Articles Posted in Product Liability

According to newsinferno.com, Abbott, the manufacturer for Similac Brand Powder Infant Formulas, has issued a recall for certain formulas. During an internal quality review, the presence of a small common beetle was detected in one production area in one manufacturing facility. According to the FDA, the formulas that contain the beetles poses no immediate health risk, but there is a possibility that infants who consume formula containing beetles or their larvae could experience symptoms of gastro intestinal discomfort and refuse to eat due to the irritation. The recall includes certain Similac product lines offered in plastic containers, 8-ounce, 12.4-ounce, and 12.9-ounce cans. Consumers can visit www.similac.com/recall or call (800) 986-8850 to find out if they have purchased a product involved in the recall. The good news is that all Abbott liquid infant formulas and all powder specialty formulas, such as Similac Expert Care Alimentum, Elecare, Similac Expert Care Seosure, Similac Human Milk Fortifies, and metabolic formulas for inherited disorders, are not affected by the recall,

Abbott has consulted with the FDA regarding the recall and is implementing a plan to address the matter at the affected manufacturing facility. No other facilities are involved in the recall. Recalled products can be returned at no cost to the consumer. The website and the consumer hotline have specific details on how to complete the return process. According yahoonews.com, Abbott expects to recall $100 million in connection with the recall. Over the past few decades, infant formula has become a popular method for feeding infants, but there is debate over how healthier it is over human milk. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe all families with infants should be aware of ten facts related to infant formula, as stated in yahoonews.com:

1. The linings of formula cans contain bisphenol-A 2. Feeding an infant formula can increase the child’s risk of developing food allergies and inflammatory bowel disease.

The recent recall of eggs is largest in years. Last week Wright Country Egg of Iowa recalled 228 million eggs after a traceback investigation by the CDC linked a salmonella outbreak to the firm’s eggs. As of yesterday, the recall has expanded to 300 million. The Food and Drug Administration has activated an emergency operations command center in response to the outbreak. FDA investigators are still trying to determine the source of the contamination. They are performing environmental assessments of farming conditions and practices such as pest and rodent controls, biosecurity plans, environmental monitoring, sanitary controls, and feed sources. The FDA is also initiating effectiveness checks of the recall, conducting checks at retail stores, wholesalers, and distributors to make sure the recalled shell eggs are being removed from the market. Since July 17, the CDC has received around 2,000 reports of illness due to Salmonella. Recalled eggs affected by the recall are packaged under the brand names: Albertsons, Farm Fresh, Glenview, Mountain Dairy, Ralphs, Boomsma, Lund, Lucerne, Kemps, Pacific Coast, Ralph’s, Sunshine, Hillandale, Trafficanda, Shoreland, and Dutch Farms.

The symptoms associated with Salmonella are fever, diarrhea (sometimes bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, a Salmonella infection can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections, endocarditis, and arthritis. Salmonella can cause serious or fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and those with weakened immune systems. The FDA is reminding people to discard the recalled eggs or return them for a refund, not to eat raw eggs, avoid restaurant dishes made with raw or undercooked, unpasteurized eggs. Here at the Brod Law Firm we want to remind consumers to always investigate the sources of the food products they are buying. We have heard numerous stories of consumers placing blind faith in the products they purchase-and then falling victim to injury due to use of those products. That said, the manufacturer is ultimately responsible for false advertising and defective or contaminated products sold to the unsuspecting consumer. If you or a loved one has been injured from a defective product, please contact our office.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has confirmed the recent outbreak of typhoid fever in the United States is linked to recalled packages of frozen mamey, a sweet, reddish tropical fruit grown mainly in Central and South America, pulp product, also known as zapote or sapote, used to make smoothies or milkshakes. Five people have been hospitalized due to the outbreak. The CDC reported five of those hospitalized drank milkshakes or smoothies made with frozen mamey-four of which were sold by Goya Foods Inc. On Aug. 12, Goya Foods issued a recall of 14-ounce plastic packages of Goya brand mamey pulp distributed to retailers in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Washington, UPC number 041331090803. The recall was initiated because one package of mamey pulp collected in Las Vegas and tested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was found to contain Salmonella.

