product liability attorney

March 19, 2018

Appeals Court Weighs in on Hybrid Medical Device Lawsuit

When it comes to medical device litigation, such as those involving defective hip replacement or knee replacement hardware, many of these devices are subject to the Medical Device Amendments of 1976. New medical devices are given a class designation – Class I, II or III – to indicate degree of risk, with Class III medical devices posing the greatest risk. A device that is designated as a Class III under the MDA is given express preemption from state requirements (which can be different or more stringent than federal rules), as noted in the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case of Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. In effect, this means such product liability lawsuits must be pursued in federal court.

But what happens if the medical device consists of components that have different class designations? These are becoming increasingly common in everything from hip implant devices to pain dispensing pumps. It’s created a jurisdictional conflict, with plaintiffs and defendants arguing over which courts should handle these matters.

Now, it appears we have some direction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a precedential ruling in a case of first impression filed by a plaintiff who alleged a British medical device maker negligently designed a hip replacement system. The ruling is the first time a court has taken on the question of whether product liability claims concerning a device made of components in different classifications are preempted by federal law. Answer: They are. That meant plaintiff’s claims of negligence, strict liability and breach of warranty were expressly preempted and dismissed. However, the court reversed dismissal of plaintiff’s other claims that were adequately pleaded and not preempted, namely off-label promotion in violation of federal law and loss of consortium (filed by his wife). Those claims will proceed. Continue reading

February 25, 2018

Massachusetts Workers’ Comp Cases Often Yield Product Liability Lawsuits

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Many work injury situations exist wherein a workers’ compensation attorney may seek to maximize a client’s recovery from job-related injuries by examining whether we might apply a broader liability theory, such as product liability. We don’t need to limit claims to the Massachusetts workers’ compensation system because often, a dangerous product – such as a defective machine, tool or vehicle – is to blame. In many cases, we can keep the workers’ compensation claim intact while also pursuing a product liability claim against the defective product manufacturer.

Third-party recovery may be initiated by either the worker or the workers’ compensation insurer under MGL c. 152 section 15. (Insurers must wait at least seven months to initiate a claim, while the worker can file immediately.)

The product liability attorneys at Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers have the resources and experience to pursue both workers’ compensation and third-party liability claims, in particular those that stem from cases wherein product defects are responsible for on-the-job injuries. These can include cases of defective:

Industrial equipment
Dollies
Warehouse vehicles
Mobile warehouse storage-shelving units
Vehicles/ vehicle parts (tires, airbags, brakes, seat belts)
Forklifts
Scissor lifts
Ladders/ scaffolding
Cleaning equipment
Power tools

May 28, 2017

High-Risk Summer Products Could Cause Child Injuries in Boston

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

When kids are on summer break and the weather is nice, it’s a great time for young people to get outside and enjoy fun activities. Unfortunately, there are some summer toys which are really risky for kids. Parents need to make sure they are choosing safe products for their children, checking for recalls and supervising kids so children don’t take unnecessary risks.

Manufacturers of toys and children’s products are also held to very high standards for safety. If products have defects or cause harm to children because the manufacturer didn’t incorporate the right safety features or warn parents of product risks, there is a good chance the product manufacturer could be held legally liable if a child sustains an injury.

A Boston product liability lawyer should be consulted after a child is hurt or killed by any product to determine if the parents and child can make a case for compensation. Continue reading

May 21, 2017

Bounce Houses Put Kids at Serious Risk of Harm

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

If your child is invited to birthday parties this summer, he or she may encounter a bounce house. Portable bounce houses have become really common, as they can be delivered and set up quickly to provide a fun activity children enjoy. Unfortunately, portable bounce houses can also be really dangerous for kids, especially if they are not set up correctly or if there is a defect in the product which causes the bounce house to be less safe than it should be when it is inflated.

Parents need to understand the risks both of having portable bounce houses at children’s parties they are hosting, as well as the risks of allowing their children to play in bounce houses at parties or events which are thrown by other friends or relatives or community groups.

While your child may be clamoring to play, you want to evaluate whether or not you think it is safe for you to allow your child to use the bounce house. If your child does get hurt, it is also important to know what your rights are for taking legal action. Boston product liability lawyers can help parents to determine who can be held accountable and what legal arguments to make when pursuing a claim for compensation based on a child sustaining injury in a bounce house.

May 18, 2017

Dangerous BBQ Grills Could Cause Serious Injury in Summer Months

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Summer is a time for cookouts on the grill. Unfortunately, a fun outdoor barbecue could quickly turn into a devastating disaster if something goes wrong with a grill. Grills could be dangerous not only while in use, but also while simply being stored near your home. Explosions and serious burns can occur if a grill malfunctions, and sometimes injuries from malfunctioning grills are fatal.

If you or a loved one suffers an injury due to any type of problem with a grill that is being used, the manufacturer, distributors and others involved with the production or sale of the grill can be held legally liable for damages. A Boston product liability lawyer can assist victims of grilling injuries in pursuing a claim for compensation by proving they were hurt as a direct result of a problem with a grill they were utilizing.

Malfunctioning Grills Present a Big Risk at BBQ

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

January 24, 2017

Samsung Uses New Measures to Attain Recall Compliance

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

For quite some time, it has been known that the new Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Smartphones have defective batteries and other components that can result in the devices exploding. This can cause serious personal injury and has caused users to be severely burned. These phones are also not allowed on airplanes, since an explosion on a plane could be catastrophic for hundreds of passengers. Not only can they not be taken as carry on, they cannot be checked in baggage, even if they are powered down. The reason for this is because the battery can explode even when the phone is not on or being operated.

While the company has voluntarily agreed to recall the device and provide users with a refund, for whatever reason, some users are not willing to return the defective smartphones. It seems they would rather run the risk of the phone exploding or bursting into flames in a user’s pocket and are not returning them to Samsung. Continue reading

October 18, 2016

Study: Talc Cancer Risk Greater for African American Women Than Peers

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

A recent study conducted by the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) reveals that African American women are at greater risk of developing cancer caused by talc exposure than their peers who did not use the genital powder.

Study authors noted that while regular use of talcum powder was associated with higher rates of ovarian cancer regardless of where it was applied, users who applied the powder to their genitals showed a 40 percent higher risk of cancer, while those who used the powder for non-genital purposes increased the risk by more than 30 percent.

Joellen Schildkraut, an epidemiologist at the University of Virginia and the lead researcher for this study, told Reuters that black women in America were heavily targeted in marketing campaigns for the body powder. Yet it has no real benefit. Still, Schildkraut began her research as a skeptic. She questioned the fiercely debated issue of whether it caused ovarian cancer and other forms of gynecological cancer. She described herself as a cynic. Her latest findings, on top of what has been previously studied by other researchers, have convinced her. 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.