Chat with us, powered by LiveChat
Rock n play recall

Rock ‘N Play Recall Lawsuit

Fisher-Price Recalls 4.7 Million Units of Rock ‘n Play Sleeper After 32 Infant Deaths Reported

Fisher-Price has announced a product recall of all models of its China-made Rock ‘n Play Sleeper from the market, assuring consumers of a full refund. 

The recall was announced on April 12th, 2019, after an extensive investigation by exposed the life-threatening risks of the product for infants. 

Nearly 4.7 million products have been recalled, and consumers can contact Fisher-Price for a voucher or cash refund. 

The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has published the details of the recall on its website to inform consumers and help protect infants against the risk of death or injury associated with this faulty product.  

The Consumer Reports (CR) investigation showed that Rock ‘n Play Sleeper (which sold at major retailers for a price of up to $149) was unsafe ever since it was introduced in the market in 2009. Over a period of nearly 10 years, at least 32 infant fatalities have taken place in Rock ‘n Play Sleepers.

The deaths occurred after the infants rolled over from their back to their side or stomach while unrestrained, or under various other circumstances. 

Timeline of the Fisher-Price Product Recall 

  • On April 8th, 2019, Consumer Reports published a detailed investigative report exposing the dangers to the lives of infants while using the Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play Sleeper.

  • On April 9th, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) issued a request to the CPSC to order an immediate recall of the product, citing the investigation by Consumer Reports.

  • On April 11, CR link four additional infant fatalities to inclined sleepers from another company called Kids II, and asked for their recall as well for the same reasons.

  • On April 12th, Fisher-Price announced a product recall of all 4.7m units sold in the market. The company cited infant deaths as the reason for this recall and asked parents to immediately stop the use of the Rock ‘n Play Sleeper for their babies.

  • On April 26th, following the action of Fisher-Price, the other company Kids II also announced a recall of 694,000 units of its product Rocking Sleeper, citing infant fatalities.

  • On May 15th, 2019, Health Canada ordered a separate recall of the same Fisher-Price product sold in Canada. Health Canada cited safety risks as the reason for the recall, and asked caregivers to stop the use of this product for the child’s overnight sleep or naptime. 

CR Investigation which led to the Fisher-Price Recall 

Consumer Reports LogoAn investigation by Consumer Reports (CR) into the safety of ‘Rock ‘n Play Sleeper’ from Fisher-Price found it to be linked to at least 32 infant deaths. The product is designed and marketed to help babies sleep better on an incline. 

On April 5th, 2019, days after CR completed their investigation and were asked to comment on it, Fisher-Price and the federal government issued a product warning for Rock ‘n Play Sleeper. However, the warning was not deemed to go far enough in the opinion of safety advocates. 

CR was informed by multiple medical experts that in order to minimize the risk of accidental suffocation, babies should not be placed at an incline, but flat on their backs on a surface without any soft padding. Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play Sleeper was not found to adhere to these recommendations. 

The safety alert issued by Fisher-Price and the CPSC includes a warning from the CPSC. It asks consumers to stop using Rock ‘n Play Sleeper as soon as an infant is 3 months old or begins to show capabilities of rolling over. 

The alert reported 10 infant death incidences since 2015 that were tied to the product. Infants lying on the sleeper were unrestrained and managed to roll from their back to their sides or stomach. 

Fisher-Price Refused to Recall the Product despite Reports of Infant Deaths

In spite of these staggering numbers ‘Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play Sleeper’ was not recalled. Fisher-Price is a part of the Mattel group (children’s products manufacturing giant) who earned $4.5 billion in sales in 2018. 

The deaths have only resulted in empty warnings by CPSC and the company. In fact, CPSC still doesn’t have a mandatory safety standard for inclined sleep products targeted at infants. 

An emailed statement from Fisher-Price to CR claimed that they would do everything possible to impart the necessary information to parents and caregivers for creating an infant sleep environment which was both safe and sound. They also expressed the loss of a child as being a devastating tragedy. 

But, when CR pushed on with its investigation relentlessly, they found that babies much younger than the stipulated 3-month threshold (as stated in the April 5th warning) had died. 

Fisher-Price confirmed that in addition to the 10 infant fatalities noted in the CPSC joint release, the company was aware of approximately 22 other deaths since the introduction of Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play Sleeper in 2009. 

However, the company reportedly told CR that they did not believe these deaths to be caused because of the correct usage of the product, citing various situations where the sleeper was clearly used in the wrong manner contrary to instructions and safety warning. 

They also stated that there were many instances where an actual health or medical condition was identified as the primary cause of death. 

While certain cases were found to be the result of contributing illness and additional bedding, as per data reviewed by CR, there were a number of incidents that were directly associated with using Rock ‘n Play Sleeper, raising concerns about the product’s safety. 

Further, products that require restraining a baby (especially, if that product can also rock) is not recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

Lori Feldman-Winter, M.D., a professor of pediatrics at Cooper Medical School of Rowan University in Camden, N.J. and also a member of the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) taskforce led by the AAP stated that fastening a baby down to a surface and then rocking the baby is not consistent with the SIDS recommendations. 

William Wallace, a senior policy analyst at CR voiced that the Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play was a serious threat to infant’s safety based on the past deaths and injuries, and that all products should be immediately recalled. 

Wallace also said that all other inclined sleeper products targeted at infants should be investigated by the CPSC and they should be pulled off the market if they conflict with the safe sleep recommendations as stated by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The alert issued by CPSC and Fisher-Price on April 8th, 2019 followed a previous similar alert issued by CPSC almost a year ago, where they warned consumers about inclined sleep products (without naming Rock ‘n Play Sleeper) and the risk to infants. 

CR was told by CPSC in an emailed statement that they were aware of the other deaths occurred because of Rock ‘n Play and that they were currently focusing on the deaths linked to the rollover hazard. 

The statement also claimed the agency to be evaluating Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play and investigating it for defects, and that if they found evidence that warranted a recall, then they shall not hesitate to make that step. 

But, CR’s investigation which was based in part on the CPSC data that was previously undisclosed, and in part on the numerous lawsuits and interviews with products engineers, medical experts, government officials, industry experts, and parents, raised strong concerns about how Fisher-Price developed and marketed Rock ‘n Play in the first place. 

The investigation also raised questions about how the product was allowed to be sold in spite of all the deaths and incidents dating so many years back. 

CR’s investigation highlighted a tremendous weakness and flaw in the regulatory system designed to protect consumers and children from hazardous products. 

A Heart-Rending List of Infant Deaths

CR uncovered the earliest death to have occurred in 2011, with many more in the following years. 

For instance, as per a lawsuit against Fisher-Price there is an incident of a mother from Hidalgo County, Texas, who placed her daughter in the Rock ‘n Play Sleeper on her back for the night on Oct. 19th, 2013. 

All was well when the mother checked on her baby girl at 4 am, but when she checked again at 7 am, the baby had stopped breathing. 

Her head was tilted on the side compressing her airway. She died because her chin was on her shoulder causing positional asphyxia. 

CR found the most recent deaths to have occurred in spring 2018 involving a 9-day old baby boy in Copperas Cove, Texas and a month old infant girl in Knoxville, Tenn.

There have been a number of close shaves as well with one being on July 25th, 2014 where a 7-week-old boy placed in the Rock ‘n Play Sleeper was rescued by his grandmother who happened to be in the room. 

Jan Hinson, the grandmother, from Greenville, S.C claims to have looked at her grandson and found his head to be cocked in the wrong way. He was lifeless and blue all over. She got the little boy to breathe again who was declared fine after a day’s stay at the hospital. 

Hinson is also a lawyer and is currently representing Evan and Keenan Overton from Virginia, whose son died while taking a nap in the Rock ‘n Play Sleeper.

In 2017, just a few days before Christmas, Keenan was sleeping on the couch with 5-month-old Ezra asleep in the Rock ‘n Play Sleeper. 

Keenan upon waking in the middle of the night found Ezra to be on his stomach, lifeless, and not breathing. Keenan yelled for Evan to call 911. 

Evan sobbed that Ezra’s body was hard and blue all over. His son did not feel real in his arms. The baby was pronounced dead due to asphyxia at the hospital and while the Overtons say that Ezra was buckled, the death certificate says the baby was unrestrained. 

As the Overtons came to grasp what had happened in the weeks and months following Ezra’s funeral, they came upon the controversy surrounding Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play. 

The new parents had trusted Fisher-Price and the product to be safe for their baby’s sleep time because that was the way it was marketed. The product is marketed ‘for naptime and nighttime’ and the package clearly refers to the product as an ‘inclined sleeper designed for all-night’s sleep.’

However, the internet search carried out by the couple revealed a whole different story. There were multiple posts by parents and doctors labeling the product as a safety hazard. 

The Overtons learned that Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play Sleeper due to its inclined position was a serious threat and increased the risk of infant fatality. 

The product had been a hand-me-down from the Overtons neighbors who claimed it to be a lifesaver when their child was an infant. However, the Overtons after reading up about it became convinced that the opposite was true. 

Evan posted a comment on Amazon on Jan. 6th, 2018 warning parents not to buy Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play and labeled it as a horrible contraption that claimed the life of his son and should not be marketed as a sleeper. 

When Fisher-Price was asked about the Overton incident by CR, they responded by saying that it is an unimaginable tragedy to lose a child. Fisher-Price also confirmed that this incident was part of the 10 incidents cited by the company in the April 5 joint CPSC alert. 

A History of the Product’s Dangers

The website of Fisher-Price states that the company first got the idea for Rock ‘n Play Sleeper and commenced its development when one their designers had a baby boy who couldn’t sleep because of acid reflux troubles. 

The designer’s pediatricians suggested keeping the infant’s head at an elevated angle, which prompted her and the company to build a sleeper that would keep a baby’s head at a 30 degree incline while sleeping. 

CR was told by Fisher-Price that the company engaged a reputed engineering and scientific consulting firm that assessed the risk of Rock ‘n Play Sleeper to be lower than that of cribs, cradles and bassinets. 

The medical consultant hired by Fisher-Price was found to be a physician from San Antonio called Gary Deegear, M.D., as per documents filed by the company in an Atlanta lawsuit. According to these documents, Deegear assured Fisher-Price about the safety of Rock ‘n Play Sleeper. 

For instance, Kitty Pilarz who is Mattel’s vice president of product safety and regulatory compliance wrote in an email that Dr. Deegear claimed pediatricians from all over to recommend placing infants with acid reflux at an incline of 30 degrees or in a car seat. 

However, there are several concerns about this advice given by Dr. Deegear. 

For starters, according to the Texas Medical Board, Deegear is not a pediatrician or a sleep specialist. He is a family practice doctor and CR could not reach him for comment even after multiple attempts. 

Another reason is that the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development along with the AAP have long counseled against keeping infants or allowing them to sleep unsupervised while in a reclining position. 

Shortly after the joint alert issued by Fisher-Price and the CPSC, the AAP tweeted a warning about not using the Rock ‘n Play Sleeper for routine sleep. They advised to always strap the baby and never leave one unattended if the sleeper was used for soothing purposes. 

Feldman-Winter stated that the AAP does not recommend babies to be placed with their heads in an elevated position while sleeping since that position can result in accidental strangulation and suffocation in bed. 

Instead, babies should be placed on their backs, alone and unrestrained, on a flat and firm surface, such as a mattress with a fitted sheet in the play yard, crib or bassinet. 

Experts advise parents not to use a stroller, car seat, sling, swing, wedge, or other similar products for unsupervised sleep. 

This recommendation, as per Feldman-Winter, applies to all babies, including the ones with acid reflux. She understands the desperation parents feel when their babies are in pain or crying and can’t sleep, and recognizes that some parents have heard about putting a child at an incline to ease the problem. 

However, there is no evidence that suggests acid reflux can be eased by placing the baby at an incline. She further stated that many parents think it is safe to keep babies in an elevated sleep position, but it is not. 

The AAP doesn’t recommend using any sleeping device that requires a baby to be restrained during routine use because a baby may be incapable of moving after rolling into an unsafe position, causing strangulation or suffocation. 

This is also one of the reasons behind experts cautioning against placing babiesin car seats for unsupervised sleep. 

These products are deemed acceptable, as stated by Paul Gaudreau, a mechanical engineer who has experience in the car-seat industry and currently works for UPPAbaby, because that is the safest position in the event of a car crash. 

However, Gaudreau further states that as per research sleeping at an incline in a car seat can cause a baby’s oxygen level to drop

Medical experts also warn that straps in car seats can cause strangulation which is the reason why Gaudreau always steered the company he worked for to not develop inclined sleepers. 

The basic advice that recommends babies to be placed on a firm and level surface dates back to 1994, which is well before Rock ‘n Play Sleeper was developed by Fisher-Price. 

In 1994, the AAP and other infant-safety related groups developed the “Back to Sleep” campaign aimed at reducing the risk of sleep-related deaths and SIDS. The campaign is now labeled as “Safe to Sleep” and has successfully helped bring down the rate of SIDS by 50%. 

Roy Benaroch, an associate adjunct professor of pediatrics at Emory University in Atlanta and has blogged about the potential safety risks of the Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play Sleeper. 

He told CR that parents are usually not able to make an enlightened decision because they are confused on account of sleepless nights, crying and cranky baby, and general exhaustion. 

He said that parents are ready to grasp at any solution that comes their way, without really understanding the risk they assume by using inclined sleepers. Benaroch asserted that parents who use Rock ‘n Play Sleeper are putting their baby at the risk of infant fatality. 

Regulatory Side-Stepping

‘Rock ‘n Play Sleeper’ was marketed along with bassinets by Fisher-Price when it was first introduced. However, in 2010, less than a year later, the CPSC began to form drafts to revise infant sleep surface standards. This included bassinets. 

They issued a proposed rule which would require all products to be flat and firm. The products could be at an angle below 5 degrees, though not while rocking or swinging. 

Pilarz at Mattel, rather than adjusting the incline of their products reached out to CPSC for a revision of the proposed rule. 

She claimed that not making the change on account of products like Rock ‘n Play Sleeper could potentially increase the risk of injury as exhausted parents looked elsewhere and substituted for products that could be more dangerous. 

Ultimately, CPSC excluded products with an incline greater than 10 degrees from their mandatory standards for bassinets and cradles in October 2013. 

