Asbestos lawyers say that the recent $322 million award handed to a Mississippi man who suffered devastating health problems because of his exposure to asbestos at his former workplaces is more encouraging news for their clients. The award is the latest in a long string of victories in jury verdicts and out-of-court settlements that has seen hundreds of millions of dollars in damages paid to innocent victims of asbestos exposure.

Over the last several decades manufacturers and employers who were negligent in providing for the safety of their employers have consistently been on the losing end of lawsuits filed by these lawyers on behalf of clients who, in many cases, were diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Sadly, in many of these cases the victims were given less than 18 months to live after being diagnosed because these diseases typically have a long latency period and usually are not detected until it is too late to effectively treat them with such traditional approaches such as surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Many at this point may contact a mesothelioma lawyer

The lawyers say that is one of the reasons that it is vitally important that anyone diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease seek legal help as soon as possible in order to keep their legal options open. In addition to the tragic possibility that the victim may not have many more years to live there are also legal time limits within which a lawsuit must be filed in order to protect the rights of the victim and his or her loved ones. If you’ve been diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease like mesothelioma these experts recommend that you seek one of the free consultations that are offered by these experienced litigators.

It is quite noticeable from a scanning of court records, media accounts and information posted on the Internet that there are a significant number of lawsuits being filed against the manufacturers of Crestor, a drug that has been widely prescribed and used to control cholesterol levels. Crestor is one of the newer cholesterol drugs and can be used both to lower bad cholesterol in the blood stream and raise the level of good cholesterol.

For many people this has worked and improved their health and life expectancy, particularly when combined with a change to a healthy diet and the adoption of a regular exercise program. For others, however, Crestor has been a health disaster because of negative side effects that have caused severe problems, and even death, because of kidney failure, heart attacks, diabetes and other conditions, according to allegations contained in the Crestor lawsuit

These lawsuits are being pursued on behalf of victims who link their health problems to Crestor and claim that the drug’s manufacturer failed to warn the public of these dangers. The overwhelming number of these lawsuits are being handled by lawyers experienced in drug defect cases who have won millions of dollars in settlements and jury awards in other drug defect cases. They are offering their clients free consultations to evaluate the cases and are not charging fees unless a settlement or jury award comes in with damages, according to information available about these suits.

It will be interesting to see how these cases play out in court and whether evidence is produced about how a noted consumer advocacy group with links to Ralph Nader continually tried to convince the Food and Drug Administration to order a recall of Crestor over the same issues that are being raised in the lawsuits.

Women who took the epilepsy drug Topamax during pregnancy were up to 16 times more likely to give birth to infants suffering birth defects such as heart irregularities and cleft lip and cleft palates, according to figures compiled by the Food and Drug Administration. In addition, the earlier in the pregnancy that the mother used Topamax the more likely the possibility of a defect occurring, the FDA said.

The latter fact is particularly important because a woman being treated with Topamax may not be aware that she is pregnant and at the stage in which the fetus may be put most at risk. The mother also may not be aware of the dangers of using Topamax in the context of having a child. Birth experts say that oral cleft problems can develop as early as about five to six weeks after conception. The defect can sometimes be successfully addressed by surgery but can also become a lifelong condition that can also affect the child’s ability to eat and talk and has been linked to an increased vulnerability to ear infections. This has caused some parents to seek out a Topamax lawsuit.

Topamax is classified as an anticonvulsant drug that is approved for patients under the care of a physician who issues the prescription. It can be used by itself or with other drugs to treat certain types of seizures suffered by epileptics and is also sometimes prescribed to prevent migraine headaches.

It is manufactured and distributed by a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, which was forced to settle charges that it illegally promoted Topamax in connection to some forms of psychiatric treatment and was forced to pay fines of over $80 million.

Johnson & Johnson is also facing a number of lawsuits that have been filed by lawyers specializing in drug defect cases on behalf of victims of these negative side effects that the victims claim have caused them to suffer additional millions of dollars in damages.

Some serious allegations are being raised against the manufacturers of the painkillers Darvon and Darvocet in lawsuits that are being filed on behalf of patients who used the prescription drugs and wound up suffering serious health problems.

