Three new MDLs have been established for the vaginal mesh litigation, making a total of four MDLs that are assigned to Chief Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

Although many people confuse an MDL with a vaginal mesh class action lawsuit, the cases actually remain individual claims and are only consolidated during pretrial litigation. If a vaginal mesh settlement agreement is not reached with the respective manufacturers following discovery and any bellwether trials, each lawsuit will be remanded back to the U.S. District Court where it was originally filed for trial.

The vaginal mesh lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. represent women throughout the United States who are pursuing a lawsuit after experiencing severe problems from surgical mesh used to repair pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or female stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

Various products manufactured by American Medical Systems (AMS), Boston Scientific, Ethicon and C.R. Bard have been associated with an increased risk of painful and debilitating complications, such as erosion of the mesh through the vagina, infections, pain and other problems.

It is expected that hundreds of lawsuits over problems with transvaginal mesh products will eventually be filed against the various manufacturers of these products. While the cases will be managed during pretrial proceedings in a manner similar to how a vaginal mesh class action suit would be handled, the outcome will not be determined through a class representative, as each lawsuit involves unique damages caused by the vaginal mesh products.

The multidistrict litigation process, which are referred to as MDLs, are common in complex product liability claims involving a large number of claims with similar allegations and factual basis. The complaints are centralized for pretrial proceedings to eliminate conflicting scheduling orders, reduce duplicative discovery, avoid inconsistent rulings and to serve the convenience of the witnesses, the parties and the court.

The new vagina mesh MDLs were centralized before Judge Goodwin because he was already presiding over an MDL established in October 2010 for all lawsuits involving problems with C.R. Bard surgical mesh products.

VAGINAL MESH CLASS ACTION ATTORNEYS

The vaginal mesh attorneys at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. are continuing to review and evaluate new lawsuits for individuals who have experienced problems with a vaginal sling or mesh product that was implanted transvaginally for repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence. Financial compensation may be available for individuals who have experienced problems like:

• Pelvic Pain
• Erosion or Shrinkage of the Mesh
• Urinary or Bladder Problems
• Infection
• Other Vaginal Mesh Complications

To review a potential case for yourself, a friend or family member, request a free consultation and claim evaluation.

▸ Propecia Lawsuits for Sexual Problems

Our Propecia lawyers represent men throughout the United States who are currently pursuing a lawsuit against Merck over failure to warn about the risk of serious sexual side effects. The lack of any statement from Merck explaining the removal of the website, has many speculating that the drug maker may be preparing to either issue a Propecia recall or revise the warning label to provide more accurate information about the risk of Propecia problems.

Propecia (finasteride) is a prescription medication that was introduced in December 1997 for treatment of male pattern baldness, or hair loss. It is a low-dose version of the prostate drug Proscar, which also contains finasteride as the active pharmaceutical ingredient.

Side effects of Propecia have been linked to a number permanent sexual problems, including:

• Erectile Dysfunction (ED)
• Impotence or Low Sperm Count
• Decreased Libido
• Groin or Testicular Pain
• Depression

Lawsuits over Propecia allege that the drug maker failed to properly research their medication and actively withheld information from consumers and the medical community about the risk of Propecia problems. While the drug maker has suggested that if any sexual problems are experienced they will be temporary, a number of men have experienced long-term, permanent dysfunction.

Since Propecia is not prescribed to treat any disease or ailment, other than the naturally occurring phenomenon of male hair loss, many experts have questioned whether Merck should recall Propecia, as any risk of permanent sexual problems outweighs the benefits.

With the sudden decision to pull down the Propecia.com website for their blockbuster drug, speculation is mounting that either Merck is finally taking the first steps in the direction of protecting consumers, or the FDA has forced them to take such steps. We will continue to follow the situation and provide updated information.

LAWSUITS FOR PROPECIA SEXUAL PROBLEMS

If you, a friend or family member have experienced sexual dysfunction or problems after taking Propecia, our lawyers provide a free consultation and case evaluation to determine if financial compensation may be available through a lawsuit. All cases are reviewed on a contingency fee basis, which means that there are never any attorney fees unless a recovery is obtained.

To obtain a free and confidential consultation, request a free claim evaluation.