Armed with this exclusion, Fisher-Price with other industry reps went to ASTM International. This organization includes representatives from public, government, and the industry in question to set voluntary safety standards of consumer products. They applied for voluntary standard for a new category – the inclined infant sleepers. 

Some ASTM members had objected creating a new category and setting voluntary standards for these products. 

The executive director of Kids in Danger, Nancy Cowles claimed that by setting a standard, parents would be coerced into believing that the products must be safe. Kids in Danger (KID) is a nonprofit organization focusing on reducing injuries in children and infants due to consumer products. 

Cowles worried that the voluntary ASTM standard would create confusion and give parents a sense of false security about inclined sleepers which were anything but secure. 

Nevertheless, ASTM went on ahead to develop a voluntary standard for the inclined sleeper category and appointed Michael Steinwachs as chairperson. 

Steinwachs was employed by Fisher-Price at the time as one of the primary engineers of the Rock ‘n Play Sleeper. In 2015, the voluntary standard was established for infant inclined sleep products. 

Even though Cowles at KID was disappointed, she wasn’t surprised because even with talks about safety issues, parents just keep buying products, and companies keep on selling them, justifying singular incidents as the parent’s fault. 

Product Warnings from Other Parts of the World

According to documents filed in the Hidalgo County lawsuit, there were many health and regulatory agencies that did not trust the inclined sleeper. 

For instance, in January 2011, Australian regulators wrote to Mattel explaining their reasons as to why the product should not be marketed as a sleep product. 

They said that the Rock ‘n Play Sleeper was at odds with widely accepted infant regulations that state such products to not be used as an infant bedding alternative. 

The Australian regulators also claimed that the product’s angles could make babies’ heads fall forward that could cause obstruction to airways. The sleeper is still not sold in Australia as confirmed by Fisher-Price. 

In Canada, the product was reclassified as a ‘soother’ from a ‘sleeper’ and is now re-marketed as the Rock ‘n Play Soothing Seat. 

This was after a Health Canada representative wrote to Mattel Canada in February 2011 about their concerns in light of recommendations by the Canadian Pediatric Society and the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Despite misgivings from various health organizations, Rock ‘n Play is still marketed as a ‘sleeper’ in the United Kingdom. 

The Royal College of Midwives in the UK in February 2011 told Fisher-Price that they would not endorse Rock ‘n Play as a sleeper because they thought it was suitable for only short periods of supervised play. 

A Fisher-Price employee, after receiving this news, wrote in an internal email that the findings from the testing of the product by the Royal College of Midwives did not have good implications for a UK launch. 

What Should the Parents Do?

Safety experts now agree and suggest that people who may still be using Fisher-Price Rock ’n Play Sleepers should stop their use immediately for an infant’s routine sleep. They recommend that the best way to put the babies on their bed is alone. 

The baby should be put on his or her back, over a flat, firm, flat mattress in a bassinet, play yard, or crib. 

The product recall from Fisher-Price should be taken seriously by every parent to protect their infant against the risk of injury or death due to a faulty product.

Filing a Lawsuit Against Fisher-Price For Rock ‘N Play Recall

If you or a loved one has suffered from the death of a baby due to the defective design of the Fisher-Price Rock ‘N Play, you may be entitled to compensation by filing a lawsuit. To contact lawyers handling lawsuits against Fisher-Price, please use the form below.

3m earplugs lawsuit military service member

3M Earplugs Lawsuits

Hundreds of army veterans all over the United States have filed defective combat ear plug lawsuits against 3M Company after whistleblower allegations that stated a defense contractor sold the military defective Combat Arms Earplugs, Version 2 (CAEv2) from 2003 to 2015.

Because the military earplugs failed to maintain a tight seal, dangerously loud sounds were able to slip through without the wearer’s knowledge.

The dual-ended 3M CAEv2 earplugs, which have now been discontinued, were reportedly standard issue for members of the military service from 2003 to 2015. The 3M ear plug lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas- Waco Division.

According to a copy of one lawsuit that the Military Times received, the lawsuits allege that 3M Company, based in Minnesota, made earplugs with a defective design and failed to warn users of the defect or to provide proper instructions for their use.

It is alleged that the failure resulted in the loss of hearing, loss of balance and tinnitus in those who used the earplugs during their military service.

Over 100 lawsuits have been filed by multiple law firms. In a statement, one lawyer said that due to the widespread damage that veterans suffered as a result of the actions of 3M, the 100 cases so far are just the tip of the iceberg of lawsuits that will be filed so that 3M can be held accountable.

Department of Justice Helps Resolve 3M Earplug Lawsuit Against the Company

In a controversial whistleblower lawsuit that was filed on the behalf of the US government, a leading qui tam lawyer made allegations that 3M Company and Aearo Technologies, Inc. (which was the company’s predecessor), had knowledge of the defect in the earplug’s design since 2000, when the earplugs that were intended for use in combat failed to show any benefits in noise reduction.

Yet, the 3M whistleblower lawsuit alleged that 3M continued to sell the combat arms earplugs to the Defense Logistics Agency. This is the agency that supplies equipment to the US army, air force, as well as navy personnel.

3M Company, in its response to the whistleblower complaint, admitted that Aearo had conducted a test on the earplugs in 2000 and that the result of the test was a Noise Reduction Rating (NRR) of 0, which means that the combat earplugs had no benefits in noise reduction.

Later, the US government intervened with slightly different allegations in the whistleblower lawsuit.

The United States alleged that 3M and Aearo Technologies were fully aware that the Combat Arms Earplugs version 2, or CAEv2, was too short to be properly inserted into users’ ears. It also added that 3M failed to disclose this information to the US government and delivered the earplugs knowing full well that they were defective products.

In the settlement agreement for the whistleblower combat arms earplugs lawsuit, 3M agreed to make a $9.1 million payment to the United States government.

Allegations Made in the Lawsuits Against 3M

The US Government’s allegations against 3M were brought through the enforcement of the False Claims Act.

According to the Justice Department, the company previously agreed to make a payment of $9.1 million in an attempt to resolve the serious allegations that it purposely sold the defective earplugs to the Defense Logistics Agency without disclosing any information about the defects that reduced the hearing protection.

The Justice Department said that while that case has come to a resolution, all claims within the settlement were allegations only, and that liability had not been determined at that point.

According to the copy of the lawsuit, that has not prevented veterans from seeking punitive damages from 3M after the “gross negligence” of the company caused them to develop hearing issues.

The lawsuit reads that since late 2003, the Combat Arms earplugs were touted as having the capability to allow users to hear commands from friendly soldiers and approach enemy combatants, without any impairment, in the same way as if there was nothing in their ears.

It is alleged in the documents that the employees of 3M had knowledge of the earplug defects as early as 2000.

According to the lawsuit, although 3M conducted testing and found defects in the earplugs, they falsified certification and stated that the testing they conducted complied with military standards.

A lawyer involved in the lawsuit said that it was rather shameful that 3M would intentionally provide equipment with defects to service members of the U.S. Army, knowing full well that those service members would rely on that defective equipment while engaged in combat.

He added that their fraud caused America’s warriors’ life-long injuries and that the company’s actions cannot and should not be tolerated.

The US government entered into a contract with 3M in 2006. The company supplied the military an estimated quantity of 15,000 packages of earplugs per annum, with 50 pairs per package.

The supply earned the company a guaranteed price of a minimum of $9 million in sales for the year. 3M sold the earplugs to the military until 2015, when the product was discontinued.

However, the lawsuit says that the company did not recall the defective pairs and thus, it is likely that they are still used by soldiers as well as being sold by other vendors.

The defective earplugs may have resulted in significant loss of hearing in many military veterans, including many combat veterans who were deployed two tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, reserve members who were in the US, but fired weapons on a regular basis for training, as well as personnel of the Air Force and the Navy.

Current and former military service members who served at any time between 2003 and 2015 may be entitled to receive compensation from 3M for their loss of hearing or developing tinnitus.

According to a 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office, hearing impairments, including conditions such as constant ringing associated with tinnitus, can be debilitating as well as permanent and has been the No. 1 disability connected to military service that veterans have reported since 2005.

The complaint states that tinnitus and loss of hearing are top health conditions that are diagnosed and treated at medical centers for the veterans, costing the department billions of dollars in benefit claims.

Army Veteran from Maryland Sues 3M

There are a large number of law firms across the United States beginning to file lawsuits against 3M Company over earplugs supplied to the military that the US Justice Department alleged were defective.

Joshua M. Keiner, an army combat veteran, filed the first case against 3M in the US District Court in Maryland. He served two tours in Iraq and the earplugs were issued to him during those tours.

The lawsuits on behalf of service members came after 3M offered a $9.1 million settlement for a federal lawsuit. As mentioned earlier, the settlement was an attempt made to resolve allegations that the company knowingly supplied defective earplugs to the US military.

According to the Justice Department, 3M did not admit liability in the settlement, even though officials had alleged that the Combat Arms earplugs, or CAEv2, were too short to be properly inserted into users’ ears and the company did not disclose the defect.

The suit filed by the Justice Department and Mr. Keiner’s complaint alleged that the defect caused the earplugs to come loose in the ear of the wearer and this, in turn, allowed damaging noise through.

In his suit, Mr. Keiner said that he suffered from tinnitus in addition to other damages that resulted in medical care costs, loss of wages and pain and suffering.

With similar lawsuits being filed across the United States, some lawyers suspect that they will become part of a multidistrict litigation.

This type of litigation is a legal procedure for complex cases in federal court in which common cases are consolidated into one district for pretrial proceedings as well as discovery. One lawyer interviewed added that thousands of veterans have contacted the law firm and that the issue is expected to continue to grow.

The firm plans to file hundreds of more lawsuits in the weeks and months to come to make sure that each veteran that has suffered damage due to the defective ear plugs receives compensation.

Retired Marine Files Lawsuit Against 3M for Earplug Hearing Loss

A former Marine captain, Matt Morrison from New Jersey has filed a lawsuit against 3M, claiming that the company’s defective ear plugs caused hearing loss.

He said that he lost much of his hearing because of standard-issue earplugs that he wore during three combat deployments. He has filed a lawsuit against the company at the Federal Courthouse in Philadelphia.

Capt. Morrison claims that 3M’s defective combat earplugs directly caused him to lose his hearing completely in his right ear.

He said that the gear soldiers are issued is everything from a helmet, eye, and ear protection, to a flak jacket and that he never thought that the gear would be defective or faulty and result in this type of injury.

A former officer in the Navy and Capt. Morrison’s lawyer, said that service people deserved to be provided state-of-the-art equipment for the battlefield, yet 3M provided earplugs that they knew had defects.

He also said that the testing proved that what the company represented to the government and the US military was nothing but a lie.

Capt. Morrison’s tours of duty between 2007 and 2013 included two in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. This is when he was exposed to ground-deployed heavy machine guns, explosives, rockets, and small arms fire.

His lawyer said that 3M’s actions are a blatant example of fraudulent profiteering that is at the expense of the US military. A lawyer who specializes in product liability cases and workplace injuries, he also said that the CAEv2 were the most popular deployed earplugs in the military between 2005 and 2015.

According to the lawsuit, the combat earplugs allowed damaging sounds to enter the ear canal, around the outside of the earplug. Their flaps fold back, causing them to loosen up and expose the inner ear to extremely sharp noises that the earplugs are actually supposed to protect it from.

35-year-old Capt. Morrison said that he was devastated to learn that despite taking every precaution, his hearing loss is irreparable.

He said that he did have any signs or symptoms of hearing issues prior to joining the military. He was diagnosed with tinnitus and hearing impairment at his discharge medical physical.

Facts About the 3M Combat Arms Earplugs Lawsuits

Here is a look at some of the facts about the lawsuits involving 3M Combat Arms earplugs.

Affected Dates: Personnel of the US military that served between 2003 and 2015 experienced loss of hearing and other hearing impairments after they used standard issue 3M combat arms earplugs.

Allegations of the Lawsuit: According to the False Claims Act lawsuit, military contractor 3M Company allegedly knowingly sold 3M combat arms earplugs to the US military between 2003 and 2015.

In other words, the “known” defects did not meet the safety standards of the military as the company claimed and allegedly caused those who wore the earplugs to develop tinnitus/hearing loss.

Defective Dual-Ended Earplugs: 3M’s dual-ended combat earplugs listed in the lawsuit had yellow on one side and green on the other. Each color indicated a certain level of protection of noise for the soldier wearing them.

However, because they were too short, the earplugs’ basic function was faulty. The earplugs could also loosen in the wearer’s ear without them knowing it.

Both of these shortcomings in the product design exposed military personnel to noise levels that were damaging, and this, in turn, contributed to the loss of hearing and/or tinnitus.

The outcome of the Case of the Whistleblower False Claims Act: A lawsuit verdict in July 2018 found 3M guilty of selling a large number of defective earplugs meant for combat use to the US military without disclosing that wearers could develop hearing loss as well as tinnitus due to the faulty earplugs.

As a result, the US military received a settlement of $9.1 million from 3M.

$9.1 Million Settlement: Because the original whistleblower case was filed under the False Claims Act, the US military directly received the settlement funds.

This means that the compensation that was awarded goes straight to the government to cover the expenses on purchasing the allegedly defective combat arms earplugs from 3M. However, the settlement from 3M does directly benefit military personnel who were injured as a result of wearing the defective earplugs.

The settlement involved claims that 3M and Aearo Technologies Inc., its predecessor, became aware of the earplugs’ flaws back in 2000 and failed to disclose this information to the US military prior to finalizing the contract. 3M had also initiated lawsuits on patent infringement against competitors who were selling earplugs that reduced loud sounds effectively in military conditions.

New Lawsuits Involving Combat Arms Earplugs: In an effort to recover compensation on their behalf, individual 3M combat arms earplugs lawsuits are being formed by lawyers specific to personal experience and injuries.

Financial compensation recovered from the lawsuits can be used to cover not just medical bills, but also for your pain and suffering, and a wide range of other damages that result from the alleged defective combat arms earplugs.

FAQs about the 3M Combat Arms Earplugs

Here is a look at some of the most common questions asked about 3M combat arms earplugs (CAEv2).

Q. What was the intended purpose of the 3M combat arms earplugs?

A: 3M Company won an exclusive contract to sell earplugs to be worn in combat to the United States military, and sold millions of earplugs to the armed forces in the US between 2003 and 2015.

