A case involving farmers and negligent contamination of long grain rice in Arkansas ended up setting important trends in the realm of punitive damages. It was upheld that Bayer CropScience and its predecessor, Aventis, contaminated the long-grain rice produce with genetically modified food. This negligent contamination was especially detrimental to the Arkansas farmers because many countries that import American domestic rice, including all countries in the European Union, prohibit the sale of genetically modified foods.

The jury ruled in favor of the farmers and awarded them $5.9 million in compensatory damages and $42 million in punitive damages. But this punitive damage award directly contradicted a decision made by Arkansas’ general assembly.

In 2003, the general assembly in Arkansas placed a blanket cap on the amount of punitive damages that could be awarded in a case. The Arkansas’s Civil Justice Reform Act of 2003 stated that punitive damages awards could not exceed $1 million per plaintiff.

However, the Arkansas Constitution states that no law should limit the amount a plaintiff can recover for injuries that cause death or damage to a person or property. Therefore, the court found the cap unconstitutional and affirmed the jury’s $42 million award in punitive damages. This decision set important precedence in Arkansas and overturned the decision made by the general assembly in 2003 to limit the amount a plaintiff can recover in punitive damages. 

AOG is currently researching claims against Consolidated Smart Systems for unauthorized charges. Consolidated Smart Systems is a third-party dealer of DirecTV that manages this service for apartment complexes and other dwelling units. In these complexes, residents who want to subscribe to DirecTV must use Consolidated Smart Systems for purchases and installation. Consolidated Smart Systems, however, has been charging customers for services that DirecTV advertises as free. For example, DirecTV offers free installation but Consolidated Smart Systems charges its customers to install the satellite. It has also been reported that Consolidated Smart Systems charges customers for unauthorized fees without adequate disclosure and that it continues to charge for services after residents have moved out of the apartment complex.

The class action attorneys at Arias, Ozzello & Gignac are currently investigating claims against Consolidated Smart Systems and its unauthorized charges. If you or someone you know has been charged by Consolidated for unauthorized fees, contact our law firm today for a free consultation. 

The consumer protection attorneys at Arias, Ozzello & Gignac are currently investigating claims that M&T Bank may be assessing fees for cash withdrawals from its ATMs despite its representation that cash withdrawals are a surcharge free transaction. M&T Bank ATMs are located in numerous states and can be found at places such as Sheetz convenience stores, NOCO, Rutter’s, many Wawa stores in Maryland, Thurgood Marshall BWI Airport, General Growth Malls in Maryland, Virginia and Delaware, and certain HESS locations in Pennsylvania.

If you or someone you know is a non-M&T bank customer and has incurred a surcharge fee for withdrawing cash from an ATM operated by M&T Bank, contact our office today for a free consultation. You may be entitled to compensation.

It has been discovered that numerous research reports regarding pharmaceutical drugs or devices and their potential for adverse side effects have gone unreported. If a clinical trial of a specific drug has already received approval by the FDA, a law requires the manufacturers to submit a report within one year of the trial’s completion. In examining the number of trials to which this law applies, researchers discovered that only 22%, 163 out of 738 trials, actually submitted reports within the year.

When examining motives for omitting the reports, Harlan Krumholz, MD, from Yale University acknowledges that while profit is a driving factor, there are other reasons for concealing these findings as well. He postulates that medical journals do not want to report contradictory or negative findings, and that researchers avoid publishing unexpected findings that disprove their theory. Whatever the motives, this lack of reporting has caused numerous adverse side effects that could have been avoided.

Take Avandia for example. At one point, Avandia was the leading diabetes drug in the United States. Since then, however, it has been linked to an increased risk of heart failure and heart-related death. Researchers discovered 42 studies suggesting a link between the diabetes drug and heart failure, but only 7 of these studies were reported; 35 were unpublished and were only released because of a judge’s order. It is likely that had the medical community known of these adverse side effects, far less people would have suffered and Avandia would not have become the leading diabetes drug.

To avoid this problem in the future, certain people in the medical community are advocating that researchers and manufacturers who fail to publish results of clinical trials in accordance with the law should be subjected to disciplinary measures. Advocates of such disciplinary measures hope that punishments, in whatever form, will discourage researches and manufacturers from skewing results of their studies. It is unclear whether or not disciplinary measures provide an adequate solution to the nondisclosure problem, but what is clear is the necessity of change in this field. Numerous people across the United States are currently experiencing adverse side effects from pharmaceutical drugs or medical devices. These situations are especially tragic when there is ample yet concealed evidence that these side effects could and should have been conveyed to the public.

Lawsuits against the manufacturers of defective hip replacements are gaining wide publicity. The New York Times, in an article dated a week ago, comments on the rising cost manufacturers are likely to pay in the near future for the 5,000 lawsuits already filed. People across the United States are incurring thousands upon thousands of dollars in medical bills due to these failing hip replacements. Among these costs are doctor’s bills, hospital stays, and additional surgeries. Numerous hip implants are not lasting their expected life, but are instead failing prematurely, making revision surgeries or additional hip replacements necessary. Medical experts are estimating that the failure of these devices will cost those involved billions of dollars in upcoming years.

The hip replacements that are currently causing these adverse side effects and giving rise to lawsuits are the all-metal hip implants. According to a recent study, nearly 1/3 of about 250,000 hip replacements implanted in the United States per year were all-metal implants. Therefore, approximately 500,000 people in the United States alone have been implanted with these metal hip implants.