Zoloft (sertraline) was introduced in December 1991. It is part of a class of medications known as SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor), and side effects of Zoloft have been shown to increase the risk of infants being born with serious defects and malformations, such as heart defects, neural tube defects, abdominal defects, cleft palate, cleft lip, club foot, spina bifida and persistent pulmonary hypertension in newborns (PPHN).

Before the drug was even approved by the FDA, Pfizer knew that Zoloft pregnancy use caused birth defects in non-mammalian species. Even if the malformations were not established among humans at that time, it was clear that Zoloft crossed the placenta, and Pfizer had a duty to fully research the pregnancy risks with Zoloft before promoting it heavily to millions of Americans.

Zoloft has grown to become one of the most widely prescribed medications in the United States, while the drug maker has ignored information about the risks of use while pregnant and failed to provide adequate warnings about birth defects from Zoloft. Evidence of pregnancy and birth problems has been building over the years since the drug was introduced, and thousands of children have been forced to serve as unwilling human test subjects.

Medical literature published over the past two decades provides a good outline to establish that Pfizer has intentionally turned a blind eye and allowed women to become pregnant while taking Zoloft as a result of their decision to place profits before patients safety:

Based on the information available to Pfizer, Zoloft should be classified as a Category D pregnancy drug, indicating that there is positive evidence of human fetal risk. However, women and doctors continue to be provided with vague and confusing information about the extent of the risk children face from pregnancy use of Zoloft.

ZOLOFT PREGNANCY LAWSUITS

The Zoloft birth defect lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. review potential claims for children throughout the United States who have been born with serious and devastating health problems that were caused by the use of Zoloft during pregnancy. Financial compensation may be available through a Zoloft lawsuit for the life-time of medical bills and disability children born with these birth defects and malformations must face.

All claims are reviewed under a contingency fee agreement, which means that there are no out-of-pocket expenses to review a potential claim with our law firm and there are never any attorney fees unless a recovery is obtained. To review a case for your child or a family member, request a free consultation and claim evaluation.

▸ INFORMATION: Actos Cancer Lawsuit

Actos (pioglitazone) is a medication approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes. Research has suggested that use of the medication for long periods of time may increase the risk of users developing bladder cancer.

As a result of the risk, many experts believe that any potential benefits provided by the medication are outweighed by the risk of bladder cancer, and there have been calls for Takeda Pharmaceuticals it issue an Actos recall. In fact, Actos was removed from the market in France and some other European countries due to the risk.

The Actos package insert and bladder cancer warnings (PDF) in the United States were updated in August 2011. New information was added to the “Warnings and Precautions” section, which indicates:

Bladder Cancer: Preclinical and clinical trial data, and results from an observational study suggest an increased risk of bladder caner in pioglitazone users. The observational data further suggest that the risk increases with duration of use. Do not use in patients with active bladder cancer. Use caution when using in patients with a prior history of bladder cancer.

While the new Actos warning label does now acknowledge the risk of bladder cancer, it remains inadequate information for consumers and the medical community given the severity of the health risk involved.

If Actos is to remain on the market, at a minimum, the FDA should force Takeda to place the bladder cancer information within an Actos “black box” warning, which would be featured prominently at the beginning of the label. Such a boxed warning is the strongest warning that can be placed on a prescription label, and it is warranted because it is important that every prescription for Actos be made with full knowledge of the risk.

Information should also be provided to consumers and the medical community that encourages a three to six-month review of the drug’s performance for each individual patient, as regulators have recommended in Europe. The potential Actos cancer risk could be reduced by appropriate patient selection and exclusion, as well as limiting long-term exposure to Actos, which may increase the chances of developing bladder cancer.

ACTOS LAWSUIT OVER FAILURE TO WARN

The Actos lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. represent individuals throughout the United States who are pursuing a lawsuit against Takeda over their failure to adequately warn about the risk of bladder cancer. Actos lawsuits allege that Takeda continues to put their desire for profits before patient safety by failing to recall Actos or provide adequate warning information.

To review a potential claim for yourself, a friend or family member, request a free consultation and claim evaluation.

Researchers with the FDA, Kaiser Permanent, Vanderbilt University and the University of Washington found that women who used NuvaRing were 56% more likely to suffer blood clots and venous thomboembolic events (VTEs), according to data released (PDF) by the FDA in October 2011.

The study evaluated medical data on about 800,000 women from 2001 to 2007. Not only did researchers identifiy an increased risk of NuvaRing blood clots, but also found an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes with the newer birth control product.

NuvaRing is a one-monthly device that is inserted into the vagina to prevent pregnancy. The device releases a stream of ethinyl estradiol (EE) and etonogestrel for three weeks. Etonogestral is known as a “third generation” progestin, and has been linked to several health concerns.

While the manufacturers have suggested that the risk of blood clots from NuvaRing is similar to that found with birth control pills, it appears that women are exposed to higher levels of estrogen than provided by some oral contraceptives, which could be partially responsible for the increased blood clot risk with NuvaRing birth control.

NUVARING BLOOD CLOT LAWSUIT

As a result of the drug maker’s failure to adequately research the birth control ring or warn about the extent of the NuvaRing blood clot risk, financial compensation may be available for women who have experienced a:

• Pulmonary Embolism
• Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)
• Heart Attack
• Stroke
• Sudden Death

Free consultations and claim evaluations are being provided to help women and their families determine if they may be eligible for a NuvaRing blood clot lawsuit. All cases are pursued through a contingency fee, which means that there are never any out-of-pocket expenses for our NuvaRing law firm to represent you and we receive no attorney fees unless we obtain a recovery. To review a case for yourself, a friend or family member, request a free consultation and claim evaluation.

According to research published in the British Medical Journal, about one out of every 500 mothers who take an antidepressant during pregnancy that belongs to a class of drugs known as selective serotoninin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) may give birth to a child with PPHN. Although the study does not establish causation, this is much higher than the PPHN rate among women who suffer depression during pregnancy but take nothing.

In December, the FDA issued an announcement that raised questions about the potential link between persistent pulmonary hypertension in newborns (PPHN) and SSRI antidepressants. The FDA indicated that conflicting findings from studies make it unclear whether the use of SSRI antidepressants during pregnancy can cause PPHN.

In this latest study, researchers evaluated data on more than 1 million births from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Although the risk of PPHN from SSRI antidepressants was rare, researchers found that 0.2% of mothers who took the medications during pregnancy gave birth to children with PPHN.

In cases of PPHN from SSRI antidepressants, the blood vessels leading to the infant’s lungs fail to expand as they normally should. This causes insufficient blood flow to the baby’s lungs. Symptoms may include rapid breathing, blue skin color, a weak pulse or severe respiratory distress. Treatment often involves the use of a ventilator or, in more extreme cases, a respirator.

SSRI ANTIDEPRESSANT PPHN LAWYERS

The SSRI antidepressant birth defect lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. provide free consultations and case evaluations for parents of children diagnosed with PPHN, which may have been caused by a medication given to the mother during pregnancy. As a result of the drug makers’ failure to adequately research the side effects of their medication or warn women given the drugs, compensation may be available through PPHN lawsuit.

If your child or a family member has been diagnosed with PPHN after Paxil, Zoloft, Prozac or another SSRI antidepressant was used during pregnancy, request a free consultation and claim evaluation.

Pradaxa (dabigatran) is a new drug that was just approved in October 2010, yet has already been linked to a number of serious and potentially life-threatening side effects. Pradaxa was introduced by Boehringer Ingelheim as an alternative to Coumadin/warfarin, and is supposed to be easier to use and require less monitoring. However, Pradaxa side effects may actually pose a greater risk to consumers than the drug maker originally disclosed.

A study published this week by the Archives of Internal Medicine looked at seven different clinical trials involving Pradaxa and found that out of 20,000 patients who took the newer blood thinner, 237 suffered heart attacks or chest pain, compared with only 83 patients out of 10,514 who took warfarin or a pacebo.

Although Pradaxa has only been on the market for a little more than one year, the FDA is already investigating the potential risk of Pradaxa bleeding problems, after an alarming number of post-marketing reports surfaced involving hemorrhages and other internal bleeding. According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, the FDA indicated this week that it is also looking the potential Pradaxa heart attack side effects.

PRADAXA HEART ATTACK LAWSUIT EVALUATION

The Pradaxa lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. are closely monitoring the data surrounding this new drug. Individuals throughout the United States may be entitled to financial compensation through a Pradaxa lawsuit if they have experienced severe or fatal bleeding problems after using the drug, or if they have suffered a heart attack from Pradaxa.

To review a potential claim for yourself, a friend or family member, request a free consultation and Pradaxa case evaluation.

The lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. represent individuals throughout the United States who are pursuing a Chantix lawsuit against Pfizer as a result of their failure to adequately warn about the risk of suicide and aggressive behavior.

Since our law firm started handling these cases in late 2007, Pfizer has made a number of changes to the drug label and to the warnings that accompany their direct-to-consumer television advertisements. While the current warnings are not as outrageous as those featured in this parody (no you will not get “Jazz Hands”), the Saturday Night Live “commercial” does highlight the outrageous risk that is associated with this prescription medication.

Chantix (varenicline tartrate) is a Pfizer drug that was approved in May 2006 to aid people trying to quit smoking. The drug is not a nicotine replacement product, but rather acts on the brain to diminish the desire to smoke. However, it appears that Pfizer failed to adequately research or study their medication before introducing it and failed to properly warn about the risk of serious and potentially life-threatening Chantix problems.

Setting aside the humor of the SNL Chantix “commercial”, the problems with Chantix are very real and have impacted hundreds of people throughout the United States. The drug has regularly been one of the medications with the most adverse event reports to the FDA’s MedWatch reporting system and it has been linked to more than 400 reported incidence of violence over a five year period, which is more than double the number of instances linked to any other drug on the market in the U.S.

LAWSUITS FOR PROBLEMS WITH CHANTIX

The Chantix lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. are continuing to review potential claims involving death or serious injury that may have been caused by the use of the stop smoking drug. To review a potential claim for yourself, a friend or family member, request a free consultation and case evaluation.

CONTACT OUR PRADAXA LAWYERS TO REVIEW A CASE

Pradaxa (dabigatran) is a relatively new blood thinner that was just approved in October 2010. Due to aggressive marketing, the medication was widely used almost immediately, with a reported 86,000 people receiving a prescription during the first three months it was on the market.

The FDA approved Pradaxa for prevention of strokes among patients with atrial fibrillation, which may carry a risk of blood clots due to the irregular contraction of blood through the heart. However, Pradaxa has also been widely used off-label as a blood thinner for other conditions, with some reports suggesting that only about 1/3rd of the use during the first three months was for the approved use.

Although Pradaxa was marketed as a superior medication over warfarin, a blood thinner that has been on the market for decades, it now appears that the manufacturer failed to adequately disclose the extent of the risk of Pradaxa bleeding side effects.

Pradaxa was marketed as easier to use than warfarin because it requires less monitoring. However, when users of warfarin experience abnormal bleeding, the side effect can be counteracted with Vitamin K and there is no similar solution for Pradaxa bleeding problems.

Potential claims are being reviewed by our Pradaxa lawyers for individuals througout the United States. To review a case for yourself, a friend or family member, request a free consultation and claim evaluation.

It is expected that hundreds of people throughout the United States will ultimately file an Actos bladder cancer lawsuit against Takeda Pharmaceuticals in various courts throughout the United States. The lawsuits all involve similar allegations that the drug maker failed to properly research their medication or warn that long-term use of Actos may increase the risk of bladder tumors.

With the formation of the Actos MDL, or multidistrict litigation, all cases filed in the federal court system will be consolidated before U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty for discovery and any early bellwether trials, which are often scheduled to help the parties gauge how juries are likely to respond to evidence that will be presented throughout the litigation.

Although an MDL is often equated with an Actos class action lawsuit, the cases do remain individual injury lawsuits, even though they are transferred to the same judge for pretrial litigation. If an Actos settlement agreement or other resolution for the litigation is not reached in the MDL, then the cases would be remanded back to the court where they were originally filed for trial.

Unlike a class action, the federal Actos bladder cancer litigation claims involve unique damages for each claimant, since each individual will be impacted by the injury in a different way. Therefore, the outcome of the litigation can not be determined through the trial of a class-representative, as would be done in a class action suit.

ACTOS CASE EVALUATION

With the Actos MDL just being formed, the litigation remains in the early stages. The Actos lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. are continuing to review potentail lawsuits for individuals throughout the United States who have been diagnosed with bladder cancer after using type 2 diabetes medication.

To review a potential Actos case for yourself, a friend or family member, request a free consultation and claim evaluation.