The dual-ended earplugs came with black and yellow ends and were intended to offer versatility in providing hearing protection while enabling service members to communicate when they needed to.

One side of the earplugs was intended to block all kinds of sound, including voices. The other side was designed to block any kind of loud impulses or sounds on the battlefield while at the same time allowing spoken commands and words to come through.

Q. What was the defect in the combat arms earplugs?

A. Instead of blocking sound as they were intended to, the design that 3M used in their combat arms earplugs allowed them to loosen in the wearer’s ear. According to the whistleblower, unless folded back, the earplug’s yellow fins prevented a tight seal to form in the ear canal of the wearer.

Testing that the company that invented the earplugs conducted showed that the earplugs had a Noise Reduction Rating (NRR) of zero – just as 3M admitted in a False Claims Act lawsuit. Service members, as a result of this defect, may have suffered the loss of hearing and tinnitus from combat noise, aircraft noise, or firing weapons in training.

Q. What are the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act?

A: Under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, private parties have the ability to bring legal action on behalf of the government against any party who submits claims that are fraudulent in an attempt to collect government funds.

Q. Can veterans be compensated beyond VA disability from a 3M combat arms earplugs lawsuit?

A: Through the investigation conducted by some law firms, it has been learned that a number of affected members of the military receive hearing aids and partial disability from the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), but they may be eligible to be compensated by 3M Company for injuries that they battled including hearing loss, tinnitus, and any other serious health problems as a direct use of these defective earplugs.

Q. Are the 3M Combat Arms Earplugs Lawsuits a Class Action?

A: No, the 3M combat arms earplugs lawsuits appear as if they will be litigated as a mass tort, not a class action.

In a class action, a group of plaintiffs or single plaintiff seeks to represent all the other people who are in a similar situation – in most cases, people who have not filed their own individual lawsuits.

In a mass tort, every plaintiff files their own individual lawsuit, but the cases, more often than not, are consolidated in front of one judge.

Lawyers of Plaintiffs are Ready to Battle Over Allegedly Defective Combat Earplugs

Veterans from across the United States who suffered hearing loss, tinnitus, and other hearing impairments after wearing defective 3M combat arms earplugs are suing the company to recover compensation for damages.

In addition, lawyers are also all set to file several thousand lawsuits on behalf of members of the US military over the many defective earplugs that the multinational company sold to the United States government for more than 10 years.

So far, more than 100 lawsuits have been filed against 3M by individual service members, the majority of whom are veterans. They allege that the company’s dual-ended earplugs, used in combat as well as training, had a defective design that resulted in ringing in the ears, or tinnitus, and hearing loss.

3M was the exclusive supplier of earplugs to the military from 2003 to 2012. According to the lawsuits, over 800,000 former members of military service now suffer from hearing damage due to the defective earplugs.

The Department of Veteran Affairs now spends over $1 billion annually for treating hearing damage that service members suffer from.

Lawyers who are filing lawsuits against 3M say that there are people who served the United States with honor in highly dangerous conditions and are now suffering serious, life-altering injuries as a result of the misconduct of the company.

They say that all allegations made against the company are true and they have every intention to prove them at trial, whenever and wherever they are given the opportunity to do so.

The lawyers are working hard to make sure that 3M Company is held liable for causing injury to military personnel and that service members receive the compensation they deserve for their injuries and for the costs incurred for medical treatment as well as the pain and suffering they experienced.

Nexium Prilosec PPI Lawsuit

Nexium & Prilosec Lawsuit

Diving Into Nexium and Prilosec Lawsuits

Prilosec and Nexium lawsuits blame the makers of PPIs for having failed to warn patients about the risk of contracting chronic kidney disease, kidney/renal failure, acute kidney injury, or acute interstitial nephritis. These are kidney issues that can require dialysis or lead to the death of patients.

Recent news reports have been covering the many health risks that come with PPIs. A new study suggests that some heartburn drugs, called proton pump inhibitors, that are used by millions of people in the United States are linked to a higher risk of death.

These drugs are available by prescription and over the counter and are used to treat ulcers, heartburn, and a variety of other gastrointestinal problems. Other recent studies have also associated PPIs to a number of potential health risks, including kidney disease, heart disease, bone fractures, stomach infections, dementia, and pneumonia.

PPIs like Nexium and Prilosec suppress excess acid in the stomach. Prescription formulas are generally taken for long periods by patients with severe conditions while lower-dose OTC formulas are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for short-term use only.

What are Nexium and Prilosec Used For?

woman experiencing heart burn

As mentioned already, proton pump inhibitors, or PPIs, are used to reduce acid production in the stomach. When you ingest a PPI, it works to block a stomach enzyme that produces H+/K+ ATPase, a stomach acid. Ulcers in the stomach, small intestine, and esophagus are then able to heal, and new ulcers are prevented from forming by the PPIs.

Some of the gastrointestinal disorders that are associated with excessive secretion of acid are:

  • Indigestion (heartburn)
  • Duodenitis/Gastritis
  • Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)
  • Stomach or peptic ulcer
  • Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis
  • Dumping Syndrome
  • Aspiration Pneumonia
  • Zollinger-Ellison Syndrome
  • Barrett’s Esophagus

PPIs are also used in combination with antibiotics to eradicate a bacterium called Helicobacter pylori that together with acid causes stomach and duodenum ulcers.

List of PPIs

Generally, prescription PPIs are used to treat ulcers, GERD, and inflammation of the esophagus and are not supposed to be taken for longer than 2 weeks (14 days) or more than 3 times a year.

Some of the common PPIs used to treat any of these conditions (their generic names are included) include the following:

Side Effects of Nexium and Prilosec

nexium prilosec side effects

You might think that you are doing your body a favor by taking a PPI. They help in managing the symptoms of heartburn and make you feel better, right?

Plus, many PPIs are OTC and not prescription drugs, so you might not think that it is a big deal. However, like any other drug, PPIs can come with a range of side effects – some are mild, others serious.

In 2012, the FDA issued a warning to consumers about the potential for diarrhea that does not improve after people take PPIs and also a warning in 2010 about the increased possibility for wrist, hip, and spinal fractures. The latter was issued for patients who had received PPIs in high doses or used them for a year or longer.

Therefore, as a precaution, the FDA revised the Drug Facts section on labels. It has also already been mentioned earlier that the use of PPIs has been associated with increased risk for kidney disease, dementia, and other serious health conditions.

Some of the most common side effects of PPIs include the following:

  • Diarrhea
  • Headache
  • Abdominal pain
  • Constipation
  • Flatulence
  • Nausea
  • Vomiting
  • Rashes
  • Fever

PPIs may increase the risk of Clostridium difficile colon infection. Prolonged use of the drugs also reduces Vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) absorption. On top of this, long-term PPI use has been linked to low levels of magnesium (hypomagnesemia).

When patients taking these drugs for long periods of time were analyzed, an increased risk of heart attacks was found. Therefore, it is extremely important for patients to use the lowest doses and the shortest treatment duration necessary for the condition that is being treated.

Other serious side effects that are associated with PPIs include:

  • Reduced kidney function
  • Reduced liver function
  • Serious allergic reactions
  • Toxic epidermal necrolysis
  • Stevens-Johnson syndrome
  • Erythema multiforme
  • Pancreatitis

New Study Shows Long-Term PPI Use Increases Risk of Death

Heartburn drugs tied to increased risk of early death study says CNN

Researchers from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis recently conducted a study to find out if people who used PPIs were at greater risk of dying.

They had a question: If it is true that these drugs are linked to all of the aforementioned health issues, does that translate to an increased risk of mortality?

The researchers of the study examined medical records of about 275,000 PPI users and nearly 75,000 people who took H2 (histamine 2) blockers, which is another class of drugs for reducing stomach acid. The study concluded that there is an increased risk of death among those who use PPIs.

When patients taking H2 blockers were compared with those taking PPIs for 1 to 2 years, it was found that PPI users had a 50% increased risk of dying over the next 5 years.

Researchers said that because they are readily available, people think that they are safe. But they should keep in mind that taking these drugs comes with real risks, especially when they are consumed for long periods of time.

Although the recommended treatment period for most PPIs is short – for instance anywhere between 2 to 8 weeks for ulcers – many people take the drugs for months or even years. People are often prescribed these drugs for a sound medical reason, but then physicians do not tell them when to stop it and patients just continue to get refill after refill.

The researchers of the study said that there should be periodic reassessments as to whether it is required for people to be on the drugs. In most cases, people do not need to be on PPIs for a year, or more than that.

The same chemical compounds in prescription PPIs are present in OTC ones, just at lower doses, and there is no way to determine the exact period of time that people should stay on them.

The FDA recommends not taking PPIs for more than 4 weeks before consulting a doctor.

Risk of Chronic Kidney Disease From Taking Nexium or Prilosec

Risks of Nexium and Prilosec

While studies of the use of PPIs have found increased risks in a number of different medical issues, including pneumonia, strokes, bone fractures, dementia, and certain infections, many studies have also examined the use of these drugs and the risk of kidney problems.

This includes studies that have looked at the association with chronic kidney disease (CKD) that is defined by the National Institutes of Health as any condition that results in a reduced function of the kidneys over a period of time. It may take years for CDK to develop and can cause ESRD, or end-stage renal disease. Patients who develop this disease require dialysis or a kidney transplant to survive.

A study that examined the use of PPIs and the risk of CKD found that people who were on PPIs had a statistically significantly higher risk of developing the disease when compared with people who were not on the drugs. The study also linked a higher risk of developing chronic kidney disease with twice-daily dosing compared to once-daily dosing.

It was one of at least three studies that were published in 2016 that drew a conclusion between proton pump indicators and CKD. Another of these studies found that there was a statistically significant increase in the risk of developing CKD and death for subjects who used these medications.

The study concluded that there was a need for better education among health care providers about the potential side effects of PPIs like Nexium and Prilosec.

A third study found that patients using PPIs had a statistically significant increase of 96% in the risk of ESRD and a statistically significant increase of 28% in the risk of CKD compared to patients using H2 blockers for acid-related indications.

As already mentioned, H2 blockers are a different class of drugs that are used to reduce acid in the stomach and includes brand-name products such as Pepcid AC, Tagamet, and Zantac, to name a few.

Nexium and Prilosec Lawsuits


The most recent data from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation reveals that there are over 4,200 lawsuits pending against Nexium, Prilosec, and other proton pump inhibitors. Nexium and Prilosec are two of the most common OTC and prescription drugs used to treat frequent heartburn.

These and other PPIs, like Prevacid, have recently been at the center of a large number of lawsuits as consumers suffer kidney complications such as kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and acute interstitial nephritis, which is an extremely serious condition that can result in kidney failure.

Why are Patients Filing Prilosec and Nexium Lawsuits?

White Why Question Text Against a Plastered Blue Wall with Copyspace, 3D Illustration

Also known by its generic name omeprazole, Prilosec is a PPI developed by AstraZeneca to block excess acid in the stomach from flowing into the esophagus and leading to painful heartburn.

The delayed-release drug with omeprazole as its active ingredient was the first of its kind that the FDA approved in 1989 for prescription use. In 2003, it also became the first in its class to be approved by the FDA under the name Prilosec OTC for over-the-counter sale.

A second-generation drug for heartburn manufactured by the same company, Nexium was approved by the FDA and introduced to the market in 2001. AstraZeneca used esomeprazole instead of omeprazole – both ingredients are very closely related chemically.

According to reports, the drug was likely developed by the manufacturer to stay in the billion-dollar industry for heartburn medications and maintain profits, because, in 2002, their patent for Prilosec ran out.

Nexium and Prilosec are commonly used to treat the following conditions:

  • Gastric ulcers
  • Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or acid reflux
  • Erosive esophagitis
  • Duodenal ulcers
  • Zollinger-Ellison syndrome (long-term treatment)

While originally available only by prescription, the Prilosec formula was changed by AstraZeneca for the use of omeprazole magnesium in the making of Prilosec OTC used in the treatment of frequent and recurrent heartburn. Patients are required to take the tablets over the course of 14 days so that heartburn will gradually improve and they can repeat it every 4 months. Prilosec OTC is marketed by Procter & Gamble.

Nexium24HR, the OTC version of Nexium, was not available until 2014. As with Prilosec, its formulation was changed to esomeprazole magnesium and the drug can now also be used with the same treatment course as the OTC version of Prilosec. Nexium OTC is marketed by Pfizer Inc.

Initially, AstraZeneca warned consumers of some potential side effects that came with Nexium and Prilosec, such as diarrhea, headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, or allergic reactions in some people. However, as the drug became more popular among consumers, researchers conducted studies and found that there were far more serious risks than originally thought.

Dangers of Nexium and Prilosec

PPI Kidney Side Effects Lawyer.

Each year, millions of people in the US rely on Nexium and Prilosec to treat frequent heartburn and other conditions. However, in the last several years, in particular, there have been a number of studies that have been published about the serious side effects of Nexium, Prilosec and their main ingredients.

Around 2010, there were a number of studies that came out, indicating an increase in the risk for bone fractures in the wrist, hip and spine when the drugs are used over a prolonged period of time.

Researchers were divided when it came to the evidence, and it was ultimately determined by the FDA a year later that people who require only a low dose of the PPI over a period of one year or less are not at risk and there was no need to add an additional safety warning at the time. However, even more, serious and dangerous side effects have come to light in recent years.

Some of the dangerous side effects of Nexium and Prilosec include:

  • Short-term kidney injuries and problems
  • Low magnesium levels
  • Acute interstitial nephritis (AIN)
  • Dementia
  • Heart attack
  • Stroke

A study in 2016 that featured in JAMA Internal Medicine stated that nearly 11,000 participants used Prilosec and other such PPIs. These PPI users were found to have a 20% to 50% higher risk of chronic kidney damage compared to people who did not use PPIs.

Chronic kidney disease can progress over time and decrease kidney function severely, which in turn can potentially result in kidney failure and the need for a kidney transplant.

Additional serious health effects have been found in other studies. According to one recent study, Nexium and Prilosec could result in an increased risk of gastric cancer. Researchers found that patients with previous stomach infections had more than double the risk.

It has also been determined by other studies that there is a 21% increase in the overall risk for stroke and an increase of upwards of 21% for a heart attack for those who use this medication, especially with long-term use. The regular use of omeprazole has even attributed to increasing the risk of seniors developing dementia by more than two times.

