Ill

GranuFlo Lawyers, NaturaLyte Lawsuits

Written by

Fresenius Medical is the manufacturer of GranuFlo and NaturaLyte acid concentrate. These are drugs used in dialysis treatment. There has been a recall of these dialysis drugs and lawsuits are being filed.

Injury and death has resulted from these drugs:

  • GranuFlo cardiovascular death,
  • GranuFlo sudden cardiac death,
  • GranuFlo cardiopulmonary arrest,
  • GranuFlo heart attack,
  • GranuFlo catastrophic cardiovascular injuries

Fresenius manufactures GranuFlo and NaturaLyte used in dialysis. These drugs cause alkalosis, a condition associated with an increase in cardiovascular fatalities.

The FDA received complaints describing alkali dosing errors that occurred during hemodialysis using dialysate concentrates containing acetic acid and acetate. When metabolized, these potential sources of alkali can contribute to elevated bicarbonate levels in patients undergoing hemodialysis.

This can contribute to metabolic alkalosis, which is a significant risk factor associated with :

Low blood pressure

Cardiopulmonary arrest

Cardiac arrhythmia

Sudden heart attack

Stroke

Hemodialysis cardiopulmonary arrest

A study which was conducted between January and December of 2010 found that patients with pre-dialysis bicarbonate levels greater than 28mEq/L were 4.7 times more likely to suffer a cardiac arrest. The study also discovered that patients with pre-dialysis potassium lower than 4 mEq/L had a 6.3 times higher risk of cardiac arrest.

In May 2012 the FDA notified health care providers to consider the presence and quantity of acetate, citrate, and/or acetic acid in dialysate concentrates when determining the patients’ dialysate prescription.

There is a GranuFlo and NaturaLyte Class 1 Recall

Serial numbers for recalled Naturalyte Liquid Acid Concentrate range from:

08-0231-4, 08-1001-0, 08-1201-8, 08-1231-3, 08-1251-1, 08-1301-4, 08-2201-5, 08-2231-2, 08-2251-0, 08-2301-3,08-2351-8, 08-3201-4, 08-3231-1, 08-3251-9, 08-3301-2, 08-4123-1, 08-4223-7, 08-4225-1, 08-4230- 2, 08-4231-0, 08-4323-5, 08-4325-1, 13-1251-1, 13-2201-5, 13-2231-2, 13-2251-0, 13-3231-1, 13-3251-9, 13-4123-1, 13-4220-1, 13-4225-1, 13-4325-

Serial numbers for recalled Naturalyte GranuFlo (powder) Acid Concentrate range from:

OFD1201-3B, OFD1251-3B, OFD2123-3B, OFD2201-38, OFD2220-3B, OFD2223-3B, OFD2225-3B, OFD2231-3 B, OFD2251-3B, OFD2301-3B, OFD2323-3 B, OFD2325-3B, OFD3201-3B, OFD3231-3B, OFD3251-3B, OFD3301-3B

GranuFlo & NaturaLyte is one of the most widely prescribed dry acid products used for dialysis at Fresenius clinics, as well as other hemodialysis centers that purchase their dialysis supplies from Fresenius. It is estimated that 125,000 patients in non-Fresenius clinics are treated with GranuFlo.

Dilaysis Patient Alert

If you, a loved one or someone you care for has been injured by these products contact us for a GranuFlo and NaturaLyte lawsuit.

Bladder Sling Lawyers, Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits

Written by

The bladder mesh is a vaginal mesh product primarily used for urinary incontinence. This mesh sling has caused severe complications and bladder mesh lawyers are filing lawsuits. Many women with a bladder mesh do not realize they are eligible to file a vaginal mesh lawsuit.

What is a Bladder Sling?

Urethral sling or bladder sling is used to treat urinary incontinence by placing a sling around the urethra to lift it back into a normal position and to exert pressure on the urethra to aid urine retention. The sling is attached to the abdominal wall. A bladder sling is a mesh device and is part of the vaginal mesh litigation. The complications of a failed bladder sling is increased incontinence or trouble voiding. Many women have needed to self catherize.

Bladder Sling Complications?

According to the July 2011 FDA news release, the most common complications associated with surgical mesh bladder slings is erosion thru the vaginal wall or into the bladder, pain during sexual intercourse, bleeding, infection, perforation of various pelvic organs (bladder, colon, vaginal walls), and urinary incontinence or problems voiding as well as; neuromuscular problems, emotional problems, mesh contraction/shrinkage, and even a reoccurrence of POP and/or SUI.

Bladder sling lawsuits are being filed on a contingency fee basis against the mnaufacturers of the bladder sling:

Bard Avaulta Support System
AMS Elevate Prolapse Repair System
AMS Apogee Vault Suspension System
AMS Perigee System
AMS Monarc Sling System
AMS Sparc Sling System
Ethicon Gynecare Gynemesh
Ethicon Gynecare Prolene Soft Mesh
Ethicon Gynecare Prolift Pelvic Floor Repair System
Ethicon Gynecare TVT Transvaginal Sling
Boston Scientific Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit
Boston Scientific Uphold Vaginal Support System
UGYTEX Dual Knit Mesh
Coviden IVS Tunneler Sling

Contact us today.

Stryker Hip Replacement Lawyers, Stryker Hip Replacement Helpline

Written by

Adding to the Zimmer and DePuy metal on metal hip replacement Stryker has recalled it s latest metal component hip replacement implant. Stryker has voluntarily recalled the Rejuvenate metal component hip replacement implant and ABG II modular- neck stems
Stryker has voluntarily stopped market distribution of these hip replacements due to increased risk of injury. The hip replacement implants have been shown to fret or corrode, harming body tissue and causing pain and swelling. Other injuries include:

  • Severe inflammatory reactions
  • Pain in the groin
  • metal toxicity ort poisoning
  • high metal levels in the blood
  • need for additional surgery
  • Breakdown of muscles, tendons and other soft tissues in and around the hip joint
  • Loss of surrounding bone
  • Loss of mobility

While other types of hip implants such as those made by Johnson & Johnson and DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. involve a metal ball rubbing against a metal socket, the Stryker Rejuvenate products involve a metal neck inside a metal stem. The Stryker Hip replacement Helpline and hip replacement lawyers are reaching out to all victims of the failed device for a potential multi district litigation.

The products have metal components and although they are not metal on metal run the same risks of chromium and cobalt toxicity poisoning. If you have been injured you are advised to contact your doctor immediately and contact the Stryker Hip Replacement Helpline for a Stryker lawyer

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.