Al

Nationwide Testosterone Lawyers For Heart Attack and Stroke Victims

Written by


Nationwide Testosterone Lawsuit Attorney Network


Get A Testosterone Lawsuit Lawyer Handling Testosterone Heart Attack and Stroke Lawsuits

If you or a loved one suffered from a heart attack or stroke while using AndroGel you may be entitled to damages. We provide free no-obligation Atlanta testosterone lawsuit case review. We do not charge attorney fees unless you receive compensation and you are under no obligation after your initial consultation.

Testosterone Therapy May Raise Heart Attack Risks

Researchers say risk of heart attack doubles after treatment starts for men under 65 with heart problems and all men over 65.

Nationwide AndroGel Lawsuit Attorneys
Testosterone Stroke and Heart Attack

AndroGel® (testosterone gel) is a daily testosterone replacement therapy that can help bring T levels back to normal with daily use.

FDA Is Investigating Potential Heart Attacks And Strokes From Testosterone Products

On Jan. 31, 2014, the FDA announced it would be investigating the risk of heart attacks, strokes and possible deaths in men using testosterone products. The FDA made this announcement after reviewing the study conducted at the National Cancer Institute, as well as the study published in JAMA. The FDA recommended the health care practitioners should consider the benefits of testosterone treatment and potential the risks.

If you or a loved one has had a stroke or heart attack after using testosterone therapy call now and get connected to one of our experienced testerone lawyers

Attention DePuy Hip Replacement Lawsuit Filing Ending August 2012

Written by

Breaking news; If you were injured by the DePuy hip Recall You must file your lawsuit now. Filing deadline August 2012

Most DePuy ASR Lawsuits Must Be Filed Before August 2012

Posted May 18, 2012 4:57 PM

DePuy ASR hip implant patients in most states who do not file lawsuits before August 23, 2012 may lose their rights to compensation or to file a lawsuit. Every state has a law called the statute of limitations that sets a limited time period in which a lawsuit for compensation can be filed. If a person with a legal claim or legal case fails to have a lawsuit filed on their behalf within this time period their claim can be forever barred. In summary, people who do not assert their rights in court within a limited time lose those rights and can never thereafter bring that claim.
Why is the Statute of Limitations for Most ASR Hip Implant Patients This August?
Every state has its own time limit for filing lawsuits called the Statute of Limitations. DePuy and Johnson and Johnson, the manufacturers of the ASR Hip Implant, have a right to have lawsuits dismissed or decided in their favor regardless of the injuries if the lawsuit is not filed in time to comply with the statute of limitations.
Most states in the United States use a two year time period for the statute of limitations. Other states may have a 1 year up to a six year time period for the statute of limitations. Different states use different rules to calculate when these time periods start running and when it is too late to bring a lawsuit. These calculations can be difficult to make and there have been many lawsuits over the running of the statutes of limitations in different types of cases. Each person’s case should be carefully evaluated individually by an experienced lawyer because individual circumstances can affect calculating this time period. This blog is for general information and awareness and you should not use this information to make your own calculation to rely on for your case for the statutes of limitations.
This two year statute of limitations will run for many DePuy ASR hip implant cases because the official DePuy Recall Notice that received widespread publicity was issued on August 24, 2010. The two year period from that Recall Notice will expire on August 23, 2012. Thus, lawsuits for injured ASR patients must be filed in those states with a two year statute of limitations or it may be too late for those patients to make a claim.
Which States Have a Two Year Statute of Limitations
Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia are the states with a two year statute of limitations for injury cases.
However, the calculations used to measure the two year time periods are different in different states and it is important to have each case calculated by an experience attorney to be sure that the time period does not run out before the lawsuit is filed.
For example, the two year statute of limitations in Virginia is unusual in that the two year time period in that state runs from when the person first has pain or is aware of an injury even if that was before the recall of before they had any idea that DePuy might be responsible. So in Virginia it is likely that the statute of limitations may have already run on some cases where the person had pain from their hip implant before the recall date. It is possible that someone reading this blog could have a statute of limitations that will run tomorrow or next week!
Immediate individual legal advice is critical to making sure that the Statute of Limitation is not missed.
There are many states other than those listed above that have a statute of limitations of two years from the date of death if the implant caused a death. Some states have longer statutes of limitations for injury cases than for death cases.
Are There Exceptions to the Statute of Limitations?
There are few exceptions to the Statute of Limitations. One of the clearest is the Sailors and Soldiers Relief Act which can toll the statute of limitations for some active members of the military while they are in the service of our country. Tolling of the Statute of Limitations means that the time period is stopped from running. That means that some active military people could wait many years before having to file their cases. Our firm has had other types of cases where the statute of limitations has been tolled for decades while a military person is in active service.
Many states have what is called a “Discovery Rule” which means that the Statute of Limitations does not start until a person would reasonably know that they might have a liability claim. I believe many judges would rule that the widespread public dissemination of the DePuy Recall Notice of August 24, 2010 would start the clock running on the statute of limitations even if an individual person did not hear about it or know about it because the test is usually an objective test about what a reasonably informed person would know.
There is another highly complex legal rule called the “American Pipe Rule” that may be applied in some states if a class action is pending to toll the time period for an individual lawsuit for a person who would be a member of that class action. This theory should not be relied on for DePuy ASR cases because there is no viable class action that I know of. The ASR cases are coordinated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict proceeding called an MDL but this is not a class action and will not toll or stop the statute of limitations from running in an individual case unless an individual case is filed for that person.
Mental incompetence can be an exception in some states that could extend the statute of limitations. For example, someone with severe Alzheimers disease might qualify in some states for an extension to the statute of limitations.
Final Advice on the Statute of Limitations for ASR Lawsuits
Every person with a DePuy ASR Hip Implant should have a detailed review of the statute of limitations done by an attorney experienced in medical product liability cases. This review should be done immediately because once the statute of limitations has run there is no way to reopen or restart it. Once the statute of limitations has run it is too late to ever bring a lawsuit for harms and injuries from the defective ASR metal on metal hip implants.