AstraZeneca and its Liability

As with many other lawsuits against manufacturers of drugs, plaintiffs allege that AstraZeneca failed to conduct proper tests for side effects and appropriately warn healthcare providers and consumers about the potential health risks associated with Nexium and Prilosec.

While new warnings released by the FDA in correlation with a number of the studies mentioned above, both drugs continued to be marketed heavily by AstraZeneca, even to the point where there was an apparent shortage of the OTC version of Prilosec in the early 2000s.

As Prilosec was one of the best-selling drugs of AstraZeneca and accounted for several billions of dollars of revenue annually, the company continued to falsely advertise the drug’s effectiveness and safety. In 2002, when patent protection was lost, they continued with their deception by working to turn Prilosec consumers to their next generation drug, which was Nexium.

AstraZeneca marketed to consumers directly, claiming that Nexium – which had the same severe side effects as Prilosec – was more effective and safer than Prilosec. The company also allegedly bribed Medco, the health company, into advertising and discounting the newer medication in order to boost sales.

This resulted in AstraZeneca having to make a payment of a whopping 7.9 million dollars to the US Department of Justice for Nexium and Prilosec kickback scheme.

How Do You Qualify for a PPI Lawsuit?

If you have used Prilosec OTC, Nexium, Nexium 24HR, or Prilosec, and as result suffered serious side effects such as kidney damage, you stand eligible to file a claim against the manufacturer. It is extremely important to consult a Nexium lawyer or Prilosec lawyer soon after you sustain your injury so that you can receive a free case review and explore your options for filing a lawsuit.

With the help of an experienced lawyer, you can get the guidance you need to go through the whole claim process and make sure that you obtain the compensation you deserve for your injuries.

The majority of lawsuits involving Prilosec and Nexium, as well as claims against other similar medications for heartburn, are being handled through a process of multidistrict litigation. However, there are also several class action lawsuits that have been filed against AstraZeneca over injuries that PPI s such as Prilosec and Nexium have caused.

Prilosec, Nexium Class Action Lawsuit

AstraZeneca settled a class action lawsuit in 2015, which entailed Prilosec and Nexium, two of their popular heartburn medications. Along the same lines as the kickback scheme the company had with Medco, consumers claimed that the manufacturer was making attempts to boost sales of Nexium as their Prilosec patent ran out. The drugs are nearly chemically identical, but Nexium cost a lot more.

According to the class action lawsuit, a deceptive marketing strategy was created by the drug company to try and make Prilosec and Nexium “evergreen” and manipulate their own bottom line.

The case ended with a $20 million Prilosec lawsuit settlement that was paid out to the plaintiffs. Meanwhile, thousands of people have filed additional lawsuits against AstraZeneca and other manufacturers of PPIs in state and federal court over the severe side effects that are caused by these medications.

Proton Pump Inhibitor MDL 2789 Lawsuits

Several attempts were made to transfer these PPI lawsuits to a singular multidistrict litigation (MDL), which allows for a special federal process for streamlining and speeding up the handling of these cases. The US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation initially denied the motion to combine 39 federal lawsuits against a number of different manufacturers of PPIs into a single MDL in February 2017.

However, as the number of cases increased. The panel later reconsidered and MDL 2789 was officially formed in August 2017.

Judge Claire Cecchi and Judge Mark Falk are overseeing the Proton Pump MDL 2789 in the United States District Court of New Jersey. 161 cases were transferred when the MDL formed initially. As of May 2018, 4,248 lawsuits are pending and bellwether trials will be chosen and scheduled soon to begin the litigation process.

Contact a Lawyer Handling Nexium and Prilosec Lawsuits

If you or a loved one has suffered kidney damage or been diagnosed with chronic kidney disease, or other serious health issues, as a result of using PPIs like Prilosec or Nexium, you should contact a lawyer to discuss your options. After reviewing your case, your lawyer will help determine the best course of action, explain the entire legal process and protect your rights.

If the lawyer takes your case, they will attempt to make sure that the drug manufacturer is held legally liable for your injuries and damages, and that you receive fair, financial compensation for the ordeal you have gone through.

While you cannot go back in time and undo the devastating impact that the side effects of these medications have had on your life, you may be able to get compensation to help with medical bills and other expenses you incur as a result of the side effects associated with Nexium or Prilosec.

To contact a lawyer handling these lawsuits, please fill out the form below for a Free Case Evaluation.

Essure Lawsuit Explained – Infographic

If you or a loved one has been injured by Essure, you are not alone. To read more about the Essure lawsuit, please click the link below. We hope the infographic is helpful to you in your research.

Read More

Essure Lawsuit

Essure Lawsuit

Update: On July 20th, 2018, Bayer said that it will discontinue the sales of Essure in the United States at the end of the year. Something that patient advocates and injury lawyers have been working towards for many years after thousands of women have experienced serious health complications.

If you are wondering how to join the Essure lawsuit, skip to the bottom of this page to fill out the contact form for a Free Case Review.


Birth control, or contraception, is the deliberate prevention of pregnancy. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that 15.9% of women in the United States are currently using the pill and 8% are using a contraceptive implant or intrauterine device (long-acting reversible contraception).

From 2011 to 2013, of the 60.9 million women aged 15 to 44 in the US, 61.7% were using contraception. The most common methods of contraception being used were contraceptive pills (16%), female sterilization (15.5%), long-acting reversible contraceptives (7.2%), and male condoms (9.4%).

Essure Lawsuit Infographic

Essure Birth Control Device

Essure is a permanent birth control device that consists of two small metal coils that prevent eggs from moving through the fallopian tubes when it is implanted. It thus prevents fertilization and implantation. Although it does not involve “tying” the fallopian tubes, it is technically a form of tubal ligation.

Patients Report Serious Side Effects From Essure

Patients Report Serious Side Effects From Essure

The contraceptive device is manufactured by Bayer Healthcare, the medical device-making giant. The company markets Essure as a “permanent contraceptive.”

Bayer claims that only a minimally invasive procedure is required for Essure devices and that the procedure can be performed right in a doctor’s office. However, women who receive the device must continue to use other birth control forms for a minimum for 3 months after insertion to confirm that it is effective and that it will prevent pregnancy.

Unfortunately, there are many people who have reported experiencing severe side effects and complications after implantation of Essure.

These issues include everything from allergic reactions and pelvic pain to needing additional surgeries for the removal of the device or repairing organs that have been damaged due to the birth control implant.

Side Effects and Complications of Essure

For many women, the side effects of the device started immediately after it was implanted. Some women have undergone several removal surgeries due to complications caused by Essure.

As of January 2018, there were 26,272 reports of adverse events for the device filed to the FDA.

Side effects mentioned:

  • Allergies to nickel
  • Bleeding
  • Bloating
  • Depression
  • Heavy periods
  • Severe pelvic pain
  • Rashes or itching
  • Hair loss
  • Migraine headaches
  • Menstruation problems
  • Weight gain
  • Back pain
  • Brain fog
  • Metal allergies
  • Chronic fatigue
  • Chronic or severe pain
  • Scar tissue
  • Unwanted or unintended pregnancy
  • Ectopic pregnancy
  • Autoimmune disorders
  • Perforation of the colon, uterus or another organ
  • Fetal death
  • Breakage, migration or expulsion of the device
  • Hysterectomy
  • Additional surgeries
  • Also death

Is Essure Reversible or Removable?

According to the label of the contraceptive device, the Essure procedure is a permanent one and irreversible. However, in cases where women have experienced side effects, the coils of the Essure device can be surgically removed.

Why are Women Filing Lawsuits on Essure?

Image of a gavel on a desk in front of legal booksFrom late 2002 through late 2017, there were 26,773 complaints filed with the US Food and Drug Administration about Essure.

As a result, in April 2018, the agency restricted sales of the device. Bayer Healthcare announced in July 2018 that it would discontinue the sale of Essure in the US by December 31st, 2018.

There are more than 16,000 lawsuits for Essure that have been filed against the manufacturer. Plaintiffs claim that Bayer did not warn patients of the potentially severe complications. Many women are filing lawsuits against the manufacturer because of the numerous complications they experienced after implantation of the company’s birth control device.

FDA Actions and Adverse Events Timeline

FDA issues Essure warningsEssure was originally approved as a Class III medical device in 2002 by the FDA. After the initial approval of the device, Bayer had to submit detailed reports related to not just the efficacy but also the safety of the device.

Bayer also had to submit any reports of adverse events, on a regular basis. Despite these requirements, the FDA cited the company a number of times for violations of those conditions, some of which resulted in the regulatory agency’s future actions:

June 2008: The FDA notified Bayer about a discovery it made about the company making Essure devices in an unlicensed factory at least since 2005, and that the medical device maker had failed to appropriately document their procedures.

January 2011: The FDA cited Bayer for using materials that were not approved in the Essure implant. This was a violation of the premarket approval, which required the manufacturer to seek additional approval for any changes in design.

February 2016: Bayer was ordered by the FDA to conduct a new clinical trial to determine whether Essure had any heightened risks for certain women, based on reports of adverse events that were filed to the regulatory agency.

November 2016: The FDA required the addition of a black box warning on the labels of the Essure device indicating the risks of allergy, abdominal pain, and the perforation, among other potential complications.

April 2018: The sales of Essure was restricted by the FDA to medical centers and doctors that promised to conduct a conversation and go through a checklist with the patient before they prescribed the birth control implant.

July 2018: The manufacturer of Bayer announced that they would discontinue selling the Essure birth control device by the end of the year, ultimately bowing to a lengthy campaign by health advocates and thousands of women to get the device off the market.

Will The Birth Control Lawsuits be Stopped by Preemption Laws?

Bayer Healthcare has made attempts to get a number of the Essure implant lawsuits dismissed as a result of certain laws that are known as preemption laws.

According to the company, it cannot be held liable for problems with the contraceptive device because the FDA conducts a rigorous series of tests on medical devices before approving them and deemed Essure to be generally safe.

There are a number of levels on which this argument is problematic, especially since it is clear that Bayer did not always follow its obligations on post-market regulations.

Nonetheless, using this argument, the company has succeeded in getting some product liability lawsuits dismissed while others have been allowed to move forward, with modified complaints in many cases.

If you have not contacted a lawyer to discuss your potential case, now is the time. Please do not wait, as you could be forever time-barred from pursuing an IUD lawsuit against the company.

Essure Litigation in Process

According to the most recent financial reports of Bayer Healthcare, approximately 16,100 lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts across the US. At this time, all of these lawsuits are individual legal actions.

There are no current Essure class action lawsuits or any MDL (multidistrict litigation) processes that have been established. As of April 2018, a report from Bayer Healthcare stated that there were two lawsuits in Canada seeking class action certification.

Essure Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2739)

A group of 28 plaintiffs had submitted a petition in 2016 to transfer their cases using the MDL process that was overseen by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. However, a short time after the petition was filed, a judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania – where 23 cases of the 28 had been filed – agreed to the consolidation of the cases in that court. The motion for a multidistrict litigation was withdrawn, resulting in the cases to remain separate.

In some cases, such as California, processes that use MDL system-like processes (called a JCCP) have been established to coordinate Essure cases. However, so far, there have been no efforts made so as to enforce a federal MDL.

There is a possibility of an MDL being created in the future due to the rise in the number of actions that are being filed.

Verdicts and Settlements in Essure Lawsuits

To this day, there have been no major publicized verdicts or settlements awarding large amounts of compensation to women who have been injured by the contraceptive devices. However, Bayer could decide to try to settle them due to a large number of lawsuits that are currently going through the court system.

This decision could come if it looks like the medical device maker is likely to lose cases based on the claims’ legal merits.

These suits are ongoing. Trials have not been set, so, as mentioned earlier, there are no jury verdicts or settlements. Lawsuits in California may be the first to go to trial. Jury verdicts from the first cases may have an influence on jury verdicts in other states.

In May 2018, both sides were ordered to name Special Settlement Masters by Judge John R. Padova in Pennsylvania in the event of a settlement. Special Settlement Masters is a firm that handles any potential settlement in lawsuits.

Potential compensation may result from damages that include:

  • Medical bills
  • Pain and suffering
  • Lost time from work
  • Loss of income
  • Loss of quality of life
  • Loss of companionship
  • And more

Status of Essure Litigation

Women and their families continue to file claims in state courts across the United States. Most of the lawsuits are in Pennsylvania, California, North Carolina, and Missouri. In February and April 2018, the latest Essure lawsuits were filed by plaintiffs in Pennsylvania federal court.

Women who filed in Pennsylvania said that the device migrates from the fallopian tubes, breaks into pieces, perforates organs, and/or corrodes and wreaks havoc on the female body.

In March 2018, Judge Winifred Y. Smith of California made it mandatory for plaintiffs to submit a master complaint in which allegations against Bayer should be combined. She also stated that both parties should begin their preparations for trial. As of March 2018, Judge Smith presided over more than 13,000 California lawsuits on Essure.

Essure Cases that have been Dismissed

There have been some judges that have dismissed Essure cases for preemption. This puts a limit on product liability in state lawsuits after approval from the FDA. As mentioned earlier, Judge Smith permitted some of the lawsuits in California to proceed in spite of preemption.

Other cases have been dismissed for failing to meet the requirements of the court. For example, in January 2018, Judge Stephen Lambaugh of Missouri federal court threw 92 out of 95 plaintiffs from an Essure case.

IMPORTANT: Just because some cases have been dismissed does not mean that you are out of luck. Regardless of which state you live in, if you have been injured by Essure, you have legal rights and can still contact an Essure lawyer to discuss filing a case.

Filing an Essure Lawsuit

Image of a lawyer filling out paperwork titled lawsuitTo file a lawsuit against Bayer, the first thing you need to do is contact a lawyer with experience in product liability cases and lawsuits. You should arrange a phone conference to discuss your complications and learn more about their law firm.

Most lawyers will conduct a review of your potential case for free.

Once the free case evaluation is done, your lawyer will let you know if they are interested in moving forward with your claim.

You will not have to pay an Essure lawyer for their services if they take on your case as they usually work on a contingency basis. This means that you will not pay anything unless there is a jury verdict or settlement to your benefit. When you obtain compensation from the lawsuit, your lawyer will receive a negotiated amount for fees and expenses.