According to the CDC Typhoid is a serious disease caused by the Salmonella germ. Most people associate Salmonella with diarrhea; however, the typhoid germ is a different type of Salmonella germ. Instead of causing primarily diarrhea, this one causes primarily a fever. The most distinctive sign of the infection is a sustained, high fever – as high as 103-104 degrees. Also, a person with typhoid can develop a rash with flat, rose colored, speckled blotches on the skin. Not everyone has a typical course, though. In some cases, people who do have a typical, sustained fever, the fever can, after several days, go away on its own, then return later and stay for days. The CDC’s website states that typhoid fever’s danger doesn’t end when symptoms disappear. It can become a cyclical fever. In fact, the person suffering from the infection can become a chronic carrier too, even without symptoms. If you ingest tainted food, hand washing won’t protect you, but hand washing is still crucial in preventing the spread of the infection, as an infected person can shed the S. Typhi bacteria.

Here at the Brod Law firm, we believe the best way of preventing injury form illness is to stay informed. If you, or a loved one has become sick due to tainted food products, please call our office.

The recent controversy over the safety of drugs and the rise in drug recalls prompted Colorado’s Senator Michael Bennet to introduce the Drug Safety and Accountability Act of 2010. The bill would give the FDA additional recall power and other investigative and enforcement options in the following ways: grant the FDA the authority to assess civil penalties for violations of the food Drug and Cosmetic Act and to subpoena documents and witnesses, facilitate the exchange of information between the FDA and other regulatory agencies, and protect the industry whistleblowers that wish to bring information to the FDA. The bill would also impose higher manufacturing standards by requiring companies to institute quality management plans to ensure the quality of safety of their drugs and drug components, including strong supplier oversight; and ensuring companies are able to document which entities are involved in the manufacturing supply chain for their drugs. Under the bill over the counter drugs (OTC’s) would be more closely scrutinized. Up until now the FDA has focused on prescription drugs and not OTC’s.
Medicine cabinets are full of pharmaceuticals and over the counter drugs, as most people have come to expect that the drugs they take will improve their health. They do not expect drugs to cause harm or death. Unfortunately the FDA’s approval of drugs has been called into question by a series of unfortunate events and created a crisis of confidence. During the past few years the FDA’s lack of oversight all the products that are marked under their regulation has placed American lives in jeopardy. This new bill would definitely help rebuild the FDA’s reputation. The bill would also force drug makers to bear a bigger regulatory burden. As such, pharmaceutical companies would have to documents their supply chains from start to finish-a prospect that probably isn’t happy about, since they believe their current efforts to protect consumer safety are sufficient. Here at the Brod Law Firm we are sure there will be plenty of debate over this bill and wonder if it will go anywhere. If you or a loved one has been injured from over the counter or prescription drugs, please contact us.

According to Consumer Reports, supplement manufacturers sell their products without first having to demonstrate that they are safe and effective. Consumer Reports has been working with experts from the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, an independent research group, and have identified a dozen supplement ingredients that it thinks consumers should avoid because they’ve been linked by clinical research or case reports to serious adverse events. Other factors were also evaluated, including evidence of effectiveness for their purported uses, and the extent to which the ingredients are readily available, either alone or in combination products.

What does all of this mean? It means, despite Americans spending billions of dollars annually on supplements, ingredients in supplements can be hazardous, even when they tout being natural. Consumer Reports also noted that the FDA has repeatedly found synthetic prescription drugs in supplements claiming to contain natural ingredients. Some supplements even claim they can cure cancer or replace prescription medication, even though it is against the law for companies to claim that any supplement can prevent, treat, or cure any disease except some nutrient-deficient conditions. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe the FDA needs to use the same strict standards to regulate supplements as it uses for drugs. Lack of oversight leaves unsuspecting consumers vulnerable.

Consumer Reports recommends consumers follow steps listed below before buying or taking supplements.

This week, the FDA has issued a warning to physicians and patients that the intravenous antibiotic Cubicin can cause life-threatening eosinophilic pneumonia, which is caused the accumulation of a type of white blood cells, called eosinophils, in the lungs. Symptoms include fever, cough, shortness of breath and difficult breathing. According to their data, The FDA has identified seven confirmed cases of eosinophilic pneumonia between 2004 and 2010 and an additional 36 possible cases. Of the seven confirmed cases, all were older than 60, and all were prescribed Cubicin for non-FDA approved conditions. Cubicin was approved in September 2003 for treatment of sercous skin infections and in 2006 for the treatment of bloodstream infections. In 2007 its label was modified to indicate an increased risk for pulmonary eosinophilia, the increased concentration of eosinophis in the blood. The FDA has requested that Cubist, the manufacturer of the product, revise its label to reflect the newly recognized danger.
News like this suggests approval by the FDA hardly has anything to do with the safety or efficacy of a drug. What is more, by the time a drug is recalled, many people have already been injured or killed. As drug companies continue to market new drugs and downplay serious health effects in their relentless pursuit of profit, the public will always be at risk. Each year United States and multi-national pharmaceutical companies bring new and different products to market–some of which have adequately been tested and some that have not. Many of these drugs are causing human pain and suffering, rather than relieving it. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we have experience representing victims of injury and wrongful death due to prescription, and non-prescription drugs, which have caused harm. Whether you or a loved one have sustained injury or death as the result of preventable side effects from a prescription drug or over-the-counter remedy, we are available to investigate your claim and represent you if your loss is the result of drug manufacturer wrongdoing.

