Personal Injury

Hotchkiss School Sexual Abuse Lawsuits

College Preparatory School

We represent former students in sexual abuse lawsuits against The Hotchkiss School. The suits allege that, during their time at the Hotchkiss College Preparatory School in Connecticut in the mid-1980s and  1990s, the former students were subjected to ritual hazing of a sexual nature by older student-proctors and that they were raped by male teachers known to the School as pedophiles who had abused numerous other male students at the School.

Contact a Sexual Abuse Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser partner Annika K. Martin is leading the litigation for our firm on behalf of those who suffered violence, abuse, and harassment at the Hotchkiss School. You can contact Annika by telephone at 415 956-1000 or you can use the confidential form below. There is no charge or obligation for your outreach, and all information will be held in the strictest confidence.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

To the extent you feel comfortable, please describe your experience:


Huntington Hospital and Dr. Patrick Sutton Gender Violence & Sexual Abuse Class Action

University Womens Clinic

On October 10, 2018, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of women who were sexually abused, harassed, and molested by gynecologist Patrick Sutton, M.D., while they were patients at Huntington Hospital in Pasadena, California.

As detailed in the complaint, plaintiffs referred to as Jane Doe K.G. Jane Doe T.F., and Jane Doe B.S. allege that Sutton used his position of authority and trust to sexually abuse them and potentially thousands of other women who were patients of Dr. Sutton and Huntington Hospital. Read a copy of the Class Action Complaint.

WERE YOU TREATED INAPPROPRIATELY BY DR. PATRICK SUTTON?
Lieff Cabraser partner Annika K. Martin is co-leading litigation on behalf of women who suffered violence, abuse, and harassment by Patrick Sutton at Huntington Hospital. You can contact Annika by telephone at 415 956-1000 or you can use the confidential form below.

Nature of the Case

The complaint was filed by three women who allege assault and harassment by Sutton, and notes that the hospital had received numerous complaints about Sutton’s behavior dating back 20 years, yet continues to allow him to practice there. Dr. Sutton has worked at Huntington Hospital since 1989.

The lawsuit further alleges that Huntington Hospital routinely disregarded complaints about Sutton’s behavior, complaints that date back to the 1990s, actively and deliberately concealing Sutton’s sexual abuse and continuing to grant him uncontrolled sexual access to female patients at the hospital, all to protect Huntington Hospital’s reputation and income stream.

As noted in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs and other class members had no reason to suspect that Sutton was anything other than an ethical and competent physician. Sutton used his position of trust and authority to prey on his patients by conducting improper and intrusive sexual touching as well as to make inappropriate and sexually harassing comments during exams.

As alleged in the complaint, Huntington Hospital began to receive complaints about Sutton’s behavior in the late 1990s — complaints that continued for the next several decades. But the Hospital failed to take any action in response to the complaints, continuing to employ and even promote Sutton. The complaint further alleges that instead of taking disciplinary or other action such as terminating Sutton’s employment in response to the myriad complaints against him, Huntington continued to protect Sutton and continually provide him with full access to new and existing patients.

Charges Against Sutton and Huntington Hospital

The suit has been filed against Dr. Tyndall and USC over charges including gender violence, sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, and negligent failure to warn, train, or educate relating to the gynecological medical treatment received by the Plaintiffs and the class while they were patients at Huntington Hospital.

Contact a Sexual Abuse Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser partner Annika K. Martin is leading the litigation for our firm on behalf of women who suffered violence, abuse, and harassment by Patrick Sutton and Huntington Hospital. You can contact Annika by telephone at 415 956-1000 or you can use the confidential form below. There is no charge or obligation for your outreach, and all information will be held in the strictest confidence.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

To the extent you feel comfortable, please describe your experience with Dr. Sutton at Huntington Hospital:


Zimmer Taper Hip Injuries

hip implant

Issue: Corrosion and wear in Zimmer Taper Hip Implants

Zimmer ML Taper & Zimmer ML Taper With Kinectiv® Technology

Zimmer hip implant patients across the U.S. are reporting injuries relating to the corrosion and trunnionosis (excessive wear) of their ML Taper and ML Taper with Kinectiv® hip implants. Close to 30 separate cases have been filed in federal court, and the cases were recently centralized for coordinated treatment in New York. Reported injuries include metallosis, pseudotumors, and which can mandate painful and expensive revision surgery. The problems are allegedly due to mechanically-assisted crevice corrosion, head/neck corrosion, and/or trunnionosis at the femoral stem and femoral head junction.