Time Limits for Filing a Claim

Statute of limitations (SOL) printed on a bookOnly a lawyer can determine the statute of limitations, or time limit, for filing each Essure case. The statute of limitations varies from state to state

Your lawyer will find out the time limit in your state and make sure that you file your case before that time limit. It is important to file your claim before the statute of limitations ends or you might lose your right to pursue future action.

If you haven’t already, you should contact an Essure injury lawyer immediately to discuss your defective medical device case.

Get Legal Assistance – Contact an Essure Lawyer

If you or a loved one has experienced side effects or suffered complications as a result of the Essure birth control device, you should immediately seek the help of a qualified lawyer.

To speak with a lawyer handling Essure lawsuits, please fill out the form below. Our lawyers respond to each and every email they receive in a timely manner.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Vaginal Rejuvenation Lawsuit

Vaginal Rejuvenation Lawsuit

The American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery reported that in 3,494 vaginal rejuvenation surgeries were performed in 2008 while 2,531 were performed in 2009.

It is likely that the actual number is a lot higher as many of the doctors who do perform genital reconstructive surgery are gynecologists and obstetricians and these statistics are not recorded or tabulated by any agency or even the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. On top of this, with tax cuts and a fantastic economy in 2018, these types of surgeries are probably even more prevalent.

Laser Vaginal Rejuvenation Institute of Los Angeles founder and director, Dr. David L. Matlock says that he has performed over 3,000 of these surgical procedures in the past 12 years.

Excellent Additional Reading Material:

What is Vaginal Rejuvenation?

The term “vaginal rejuvenation” covers a number of different types of surgery. It is also often referred to as a kind of female genital plastic surgery, vulvovaginal plastic surgery, female genital rejuvenation surgery, designer vagina surgery, and female genital cosmetic surgery.

Among the surgical procedures comprising female genital plastic surgery are vaginoplasty, labiaplasty, monsplasty, labia majoraplasty, and clitoral hood reduction.

This type of surgery is advertised for women who experience tightness or looseness of the vagina, urinary incontinence, dryness, or pain during sexual intercourse. Surgeons use radio frequency waves, lasers, cryotherapy, or other devices to tighten the tissues of the vagina.

In recent years, a number of companies have developed devices for vaginal rejuvenation. Most devices use lasers or radiofrequency to make it possible for surgeons to perform minimally or non-invasive procedures to tighten or rejuvenate female genital parts.

The problem is that these devices have not been FDA-approved for these procedures and federal law prohibits companies that manufacture medical devices from marketing their products for purposes that are unapproved.

In addition, a large number of women have come forward and reported side effects or complications arising from vaginal rejuvenation surgical procedures.

Potential Side Effects of Vaginal Rejuvenation

vaginal rejuvenation side effects

Side effects of vaginal rejuvenation surgery include the following:

  • Dryness
  • Burns
  • Adhesions
  • Bleeding
  • Numbness or loss of sensation
  • Pain with sexual intercourse
  • Scarring
  • Significant chronic pain
  • Infection

A lot of women are opening the door for vaginal rejuvenation, especially those who have gone through the rigors of childbirth.

Although it is primarily thought of as an aesthetic type of surgery to improve the female genital area’s appearance, there are a number of sound medical reasons to press the button for vaginal rejuvenation, such as SUI, irritation of the labia minora or labia majora, better access to the clitoris, or weakness in the perineum.

It should be noted that this procedure is not recommended to treat female sexual dysfunction or sexual problems.

As with any type of surgical procedure, there are potential side effects that could have an impact on the decision of whether or not vaginal rejuvenation surgery is the best choice for optimal health.

Nerve Damage: The genital area of the female body is replete with nerve endings. Nerves can be damaged or severed during surgical procedures like vaginal rejuvenation, resulting in too much sensation, also called hyper sensation, or a lack of sensation, also known as hypo sensation. Because nerves do not usually regenerate, this side effect is permanent.

There is no surgeon who can guarantee that this will not occur. This is why it is important to consider the risk before deciding whether or not to undergo the surgery.

Scarring: The goal of most vaginal rejuvenation surgeries is an improved genital appearance. Scarring from this type of surgical procedure will be internal, but it will be there. This could result in a loss of sensation or dead spots. On top of this, if the scarring is severe, additional surgery could be required.

Urine Retention, Rectal, or Bladder Damage: The inability to urinate, or urinary retention, is a possible side effect of vaginal rejuvenation surgery. This can result in serious health issues such as damage to the kidney, or nephrosis, and immediate attention will be necessary to correct it. Not only this, this type of procedure can damage the bladder or rectum, although such instances are not common.

Any surgery comes with risks. However, you can minimize the chances by conducting thorough research on the surgeon you choose, making sure that you pick one with experience in performing this type of surgery.

Bleeding and Infection: Because of where the surgery is performed, infections can occur if the patient does not maintain proper hygiene.

For anywhere between 4 to 8 weeks, limitations will be put on lifting and activities to help in preventing excessive post-surgical bleeding. It is also required for patients to abstain from sex during this period in order to make a full recovery. It is imperative to follow the doctor’s instructions for a healthful healing.

Vaginal rejuvenation is a relatively new type of surgery, and it has been stated by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology that adequate studies have not been conducted to date to assess the procedures’ long-term safety and rates of complications.

Whether performed from medical necessity or elective, any surgical procedure carries risks for complications or side effects. It is critical to remember that you must choose the surgeon who performs the surgery carefully and make sure to follow the instructions regarding care before and after the procedure for the best results.

Three Primary Laser Platforms

One of the hottest topics in urology nowadays is women’s health and vaginal health in particular. The laser vaginal rejuvenation world is a fast-paced one, with companies coming up with a new laser platform nearly every month. These latest treatments provide urologists many potential opportunities as well as challenges.

When assessing the laser vaginal rejuvenation market, it is important for urologists to form their research around treatment indications as well as the proposed laser mechanism of action. At present, there are three basic categories that are used for this purpose: CO2, radio frequency (RF), and erbium:YAG (Er:YAG).

CO2: This is a fractionated laser that operates at a wavelength of 10,600 nm. This is a relatively short wavelength that allows for more superficial supervision of the tissue. Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) is the most common indication for laser vaginal therapy, although companies are also touting efficacy in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). CO2 can also be used on the vulva and as a treatment for lichen sclerosis (LS).

Radiofrequency (RF): This is a laser that generally penetrates tissue more deeply, which is why it is indicated for vaginal laxity. With radio frequency, the frequency is lower while the wavelength is relatively longer, allowing for deep tissue heating. There are also a number of RF platforms that treat GSM. On the other hand, some platforms advertise for SUI treatment with a combination of internal and external applicators.

Erbium: Er:YAG is ablative, operating at 2,940 nm. This technology is used in different platforms alone or in combination with a diode that operates at 1,470 nm – this is known as a hybrid fractional laser. Er.YAG’s proposed action of mechanism is similar to CO2 in that it stimulates neocollagenesis. The controlled thermal injury also leads to angiogenesis. This platform carries the same indications as CO2 and is currently being marketed for GMS, SUI, and LS.

Vaginal Rejuvenation Procedure

All of the laser platforms can be used in a doctor’s office or clinic. A topical anesthetic is typically applied to the area that needs to be treated for 10 to 20 minutes.

The medical professional applies the laser energy internally to the vagina’s epithelium through probes or externally with adaptors. Treatments take anywhere between 5 and 10 minutes. The total time of your office visit will be 30 to 45 minutes.

Between 3 and 5 treatment sessions spaced 4 to 6 weeks apart are suggested for most platforms to get optimal results. Following the procedure, you do not need to worry about downtime.

Contraindications for the procedures include active urinary tract or vaginal infection, active genitourinary cancer, undiagnosed cervical or vaginal lesions, and pregnancy, including 3 months after pregnancy. A relative contraindication is pelvic organ prolapse that is greater than stage II. Experts do not recommend the therapy for women who have had mesh prolapse surgery in the past.

Depending on the specific procedure that the patient chooses, the cost of vaginal rejuvenation can range from $4,000 to $10,000.

This type of surgery is considered a cosmetic surgery by most insurance companies, which is why they do not offer coverage. However, in cases where vaginal rejuvenation surgery is performed to correct a medical condition that is legitimately covered, the patient may be eligible for cost reductions.

Avoiding Vaginal Rejuvenation Surgery

With stories popping in magazines and all over the Internet, vaginal rejuvenation is becoming a common cosmetic surgical procedure. What you may not know is that even though it is considered cosmetic surgery, it is still surgery and a lot more invasive than people are made to believe.

Vaginal rejuvenation should be considered as a last resort, like any other type of surgery. The fact that a laser is used to perform the procedure gives the impression that it is non-invasive and perfectly safe. However, as mentioned already, it does not come without risks.

If you need the results provided by laser vaginal rejuvenation, it is important to keep in mind that there may be safer options that cost less and do not come with the risk of complications or side effects. There are creams available on the market to tighten the vagina as well as improve dryness in the vaginal area and increase libido and sexual pleasure. You may be able to achieve these results without surgery.

FDA Warnings About Laser devices for Vaginal Rejuvenation

FDA Vaginal Rejuvenation Warning

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it has issued warnings to several companies to put an end to marketing laser devices for procedures that are billed as “vaginal rejuvenation.” They said that these procedures were treatments that are dangerous and deceptive.

The FDA initially approved for lasers and other similar energy-based devices to be put out into the market to treat life-threatening conditions, such as cancer and genital warts, or surgical procedures including hysterectomies.

Lasers and other energy-based devices are not approved for any type of procedure for vaginal rejuvenation. Companies are prohibited by federal law from marketing medical devices for purposes that are unapproved.

However, in the last few years, several companies that manufacture these kinds of devices have left no stone unturned in heavily promoting the use of lasers for symptoms that are related to menopause, vaginal atrophy, sexual function and urinary incontinence.

On top of this, lasers and other products used for vaginal health in cosmetic, spa treatments have become increasingly common and very popular among younger women.

These devices are used in some treatments to reshape or destroy vaginal tissue. The companies manufacturing these devices say that they can solve some problems that are related to dryness and other issues. The FDA does not agree. However, although the agency originally approved the devices only for certain treatments, doctors can legally use them for off-label conditions.

In July 2018, the FDA issued a Safety Communication to warn that there are serious safety risks associated with vaginal rejuvenation. Furthermore, it added that the devices are being deceptively marketed for uses that have not been approved by the agency.

The FDA also stated that there are concerns about the deceptive marketing of these devices and how it could prevent some patients from receiving appropriate treatment for the serious medical conditions that they suffer from.

The agency said that the full extent of the risks is still not known, but has found cases, scarring, vaginal burns, long-lasting pain and other side effects that have been mentioned earlier following the treatments. 14 reports of adverse events that are related to vaginal rejuvenation treatments 1 have been received by the FDA, including significant pain and burning sensations.

Companies Warned By the FDA

The FDA is warning doctors and women that devices available on the market that purport to make cosmetic vaginal alterations have not been approved by regulators for that purpose and could lead to painful and dangerous side effects.

The agency has issued warnings to seven companies stating that their radiofrequency- or laser-based products are being marketed inappropriately as providing “vaginal rejuvenation” procedures.

The companies have made claims that the devices have the ability to tighten the vagina or treat symptoms of conditions that have already been mentioned above.

The FDA has also received reports of incidences in which companies are marketing the devices to women who are having signs of early menopause and have been treated for breast cancer. The agency stated that it is egregious to deceptively market a dangerous procedure without any proven benefit, including two women who have received treatment for cancer.

The FDA has not approved any non-surgical devices on the market to treat any of these conditions. Instead, as mentioned earlier, they have been approved to destroy precancerous vaginal or cervical tissue as well as genital warts.

The agency has found that when the devices are used outside of their approved purpose, they have resulted in pain during urination or sex, burning of the vagina, and scarring. They said that they were deeply concerned about women being harmed by these devices.

The companies that the FDA issued warnings to include:

  • Alma Lasers,
  • BTL Industries,
  • BTL Aesthetics,
  • InMode,
  • Cynosure,
  • Thermigen, and
  • Sciton.

They were given 30 days to respond to the concerns of the agency.

If they fail to do so, then the FDA will take other measures, which could include asking the manufacturers to remove devices from the market entirely. The agency is also asking the public to report any incidents that they have had while using the devices.

The letters issued to laser device manufacturers are considered a step short of a formal warning. The agency asked the companies to provide details on their product and the basis on which they are assuming approval.

There has been a lot of pressure on the FDA to speed up the approval of medical devices. According to critics, device approvals by the agency are already moving at an extremely fast pace and occurring with insufficient oversight. In its announcement, the agency said that they would strengthen their device studies after being approved for sale.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has also issued several statements that note that the MonaLisa Touch and other devices do not have clearance or approval from the FDA for treating symptoms of menopause, as advertised.

The college said that obstetrician-gynecologists should be aware of the evidence when it comes to the use of new and innovative practices and should also be wary of adopting any medical approaches that are “new and innovative” on the basis of just marketing or promotions.

Claims Made by Vaginal Rejuvenation Device Manufacturers

As mentioned above, the FDA has contacted several companies that manufacture and sell laser and radiofrequency devices for rejuvenation purposes.

The sole intention of agencies such as the Women’s Health Technologies Strategically Coordinated Registry Network is to help in addressing and bringing to light the lack of evidence into the treatment of pelvic floor disorders and other conditions.

Despite their lack of approval from the FDA, manufacturers are actively marketing their devices for treating symptoms related to menopause. Cynosure’s website says that its product, the MonaLisa Touch is a clinically proven laser treatment that is simple and safe and ideal for painful menopause-related symptoms, including intimacy.

Alma Lasers, another company that the FDA has warned, states in its website that its product, the FEMILIFT, is a laser-assisted procedure uses a CO2 laser to provide vaporization and thermal effect to help in improving vaginal irregularities.

All of these claims and more are questioned in the letters by the FDA.

A medical aesthetics division of Hologic, Cynosure said that the company was aware of the FDA letter and ensured that they were taking the contents seriously. It stated that they are evaluating the letter in full and will work with the FDA to make sure that all product communications adhere to regulatory requirements.