Pradaxa Breaking News, Pradaxa lawyers, Pradaxa Lawsuits, Pradaxa Bleeding

Written by

Pradaxa has warnings for excessive bleeding. Pradaxa Helpline is concerned about Pradaxa and the elderly

The Pradaxa Helpline Has Pradaxa Lawyers to Help You

LONDON | Fri May 25, 2012 6:07am EDT

(Reuters) Doctors and patients should be given clearer guidance on how to avoid bleeding risks when using Boehringer Ingelheim s new stroke prevention pill Pradaxa, European regulators said on Friday.

The European Medicines Agency said data continued to confirm the positive benefit-risk balance of the anticoagulant medicine, despite cases of fatal bleeding, but advice on the risks should be strengthened.

Pradaxa is the first in a new class of medicines aimed at replacing the old and problematic drug warfarin. It is designed for use after hip and knee surgery and to prevent strokes in patients with atrial fibrillation, a form of irregular heartbeat common among the elderly.

Rival drugs include Xarelto, from Bayer and Johnson & Johnson, and Eliquis, from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer.

Pradaxa is an anticoagulant. Anticoagulants effect the clotting time of the blood. Pradaxa is described as a prescription blood-thinning medicine used to reduce the risk of stroke and blood clots in people with atrial fibrillation not caused by a heart valve problem. With atrial fibrillation, part of the heart does not beat the way it should. This can cause blood clots to form, increasing your risk of a stroke. Pradaxa lowers the chance of blood clots forming in your body. There is a chnce of excessive bleeding on Pradaxa that can be fatal.

We can locate a Pradaxa lawyer to help you:

Silicone Breast Implant Claims Lawyers, Silicone Breast Implant Class Action

Written by

Breast implant Class Action lawyers Helping women with Dow Corning, Mentor and other Silicone breast implant claims.

Silicone breast implants caused silicone toxicity and Immune deficiency diseases with symptoms of:

  • Muscle Pain -Upper arms, neck, chest, upper back, thighs, buttocks
  • Joint Pain -hands, feet, toes, elbows
  • Pressure headaches
  • Ringing in ears
  • Sun sensitivity & rash; face, neck & upper chest
  • Hives
  • Intermittent tingling in legs, feet, arms, fingers, right upper back, neck and face
  • Many urinary tract and yeast infections
  • Burning lips, mouth, tongue
  • Dry eyes, nose, mouth, and vagina
  • Nausea, heartburn, constipation, diarrhea
  • Insomnia
  • Anxiety

And:

  • Breast Pain
  • Upper and Lower Back Pain
  • dry eyes
  • joint pain and swelling
  • myalgias
  • chronic fatigue
  • Lupus
  • numbness and tingling in extremities
  • photosensitivity
  • Chemical Sensitivities
  • Muscle Pain, Stiffness, Unusual Fatigue
  • Excessive Hair Loss
  • Achy or Swollen Joints
  • Extreme fatigue
  • Skin Rashes
  • Rheumatoid Arthritis
  • Polymyositis-Dermatomyositis
  • Mixed Connective Tissue Disease
  • Scleroderma
  • Sjogren s syndrome
  • Anemia
  • Sensitivity to Sunlight
  • Kidney Problems
  • Fever
  • Difficulty Swallowing or Breathing

Women are still suffering today and settlements are still pending for the Silicone Breast Implant Clas Action. If you currently are registered fo r one of the breast implant settlement manufacturers and need help with your claim call 1 877 522-2123

Women Filing nationwide Vaginal mesh lawsuits, vaginal Mesh lawyers

Written by

The vaginal mesh has been wrecking havoc on womens lives and the numbers are just starting to reveal themselves. Wome have stories about their vaginal mesh and are ready to file vaginal mesh lawsuits. one of the women below:

Texarkana woman files personal injury lawsuit over vaginal mesh implant
5/21/2012 10:22 PM By Michelle Keahey, East Texas Bureau

TEXARKANA After suffering several complications allegedly stemming from transvaginal mesh implantation, a Texarkana woman has filed a personal injury lawsuit against the medical device manufacturer.

Peggy Green filed suit against Boston Scientific Corp., doing business as Mansfield Scientific Inc. & Microvasive Inc. on May 14 in the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division.

Due to stress urinary incontinence, Green was surgically implanted with the Uphold Vaginal Support System, manufactured by the defendant, on May 14, 2010.

After her surgery, she began to experience complications such as vaginal pressure and pain, vaginal bleeding and/or dyspareunia. She states that these complications are the result of the implanted medical device.

The defendant is accused of breach of warranty, negligence, and failure to warn.

The plaintiff is seeking an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, exemplary damages, incidental damages, consequential damages, attorney s fees, and court costs.

Green is represented by Erin K. Copeland of Fibich, Hampton, Leebron, Briggs & Josephson in Houston. A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Michael H. Schneider is assigned to the case.

This is just one of many vaginal mesh lawsuits. If you have been injured and your life destroyed by a defective vaginal mesh do not delay. There are statue of limitation issues. contact our vaginal mesh free legal department today.

History of Breast Implants, Breast Implant Lawyers, Dow Corning breast Implant Claims

Written by

Breast Implant lawyers are still to this date helpling women resolve their Dow Corning Breast Implant Claims of the Breast Implant Class action of years ago. In light of this it is interesting to look at the history of Breast Implants, FDA has approved a New silicone breast Implant and despite the horrors women are still going for that well endowed look.

1940s
Japanese prostitutes have their breasts injected with substances such as paraffin, sponges and non-medical grade silicone to enlarge their breasts, believing that American servicemen favor women with large breasts.

1960s
The first silicone breast implants are developed by two plastic surgeons from Texas: Frank Gerow and Thomas Cronin.

1962
Timmie Jean Lindsey becomes the first woman to receive silicone breast implants.

1976
The Food and Drug Administration enacts the Medical Devices Amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. FDA now has the authority to review and approve the safety and effectiveness data of new medical devices. But since silicone breast implants have been on the market for almost 15 years, they are "grandfathered." Manufacturers of the implants, when called to do so by the FDA, will be required to provide safety and effectiveness data.