Zimmer Hip Injury Lawyers

Lieff Cabraser currently represents hip implant patients injured by Zimmer ML Taper hip implants, and served as Co-Liasion Counsel for patients nationwide injured by the defective Durom Cup manufactured by Zimmer Holdings. Our law firm has been recognized by U.S. News, Best Lawyers, and the National Law Journal as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in the nation. Please contact us by completing the contact form below or calling us toll-free today at 1-800-541-7358.

Zimmer Hip Lawsuits and Settlements

In previous lawsuits filed against Zimmer, patients charged that the company’s Durom Cup was defective as friction from the metal-on-metal components caused microscopic metal shavings to be released into the surrounding blood and tissue. Many patients developed “metallosis,” an inflammatory reaction to the elevated metals in the tissue and blood. As a result, the hip implants failed prematurely and patients were compelled to undergo painful revision surgery.

In 2011 and 2012, numerous patients represented by Lieff Cabraser settled their cases with Zimmer on favorable, confidential terms. As of 2018, we continue to represent clients injured by Zimmer hip implants.

Contact Lieff Cabraser

If you have had to undergo revision surgery to replace your Zimmer ML Taper hip implant, or have revision surgery scheduled, please complete the form below to contact Lieff Cabraser. We will review your case for free and without any obligation on your part. Or call us toll free at 1-800-541-7358 and ask to speak to attorney Wendy Fleishman.

Our team of experienced personal injury lawyers and in-house legal nurse consultants and medical analysts provides each client with attentive, high-level, and individualized representation. We are passionate and committed to achieving justice for our clients.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

When was your Zimmer hip device implanted?

Have you undergone surgery to replace the implant?

If not, have you been told by a physician that your Zimmer hip may need to be replaced?

Additional comments:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes


 

Sexual Abuse & Sexual Assault Lawyers at Lieff Cabraser

University Womens Clinic
Lieff Cabraser represents both women and men in civil lawsuits over cases of sexual abuse, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. Our cases include the representation of victims in male-on-male sexual assault cases like that of a former student of the prestigious Hotchkiss college preparatory school in Connecticut, as well as female students and former students alleging widespread sexual abuse by USC gynecologist George Tyndall against hundreds of women at USC over nearly three decades.
HAVE YOU BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED OR ABUSED?
Lieff Cabraser partners Annika K. Martin, Wendy Fleishman, and Jonathan Selbin lead litigation for our firm on behalf of victims of sexual violence, abuse, and harassment across the U.S. Contact them today by telephone at 415 956-1000 or you can use the confidential form below.

Compassion and Respect for Victims and Victims’ Rights

Our primary concern in these cases is you. We understand that victims of sexual assault face challenges that extend far beyond the assault itself, and we treat each client with care, compassion, and patience as we bring our considerable legal skills to bear upon their cases. Our team of firm partners prosecuting these and other sexual harassment and assault matters includes Wendy Fleishman, Annika K. Martin, and Jonathan Selbin, who have successfully championed the rights of injury and assault victims across the U.S. We also have a large support staff of paralegals and nurse consultants who work individually with every client in every case to see that justice is served and that no effort is spared in the vigorous and comprehensive prosecution of our clients’ claims.
VICTIM RESOURCE LINKS ARE AVAILABLE BELOW THE CONTACT FORM
See the list further down this page for numerous links to resources for victims of sexual violence, assault, and abuse.

