Articles Posted in Products Liability

This post was originally written in 2008.  We do not know of any active Chantix suicide lawsuits that are pending in 2019.  Ultimately, Pfizer paid almost $300 million to settle thousands of lawsuits alleging adverse neuropsychiatric effects from Chantix.  The average settlement value of the Chantix lawsuits was not high.  But some suicide cases were seven-figure settlements.

In 2016, there was a study done that was published in Lancet that concluded that Chantix did not cause suicidal ideations or actions.  Some defense lawyers have argued this is an example of litigation that should not have settled because the science was unclear.  But others have pushed back, arguing that the Lancet study (called the EAGLES study) was scientifically unsound.

This is a complex issue. I suspect Chantix has saved lives.  I don’t think there was ever a good argument to take the product off the market. (Cf. I may have suggested the possibility below in 2008.)  But if there is a concern about the drug, should the manufacturer provide the facts surrounding that concern so doctors and patients can decide for themselves?

The Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog has a post today about the value of personal injury cases involving the loss of vision in one eye. We have a vision loss in one eye case now pending against Home Depot and Chapin International, a New York company that makes the Chapin Sprayer. We contend that our client lost vision in his eye as the result of a design defect in the Chapin Sprayer 2002. I’m writing this blog post because I would like to get into contact with any other Plaintiffs’ products liability lawyers who may have a similar design defect case against Chapin so that we can share information.

We think this model Chapin Sprayer 2002 is defective for several reasons. First, it is designed and manufactured with a nipple coming off the tank facing upward in a direction that would likely cause an eye injury. Other Chapin models such as the Spray and Go have the nipple designed to come off the side of the tank in a direction not pointed towards the user’s eye. Second, this model did not have a pressure relief valve, which is the safety feature in nearly every other Chapin model. Third, this model was packaged in such a way that the hose was not connected to the tank when it was delivered to the customer. Most of the Chapin sprayers and other sprayers have the hose attached to the tank by a metal crimp or by the factory so that the attachment is more secure than relying on the customer to make this attachment. Fourth, the nut to attach the hose to the tank was not provided to the purchaser. Finally, there were no warnings to indicate that the end-user should not use this sprayer with dangerous chemicals, inadequately attached hoses, missing nuts, bib connection pointed toward the eye, and no pressure relief valve.

If you are a lawyer who has a design defect case involving the Chapin Sprayer in 2002, give me a call. We have a great deal of information on this product to share and, hopefully, you will have some information for us as well on this Chapin Sprayer.

A recent editorial in Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology reports findings of perforations in St. Jude Riata defibrillator leads. Coming on the heels of the recent Medtronic defibrillator lead recall, this editorial raises additional manufacturing concerns about some of St. Jude’s newer and thinner leads. These perforations, coupled with their late presentation, pose a duel threat to patients. The lead perforation sometimes is not caught until it is “well beyond the right ventricular free wall” and protruding centimeters into surrounding tissue. This protrusion can lead to complications which can cause a lot of complications, including sudden death.

St. Jude has responded to these concerns by citing product analysis data showing that the perforation rate of St. Jude’s Riata lead wires is lower than the rates reported by similar leads. But, honestly, on the heals of the Medtronic recall, my confidence in reports from medical device companies about their safety and efficacy data is about the same as my confidence in Brittany Spears’ parenting skills.

Two Kansas City men have filed separate class-action lawsuits in the Medtronic defibrillator lead recall cases. Interesting, because Kansas City is in two states, the men have filed separate lawsuits in two different states.

Our Medtronic lead recall lawyers suspect all of these individual class actions will be consolidated in an MDL in one jurisdiction, most likely in Minnesota. Tomorrow, I will write about what the MDL is and how it will probably be applied in the Medtronic cases.

Yesterday, a Nevada jury awarded $99 million in punitive damages to three women who claimed their breast cancer was caused by Wyeth’s hormone replacement drugs, Premarin and Prempro. The jury had originally awarded $134.5 million, which was reduced to $35 million after the jury indicated that the original verdict had also included punitive damages. So in the punitive damages phase, the jury tacked back on the $99 million.

These are 3 of the more than 5,000 lawsuits that have been filed around the country involving Premarin and Prempro, which are hormone replacement drugs intended to ease the symptoms of menopause.

A national study of hormone replacement therapy that had been conducted by the Women’s Health Initiative in 2002, found that Prempro increased the risk of several ailments, including stroke, heart disease, and breast cancer. Incredibly, these drugs remain on the market.