1977
Richard Mithoff, a Houston attorney, wins the first lawsuit for a Cleveland woman who claims that her ruptured implants and subsequent operations had caused pain and suffering. She receives a $170,000 settlement from Dow Corning. Case receives little publicity.

1980s
Ralph Nader s Public Citizen Health Research Group, Washington, D.C. sends out warning signals that silicone breast implants cause cancer.

January 1982
FDA proposes to classify silicone breast implants into a Class III category which would require manufacturers to prove their safety in order to keep them on the market.

1984
Stern vs Dow Corning, San Francisco. Case wins on many internal Dow Corning documents that had been discovered in a Dow storage area by attorney Dan Bolton . Maria Stern s systemic autoimmune disease is found by a jury to be caused by her silicone breast implants. Bolton introduces the silicone-induced problems for the first time in court, with "experts" that theorize the silicone-immune system connection. After a monthlong trial, the jury awards Maria Stern $211,000 in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages. The evidence is sealed by a court order.

June 1988
Six years after the 1982 proposal, FDA classifies the implants into Class III. Premarket Approval Applications from silicone breast implant manufacturers are due by July 1991. The PMA s must prove affirmatively, with valid scientific data evaluated by the FDA, that their devices are safe and effective. After the PMA s are submitted by the manufacturers, the FDA has 180 days to evaluate the safety data.

December 1990
Program on the dangers of silicone breast implants airs on "Face to Face with Connie Chung."

December 1990
Congressional hearing headed by Representative Ted Weiss deals with the safety of silicone breast implants. This hearing also discusses the fact that not all the information that the manufacturers have are available for public scrutiny due to a court order from the Stern verdict.

July 1991
Dow Corning releases 329 studies to FDA.

July 1991
Toole vs Baxter, Alabama. Jury decides against Baxter/Heyer-Shulte and awards the largest settlement so far, $5.4 million, to Brenda Toole. Toole, who shows only preliminary symptoms of systemic autoimmune problems, nevertheless had silicone in her lymphatic system according to plaintiffs witnesses and thus an increased risk of developing an autoimmune disease.

September 1991
FDA concludes that the silicone breast implant manufacturers safety data does not prove the devices are safe or harmful. Manufacturers are told to submit further data.

November 1991
The FDA brings together its General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel to review all of the safety data from the manufacturers PMA s. The purpose of the panel is to advise FDA as to what they could tell the public about the safety and effectiveness of the silicone breast implants based on the PMA s. The panel is composed of a broad range of experts, including representatives from the fields of plastic surgery, oncology, epidemiology, internal medicine, immunology, radiology, pathology, gynecology, toxicology, sociology, biomaterials and psychology, as well as industry and consumer groups. The panel hearing rejects the data from Dow Corning, Mentor, McGhan, and Bioplasty, concluding there is not sufficient data about the risks and benefits of the devices. The panel recommends the devices stay on the market temporarily and with limited access. The need for more safety data is stressed.

December 1991
Hopkins vs Dow Corning, San Francisco. The largest award yet, $7.3 million, is given to Mariann Hopkins whose mixed connective- tissue disease is linked to her ruptured silicone breast implants. The lawyer for the case, Dan Bolton, wins the suit with the help of internal memos and studies from the Stern lawsuit, in addition to new studies he recently obtained from Dow. Mr. Bolton gives several of the internal documents to the FDA which has never seen the documents before.

December 1991
To date, 137 individual lawsuits have been filed against Dow Corning.

January 1992
FDA Commissioner, David Kessler, calls for a voluntary moratorium on the distribution or implantation of silicone breast implants until the FDA and the advisory panel have an opportunity to consider newly available information. The manufacturers agree.

February 1992
The class action lawsuit is filed in Cincinnati by Stan Chesley. The hope is to compensate women at a faster rate than filing individual lawsuits.

February 1992
Dow Corning CEO, Lawrence Reed, is replaced by Keith McKennon.

February 1992
The General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel reconvenes to review the new information regarding the safety of silicone breast implants. The panel recommends that the further use of implants be limited for reconstruction only and that women receiving the implants participate in scientific protocols and that epidemiologic studies be conducted to assess the risk of autoimmune disease. The panel concludes that no causal link has been established between autoimmune disease and silicone breast implants.

February 1992
Many of the Dow Corning internal memos are released to the public.

March 1992
Dow Corning leaves the silicone breast implant business as do Bristol-Myers Squibb and Bioplasty. McGhan and Mentor will still manufacture breast implants. Dow sets up a fund for further research into the safety of breast implants.

April 1992
Dr. Kessler lifts the moratorium on silicone breast implants. The only women allowed to receive implant surgery are those undergoing breast reconstruction. All of the implant recipients must become part of a scientific protocol.

May 1992
First woman gets implants under new rules.

December 1992
Johnson vs Bristol-Myers Squibb, Houston. Pamela Jean Johnson wins $25 million, $5 million actual damages and $20 million punitive damages in a case argued by Texas attorney John O Quinn. A jury finds Ms. Johnson s ruptured silicone implants were linked to her mixed connective tissue disease, auto-immune responses, chronic fatigue, muscle pain, joint pain, headaches, and dizziness. Expert witnesses and lawyers admit her symptoms amount to "a bad flu."

December 1992
To date 3,558 individual lawsuits have been filed against Dow Corning.

June 1993
Dick Hazleton becomes CEO of Dow Corning.

December 1993
By year s end 12,359 individual lawsuits have been filed against Dow Corning.

March 1994
A Houston jury awards three women a total of $27.9 million against 3M, $15 million in punitive, $12 million in compensatory damages for illness. The lawyer arguing the case against 3M is John O Quinn. The three women suffered from either atypical lupus, neurological impairment, and a "silicone induced" autoimmune problem.

March 1994
The class action suit is finalized by manufacturers with Dow Corning being the largest contributor. The other contributors include Baxter, Bristol-Myers Squibb/MEC, 3M. It is the largest class action settlement in history. Manufacturers claim there is no scientific evidence linking silicone breast implants with autoimmune diseases. There are set monetary amounts that will be awarded to women with specific medical conditions. No requirements are needed to prove implants are the cause of their ailments. Women will be allowed to drop out of the settlement. Companies can also opt out if too few women register claims.