Lawsuits Against Manufacturers of Devices for Performing Vaginal Rejuvenation


Unfortunately, vaginal cosmetic surgery, including vaginal rejuvenation, is growing in popularity among women all over the world. The pressure to look “perfect” in every way has pushed many women, including young girls, to opt for vaginal rejuvenation surgery.

What is even more unfortunate is that a large number of the women who have undergone this type of procedure have suffered from complications or side effects resulting from the treatment.

The truth is that the deceptive marketing of the devices is the main cause of the side effects and complications suffered by women who have undergone vaginal rejuvenation. As mentioned already, the manufacturers claim that their devices are safe and effective for this type of surgery regardless of not being approved by the FDA for these purposes.

Only a qualified lawyer can determine whether you are eligible to file a lawsuit against a manufacturer of a laser used for vaginal rejuvenation treatment. Only a few law firms are currently investigating the filing of lawsuits for women who have undergone this type of surgery and suffered complications or side effects as a result.

In most cases that involve medical devices, it is alleged that a product was sold with defects in its design, manufacture or marketing process. This typically refers to the failure of a company to warn medical professionals and patients of a certain potential complication.

In lawsuits involving vaginal rejuvenation, patients may be able to take legal action against the manufacturers of these types of devices in light of claims that they failed to adequately warn doctors as well as patients about the risk of scarring, vaginal burns, and other serious side effects.

Contact a Lawyer For a Free Vaginal Rejuvenation Lawsuit Review

Contact Lawyer Free Lawsuit ReviewIf you or a loved one has suffered from side effects or complications caused by a vaginal rejuvenation procedure, you should immediately seek the help of a lawyer to help you file a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the device used in the surgery.

The lawyers who work with Advocacy For Patients™ will evaluate your potential case for FREE to determine if you have a viable case against the company.

Contact a vaginal rejuvenation lawyer for a free case evaluation using the form below.

Taxotere Hair Loss Lawsuit

Taxotere Lawsuit

Approved in 1996 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Taxotere, also called docetaxel, is a well-known anti-mitotic chemotherapy medication. It is a part of the taxane family; which work to slow down the growth of cells in the body.

Since its approval, Taxotere has been used to treat a wide range of cancers, including gastric cancer, hormone-refractory prostate cancer, head and neck cancer, non small-cell lung cancer, and advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Although the drug is approved for use as a single agent, it can also be used with other chemotherapeutic medications. Taxotere is typically administered by injecting it into the patient’s vein in one-hour sessions every 3 weeks.

Taxotere Complications: Taxane Side Effects

Taxotere Side EffectsSince anti-mitotic drugs and taxanes are unable to distinguish between healthy or cancerous cells, any drug that inhibits the division of cells will have serious side effects.

So while taxanes stop the division of cells in harmful tumor cells, they also kill healthy cells like bone marrow, hair follicles, and other germ cells. In most cases, the side effects that patients experience dissipate after the end of the treatment, but they may also be permanent in some cases.

Taxotere Adverse Effects and Complications

Although most taxanes come with the same side effects, there are unique side effects that only Taxotere has – its competitor drugs do not. In most cases, people do not experience all of the side effects of this medication but will experience some.
The side effects of Taxotere may vary based on the dosage. If the drug is taken in high doses, the side effects will be more severe.

The packaging of Taxotere has classified possible side effects into the following categories:

  • Allergic Reactions (affects roughly 1 in 10 patients):
  • Fever or chills
  • Itching, flushing skin reactions
  • Low blood pressure
  • Back pain
  • Difficulty breathing, tightness of the chest
  • More severe reactions

Very Common Side Effects (affects more than 1 in 10 patients):

  • Fever
  • Headache
  • Loss of appetite (anorexia)
  • Joint pain
  • Insomnia
  • Sores in mouth
  • Bleeding from nose
  • Swelling
  • Alteration in sense of taste
  • Infections – reduced number of red or white blood cells (required to fight infection) and platelets
  • Excessive tearing or inflammation of the eye
  • Nausea, vomiting
  • Indigestion – including constipation and diarrhea
  • Abdominal pain
  • Muscle aches and pains
  • Short-term hair loss (this can be permanent with Taxotere)

Other Taxotere side effects and complications are also listed on the label under the “Very Common” classification.

These side effects are common and frequent during treatment. Health care professionals advise patients not to eat before treatment in order to relieve nausea and suggest eating small meals throughout the day to control nausea and vomiting.

Common Side Effects (affects less than 1 in 10, but more than 1 in 100 patients):

  • Dehydration
  • Loss of hearing
  • Oral candidiasis
  • Decrease in blood pressure
  • Hemorrhage
  • Esophagitis
  • Heart failure
  • Raised liver enzymes

Uncommon Side Effects (experienced in less than 1 in 10, but over 1 in 100 patients):

  • Phlebitis (infection at injection site)
  • Fainting
  • Inflammation of the small intestine (intestinal perforation), colon

Taxotere Hair Loss Side Effect: Permanent Alopecia

Taxotere Hair Loss Side Effect: Permanent Alopecia

While the side effects and complications of Taxotere generally subside after treatment is discontinued, there is one side effect that is known to be a permanent one.

A study in 2012 showed that in all cases where patients suffered permanent hair loss following chemotherapy, Taxotere or docetaxel was involved. According to the study, alopecia, or hair loss, induced by chemotherapy is one of the most troublesome and distressing side effects of the treatment, along with fatigue, nausea, and vomiting.

It may have a significant effect on the self-image of an individual and research has found that patients experience low self-esteem and anxiety.

Despite the phrase, “in most cases, hair growth should return”, Taxotere does not mention permanent hair loss in their list of possible side effects. However, it is too late for many patients who have used the drug for their chemotherapy. This permanent side effect is irreversible and includes eyelashes and eyebrows in addition to the hair on the head.

It is known that hair loss is a common side effect of chemotherapy since a lot of different types of the drugs are used in the treatment to kill fast-growing cancer cells.

Although hair loss is often expected in patients who undergo chemotherapy, alopecia or permanent hair loss is not. In most cases, patients’ hair usually begins growing back within 3 to 6 months after the completion of the treatment.

While breast cancer patients who were prescribed Taxotere were warned about the potential hair loss that might come with the drug, Taxotere lawsuits state that Sanofi-Aventis US LLC, the manufacturer of the drug, did not adequately warn patients about the high risk of permanent hair loss.

According to research, even when cancer patients are prepared for the hair loss they may experience, it is still a very traumatic experience. Studies have found that on average, 6% to 9% of patients of breast cancer had to deal with permanent alopecia, thereby having to cope with other negative setbacks in their personal lives.

A small study observed 20 breast cancer patients’ quality of life after being treated with Taxotere and experiencing permanent hair loss. Despite undergoing treatments to help in stimulating hair growth, patients and oncologists saw that only a handful of patients saw a very slight improvement in their condition.

As a result, 40% of the patients said that their quality of life was extremely poor, and 70% choose to wear a scarf or wig to hide their alopecia – this is only logical.

Taxotere Lawsuits

Taxotere LawsuitsAlthough Taxotere has been on the market for a number of decades now, it was not until more recently that Sanofi began to face a growing number of lawsuits by patients and survivors of breast cancer as a result of false marketing and the treatment’s severe side effects.

As of the most recent report, the pharmaceutical company is facing 7,820 pending lawsuits. The latest update from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana states that the first Taxotere bellwether trial will begin in January of 2019.

Allegations Against Manufacturers of Taxotere

In lawsuits filed against Sanofi by women and families, it is alleged that the pharmaceutical giant was aware of the link between the use of Taxotere and permanent hair loss and failed to warn patients.

According to the lawsuits, Sanofi also marketed Taxotere as more effective than other drugs used in chemotherapy when they were equally effective without the associated permanent loss of hair.

Taxotere lawsuits accuse Sanofi of:

  • Not testing Taxotere properly before selling it
  • Failing to determine whether or not the drug was safe
  • Selling the drug without disclosing the risks or dangers
  • Failing to provide proper warning to health care providers and patients
  • Misleading the public in marketing and advertising
  • Concealing information from the public
  • Manufacturing a dangerous drug
  • Downplaying the dangers and risks associated with Taxotere

Lawsuits Say Sanofi Concealed Information About Hair Loss Side Effects

concealed information taxotere hair lossAccording to lawsuits, Sanofi misled the public by giving them false reassurance that hair would grow back after stopping chemotherapy. But the company should have had knowledge that there was a higher rate of permanent alopecia in their drug than similar drugs on the market.

Studies that Sanofi should have been aware of include the following:

1998: Sanofi sponsored a study that was named GEICAM 9805. The company knew by 2005 that this trial’s results revealed that 9.2% of women who used Taxotere suffered permanent alopecia.

2006: The Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers’ Dr. Scot Sedlacek conducted a study that showed that Taxotere could cause over 6% of women to suffer permanent hair loss.

Despite informing patients in other countries, Sanofi failed to warn women in the United States of this risk for years.

Lawsuits say that the words “alopecia” or “permanent hair loss” did not appear in any information that was published in the US.

Accusations of Promoting Sales at the Expense of Patients

Taxotere lawsuits question Sanofi’s motives since the initial FDA approval of the drug in 1996. They say that the company downplayed the drug’s risks and trained employees to misrepresent its effectiveness and safety.

According to a lawsuit filed by one of the former employees of Sanofi in 2015, the company engaged in illegal “kickback” payments to health care professionals to prescribe Taxotere. Lawsuits say that the misconduct resulted in soaring sales of the drug.

It is claimed that Taxotere’s sales went up from $424 million in 2000 to $1.4 billion in 2004 through illegal payment of kickbacks and misrepresentation.

In her complaint, one woman wrote that one of the most vulnerable groups of individuals were preyed upon by the defendants at the most difficult time of their lives and that the defendants obtained increased revenues of billions of dollars at the expense of cancer patients who were unwary and simply hoping to survive their condition and begin living a normal life once more.

Manufacturers of Taxotere Facing Lawsuits

The drug companies that are named in Taxotere lawsuits are Sanofi SA, Sanofi-Aventis US LLC and Aventis Pharma SA. These companies were involved in the design, development, manufacture, distribution, labeling, marketing, advertisement, promotion, and sales of Taxotere.

In 2009, before Sanofi lost patent protection, Taxotere made more than $3 billion for the company.

Taxotere is prescribed by doctors to treat the majority of cases of breast cancer in the United States, and approximately 300,000 women are diagnosed with the cancer each year. It is also the most prescribed drug in its class.

Taxotere Class Action

taxotere class actionThere are no class action lawsuits at present over claims that Taxotere results in permanent hair loss. Three women filed a Taxotere class action lawsuit in December 2016. In April of the following year, the women asked the court to certify the class.
This step is necessary in order for the class action to proceed. A judge denied the request for class action certification in July 2017.

According to the court order that denied class action certification, the cases had too many differences for them to be considered a class. Differences surrounding the claims that were denied class action certification include:

  • Whether the patients were administered brand name Taxotere or a generic equivalent
  • What combination of chemotherapy agents was used in connection with the drug or its generic equivalent
  • The Taxotere or generic equivalent dosage that was administered
  • The number of cycles of treatment that took place
  • The description of the alleged injury
  • The damages that were sought by the plaintiffs

Studies Reveal that Alopecia Leads to a Diminished Quality of Life

taxotere studiesHair loss ranks as one of the most distressing cancer treatment side effects consistently and has a profound effect on the patient’s well-being and quality of life.
In some studies, about 9% of patients of breast cancer suffered alopecia that lasted for 10 years or more, negatively affecting body image, severely decreasing their quality of life and causing distress and depression.

In 2008, Lemieux et al. published a review of 38 articles that analyzed the impact of hair loss on breast cancer patients. Authors of the study looked at the quality of life that related to body image, distress, anxiety, self-esteem, social functioning, sexuality, and the ability to return to work.

In 2012, Klugel et al. published a study in the Annals of Oncology following 20 patients who used Taxotere as part of their cancer therapy. All of the 20 patients suffered permanent hair loss after being treated with the drug. Despite various treatments for alopecia, the women were left with clumpy, sparse, and incomplete hair regrowth.

About 40% of these women showed scores indicating “severe impairment” of quality of life.

One of the women in the study said that she would have preferred not receiving any chemotherapy for her breast cancer rather than experiencing such a distressing and permanent side effect. About 70% of the women who participated in this study wore wigs or scarves to cover their heads – as already somewhat indicated.

Taxotere Lawsuits – Speak With a Taxotere Lawyer

If you or somebody you know took Taxotere and developed permanent hair loss, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries, pain, and suffering.  Contact a Taxotere lawyer by using the form below.

Invokana amputation lawsuit and lawyer

Invokana Amputation Lawsuit

Increased Risk of Amputation With Invokana Diabetes Medicine

Based on new data from two large clinical trials, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has confirmed that the Type II diabetes medicine canagliflozin (which has brand names like Invokana, Invokamet XR, and Invokamet) comes with an increased risk of leg, toe and foot amputations.

To describe this risk, the agency added new warnings to canagliflozin drug labels, which includes a prominent “Black Box Warning”.

Studies Confirm Invokana and Invokamet Linked to Increased Risk of Amputations

invokana amputation studyThe two clinical studies that were conducted to study the long-term effects of Invokana on the heart were the CANVAS and CANVAS-R trials. The final study results were reported in 2017, concluding that the risk of amputations in patients taking the drug increased by two times.

How Common are Diabetes Amputations?

How common are invokana amputationsThe CDC – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 23.6 million people in the United States currently have diabetes. In the past 10 years, the number of diabetic patients in the country has increased significantly from 18.2 million in 2003.

A serious concern for people with diabetes is amputations. A lot of amputations are performed on the lower extremities, particularly the feet and toes. Although it is less common, some people who have diabetes require amputations below the knee.

Nearly 67% of amputations in the US are associated with diabetes and complications that are related to it. The CDC reports that in 2010, approximately 73,000 non-traumatic amputations of the lower limbs were performed in adults aged 20 years or older who were diagnosed with diabetes.

The rate of amputation for people with diabetes is 28 times higher when compared to those who do have the disease. Amputations are performed more commonly for men than women, with a 50% higher rate of amputation for males with diabetes. Research has also found that the disease affects the non-Hispanic black population and the elderly more frequently.

Why Do People with Diabetes have a Higher Risk of Amputation?

invokana higher risk for amputationsWhen it comes to amputation, there are multiple factors that come into play. Although a large number of the issues that cause the need for an amputation involve, there are those that are related to the management of glucose in the body and unknown risks of certain medications.