Take the Time You Need to Ensure You Speak to the Right Counsel About Your Case

We understand that talking to anyone, let alone a lawyer, about these kinds of cases can be difficult and daunting. While we urge you to reach out to us, we acknowledge that every client brings a different level of comfort to the facts of their individual case. While there do exist statutes of limitation that mandate relatively quick filing of cases, we encourage you to take the time you need to marshal your thoughts and emotions and gather your energy before using our secure, 100% confidential contact form or calling us directly at 1 800 541-7358. We are here for you.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

To the extent you feel comfortable, please describe your experience:



Resources and Links for Victims of Sexual Assault and Sexual Violence

 

Zofran Drug Birth Defect Lawsuits

Doctor with pills

Issue: Cleft palate and heart birth defects

Zofran Drug Birth Defect Lawsuits

In June of 2018, Law360 reported on “bombshell” allegations in Zofran lawsuits that GlaxoSmithKline employed — but later fired — a small team of specialists to secure hedge fund money and deploy pharmaceutical sales representatives to ask every OB-GYN in the country to prescribe the Zofran anti-nausea drug off-label to pregnant patients. The revelations came as plaintiffs in the suits asked the court to extend the discovery deadline so they could gather more information on what two former product managers reportedly described as a mid-2000s plan to get more than 30,000 doctors nationwide to consider prescribing the antiemetic Zofran to pregnant women who allegedly did not actually need the high-power drug, originally intended for cancer patients.

Earlier Developments in the Zofran Heart Defects Lawsuits

The National Law Journal reported on August 13, 2015 that more than 30 lawsuits have been filed by parents alleging that taking anti-nausea prescription Zofran for morning sickness during pregnancy caused birth defects in their children including congenital heart defects, cleft lip and cleft palate. Lieff Cabraser attorney Sarah London noted,

Zofran is a powerful drug approved only for chemotherapy and post-surgery patients. The manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, pushed doctors to prescribe this drug to pregnant women, and as a result, babies have been hurt. Now GSK refuses to take any responsibility. Our team at Lieff Cabraser is fighting to achieve justice for those families who have been hurt. We plan to file new lawsuits shortly and are investigating many more potential claims.

Lieff Cabraser represents parents and their children who developed birth defects linked to prescription drugs taken during pregnancy. These cases include birth defect lawsuits due to the use of the anti-nausea drug Zofran (also sold under the generic name ondansetron).

Sarah London Speaks on Dangerous Zofran Birth Defect Injuries & Lawsuits

Zofran was FDA approved in 1991 to treat nausea from chemotherapy and later expanded for use as a treatment for surgical nausea. Lawsuits allege that the drug has been marketed “off-label” (i.e., promoted in the market for uses not approved by the FDA) by GlaxoSmithKline to obstetricians and gynecologists to prescribe to their pregnant patients to control the pregnancy nausea commonly referred to as “morning sickness.”

Troubling new evidence links Zofran taken during pregnancy with increased risks of certain birth defects including cleft palates, certain heart defects, and other injuries.

Studies on Birth Defect Risks of Anti-Nausea Zofran During Pregnancy

Zofran and Infant Heart Birth Defects

In 2014, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published a study highlighting increased risks of serious cardiovascular incidents in pregnant women taking Zofran and discussing conflicting studies that could not rule out similar dangers to the fetus. In addition, in 2013 a Danish study found that in 600,000 pregnancies studied over a seven-year period, where the drug was started earlier than ten weeks into the pregnancy there was a two-fold increase in congenital heart birth defects.

Zofran and Cleft Palate

In January 2012, the Center for Birth Defects Research and Prevention identified a two-fold increased risk for cleft palate associated with exposure to Zofran during pregnancy when taken in the first trimester. There were more than 9,000 pregnant women in the study overall, both cases and controls.

FDA Warning on Use of Zofran During Pregnancy

In July 2014, the FDA issued a safety warning on “serious risks” for mothers associated with taking Zofran, especially in pregnant women with electrolyte imbalance due to severe nausea and vomiting.

In addition, based on recent studies regarding the association between Zofran use in early pregnancy and congenital cardiac malformations and oral clefts (cleft lip and palate), the FDA has strongly cautioned against Zofran’s use in pregnancy.