April 1994
Preliminary approval to class action by Judge Pointer. Clears the way for women to start applying for claims in the settlement.

June 1994
The Mayo Clinic epidemiologic study is published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which finds no increased risk of connective-tissue disease and other disorders that were studied in women with silicone implants.

September 1994
Final approval of class action/global settlement from Judge Pointer.

December 1994
By this date 19,092 individual lawsuits have been filed against Dow Corning.

1995
The American College of Rheumatology issues a statement saying the evidence is "compelling" that implants did not cause systemic disease.

February 1995
Gladys Laas vs Dow Corning.

May 1995
Dow Corning files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Dow is facing 20,000 lawsuits, some with multiple plaintiffs and about 410,000 potential claims that have been filed in the global settlement. The bankruptcy essentially halts all litigation.

June 1995
About 440,000 women have registered in the global settlement. About 70,000 can be immediately compensated.

June 1995
The Harvard Nurses Epidemiologic Study is published in the New England Journal of Medicine. This finds no increased risk of connective-tissue disease or certain signs and symptoms of connective-tissue disease in women with silicone implants.

October 1995
Mahlum vs Dow Chemical, Reno. This is the first case where Dow Chemical, the parent company of Dow Corning, is the sole defendant. Charlotte Mahlum is awarded $3.9 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. About 13,000 breast implant lawsuits are pending against Dow Chemical.

November 1995
New global settlement is devised minus Dow Corning. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Baxter and 3M are the participants. The monetary awards are less than the previous settlement.

December 1995
By now 15 individual lawsuits against Dow Corning have gone to trial involving some 19 plaintiffs. Of these, Dow Corning have had 8 trial "wins" and 6 trial "losses," with one split decision.

December 1995
By now more than 20 (non-case report) studies and abstracts have come out in the U.S. and internationally, all failing to support a causal relationship between silicone implants and a variety of auto-immune related illnesses.

April 1996
Two Federal judges in New York appoint an impartial, expert panel to review the scientific issues involved in breast implant lawsuits. This rare move will influence judges throughout the country.

September 1996
The California Court of Appeal upholds a decision dismissing Dow Chemical and Dow Corning from 1,800 breast-implant lawsuits.

December 1996
Oregon Federal Judge Robert E. Jones, after input from a panel of impartial scientists, rules that plaintiffs lawyers cannot present evidence that silicone implants caused disease because it is scientifically invalid. He dismisses 70 claims, shocking the litigation community.
Sam C. Pointer, the Alabama judge overseeing all federal implant cases, appoints his own panel of scientific experts who are not connected to implant litigation.

January 1997
The American Academy of Neurology reviews existing silicone implant studies and reports that "existing research shows no link between silicone breast implants and neurological disorders."

March 1997
A judge in Michigan rules that the Dow Chemical Company is not liable for the medical problems of hundreds of women in the state. Thus far, some state appellate courts have upheld Dow Chemical s liability and others have not.

August 1997
The New York Times reports that implant manufacturers have been winning 80% of cases against them. Nevertheless, a state jury in the first class-action suit finds that Dow Chemical (which owns half of Dow Corning) knowingly deceived women by hiding safety information about the silicone in their implants.

September 1997
The Journal of the National Cancer Institute publishes a review of scores of medical studies that concludes breast implants do not cause breast cancer. The researchers described the evidence for linking implants to any other disease as "borderline."

December 1997
The first class-action lawsuit in an implant case is reduced to its original eight claimants when a Louisiana judge decides the 1,800 women have cases too dissimilar to group into one lawsuit.

April 1998
Two large Scandinavian studies fail to show that silicone implants are linked to neurological disease.

July 1998
Plaintiffs agree to Dow Corning s offer of $3.2 billion to settle tens of thousands of claims of injury from silicone breast implants. The agreement will let the plaintiffs receive money within a year and also enable Dow Corning to emerge from bankruptcy proceedings.
After being asked by the British minister of health to review the safety of silicone implants, a seven-member panel of scientists report no convincing evidence that they cause disease. (The U.K. has never removed silicone implants from the market.)

November 1998
Dow Corning files for bankruptcy reorganization, which includes the $3.2 billion previously agreed-to settlement and offers claimants several payout options. Those who want to cash-out immediately and not file a disease claim will be paid $2,000. This figure can also be combined with $5,000 for implant removal surgery and $20,000 for a ruptured implant. Those who have already filed a disease claim will receive between $10,000 and $250,000 plus any compensation claimed for removal or ruptures.

December 1998
After two years and $800,000, a panel of four independent experts appointed by Judge Sam C. Pointer, overseer of implant lawsuits in the Federal courts, concludes that scientific evidence so far has failed to show that silicone breast implants cause disease.
Nevada Supreme Court upholds a compensatory damage award of $41 million against Dow Chemical to Charlotte Mahlum for her multiple-sclerosis-like symptoms. Dow Chemical was earlier found liable for helping Dow Corning conceal evidence about the harmful effects of silicone. The court, however, overturns a $10 million punitive award.

Breast Implant Class action, Breast Implant lawyers January 1999
A jury in a Washington Federal court awards $10 million in compensatory damages against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. to an attorney who claimed her implants caused scleroderma.

Spring 1999 Silicone-gel-filled Breast implants
Silicone-gel-filled implants remain off the market in the U.S. pending manufacturer safety studies. They are available only to women who have had or will have breast surgery for a medical condition or have other complications from existing implants, and only if they agree to be part of a scientific protocol, or study. The latest status of silicone breast implants can be found at the FDA website.

June 1999
The Institute of Medicine releases a 400-page report prepared by an independent committee of 13 scientists. They conclude that although silicone breast implants may be responsible for localized problems such as hardening or scarring of breast tissue, implants do not cause any major diseases such as lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. The Institute of Medicine is part of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation s most prestigious scientific organization. Congress had asked the Institute to set up the committee. The committee did not conduct any original research; they examined past research and other materials, and conducted public hearings to hear all sides of the issue.

