pAXIL

FDA Refused Update to Suicide Risk on Paxil Label

Paxil suicide risk was disclosed, according to GlaxoSmithKline.

According to the GlaxoSmithKline court filing, the FDA refused four requests to change labels on the antidepressant Paxil to update a warning label to reflect that “there was a statistically significant increase in the frequency of suicidal behavior in patients treated with paroxetine.” pAXIL

As far back as 2006 the antidepressant and its controlled-release version, Paxil CR, added a warning about suicide risk in young adults. Facts such as this are of increasing importance as GlaxoSmithKline fights a complicated lawsuit.

The suit was brought on by the widow of Stewart Dolin, a Paxil user who at the time of his suicide was taking a generic version of the drug. The $12 million suit alleges that GlaxoSmithKline was negligent in not updating the warning label to demonstrate the risk for suicide while using.

The claim insists that the labeling did not provide enough information about the risk of suicide, which as a result led to the Chicago lawyer jumping in front of a train just 6 days into using a generic form of Paxil.

Dolin’s widow’s complaint notes that certain dangerous side-effects were listed on the label, but the labeling did not properly represent the risk posed. In fact, labeling only highlighted an increase in suicidal thoughts for users under the age of 24.

She further claims that doctors were not informed about the suicide risks in adults associated with the drugs, and had that information been clear, Mr. Dolin would have been prescribed the drug.

As the trial drags on in Illinois, GlaxoSmithKline a federal jury Wednesday that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration claims that the FDA rejected a label change to Paxil four times. The updated label would have addressed the increased risk of suicide on adult patients.

If you or someone that you love has been effected by the use of Paxil, connect with an attorney at Medical Claim Legal. You could be entitled to financial compensation, find out now.

Johnson & Johnson Hip Replacement Judgments totaled over $1.5B in 2016

Hip replacement judgments in 2016 cost the global brand more than $1.5B with more judgments pending.

Hip replacement issues have left many people in pain. Johnson and Johnson lost 6 out of 7 product liability claims in 2016. The cases have been noted as the largest jury verdicts over product defect claims in America.Hip replacement

Beyond these judgments, there are tens of thousands of potential cases against the brand. Potential legal issues are related to hip replacements, pelvic mesh, and baby powder among other products.

Bloomberg outlined Johnson & Johnson’s legal failures like so:

  • Hip implant, Dallas: for $1 billion
  • Hip implant, Dallas: $502 million
  • Talc, St. Louis: $72 million
  • Risperdal, Philadelphia: $70 million
  • Talc, St. Louis: $70 million
  • Talc, St. Louis: $55 million

2017, has not left the brand in the clear, hip replacement, baby powder, and other big settlements will continue to cost the company.

If you have suffered pain or suffering due a faulty Johnson & Johnson hip replacement product, you could be entitled to compensation.

Pharmco Laboratories

SkinCare Co. Pharmco Laboratories Receives Warning From FDA

Pharmco Laboratories received a warning letter from the FDA citing 4 violations.

Pharmco Laboratories received a warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration. The letter to the Florida-based skincare manufacturer “summarized significant violations of current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations for finished pharmaceuticals.”

In the letter posted to the agencywebsite, four specific violation were referenced.

Pharmco Laboratories was accused of presenting an allergy risk to consumers. The FDA states that there has been insufficient evidence of the proper cleaning of equipment that came in contact with major allergens. Dietary supplements, for example, containing soybeans used the same dryer as the ingreditents in skincare items.

The FDA warning letter stated that “repeated lapses demonstrate a failure of your executive management to exercise proper oversight and control over the manufacture of drugs.”

Monsanto

Monsanto Popular Weed Killer to Be Labeled a Cancer Risk

Monsanto, a major agricultural corporation, can now be required to label its popular weed-killer, as a possible cancer threat.

California can require Monsanto to label Roundup, its top-selling herbicide, as a possible cancer threat, a judge tentatively ruled Friday.

Monsanto has insisted that its product poses no risk to people. 

On Friday, a federal judge denied the corporation’s bid to overturn a 2015 state ruling to label it as a cancer risk.

The main criticism is Roundup’s main ingredient. The popular weed-killer includes Glyphosate, a chemical which was originally touted as a way to kill weeds while leaving crops and plants intact.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, says it has ‘low toxicity.’ The agency considers Glyphosate safe when used correctly.
However, under California Proposition 65 label requirements in California, businesses are required to notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in the products that they purchase.

