Ferrer, Poirot & Wansbrough | Injury Law Blog

Chemotherapy Drug Linked to Permanent Hair Loss

by Cary Graham | May 24th, 2016

After you were diagnosed with breast cancer, you committed to the fight of a lifetime. Together with your oncologist, you developed a plan, weighed all the possible side effects, and pushed ahead full-force. After months of treatments, your cancer is in remission, but now you face another medical challenge you weren’t even aware of, and unfortunately, it’s one with no cure.

The breast cancer chemotherapy drug Taxotere has been linked to an incurable form of alopecia, resulting in severe and permanent hair loss. Patients who were given this drug lost their hair during treatment with the understanding that it would grow back once the treatment was complete, only to find their hair loss was permanent. To make matters worse, the manufacturer may have known about this devastating side effect and kept it from physicians and the patients they treat.

If you’ve suffered permanent hair loss after being given the breast cancer chemotherapy drug Taxotere, you may be entitled to significant compensation. Call our drug injury lawyers for a free evaluation of your case. We’ll investigate the cause of your condition and fight to get you maximum compensation. Join the hundreds of victims from around the country who are standing up for their rights to compensation by giving us a call today.

Bookmark and Share

Heartburn Drugs Linked to Kidney Disease

by Cary Graham | May 19th, 2016

Heartburn drugs are some of the most popular on pharmacy shelves, as they treat one of the most common ailments in the U.S. today. When these over-the-counter solutions don’t quite do the trick, physicians have an equally vast set of prescription options, such as Prilosec, Nexium, and Zegerid. Although effective in treating symptoms of chronic heartburn, recently discovered side effects have left many users battling for their lives.

Prilosec, Nexium, and Zegerid have been linked to chronic kidney disease and kidney failure in patients. The link was discovered in a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine. Researchers concluded that patients who took these medications once per day had a 15% greater chance of developing chronic kidney disease. The risk jumps to 46 percent for those who took the medication twice a day.

If you or someone you love took Prilosec, Nexium, or Zegerid and developed kidney disease, call our drug injury lawyers immediately. Ferrer, Poirot & Wansbrough is actively fighting on behalf of other victims to get them maximum compensation for their injuries, and we’re ready to help you as well. The manufacturers of these drugs have made billions from their sales. Don’t let them continue to profit from your misfortune. Call us today.

Bookmark and Share

Topamax Linked to Birth Defects

by Cary Graham | May 10th, 2016

Topamax is a medication originally prescribed to treat epilepsy and migraines. However, like many prescription medications, doctors and medical professionals have found additional uses for the drug, such as a treatment for obesity, smoking cessation, cluster headaches, and alcoholism. Despite the breadth of ailments the drug addresses, it has been linked to serious side effects that every woman taking the medication should be aware of.

In 2011, the FDA issued a warning that babies exposed to Topamax while in the womb may have an increased risk of developing birth defects, including cleft palate and cleft lip. These physical deformities can require painful and expensive procedures to correct, putting your child through unnecessary pain and suffering. And even with corrective surgery, lifelong scars can lead to psychological problems, such as low self-esteem and social anxiety.

If you were prescribed Topamax and your child was born with a cleft palate or lip, you may be entitled to compensation. Our Topamax birth defect lawyers will fully investigate the cause of your child’s condition and hold the manufacturer financially responsible. We have more than 30 years of experience fighting for the rights of drug injury victims, and we’re ready to put that experience to work for you. Call today for your free claim evaluation.

Bookmark and Share

da Vinci Surgical Robot Injury Claims

by Cary Graham | May 3rd, 2016

Over the past 50 years, medical technology has advanced at an incredible rate. The methods and techniques used in today’s hospitals would astonish physicians and surgeons from the 1960s. However, with new technology comes great responsibility. It’s imperative that manufacturers ensure their latest innovations are safe to use before they hit the market. Failing to do so puts lives in danger.

The da Vinci surgical robot is an advanced surgical tool designed to make surgical procedures faster and more precise. It enables surgeons to perform complex laparoscopic procedures remotely, such as hysterectomies and prostate removals, without ever touching the patient with human hands. The technology has been hailed as one of the biggest medical breakthroughs of the 21st century. However, not everyone is convinced.

da Vinci surgical procedures have come under scrutiny recently after a number of surgical complications resulted from their use. Although the da Vinci robot enables more precise maneuvering, the lack of tactile feedback makes it easier to severe arteries, nerves, or organs while performing surgery.

