product liability

September 8, 2016

McDonald’s Recalls Millions of Fitness Bands in Happy Meals

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.

December 15, 2015

Defective Holiday Decorations Can Lead to House Fires

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Decorating your home for the holidays can be a joyful experience. EFSI reports as many as 86 percent of Americans do at least some home decorating as a part of their holiday celebrations.

Unfortunately, decorative products can sometimes be poorly designed or badly made and can turn into a major hazard. It is imperative homeowners, renters, and commercial property owners understand risks associated with holiday décor so they can look for safe products and avoid potentially causing serious injuries to themselves or others. Continue reading

December 8, 2015

Boston Injuries Due to Defective Products This Holiday Season

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The holiday season is a time when many new products come into the home. From Christmas décor to gifts that you purchase for loved ones, dozens of new items are likely to begin receiving regular use at this time of year. Unfortunately, when you bring in these new products, there is a risk that you could inadvertently end up bringing in an item that turns out to be dangerous.

Manufacturers have an obligation to make sure that all products released to consumers are reasonably safe and function as the manufacturer promised they would. Sometimes, however, inadequate testing, poor design, or other manufacturer failures mean products end up on shelves despite the fact the products are harmful.

Manufacturers can be held strictly liable for any injuries resulting from product defects, regardless of negligence. Still, consumers want to avoid injuries and fatalities due to defective products so a holiday gift does not lead to tragedy. This means making sure you shop carefully and keep up-to-date on recalls so you do not endanger yourself or your loved ones.