasn’t simply a matter of working “for the clients that were assigned to her,” as an aide explained. Tobacco duty was optional. She opted in. Others did not.

Although not long out of law school, Ms. Gillibrand was given substantial responsibility. She worked closely with company executives. She became steeped in the workings of a lab the cigarette company had located outside the United States in Germany with the express purpose of keeping negative research findings that showed a connection between smoking and cancer out of public view and beyond the reach of American subpoenas.

She was privy to unsuccessful efforts to dissuade a smaller tobacco company, the Liggett Group, from breaking ranks and cooperating with prosecutors — a move, it was feared, that could result in the release of incriminating internal documents and a strengthening of Food and Drug Administration efforts to regulate the marketing and sale of cigarettes, including to children.

Ms. Gillibrand sat with some of the nation’s most prominent tobacco attorneys from different law firms on a special committee whose work included preventing plaintiffs and the government from seeing documents that Philip Morris wanted to remain secret.

Unlike lawyers who represent the indigent in criminal cases or the attorneys who endured mindless charges of disloyalty from the Bush administration for representing detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Ms. Gillibrand’s work for Philip Morris served no larger principle of due process. Had she turned down the tobacco assignment, other lawyers were readily available to take her place.

Her law firm allowed lawyers to decline work on tobacco cases if they had a moral or ethical objection. It wasn’t simply a matter of working “for the clients that were assigned to her,” as an aide explained. Tobacco duty was optional. She opted in. Others did not.

I don't know the correct answer. But I'm always interested in any argument that can really make me question my position on an issue.

February 27, 2009

Seroquel Safety Studies: More Information Uncovered

Bloomberg reports that AstraZeneca “buried” unfavorable studies on its antipsychotic drug Seroquel, according to an internal e-mail unsealed as part of litigation over the medicine.
Specifically, Seroquel’s manufacturer is accused of doing what has been alleged of drug companies thousands of times over the course of human history: failing to publicize results of at least three Seroquel clinical trials and cherry picking the data that it did publish about the risks associated with Seroquel.

Apparently, Seroquel’s manufacturer saw the whole thing coming: John Tumas, an AstraZeneca publications manager, wrote in an email that AstraZeneca had “buried trials 15, 31, 56.” Tumas showed in the email that he realized burying Seroquel data was not without risk:

The larger issue is how we face the outside world when they begin to criticize us for suppressing data.

Of course, this was hardly a one man conspiracy. Seroquel had engaged in a “great smoke-and-mirrors job” in dealing with U.S. and Canadian investigators on the trial’s results, according to an email from Richard Lawrence, an AstraZeneca official, in February 1997:
Adopting the approach Don has outlined should minimize (and dare I venture to suggest) could put a positive spin (in terms of safety) on this cursed study.

Continue reading "Seroquel Safety Studies: More Information Uncovered" »

November 20, 2008

Maryland Mediators and Arbitrators in Personal Injury Cases

We added on the Miller & Zois website the internal list that our lawyers keep of arbitrators and mediators in Maryland who we believe mediate or arbitrate personal injury cases.

As we make clear, this is not a list our our recommended mediators or arbitrators, just a collection of those that are doing the work. We refer to the list if arbitrating or mediating a case so it occured to me that others might want to have the same option, be it another personal injury lawyer or even an insurance company.

November 13, 2008

NuvaRing Class Action Lawyer


The NuvaRing (often misspelled as Nuva Ring or Newva Ring) is a low-dose hormonal, contraceptive device manufactured by Organon, a Dutch pharmaceutical company that was purchased last year by Schering Plough (which sells well known products such as Dr. Scholl’s and Coppertone)The NuvaRing is a small inter-vaginal device inserted by the user once a month to prevent pregnancy. Proponents of the NuvaRing advocate the ring’s low hormone dosage as well as its easy use, in comparison to the pill’s daily regimen.

Risks Associated with the NuvaRing

There are two main hormones used in birth control devices; progesterone and estrogen. Both of these hormones are capable of thickening the blood in the body. Thick blood increases the risk of a thrombotic incident such as a stroke, infarction, blood clot, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism or even in extreme cases death.

Unlike the pill which is ingested before the hormones that it contains are released into the body, the ring releases its hormones directly into the bloodstream. By ingesting the pill, it is estimated that up to 30% of the hormones it contains are absorbed in the digestive process rather than being released into the bloodstream. By releasing the hormones directly into the bloodstream, the hormones in the NuvaRing do not lose any potency causing a thrombotic event to be 30% more likely with the use of the ring as opposed the pill.