If you or someone you love suffered surgical complications during a procedure performed by a da Vinci surgical robot, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries. Call our defective medical device attorneys today for a free consultation. We’ll investigate the true cause of your injuries and fight to get you maximum compensation.

Bookmark and Share

Ban Forced Arbitration

by John Kirtley, III | April 26th, 2016

Forced arbitration clauses buried in the fine print of financial contracts deny all of us our day in court and deprive us of the right to hold corporations accountable for breaking the law. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 authorizes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to study the use of forced arbitration clauses in consumer financial products or services contracts. It also allows them to ban the practice if it finds it is in the best interest of consumers to do so.

In December 2013, the CFPB released the preliminary results of that study. It found that forced arbitration clauses in consumer financial services contracts are used in many consumer transactions and impact tens of millions of Americans. For example, 99% of payday loan agreements in California and Texas include arbitration clauses in their agreements, and 92% of prepaid card agreements are subject to arbitration clauses.

The study also confirmed that forced arbitration provides relief to almost no consumers harmed by illegal or abusive practices in the financial services industry.

Another study released by the CFPB in March 2015 confirms the negative impact of forced arbitration for consumers while underscoring the benefits of class actions which deliver relief to millions of consumers with small dollar claims.

The CFPB study found:

  • A majority of consumers are unaware of whether their financial contracts include forced arbitration clauses. Fewer than 7% of consumers covered by arbitration clauses realized that the clauses restricted their ability to sue in court.
  • Arbitrators overwhelmingly side with companies rather than consumers in forced arbitration
  • Consumers recovered little, if any, financial relief in forced arbitration
  • Arbitration is rigged against consumers; i.e., the American Arbitration Association (AAA) is the sole arbitrator for 84.5% of forced arbitration-subject mobile wireless subscribers and 100% of arbitration-subject prepaid cards.

So, if you or a loved one showed up to play a softball game, and the other team paid the umpires, do you think you would get a fair game? Obviously not. Arbitration is bad for consumers and should not be forced upon them as the price for doing business with anyone.

Bookmark and Share

Lexapro Birth Defect Cases in Progress

by Cary Graham | April 26th, 2016

Lexapro is an antidepressant medication prescribed to treat major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and other psychological conditions. It belongs to the serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class of medications designed to block the reabsorption of the neurotransmitter serotonin in the brain to relieve depressive symptoms in patients.

In recent years, Lexapro has been linked to serious side effects that can endanger lives beyond the patient. In Dec. 2011, the FDA showed a link between Lexapro and birth defects in children. Taking Lexapro during a pregnancy could result in serious birth defects such as:

  • Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension—The circulatory system of the child doesn’t fully develop, resulting in difficulty breathing and poor physical development.
  • Heart Defects—From holes in the upper chambers to gaps between heart ventricles, these heart defects can increase the risk of sudden infant death syndrome or lead to serious heart conditions later in life.

If your doctor prescribed you Lexapro while you were pregnant and your child suffered birth defects, call our drug injury lawyers immediately. You may be entitled to significant compensation from the manufacturers, but the window for seeking that compensation could be closing. Don’t wait to get the help you need. Call us today.

Bookmark and Share

Apple vs. U.S. Government

by John Kirtley, III | April 21st, 2016

The fphone-privacyight continues between Apple and the F.B.I. regarding access to an iPhone utilized by one of the shooters in the recent San Bernardino terrorist attack that killed 14 Americans. In typical fashion, media reporting and social network commentary resembles more hysteria than facts. Many people quickly formed opinions based upon ideological or political affiliation, despite the complex issues involved.

Law enforcement desires to, and should, investigate the full breadth of the conspiracy by obtaining information stored on the phone. The suspect’s phone’s password protection settings were that after 10 incorrect log-in attempts, the data and contents of the phone would be automatically erased. Consequently, law enforcement seeks assistance from Apple to turn off the feature in question on this one occasion. Privacy advocates equate this to the creation of permanent backdoor, and overstate the matter, to help garner public support—although, the government’s request can implicate privacy concerns related to the data.

The media fails to mention that the phone in question was a work phone issued to the suspect by San Bernardino County. San Bernardino County has consented to a search of the phone. Apple declined law enforcement’s request to assist. A federal judge has ordered Apple to assist. Yet again, Apple declined to help and is currently refusing to comply with a lawful court order. Apple cites privacy concerns as the reason for failing to cooperate.

