United States of America

Between 2013 and 2024, contaminated Olympus duodenoscopes infected hundreds of patients at hospitals across the United States. At least 35 people died. The infections were caused by dangerous, drug-resistant bacteria that were extremely difficult to treat. The patients had gone into the hospital for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures involving the bile ducts or pancreas, including gallstone evaluations, pancreatic biopsies, and bile duct imaging. Some came out with infections that damaged organs, required months of intensive care, or proved fatal.

The remarkable part is not simply that it happened. Medical devices fail. Infections occur. What makes the Olympus duodenoscope litigation extraordinary is what plaintiffs allege Olympus knew. Olympus knew its scopes could not be reliably cleaned. Olympus knew that bacteria were surviving the reprocessing process and spreading from patient to patient. Olympus knew that patients were dying. And for years, the company failed to respond with the urgency patient safety required.

This page explains what went wrong, why it went wrong, and the legal options available to patients and families harmed by contaminated Olympus scopes. It is written for people who want to understand not just the claims being filed, but the science, the regulatory failures, and the corporate decisions that turned a solvable engineering problem into a public health catastrophe.

Breast mesh lawsuits allege that some manufacturers promoted or allowed their mesh products to become widely used in breast reconstruction, augmentation, and revision procedures despite the fact that FDA has not cleared or approved any surgical mesh product for use in breast surgery. The FDA has specifically stated that the safety and effectiveness of surgical mesh in breast surgery, including augmentation and reconstruction, has not been determined.

These internal bra lawsuits allege that manufacturers of products such as AlloDerm, GalaFLEX, Phasix, AlloMax, FlexHD, Strattice, and DuroSorb marketed their devices for breast reconstruction, augmentation, and revision surgeries even though those breast-specific applications had not been adequately studied or cleared by the FDA. Patients were not warned. Surgeons were not given enough information. So when complications developed, including infection, mesh failure, chronic pain, implant loss, breast deformity, and the need for additional surgery, many women had no reason to connect their injuries to the mesh product placed inside them.

This page explains the internal bra mesh lawsuit. Our lawyers talk about what the legal claims are, who may be eligible, what complications may qualify, how to identify your mesh product, what evidence matters, and what these cases may be worth.

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.

Ten years ago, I posted data showing the average personal injury verdict in Maine was approximately $27,000. These numbers do not tend to change much historically. So my guess is the average personal injury settlement in Maine is between $25,000 and $40,000.

But you have to understand how useless that is if you have a personal injury claim in Maine and you are trying to calculate or predict your settlement compensation payout.

Sample settlements and verdicts are not necessarily much better at projecting settlement amounts. But these are weapons you can use to better understand potential settlement compensation for an injury case in Maine.

Artificial intelligence has changed how people create, edit, and distribute images. But it has also opened a dangerous new frontier for exploitation and abuse. One of the most alarming developments is the rise of AI-generated sexual deepfakes: fake images or videos that can make it appear as though a real person was nude, sexualized, or involved in conduct that never happened.

The Grok deepfake lawsuit is one of the clearest early tests of whether AI companies can be held legally responsible when their tools generate or enable nonconsensual sexual images. These claims are not just about bad users. They are about product design, warnings, safeguards, profit, notice, and whether a company can release a powerful image-generation tool into the world and then blame victims when the predictable abuse occurs.

If your image, your child’s image, or someone you love was used in an AI-generated sexual deepfake, treat it like evidence in a serious civil case. Because it is. Screenshots help, but URLs, account names, timestamps, takedown requests, medical records, school records, employment records, and platform responses can all help. You do not need every piece of evidence to call, but the more we can preserve, the stronger the case may be.

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.

Table of Contents

Currently, thousands of hernia mesh lawsuits are pending in courts across the country. Our hernia mesh lawyers are handling these cases in all 50 states. This page:

  1. Discusses this litigation
  2. Provides the latest 2026 updates and the latest hernia mesh Bard MDL-2846 news on the settlement

C.R. Bard is defending over 18,000 hernia mesh lawsuits, which allege that its mesh devices were defective, resulting in injuries and complications for thousands of patients undergoing hernia surgery. Most of these lawsuits have now been joined in the Bard hernia mesh settlement, although new claims continue to come to our office virtually every day.

Our hernia mesh lawyers are handling these claims in all 50 states.  We are still taking new claims. This page will provide the latest news and updates on the hernia mesh litigation, as well as information regarding the settlement value of these cases.

Call our lawyers at 800-553-8082 for a free consultation or reach out online.

This page examines Suboxone, its associated dental complications, and the subsequent Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits that occurred in 2025. 

What is the Suboxone lawsuit about? The lawsuit is about what Suboxone does to your teeth. The core of every Suboxone lawsuit is that the defendants knew of the risk of severe tooth decay and other dental injuries. They did not convey that risk to prescribing doctors or patients because they chose profits over people.

Unfortunately, our lawyers are no longer taking on new Suboxone cases in 2026.  

Continue reading

This page is about Rhode Island sexual abuse lawsuits. Our lawyers examine how Rhode Island law defines sexual abuse and assault and when victims of sex abuse can file civil lawsuits and get compensation. We will also analyze the potential settlement for sex abuse lawsuits in Rhode Island.

2026 Update #1: Rhode Island Opens Sexual Abuse Revival Window

Rhode Island has now opened a two-year revival window for civil childhood sexual abuse lawsuits. Governor Dan McKee signed the legislation on June 11, 2026, and the window runs from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2028. This is the most important Rhode Island sex abuse statute of limitations development in years because it gives survivors with previously expired claims a new opportunity to sue not only perpetrators, but also institutions and supervisors accused of enabling, concealing, failing to report, or negligently supervising the abuse.

Contact Information