There has been much focus on cobalt poisoning from metal ions being leached from DePuy hip implants.  However, exactly how much cobalt exposure are California hip implant lawyers talking about? 

Most of the cases of hip implant-related cobalt exposure that attorneys are seeing involve levels in the blood that are as high as 100 micrograms.  To put that into perspective, levels of about 1 mcg of cobalt in the blood are considered acceptable.  However, a person who has about 25 mcg of cobalt in the blood is considered to be at risk of cobalt poisoning.  Many of the patients that California hip implant recall attorneys have come across however, have levels that are much higher than this.  In some cases, cobalt levels in these patients have been so high that, even a slight increase in those levels could have led to instant deafness, blindness and heart failure.

Besides, DePuy Orthopedics, the Johnson & Johnson-owned subsidiary that manufactured the defective Hip Resurfacing Systems and the Excel Acetabular Systems, is also facing lawsuits from Australian patients implanted with the devices.  Several Australian lawyers have filed lawsuits on behalf of clients who were implanted with the defective device, and have now found that they require revision surgery because of the leaching metal ions from the devices.  According to some lawyers, more than 200 people in the country have expressed interest in joining a class-action lawsuit against DePuy Orthopedics, which would be pursued in the US.  About half of these people have been diagnosed with high metal levels in the blood. 

Typically, revision surgeries are recommended by a doctor when the cobalt levels are up to 100 times the average.  By that time, the person is typically facing severe injuries from cobalt poisoning, and could be showing signs like hearing problems, vision problems, seizures, heart failure and other symptoms.

In 2008 the FDA released a warning regarding problems with pelvic mesh implants like the Bard Avaulta, noting that complications with the mesh implant have been linked to the design of the vaginal mesh.  The mesh is surgically implanted in order to prevent pelvic organ prolapse, or POP, a condition in which the pelvic organs, such as the bladder, uterus, rectum or vagina, slip out of place.  POP can occur in women after childbirth or surgery.  In many cases, however, the implantation of the mesh has caused some of the following complications: pelvic pain, extrusion of the mesh device, infection, removal of the mesh device, scarring, hardening of the mesh device, and difficulties during sex.  A number of women have had to have a second surgery to remove the sling, sometimes leaving permanent disfiguration.

Defective medical device attorneys across the country have begun filing complaints against Bard, alleging that the negligent design of the vaginal sling has put women at greater risk for infection, severe pain and suffering, and increased risk for additional surgery.  Women negatively affected by the design of the pelvic mesh implants are seeking compensation from the manufacturer for the complications they have endured.

A new lawsuit claims that hair loss drug Propecia causes a number of side effects, including sexual dysfunction and mental problems.  Propecia is a prescription drug supplement to cure hair loss in men. 

The lawsuit alleges that Propecia manufacturer, Merck failed to properly disclose the serious side effects from the use of the drug.  The company has also been charged with failing to reflect the risk of side effects on its warning labels, even after regulators in the European Union forced the company to modify its warning label to reflect these dangers.

The allegations contained in the lawsuit are serious.  One of the plaintiffs claims that the sexual dysfunction arising out of the use of Propecia was so severe that his marriage ended.  Another plaintiff claims that he suffered from such serious mental and concentration problems arising from the use of Propecia that he ultimately had to drop out of law school. 

Other lawsuits may be on the anvil.  People have been coming forward with accounts of their own experiences with the use of Propecia.  Most of the complaints include sexual dysfunction, loss of concentration, memory problems, mental problems, respiratory problems, anxiety attacks and memory loss.

Concerns over the side effects from the use of the hair loss medication may not be new.  In fact, doctors and California drug injury attorneys have been drawing attention to the side effects from the use of Propecia for a while now.  The packaging does include a warning label cautioning users that a small percentage of men who use the product may suffer from side effects like sexual dysfunction.  However, the warning label asserts that these side effects disappear upon stopping the drug.  That is not the case at all, some plaintiffs claim.  The side effects from Propecia use seem to continue even after stopping the drug.

On 02/04/2011 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation found that all four actions mentioned above involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under 1407 in the Northern District of Georgia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. It is undisputed that these actions share factual questions arising out of alleged death or injuries due to contaminated drinking water on the Marine Corps Base at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. The same order mentions: “Judge J. Owen Forrester, who is presiding over the Northern District of Georgia action, has the expertise to steer this litigation on a prudent course.

