This page is for parents looking to bring a WanaBana lawsuit on behalf of their child and their family for lead poisoning from this product.
Parents are angry and frustrated and want answers. This page provides answers for victims wondering what to do and how to seek settlement compensation. Our lawyers also provide the most recent information on the recall and the developments in the litigation, including the bankruptcy which may kill this litigation.
Talking about Camp Lejeune attorneys’ fees makes us uncomfortable. But this litigation is too important not to address all of the issues that matter to Camp Lejeune victims and their families, including how much lawyers like us charge attorneys’ fees.
The Camp Lejeune attorney fees issue has still not been resolved. The government and plaintiffs’ counsel continue to clash regarding the provision in EO settlements that restricts attorney fees to the limits set by 28 U.S.C. § 2675.
There is a new lawsuit involving the promotion and use of a dental device known as the Anterior Growth Guidance Appliance (AGGA). The lawsuit contends that the AGGA, which was marketed as a non-surgical solution for correcting dental, facial, and airway abnormalities, lacks scientific backing and has not been proven safe or effective for adult patients.
The core of the allegations centers on the assertion by the defendants that AGGA could induce substantial alterations in the adult nasomaxillary complex, including advancing the maxilla forward significantly, through mechanical force and bone growth stimulation.
Plaintiffs challenge these claims as unfounded and in direct conflict with established medical understanding, asserting that the device may, in fact, cause harm by displacing upper teeth from their sockets and leading to severe dental and skeletal issues.
As a result of the opioid addiction crisis, thousands of babies in the U.S. became addicted to opioids in utero and were born with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome and suffered opioid withdrawal at birth. Parents of these children are now filing lawsuits against the opioid manufacturers. If your child was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome or opioid withdrawal at birth, contact our national mass tort lawyers today to see if you qualify.
Over the past two decades, the number of opioid prescriptions has nearly quadrupled, fueling the ongoing opioid epidemic that has swept through our nation and brought devastation to countless families and communities. Recent estimates reveal that a baby born addicted to opioids emerges in the U.S. approximately every 19 minutes, with many newborns experiencing drug withdrawal symptoms and potential developmental issues daily.
The blame for this crisis often falls on drug manufacturers and distributors who knowingly played down the risks of opioid painkillers leading to physical dependency. Several pharmaceutical companies have faced repercussions for their deceptive and unlawful marketing of drugs like OxyContin, which, like other opiates, can serve as a gateway to heroin use. The consequences of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS) can be profound, potentially resulting in lifelong complications and substantial medical costs that can place significant financial strain on families. You and your baby should not have to endure such traumatic circumstances.
This page discusses the link between AFFF firefighting foam and various types of cancer, which has led to thousands of AFFF lawsuits across the country.
If you have an AFFF cancer lawsuit and you want to understand your options, call us today for a free case evaluation at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.
Yesterday, I wrote about the rising Paragard litigation and the possibility of a class-action lawsuit. Today, I’m writing about the history of IUDs for birth control.
How long has Paragard been around? Paragard was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1984. Paragard is known for being hormone-free and can provide long-term contraception for up to 10 years, making it a popular choice for those looking for a long-lasting and non-hormonal option. The device works by releasing small amounts of copper into the uterus, which creates an environment that is toxic to sperm.
The Paragard IUD is the most recent intrauterine contraceptive device to find itself embattled in a wave of product liability lawsuits in the U.S. Like so many of its predecessors in the IUD market, the Paragard turned out to have a hidden defect that caused serious health problems in many users.
Aqueous film-forming foam (“AFFF”) is generally known as firefighting foam and it has been used for decades to combat fires fueled by accelerants. AFFF contains high levels of chemicals called PFAS and recent research has shown that occupational exposure to PFAS can cause certain types of cancer. Kidney cancer is one of the diseases that has been scientifically linked to occupational exposure to AFFF firefighting foam.
This page will look at AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits involving kidney cancer and their potential settlement value.