Lawsuits Involving the NuvaRing

Currently, our NuvaRing lawyers are reviewing potential lawsuits for users of the NuvaRing who suffered a thrombotic incident similar to those described above. Lawsuits are currently pending in the NuvaRing MDL class action lawsuit (for discovery). The NuvaRing’s manufacturer and related companies are the defendants: Organon USA, Inc., Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Organon International, Inc. are being sued for not taking into account the higher level of hormone transference that occurs for users of the NuvaRing, and therefore not properly explaining the risk of using the NuvaRing in comparison to other methods of birth control such as the pill. That contention is an umbrella for the negligence and consumer fraud that are also promulgated by Organon’s lack of disclosure on the potential dangers of the ring.

Take Action

There are a number of NuvaRing class action lawsuits currently pending. Our lawyers are reviewing NuvaRing injury cases around the country involving claims that NuvaRing can cause cardiac problems in women such as strokes, heart attacks, blood clots, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolisms, and in some extreme cases, even death. If you believe that you or someone you know may have suffered a serious injury as a result of using the NuvaRing, then please call one of our NuvaRing lawyers at 800-553-800 to discuss the potential settlement and/or lawsuit of your NuvaRing case or click here for a free confidential Internet NuvaRing lawsuit consultation.

October 30, 2008

Mentor ObTape Vaginal Sling Lawsuits

Urinary stress incontinence is a common problem for women - some 13 million of them in this country alone - particularly after childbirth and as they age. There are diaper-like products on the market for such women, but many choose to medically correct the problem so they no longer have this inconvenient embarrassment in their life. Imagine their horror when the very procedure meant to help them ends up harming them far worse than the original incontinence. This is what has happened to many women who had the Mentor ObTape Vaginal Sling surgically inserted.

Mentor is a California company that manufactured an ObTape Vaginal Sling, an implanted device that is designed to replace eroded or weakened muscles in the urethra and support the bladder. The problems occur because the material the sling is made of doesn’t allow the tissue where the sling is attached to heal; the material itself prevents the needed nutrients and oxygen from reaching the tissue. Women have suffered infection, scarring, painful intercourse, vaginal discharge, pain, mesh extrusions, abscess, and return of the very condition meant to be rectified by this device – urinary stress incontinence. The complications from the Mentor ObTape Vaginal Sling often required patients to undergo surgery and, unfortunately, often serious and permanent injuries. Mentor’s ObTape Vagina Sling came on the market in 2003, and in less than 3 years was taken off the market. Mentor never stepped up and issued a recall; Mentor simply stopped marketing the Ob Tape in March, 2006, but it never actually recalled the product – Mentor just let it die a slow death.

In October, 2006, the Journal of Urology reported on a study which looked at 67 women who had been implanted with the Mentor ObTape Vaginal Sling. More than 13% developed vaginal extrusions. Others had chronic vaginal discharge, and one patient developed an abscess that led to complications. The most telling part of the study was that none of the control group of 56 women who used another type of vaginal sling experienced the complications seen with the Mentor ObTape Vaginal Sling.

This Mentor ObTape Vaginal Sling tried a new innovative design, which is commendable, but you cannot put a product on the market without adequate testing. Apparently, the ObTape Vaginal Sling pushed into and through the vaginal wall causing tearing, cutting, and sometimes permanent erosion of the vaginal tissues.

ObTape lawyers intend to argue that although Mentor won approval of ObTape from the FDA because it was "substantially equivalent" to slings already on the market, the ObTabe Sling is actually a very different product grounds ObTape was a new and unique product. But the Mentor ObTape Vaginal Sling was different because vaginal slings had historically been made with a mesh design, allowing the sling to breathe and get nutrients to the body’s tissue.

Mentor ObTape Vaginal Sling lawyers will argue to consolidate for discovery purposes the 22 filed Mentor ObTape Vaginal Sling lawsuits in an MDL (basically a class action for discovery purposes). Oral arguments will be held in late November in Charleston, South Carolina.

Continue reading "Mentor ObTape Vaginal Sling Lawsuits" »

October 13, 2008

Maryland High Court to Hear Non-Economic Cap Case

The Maryland Daily Record reports that the Maryland Court of Appeals will hear a challenge to Maryland’s statutory cap on non-economic damages involving a lead paint case in Baltimore City.