Even if one takes the position that someone has privacy rights in their work phone, does that right trump national security interests related to identifying a terrorist sleeper cell within our borders? Apple is in the business of selling its brand, and privacy sells big, particularly in markets like China—as Apple recently admitted.
Ironically, Apple (and its current supporters Google and Facebook) have an insatiable appetite for consumer data that they regularly retrieve through email, messaging, web browsers, search, and mapping apps. This data is their life blood. However, when the government wants data from them they balk.

There’s likely not a “one size fits all” response to situations like this, but starting with complete knowledge of the facts, and the motivations of the interested parties, represents a critical first step. Obviously, technological advances presents us with contemporary complex questions to which no easy answers exist. Government power certainly needs to be checked and monitored. However, large corporations need to be good corporate citizens—not just take positions that add to their bottom line or provide effective marketing material.

Bookmark and Share

IVC Filters Linked to Fatal Injuries

by Cary Graham | April 19th, 2016

When inferior vena cava (IVC) filters first came on the market, they were considered an important tool in combating serious heart conditions, such as pulmonary embolisms. The device is implanted inside the arteries to catch fragments of blood clots in the legs and pelvis, stopping them before they can reach the heart where clots can do real damage. However promising these devices initially were, they have come under increased scrutiny in recent years due to a risk of fracture or outright failure.

When IVC filters fail, the remains of the device and the materials they filtered can rush to the heart or lungs, causing serious injuries or death. In addition, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned of long-term health complications linked to the prolonged use of IVC filters, including Lower Limb Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)—the collection of blood clots in the legs, causing swelling and severe pain. Due to the severity of these risks, the FDA recommends that doctors consider removing these devices from patients.

If you or someone you love suffered health complications from a IVC filter implant, call our experienced IVC injury lawyers today for a free evaluation of your claim. The manufacturer of these defective medical devices may be liable for your injuries. Call now to learn how your injuries may entitle you to significant compensation.

Bookmark and Share

U.S. Supreme Court Nomination Process Must Move Forward

by John Kirtley, III | April 14th, 2016

Supreme Court BuildingTo fill the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia, as required by the U.S. Constitution, President Obama has nominated Merrick Garland, a judicial moderate, who currently serves as chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, to the United States Supreme Court. There is no question he is qualified to serve on the nation’s highest court. However, the Supreme Court’s ideological balance is up for grabs, and Garland’s nomination is the current obstructionist obsession with the Republican-controlled United States Senate.

The Constitution requires the Senate to give the President “advice and consent” (confirmation) for each nominee. The Senate’s role in this process is crucial for restoring a fully-functional Supreme Court. Currently, the Court has eight members which, in the event of a tie vote, would not establish any national precedent in any split decisions. This is only April. The current term of the Court ends June 30. A new term, of the Court, will not begin until Oct. 3, 2016, with many important cases to be decided in each term, through the end of Obama’s administration, which ends Jan. 20, 2017. Nevertheless, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell has refused to consider the President’s nomination, much less even meet with him – as is Senate tradition.

As former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said, “I probably would’ve handled it differently,” Lott told CNN senior political commentator David Axelrod on “The Axe Files” podcast, produced by CNN and the University of Chicago Institute of Politics. “My attitude, particularly on the Supreme Court, was that elections do have consequences, sometimes bad, and I tried to lean towards being supportive of the President’s nominees, Democrat or Republican.”

Elections DO have consequences. The Constitution has no silly “election year exception,” for the Senate to refuse to consider the President’s nomination. The President has done his job. The U.S. Senate must do theirs.

Bookmark and Share

Onglyza Heart Conditions Lead to Large Settlements

by Cary Graham | April 12th, 2016

Onglyza is a medication prescribed to Type-2 diabetes patients. The particular benefit of Onglyza is that it helps regulate blood sugar levels with no increased risk of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar). Such medications are an important component to many diabetes treatment plans, which is why they are prescribed so often. However, recent studies indicate that patients taking Onglyza may have an increased risk of serious health conditions, such as pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, and heart failure.

Links to these serious health conditions were discovered as early as 2013 by the New England Journal of Medicine and investigated by the FDA. Given these studies, it would seem reasonable for the manufacturer to pull this potentially harmful medication from pharmacy shelves, but that’s not the case. Since the discovery of these health risks, thousands of patients across the U.S. have taken Onglyza to treat their Type-2 diabetes, putting their lives at risk.

If you or someone you love suffered heart failure or was diagnosed with thyroid or pancreatic cancer after taking Onglyza, call our drug injury lawyers today for a free evaluation of your claim. You may be entitled to significant compensation for your injuries, but your ability to seek damages is limited, so call us today.

Bookmark and Share