DePuy Orthopedics, a division of Johnson & Johnson, and Zimmer Holdings are two giants amongst a more widespread group of manufacturers and are currently facing lawsuits for their defective hip implants. But, while these two manufacturers dominate the hip replacement industry, they are not the only players involved, suggesting the complexity of this issue. All-metal hip implants come in a variety of models manufactured by numerous different companies; they are not uniform and produced under the management of just one company.  

If you think you have suffered a hip replacement failure due to the defective design of the all-metal hip implant, contact the hip replacement attorneys at Arias, Ozzello & Gignac today. Our experienced attorneys offer a free consultation to discuss your legal options. 

In February of 2009, the FDA issued a warning against long-term use of the drug Reglan (metoclopramide) because of its link to a neurological disorder, tardive dyskenesia. The FDA also required the manufacturers of Reglan to strengthen the label and include a boxed warning about its adverse side effects and the potential risk of developing this neurological disorder.

Tardive dyslenesia causes uncontrollable and repetitive movements of the body, face, and limbs. This disorder is rarely reversible, but the symptoms may decrease once Reglan use has stopped. The Reglan users who are at the greatest risk for tardive dyskenesia are elderly people, especially women, and those that have been using the drug for a long period of time.

Reglan is used to treat gastrointestinal disorders such as GERD in those people who have not responded to other forms of treatment. It is also used to treat diabetic gastroparesis, a condition in which the stomach slowly empties its contents into the intestines.  It is recommended for use by adults only and has been approved for short-term use, no longer than three months.

Many people across America are filing lawsuits against the manufacturers of Reglan for its adverse side effects. If you believe you or someone you know has been negatively affected by use of this drug, contact our Reglan litigation attorneys today.

California employment lawyers expect a decision by the California Supreme Court on rules for employee rest and meal breaks within the next couple of months. The Supreme Court last month heard arguments in a potential class-action lawsuit over work breaks, and initial signs from the Court indicate that it is likely to rule in favor of giving employees flexibility with their meal and rest breaks.

The ruling will affect all non-unionized hourly workers. Lawyers for employee groups have been pushing for a decision that would require employers to ensure that their workers take proper meal and rest breaks. While California's labor laws provide for meal and rest breaks for employees, very often, these employees are not able to take their breaks because they are overworked. Employers have been known to deprive employees of tips if they take meal or rest breaks, or increase workload for employees, thereby ensuring that they are not able to take their work breaks.

The case involves Brinker International, which is being sued by workers who say that the restaurant chain makes it difficult for workers to take scheduled meal and rest breaks during busy times of the day. The case involves more than 60,000 current and former employees of Brinker International. Some judges in the California Supreme Court are in favor of requiring employers to mandate a rest break every 5 hours or so, to ensure that employees get the rest they need. Other judges have opined that it would be difficult to impose rigid work break requirements on employers.

The current imbroglio on work breaks between labor groups and employers has led to a number of lawsuits. The Supreme Court will be looking at lowering the number of work-break lawsuits, without imposing rigid requirements on employers.

The Supreme Court will soon review whether sales representatives working for GlaxoSmithKline are eligible for overtime pay.

The Supreme Court has agreed to review a lower court's decision which held that sales representatives working for GlaxoSmithKline are not eligible for overtime pay under federal wage and hour law. That case involves two former Glaxo salesmen who believe that an exception in the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act for outside salespeople does not include them, because representatives don't actually sell the product when they visit doctors in their offices. According to their argument, salespeople are paid to promote pharmaceutical products to doctors in their offices in an effort to influence their prescribing habits, thereby boosting sales. Glaxo says that its sales representatives are paid partly through incentives based on sales volumes and market share, and are not eligible for overtime.

In 2009, the plaintiffs won a victory of sorts when the Labor Department ruled in their favor, saying that the exception in the US Fair Labor Standards Act is applicable only when a salesperson is involved in the actual sale of a product or a consummate transaction. However, a San Francisco federal appeals court rejected the Labor Department’s interpretation of the exception. The Supreme Court has now decided to review the San Francisco court's decision.

At stake are the overtime rights of more than 90,000 sales representatives at GlaxoSmithKline. The lawsuit is seeking class-action status. California employment lawyers will be waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision because there are several such lawsuits also pending against companies like Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers, Merck and Novartis.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments next year. A decision is also expected by the middle of 2012.

2011 was a record year for workplace discrimination complaints, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission receiving the highest number of complaints in its history.

According to the agency's annual report, there were a total of 99,947 allegations of unfair workplace practices filed during the fiscal year that ended in September 2011. That's the highest number of complaints that have been filed since the agency was launched in 1964.

These 99,947 allegations involved the kind of discrimination that California employment lawyers frequently come across. Most complaints were based on age, sex, religion, race and disability. There were even complaints alleging discrimination based on family medical history.

The agency this year also had several successes in recovering monetary compensation from employers. In all, the agency resolved a total of 112,499 cases, an increase of 7% from last year. In 2011, the agency also won substantial monetary payouts from employers. Overall, the agency won a record $365 million in monetary damages.

This included a consent decree that provided $3 million for 3M Company employees. Approximately 290 former employees of the company had filed a complaint against 3M Company, saying that the company denied leadership training, and fired hundreds of workers over the age of 45.

Another complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission involved Verizon employees, who alleged that the company discriminated against them based on disability. The company disciplined or terminated the services of employees who suffered from disabilities. A consent decree resulted in a compensation of more than $20 million to more than 800 Verizon employees who filed the complaint. This was the largest disability discrimination settlement in a single lawsuit in the history of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.