product liability

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

April 19, 2019

FDA Halts Sale of Transvaginal Mesh amid Lawsuits over Defective Medical Products

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration this week issued an order to immediately halt the sale and distribution of pelvic mesh product for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

Boston Scientific and Coloplast are the only two companies in the U.S. still selling mesh to treat pelvic prolapse. The FDA order immediately prohibits the sale of Boston Scientific’s Uphold Lite and Xenform mesh products, as well as Coloplast’s Restorelle DirectFix.

Our medical device injury attorneys have been watching the issue closely as tens of thousands of women have been seriously injured by mesh implantation. Still, Boston Scientific and Coloplast have continued to market and sell the product 7 years after the FDA issued an emergency order mandating device makers prove their products are safer and more effective than traditional surgical repair.

March 15, 2019

Sandy Hook Families Lawsuit Against Remington Allowed to Proceed

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

In a landmark decision the Connecticut Supreme Court this week reinstated a lawsuit filed by Sandy Hook school-shooting victims against Remington, one of the nation’s largest gun manufacturers.

Families of nine victims and one survivor of the Newton, Connecticut school shooting sued Remington Outdoor Co. Inc. and other defendants, including a gun wholesaler and a local retailer, alleging wrongful marketing and unethical advertising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). In the narrow 4-3 ruling, justices dismissed a case against the defendants based on negligent entrustment.

Some are hailing the decision as a landmark victory against gun violence. Since passage of the The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) (15 U.S.C. §§ 7901 through 7903,) gunmakers have enjoyed near complete immunity for liability over gun violence. With certain specific exceptions, the PLCAA immunizes firearms manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from civil liability for crimes committed by third parties using their weapons.

Our Massachusetts product liability attorneys note this claim illustrates the many ways in which a product liability lawsuit can hold manufacturers accountable. However, this particular lawsuit has a narrow, treacherous pathway to success as Remington will almost certainly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which must decide whether to allow state consumer law to trump federal protections in place to protect gunmakers.

February 18, 2019

Dangerous Products: Insurers, Defendants, Victims Battle Over Liability

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The increasing number of dangerous, defective and deadly products being marketed to the American consumer continues to have a significant impact on our health and welfare.

Property casualty insurance advisors continue to add exclusions even as they push corporations to increase coverage for product liability, noting adequate product liability insurance is not just for manufacturers. Under the law, any entity involved in the supply chain of a defective product, including suppliers, retailers and distributors, can be held liable for injury.

All makers and sellers of products sold to U.S. consumers, whether they be artificial hips or baby cribs, have an obligation under the law to ensure their products are safe when used as intended and are recalled in a timely fashion if they prove dangerous or defective. Common assertions in a Massachusetts product liability claim include dangerous design or poor manufacturing, lack of proper warnings, and breach of expressed or implied warranty.

March 19, 2018

Appeals Court Weighs in on Hybrid Medical Device Lawsuit

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

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

September 30, 2017

Pursuing a Defective Vehicle Lawsuit

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

There are many reasons a car accident can occur in Boston. Most of the time, the crash occurs as a result of an at-fault driver who was engaged in negligent driving. However, in some cases, including single-vehicle accidents, we are actually dealing with a products liability issue.

A products liability case is a type of civil lawsuit, still based upon a theory of negligence, like many others, but in these cases, the accident was caused by a defectively designed product, including a motor vehicle, or a product that had a hidden danger, and the company, dealer, or supplier failed to warn potential plaintiff’s (customers) of that known danger. Continue reading

June 2, 2017

BMW Issues Major Recall as Doors May Open While Driving

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

According to a recent news article from Autoweek, BMW has issued a major recall of 45,000 older 7 Series vehicles. These sedans were made between 2005 and 2008, and all feature what the company called Comfort Access and Soft Close automatic doors. These doors are designed to close softly rather than slamming closed, as many other car doors do. This was considered a luxury feature at the time these cars were manufactured.

While this is the first door recall for the cars made during those specific model year vehicles, it is not the first recall involving these automatic-closing doors. The company’s 2012 vehicles also featured a version of these doors, and a major recall was issued. The reason for all of these recalls involving this type of luxury door is because customers have reported the doors opening by themselves while the car was traveling at highway speeds. In some cases, the doors could come off, causing serious personal injury to those in other vehicles, as the door could cause significant damage. Fortunately, there have been no reports of serious injury as of this point. The company is urging all drivers and passengers to make sure their seat belts are fastened until they can get the doors fixed, so they do not get ejected from the vehicle should the doors fall off at highway speeds. Continue reading

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.