USC and Dr. George Tyndall Gender Violence & Sexual Abuse Class Action

University Womens Clinic

Update: On October 19, 2018, a settlement was announced by the University of Southern California whereunder it will pay $215 million to resolve the proposed class action accusing former staff gynecologist George Tyndall of sexually abusing potentially thousands of women while they were students at USC.

The case will be settled as a class action, subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on the basis of a class defined to include “all current or former female students who were seen for treatment by Dr. George M. Tyndall at USC’s student health center for women’s health issues.”

WERE YOU TREATED BY DR. GEORGE TYNDALL AT USC?
Lieff Cabraser partner Annika K. Martin, herself an alumnus of USC’s law school, is leading the litigation for our firm on behalf of women who suffered violence, abuse, and harassment by George Tyndall and USC. You can contact Annika by telephone at 415 956-1000 or you can use the confidential form below.

The settlement proposes a tiered structure for recovery that allows victims to choose the level of engagement they wish to have with the claims process and how they wish to communicate their stories. All women who USC’s records show saw Tyndall for a women’s health visit will automatically get a $2,500 check. In part, the automatic payments represent compensation for their school knowingly putting them at risk and in harm’s way by harboring and protecting Tyndall long after they knew he was acting inappropriately with student-patients, and continuing to grant him exclusive access and opportunity to abuse female student-patients.

Additionally, the claim process has two tiers of recovery above the baseline $2,500 Tier One amount. The Tiers are structured around allowing victims to choose their level of engagement with the process – if they only want to submit claims in writing, they can choose that, which allows them a certain range of potential claim payments above the 2,500 floor; if they are willing and able to provide an interview, they can be eligible for a range up to the highest $250,000 amount. But at all levels, it is about allowing victims a safe process in which to come forward, where they have control over how much they want to engage in the process and what they feel comfortable with.

History of the Case

On June 5, 2018, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of women who were sexually abused, harassed, and molested by gynecologist George Tyndall, M.D., while they were students at University of Southern California (“USC”).

While attending USC as a student, the representative Plaintiff—who is named only as Jane Doe 1 to protect her privacy—was forced to repeatedly seek medical treatment from Tyndall, who was the only full-time gynecologist on staff at USC’s Student Health Clinic. The lawsuit alleges Tyndall used this position of trust and authority to repeatedly sexually abuse the Plaintiff and potentially thousands of other class members, women who were examined by Dr. Tyndall at USC. Read a copy of the Class Action Complaint.

Nature of the Case

Plaintiff and the class members are or were female students attending USC who sought gynecological care through the USC student health system and were patients of Tyndall during his tenure at USC. Plaintiff and other members of the Class had no reason to suspect Tyndall was anything other than a competent and ethical physician. Knowing that Plaintiff and other class members were trusting and vulnerable – and in many cases still teenagers who had never visited a gynecologist before – Tyndall used his position of authority to make Plaintiff and other victims fully disrobe for no reasonable medical purpose, then fondled and groped their breasts and other intimate areas while making suggestive and improper comments, used his fingers to penetrate their vaginas and genital regions for the purpose of his own sexual arousal and gratification, and engaged in verbal discussions about inappropriate sexual topics, for no legitimate medical purpose and for no other reason than to satisfy his own prurient sexual desires. Tyndall also made racially discriminatory and sexually harassing comments.

Through his employment with USC, Tyndall also used his position of authority as a medical professional to take hundreds of nonconsensual and medically unwarranted photographs of female genitalia under the guise of medical “treatment.” Tyndall particularly targeted young students, many of whom were foreign students, and who were frequently unfamiliar with the nature of gynecological examinations as a result of their youth, inexperience, and/or cultural background. Many of these young women did not know that what Tyndall was doing during the examinations was not proper protocol and did not realize he was engaging in sexual misconduct, sexually violating them, and taking advantage of them.

As alleged in the complaint, despite the fact that USC has publicly admitted that it received numerous complaints of Tyndall’s sexually abusive behavior, dating back to at least the year 2000, USC actively and deliberately concealed Tyndall’s sexual abuse for years, continuing to grant Tyndall unfettered sexual access to the female USC students in his care.

