Over the past decade, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has required an increasing number of manufacturers to affix warning labels to their products to warn consumers about the dangers of the product. That has resulted in a vast number of products on our shelves coming with warning labels. The result has been a widespread sense of “label fatigue” and many consumers now choose to ignore those warning labels altogether.

California product liability attorneys believe that this is dangerous, because consumers may be at risk of injury when they ignore warning labels. In response to such “label fatigue,” the Consumer Product Safety Commission has begun proposing outright bans on dangerous products.

A case in point is the recent proposal by the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban tiny magnets which are posing a serious ingestion hazard for children. Last month, the federal agency proposed that these magnets be taken off the market altogether, because of the serious risk that they pose to children. At least 11 companies that manufacture such magnets have agreed to a ban.

The agency initially issued a number of warning alerts about these products, after coming across a number of reports of children being injured by the ingestion of these magnets. However, the agency quickly found that the warnings seemed to have limited effectiveness. Consumers who are constantly bombarded by warnings about all kinds of consumer products get used to these warnings, and stop paying attention to these.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission now believes it is much more effective to remove dangerous products from the market altogether and eliminate the risk. The Consumer Product Safety Commission admits that warnings are losing their effectiveness, and people who exposed to warnings again and again are less likely to pay attention.

On Friday, September 28^th, General Motors disclosed in a letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that it was recalling five of its vehicle models produced from 2007 through 2009: the Chevrolet Cobalt (2007-2009), Chevrolet Equinox (2007), Pontiac G5 (2007-2009), Pontiac Torrent (2007) and Saturn Ion (2007).The affected models were originally sold or registered in seven states, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas. The recall stems from the concern that these particular vehicles "have a condition in which the plastic supply or return port on the fuel pump module may crack, which could cause a fuel leak." The potential for the fuel leak to incite a fire prompted GM to issue the recall of more than 40,000 of its vehicles.

 

The automaker expressed that it will notify vehicle owners of the recall, and that the fuel pump modules in question will be replaced by GM dealers at no cost to the owners.

 

Since June, GM has been plagued by vehicle defects necessitating national recalls. In September, the vehicle manufacturer recalled more than 426,000 sedans in the U.S. due to transmission problems. The sedan recall came on the heels of a June recall of more than 400,000 Chevrolet Cruzes afflicted with engine issues.

There are almost 1,600 lawsuits pending in United States courts against the DePuy Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip system. Doctors estimate that more than 10 percent of patients using these metal hips will experience failure and require an additional surgery within two to three years.

The supposed advantage of this product was its sustainable durability compared to other weaker materials such as ceramic, as they are meant to last up to 15 years. But as the controversy over this product begins to heat up, more and more surgeons are refusing to use them on their patients.

A number of people experienced swelling and pain, limited mobility, and dislocation; the same problems experienced by the individuals who used the DePuy ASR product. Perhaps most concerning, some doctors say, is Metallosis—high levels of cobalt and chromium in the bloodstream resulting from wear of the all-metal implants. This can lead to cardiovascular, neurological, renal and thyroid problems, in addition to destroying soft tissue, muscle and bone.

Government data states that at least 500,000 people have received metal-on-metal hips, and of those patients, 150,000 received the Pinnacle device, and 37,000 received the ASR device. Johnson & Johnson, the owner of both companies, has set aside $3 billion to settle the 3,000 ASR lawsuits.

J&J will not recognize patients’ complaints or pay for revision surgeries, and have hired expert product liability attorneys to defend them on the matter. They continue to support the notion that the device performs better than any other artificial hips.

There has not been an exact number on the failure rate for metal hips, but the British Orthopaedic Association and the British Hip Society stated that almost half of all metal-on-metal hip replacements will fail after six year. When DePuy first recalled their product, they believed the number to be four times less than what is to come.

To products liability attorneys at Arias, Ozzello & Gignac are currently investigating claims against Johnson & Johnson and other all-metal hip manufacturers for increased failure rates. If you or someone you know has experienced complications from your metal-on-metal hip replacement, contact our attorneys today for a free consultation. You may be entitled to compensation for your damages.

 

Johnson and Johnson (J&J) continued the sale of its Gynecare Prolift transvaginal mesh implant despite a 2007 letter from the Food and Drug Administration directing them to halt sales until the FDA further reviewed the product.  J&J determined that their product was “substantially equivalent” enough to another product it already had on the market, so it simply continued to sell the device despite the FDA’s warning. 