Among the negative side effects that these victims claim were caused by the drugs are abnormal heart rhythms, congestive heart failure and, in some cases, death, because of Darvon heart problems
There had been lawsuits filed against the manufacturers many times over the five or six decades that Darvon and Darvocet were the drugs of choice for many doctors and patients because they were considered both effective and safe. However, over the years a number of medical researchers and consumer groups began questioning whether the side effects of the drug might be linked to heart problems that some Darvon and Darvocet users were reporting. For a long while the manufacturer, Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals Inc., steadfastly denied the allegations.

Then the Food and Drug Administration responded to the complaints and, after an internal agency analysis recommended recalling the drugs and the manufacturer conducted tests that confirmed some of the fears, the FDA did just that, in late 2010. Those actions triggered more lawsuits, in which additional victims, who were previously ignorant of the link to their heart problems, came forward and joined the litigation against Xanodyne. If you have suffered heart problems or other health issues because of your use of Darvon and Darvocet our experience lawyers can provide you with a free consultation to analyze your case and provide you your legal options.

April 22, 2011

More information is being released to the public on the popular birth control pills known as Yaz or Yasmin. If you are concerned about this report – please contact your doctor before stopping your Yaz or Yasmin use.
In a new study published in BMJ Online First, are now warning women who have taken or are currently taking Yaz, Yasmin or Ocella Birth control have shown a 2-3 times risk of getting blood clots.

Even though the risk of blood clots seems small (roughly 3 out of 10,000) it should still be noted by the consumer.

The clot risk in pregnancy is much higher than for any oral contraceptive, study researcher Susan S. Jick, PhD, of Boston University School of Medicine, tells WebMD. Nevertheless, women taking these pills or considering taking them should be aware that there is very likely an increased risk associated with their use.

Also another new study that just became available from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver states in increase risk of gallbladder disease or risk of developing gallstones.
Such bias (if present) would make it appear more harmful with respect to Yasmin gallbladder disease, they stressed, since obesity is an established risk factor for gallstones.

However, the small effect sizes compounded with the possibility of residual biases in this observational study make it unlikely that these differences are clinically significant, they concluded.
More at: http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/GeneralOBGYN/26030?pfc=101&spc=230

THE DANGERS OF PROPECIA

What could be worse for a man than not being able to perform sexually? The physical and psychological damages from such a situation are the fodder of many Internet postings as well as the basis of lawsuits being filed on behalf of men who are suffering from permanent impotence because they used the hair-replacement drug Propecia.

Propecia was heavily promoted and advertised when it was first developed and much of the sales pitch included the perception that men who were losing their hair also were losing their sex appeal. Hair-replacement drugs such as Propecia made the pitch that by using the drugs to replace hair loss, these men would slowly regain their attractiveness and lost youthful appearance. Before-and-after examples were effectively incorporated into the sales campaign. It is difficult to document how many men were swayed by this call to masculinity and turned to Propecia but the company’s sales figures have been impressive.

Then, as the use of the drug became widespread, alarm bells went off from panicked consumers. There were some nasty side effects turning up and the most serious has turned to be the possibility of permanent impotence. The drug’s manufacturer has downplayed these allegations and said that only a tiny percentage of Propecia users may be suffering from negative side effects.

That would seem to be little solace for whatever number of men no longer are able to have an erection or an orgasm or have a healthy sexual relationship with a woman. If you’ve suffered permanent impotence from Propecia find about the potential lawsuits forming.

An abnormally high failure rate of about 12 to 13 percent has been cited in the fallout over the recall of some models of the DePuy hip implant systems. It is not known whether this rate was caused by a poorly designed or manufactured product or what other factors may have been behind this recall. It is known that those two factors as well as several others are included among the allegations against DePuy in lawsuits filed across the country.

DePuy Orthopedics Inc. recalled the ASR Hip Resurfacing System and the ASR XL Acetabular system in 2010, citing defects that earlier had been denied after they were raised in some of the lawsuits and in medical research studies and by the Food and Drug Administration. What DePuy knew about these defects and when they found out are two of the questions that lawyers for plaintiffs are asking in court. It is estimated that over 100,000 patients had these implants and many have had to have a second operation to remove them and implant safer devices.

This came as heartbreaking news to the patients – and most of them were elderly – who believed in what had been considered a medical breakthrough that would allow people with hip problems to look forward to pain-free years of normal activity and able them to once again resume a normal lifestyle. Instead, the pain, inflammations and infections caused by the faulty system inflicted serious health issues and they were faced with once again having to undergo a major operation to replace a system that they and doctors had trusted.

