personal injury Archives

Alternative Financial Support for Plaintiffs During Litigation with Erin Waas
Gallery
Alternative Financial Support for Plaintiffs During Litigation with Erin Waas

Alternative Financial Support for Plaintiffs During Litigation with Erin Waas

June 21st, 2022|Categories: ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Insurance, Mass Torts, News|Tags: Claims management, Litigation & appeals, mass torts, personal injury, Settlements|

Our Guest Erin Waas is Executive Director of The Milestone Foundation, a national 501(c)(3) nonprofit that provides financial assistance to people pursuing a personal injury lawsuit. Erin brings nearly two decades of experience working in the public sector and with nonprofits in fundraising and communications, most recently at the University at Buffalo, where she served as senior advancement writer. Prior to relocating to Buffalo, Erin spent the bulk of her career to-date in Boston, where she worked in stewardship at Harvard University and as a consultant for nonprofits of all sizes. Alternative Financial Support for Plaintiffs During Litigation with Erin Waas For an individual, merely navigating litigation can be expensive, time consuming, and at times overwhelming. But when that individual is also unable to work, or cannot function normally because they have been disabled by an injury, that explodes the level of stress on a person and their family. There are companies in the "non-recourse settlement advancement" space that will provide financial support to claimants in litigation. This helps them with their regular daily expenses – plus medical costs – until their case settles or until they receive an award. But most of these companies, as you can imagine, are for-profit entities. As such, their fees can make their support unaffordable and can leave [...]

PTSD Claims Brought by Facebook’s ‘Graphic Content’ Reviewers Goes to ADR, Putting Civil Action on Pause

August 15th, 2019|Categories: Class Actions, Employment, HB Tort Notes|Tags: class actions, employment law, personal injury, PTSD, Workplace Safety|

By Tom Hagy Facebook can be great fun. How else would I have seen a video of an eight-year-old drummer-girl utterly thrashing Led Zeppelin’s Good Times Bad Times? Or a dog running away with a lit skyrocket as his human friends run, duck and ditch for their lives? Or what your cat looks like in a tuxedo? Facebook can also be a source of horror. Some of the most distressful commentary and images you wish you could un-see. And that’s just from my family. Imagine your entire job is to monitor Facebook discussions and remove its graphic content. Day in and day out. That’s literally all you did. A group of Facebook employees says that was their job, and their exposure to an “unmitigated barrage of horrifying content” and “toxic images” has caused them to suffer “debilitating trauma-related injuries.” In September 2018 they filed suit in California Superior Court in San Mateo seeking an order requiring Facebook to implement safety guidelines for content moderators which, they say, the company has admitted are “necessary and appropriate.” They also want the company to fund a medical monitoring program for the diagnosis and treatment of psychological injuries including post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. The plaintiffs quote Chris Harrison, whom they characterize as a Facebook executive in charge of the company’s “global resiliency team” as [...]

J&J Hit with $120 Million Verdict at Mesh Trial

May 13th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: complex litigation, mass torts, medical malpractice, personal injury, Product Liability|

A Philadelphia jury returned a $120 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson after finding that a negligently designed pelvic mesh implant caused chronic pain and suffering, which left plaintiff Susan McFarland incontinent and unable to have sex for the last 10 years. McFarland alleged the implant she received in 2008 caused the product to saw through the soft tissue in her pelvis and become exposed in her vagina. She had to undergo a second surgery to remove a portion of the implant (Susan McFarland,et al. v. Ethicon Inc., et al., No. 130701577, Phila. Comm. Pls. Ct.). This is the second of two trials. The jury in the first trial was deadlocked, unable to agree on the extent of negligence of the design of the Ethicon product. Tracie Palmer, McFarland’s attorney, added in the second trial that the vaginal mesh was on market prior to clinical studies determining its safety and efficacy. Defense attorney Adam Spicer maintained that the chronic pain McFarland experienced could be due to other causes, including her age. He said the product had been used for years prior. McFarland’s case is one of more than 100,000 cases brought together in the MDL, down from nearly 105,000 cases against seven manufacturers. The MDL will be closing and there will be two more waves of trial, with next wave comprising [...]

Philadelphia Jury Hits J&J with $120M Award in Mesh Injury Case — Law360

April 25th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: mass torts, medical malpractice, personal injury, Product Liability, Settlements|

[one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half] "Jurors credited claims from Susan McFarland that the negligent design of a mesh implant she received in 2008 caused the product to saw through the soft tissue in her pelvis and become exposed in her vagina. She was eventually forced to undergo a second surgery to remove a portion of the implant. "The pain she’s been left with as a result of the complications, she says, has prevented her from having sex with her husband for the last 10 years. "This is the second time jurors have been asked to determine whether McFarland and her husband should be awarded damages for injuries she attributes to alleged defects in a so-called TVT-O implant she received to treat urinary stress incontinence." Read the complete article on Law360 here. [/one-half]

Top Class Actions: Vaccine Litigation Case Roundup

April 19th, 2019|Categories: Class Actions, HB Risk Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: class actions, emerging litigation, mass torts, personal injury, Product Liability|

[one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half]There have been numerous lawsuits filed alleging injuries caused by the shingles vaccine Zostavax. Cases have stated they were not warned of the adverse side effects of the vaccine alleging it caused the diseases it is meant to prevent, among other things. Here is what the CDC says to consumers: “Your risk of shingles and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) increases as you get older. CDC recommends that people 60 years old and older get shingles vaccine (Zostavax®) to prevent shingles and PHN. Shingrix (recombinant zoster vaccine) is the preferred vaccine, over Zostavax® (zoster vaccine live), a shingles vaccine in use since 2006. Zostavax may still be used to prevent shingles in healthy adults 60 years and older. For example, you could use Zostavax if a person is allergic to Shingrix, prefers Zostavax, or requests immediate vaccination and Shingrix is unavailable. Zostavax (zoster vaccine live) was licensed by the FDA in 2006. This vaccine reduces the risk of developing shingles by 51% and PHN by 67%. It is given in one dose as a shot, and can be given in a doctor’s office or pharmacy.“ Read more: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingles/public/zostavax/index.html The vaccine is produced by Merck & Co. Their product information can be found here: https://www.merckvaccines.com/Products/Zostavax Here is a roundup of the cases filed. [/one-half] 1.Husband and Wife File Zostavax Shingles Vaccine Lawsuit "A North Carolina husband and [...]

Private Calif. Plaintiffs Seemingly Enforcing FDCA, Drug & Device Law Blog Says

April 12th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: emerging litigation, mass torts, medical malpractice, personal injury, Product Liability|

"Doctors treated two plaintiffs for severe psychological problems, ultimately employing defendant’s Thymatron System IV to perform electroconvulsive therapy. Plaintiffs claimed that, as a result, they suffered brain trauma, memory loss and other brain-related injuries. They filed product liability claims based, in the main, on the manufacturer’s alleged failure to report adverse events. The decision in Riera addressed summary judgment motions, ones filed by both the plaintiffs and the defendant. You don’t ordinarily see summary judgment motions by plaintiffs, and Riera is an example of why." Read the complete post by John J. Sullivan of Cozen O'Connor.