The FDA eventually cleared the device about a year later; however, this does not bode well for J&J who already faces lawsuits regarding their transvaginal mesh implants.  The FDA did not sanction J&J because they later complied with the FDA’s instructions to complete a new application for the device, but many believe this kind of brazen disregard for the FDA’s direct orders indicates the challenge the FDA faces when it comes to enforcing its regulations on major pharmaceutical companies. 

Thousands of women have experienced severe complications from the transvaginal mesh implants including recurrence of prolapse or incontinence, severe pain, erosion of the mesh, and infection. Oftentimes, these complications require women to undergo additional painful and costly surgeries.  California defective device attorneys currently represent women across the United States facing such complications from these transvaginal mesh devices.

The Ti Synex II Vertebral Body Replacement (VBR), a device used in the T1-L5 part of the spine to stabilize a collapsed or damaged spine, was manufactured in June 2007, but was recalled in September 2009 due to serious adverse side effects.

Many patients began experiencing loss of VBR height around six to fifteen months after the implantation, which could potentially lead to other serious health issues, such as neural injury, increased pain, failure of additional fixation, spinal kyphosis if unrecognized, compression fracture, or revision surgery.

Doctors who were using the Synthes USA device were told to stop implementation immediately following the recall.  Patients who have experienced these kinds of side effects or others should contact a product liability attorney as soon as possible. Synthes USA likely failed to warn its consumers of the detrimental effects, and therefore patients with the VBR device may be eligible for compensation. 

It has been reported that numerous drivers of Volkswagen Beetles have been experiencing transmission failure or malfunction. Transmission failure manifests itself in two ways, both equally dangerous: it can either involuntarily lurch a car forward into traffic or it can cause the car to break down in the middle of traffic. One adverse report detailed a driver who was stopped a red light when her car shot forward into the intersection. The potentially dangerous effects of these malfunctions are becoming increasingly alarming.

What makes matters more difficult are reports that Volkswagen will not cover the cost of repair for faulty transmissions. When initially made aware of the defective transmission, Volkswagen offered to extend the warranty to cover the valve body of the transmission. However, reports suggest that this warranty is of little use to drivers because it does not cover damage to the transmission as a result of the defective valve body, which can cost up to thousands of dollars to fix. Thus, Volkswagen’s warranty covers one aspect of the failing transmission but fails to incorporate effects of this failure that result in significant damages.

The product liability attorneys at Arias Ozzello & Gignac are currently investigating claims of faulty transmissions in the Volkswagen Beetles. If you or someone you know drives a Volkswagen Beetle and has experienced transmission defects or malfunction, contact us today to discuss your legal options. You may be entitled to compensation for your damages. 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that patients taking statins, such as Lipitor, may face a "small increased risk" of higher blood-sugar levels and diabetes. A growing body of clinical research now indicates that this cholesterol-lowering class of drugs is associated with an alarming number of serious medical conditions -- research boldly flying in the face of national health policy, medical insurance premium guidelines, statin drug manufacturer advertising claims, and the general sentiment of the public, with approximately 1 in every 4 adult Americans over 45 currently using these drugs to lower lipid counts and prevent heart disease. The statin labels will also now reflect reports of certain cognitive effects such as memory loss and confusion experienced by some patients taking the drugs, the agency said. It said those reports generally have not been serious and the symptoms were reversed by stopping use of the statin.

If you have experienced these previously undocumented side effects while taking Lipitor or other statins, please contact us at Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP.

Accutane is the trade name used by Roche Pharmeceuticals for their formulation of the generic drug isotretinoin. Accutane is used to treat moderate to severe acne. Accutane was introduced in the early 1980s and was immediately hailed as a "miracle cure" for acne problems. However, serious side effects soon appeared, and Roche finally pulled the drug from the market in 2009. Accutane side effects include severe birth defects, suicidal tendencies, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Accutane was first created to treat brain and pancreatic cancer. However, it was soon found that Accutane was very effective in treating stubborn acne that had been resistant to other forms of treatment. Accutane has been especially effective in treating potentially lethal skin disease such as ichthyosis and in curing certain forms of acne that were not responsive to other drugs.