Due to federal laws limiting the ability of service men and women to file a lawsuit against the government for injuries sustained while on duty, we are only considering cases involving the civilian family members of service personnel.

Also See: Camp LeJeune Water Contamination Effects

Many times, California employment lawyers see wrongful termination, harassment and discrimination occurring as part of retribution for an employee’s participation in whistleblower activities. A former employee of a Glendora Home Depot has filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging wrongful termination because he testified against the company during a grand jury case against Home Depot.

The man had been working at the Glendora Home Depot since 2002. In 2007, the company received a $1 million judgment against it in a case involving illegal handling of hazardous materials. That judgment came after an explosion in 2004 involving a 55-gallon drum at Home Depot in Marina del Rey. The explosion was followed by an investigation of Home Depot, which found that the company had hired unlicensed contractors to remove hazardous waste. The company settled the claim in 2007.

During that case, the employee testified against the company. He was fired from his position in November last year. According to the complaint, Home Depot terminated his services in retaliation for his testimony against the company. The complaint alleges that the man had a satisfactory job evaluation at the company, and that under his stewardship, the Glendora Home Depot became one of the most successful Home Depot stores in California.

It's common to find employers discriminating or retaliating against employees who take part in whistleblower actions against a company. It's not just a whistleblower who brings the government’s attention to wrongdoing at the company, who may be the victim of such retaliation by the employer. Employees who provide testimony against the company during the whistleblower action may also find themselves at the receiving end of such retaliatory activity.

However, employees are protected from such wrongful termination, not just under employment laws, but also under various whistleblower laws and statutes. There is no single whistleblower statute that provides protections against wrongful termination. Rather, these protections are included in various statutes.

It’s not just DePuy hip implant recall lawyers in the U.S. who have been talking to clients who have suffered serious injuries from their defective hip implants. A large number of lawsuits are being filed overseas as well. This week, several Irish patients who had been implanted with the devices initiated legal action against DePuy Orthopedics, the Johnson & Johnson orthopedics unit that is involved in the defective hip implant recall.

There are about 3,500 people in Ireland who received the defective ASR Hip Resurfacing System and the ASR ASR Acetabular System. According to estimates, approximately 12% of these people are expected to require revision surgery within five years of receiving the device. Revision surgeries are not entirely unheard of when people have implantable hip devices. However, the norm is approximately 1% revision surgeries after five years. With the DePuy hip implant however, the rates of revision surgeries have soared.  Women have a much higher chance of requiring revision surgeries after being implanted with the DePuy devices.

Many of the Irish patients who had been implanted with these devices have suffered from the same complaints that have been seen in the U.S. Some of them have suffered severe and chronic pain, debilitating to the point where they had to stop working and stay at home. Others have developed infections and dangerous disorders from metals from the devices leaking into the system. There have been several cases of metallosis, where the body reacts to the metal in the device.

Lawyers for these patients insist that many of these people can now expect painful, complicated, expensive and dangerous revision surgeries to fix their devices. Just as in the U.S., the Irish lawsuits also claim that DePuy Orthopedics knew that the devices were failing at a much higher rate than normal, but still failed to inform patients.

The ongoing obesity wars in the media pitting fast food outlets and parents on either side just got nastier. A California woman has filed a class-action lawsuit against McDonald's, alleging that the fast food giant lures children into eating unhealthy fatty foods by dangling toys as part of its Happy Meals package.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the mom from Sacramento who alleges that the fast food giant engages in unfair, unlawful, deceptive and fraudulent promotion or advertising practices. According to the lawsuit, the company promotes the popular Happy Meal products aimed at very young children, using toys to induce them.

Targeting children in order to maximize profits is a marketing trick that companies understand only too well. In McDonald's case, the company was aware that the profits from its Happy Meals packages come not from the food, as much as the toys. According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, McDonald's dangles these toys in front of the kids, and the children are completely unaware that they're being manipulated. Further, such behavior is unfair to parents who find themselves being pressured by the children for the meals.

The lawsuit was filed last month, and so far, there has been no decision made about class-action status. However, California class-action attorneys expect more litigation of this kind in the months ahead. Over the past year or so, there has been plenty of attention on the nationwide obesity epidemic among children, and the role that fast food companies like McDonald's have in this. First Lady Michelle Obama has already made reducing child obesity a cornerstone of her White House tenure. As the debate heats up, we are likely to see more such lawsuits in the months ahead.