Your trip to the grocery could end up costing you more than the total printed on your receipt. The Environmental Working Group has just released lab tests showing the synthetic estrogen BPA is found in high levels on cash register receipts. Bisphenol A (BPA) has been linked to cancer, abnormal reproductive system development, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disorders and asthma. Health professionals and scientists have been trying to get BPAs banned from food packaging to prevent BPAs from leaching into infant formulas, canned foods, and beverages. It turns out that major retailers are using BPA contaminated paper in their receipts including: McDonald’s, CVS, KFC, Whole Foods, Walmart, Safeway, and the US Postal Service. However, many receipts contain little or no BPAs such as those at Target, Starbucks, and Bank of America ATMs. What is scary is about this new discovery is that the paper used in the receipts that contain BPA look no different than papers that do not.

Research has demonstrated that this BPA leaches out of polycarbonate plastics, out of the resins used to line most food cans and out of dental sealants. When we hear about polycarbonate bottles and BPA, the amount of BPA leaching out is so minimal that it can only be measured in nanograms. Now, when we hear about average cash register receipt containing BPA, the amount of BPA leaching out is so great that it is measured in milligrams! And the BPA that is leaching out from receipts is free BPA, free meaning the individual molecules are loose and ready for uptake. However there is no research yet that shows exactly how much BPA can rub off onto fingers from receipt papers, if it penetrates through the skin – and if it does, how much gets into the circulation and if it can reach organs throughout the body. Here at the Brod Law firm we believe that the government should mandate labeling of any and all products that contain BPA, including receipts-since they are the biggest threat-at the point of purchase. That way, at least consumers would know the risks involved regarding their purchases and, most importantly, if they should wash their hands after picking up a BPA-laced receipt.

This week, according to the Huffington Post, Judge James Ware of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has approved a class action, monopoly abuse lawsuit against Apple and AT&T. The class action brings together several individual claims filed by iPhone buyers dating back to late 2007. An amended complaint was filed in June 2008, the basis of which deals with Apple’s practice of “locking” iPhones so that they can only be used on AT&T’s network. The lawsuit also accused Apple of secretly making AT&T its exclusive iPhone partner in the U.S. for five years. Consumers who bought the iPhone were duped into a five year relationship with AT&T, after they had signed a two year contract with AT&T, and were essentially locked into staying with AT&T if they wanted to keep their phone. In addition, the lawsuit claims that the actions hurt competition and drove up prices for consumers . The lawsuit also seeks an injunction to prevent Apple from selling locked iPhones in the U.S. and from determining what iPhone programs people can install.

At the moment iPhone 4 consumers have three options to deal with the reception problem: 1)hold their phones in an akward manner; 2)return their phones and pay a 10% restocking fee; or 3) or purchase an Apple “bumper” case for their phones, which costs $29.99 on top of the premium their already paid premium. Without the class action iPhone consumers have no other leverage or relief. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we were wondering when something like this would happen two the largest companies in the U.S. For some time the public has not been properly informmed or even been made aware of corporate practices, and a class action case such is this is needed to force corporations to undertake informational campaigns, which would give consumers an opportunity to make educated decisions when purchasing products.

Most consumers do not fully understand how powerful these corporations are and how they may harm competition in the market. What is more, competition in the technology market is very different from competition in traditional markets. Specifically speaking, the technology market has powerful “network effects(FYI: the term ‘network’ refers to a common user base, not the physical wires or wireless systems that connect pieces of electronics).” What all this means is that the “first movers ( the term ‘first mover’ refers to the first significant company to move into a market)” in the technology market have an advantage over the “late movers” and rivals who have incompatible products–by setting up a dominant, proprietary standard-and, thus, make it difficult, if not impossible, to compete. If you feel that you been treated unfairly due to an iPhone 4 issue or have questions regarding any other defective product or class action issue, please contact our firm.