Breast Implant lawyers accepting Dow Corning Breast Implant Cases

Written by

If you have filed and registered with Dow Corning regarding your Breast Implant Settlement Claim and need help you have found the right place. Dow Corning breast Implant lawyers are still helpling women with Dow Corning claims. To get help with your claim call 1 877 522-2123 today.

Breast Implant Information

Breast implants are medical devices implanted under breast tissue or under the chest muscle for the purpose of:

Reconstruction done in patients who have had a mastectomy to remove the breast when breast cancer is present
Augmentation, a cosmetic procedure to enlarge the breasts
Revision surgery, done when either reconstruction or augmentation surgery needs to be revised due to problems resulting from the original operation

There are two main types of breast implants:

Saline-filled implants
Silicone gel-filled implants

Various breast implants differ in profile, size, and texture of the shell surface.
Saline-Filled Breast Implants

Saline-filled breast implants are silicone shells into which saline is prefilled before surgery or filled with saline during surgery. They are approved for:

Reconstruction or revision reconstruction following breast cancer surgery for women of any age
Augmentation or revision surgery in a women 18 years old or older

These implants are made by Mentor and Allergan (formerly Inamed).
Silicone Gel-Filled Implants

Silicone gel-filled implants are silicone shells prefilled (before surgery) with silicone gel. They are approved for:

Reconstruction (both primary and revision) for women of any age
Augmentation (both primary and revision) for women 22 years of age and older

Implants are not done for women younger than 18 (saline) or 22 (silicone gel) because the breasts are still developing at a young age.
ALCL Cancer Detection

Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (ALCL) is not breast cancer. It is not cancer found in breast tissue cells. Rather, in women diagnosed with ALCL near implants, it is cancer found in fluid that surrounds the implant or is contained within fibrous scar tissue (not breast cancer tissue) that often develops around a breast implant.

ALCL, according to the National Cancer Institute, is a rare malignant tumor (non-Hodgkin s Lymphoma) that can show up in several parts of the body, including:

Lymph nodes
Skin
Bones
Soft tissue
Lungs
Liver

It is a cancer of the cells of the immune system.
ALCL Cancer Detection Due to Breast Implants

Data are lacking to determine if there is a link between ALCL and breast implants. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted a review of the scientific literature published between January 1997 and May 2010. It found 34 women in the United States and 26 cases elsewhere to reach a total of 60 cases worldwide. This is out of hundreds of millions of breast implant patients.

The FDA, which is planning to conduct more studies, concluded:

"Based on all evidence available to us at this time, the FDA believes that women with breast implants may have a very low but increased risk of developing ALCL."

Breast Implants: Saline and Silicone Gel-Filled
Complications of Breast Implants

Many complications from breast implants are possible. The complications may affect women with either saline-filled or silicone gel-filled implants. Some might require surgical or nonsurgical treatments or removal of the implants.

The most common complications that occur locally in patients with breast implants are:

Contracture — Scar tissue normally forms around the breast implant. If this scar tissue contracts, it tightens around and squeezes the implant, possibly leading to discomfort and disfigurement.
Rupture and deflation — It is possible for the casing of the implant to rupture and for the material inside to leak out, leading to deflation of the implant.

Capsular contracture has been defined according to four grades of severity. They are:

Grade I — the breast is normally soft and looks natural
Grade II — the breast is a little firm but looks normal
Grade III — the breast is firm and looks abnormal
Grade IV — the breast is hard, painful, and looks abnormal

Among the many complications that can affect implants are:

Asymmetry (breasts are of different sizes or shapes)
Pain
Atrophy of the tissue
Calcium deposits
Chest wall deformity
Delayed healing of the surgical area
Extrusion of the material through the implant casing
Galactorrhea — milk flow
Granuloma — small area of inflammation
Bruising or redness
Infection, including toxic shock syndrome
Tissue death
Palpability or visibility of the implant
Scarring
Seroma or collection of fluid
Wrinkling or rippling

ALCL and Breast Implants

ALCL or anaplastic large cell lymphoma is an immune system cancer that is in the group of non-Hodgkin s lymphomas. It is a very rare disease in both women and men. In women, the National Cancer Institute ALCL statistics estimate that it occurs in about 1 in 500,000 women annually in the U.S. In women with breast implants, the occurrence is even more rare — 3 in 100 million.

ALCL is not breast cancer when it occurs in the breast. That is, the cancer cells are not in the breast tissue, but in cells between the breast tissue and the implant. The National Cancer Institute defines ALCL as a rare type of malignant tumor of the non-Hodgkin s lymphoma type. It can occur in different parts of the body including the lymph nodes, skin, bones, soft tissue, lungs or liver. Depending upon the type of ALCL, it is treated either with chemotherapy or radiation

Breast Implant and ALCL Statistics

Women who have breast augmentation (not reconstruction following a mastectomy) number in the hundreds of thousands in the United States.

Breast implant statistics gathered by the American Society of Plastic Surgery for 2009 include:
Breast augmentation procedures done in 2009 — 289,328
Breast augmentation done in 2000 — 212,500
Percent difference between 2000 and 2009 — 36 percent
2009 amount of money spent on breast augmentation surgery — $963,839,020

Breast augmentation by age:

13-19 years old — 8,199
20-29 years old — 86,525
30-39 years old — 103,738
40 years and older — 80,668

Breast Augmentation by U.S. Location in 2009

The number of breast implants done in 2009 in various locations around the country were:

Region 1 — New England and Middle Atlantic: 41,420 (14 percent of U.S.)
Region 2 — East North Central and West North Central: 47,476 (16 percent of U.S.)
Region 3 — South Atlantic: 45,166 (16 percent of U.S.)
Region 4 — East South Central and West South Central: 47,614 (16 percent of U.S.)
Region 5 — Mountain and Pacific107, 652 (37 percent of U.S.)

Women With Breast Implants Who Experience ALCL Symptoms

ALCL (anaplastic large cell lymphoma) is a rare type of non-Hodgkin s lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system. The number of women who get ALCL is about one in 500,000 each year in the United States. The number of women who have breast implants and get ALCL each year in the U.S. is about three in 100 million.
Signs and Symptoms of ALCL

The main symptoms of ALCL in women who have breast implants are persistent swelling and pain in the area near the implant. These symptoms often do not appear until long after the surgery to have the implant, often years later.

