Product Liability Archives

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 [...]

Suits Allege Apple Concealed Knowledge of iPhone 7 Defect

May 10th, 2019|Categories: Class Actions, HB Risk Notes, Technology Law|Tags: class actions, class certification, complex litigation, Product Liability, Product Recall|

Apple Inc. has been sued in federal courts in Illinois and California for allegedly knowingly selling iPhone 7 and 7 plus models with an audio chip defect, called the “Audio IC Defect” or “Loop Disease” by consumers, which causes an array of operational issues. The bug gums up handset audio functions, grays out speaker buttons during calls, and degrades microphone fidelity. And if that's not enough it can kill Siri's voice command capabilities. The plaintiffs accuse Apple of actively concealing the Audio IC Defect while advertising the iPhone 7 as “the best iPhone we ever made.” The plaintiffs claim that when they first experienced operational problems Apple didn't offer complimentary repairs. The suits allege breach of warranty and violation of California and Illinois consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek class certification, damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. In Illinois, the plaintiffs may also try to force Apple to repair, recall, and/or replace current defective iPhone 7s in the United States and notify all purchasers of the Loop Disease. Evidence shows “Apple’s internal acknowledgement and subsequent discontinuation of their out-of-warranty repairs without public announcement of the Audio IC Defect amounts to misrepresentation and concealment of the Audio IC Defect,” the California complaint in Casillas v. Apple reads. Complaints available on Scribd.com. Casillas v. Apple, N.D. Calif., No. 3:19-cv-2455 Castelli v. Apple, N.D. Ill., [...]

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 [...]

Product Liability in the Internet of Things — Schiff Hardin Product Liability & Mass Torts Blog

April 14th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Technology Law|Tags: compliance, emerging litigation, Information Technology Law, Legal Tech, Product Liability|

[one-half-first] Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash [/one-half-first] [one-half]"Combining a physical object and an intangible technology also creates a novel issue when it comes to strict product liability principles, which typically hold that a product manufacturer may be strictly liable for a product’s defect. The first task in a strict product liability case is to identify the product. In the context of a device that has no internet connectivity, the answer is straightforward. If a ladder is defective and causes an injury, the ladder’s manufacturer may be held strictly liable because a ladder is the product. But when it comes to IoT devices, the line may be blurred. Almost always, the software part of the IoT device is 'manufactured' by a separate entity from the entity that manufactures the physical object. If the IoT device proves to be defective, the question becomes which entity may be held strictly liable." Read the complete post by Schiff Hardin's Gregory Dickinson & Jeffrey D. Skinner here. [/one-half]

A Generic Drug Failure to Warn Claim? –Michelle Hart Yeary

April 14th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: Drugs & Devices, emerging litigation, Litigation & appeals, mass torts, Product Liability|

[one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half] "Rather than focusing on what plaintiff’s off-label marketing claim really was – a claim that defendant’s label should have contained different information or warnings about off-label uses – an impliedly preempted claim, the court got distracted trying to fit the case in under Bausch and started talking about parallel violation claims. "The court found that because plaintiff was alleging a violation of federal regulations, his claims “run parallel to [defendant’s] state law duties,” and thus were not preempted. The problem with this is that Mensing is not an express preemption case. It was an implied preemption case, and the district court had no business applying 'parallel claim' analysis to implied preemption, where a 'parallel claim' exception does not exist. It makes no difference whether plaintiff’s off-label promotion claim is 'parallel' to federal regulations, defendant could not have offered any different warning so any claim that the warning or information it provided was inadequate is preempted under Mensing. The court was trying to fit a square peg into a round whole – and the only way that works is to cut off the corners." Read the complete post by Dechert's Michelle Hart Yeary here! [/one-half]

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.

Class Actions Weekly Roundup from Top Class Actions

March 31st, 2018|Categories: Class Actions, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: class actions, Drugs & Devices, mass torts, Product Liability, Product Recall|

This roundup is prepared exclusively for HB Litigation Conferences by: Walmart Class Action Claims Glucosamine Tablets are Mislabeled Walmart has been hit with a class action lawsuit claiming that their store brand glucosamine tablets are mislabeled. Plaintiffs Cynthia Parker, Reba Garth, Margaret Herrin, and Shirley Reinhard allege that Walmart misrepresents its store-brand glucosamine sulfate dietary… Read More Sorin 3T Heater Cooler Lawsuit Alleges Serious M. Chimaera Bacterial Infection An Indiana man has filed a Sorin 3T heater cooler lawsuit against LivaNova PLC, alleging their cardiac heater cooler device had caused him to develop a potentially fatal infection. The claimant filed the Sorin 3T heater cooler… Read More Coca-Cola Seeks Dismissal of Diet Coke Class Action Lawsuit Coca-Cola asked a New York federal court to toss a class action lawsuit alleging the company’s use of the name “Diet Coke” is misleading. The company argues that claims against its use of the word “diet” in… Read More Couple Files Stryker Hip Recall Lawsuit Over Metallosis Complications Thousands of hip implants were affected by a Stryker hip recall after they were linked with serious complications, including metallosis. Some patients affected by these major side effects have turned to litigation, hoping to regain some… Read More Facebook Class Action Challenges Facial Recognition Technology Facebook faces a new class action lawsuit alleging that the social media site captured and stored biometric information of [...]

Top Class Actions’ Top Trends Affecting Class Actions in 2018

March 31st, 2018|Categories: Class Actions, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: class actions, emerging litigation, mass torts, mult--district litigation (MDL), Product Liability|

Editor's Note: This article was written by Kim Gale at Top Class Actions and is reprinted here with the permission of the publisher. Scott Hardy, the company's President & CEO, is one of the speakers featured at HB's Class Action Mastery conference May 9-11, 2018 in New York. Top Class Actions is sponsoring that event and its companion program, Mass Tort Med School, the same week. As we come close to rounding out the first quarter of 2018, it is clear that several class action lawsuit trends from 2017 will continue to ripple through the court system this year. Class Action Lawsuit Stats Did you know three areas are responsible for a third of all class action lawsuits filed in the U.S.? The federal courts in California, Southern District (Miami) of Florida, and the Eastern District (Brooklyn) of New York keep lawyers and judges the busiest. In the initial nine months of 2017, a total 3,136 federal class action lawsuits were filed in those areas alone, according to an article published Dec. 9, 2017 by PorterWright.com. These statistics are apt to change because new Supreme Court decisions (Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California and BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell) rein in a court’s jurisdiction and ability to litigate matters when residents from outside the court’s state make claims. These new decisions mean a [...]