I think it is interesting the Maryland high court granted cert in this case. I'm not optimistic. But boy would the landscape flip here if the Maryland Court of Appeals agrees these caps are unjust under Maryland's Constitution.

October 13, 2008

Why is Seroquel Still on the Market After All These Lawsuits?

Seroquel is the top selling antipsychotic drug in the United States. Seroquel is the eighth best-selling drug in the world, with more than $4 billion in sales last year.

But attorney generals in Pennsylvania, Montana, and Arkansas contend that Seroquel's rise was the result of an illegal marketing campaign designed to promote the powerful drug for unapproved uses, including to some of our most vulnerable: children and the elderly with dementia. Moreover, Seroquel has been linked with a host of health problems, including diabetes and pancreatitis. As a result, there are over 10,000 plaintiffs in a Seroquel class-action lawsuit.

With all of these Seroquel lawsuits, how has Seroquel stayed on the market? In addition to the obvious - $4 billion a year in annual revenue can buy up a lot of Seroquel-related diabetes and pancreatitis settlements. Dr. Robert Rosenheck, a psychiatry professor at Yale, has the answer: "You had 10 to 15 years of marketing in which the companies controlled the journal publications, controlled the speakers’ bureaus, controlled the dinners, controlled the patient advocacy groups, all of which communicated these drugs were a breakthrough. But there was little independent research."

For the millions of people on Seroquel, there has been “little independent research” of the drug. This is just plain frightening, right?

September 4, 2008

First Byetta Lawsuit

The first lawsuit of which I am aware involving Byetta was filed last week in California in San Diego Superior Court. The nature of the allegations are that Amylin and Eli Lilly failed to adequately test Byetta before the drug was approved in 2006 and, more importantly many think, and after Byetta came out on the market and their were numerous reports of pancreatitis. The lawsuit also claims that these companies failed to warn of the risks they knew or should have know about Byetta.

Product liability lawyers have to listen to what their clients want them to do. Personally, in developinglitigation like Byetta, I do not see the value in filing the first lawsuit. These cases evolve and 90% of the time, the science gets better and better because the plaintiffs’ lawyers and their experts get a better and better feel for the drug. The history of successful mass tort cases is frequently the first wave of lawsuits, the defendants get creamed. As time goes on, the Plaintiffs’ lawyers get wiser and the tide turns.

August 27, 2008

Byetta Lawsuits Coming Down the Pike

Eli Lilly and Amylin Pharmaceuticals Inc. reported yesterday after the close of business that there were reports of four new deaths in patients taking Byetta.

Last week, the FDA announced that two Byetta patients died of acute pancreatitis. Interestingly, Lilly said the FDA was aware of the additional deaths but did not make the findings public them because they involved a milder form the pancreatitis and the FDA was "concentrating on the more severe forms of the condition...."

Does this logic make sense to anyone but Lily, Amylin, and the FDA? Get the information out there so doctors and patients can make informed choices about Byetta..

The medical director also said that the media coverage of the deaths with Byetta "tended to be a bit sensationalized," noting that there has only been one report of pancreatitis for every 3,000 patients taking Bayetta for one year. He failed to note that this is a notoriously underreported event.

Our lawyers are exploring potential Byetta lawsuits. If you are taking or took Byetta and you have pancreatitis and would like to discuss your case with a Byetta lawyer, call 800-553-8082 or click here for a free consulation/case evaluation (or even to answer any question you may have).

August 12, 2008

Zimmer Hip Implant Recall Lawyers

Zimmer last month halted sales of its Durom Cup hip implant socket. It has been estimated that at least 5% of the 12,000 patients that have been implanted with the Zimmer Durom Cup hip replacement in the United States will experience significant problems.

If you are one of the 5% of Zimmer Durom Cup hip implant patients that are experiencing problems with your Zimmer Durom hip cup, call our Zimmer hip implant lawyers at 1-800-553-8082 or click here for a free consultation. Our lawyers are reviewing these Zimmer implant cases throughout the United States.

June 2, 2008

SSRIs in Stroke Patients: A New Lexapro Study

Journal of the American Medical Association reports on a study suggesting that doctors may want to prescribe stroke victims antidepressants right away. Researchers in Iowa gave low doses of the SSRI antidepressant Lexapro to stroke patients. The patients on the drug were 4.5 times less likely to develop depression than patients given a placebo.

