Personal Injury

Gilead HIV Drug Kidney & Bone Injuries Litigation

Drug Bottles

In lawsuits against pharma giant Gilead Sciences, plaintiffs across California allege they suffered kidney injuries and bone injuries from HIV drugs made and distributed by Gilead that were more harmful derivatives than other newer drugs the company had created but would not sell until its stock of the more harmful drugs was exhausted.

These first-in-the-nation claims against Gilead Sciences, Inc. allege injuries arising from plaintiffs’ ingestion of certain drugs used for the treatment of HIV. The lawsuit seeks damages and other remedies for personal injuries stemming from the ingestion of Gilead’s prescription medications (Truvada® and Atripla®) that contain tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (“TDF”). Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that Gilead knew or should have known of a safer alternative design for its TDF-containing drugs, and that Gilead failed to adequately warn of the known and knowable risks associated with its medications. The lawsuit alleges causes of action for strict products liability, negligent products liability, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranty.

Contact National Drug Injury Attorneys

If you believe you have suffered kidney or bone injury relating to Gilead HIV drugs you were led to take with insufficient warnings because Gilead delayed selling its safer and better HIV drugs until it could sell all of its earlier more harmful drugs, please contact Lieff Cabraser partner Sarah London today at 1 800 541-7358 or by using the form below to talk about your case and potential recovery. There is no charge for our review of your case, and all 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?

Please describe the injuries you believe relate to your Gilead HIV drug use:


Children’s Hospital Los Angeles Stem Cell Destruction Investigation

hospital

Lieff Cabraser is investigating reports that a malfunction and cryogenic freezer tank failure at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles has caused the destruction of 56 children’s blood stem cell collections harvested at the start of each of the child patient’s cancer therapy and stored against potential future use in cutting-edge oncological health treatments.

The hospital has apologized and sent letters to the families of each child whose harvested stem cells were destroyed, and has offered to assist those families who want to have their children’s cells harvested again. However, that process is known to be painful and grueling, especially for children. Some patients and families have expressed grave concerns that future harvesting may be impossible if the children’s cancers persist or return.

Children’s Hospital Los Angeles has indicated that the broken freezer has since been replaced, and sensors, monitoring, and alert systems have been “upgraded.”

Contact a Children’s Injury Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If your child is among the children affected by the tragic destruction of collected stem cells at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, we urge you to contact a child injury lawyer at Lieff Cabraser today to discuss your case. There is no obligation or charge for talking with us, and the information you provide will help us hold Children’s Hospital Los Angeles accountable for any failures in monitoring, storage, or processing of harvested cells.


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?

Is your child a patient at Children's Hospital Los Angeles?

Any additional relevant information you feel comfortable sharing:


Vaping and JUUL Lung Injury, Hospitalization, Stroke and/or Death Claims

Juul Vaping Stroke Injuries

Lieff Cabraser represents a young man who suffered a stroke as a result of his addiction to Juul vaped tobacco. Widespread media attention has focused on new studies and reports serious dangers and heightened risks associated with Juul products, particularly for users under the age of 26. These new e-cigarettes are especially popular among young adults due to their sleek and discreet design and liquid-filled cartridges (“Juul pods”) that come in a variety of candy-like and other flavors, and that popularity is leading to serious adverse health consequences for younger Americans.

EMERGENCY HEALTH ALERT: Users urged to stop vaping immediately
9/6/19: Federal health authorities are urging people to stop using electronic smoking products while they investigate the death of a third person from a mysterious vaping illness that researchers say may have affected 450 people around the U.S.
9/11/19: The Trump Administration has announced it is planning to ban all e-cigarette flavors following the recent nationwide outbreak of severe lung illnesses linked to vaping and as many as six reported deaths.
9/16/19: New York Moves to Ban Flavored E-Cigarettes by Emergency Order.
9/19/19: FDA Reveals Criminal Probe of E-Cigarette Deaths & Injuries.

Our firm is also investigating numerous reports of heart and other coronary disease and seizures alleged to be related to vape use, as well as inhalation injury, inhalation pneumonitis and toxic inhalation pneumonitis, and pneumonia.