USC hid the complaints despite the fact that many of the complaints came directly from its own employees and staff, including nurses and medical assistants who were physically present during the examinations as “chaperones,” and witnessed the sexual misconduct firsthand. Despite receiving years of serious complaints of significant misconduct about Tyndall, including sexual misconduct, USC failed to take any meaningful action to address the complaints until it was finally forced to do so in June 2016.

Charges Against Tyndall and USC

The suit has been filed against Dr. Tyndall and USC over charges including gender violence, sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent failure to warn, train, or educate, and wanton and reckless conduct relating to the gynecological medical treatment received by the Plaintiff and the class while they were students at USC.

Contact a Sexual Abuse Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser partner Annika K. Martin, herself an alumnus of USC’s law school, is leading the litigation for our firm on behalf of women who suffered violence, abuse, and harassment by George Tyndall and USC. You can contact Annika by telephone at 415 956-1000 or you can use the confidential form below. There is no charge or obligation for your outreach, and all information will be held in the strictest confidence.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

To the extent you feel comfortable, please describe your experience with Dr. Tyndall at USC:


Pacific Fertility Clinic Egg and Embryo Preservation Failures

Frozen egg and embryo failures

Amended Complaint in Class Action Against Pacific Fertility Center Adds Tank Manufacturer As Defendant

On May 30th, 2018, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel filed an Amended Complaint in the federal class action lawsuit against Pacific Fertility Center brought on behalf of eight individual plaintiffs for the Center’s March 4, 2018 destruction of or serious threat to hundreds of cryogenically preserved eggs and embryos stored at its facility in San Francisco that occurred as a result of liquid nitrogen depletion in one of its storage tanks.

Pacific Fertility Center has admitted that embryos and eggs may have been destroyed when Tank 4 failed. As noted in the amended complaint, one month after the tank failure incident, in April 2018, Chart Industries, the manufacturer of the tank, issued a recall of several cryopreservation tanks citing reports of issues with “vacuum leak.”

The amended class action complaint brings the total of enumerated causes of actions to thirteen, expanding the bases of the lawsuit to include negligence, breach of contract, premises liability, breach of fiduciary duty, deceit, fraudulent concealment, and strict products liability, among other charges, on behalf of the designated plaintiffs and the putative class of all other similarly situated women and families who had stored eggs and embryos at PFC.

Lieff Cabraser Named Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in Pacific Fertility Clinic Egg & Embryo Preservation Failures Lawsuit

On May 15, 2018, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Ninth Circuit named Lieff Cabraser Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in the consolidated proposed class action lawsuits charging Pacific Fertility Clinic with breach of contract and negligence relating to the destruction of stored eggs and embryos in the wake of cryogenic storage tank failures in early March 2018. Earlier, on May 1st, Judge Corley had consolidated the three separately filed class action cases including cases filed by Lieff Cabraser on April 17, 2018 on behalf of women who stored their frozen eggs and embryos in the malfunctioning equipment at Pacific Fertility Center in San Francisco.

Background on the Case

On March 11, 2018, the Pacific Fertility Clinic in San Francisco announced that it had experienced a liquid nitrogen failure leading to the destruction of thousands of frozen eggs and embryos that had been preserved for future use by hundreds of women. The incident, which occurred on March 4th, comes close on the heels of a similar malfunction at a different fertility clinic in Cleveland that reportedly destroyed hundreds of previously frozen and preserved eggs and embryos.

On March 28, 2018, the Cleveland clinic revealed that the egg and embryo loss was much worse than initially stated, and in fact destroyed 4,000 stored eggs and embryos. The clinic’s alarm system was apparently switched off at University Hospitals in Ohio, and officials there admitted they did not know how long the remote alarm had been turned off. NBC news reported that the storage tank manufacturer “has a 15-year history of equipment failures.”