Product liability lawsuits are being filed around the country, claiming that the popular baby formula Enfamil has caused premature babies to develop a severe gastrointestinal infection called necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).
Our national mass tort firm is currently seeking potential Enfamil lawsuits against the formula manufacturer based on its failure to warn about the risks of NEC. You could receive significant financial compensation if you qualify for an infant formula NEC lawsuit and are successful.
Over the last few years, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. has been defending a series of class action lawsuits claiming that the company’s OGX line of shampoos and conditioners contains chemicals that cause hair loss. The lawsuits accuse J&J of marketing OGX hair products as safe and capable of repairing, nourishing, and reviving hair. According to the plaintiffs, however, these products contain chemicals such as formaldehyde and DMDM, which are harmful and cause hair loss.
This page is about lawsuits involving OGX shampoo. We give you many details here that our lawyers think may be helpful to you including the current status of the pending litigations. But our law firm is not handling these cases.
This is an old page on power morcellator lawsuit that was updated in 2024.
In the United States, an estimated 650,000 women per year undergo surgical hysterectomies or myomectomies to manage symptomatic uterine fibroids. Traditionally, these procedures involved removing the uterus or fibroids intact.
Power morcellators were introduced in the 1990s as tools to facilitate minimally invasive surgeries, such as hysterectomies and myomectomies, by cutting large tissues into smaller fragments that could be easily removed through small incisions. It sounded good. These devices promised quicker recovery times, less postoperative pain, and reduced surgical trauma, quickly becoming popular in gynecological procedures.
Despite their advantages, concerns about the safety of power morcellators began to surface in the early 2000s. The primary issue was the potential for spreading undetected cancerous tissues, particularly uterine sarcomas, during morcellation.
In April 2014, the FDA issued a safety communication discouraging the use of power morcellators for hysterectomy or myomectomy due to the risk of spreading undetected uterine sarcoma. The FDA’s analysis indicated that approximately 1 in 350 women undergoing these procedures for fibroids might have an unsuspected uterine sarcoma.
Following the FDA’s warning, Johnson & Johnson withdrew its power morcellators from the market. The FDA also convened an Advisory Committee meeting in July 2014 to discuss the risks associated with these devices, ultimately recommending that power morcellators should not be used in patients with known or suspected malignancy and suggesting that a black box warning be included on these devices.
The history here is stunning. In December of last year, the FDA and, let’s be honest, most of the world has been sleeping on the issue of whether these morcellators can spread cancer that otherwise might have laid dormant. Five months later, in April 2014, the FDA issued a statement urging doctors to stop using power morcellators for uterine fibroid removal and hysterectomies.
This was a complete screw up on many levels. Numerous medical studies dating back to the 1990s have identified the risks of using power morcellators. For instance, a 1991 patent for a Surgical Tissue Bag highlighted the potential for morcellation to spread malignant tissue fragments. Further studies published in prominent medical journals throughout the years continued to report on the risks and complications associated with morcellation, including the possibility of rapid cancer progression and poorer long-term outcomes for patients who underwent morcellation compared to those who had traditional surgeries.
As someone who follows the history of how the science unfolds in mass tort medical device cases, the speed of this discovery of what has always been there to be seen was breakneck. Yet it was in front of the FDA and morcellator manufacturers’ faces all along: these morcellators are cancer spreaders.
How so? Doctors have no way to know whether the fibroids they are breaking up with a morcellator have cancerous cells. It is estimated that one in 350 women who undergo uterine fibroid surgery have unsuspected sarcoma contained within the uterus, while another one in 400 has the even deadlier, leiomyosarcoma (LMS). These cancer cells can be hidden inside the uterine fibroids. If a fibroid contains cancer cells, the cutting of the uterus with the power morcellator will cause cancer cells to spread throughout the peritoneal cavity, posing an extremely serious risk to a woman’s health. The spreading of these cells can quickly ignite the spread of cancer.
Lawsuit Information Center