The plaintiff in the Juul addiction and injury lawsuit alleges that Juul manufactures and markets products that are inherently defective and do not perform safely as per user expectations, expectations created by Juul’s pervasive marketing. The lawsuit states claims that the Juul products deliver high doses of nicotine that far outweigh any claimed benefits. Juul is accused of a failure to adequately and properly warn potential users about the dangers in Juul as well as negligence in the manufacture, labeling, and promotion of its highly addictive products. Further, the company will not recall the devices despite the high risk of stroke in the young users it targets; the complaint notes that the Juul devices and pods are unsafe for anyone under 26, delivering as they do the equivalent of two full packs of old-style cigarettes with each single Juul pod.

Contact a Juul Addiction & Juul Stroke Injury Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you or someone you know is addicted to Juul products, or has suffered a serious cardiovascular injury you believe may relate to Juul e-cigarettes, we urge you to contact us today about your case. Lieff Cabraser will provide answers to your legal questions, and can inform you of your legal rights, including your potential claims against Juul. Call us toll-free at 1 800 541-7358 or use the contact form below.


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?

Please describe your experience with Juul:


Monsanto Roundup Non Hodgkin Lymphoma Cancer Injury Lawsuits

In March 2015, IARC (The International Agency for Research on Cancer) classified glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto Roundup, as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” IARC also concluded that there was “strong” evidence for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations.

Since that announcement, three California juries have found Bayer/Monsanto liable for causing Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in consumers who have used the herbicide as a weedkiller in their jobs and/or for personal use around their homes, ranches and properties.

In the first groundbreaking trial, jurors found Bayer/Monsanto Liable for $289 million to a former school groundskeeper who suffered a rare form of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma that is considered terminal. The trial included information that Monsanto had ghostwritten articles relied on by the EPA, IARC and California’s environmental regulators; rewarded employees for ghostwriting; and actively suppressed the publication of information that revealed the harm associated with glyphosate and Roundup, which is considered considerably more toxic than glyphosate itself.

Two additional jury trials also found Bayer/Monsanto at fault for causing additional victims’ cancer, and Bayer/Monsanto has been order to pay $80 million and $2.055 billion to the cancer victims in those trials. A fourth case was ordered to mediation in an attempt to reach a settlement.

Individuals who have used Monsanto Roundup weedkiller and later suffered Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma may be eligible for compensation from Bayer/Monsanto. If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma or any subtype, please use the form on this page to help us investigate your case.

Glyphosate/Roundup

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weed killer, is the most widely used herbicide in the United States, regularly applied by farmers and homeowners alike, but there has been extensive research published in recent years suggesting that the chemical may be harmful to human health. Roundup is sprayed on nearly every acre of soybean, corn and cotton grown in the United States, as well as on backyard gardens and lawns, and there have been increasing concerns about the potential adverse effects of this liberal use, namely the toxic effects of regular exposure to Roundup and glyphosate and the dangers of Roundup and glyphosate in our food, in the air we breathe and in the water we drink. Roundup was originally produced by Monsanto, which was acquired by Bayer in 2018, along with thousands of product liability lawsuits already pending against the company.

To date, more than 11,000 Roundup lawsuits have been brought against Monsanto and Bayer over non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other alleged side effects of Roundup exposure, and billions of dollars in damages have already been awarded to plaintiffs in these cases. All of the Roundup lawsuits involve similar allegations that Monsanto knew about the potential risk of cancer and other problems from Roundup exposure and not only knowingly failed to warn consumers, but manipulated scientific research and colluded with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to cover up the cancer risks posed by the weed killer.

“In March 2015, IARC (The International Agency for Research on Cancer) classified glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto Roundup, as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. IARC also concluded that there was “strong” evidence for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations.”

Roundup Products that We Are Investigating:

  • Roundup
  • Roundup Pro
  • Ranger Pro Herbicide
  • Roundup Extended Control
  • Roundup ProMax
  • Roundup Concentrate MAX Control
  • Roundup Concentrate MAX Control 365
  • Roundup Pro Concentrate
  • Roundup QuikPro
  • Roundup Ready-to-Use
  • Roundup Ready-to-Use Max Control
  • Roundup Ready-to-Use Extended Control
  • Roundup Precision Gel
  • Roundup For Lawns
  • Roundup Ready-to-Use Poison Ivy
  • Roundup Weed & Grass Killer

Did you or a loved one get diagnosed with Non Hodgkin Lymphoma after exposure to a Bayer/Monsanto weedkiller containing glyphosate such as Roundup or Ranger Pro?

Find out if you may qualify for compensation.

Contact a Proven Toxic Exposure Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser Today

Lieff Cabraser has a 45-plus year history of successfully representing the injured in lawsuits against major corporations that produce unsafe and harmful products, including the recovery of over $118 billion for our clients nationwide, with over $32 billion coming from patients in personal injury and toxic exposure cases.

If you are a regular Roundup user who has developed cancer, we welcome the opportunity to speak to you today about your rights and potential recovery. We remain committed to securing justice for Americans improperly exposed to and harmed by toxic and dangerous products and substances. Call us today toll-free at 1 800 541-7350 to speak with firm partners Wendy Fleishman or Fabrice Vincent, or use the contact form below.


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?

Please describe your experience with Roundup:


Alaris Morphine Pump Infusion Set Recall and Injury Investigation

hospital bed

Patient death from horrific morphine overdose leads to recall and lawsuits

Lieff Cabraser’s personal injury lawyers are investigating reports from across the U.S. that Alaris Pump medication infusion sets have a defect that can and has led to patient death from massive medication overdoses.

In May 2019, BD Medication Delivery Solutions issued an Urgent Medical Device Recall for certain models of its Alaris Pump Infusion Sets. Manufactured and distributed since 2016, lawsuits allege that the pump sets contain a defect that can lead to “unintended delivery of medication” when the pump is not running, or faster than expected delivery flow when the pump is running. A patient killed by an Alaris pump morphine overdose in 2017 is reported to have received 166 times the prescribed dosage of morphine.

Contact a personal injury lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you or a loved one has been injured by an Alaris Pump Infusion Set you believe may be defective, we urge you to contact one of our nationally-recognized personal injury lawyers today. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your case, and the information you provide will help hold Alaris accountable for any dangerous defects in its medical equipment, equipment that has the potential to injure thousands more Americans if unchecked.


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?

Please describe your experience with the Alaris pump:


Dr. James Mason Heaps Sexual Battery & Sexual Exploitation Investigation

University Womens Clinic

Lieff Cabraser is investigating reports of charges filed in Southern California against a former UCLA staff gynecologist accused of sexual battery and exploitation of female patients at UCLA. At least two former patients of Dr. James Mason Heaps have come forward to file complaints alleging sexual exploitation and sexual battery against Dr. Heaps, complaints that UCLA declined to make public for almost two years. It remains unclear if UCLA’s suppression of the complaints led to additional female UCLA students/UCLA gynecological services patients being harassed and molested by Dr. Heaps at UCLA.

Sexual Assault & Abuse Lawyers at Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser represents the class of thousands of women who allege they were sexually abused, harassed, and molested by gynecologist George Tyndall, M.D., while they were students at University of Southern California from the 1990s through 2016. The pending settlement in that case, valued at $215 million, will require USC to adopt and implement procedures for identification, prevention, and reporting of sexual and racial misconduct, as well as recognize all of Tyndall’s patients through a $215 million fund that gives every survivor a choice in how to participate with a highest award tier of $250,000 for women willing and able to provide an interview substantiating their claim.

Contact Partner Annika K. Martin About Your Case

Lieff Cabraser partner Annika K. Martin is leading the investigation for our firm on behalf of women who may have suffered abuse and harassment by Dr. James Mason Heaps at UCLA. 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 the consultation, 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. Heaps at UCLA:


Alleged Child Sexual Abuse in the Boy Scouts of America

Campfire

Lieff Cabraser is investigating disturbing and widespread allegations of child sexual abuse in the Boy Scouts of America. New reports by the Los Angeles Times and others that examined the Boy Scouts’ own internal records, some of which have been concealed for decades, reveal sexual abuse incidents relating to over 12,000 child victims by more than 7,800 suspected abusers. The records detailing these multiple thousands of incidents of child sexual abuse within the Boy Scouts of America date as far back as the 1940s, though the records only run up to 2016.

Reports note that even these numbers likely understate how many molesters infiltrated the Boy Scouts’ ranks over the years. Most of the suspected offenders were accused of abusing multiple boys, they noted, and many instances of abuse were never reported. The Boy Scouts have said in a statement that every account of suspected abuse has now been reported to law enforcement agencies.

Contact a Child Sexual Abuse Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser partner Annika K. Martin leads the cases for our firm on behalf of child and other victims who suffered sexual abuse. You can contact Annika by telephone at 800 541-7358 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:


Boeing 737 Max 8 Plane Defect Investigation

airplane

The brand-new Boeing 737 Max 8 airplanes have now been grounded worldwide after the second deadly 737 Max 8 crash, a crash that occurred in Ethiopia on March 10, 2019. On March 29, 2019, it was announced that black box data review suggested a faulty sensor activated an automated system on the jet, similar to the events of the late 2018 crash of another Boeing 737 Max 8 in Indonesia. On March 17, 2019, preliminary analysis of data from the black boxes obtained after the crashes indicates notable similarities between the March 2019 Ethiopia crash and the earlier Indonesia 737 Max 8 crash. As noted by the New York Times, Boeing’s public statements about rushing out software changes for the high-tech planes “amount to a tacit admission by Boeing that its automated system was flawed.”

Startling new information emerged on March 19th, 2019 that the day before the October 2019 Lion Air 737 Max 8 crash, an off-duty extra pilot who happened to be in the cockpit was able to help the Lion Air crew struggling to control their diving airplane by correctly diagnosing the problem and showing the crew how to disable a malfunctioning flight-control system to save the plane. As reported by Bloomberg, “The next day, under command of a different crew facing what investigators said was an identical malfunction, the same jetliner crashed into the Java Sea, killing all 189 aboard.”

Airlines, airports, airplane manufacturers, and governmental agencies have the duty to protect the safety and security of passengers. The additional groundings account for about 40 percent of all 737 MAX aircraft in service. Lieff Cabraser is committed to helping ensure that passenger safety and security is the aviation industry’s number one priority.

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 took off from Addis Ababa in good weather with clear skies bound for Nairobi, Kenya, but struggled to attain a stable speed, prompting the pilot to issue a distress call and gain clearance to return to Addis Ababa. Tragically, the plane lost contact with air traffic six minutes after takeoff and then crashed, killing all 189 people on board. In response to FAA demands for “design changes” to the aircraft, Boeing announced on March 12, 2019 that it would be rushing out a software update for the planes as soon as possible, “no later than April.”

A two-hour shuttle between two of the busiest capitals in East Africa, Flight 302 carried passengers from at least four continents, including Africa, Europe, China, and the United States. As reported by the New York Times, the passengers also included delegates traveling to Nairobi for a week long UN environmental summit. The Times also noted, “While the cause of the crash is unclear, the disaster is certain to raise more doubts about the safety of the 737 Max 8, one of Boeing’s fastest-selling airplanes.” (The crashed 737 Max 8 appears to be identical to the Lion Air Max 8 that crashed in October 2018 in Indonesia).

Contact an Aviation Safety Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

With offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and relations with lawyers worldwide, Lieff Cabraser is uniquely positioned to investigate and answer questions in connection with suspected defects in 737 Max 8 planes. Our attorneys work as a team with researchers, analysts, and other staff members, drawing upon their combined knowledge, training, and skills to provide our clients with decades of experience in the field of aviation law. Lieff Cabraser’s partners, associates, and staff are committed to upholding the rights of aviation disaster victims and promoting aviation safety throughout the world. Contact us today toll-free at 1 800 541-7358 or by using the form below for a free, confidential, no-obligation review of your case.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

If not in U.S. list country

Zip/Post code

Telephone Day

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Comments:


Rockefeller Hospital / Dr. Reginald Archibald Child Sexual Abuse Lawsuits

University Womens Clinic

In late 2018, the New York Times published revelations of a widespread pattern of sexual exploitation and abuse by now-deceased Dr. Reginald Archibald at The Rockefeller University Hospital in New York, a staggering range of incidents that dates back as far as the 1950s and may extend to a thousand child patients or more.

The Times cited “conversations with 17 people, most of them men, who said they were abused by Dr. Archibald when they were young boys or adolescents.” Most only learned that other victims existed after they received a letter in September 2018 from the hospital asking about their experiences with Dr. Archibald, which later was followed by an online posting stating that the Rockefeller Hospital had evidence of Archibald’s “inappropriate” conduct with patients via credible evidence the hospital had possessed since 2004. At least one recipient has noted that hospital administrators indicated such letters may have gone to 1,000 former patients of the doctor.

As the Times reported, “The men all described similar experiences with Dr. Archibald, who would tell them to disrobe when they were alone in his examination room. He would masturbate them or ask them to masturbate, sometimes to ejaculation. The doctor took pictures of them, while they were naked, with a Polaroid camera, and measured their penises both flaccid and erect, the men said.”

The 2019 New York Child Victims Act Significantly Increases Rights of Victims

A 2019 change in New York state law expands the reach of lawsuits against child sexual predators. Charges can now be brought until a victim turns 28, and victims can sue until age 55. The law also creates a one-year “look back” window during which old claims that had previously been time-barred can be revived. (Many states allow child sexual abuse claims to be brought decades after an assault occurs, and nine have no statutes of limitations on such offenses at all.)

Take the Time You Need to Ensure You Speak to the Right Counsel About Your Rockefeller Hospital 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 the law does push victims to filing suit sooner rather than later, 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 below 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 with Rockefeller Hospital:


3M Defective Ear Plugs Injury Lawsuit

Soldier with ear plugs

Lieff Cabraser has filed lawsuits against 3M for providing allegedly defective ear plugs for over a decade to men and women who served in the US military. Complaints allege the ear plugs, distributed between 2002 and 2015, were too short for proper insertion into users’ ears, putting users at risk for permanent hearing loss, hearing impairment, and tinnitus. In May 2019, Lieff Cabraser partner Kenny Byrd was appointed to the Early Vetting Committee in the nationwide multidistrict aggregated Combat Arms Earplugs product defect lawsuit against 3M.

In July 2018, the Department of Justice announced that 3M Company had agreed to pay $9.1 million to resolve allegations that it knowingly sold the dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs, Version 2 (CAEv2) to the United States military without disclosing defects that hampered the effectiveness of the hearing protection devices. The now-discontinued dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs were standard-issued equipment for Afghanistan and Iraq soldiers serving between 2002 and 2015.

Specifically, the United States alleged that 3M, and its predecessor, Aearo Technologies, Inc., knew the CAEv2 earplugs were too short for proper insertion into users’ ears, and that the plugs could loosen imperceptibly and therefore did not perform well for certain individuals. The United States further alleged that 3M did not disclose this design defect to the military.

Contact an Injury Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you are a soldier who experienced hearing loss after serving in Iraq or Afghanistan between 2002 and 2015, we encourage you to contact an experienced personal injury lawyer at Lieff Cabraser today. You can reach our Nashville, TN office toll-free at 1 866-313-1973 for a free, no-obligation, confidential review of your case (ask to speak to firm partners Mark Chalos or Fabrice Vincent), or you can use the form below to contact our team of legal professionals who seek to redress this wrong.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

If not in U.S. list country

Zip or Post Code

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please describe your experience with the 3M Ear Plugs:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

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.

On July 9, 2019, U.S. District Judge Victor Bolden (D. Conn.) ruled that a former student’s sexual abuse lawsuit against Hotchkiss can move forward. Though the judge dismissed a count of intentional infliction of emotional distress against the school, he ruled that the case can proceed on the four other counts, those of breach of fidicuary duty, recklessness, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Lieff Cabraser has also filed a separate suit on behalf on another former Hotchkiss student who alleges sexually assault by Smith. That case is pending.

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 June 13, 2019, Judge Steven V. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued an order granting Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement of the gender violence and sexual abuse litigation against Dr. George Tyndall and the University of Southern California. The settlement will require USC to adopt and implement procedures for identification, prevention, and reporting of sexual and racial misconduct, as well as recognize the harm done to all of Tyndall’s patients through a $215 million fund that gives every survivor a choice in how to participate. Learn more about the USC/Tyndall Sexual Abuse Settlement.

On February 12, 2019, University of Southern California (USC) students and alumni filed a class action settlement agreement resolving claims related to gynecologist George Tyndall, M.D. that will require USC to adopt and implement procedures for identification, prevention, and reporting of sexual and racial misconduct, as well as recognize all of Tyndall’s patients through a $215 million fund that gives every survivor a choice in how to participate.

On October 19, 2018, the settlement was originally announced by the University of Southern California whereunder it agreed to 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.

Invokana Amputations & Invokamet Amputations

drugs medications
SGLT2 Inhibitor Diabetes Drug List
Farxiga
Glyxambi
Invokamet
Invokana
Jardiance
Xigduo

Issue: Increased risk of leg & foot amputations after Invokana or Invokamet usage

May 2017: FDA Confirms Increased Risk of Leg & Foot Amputations with Invokana or Invokamet Use

In May 2017 the U.S. Food and Drug Adminstration issued a heightened Invokana warning confirming earlier studies that “the type 2 diabetes medication canagliflozin (Invokana, Invokamet, Invokamet XR) causes an increased risk of leg and foot amputations.” The FDA further noted it is requiring new warnings, including its most prominent Boxed Warning, to be added to all Invokana and Invokamet drug labels to warn patients about these serious risks.

The FDA further advised all patients taking Invokana or Invokamet to notify their health care professionals immediately if they develop “any new pain or tenderness, sores or ulcers, or infections in the legs or feet.” The FDA also advised warned doctors before prescribing Invokana/Invokamet to consider all factors that might predispose patients to a risk of amputations, which risk could be doubled by the use of Invokana or Invokamet.

Lieff Cabraser has successfully represented tens of thousands of clients in personal injury and dangerous prescription drug cases across America. U.S. News, Best Lawyers, and the National Law Journal have all recognized us as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in the nation.

Contact National Drug Injury Lawyers

If you have had a leg or foot amputation you think may be related to your use of Invokana or Invokamet, please contact us today by completing the contact form below or by calling us toll-free at 1 800-541-7358 and ask to speak to attorney Sarah London.


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 or a family member start using an SGLT2 inhibitor?

Are you still using a SGLT2 inhibitor?

If not, when did you stop?

Have you or the family member undergone an amputation you believe is related to Invokana or Invokamet use?

Please describe any additional problems or complications you may have experienced relating to your taking of an SGLT2 inhibitor:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes


What are SGLT2 Inhibitors like Invokana or Invokamet?

SGLT2 inhibitors are a class of prescription medicines that are FDA-approved for use with diet and exercise to lower blood sugar in adults with Type 2 diabetes. SGLT2 is an abbreviation for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2.

SGLT2 inhibitors lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through the urine.

The active ingredient of SGLT2 inibitors is canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or empagliflozin. These medicines are available as single-ingredient products sold under the brand names:

  • Invokana
  • Farxiga, and
  • Jardiance.

The active ingredients of SGLT2 inhibitors are also used in combination with other diabetes medicines. These medications are:

  • Invokamet
  • Xigduo, and
  • Glyxambi.

What Does the FDA Say About Amputations Caused by Invokana or Invokamet?

The FDA has reviewed data from two large clinical trials of type 2 diabetes medicine canagliflozin (Invokana, Invokamet, Invokamet XR) and has concluded that these drugs cause a doubled risk of foot or leg amputation in patients. The data “showed that toe, leg, and foot amputations occurred about twice as often in patients treated with canagliflozin compared to patients treated with placebo.”

The FDA urges patients to contact their doctors right away if they experience any new symptoms that might relate to conditions requiring amputation (including new pain, soreness, or ulceration or infection) and has urged health care professionals and patients to report side effects involving SGLT2 inhibitors to the FDA MedWatch program.

What are my legal rights?

Manufacturers of prescription drugs have a duty to patients to produce safe products and to warn patients and doctors of all serious side effects from their medications.

The law in most states provides several personal injury claims for patients who have been seriously injured by a prescription drug with dangerous and undisclosed side effects.

These claims include strict liability for a defective product, breach of warranty, negligence, and misrepresentation. Damages sought against pharmaceutical companies for dangerous drug side effects and injuries include:

  • Physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and physical impairment;
  • Medical expenses, past and future; and
  • Loss of earnings and/or earning capacity.

In the case of a patient’s death, the family of the victim may file a wrongful death action and seek damages.

Disclaimer

This website is not intended to provide medical advice. The FDA states that patients should not stop or change their diabetes medicines without talking to their physician. If you have new pain or tenderness, sores or ulcers, or infections in your legs or feet, talk to your physician immediately.

Trademark Notice

Invokana is a registered trademark of Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Farxiga is a registered trademark of AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP. Jardiance is a registered trademark of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Invokamet is a registered trademark of Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Xigduo is a registered trademark of AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP. Glyxambi is a registered trademark of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The use of these trademarks is solely for product identification and informational purposes. None of these companies are affiliated with this website, neither do they have any affiliation with Lieff Cabraser. Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by any of these companies.

BMW Takata Airbag Recall Lawsuits

Airbag Recall Lawsuits

BMW Takata Airbag Dangers

Nearly 34 million vehicles have been recalled worldwide due to defective and dangerous airbags manufactured by Japan-based Takata Corporation. The largest automotive recall in U.S. history, at least ten deaths and more than 100 injuries have been linked to the Takata airbag defect. Affected vehicles include the following BMW vehicles:

2 series 2014 to present6 series Gran Coupe 2012 to present
3 series 2012 to present6 series Gran Tourismo Coupe 2012 to present
3 series Gran Tourismo 2014 to present6 series Conv. 2012 to present
4 series Coupe 2014 to presentM2 2016 to present
4 series Conv. 2014 to presentM3 2015 to present
4 series Gran Coupe 2015 to presentM4 2015 to present
5 series 2010 to presentX1 2016 to present
5 series Gran Tourismo 2009 to presentX3 2011 to present
5 series Sedan 2010 to presentX4 2014 to present
5 series Conv. 2012 to presentX5 2014 to present
5 series Gran Tourismo Coupe 2012 to presentX6 2015 to present
6 series Coupe 2012 to presenti8 EV 2014 to present

Contact Lieff Cabraser

If you or a family member have been injured in an accident linked to a faulty airbag or are concerned about the safety of your BMW and its airbags, please use the form below to contact Lieff Cabraser for a prompt and confidential evaluation of your case. Or call us toll-free at 1 800 541-7358 and ask to speak with auto accident attorney Fabrice N. Vincent.


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?

What was the vehicle year?

What was the vehicle make?

What was the vehicle model?

What was the accident date?

In which state did the accident occur?

Did the airbag(s) deploy?

Were there any other airbag problems?

Description of injury and any additional information you may wish to provide:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes


 Takata Airbag Problems and Airbag Recall Lawsuits

The recalled Takata airbags contain a dangerous propellant that can cause the airbag to explode, shooting metal casing debris towards drivers and passengers. The complaints charge that Takata knew of defects in its airbags long before the first recalls and that the auto manufacturers also knew or should have known that the airbags were dangerous and even lethal. Litigation is ongoing.

Lieff Cabraser attorney Robert Nelson summarizes the Takata airbag recall

Legal Rights of Persons Injured in Unsafe Cars and by Defective Airbags

Automakers have a legal duty to produce cars and components that are safe, and promptly correct any known safety defects. Damages in personal injury lawsuits against auto manufacturers for selling defective vehicles with safety flaws include damages for:

  • Past and future physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and physical impairment;
  • Past and future medical, incidental and hospital expenses;
  • Past and future loss of earnings and earning capacity; and
  • Punitive damages in cases of egregious misconduct.

If the driver or occupant was killed, surviving family members may file a wrongful death lawsuit.