The way to diagnose ALCL in women who have symptoms is to do a biopsy of the fluid or scar tissue surrounding the implant. Both form during the healing process.

Because ALCL is very rare, it usually is found unexpectedly in women who have revision surgery for their implants. It is not known as yet which type of implants, saline-filled versus silicone gel-filled, are more likely to be associated with ALCL.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is recommending that women with breast implants but no symptoms should in general keep their implants, because the number of cases of ALCL is so small. The agency recommends that healthcare professionals should:

Report any cases of ALCL to Medwatch, the FDA safety information and adverse event reporting program. Reports can be made online or by telephone at 1-800-332-1088
Consider a patient might have ALCL when she has late onset, persistent fluid around the implant, then have the fluid and scar tissue biopsied for disease

Women with implants should:

Continue their regular medical care
Monitor their breast implants and see their doctor if they have pain, swelling, or any changes around the implants
Understand that ALCL is very rare and is not breast cancer, but a cancer that grows between the implant and the breast tissue

Breast Implants and ALCL Lawsuits

Have you had a breast implant — either saline or silicone gel-filled — and then been diagnosed with anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL)? If so, you should contact a breast implant lawyer to find out what your legal options are.
Contact an ALCL Breast Implant Lawyer

A qualified lawyer can discuss your individual situation to determine if you have legitimate grounds for a lawsuit. At this time, it is unclear if there is a link between ALCL and breast implants. The numbers of women who get this rare cancer are too small to make a determination. But, it is possible there is a link.

It is in your best interest to contact a lawyer to discuss your options.
What Types of Implants Are There?

There are two types of breast implants, depending upon what they are filled with. The two kinds of implants are:

Saline-filled
Silicone-gel filled

It still is unknown if one type or the other has a stronger association with ALCL. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is establishing a registry to keep track of cases of ALCL in women with breast implants to gather enough data to determine if there is a relationship between the rare cancer and breast implants.
What is ALCL?

ALCL is a rare type of non-Hodgkin s lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system. According to National Cancer Institute ALCL statistics, about one woman in 500,000 is diagnosed per year with ALCL. The number of women diagnosed with ALCL in the U.S. each year who have breast implants is three women per 100 million women.

The National Cancer Institute defines ALCL as a rare malignant tumor of the non-Hodgkin s lymphoma type) that can appear in a number of places in the body. These include:

Lymph nodes
Skin
Bones
Soft tissue
Lungs
Liver

The primary symptoms of ALCL in women with breast implants are pain or swelling near the breast implant. These symptoms often occur long after the surgical implant operation has occurred, frequently years later.
Is ALCL Breast Cancer?

It is important to know that ACLC in women with breast implants is not breast cancer. That is, it is not cancer of the breast tissue, but cancer that appears between the implant and breast tissue in liquid that has accumulated around the implant or in scar tissue that has formed around it.

Breast Implants and Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (ALCL)

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reported a possible link between breast implants and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). If you have breast implants and develop ALCL, contact us for legal help. We may be able to help you collect financial compensation.
What is ALCL (Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma)?

ALCL is a type of non-Hodgkin s lymphoma (NHL). It is a cancer of the immune system. ALCL is a rare disease that comes in two forms:

ALCL that affects the lymph nodes and organs
Cutaneous (skin) ALCL

The primary systemic type of ALCL affects children and adults, but it is relatively rare in adults. ALCL occurs in only two to three percent of adults diagnosed with NHL every year. ALCL in children, however, occurs in ten to thirty percent of all childhood NHL.
Breast Implant ALCL Symptoms

In the primary systemic type, the first symptom most patients experience is enlarged lymph nodes. On rare occasions, the disease occurs in the intestines and bones without affecting the lymph nodes. The disease is diagnosed by taking a biopsy from the affected lymph node or organ. After the diagnosis is confirmed, the pathologist tests for the stage of the disease.

In patients with ALCL of the cutaneous type, the disease mainly involves the skin. This is a relatively rare condition that affects mostly older adults. The first symptoms patients will notice are swellings or sores on the skin. A skin biopsy confirms the diagnosis.

Depending upon the type and location of the ALCL, treatment may be chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Some cases of ALCL of the skin may disappear on its own.
Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma and Breast Implants

ALCL has been found to occur in a few rare instances in patients who have breast implants. The diseased cells are adjacent to but not in the breast tissue. Therefore, this is not a form of breast cancer. The occurrence of ALCL is three in approximately 100 million women.

At present the numbers are too small to say that the breast implants causes ALCL, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is establishing a registry to begin to track the occurrence of the disease in women with breast implants so that data can be accumulated to enable a better understanding of the relationship between the disease and breast implants

Dow Settlement claims Update, Dow Settlement Lawyers

Written by

If you have filed a Dow Corning Breast Implant Claim and need help with your settlement call 1 877 522 2123 and speak to a Dow settlement lawyer. Below are the latest updated regarding the Dow Settlement Claims for 2o12 and 2014. Let our Dow Corning lawyer Help you.

April 2012 Updates Dow Settlement

The SF-DCT has moved, and their new address effective April 3, 2012 is:

SF-DCT
3200 SW Freeway, Ste. 1500
Houston, TX 77027

Their telephone number remains the same: 1-866-874-6099.
Their P.O. Box also remains the same: P.O. Box 52429, Houston, TX 77052

Regarding Premium Payments: the matter of if and when the SF-DCT issues premium payments is now under consideration by the Court. We do not know when the Court will issue a ruling. As soon as an order is entered, we will post it on our website and contact any potentially eligible LCHB clients.

Regarding Class 7 Payments: Because some unreviewed Class 7 claims were found during an audit at the SF-DCT, the SF-DCT cannot issue any Class 7 payments until those unreviewed claims are processed and given the one year time period within which to cure deficiencies. As of this date, the SF-DCT cannot predict the exact date when Class 7 payments are going to be made, but it will probably be at least another year before they can issue payments.