A spokesman at the San Francisco clinic noted that the several thousand affected eggs and embryos reflected as much as 15 percent of the facility’s total. The earlier tank failure in Cleveland is thought to have affected the eggs or embryos of approximately 700 women. While the number of women freezing their eggs has soared in recent years, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine stated that such large-scale fertility clinic failures appear to be unprecedented.

Attorney Sarah London Discusses the Rights of Patients Affected by Fertility Clinic Equipment Failures

Contact National Women’s Injury Lawyers at Lieff Cabraser

If you believe your frozen eggs or embryos were affected by the egg preservation malfunction at Pacific Fertility Clinic or by another failure at a separate fertility clinic in the U.S., we invite you to contact Sarah London or Lexi Hazam at the national plaintiffs’ law firm of Lieff Cabraser today. You can call us toll-free at 1 800 541-7358 or use the form below. The information you provide will be held in the strictest confidence.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

At which clinic were you a patient?

Any additional relevant information you feel comfortable sharing:



 

Neocate Infant Injuries

close up of a baby powder milk

Issue: Child Injuries from Neocate Baby Formula

Lieff Cabraser is investigating multiple reports of infant and child injuries allegedly related to the consumption of Neocate, an elemental amino acid-based baby formula given to babies with sensitivities to proteins in cows’ milk. Manufactured and marketed in the U.S. by Nutricia, Neocate is one of the oldest baby formulas available for babies who cannot drink cow’s milk.

In March 2016, Nutricia issued a warning that babies using Neocate as a primary or sole source of nutrition “should be routinely monitored by clinicians.” This warning is inadequate and does not raise the association with hypophosphatemia or the seriousness of these injuries.

A 2017 Yale University study revealed a link between babies and children using Neocate and multiple and severe bone fractures though to be occurring because of phosphate deficiencies (a condition known as hypophosphatemia or Rickets). While the deficiency (though not the existing bone breaks) could be reversed by getting the children off Neocate and feeding them alternative soy-based formulas, in some of the babies the multiple bone fractures resulted in permanent disfigurement.

Contact an Infant Injury Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If your baby or child has suffered bone fractures you suspect may be related to the use of Neocate, we urge you to contact infant injury lawyer Wendy Fleishman at Lieff Cabraser today. You can use the short form below or call Ms. Fleishman toll-free at 1 800 541-7358. Lieff Cabraser has successfully litigated cases on behalf of parents of injured children across America. We will review your claim for free, confidentially, and with no obligation on your part.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Did or does your baby drink Neocate?

Please describe any injuries you think may relate to your baby's drinking of Neocate:

Please tell us your child's date of birth:

Any additional comments:

Would you like to receive our injury law newsletter? Yes


Why Would Nutricia Be Liable for Child Bone Injuries from Neocate Use?

A manufacturer of a product has a duty to use reasonable care in the design, manufacturing, testing and inspection of the product to see that the product is safe for any use. A manufacturer also has a duty to give an adequate warning of any dangerous conditions that are not obvious to product users. Plaintiffs allege that Nutricia was negligent in their failure to warn consumers and provide adequate instructions for safe use of the product, in addition to being negligent in the design of Neocate that resulted in an unreasonably dangerous product which enhances injuries.

Mirena Pseudotumor and Intracranial Hypertension Injuries

hospital

Issue: Pseudotumor/Intracranial Hypertension and Related Injuries

Lieff Cabraser represents women suffering from the non-stroke neurological condition pseudotumor cerebri (PTC), also known as idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), in injury lawsuits that claim their conditions were caused by their use of the Mirena® contraceptive device. The lawsuit allegations include negligence, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, design defects, fraud by suppression and concealment, failure to adequately warn of health risks, and breach of warranty, and seek compensatory and punitive damages.

Contact a National Women’s Injury Attorney at Lieff Cabraser

If you or a family member have experienced injuries like PTC or intracranial hypertension you believe may relate to the use of Mirena, please contact a dedicated women’s injury attorney at Lieff Cabraser today by using the form below or calling us toll-free at 1 800 541-7358. There is no cost or obligation for our review of your Mirena injury case.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please tell us about your or a family member's experience with the Mirena IUD and any related side effects or injuries:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes


 What is Mirena?