In checking figures compiled by the Food and Drug Administration there are not many medical devices that show such a high failure rate and DePuy Orthopedics Inc. and its parent company, pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, are now defending themselves against the DePuy hip recall lawsuits filed by patients who had fault systems placed in their bodies. Other patients are still coming forward filing lawsuits and most are being done by lawyers who are offering free consultations and representing their clients on a contingency basis.

Asbestos derives its name from a word in the ancient Greek language that describes “unquenchable” or “inextinguishable” features in relation to fire, one of the primal elements. It is applied to a class of fibrous minerals that long has been utilized by man because of its versatility and its ability to be heat-related.

Its use accelerated during the Industrial Revolution and by the 20th Century asbestos was a mainstay in manufacturing plants, on assembly lines and in construction work. It was particularly prized for its insulating qualities and was widely utilized by the world’s militaries as a common component in shipyard for both military and commercial vessels. Many of these victims now seek out a mesothelioma lawyer for litigation.

It has been known since ancient times that there are dangers to humans from asbestos and early historical counts document the lung problems that slaves suffered while mining asbestos. Later, there was positive evidence that many lung problems were being caused by exposure to this material, particularly among workers in certain trades. Finally, medical researchers established a definite link between exposure to asbestos and cancer. And, as it turned out, the health problems from asbestos were not confined to the lungs. The heart and other important organs in the abdominal area also were found to be affected by asbestos exposure.

What scientists found was that a specific cancer, malignant mesothelioma, was being caused through the inhalation of microscopic particles of asbestos, usually by workers at sites where the material was being used. These particles worked themselves into the lining of the lungs, heart and abdominal organs and over several decades of time eventually caused the generation of cancer cells, which multiplied and formed deadly tumors. Unfortunately, there is no cure for malignant mesothelioma because it usually is not detected until it is so far advanced it cannot be eradicated.

It is the responsibility of all drug manufacturers to warn consumers about the dangers of the products that they market and sell. There are many instances in which new drugs are tested, evaluated and given the seal of approval by the Food and Drug Administration only to have unforeseen negative side effects surface years after the drugs have achieve commercial success.

Some companies quickly issue warnings or recall their drugs when this happens. Others have been proven in court cases to have withheld safety concerns from the public and the government. When they do, they usually find themselves on the defense against legal action on behalf of victims who trusted the manufacturers and were kept in the dark about the dangers of these products.

That legal scenario is being played out in the cases of many drugs, including Zoloft, a popular anti-depressant that is in the class of drugs known as selective serotonin uptake inhibitors. Many of the lawsuits against Pfizer, Inc., the manufacturer of Zoloft, center on cases in which women were taking the anti-depressant during pregnancies and were unaware of the possibility that using the drug put them at risk of giving birth to infants with a variety of Zoloft birth defects, including a lung condition that can frequently be fatal.

In reviewing these court papers a common theme surfaces: The lawyers contend that the manufacturers of Zoloft deceived the consumer and the medical community by not warning about the possible links to these dangerous side effects. The lawyers are seeking financial damages for the families who lost children to these side effects and for the families who are now raising children suffering from long-term birth defects, such as brain and hearing disorders. Other families who have been affected are now taking advantage of free consultations offered by lawyers familiar with the litigation against Pfizer.

Proton pump inhibitors, or PPIs as they are more popularly known, have provided great relief for many victims of gastrointestinal problems. These drugs are designed to lower the amount of enzymes that are generated in the walls of the stomach that produce the acids necessary to the digestive process.

It is this acidity that in many people causes irritation in the stomach and duodenum and can lead to indigestion and ulcers. Other gastrointestinal disorders include gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), erosive esophagitis, and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome. The drugs can be prescribed or used on a temporary or long-term basis. Many consumers take them daily.

The PPI side effects, according the Food and Drug Administration and to medical research published in leading medical journals, are that patients can be at much greater risk to suffering bone fractures, particularly in the wrist, leg, hip and spine.

Another major concern, according to the government and private studies, is that women who take the drug while pregnant stand a much higher chance of giving birth to an infant with a birth defect than women who do not use the drugs during pregnancy.

Because of these side effects there has been a legal backlash and many lawsuits have been filed across the country by lawyers on behalf of patients who took PPIs and suffered from these side effects. In their court allegations they are claiming that the manufacturers of the drugs did not properly warn of the dangers of using PPIs and that the victims took the drugs while ignorant of the dangers.