REMINDER ABOUT THE EXPLANT DEADLINE: The final deadline to submit an Explant Claim to the SF-DCT is June 2, 2014 . Please remember that you must have acceptable Proof of Manufacturer before you can be considered for the Explant benefit. The Explant benefit is $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars), and in order to qualify for this benefit, you must have your Dow Corning implants removed and not replaced with silicone.

Please keep in mind that it can sometimes take six months or longer to schedule an explant surgery and to obtain the necessary medical records from your surgeon or hospital. Therefore, if you want to apply for this benefit, you should keep this deadline date in mind, and not wait too long to discuss your potential explant surgery with your doctor.

Dow Corning Breast Implant Lawyer Accepting Cases Now

Written by

If you have received a deficiency notice, Dow Corning settlement or letter of rejection from a Dow Corning Breast Implant lawyer contact our Dow Corning Brest Implant Hotline immediately for a Breast Implant Lawyer ready to take your case.

Dow Corning Breast Implant Lawyers can Help You if:

Are you having problems that might be related to your breast implants? And have filed a claim or registered with Dow Corning.

YOU MUST BE REGISTERED OR HAVE FILED A DOW CORNING BREAST IMPLANT CLAIM

Capsular Contracture:

Almost every woman with breast implants has scar tissue surrounding her implants. This scar capsule doesn’t show it’s inside her breast, and is her body’s natural way of protecting her from a foreign object. Sometimes, however, that capsule is too tight for the implant. Capsular contracture is when the capsule is too tight and feels like it is squeezing the implant.

• It can happen silicone gel breast implants
• It can be slightly uncomfortable or very painful
• It can change the shape of your breast, or make it look round and unnatural
• You may need surgery to fix it
• Once it is surgically fixed, it is likely to happen again
Symptoms such as: Could mean:
pain in the breast
breasts look different from each other
breast feels firm or very hard
breasts look like round balls Capsular Contracture

This condition will not usually get better by itself. If it is very painful or hard, it will require surgery to remove the scar tissue capsule and perhaps the implant. Some of your own breast tissue might get mixed in with the capsule, and you might lose some of your natural breast. Many insurance companies will pay to have your implant removed if a woman has Baker Grade III or IV contracture, which are the most severe types, because when implants are that hard they are especially likely to interfere with mammography and the detection of breast cancer.

Ruptured Dow Corning Silicone Breast Implants

The implant is covered with a silicone envelope, which can tear or break. A rupture can be caused by a defect in the implant, daily stresses on the implant, an accident or other trauma, an accidental cut during implant surgery or biopsy, or the aging of the implant.

The older implants are, the more likely they are to break or leak. Although implants can rupture at any time, the FDA found that most rupture by the time they are 10 years old.

Aside from surgery, the best way to confirm a rupture is with an MRI, or perhaps an ultrasound. These methods require a trained eye to see a leak or rupture. A mammogram is not accurate enough to find a rupture or leak.

Most insurance companies will not pay to have a ruptured implant removed, especially if the implants were for augmentation. Reconstruction patients have an easier time obtaining insurance coverage for removal of implants, but will need to prove the implant is ruptured, with an MRI or other test.

Most experts agree that ruptured implants should be removed as soon as possible, especially if it is a silicone gel implant. Silicone gel can leak from the implant into healthy breast tissue and go other parts of your body, such as the lungs and lymph nodes, where it could be impossible to remove.

Some women with leaking silicone breast implants have had to have all their own breast tissue removed because the silicone moved throughout their breast. The result is a mastectomy, not because of cancer but because of silicone.

Many doctors believe that silicone is harmless, and may tell women with ruptured implants that they do not need to have them removed. However, it has been conclusively proven that silicone gel from a broken implant can leak out and cause permanent damage to healthy breast tissue or skin. In addition, the FDA found that women with leaking silicone implants are more likely to report several serious, debilitating illnesses, compared to women whose implants have not broken.

Infection: As with any surgery, infections can happen. Most infections appear shortly after surgery, within a few days or weeks. The most serious infections can cause toxic shock syndrome and can be fatal or result in gangrene. If the infection is very serious, the implant will need to be removed to treat it, and can be replaced after the infection has cleared up.

Disease Status Claims and Serious Illness

Everyone agrees that implants can cause local complications, such as those listed above. There is much more controversy about whether it can cause diseases or disorders. Some women can have implants for many years and never have any problems, but as the years go by, many women with implants become seriously ill. Common symptoms include joint pain or stiffness, memory problems, trouble concentrating, fatigue, flu-like symptoms that don’t go away, or pain throughout the body (fibromyalgia). Auto-immune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and scleroderma are also problems among women with implants. Are these symptoms caused by implants, are women who are susceptible to these illnesses more likely to get them if they have breast implants, or would these women have become ill even if they didn’t have implants?

Dow Corning Breast Implant Complications ( Remember you must have filed a claim with dow crning or be registered to be able to file a Dow Corning Breast Implant Disease Claim )

  • silicone toxicity diseases
  • Dry mouth
  • Dry eyes
  • Persistent cough
  • Sjogren’s syndrome
  • Joint discomfort
  • Pain
  • Stiffness
  • Swelling
  • Saline implant rupture
  • Chronic fatigue Chronic fatigue syndrome
  • Difficulty swallowing or breathing Esophogeal immotility
  • Memory impairment Neurological impairment
  • Muscle weakness
  • walking problems, tremor, muscle spasm
  • Slowed ability to think, poor memory
  • MS – Multiple Sclerosis*
  • Muscle pain
  • Stiffness, unusual fatigue
  • Fibromyalgia
  • Strong allergic reactions
  • Chemical sensitivity
  • White or blue fingers and/or toes in the cold
  • Raynaud’s syndrome
  • Excessive hair loss
  • An autoimmune response
  • Hardening of skin Scleroderma
  • Achy or swollen joints
  • Extreme fatigue
  • Skin rashes
  • Anemia
  • Sensitivity to sunlight
  • Kidney involvement
  • Lupus

