Boston product liability lawyer

July 24, 2023

EzriCare & Delsam Pharma Eye Drops Lawsuit

A series of lawsuits have recently been initiated against EzriCare and Delsam Pharma, two pharmaceutical companies whose artificial tear eye drops have been linked to a multi-state bacterial outbreak. The legal battle against these two companies is intensifying as more lawsuits are filed after the recall, drawing substantial attention from various sectors.

At Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers, our team of experienced attorneys is committed to advocating for clients in product liability lawsuits. We specialize in cases arising from injuries caused by defective products, such as the EzriCare & Delsam Pharma Eye Drops.

The Intricacies of the Lawsuit

March 24, 2017

Report: Bill Would Give FDA Mandatory Recall Power Over Drugs

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is a federal regulator without a key regulatory power: Recall.

That’s why when investigators with the agency confirmed there were high levels of a potentially lethal toxin in toddler teething tablets, there was really nothing they could do other than announce it. The manufacturer of the tablets refused to issue a recall, and the FDA was powerless to force them to do so.

This could soon change. At least, that is the hope of lawmakers supporting the Recall Unsafe Drugs Act. This measure, H.R. 1108, would give the FDA the authority to order mandatory recalls on dangerous drugs and homeopathic products. The measure would revise the current law for the FDA to be allowed to issue mandatory recalls for products it does not directly regulate. The proposed law would also give the agency the power to issue mandatory recalls of pharmaceuticals that have been shown to cause serious health consequences and/or death. Continue reading

March 7, 2017

New Infant Carrier Standard Aims to Prevent Baby Injuries

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

With the goal of helping to reduce child injuries and deaths, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recently rubber-stamped updated federal safety guidelines for infant carriers, specifically of the sling variety. This mandatory standard applies to those sling carriers caregivers wear to transport a single infant or toddler, usually up to 35 pounds, though some go up to 50 pounds.

The designs can range from hammock-like products that are mostly unstructured and hang from the caregiver’s body to a wrap of fabric that girds around the adult’s body. The caregiver wears the carrier, and once the child is inside, he or she is supported by either one or both shoulders of the adult. The carrier can be used either in front or in back, either with the child facing away or toward the adult, or else reclined in the front.

Updated federal safety standards are based on the most recently updated standard voluntarily adopted by the industry and outlined by ASTM International. However, there is an additional requirement regarding label attachments. ASTM F2907-15 is the standard, and it establishes the performance requirements, testing methods and manufacturing requirements that must be met in order to ensure that use of these sling carriers is safe. Continue reading

August 1, 2016

Hefferan v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc. – Jurisdictional Issues in Product Liability Lawsuits

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

For the second time in a week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has dismissed a product liability claim, citing forum non conviens. This is a discretionary power a court has to dismiss a case when another court (or forum) is better suited to hear the case.

The dismissal isn’t going to prevent a plaintiff from re-filing the case, but depending on the facts, he or she may run up against a statute of limitations issue. It’s always better to thoroughly research such issues ahead of time so that it doesn’t become time and money wasted.

There are many considerations that go into determining the proper forum in a product liability lawsuit, including:

Where plaintiff lives;
Where defendant is headquartered/ operates/ distributes;
Where the injury occurred.

March 18, 2016

Verdict: $500 Million to Defective Hip Implant Victims From J&J

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Product-producing giant Johnson & Johnson, along with its DePuy unit, lost a $500 million verdict in a case involving five plaintiffs who alleged they were injured by defective hip implants. Specifically, the Pinnacle metal-on-metal implants, which are known to not only fail more quickly than advertised, but to cause serious injury in the form of tissue damage, bone erosion and high levels of metal in patients’ blood.

The decision followed a two-month trial and a one-week juror deliberation period. Jurors ultimately decided these artificial hips were not only defectively designed, but that the companies that sold them did not warn the public about the potential risk, as they had a duty to do.

This prompted jurors to award not just $140 million in compensatory damages, but an additional $360 million in punitive damages. Compensatory damages are intended to compensate the victim. Punitive damages, which are also paid to the victim(s), are intended to punish the defendant for egregious behavior and gross negligence. Continue reading