However, the side effects of Accutane have been serious enough to force Roche to issue a general recall of all forms of the drug, although some is still available in Europe to be used under very controlled conditions managed by a dermatological specialist. Many people have used Accutane and its generic forms only to discover that they developed medical problems much worse than the acne the drug was prescribed to treat.

One of the most common side effects of Accutane use, prevalent in up to ten percent of those who took the drug, is anemia. Anemia is a medical condition that affects the red blood cells and can cause serious health problems. Accutane has also been blamed for a high incidence of both thrombocytopenia, or low platelet count, and thrombocytosis, or high platelet count. Either of these diseases affects the blood’s ability to clot, and can cause life-threatening problems for patients.

Another very common side effect of Accutane use is eye problems. Up to ten percent of users report dry eye, conjunctivitis or "pink eye," and eye irritation. A large number of patients also experience skin problems such as dermatitis, dry skin, itching, and skin fragility. Accutane has also been linked to an increase of trigylcerides and a lowering of HDL or "good" cholesterol, as well as back pain.

Less common side effects include increased blood glucose and blood cholesterol, nasal dryness and infection, headache, and a decrease in white blood cells. At least one percent of users report these problems. Even more rare are bacterial infections, diabetes, suicidal behavior and depression, convulsions, color blindness, impaired hearing, lung spasms, nausea, gastrointestinal hemorrhaging, hepatitis, and serious skin problems. These affect about .1 percent of users.

The most serious side effects of Accutane use can be life-changing and life-threatening. Birth defects are observed in a high number of pregnant women using Accutane, and the drug can also stop bone growth in teenagers.

If you have suffered from the use of Accutane, contact a personal injury attorney immediately to discuss your case. You may be entitled to compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering, and other costs of treatment. However, your time to file a claim is limited, so do not wait; talk to a professional personal injury lawyer immediately.

GlaxoSmithKline, the U.K.’s largest drug manufacturer, has recalled 394,230 bottles of its DynaCirc CR hypertension drug from the U.S. market after the manufacturer, Novartis, reported inconsistent packaging practices. The generic drug is manufactured at a Novartis plant in Lincoln, Nebraska.

Glaxo said in a statement that it has received no reports of adverse events, nor any complaints of contamination or tablet mix-ups in batches of the drug, but decided on the recall as a precautionary measure. The London-based company said it does not know when the Novartis facility will resume operations. Novartis said last month it had temporarily closed the plant to accelerate improvements at the site. Glaxo spokesman Kevin Colgan said alternative treatments are available to patients currently being treated with DynaCirc.

A class-action lawsuit that has been filed in California claims that Toyota Motor Corp. sold several models of the 2006 Toyota Highlander Hybrid vehicle; even though the company was aware that the vehicles came with defective inverter assemblies that caused the vehicle to suddenly lose all motor power.

The class-action has been filed on behalf of all Americans who own or lease a 2006 Toyota Highlander Hybrid with a defective inverter assembly.  In February, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirmed that it had begun a preliminary investigation into consumer complaints of stalling and loss of motor power in 2006 and 2007 model year Highlander Hybrids.

The Toyota Highlander Hybrid was the company’s first hybrid version of the Highlander.  An integral part of this hybrid vehicle is the electrical inverter assembly, which changes the DC current from the car battery into AC current to power the motor.  In case of a defective inverter assembly, the vehicle begins to lose engine power while the vehicle is being driven.  The complaint alleges that Toyota was aware of the defective inverter assemblies in the Highlander Hybrid vehicle’s first generation models. 

According to the Toyota Highlander Hybrid class action lawsuit, the company was well aware that the inverter assembly installed in the very first production of the Highlander Hybrid Vehicles, was defective.  It then began installing an updated inverter assembly in Highlander Hybrid vehicles beginning with VIN number JTEDW21A060009725 for two-wheel drive vehicles and VIN number JTEEW21A660019910 for four-wheel drive vehicles.

However, the company failed to recall the vehicles or replace or repair any of the defective assemblies.  All that the company did was issue a Technical Service Bulletin that advised technicians about the defective inverter assemblies, and recommended that the electrical inverter assembly be replaced with an updated assembly, but only if the customer complained. 

Interestingly to California product liability attorneys, the inverter assemblies that have been used in the Toyota Highlander Hybrid mentioned in the lawsuit are the same ones that were used in the Toyota 2006 Lexus Rx400H hybrid sports utility vehicle.