Chemicals that require labeling include ingredients or additives in pesticides, common household products, food, drugs, dyes, or solvents.

California regulators are waiting for the lawsuit to be resolved before deciding whether to require warnings, said Sam Delson, a spokesman for the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Software

Medical Device Software Vulnerabilities a Huge Concern

Software vulnerabilities of medical devices may be difficult for health sector officials and manufacturers to manage.

As we reported last week, St. Jude implemented software updates that could protect pacemakers and other medical devices from being compromised by hackers. Oxycontin

Unfortunately, new information suggested that the public is not completely in the clear.

“Software is never perfect and all systems still will have these flaws,” says Joshua Corman, director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council and an expert on medical device security. “The question is how gracefully and collaboratively and quickly and safely can we respond to these flaws.”

In late 2016, there were reports that the Merlin@home transmitter used in monitoring certain St. Jude Medical implant devices could be hacked. These hacks could lead to deadly consequences for  the patient.

MedSec, a cybersecurity firm,  initially found the problems in the St. Jude devices. After which they “tipped off”- the activist investment firm Muddy Waters, which publicized the flaws and advised clients to bet against the health care firm’s stock.

Ever since the US government and St. Jude confirmed the one flaw, the VA has been “taking steps to be sure all our patients and providers are aware of this issue and take appropriate actions to be sure that all our patients get the update for their monitor,” said Merritt Raitt, acting director of the VA National Cardiac Device Surveillance Program.

Asbestos

The Risks of Asbestos Exposure and Your Legal Rights

The more a person breathes in tiny asbestos particles, the more likely that individual will develop a large variety of lung and breathing complications.

Asbestos was introduced to the construction industry over 100 years ago.  It was widely considered the standard for strengthening building materials in the construction of buildings.

The dangers of inhaling asbestos fibers began to surface around 1980.  It does not take extreme exposure to asbestos for it to be dangerous.  Most victims of asbestos exposure and asbestosis have worked or lived in an environment where there is asbestos in the building or home.

These effects range from wheezing and shortness of breath to mesothelioma and lung cancer.  Regardless of your condition, Medical Claim Legal can help you obtain compensation.

There are a large number of lawsuits involving asbestos exposure and asbestosis.  Do not let your case get passed over.  Medical Claim Legal will connect you with a lawyer who is experienced and successful in the asbestos lawsuit field.  To get the compensation that may be owed to you, contact Medical Claim Legal today.

MedicalClaimLegal, simplifying the process for Asbestos Exposure and Asbestosis compensation

Coca-cola

Consumer Group Suing Coca-Cola Due to Sugary Soda Risks

Lawsuit claims Coca-Cola misled consumers on sugary soda health risks.

The consumer-advocacy group, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) asserts that Coca-Cola has misled consumers about the health risks of sugary drinks such as soda. Coca-Cola

In 2015, it was revealed that the corporate giant had heavily funded and been involved in the operation of the research group Global Energy Balance Network. Coca-Cola aimed to help establish the group as a “reputable scientific source to counter “public health extremists.” The company has starkly tried to avoid claims that their products are unhealthy.

It is based on these findings that the lawsuit claims that, “for years, [the] defendants have engaged in a pattern of deception to mislead and confuse the public (and governmental entities that bear responsibility for the public health) about the scientific consensus that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.”

The industry group, American Beverage Association (ABA) is the co-defendant in the lawsuit. The ABA continues to argue that obesity is a “complex condition.” Further asserting that as obesity and diabetes rates continue to rise, that soda consumption is dropping.

CSPI wants the ABA and Coca-Cola to make some changes. They want marketing to disclose the health risks of sugary drinks, while stopping ads directed at children. They also want the groups to disclose file “indicating the potential health implications.” Plus, the CSPI would like for Coca-Cola and the ABA to fund a public health campaign.

The ABA said in a statement that “America’s beverage companies know we have an important role to play in addressing our nation’s health challenges. That’s why we’re engaging with health groups and community organizations to drive a reduction in the sugar and calories Americans get from beverages.”

Coca-Cola has called the suit “legally and factually meritless.”

Infuse bone graft

Infuse Bone Graft Lawsuit Gets New Life

A lawsuit accusing Medtronics of covering up negative side effects of its Infuse bone graft has been revived by an appeals court.