If you have received a notice of rejection or deficiency notice contact us immediately at the Dow Corning Silicone Breast Implant Hotline

What is a Qui Tam, Qui Tam WhistleBlower Lawyers

Written by

QUI TAM, Whistleblower cases: Qui Tam Lawyers accepting Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases
Qui Tam :In Qui Tam litigation a private citizen (the whistle blower) who knows of fraud committed against the government may, through his own privately retained lawyers, file a law suit to recover the losses caused by the government fraud. The False Claims Act provides huge financial incentives to citizen whistle blowers to retain attorneys and come forward, prosecute these lawsuits and fight government fraud.
I. HISTORY OF QUI TAM, whisleblower PROVISIONS:
Qui Tam laws have existed for hundreds of years, with roots in England in the middle ages. In qui tam provisions the government gives private citizens the right and the financial incentive to retain a private lawyer to file a lawsuit to act in the place of law enforcement.
The Continental Congress in the early days of government in the United States enacted a number of qui tam provisions. Benjamin Franklin has been quoted as saying: “There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more easily and frequently fall than that of defrauding the government.” Abraham Lincoln, himself a lawyer in private practice before ascending to the Presidency, was responsible for enactment of the 1863 False Claims Act, which was necessary to protect the government from the fraudulent suppliers of faulty war equipment during the Civil War. He stated: “Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains of the south and their countrymen are moldering in the dust.” Although a significant narrowing of the provisions of the False Claims Act took place in 1943, the law was revitalized by Congress in 1986, with a significant expansion of the scope of the law and renewed attention to the federal whistle-blower and his or her attorney as a key to enforcement.
II. QUI TAM, whistleblower CLAIMS TODAY:
It has been estimated that almost 10% of the United States annual budget is paid to companies or persons who are defrauding the government. Some of them overcharge the government for products sold to the government. Others submit vouchers billing the government for services which they never provided or over billing for services provided. And still others engage in government contract fraud, defense contractor fraud, Medicare fraud, Medicaid fraud, or other public benefit fraud. The False Claims Act covers a wide variety of situations in addition to overcharging or billing for property or services not delivered. Virtually any situation in which the government has been cheated should be closely scrutinized by experienced Qui Tam lawyers to determine whether it is covered under the False Claims Act. The following are situations in addition to those mentioned above which would be covered under the False Claims Act and for which lawsuits could be brought:
• preparing a false record or statement or bill in order to get a false or fraudulent claim paid by the government.
• conspiring with anyone else to have a false or fraudulent claim paid by the government.
• holding property of the government intending to defraud the government or intending to conceal it from the government.
• creating or delivering a false or fraudulent receipt to the government for its property.
• fraudulently buying property of the government from someone who is not authorized to sell that property for the government.
• making a false statement to fraudulently avoid paying a debt to the government or to avoid delivering property to the government.
• causing someone else to submit a false or fraudulent claim.
To combat fraud committed against the government, Congress passed the False Claims Act, which, as noted above, was amended and significantly strengthened in 1986. Between 1987 and 1995 lawyers filed over a thousand qui tam lawsuits. For the period 1988 to 1995 alone, over a billion dollars was recovered by private Qui Tam lawyers in settlements or verdicts in hundreds of cases (law suits) filed on behalf of the United States government, with whistle blowers who retained their own lawyers to file suit receiving more than $100 million of the recovered funds. An additional $752 million was recovered in the years 1996 and 1997 alone. According to an annual report of the Department of Justice, almost $1.2 billion was recovered in whistle blower claims and law suits filed by private citizens through their own lawyers under the Federal False Claims Act for the fiscal year October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001, with more than $210 million of those funds being awarded to the federal whistle blowers themselves. The amount is growing. It is estimated that in the year 2005 $3.1 billion was collected from businesses defrauding the federal government.
The amendments make the definition of fraud broad enough to include submitting claims with deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard for the truth of statements made in the claim for US government spending or funds upon which the fraud claim is based. The burden of proof that must be met by the whistle blower’s lawyer or the government’s lawyer in a Qui Tam suit is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, i.e., that the evidence presented by the attorneys is more likely true than not. This is the same burden of proof that ordinarily must be met by the attorney in most civil damage cases, rather than more onerous standards, such as that which must be met by a prosecutor in criminal cases of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The 1986 amendments included provisions for requiring the party defrauding the government to pay the successful whistle blower’s attorney fees and in some settlements that may mean that the whistle blower never incurs an attorneys fee. In addition, provisions were included for protecting the federal whistle-blower from retaliatory actions by his/her employer.
III.Qui Tam, Whistleblower PROCEDURE AND RECOVERY:
This law was designed to encourage private citizens to help fight government fraud by acting as a whistle blower. That is, a person who knows of fraud against the government may retain a lawyer and file a court case (lawsuit) under seal (meaning that it is kept secret during this initial phase) in a United States District Court against the company or person committing the fraud against the government. After the case is filed, the United States attorney investigates the lawsuit and allegations of fraud for sixty days. If the U.S. Attorney believes the fraud lawsuit is meritorious, the United States Government takes over the case and either enters into a settlement or pursues the lawsuit against the wrongdoer. The whistle blower still retains his/her right to a portion of the proceeds in the Qui Tam fraud lawsuit resulting in a successful settlement or recovery, even though the government has taken over the legal case. The government intervenes in approximately 25% to 33% of the cases. If the government does not intervene, the federal whistle blower, through the lawyers he or she has retained, may settle or pursue the lawsuit on his/her own. If the lawyers are successful in proving fraud against the government, the law requires the wrongdoer to pay substantial penalties, which can be assessed to up to 3 times the amount that the wrongdoer fraudulently stole from the government and, in reality, from the taxpayers. In addition, a mandatory civil penalty of between $5,000.00 and $10,000.00 per false claim will be imposed. Out of damages imposed, the private citizen whistle blower (also called a relator) can receive between 10% and 30% of the lawsuit recovery. Some relators have been paid millions of dollars. These cases are often highly technical and complex. Before filing, they must be properly investigated and assembled, which demands that you obtain competent attorneys experienced in handling Qui Tam fraud cases.