If this study is replicated, the results are astonishing given the rather limited efficacy of SSRIs generally. Similar findings may lead to the use of the much maligned SSRI antidepressants despite the criticism of recent years. Almost a quarter of a million Americans develop depression within two years after having a stroke. As is often the case, depression impacts outcome: stroke patients with depression recover less quickly and are more likely to die.
SSRIs, such as Prozac, Lexapro, Cipralex, Esertia, and Zoloft, have a lot of troubling side effects. While it took almost a decade for the labeling to reflect the risks, SSRIs cause an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and actions. The New England Journal of Medicine and other medical journals have also reported that some SSRI antidepressants are linked to an increased risk of persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN) in children whose mothers used SSRIs after the 20th week of gestation. SSRIs have also been linked to heart, cranial, lung and abdominal defects. If all of that is not enough, extreme reactions have also been reported in patients when they stop taking some SSRIs.

Does this mean that SSRIs should not be on the market? If this Lexapro study is any indication, the answer is that there are some cases where the side effects of these SSRIs may be worth the risk. The problem is that SSRIs have been billed to general practitioners as a cure all panacea with no side effects for anyone with symptoms of depression. But, unfortunately, there is no such drug and the prescription of antidepressants should be done with more care and consideration to the risks as well as the benefits of these drugs.

May 28, 2008

Chantix Class Action Lawyers

When Chantix was introduced into the marketplace to cure nicotine addiction, it was viewed as the panacea that would finally cure our country’s incredibly unproductive addiction to nicotine. The problem is that anytime you have a drug that can make a great impact on a lot of people, there is an awful lot of money to be made. As a result, products get rushed onto the market. Did this happen with Chantix? The early returns appear to say yes.

The Food and Drug Administration hs received information about numerous serious problems with Chantix, including suicidal thoughts and ideation, homicidal ideations, and hallucinations. The FDA received reports of 37 suicides and 491 cases in which people had suicidal thoughts. If history is any guide, the actual incidences are often more than 10 times what the FDA reports. In other words, these numbers are probably just the tip of the iceberg. Still, there is no indication from Pfizer that there will be a recall of Chantix.

Pfizer released the drug without any warning regarding these potential side effects. By January of 2008, the reports of psychological side effects, most notably suicidal actions and ideations, reached a critical mass and Pfizer added a warning to the label of Chantix about the potential risks of suicidal behavior and depression. This warning followed a November 2007 update to Chantix's "post-marketing experience" section which stated that there had been reports of depression, agitation, and suicidal behavior and ideation in patients on Chantix. The FDA now says it is "increasingly likely" that there is an association between Chantix and suicidal thoughts, actual suicide, depression and other psychiatric symptoms.

No one knows exactly how Chantix works. But doctors do have a theory that certainly makes sense. People get addicted to nicotine because the brain craves it. Chantix does a pretty fascinating thing: it targets receptors in the brain that respond to nicotine. By targeting the brain receptors that respond to nicotine and release dopamine, Chantix prevents nicotine from reaching those brain receptors.

Accordingly, Chantix works in two ways. It blocks nicotine from stimulating these brain receptors, so cigarettes do not give users the dopamine release they crave, and it stimulates the release of lower levels of dopamine to help decrease the craving for nicotine which is what drives people who are trying to quit smoking back to cigarettes. And by all accounts, Chantix works for a large number of people who have tried it. In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 44% of people taking Chantix were able to quit smoking in comparison to 17.7% percent of those taking placebos. No one can argue that Chantix is not an effective drug. But is it safe?

I’m a lawyer, not a pharmacologist. But it does not take a pharmacologist to realize that when you play with the chemicals in the brain that alter mood, like serotonin or dopamine, you are playing with fire. Because no one understands how all of these chemicals work together, altering the brain’s chemical processes should be done with a lot of care and you have to advise patients of the risks associated with doing so. Moreover, everyone's brain chemistry is different and not every drug is going to suit every person. This is true with any drug, Chantix is no different. But when the side effects are as serious as these appear to be, particularly the suicide, it raises the question of whether Chantix should be on the market at all.

Our Chantix lawyers are investigating a class action lawsuit on behalf of victims and their families who suffered a serious injury or death by suicide from the use of Chantix throughout the United States. If you or a loved one have experienced a severe side effect from Chantix, call one of our Chantix lawyers at 1-800-553-6000.