A lawsuit accusing Medtronic of misleading shareholders by concealing the adverse effects of its Infuse bone graft, has been revived by the The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Paul, Minnesota.

The Infuse bone graft has been used in more than 1 million surgeries. In 2002, the FDA approved the Infuse bone graft for use in specific types of spinal fusion surgeries. The Infuse bone grafts variety are “synthetic, concentrated proteins…mixed with collagen from cows and injected into the spine to alleviate pain.”

The Spine Journal found, in 2011, that the risks of the product had been understated by medical professionals.

In 2012, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee stated that Medtronic, Inc., the manufacturer of the Infuse bone graft, had paid doctors hundreds of millions of dollars to write favorable articles and manipulate studies on the popular product.

In 2013, Medtronic shareholders sued the company claiming that the company’s stock had been inflated due to these unethical activities. As the truth about the product emerged, they have alleged hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.

In 2014, Medtronic agreed to settle its Infuse bone graft lawsuit for $22 million that involves 950 people. Around 2,300 surgeons had used Medtronic products in the US prior to any serious side effects being reported.

An earlier decision in the case judged that shareholders had waited too long before seeking legal action. As 2016 came to a close an appeals court found that the case could still be brought forward.

The case will now be returned to the lower court for further proceedings.

Powdered medical gloves

Powdered Medical Gloves Banned By the FDA

The use of most powdered medical gloves has been banned by the FDA.

For only the second time in history the FDA has banned a medical device. Powdered medical gloves seem to pose adverse risks.Powdered medical gloves

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has found that powdered medical gloves (powdered surgeon’s gloves, powdered patient examination gloves, and absorbable powder for lubricating a surgeon’s glove) “present an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury.” This has led to a new rule banning these products from use, effective January 18, 2017.

One group has called the ban “18 years too late.” Nearly 20 years ago, in 1998, the advocacy group Public Citizen, filed the first of several citizen’s petition calling on FDA to ban powdered gloves.

After the ban was proposed by the FDA, Public Citizen responded saying that “when a medical product, drug or, in this case device, has unique serious risks but no unique benefit, it should be banned. The FDA’s statement that “we … only take this action when we feel it’s necessary to protect the public health” ignores overwhelming evidence going back almost two decades about the necessity to do so.”

Back in March of 2016, the FDA had prosed the powdered medical gloves citing evidence that they were a  danger to  patients, risks included airway and wound inflammation, post-surgical adhesions and allergic reactions.

Powdered gloves aim to make the removal of gloves easier for medical professionals. So, the FDA had to determine whether the ease of use outweighed the risks.

The rules not that powder is fine when used in the manufacturing process, but should not be a part of the finished product. The rule from the FDA “encourages manufacturers to ensure finished non-powdered gloves have as little powder as possible.”

 

If you believe that you or a loved one might have suffered from the medical use of powdered gloves, let the Medical Claim Legal Team help.

Adverse event

FDA Complaints Just Got Transparent: Adverse Event Now Public

Data from the Center for Safety and Applied Nutrition’s Adverse Event Reporting System can be useful in litigation and beyond.

Thanks to a new service, consumers might be little bit safer. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced that the Center for Safety and Applied Nutrition’s Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS) database will be made public. The CAERS is a database that includes reports about harm and product complaints submitted to the FDA.

The new database can be accessed by consumers, researchers, industry pros and attorneys. The boon helps individuals learn more about products and their potential or previous harm to individuals.

Perhaps more importantly, industry professionals now have access to data with transparency.  The co-founder of Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, a group that monitors concerns about food safety, Michael Jacobson sees this as a victory.

“If somebody, like a poison-control center, has concerns, they can go and see if there happen to be some reports,” Jacobson said told Bloomberg.

Lawyers and companies, will find this information particularly useful. Some of the information can help with litigation. The information will certainly be mined by parties who could use reports to file lawsuits against manufacturers or retailers.

The CAERS  data will help the FDA and other experts monitor and study trends in “adverse event reports” that could signal a genuine safety issue with a product.

FDA provides raw data extracted from the CAERS database. The files include data from January 2004 through March 2016, including:

  • demographic and administrative information and the CAERS report ID number;
  • product information from the case reports;
  • symptom information from the reports;
  • patient outcome information from the reports.

For  those who may have experienced any type of adverse effects from food, drugs, or cosmetics, further evidence to support your claim might be available for you through the CAERS data.

See if the Medical Claim Legal team can help you along the way.