Two major issues that create cause for an amputation are poor circulation and nerve damage, worsened by blood sugar that is left uncontrolled. These complications allow infections to set in without the knowledge of the diabetic, resulting in a gangrenous wound that could require an amputation at a later stage.

Risk Factors for Diabetic Amputations

People with diabetes have sensitive feet with a higher vulnerability to injuries, especially when blood glucose is not managed. All of the factors that cause amputations actually work together, and this is why it is extremely important to be aware of each one.

Diabetic neuropathy reduces sensation and makes patients unaware that they have injuries because they are unable to feel the development of wounds. On the other hand, poor circulation prevents injuries from healing properly. Knowing the risk factors for diabetic amputation plays a key role in prevention.

Diabetic Neuropathy

Diabetic neuropathy is a common complication that comes with diabetes. It is a form of nerve damage that high blood sugar causes. It results in injury to nerve fibers all over the body and leaves patients with a decrease in sensation in the lower limbs and feet.

Neuropathy may prevent people with the disease from feeling hot or cold temperatures. They might not notice a callus or cut, making them more vulnerable to infection.

There are 4 types of diabetic neuropathy: autonomic neuropathy, mononeuropathy, radiculoplexus neuropathy, and peripheral neuropathy.

Symptoms of this complication might include numbness, burning, tingling, and pain. Some people with neuropathy experience vision complications, bladder problems, digestive issues, and erectile dysfunction.

Poor Circulation

Diabetes may cause blood vessels to narrow and harden, limiting the flow of blood to the legs and feet. When blood flow is lacking, it can have an adverse effect on the body’s ability to fight infections and the speed of wound healing. Peripheral vascular and arterial diseases are some identifiable indicators of poor circulation.

Smoking also has an effect on the body’s small blood vessels. It can reduce the flow of blood throughout the limbs make it more difficult for injuries to heal. Many diabetics who need to be amputated are smokers.

Calluses, Ulcers, and Skin Changes

Changes in the skin, related to nerve damage, has an effect on the moisture and natural oils in the feet. When diabetes affects toe and foot skin, it results in dryness, which in turn makes it more likely for the skin to crack and peel. If there are changes in the foot’s natural regulatory state, it makes the patient more vulnerable to infection, injury, and amputation.

Caused by repeated irritation pressure or friction, calluses are also more common with diabetes. Complications can arise from calluses that are not trimmed or treated. They frequently occur on the bottom of the big toe or the ball of the foot.

Calluses may develop into painful open sores called ulcers. Neglecting treatment of ulcers or walking on them can lead to infections that are deeply embedded. Many of these are non-healing wounds that may result in the loss of a limb.

Invokana Amputations

invokana amputation riskThe reason for an Invokana amputation has not yet been determined or clearly understood. However, researchers confirm that the popular diabetes medication in conjunction with other risk factors makes it more likely that patients will need an amputation.

A history of prior amputation may also predispose patients who take Invokana to the need for amputation. Patients with a history of peripheral vascular disease or amputation had the highest risk of amputation, but the relative risk was similar.

Diabetes patients, regardless of a prior risk, are encouraged to discuss the potential amputation side effects of Invokana with their doctors.  

Most diabetic foot infections need some type of surgical intervention, but diabetics can actually avoid many foot problems. Taking the time to learn about and understand the risk factors, key elements of proper care and all the risks that come with medications, like Invokana, can make it possible to prevent diabetic foot ulcers and amputations.   

The most common amputations that diabetics taking Invokana suffer are toe and middle-of-the-foot amputations. The drug can also cause patients to need amputations of the leg below or above the knee. After taking Invokana, patients may need to have one or both of their limbs amputated.

Diabetics who take Invokana should be closely monitored for signs and symptoms of conditions that might make it necessary to get an amputation performed.

Amputations may be required as a result of infections or ulcers, especially those that reach the bone. It is important to keep in mind that even minor cuts or other punctures or trauma to the skin can result in life-threatening infections. In instances like these, patients may not be able to avoid an amputation.

Patients who take Invokana should inform their healthcare provider immediately if they develop new tenderness or pain, sores or ulcers, and infections in the feet or legs.

Diabetic Amputations vs. Invokana Amputations

According to the American Diabetes Association, diabetics are more likely to have a foot or leg amputated than other people. About 15% of people with diabetes develop ulcers on their foot, and roughly a quarter of those people will require an amputation.

Amputation can be caused by diabetes or the use of Invokana. When the legs and feet do not have proper circulation of blood, it can result in the need for both types of amputation. Invokana amputations begin with the body getting dehydrated because of increased urination that the drug causes. On the other hand, diabetic amputations often begin with blood sugar levels that are poorly controlled.  

What is Invokana?

invokana linked to amputationsInvokana is one of the brand names of the popular Type II diabetes medication, canagliflozin. It works to lower the levels of blood sugar in patients by blocking the re-absorption of glucose in the kidneys so that the excess sugar is eliminated from the body through urination.

The active ingredient in Invokana, canagliflozin is also one of the active ingredients in Invokamet, which is a combination product and another medication used for treating the disease.

Invokana is one of the few medications that belong to the SGLT2 Inhibitor class of antidiabetics, which includes brand name medications Jardiance and Farxiga, along with combination products Synjardy, Glyxambi, and Xigduo. Since the approval of Invokana in 2013, it has been shown to increase the risk for serious side effects, which include the following:

  • Diabetic ketoacidosis
  • Kidney disease and renal failure
  • Severe urinary tract infection (UTI)
  • Increased risk of bone fracture

In May 2016, a safety alert was issued regarding CANVAS and CANVAS-R trials’ interim results which showed the doubling of amputation risk in patients taking Invokana. The risk was confirmed in the trials’ final results, which were reported in 2017.

Based on these final results, the most serious safety alert possible, the Black Box Warning, was issued by the FDA. This warning includes information about the risk of amputation.  

Results of the CANVAS Trial

invokana amputation CANVAS Trial

Source: Medscape

The boxed warning included on Invokana labeling was an addition to the information already printed on the labeling of the drug regarding an increased risk for lactic acidosis due to metformin, one of the ingredients used in Invokana.

As mentioned earlier, the risk of amputation was identified during the large, CANVAS and CANVAS-R studies which were originally undertaken to study the long-term effects of the drug on the heart.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Johnson & Johnson, the parent company, had hoped to find positive cardiac results for Invokana but found an increase in the risk for amputation instead.

Patients who participated in the two clinical trials were followed for 5 years. The studies compared patients taking Invokana with those taking a placebo and found that the risk for amputation was as follows:

  • The placebo patients experienced amputation at a rate of 3/1,000 patients annually.
  • Patients taking a daily dose of 100mg Invokana experienced at a rate of 5/1,000 patients annually.
  • Patients taking a daily dose of 300mg Invokana experienced amputation at a rate of 7/1,000 patients annually.

This shows a low dose of Invokana caused an increased risk that is two-thirds higher while a higher dose resulted in more than 2 times the risk of amputation.

Amputation Risk Warnings

invokana amputation warningThe safety alert regarding the Black Box Warning issued by the FDA states that health care practitioners should consider the general health of patients and specific factors before they prescribe Invokana to patients with Type II diabetes.

Conditions like leg or foot ulcers, neuropathy, peripheral vascular disease and prior history of amputation may add to the increase in the risk of amputation due to inability to sense injury and lack of blood flow. Warnings are issued to practitioners to make sure that they monitor the foot and leg health of patients and discontinue Invokana if there are any complications.

Patients are advised to report any symptoms that affect the health of their skin or extremities, such as tenderness, sores, infection or pain. However, they should not discontinue the medication without first seeking advice from a healthcare professional.  

Other Safety Alerts

FDA invokana amputation warningsThe Black Box Warning issued by the FDA was only the most recent safety alert in a string of notifications that involve Invokana.

In March of 2013, Invokana was the first approved SGLT2 inhibitor. By mid-2015, the agency noted that it had received a large number of adverse event reports about the medication and other SGLT2 inhibitors for events involving diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) which had required hospitalization.

In May of 2015, a safety alert about this development was issued, which was followed by labeling changes in September about bone density loss that contributed to the increase in the risk of fracture.

Another safety warning about DKA was issued in December of 2015, which included warnings about an increase in the risk of severe UTI which may contribute to kidney failure. Updates were made to labeling to include information about DKA, UTI and kidney failure.

As mentioned earlier, the first risk warning about amputation was issued in May of 2016 based on interim results of the CANVAS study.

A month later in June, more information followed to strengthen warnings about kidney injury. The most recent warning – the Black Box Warning – was issued in May of 2017 about the potential of doubled risk of amputation that comes with Invokana and Invokamet.

The Continuing Problems of Johnson & Johnson

Janssen Pharmaceuticals is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, the pharmaceutical giant that has an estimated annual revenue of nearly $72 billion. Due to problems with several of their products that range from surgical products and medical devices to consumer products such as baby powder to a number of drugs that they manufacture, like Invokana, the company has faced a number of medical injury crises.

Injuries caused by Invokana are being evaluated by regulators from across the globe, including the EU where European medical regulators at the Risk Management Committee of the European Medicines Agency have requested Johnson & Johnson to provide more information regarding the amputation risk of Invokana.

Other drugs for treating diabetes, including SGLT2 inhibitors, Jardiance and Farxiga, are also under fire. However, the same warning does not come with either drug as of yet.

Numerous lawsuits involving Invokana have already been filed by patients or family members of those who have suffered serious side effects that have been caused by the drug. Invokana lawsuits have included kidney failure, bone fracture, diabetic ketoacidosis and other serious injuries.

More of these lawsuits may be expected as a result of Invokana causing the need for amputation in some patients who take the medication.

Filing an Invokana Lawsuit

What Should I Do? Invokana LawsuitThe most recent update from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey states that trials for Invokana lawsuits are expected to begin in September 2018.  There are more than a thousand Invokana lawsuits pending. At least and at the time of writing there were 1,100 Invokana lawsuits have been filed against Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

In the complaints included in these lawsuits, plaintiffs say that they would have avoided taking Invokana had they known about the increased amputation risk ahead of time. Since proper warnings were not provided by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, consumers were not able to make an informed choice on the matter.

There have been similar legal complaints about other serious side effects of Invokana. These are related to the various warnings issued by the FDA around renal failure, ketoacidosis, serious urinary tract infections, and bone fractures.

To find out if you are eligible to file an Invokana lawsuit, the first thing you should do is contact an accomplished Invokana amputation lawyer with experience in handling cases involving dangerous drugs.

This will help the lawyer learn more about your situation. Certain factors determine whether you are eligible to participate in an Invokana class action lawsuit or to file an individual lawsuit against the manufacturer. These factors include when you began and stopped taking Invokana, the side effects that it causes, and the severity of the harm you suffered as a result of taking the drug.

If your situation meets the initial criteria for case selection, the lawyer will order, pay for, and review your medical records. Board-certified physicians will also review those records to confirm that Invokana was the cause of your condition. If this can be proven, your legal counselor will determine the option that is best suited for your individual case and they can then immediately pursue that option.

Medical Bills and Other Costs

The reason that many people file Invokana lawsuits is to attempt to obtain compensation to recover costs that are related to medical bills. These costs can include surgery, hospitalization, post-operative care, and ongoing medical needs.

On top of this, the compensation can also cover related costs such as travel expenses incurred to see a specialist, lodging near centers where patients received treatment, and expenses that insurance may not cover.

Pain and Suffering

People who have experienced a severe side effect as a result of taking Invokana claim in their lawsuits that they suffered additional pain and suffering beyond what was expected due to the drug, based on the marketing and warning labels that the manufacturer provided.

While the specific suffering might differ from one patient to another – amputation, ketoacidosis, kidney disease, etc. – the common link between them is that those conditions were exacerbated or caused by Invokana.

In addition to physical pain and suffering that Invokana caused, many patients who took the drug have also suffered mentally. For instance, a number of psychological effects can result from amputation, including phantom limb syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and depression. All of these mental health conditions would not have been experienced by patients had they not taken Invokana.

In most cases, Invokana amputation lawsuits include claims to recover these costs that victims of injuries caused by the medication would not have needed to pay otherwise.

For those who passed away due to complications caused by Invokana, their families may ask for compensation to cover funeral and burial costs as well as lost income that their loved one might have otherwise earned.

invokana amputation lawyer

Obtain the Help of a Fantastic Invokana Lawyer

If you or a loved one has received an amputation or suffered another serious complication or side effect as a result of taking Invokana, you may be eligible to file a lawsuit against the drug manufacturer. Discussing your case with a prudent and motivated Invokana lawyer is the best way to learn about your legal rights and gain more information specific to your case.

It is important to have an Invokana lawyer to help you as you will need help in understanding the strength of your case what to expect if you file an Invokana lawsuit. Fighting back against major drug companies like Johnson & Johnson will require the knowledge, skill, and resources that only an experienced legal pro has.

When you have someone who knows how to fight back against the corporation’s highly trained and well-paid lawyers, you get the best chance of receiving the compensation you deserve for complications you experienced as a result of taking Invokana.  

Senior man suffering from chest pain in living room at home

IVC Filter Complications Lawsuit

Inferior vena cava also known as IVC filters were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1979 and are now available as retrievable or permanent implants – the retrievable type being an option for short-term use.

The FDA received close to 1,000 complaints from 2005 to 2010 about adverse events associated with IVC filter removal complications and the failure of the newer retrievable filters.

There was no report from the FDA about the remaining 34.8% of adverse event reports, but a warning was issued regarding an increased risk of IVC deep venous thrombosis (DVT). In lieu of these reports, the agency set about advising health care providers to remove the retrievable IVC filters once the patient’s condition improved and there was no longer any threat of pulmonary embolism.

The unfortunate part is that a large number of the worst complications occurred when the retrievable filters were removed. Few were caused by the presence of the device in the body or the implantation procedure.

How Do IVC Filters Work?

An inferior vena cava filter is a small, metal device that is designed in such a way so as to prevent a blood clot from making its way to the lungs and resulting in a pulmonary embolism. A pulmonary embolism is a blockage in an artery that transports blood to the lungs from the heart – this blockage can sometimes be fatal.