April 30, 2008

Lawsuit over Pitch Counts

Overlawyered has a blog post today about the reports of a high school pitcher suing his school district because he wore out his arm throwing 140 pitches in a single game. Here is the gist of the story from the Seattle Times: Seven years ago, Plaintiff was pitching against a rival school. He had no plans to take himself out of the game. In the eighth inning his mother, assuming you believe her story, told coach, "He's at 117 pitches. He's done." (How many mothers out there are keeping exact pitch counts?) You know the rest of the story. The Plaintiff hurts his arm. He thinks he was the next coming of Roger Clemens... better make that Greg Maddux... and files suit claiming the coach should have pulled him out of the game.

Overlawyered and the Maryland Lawyer Blog agree that the possibility of a lawsuit causes people to act differently than they otherwise would. Where we disagree is whether, on balance, this is a good thing for society. For example, football coaches now know that depriving kids of water during practice is a bad thing and their doing so may expose the school to liability. In this area I think coaches already have proper incentive to do the right thing and this will only serve to exaggerate the risk of a "pitch count" lawsuit. Even if this is what I believe is the first lawsuit of its kind in this country. Obviously every baseball coach around the country is going to be talking about this and many are going to become worried about pitch counts.

Awareness of valid lawsuits properly encourages people (including doctors) to proceed with caution and to consider the risks that may cause harm. Frivolous lawsuits like this one have the opposite effect and are going to have some coaches - a small minority but still some - overreacting and limiting kids to ridiculously low pitch counts. But just as free speech requires us to tolerate hate speech, the search for justice requires us to tolerate some level of frivolous lawsuits. Whatever inertia this country has towards tort reform, it comes in no small measure from mainstream media and Internet reports (many of which are simply false) of ridiculous lawsuits.

I’m digressing from this story now, but one of the problems personal injury lawyers have in fighting back against the tort reform movement is their refusal to appreciate valid arguments made by reform advocates. For example, as a student of economics, no one will ever convince me that medical malpractice damage caps don’t decrease doctor’s insurance premiums. So why on earth do we keep arguing this?

I also think we have to concede that there is a “tort tax” and that litigation in pure economic terms is counterproductive. So is social security on many levels but the system stays because it brings about a greater good. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, every year about 4,500 deaths and 13.7 million injuries occur as a result of defective products in 15 different categories. Not included in these classifications are motor vehicles, drugs, medical devices, and toxic substances. It seems like the “wild west” with respect to consumer safety even with the risk of lawsuits. What would these numbers be like without tort litigation? The reality is tort litigation costs money but saves lives.

Of course, there is another argument against limiting plaintiffs’ tort recoveries. If you are injured as a result of the negligence of someone else, who should pay for those injuries, the innocent victim or the person responsible? Litigation provides some measure of justice. The problem with using the justice argument to fend off tort reform is that no one sees themselves as the tort victim until they are the tort victim. People who strongly support efforts to reduce jury awards rarely hesitate to file a claim or a lawsuit when they are seriously injured as a result of someone else’s negligence. I’ve represented many of these people. Are they greedy hypocrites? I don’t think so. I think they see the world differently when they step into shoes they never expected to be in and were statistically unlikely to wear: the serious injury victim. It changes the way they think and they no longer care about the “tort tax” but about fairness and justice and the lives saved by personal injury lawyers who help in the battle of keeping corporations focused on what almost everyone agrees should be their first priority: consumer safety.

April 9, 2008

Heparin Death Toll Rising

The FDA yesterday raised its current count of estimated heparin related deaths from 19 to 62. The FDA qualified its finding by pointing out that reports of allergic reactions or low blood pressure after the use of heparin do not necessarily mean heparin was a contributing cause to the death. I’m sure this is true. But the FDA puts this qualification in some context by noting that there were only three heparin allergic reaction deaths reported in 2006.

As I wrote earlier today, many people taking heparin have other health risks, but the number of heparin death cases calls we are receiving leads me to believe that, tragically, 62 reported deaths may be just the tip of the iceberg. (Hopefully, I'm wrong.)

Our Baxter heparin recall lawyers are accepting defective heparin cases throughout the country. Our law firm is handling only very serious injury and death cases. If you want to discuss your heparin case with one of our heparin contamination recall lawyers, call us for a free consultation at 800-553-8082 or click here for a free Internet consultation.