Lawsuit Information Center

April 1, 2026

Hair Relaxer Lawsuit

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Our lawyers are actively reviewing hair relaxer cancer lawsuits across all 50 states. This page provides:

Detailed news and updates on the chemical hair relaxer litigation,
Insights from our hair relaxer attorneys on how these lawsuits may unfold,

April 1, 2026

Talc Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuit

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Our lawyers are handling baby powder lawsuits in all 50 states in 2026. The talcum powder lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson have been ongoing for years. The lawsuits allege that prolonged use of talcum powder (or “talc”), the active ingredient in products such as Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, can cause ovarian cancer in some women.

This page provides an update on J&J talc powder litigation and discusses the settlement amounts in ovarian cancer lawsuits for victims.

Has the deadline passed for you to file a talcum powder lawsuit? Many who assume the statute of limitations has passed to sue Johnson & Johnson may be wrong. But as we write this in January 2026, his settlement has blown up, and we are back at it. We are still signing up new clients, but this may not last much longer. Call us today at 800-553-8082 or get a free and quick case review online.

March 31, 2026

Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Uber is facing one of the largest waves of passenger sexual assault lawsuits in U.S. history. Survivors across the country allege that Uber drivers sexually assaulted them and that the company is legally responsible because it failed to screen drivers properly, ignored prior complaints, and did not implement basic safety measures.

These claims are now consolidated in In re: Uber Technologies Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation (MDL No. 3084) in the Northern District of California. As of March 2026, more than 3,700 plaintiffs in 30 states have joined the MDL, with this number expected to continue rising throughout 2026.

The first MDL trial started in January 2026, the jury came back in early February with an $8.5 million verdict. Our lawyers believe these are exceptionally strong cases. The evidence points to a pattern: repeated warnings about dangerous drivers, no action from Uber, and preventable assaults that followed. In the courtroom, that is the kind of timeline juries understand and respond to. It is also the kind of fact pattern that can lead to substantial Uber sexual assault settlement amounts.

March 31, 2026

Camp Lejeune Lawsuit News and Updates

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

This page provides updates on Camp Lejeune lawsuits. Our lawyers are still working to give the latest update on the litigation, even though we are no longer taking new cases. Why? Because there is little information out there, and we are staying with victims, including those we do not represent, until the end.

We have also recently reopened the comments below to answer any questions you may have or simply give you a chance to share your thoughts.

March 30, 2026

Depo Provera Lawsuit Settlements

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

This page is for victims considering filing a Depo-Provera lawsuit. Our lawyers provide the latest updates on these claims, explain the litigation process, and predict Depo Provera settlement amounts.

A new scientific study has provided stunning evidence that using Depo-Provera can cause brain tumors. Women who used Depo-Provera and subsequently developed a meningioma brain tumor can file a Depo-Provera lawsuit seeking financial compensation. This new evidence is leading to a wave of Depo-Provera lawsuits nationwide.

Our lawyers are speaking to over 100 women a week who used Depo-Provera and have been diagnosed with meningioma. Our law firm is committed to this litigation and handling Depo-Provera lawsuits for women who had at least two injections and were later diagnosed with a meningioma brain tumor. If you meet these criteria, we will make the process of signing up for this litigation easy for you. Contact our Depo-Provera lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.

March 30, 2026

Bard PowerPort Lawsuit

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Bard PowerPort (“BardPort”) is a port catheter device implanted just under the skin to allow for easy attachment to a catheter for the intravenous delivery of fluids or medication.

The Bard PowerPort has inherent design and manufacturing flaws that make the device prone to fracturing and migrating out of position. This can cause severe injuries, including internal vascular damage.

Individuals who suffered injuries due to a defective Bard PowerPort device are now bringing product liability lawsuits against the manufacturer of the PowerPort implants. Our firm is currently accepting new cases from anyone who had a Bard PowerPort port catheter device implanted and was injured due to a fracture, migration, or other implant failures.

March 29, 2026

Internal Bra Mesh Lawsuit

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Thousands of women who underwent internal bra breast surgery are now experiencing serious complications from the surgical mesh placed inside them, and many are pursuing legal action against the manufacturers that promoted these products for a use the FDA never approved.

Breast mesh lawsuits allege that manufacturers of products such as AlloDerm, GalaFLEX, Phasix, and AlloMax marketed their devices for breast reconstruction, augmentation, and revision surgeries even though those applications had never been adequately studied or approved by the FDA. Patients were not warned. Surgeons were not given enough information. So when complications developed, including infection, mesh failure, chronic pain, and the need for additional surgery, most women did not have the information to connect the dots from their problems to the problems with the devices.

This page explains the internal bra mesh lawsuit in plain English: what the legal claims are, who may be eligible, what complications may qualify, and what these cases may be worth.

March 27, 2026

Dupixent Lawsuit for T-Cell Lymphoma

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Dupixent (dupilumab) is a biologic medication used to treat atopic dermatitis, asthma, and other inflammatory conditions. It works by targeting specific immune pathways involved in allergic inflammation. For many patients with moderate to severe eczema, Dupixent has provided relief where topical medications failed. As a result, it has become one of the most widely prescribed biologic drugs for skin and respiratory conditions.

But for a growing number of patients, the experience with Dupixent has been very different. Over the past several years, doctors and researchers have reported cases in which patients treated with Dupixent were later diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a rare form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that primarily affects the skin. These reports have led to increasing scrutiny of whether Dupixent can worsen, accelerate, or mask CTCL in certain patients.

Lawyers across the country are now reviewing Dupixent lawsuits on behalf of patients who developed CTCL, mycosis fungoides, or Sézary syndrome after receiving Dupixent injections.

March 26, 2026

NEC Baby Formula Lawsuit

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Our lawyers are handling Similac and Enfamil infant formula lawsuits for families whose premature babies suffered or died from necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) after taking one of these formulas. Our law firm is reviewing NEC lawsuits in all 50 states.

Medical research links cow milk-based infant formulas such as Similac and Enfamil to a dangerous neonatal medical condition known as necrotizing enterocolitis. These newborn NEC formula lawsuits make a lot of allegations. But at their core, they allege that the makers of these formulas knew of the risk of NEC and did nothing to warn families and give them a choice.

If your premature baby was diagnosed with NEC after being given Similac or Enfamil formula, you may be able to participate in a class action lawsuit against the formula companies and receive financial compensation for the harm that was done to your child.

March 24, 2026

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

A spinal cord stimulator is an implantable medical device used to manage chronic pain, most often involving the back or spine. These systems are marketed as a way to reduce pain by interrupting nerve signals before they reach the brain. But for a growing number of patients, the device does not just fail to help. It introduces new and sometimes permanent problems, including electrical shocks, burning pain, infections, lead migration, hardware failure, and repeat surgeries to reposition or remove equipment that was supposed to improve quality of life.

This page explains spinal cord stimulator lawsuits and why they are being filed nationwide. It focuses on what patients are alleging, how these devices have failed in real-world use, and why many of these cases go beyond ordinary medical malpractice claims. The most serious lawsuits do not center on a single surgical mistake. They examine how modern spinal cord stimulators were designed, tested, and approved, and whether patients were ever adequately warned about the risks that now recur repeatedly in medical records and FDA reports.

Many people arrive here with a practical question in mind: what do spinal cord stimulator settlement amounts look like, and how does compensation get calculated when a device causes lasting harm? That question cannot be answered in isolation. Settlement amounts and payouts are driven by the full medical timeline, including the cost of repeat surgeries, explantation, permanent loss of function, and the downstream consequences when a pain-management device leaves someone worse off than before it was implanted.