The cage-like device is surgically implanted into the inferior vena cava, the largest vein in the body. IVC filters are made so they can trap clots, but the flip side is that these sophisticated devices can potentially move in the body and cause IVC filter complications that may have devastating consequences.

Types of IVC Filters

C.R. Bard and Cook Medical are two of the major manufacturers of IVC filters. The most popular IVC filter brands include:

  • The Bard G2 filter
  • The Bard G2 Express filter
  • The Bard Recovery filter
  • The Cook Gunther Tulip filter
  • The Cook Celect filter
  • The Boston Scientific Greenfield filter

As mentioned earlier, there are two types of IVC filters: permanent and retrievable (optional). Although they are intended for short-term use, retrievable filters provide the option for long-term use or removal when a risk for pulmonary embolism is no longer present. On the other hand, permanent IVC filters are designed only for long-term use.

It is important to note that IVC filter lawsuits are only being filed against the manufacturers of retrievable filters.

According to a study from 2014 that was published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery, retrievable IVC filters left in place were linked to significantly higher rates of complications than permanent filters. The authors of the study identified 383 patients with implanted retrievable IVC filters and compared them with patients who had permanent filters. It was found that blood clot-related or thrombotic and device-related were common among patients with retrievable filters.

Uses of IVC Filters

Blood clots that develop in the upper and lower extremities and deep inside the pelvis are referred to as deep vein thrombosis or DVTs.

While they are not typically life-threatening, DVTs can lead to death when they travel to the lungs and produce clots that block the normal flow of blood in the lungs, also known as pulmonary embolisms.

About 300,000 deaths occur each year due to these embolisms. It ranks third among the most common causes of death in hospital patients.

People who had recurrent DVTs while they were on blood-thinning (anticoagulation) medication and/or people who are unable to consume or tolerate these medications due to bleeding or an adverse reaction make good candidates for IVC filters.

Doctors may also recommend these medical devices in patients who undergo surgery because of an elevated risk of blood clots or suffer serious trauma.

Cases in which the use of IVC filters may be recommended include the following:

  • Car accidents
  • Stabbing or gunshot injuries
  • Emergency or voluntary surgeries
  • Dialysis treatment
  • Cancer diagnosis or treatment
  • Spinal cord injury
  • Serious falls
  • Immobile patients
  • Patients who just had a baby

Complications Caused by IVC Filters

IVC filters can in certain cases float away from their surgically-positioned site thus rendering them ineffective. In some cases, the device punctures a vein, resulting in bleeding and other complications.
The filters can break into pieces, which can then travel through the blood and lodge in the heart or other organs. Retrievable filters, in particular, are linked to a number of potential risks, such as failing to stop blood clots from bypassing the device and damaging veins.

Typically, complications caused by IVC filters fall into three categories: procedural, retrieval and delayed.

Procedural IVC filter complications occur when the filter is inserted. These complications include:

  • Bruising and/or bleeding in the access site
  • Blood vessel puncture
  • Malposition and/or incorrect placement of filter
  • Deployment of defective filter

Retrieval complications occur when the filter is removed and include the following:

  • Perforation of blood vessels
  • Large clots in the filter that prevent device removal
  • Scars in the vein that prevent device removal
  • Difficult retrieval resulting in long surgery times

Delayed complications occur after the IVC filter is implanted in the patient’s body and include the following:

  • Migrating to other parts of the heart, vena cava or even other organs
  • Breakage or fracture of the filter
  • Deep vein thrombosis
  • Perforated organs
  • Blockage that results in swelling in the legs
  • Device infection
  • Detachment of device components or embolization

Complications of IVC Filter Placement

To place an IVC filter, a doctor, in most cases, will use a catheter inserted through the skin into a large vein in the thigh or the neck and thread it to the inferior vena cava in the abdomen.

The doctor threads the filter through the catheter into the vein with the help of image guidance, including ultrasound, and x-ray and a contrast agent, or a substance that is introduced into the patient’s body so that the medical professionals are able to see.

This is a procedure that is referred to as percutaneous. It has been reported that the rate of complications from this procedure range from 4% to 11%.

Short-Term Complications from IVC Filter Placement

Other possible complications that can arise from the placement of IVC filters include the guide wire penetrating the vein, kidney dysfunction resulting from the contrast agent, blood clotting at the insertion site, bleeding or infection of the insertion site and a condition called an arteriovenous fistula (AVF), a rare complication that involves an abnormal connection between a vein and an artery. 0.02% of this complication is reported.

Short-term complications related to the procedure can include the following:

  • Irregular or abnormal heartbeat
  • Reaction to the contrast agent
  • Pneumothorax – a collapsed lung resulting from air leaking into the space between the chest wall and the lung
  • Air embolization – which is a condition wherein air bubbles block a blood vessel
  • Hemothorax – a condition wherein blood pools up in the space between the lung and chest wall

Pain Caused by Defective IVC Filters

When patients experience pain with an IVC filter, it is often related to complications of the filter that may be malfunctioning or defective. Some IVC filter complications that can lead to severe pain include a blocked filter, IVC perforation, or embolization.

IVC filters can also perforate or become embedded in the wall of the IVC. But because there are no nerve endings in blood vessels, it is unlikely that patients will experience any pain that is linked to complications that directly affect the vein and they will consequently not be aware that there is a problem.

However, once the vessel has been pierced all the way through by an IVC filter, or if it breaks apart as it moves through the bloodstream, it can have an effect on other parts of the body causing pain.
The pain that often is caused due to IVC complications can affect the heart, back, abdomen or even the legs.

History of Safety Concerns about IVC Filters

The FDA issued its first safety communication about IVC filters in the year 2010. As mentioned earlier, the agency recommended removing the device once protection from pulmonary embolism was not required anymore.

The safety advisement and recommendation from the agency came after it received and reviewed over 900 reports of adverse events related to the anticoagulation device over a period of 5 years.
Adverse events that were reported included embolization, device migration, filter fractures and perforation of the IVC and organs. In most cases, these events occurred long after the risk for pulmonary embolism in the patient had subsided, yet the IVC filter was not removed from the body.
Updated Safety Communication by the FDA

The FDA issued an updated safety communication in 2014 regarding IVC filter use and removal. There were no new safety concerns in the notice.

Instead, the agency chose to report that after the risk of contracting pulmonary embolism in patients has passed, the IVC filter can be removed. The filter according to the agency’s updated safety communication could be removed between 29 and 54 days after implantation.

The federal agency developed a mathematical model using data that was publicly available from medical literature. This model suggested that the risk of having an IVC filter begins to outweigh its benefits when it is no longer necessary to prevent pulmonary embolisms.

The FDA, concluded that IVC filter complications could be certainly mitigated if doctors promptly removed the anticoagulant device after the risk for pulmonary embolism had abated.

Warning Letter

The FDA issued a warning letter to the manufacturer of the Recovery Cone Removal System and several IVC filters, including CR Bard in 2015. The agency noted that the removal system was never given clearance and therefore, there was presumably no method that was approved for the removal of IVC filters manufactured by the company.

The regulatory agency also admonished Bard for failing to follow good manufacturing practices in the processes of manufacturing, packaging and storing its IVC filters, and for failing to establish and maintain appropriate procedures to receive, evaluate and review complaints regarding its anticoagulant devices.

The FDA further noted that CR Bard failed to report information that it received about defects linked with its IVC filters that could possibly lead to injury or death.

Complications Claimed in IVC Filter Lawsuits

People who filed IVC filter lawsuits against manufacturers claim that the devices implanted in their veins moved or broke. These problems can result in serious complications. People can file lawsuits for IVC filter complications such as:

  • Blood clots
  • Migration of the device
  • Fracture of the filter
  • Organ perforation
  • Organ damage
  • Impossible filter removal

It is also important to note that many IVC filter lawyers are accepting cases where no injury or complication has occurred.  In other words, if you have an implanted IVC filter, you may be entitled to compensation by filing an IVC filter lawsuit (regardless of injury).

IVC filters are cone-like devices with spindly legs that deploy inside of the inferior vena cava. In some instances, the legs can puncture the veins. Or the filter can perforate or break. If this occurs, the entire filter or parts of it can travel through the body. That can result in damage to the heart, lung or other organs.

FDA Reports and Actions

Between 2005 and 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received 921 reports of adverse events involving IVC filters. Roughly 328 of those reports involved device migration, 70 involved perforation of the device, 146 involved embolizations, and 56 involved fracture of the filter.

Some of the reported events caused patients to experience adverse clinical outcomes. The FDA concluded that the adverse events that were reported could have been caused by a retrievable filter that remained in the patient’s body after the risk for pulmonary embolism had come down.

The agency recommended the removal of retrievable filters within 54 days after they were implanted if the risk has diminished.

The FDA has also required additional information from studies to be collected for IVC filters that are currently marketed in the United States. According to the agency, the studies address unanswered safety questions for permanent as well as retrievable IVC filters.

Manufacturers were given two options for data collection: post-market surveillance or the PRESERVE study. PRESERVE stands for Predicting the Safety and Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters.
It is an independent national clinical study that will examine IVC filter use in the prevention of pulmonary embolism. 522 studies will be involved in post-market surveillance.

According to a study in 2016 in Seminars in Interventional Radiology, the FDA said that the data that is collected from the 522 studies and PRESERVE study will help the agency, the manufacturers of the IVC filters and health care professionals make an assessment of the use and safety profile of the filters, understanding evolving patterns in clinical IVC filter use, with the goal of ultimately improving utilization of IVC filters and patient care.

Recalls of IVC Filters

Between 2005 and 2010, manufacturers issued 6 major recalls of IVC filters. The recalls had an effect on over 81,000 units, and the majority was for issues with packaging and labeling.

Since 2015, there have been no major recalls for IVC filters. Thousands of people have reported experiencing complications caused by these medical devices. However, manufacturers have not recalled devices that are known to be most problematic.

An NBC News investigation in 2015 connected Bard Recovery and G2 IVC filters to the death of 39 people. Neither device was recalled by the company. They were replaced with similar models instead.
Cook Medical IVC filters have also come under fire for causing injuries and deaths. Hundreds of reports have been received by the FDA on Gunther Tulip and Cook Celect problems. However, the company never issued recalls for either of these devices.

Studies on IVC Filters

Studies have confirmed that retrievable IVC filters come with problems. The failure rate of the filter was looked at in a 2013 study that was printed in JAMA – Journal of American Medical Association, a group of researchers discovered that only 58 out of 679 retrievable IVC filters were actually removed by doctors.

When the filters, remained in patients longer than medically necessary, 25 patients were reported to have suffered pulmonary embolisms, 18.3% of filter removal attempts failed, and 7.8% of patients had venous thrombotic complications.

Failure Rates of Filters

Introduced in 2003, the Recovery filter was the first-generation product manufactured by C.R. Bard. The Bard G2, a second-generation device, was introduced in 2005 to replace the Recovery. However, before Bard introduced the replacement, the FDA received 300 reports of adverse events that are associated with the device.

One study had results showing that about 25% of the Recovery IVC filters failed, causing the device to break apart or fracture. While the study did not provide a reason, one patient died at home. An NBC News investigation connected the device to at least 27 fatalities.

The Bard G2 had a failure rate of 12% and remained for a shorter period of time in the market than its predecessor.

When the G2 came into the market in 2005, Bard stopped the sale of the Recovery. In 2008, the G2 Express, the G2’s successor, entered the market. One study found that all of the devices manufactured by Bard experienced a combined fracture rate of 12%.

In another study, it was found that both of the filters manufactured by Cook Medical, the Celect and the Gunther Tulip, had histories of perforating the vena cava wall of patients. In most cases, the perforation occurred within 71 days from being implanted, and the filters migrated out of place in 40% of patients.

“Significant Decline” Shown in Use of IVC Filters

A study conducted in 2017 found that IVC filter use experienced a “significant decline” after the safety warning issued by the FDA in 2010.

Researchers at St. Louis’ Washington University School of Medicine examined more than 1 million patient records that covered a period of 10 years. They saw a rise of over 22% in the use of IVC filters between 2005 and 2010. However, there was a dramatic drop in the use of these devices after the FDA advisory, going down by over 25% by 2014.

At their peak in 2010, nearly 130,000 IVC filters were implanted in patients. The number had fallen to about 96,000 by 2014.

Accusations Against Manufacturers of IVC Filters

In IVC filter lawsuits, plaintiffs claim that CR Bard and Cook Medical manufactured devices that were defective, resulting in their injuries.

They also claim that the manufacturers knew or should have known that their products were dangerous. According to the lawsuits, the companies failed to adequately warn health care providers and patients about the dangers associated with IVC filters.

The allegations in IVC filter lawsuits include:

  • Defective design and manufacturing of the device
  • Misrepresentation in marketing
  • Failure to provide warnings about the dangers of the device

Filing an IVC Filter Lawsuit

If you want compensation for an injury caused by an IVC filter, you should file a lawsuit. However, it is important to bear in mind that cases that involve medical devices are complex.

Therefore, you should seek the help of an IVC filter lawyer as they usually have experience in handling complicated lawsuits involving medical devices. IVC filter lawsuits involve complicated medical, legal and engineering issues. With a medical device lawyer, you have a professional with acumen in these areas.

If you have suffered injury due to an IVC filter, you should consult a medical device lawyer who will review your case and determine if you are eligible to sue the manufacturer of the device. Keep in mind that your fight against major companies like CR Bard or Cook will be long and arduous.

Your legal pro will protect your rights and make sure that you are treated fairly throughout the legal process. Because the corporation will have a team of highly trained and experienced lawyers to defend them, it is crucial that you find a legal counselor who will fight just as passionately for you.

If you or a loved one has experienced a serious complication after placement of an IVC filter, you should immediately seek the help of a skilled and judicious medical device lawyer. Your attorney will determine if you should file an individual lawsuit against the manufacturer or join a class action lawsuit depending on the facts of your case.

Once you take the best legal course of action for your case, you can begin the process of suing the manufacturer of the IVC filter and receive compensation for your injury and other damages resulting from the IVC complication.

Roundup weed killer lawsuit

Roundup Cancer Lawsuit

Filing a Roundup Lawsuit – A Complete Guide

One of the worst nightmares that every homeowner has is weeds. Everyone wants a well-maintained lawn, but once weeds start taking over, it can seem like nothing you do can keep those persistent irritants from growing back.

Read More