Mirena is a small, t-shaped plastic intrauterine device (IUD) that releases a hormone into the uterus to prevent pregnancy. It is manufactured by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Mirena in December 2000 as a contraceptive for women who have had at least one child. In 2009, the FDA approved Mirena to treat heavy menstrual bleeding in women who prefer intrauterine contraception as their method of birth control. In 2017, the FDA approved Mirena as a contraceptive for women who had not had a child. More than 2 million women in the United States currently use Mirena, and the device has been used by more than 15 million women worldwide.

Mirena device - illustration

Mirena releases the synthetic hormone levonorgestrel directly into the uterus for birth control. While Mirena’s label includes warnings about stroke risks, the lawsuits allege Mirena’s label does not sufficiently warn about non-stroke PTC/IIH — in fact, the condition is not mentioned on the warning label at all. Further, in the course of marketing Mirena, Bayer was warned by the FDA that its advertising omitted serious and frequent risks associated with Mirena, and misleadingly suggested that Mirena is safer than has been demonstrated.

Dangerous Mirena PTC and Brain Hypertension Side Effects

Pseudotumor cerebri or idiopathic intracranial hypertension is a condition that develops in the skull when cerebrospinal fluid levels become elevated, causing increased pressure. PTC derives its name from the fact that the condition acts like a tumor but it is not actually a tumor. Patients with PTC or IIH typically develop symptoms of severe migraines or migraine-like headaches with blurred vision, diplopia (double vision), temporary blindness, blind spots, or other visual deficiencies resulting from increased pressure on the optic nerve. Failure to correctly diagnose and treat PTC or IIH can lead to permanent vision loss and even blindness. There is currently no treatment to reverse permanent injury to the optic nerves caused by increased intracranial pressure.

About Lieff Cabraser

Recognized as “one of the nation’s premier plaintiffs’ firms” by The American Lawyer, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is a seventy-plus attorney law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle. Our firm has recovered over $19 billion for clients in personal injury cases, and has successfully represented tens of thousands of women nationwide in injury lawsuits relating to breast implants, birth defects, vaginal surgical mesh, power morcellators, and Yaz and Yasmine contraceptives, among many other cases. U.S. News and Best Lawyers named Lieff Cabraser as their 2016 “Law Firm of the Year” for representing plaintiffs in class actions and mass torts. We were recognized more recently by the National Law Journal as one of nine “Elite Trial Lawyer” firms and by Benchmark Litigation as one of the Top 10 Plaintiffs firms in the country.

Trademark Notice

Mirena® is a registered trademark of Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals is not affiliated with this website, and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals has no affiliation with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals.

DePuy Attune Total Knee Implant Patient Injury Lawsuits

Knee joint implant injuries x-ray

Knee implant patients across the U.S. report unusually high early failure rates of DePuy Attune Total Knee implant systems. While DePuy has reported that “early clinical results of the Attune Knee are promising,” the Journal of Knee Surgery published a June 2017 report indicating numerous DePuy Attune Total Knee system failures as well as underreported Attune knee complications.

Patients who suffer from implant-related injuries they suspect relate to design or manufacturing defects in medical devices have the right to bring lawsuits against implant manufacturers for pain, suffering, the cost of care and revision surgery, and other attendant losses. An attorney can be critical to properly evaluating your case and advising you of your rights, including the time by which you must file a lawsuit in order to preserve your claim under the relevant statute of limitations. Also, without counsel, you may never know or receive the full value of your case.

Contact a DePuy Attune Total Knee System Injury Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

For decades, Lieff Cabraser has represented patients who have been injured by defective implants and other medical devices. Contact us today by calling 1 800 541-7358 or use the form below to get a free, no-obligation review of your knee implant injury case.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

When did you receive your Attune knee implant?

Have you undergone surgery to replace your Attune implant?

If not, have you been told by a physician that your Attune implant may need to be replaced?

Please describe the problems you are having with your Attune knee implant:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes