Group Picture of the Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman

by

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. product liability

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 The Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman 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

Continue reading

by

Transvaginal mesh is a surgical implant designed to treat women with various conditions, including pelvic organ prolapse (POP).  This medical product was marketed as a minimally invasive means of treating these conditions. But after implantation, many women experienced painful side effects such as tearing of tissue, abrasion of vaginal tissue, and many other painful conditions for which they were not warned by Boston scientific, – the maker of many transvaginal mesh  (TVM) implants.

Boston products liability cases Surgical mesh is nothing new. It had been used to treat heart patients for many years, an even to treat various reproductive disorders in women. But transvaginal mesh was marketed as a new and effective treatment. The company managed to get it passed U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review, despite a real question as to whether adequate safety testing was performed and whether manufacturers properly notified FDA of any complications they knew or should have known about. Continue reading

by

Cases against big tobacco companies are not as common as they were in the 1990s and early 2000s, but people are still dying from lung cancer and suffering from other smoking-related illnesses such as  Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and cases are still being filed by products liability attorneys across the nation including our Greater Boston area.  The main issue in these cases is how to deal with any fault attributed to plaintiff.  While there was a time when the general public was not aware of the harm smoking could cause, and there was even a time when R.J. Reynolds used to advertise “More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette,” the dangers of smoking have long since been publicized.

Smith v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Boston products liability lawsuitsIn Smith v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Eleventh Circuit, surviving spouse of plaintiff filed a products liability lawsuit against the tobacco company which produced her preferred brand of cigarettes. She smoked regularly for decades and eventually died of various diseases often associated with long-term smoking of cigarettes. At trial, a jury found in favor of plaintiff, but defendant appealed arguing the jury award should be reduced due to plaintiff’s alleged in negligence in choosing to smoke on a regular basis for many years. This particular case was filed under a theory of wrongful death. Continue reading

by

Litigating a testosterone replacement therapy lawsuit in Boston can involve many complex issues. One recently litigated issues deals with the challenges in filing certain claims against generic drug manufacturers involving failure to warn of a known danger.  This is a claim that the manufacturer of a drug did not adequately include warnings about certain known dangers or adverse events (side effects) on the information given to doctors or the monograph warnings given to patients at pharmacies when they go to get their prescriptions filled.

Boston products liability lawsuits The specific problems arise when a patient gets a generic version of a prescription drug.  The makers of generic drugs still must have their products approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but they are not applying for approval under a new drug application.  Since they are making a generic version of a brand name drug, as long as the generic is substantially similar to the brand name, the generic drug manufacturer is prohibited under federal law from changing warnings used by the brand-name drug manufacturer.   In other words, the generic manufacturer must simply copy the warnings use by the brand-name drug maker.  This was confirmed in two landmark cases entitled PLIVA Inc. v. Messing, and Wyeth v. Levin.   Continue reading

by

A products liability lawsuit involves an injury caused by a dangerous or defective product. This can involve dangerous drugs like Xarelto, or defective artificial hips like the Pinnacle ASR metal-on-metal hip manufactured by DePuy, or it can involve seemingly harmless household products that possess hidden dangers. There are various factors that will determine if a company is liable for a product that caused an injury including the following:

  • Whether the product was defective.
  • Whether the product works for the purpose for which it was designed without causing personal injury.
  • Whether the company knew or should have known of a hidden or less-than-obvious danger.
  • Whether the manufacturer adequately warned potential plaintiffs of potential dangers.
  • Whether the type good is covered the under Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C) as adopted by Massachusetts.
  • Various other reasons not included in this list. Products Liability

Continue reading

by

There are many drugs and other medical products on the market that we assume are safe.  The problem is that much of the research that “proves” a product’s safety actually comes from drug companies with a financial stake.  Long-term, independent studies on the safety of these medications are often sorely lacking. That’s why in so many cases, the truth of a medication’s side effects doesn’t become known until it is widely distributed to the general public.

However, there are some cases in which product manufacturers are aware or should have been aware their product failed to meet key safety standards.

Product Liability LawyerIf a pharmaceutical company knows or has reason to know of a defect in their products and either hides the results of tests performed, or chooses to be willfully-blind of a potential averse event (side effect) due to failure to conduct adequate testing, this can be the basis for filing a Boston defective drug lawsuit against the drug manufacturer.  Continue reading

by

Defective artificial hip implants are a major problem in the U.S. and the issue is only becoming more exacerbated as million more Americans are seeking artificial hip surgery.  It has become one of the top surgical procedures in the U.S. with hundreds of thousands of artificial hips implanted each year. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in one recent year alone there were 310,000 artificial hips implanted. This number is expected to rise in years to come with more younger patients choosing to undergo the procedure so they can attempt to lead a more active life.

defective hip implants Boston While none of these artificial hips will last forever, some are failing far sooner than promised, in some cases with serious or dangerous side effects. We have seen far too many cases where medical device manufacturers are rushing a product to market to make money when they knew or should have known the device was faulty. This is the reason for so many defective artificial hip implant lawsuits in Boston and across the nation each year. Continue reading

by

Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) drugs are pervasively over-prescribed, according to many researchers and medical professionals. This is true even though TRT drugs can lead to serious and potentially fatal medical conditions including stroke and heart attack.  Testosterone therapy was first introduced nearly 40 years ago as a drug to treat a serious, but rare, medical condition known as hypogonadism. Over the past decade or so, testosterone replacement therapy has become one of the most-used elective medications, as hundreds of thousands of men have become convinced that taking testosterone will serve as a panacea for most if not all of the symptoms of normal male aging.

Boston Products Liability LawyersIt all starts with a commercial on the radio or on a click bait ad on the web that asks men if they have experienced a  loss of libido, general fatigue, joint pain, weight gain, loss of muscle tone, and a variety of other conditions that normally happen to men as they get older.  The ad them tells them if they take testosterone replacement therapy, they will feel much better and most of these so-called symptoms of a low testosterone count will get better, or go away entirely. Continue reading

by

Despite the numerous claims of great benefits from medical device manufacturers (including DePuy, now a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), it has become quite clear the metal-on-metal hip implant does not work as advertised. These metal on metal hip implants were designed to be smoother than implants made of traditional materials, but in reality, there were various problems with these implants that resulted in tremendous amounts of pain and suffering and eventually a total device failure in some cases.

Boston Products LiabilityThe DePuy Pinnacle or DePuy ASR hip implant has been the focus of many lawsuits as it controlled a lot of the hip implant market share, but it was not the only metal on metal hip on the market.  Continue reading

by

Food service businesses and food product manufacturers both have a responsibility to ensure the the items they serve and sell are reasonably safe for public consumption. Plaintiffs in these cases must show the manufacturer or food provider was not reasonably careful in distributing the product, and that the illness or injury suffered was causally connected to that breached duty of care.

If a person goes to a restaurant, consumes food that was negligently handled and becomes sick with food poisoning, that generally falls under the auspices of general negligence. On the other hand, if you purchase a prepackaged food item and become sick due a manufacturing or production defect, we are likely dealing with a products liability matter. That difference is important because pursuant to the Massachusetts version of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), this transaction falls under what is known as the sale of goods, and special rules apply.  The U.C.C. was adopted by our state is found in Chapter 106 of the Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.).

According to Reuters, a French manufacturer of baby formula has just issued a full-scale international recall of baby food products. This is a major recall because the French company is one of the world’s larges makers of baby formula. The reason for the recall is because of alleged salmonella poisoning.  It has been reported that 26 babies have already been sickened as a result of consuming formula that was tainted with salmonella. tainted food lawyer Continue reading