California employment lawyers found themselves busier than ever with employment discrimination lawsuits in 2010. The recession saw more numbers of discrimination claims, alleging age and gender bias in the workplace. In fact, according to a new report, the year 2010 saw a spike in the monetary value of settlements in employment discrimination lawsuits.

Overall, the top 10 employment discrimination class action lawsuits in 2010 ended with settlements of $346.4 million. That is approximately 4 times the settlement amount in 2009.  The statistics come from a report, Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report, which analyzes 848 decisions against employers in federal and state courts, including private plaintiff and government enforcement actions. The largest discrimination lawsuit settlement last year was a $135 million settlement by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation. The case, Velez et. al. v. Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation alleged that the pharmaceutical company discriminated against 5,600 current and former female employees. These employees were mainly sales representatives who were denied promotions, and were discriminated against on pay.

In fact, 2010 broke new ground in that employment discrimination lawsuits were the number one workplace challenge mounted against employers, compared to past years which have seen more substantial wage and hour settlements. However, more numbers of wage and hour settlement class-action suits were filed last year. In terms of sheer numbers, wage and hour settlements were predominant in employment litigation last year. In 2010, private wage and hour settlements totaled $336.5 million, a drop of 7% over the previous year.

The results indicate that employers need to be more alert about compliance with the law. Besides, these results show that employers also need to react quicker and more appropriately when there are allegations of workplace discrimination against the company.

Los Angeles employment lawyers deal not just with cases involving gender and race-based discrimination, but also disability and illness-based bias. A former spokesman for the Los Angeles County Superior Court has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that he was terminated from his job because he suffered from a long-term mental illness.

According to Alan Parachini, he was fired by supervisors after they learned that his mental condition had worsened, and that his doctors were recommending that he take a second leave of absence in a year. Parachini was fired from his job last month, and the termination came just three weeks after he was placed on administrative leave.  According to him, supervisors initially alleged that he had leaked information to the gossip website, TMZ.  The complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says that during severance negotiations, his lawyers told his employer that his chronic depression had worsened, and that he would require a short-term leave of absence.  Ten days later, the negotiations came to an end, and Parachini was terminated.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court has refused comment on the matter.  The matter currently involves a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and could be the first step towards a civil lawsuit.

Parachini has been suffering from depression for more than a decade, and the supervisors were well aware of his health condition.  Last year, he had taken a six-week leave of absence due to his mental illness.  However, when the depression symptoms began to worsen in the fall of 2010, Parachini did not tell his supervisors.  He initially believed that the condition would get better with medications and did not believe that his health condition would affect his job performance.  He was ultimately fired, and is claiming discrimination because of his illness.

A new lawsuit filed in San Jose, California accuses Apple and some of its partners of collecting private information from people who use iPhones and iPods. The lawsuit is seeking class-action status. The case of  Lalo v. Apple, involves Los Angeles resident Jonathan Lalo who alleges that Apple and several of its partners violated federal fraud laws and privacy laws. The partners named in the lawsuit include manufacturers of Apple apps, including Pandora Radio, the Weather Channel, Paper Toss and Dictionary.com.

According to the lawsuit, users who downloaded applications developed by these companies had their private information leaked to advertisers. Advertisers used information that users provide before they download an application, to determine which apps people used and for how long they used it. According to the lawsuit, these apps leaked private information, including the age, gender and income of the user, as well as more sensitive information like sexual orientation, ethnicity or political views to third parties.

A recent report by the Wall Street Journal showed just how concerned California class action lawyers should be about these privacy issues.  The WSJ analysis examined 111 popular Smartphone apps, and found that 56 of these apps transmitted the phone's unique identification number to other companies without the user being aware of it. Further, 47 apps transmitted the location of the smart phone. Five of the apps in the Wall Street Journal report transmitted information about the person's age, gender and other private information.

According to the Wall Street Journal analysis, the iPhone apps seem to share more private information than apps developed for Google's Android operating system. Apple insists that it does not allow its apps to transmit user information without the consent of the user. However, the Wall Street analysis seems to indicate otherwise. It must be said however that the Wall Street analysis involved only a small sampling of smart phone apps and the study does not indicate how wide-spread the problem might be.