product liability

January 24, 2017

Samsung Uses New Measures to Attain Recall Compliance

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

September 25, 2016

Exploding Cell Phones Leads to Recall Confusion

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

According to a recent news feature from CNN Money, there is significant confusion when it comes to the recent recall of Galaxy Note 7 smart phones manufactured by Samsung after some of the models exploded. The reason for the confusion in part is because there are two different suppliers of batteries, and the company has chosen not to call this a recall, but rather a return and replacement program. While the company may wish to use this more innocuous sounding description, federal regulators have chosen to stick with the more familiar name, calling it a defective product recall.

However, before we look at the more confusing aspects of this recall, lets look at what we do know. We know that these smart phones that retail for over $900 are bursting into flames and basically exploding while people are holding them. The company says that the problem only occurs while the phones are charging, but since many people charge their phones while using them to talk, text, and use other apps, this poses a significant danger. Continue reading

September 8, 2016

McDonald’s Recalls Millions of Fitness Bands in Happy Meals

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

These days, McDonald’s have been seeing a decline in profits as more are turning to healthier food options for themselves and their families. This is not say the company and its competitors are not making a ton of money, but their numbers are not as good as they were a decade ago.

For this reason, the company has been working towards providing healthier options while still keeping the old standards. To some extent it has been working. One of the thing they were doing to make parents feel the restaurant chain can promote a healthier lifestyle for children despite their old image problem, is to include a fitness band in Happy Meals. These are essentially a very cheap version of the Fitbit and other popular fitness watches that have flooded the market in the past few years. Continue reading

August 25, 2016

Applebaum v. Target Corp: Products Liability Cases

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

In Applebaum v. Target Corp, plaintiff was injured while riding a bicycle she purchased at defendant’s big box retail store. She claimed the reason she was injured was because of a defective brake on the bike that was resold to her after another customer had returned the item. She claims the bike was returned to the store because of the defective brake, negligently repaired, and then resold to her, thus causing her to suffer a personal injury.

According to court records from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, this case deals with the issue of whether plaintiff was injured while riding her bicycle due to a defective bicycle or due to operator error. 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.

July 29, 2016

J&J Seeks Expedited Appeal for $151M Pinnacle Verdict

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Johnson & Johnson lost a $500 million federal case in Texas earlier this year involving its Pinnacle hip replacement devices. However, the company won an important victory recently when the U.S. District judge overseeing the case slashed that damage award to $151 million, finding the punitive damage award excessive.

The verdict had been in favor of five plaintiffs and three spouses, who after a two month trial were collectively were supposed to receive $360 million in punitive damages and $140 million in compensatory damages.

Although the judge denied the company’s request to set aside the verdict or grant a new trial, the medical product behemoth is now seeking an expedited review of the verdict. The company has argued that jurors were improperly biased after hearing evidence that was both irrelevant and unfair during the trial. Attorneys for plaintiffs, however, say the bid for a new trial is nothing more than a flimsy attempt to snag a “do-over” after the strategy they employed during trial went awry. Continue reading

July 12, 2016

Tarceva Makers to Pay $67M for False Claims

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Two drug companies have been ordered to pay $67 million over false claims made regarding the efficacy of cancer drug Tarceva, the U.S. Justice Department announced.

The drug is approved for some patients who suffer from non-small cell lung cancer or pancreatic cancer. However, OSI Pharmaceuticals LLC and Genetech Inc. reportedly misled consumers about how effective the drug was in treating non-small cell lung cancer.

This settlement was reached after allegations that between January 2006 and December 2011, the two drug makers promised the product would be effective for non-small cell lung cancer patients. What they failed to disclose was that research had shown it only worked if the patients hadn’t ever smoked or had any sort of mutation in their epidermal growth factor receptor. The latter is a protein that has been traced to the spread of cancerous cells. Continue reading

July 10, 2016

$70M Verdict for Male Risperdal Patient Who Grew Breasts

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $70 million to a male teen whose use of antipsychotic drug Risperdal caused him to grow breasts.

The verdict was handed down in a state court in Pennsylvania, after jurors concluded the drug-making giant failed to disclose that its product could cause gynecomastia, the unnatural growth of large mammary glands in males. Not only that, jurors concluded, but the company actively and with intent destroyed, falsified or hid records that pointed to this fact.

This $70 million damage award interestingly only includes compensatory damages, as opposed to punitive damages. It also is significantly more than the $2.5 million awarded to an Alabama teen in 2015 who developed size 46 DD breasts. Continue reading

July 7, 2016

Plaintiff: Johnson & Johnson Used Deadly Bone Cement for Unapproved Use on Patients

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Trial is underway in one of the first lawsuits heard by a jury regarding drug manufacturer Johnson & Johnson’s subsidiary Synthes Inc. using a type of bone cement absent FDA approval on the spines of patients who later died in surgery, just moments after they were injected with the compound.

The wrongful death lawsuit, filed in a Washington state court, focuses on the intentional off-label use of the bone cement which was known to be risky. What should have been a routine procedure to treat back pain for a 67-year-old patient in 2007 ended up killing her. Patient’s family sued Synthes, the surgeon and the hospital for use of the bone cement, known as Norian, even though it wasn’t approved for use in back pain surgery.

Many are closely watching the development of this case, making it high-stakes not just for the parties involved but for future plaintiffs as well. It’s being covered by Courtroom View Network (CVN). Plaintiffs allege the manufacturer marketed Norian for use in spinal surgeries, despite a company physician characterizing such use as akin to “human experimentation.” Continue reading

December 18, 2015

Majority of Product Recalls are Household Goods

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Products are recalled because they present a danger to their users. Ideally, manufacturers will take action to recall products before someone actually gets hurt. Unfortunately, this does not always happen. That means every time a product is released which subsequently turns out to be dangerous, there is a significant risk someone will be hurt or killed before the manufacturer identifies the issues and institutes a recall.

Individual consumers especially, need to be concerned about the significant dangers associated with defective products because a new report reveals the vast majority of recalled goods are household products used by individuals and families.