>>INFORMATION: DePuy ASR Hip Lawsuits

The DePuy ASR hip replacement lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. are reviewing potential lawsuits for individuals who received this defectively designed device and experienced hip pain, loosening of the hip implant or other hip problems that may have been caused by the metal-on-metal hip implant.

According to a recent report in the New York Times, a number of orthopedic experts believe that a DePuy ASR hip recall should have been issued earlier, as it appears to have a design flaw that makes it difficult to properly position in traditional hip replacement surgery. The device has been found to fail in some patients within only a few years of surgery, leading to excruciating pain and the need for complex hip replacement surgery.

Hundreds of individuals have reported DePuy ASR hip problems since 2007, with most of the reports involving complications that required replacement of the DePuy hip implant. Symptoms of a DePuy ASR hip failure could include:

• Unexplained Hip Pain
• Thigh Pain or Groin Pain
• Pain with Walking
• Pain Rising from a Seated Position
• Pain with Weight Bearing

DEPUY ASR HIP LAWYERS

The attorneys at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. are providing free consultations and claim evaluations for individuals who received the DePuy ASR hip implant or suspect that they may have received the DePuy metal hip, and experienced hip pain, loosening of the hip replacement or required additional hip surgery.

To review a potential DePuy ASR hip recall lawsuit on behalf of yourself, a friend or family member, request a free consultation and claim evaluation.

The Plavix lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. have been investigating potential cases against Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myer Squibb for failing to warn about the dangerous side effects of Plavix for over three years, and potential Plavix lawsuits are continuing to be evaluated for individuals who suffered a:

• Heart Attack
• Stroke
• Cardiovascular Death
• Internal Bleeding
• Ulcers
• Blood Disorder: Thombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpora (TTP)

The new Plavix black box warning is the strongest type of cautionary statement that can be placed on a prescription medication. The FDA mandated the warning to ensure that doctors and consumers are aware that Plavix may be ineffective in users who are poor metabolizers of the drug, which could affect up to 14% of the population.

There is a genetic test available that can identify which potential Plavix users have reduced functioning of the CYP2C19 liver enzyme, making them poor Plavix metabolizers. If the drug makers had properly warned about this risk earlier, it could have prevented many users from suffering heart attacks, strokes and other cardiovascular injuries. It also could have allowed users to avoid unnecessary exposure to Plavix side effects.

PLAVIX LAWSUITS

If you, a friend or family member have taken Plavix and suffered a heart attack, stroke, internal bleeding, ulcers, TTP or death, request a free consultation and claim evaluation to determine if compensation may be available through a Plavix lawsuit. All cases are reviewed and evaluated on a contingency fee basis, which means that there are no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained.

>>REQUEST A FREE PLAVIX CASE EVALUATION<<

>>INFORMATION: St. Joseph Stent Surgery Lawsuits

The new letters from St. Joseph come as the hospital continues to review coronary stent procedures performed by Dr. Midei between May 2007 and 2009. However, our St. Joseph stent lawyers have no reason to believe that the unecessary stent implants are limited to these 538 patients. As the hospital reviews additional procedures, they are likely to send additional letters in the future. In addition, the hospital is only reviewing procedures that go back to May 2007, and our lawyers are independently reviewing procedures for any heart stent patients of Dr. Midei who received a stent implant since late 2003.

The St. Joseph letter for stent patients warn individuals that they may have undergone cardiac catheterization procedures that they did not need. The stents, which are used to open heavily blocked arteries, are supposed to be implanted only when an artery is substantially blocked. However, many patients received a stent from Dr. Midei for minor blockages, some as low as 10%. Many patients indicate that Dr. Midei misled them into thinking that they had near total blockages, despite what he found during the procedure.

>>PRIOR POST (2/22/2010): St. Joseph Stent Problems Continue for Hospital

ST. JOSEPH STENT LAWYERS

If you, a friend or family member received a stent procedure by Dr. Mark Midei at St. Joseph Medical Center, you may have important legal rights. It is important to protect yourself and your family by contacting our St. Joseph stent lawyers for a free consultation and independent review of your procedure.

All cases are being pursued on a contingency fee basis, which means that there are no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained. In addition, requesting a free consultation does not mean that you have to pursue a lawsuit. After having your case evaluated, it will be your decision whether to hire one of our attorneys to pursue the compensation you may be entitled to.

>>REQUEST A CLAIM EVALUATION ABOUT A ST. JOSEPH STENT<<

>>INFORMATION: Fosamax Fracture Lawsuits

Fosamax (alendronate sodium) is an osteoporosis drug prescribed millions of people to reduce the risk of fractures, primarily involving the hip. About 1,000 Fosamax lawsuits have already been filed by users of this drug who experienced a rare decay of the jawbone after taking the medication, known as osteonecrosis of the jaw or ONJ. However, more and more doctors and medical experts are now noticing a possible connection between non-impact femur fractures and broken bones from Fosamax.

An ABC News and World Report aired last night discussing the stories of several women who have experienced these spontaneous broken bones and fractures after using the Fosamax for several years. Research into the Fosamax femur fracture side effects suggest that prolonged use of the osteoporosis drug may overly suppress bone metabolism, impacting the ability of the bone to repair microdamage to the femur (thigh bone), which is one of the strongest in the body.

The ABC report highlights how users and the medical community have not been adequately warned about the risk of femur fracture from Fosamax. The FDA told ABC that they are looking into the reports of bone breaks with Fosamax, and Merck issued a statement for the report denying that any causal connection has been established.

Here is the Fosamax femur fracture video from ABC News:

Similar stories continue to turn up about these unexplained Fosamax thigh bone fractures, which can occur after no obvious trauma. The following news report by WCBD-TV, a local NBC Affiliate in Charleston, South Carolina, aired last month:

FOSAMAX FEMUR FRACTURE ATTORNEYS

If you, a friend or family member have suffered a broken thigh bone or femur fracture on Fosamax, you may have a case as a result of Merck’s failure to warn about the potential risk. Fosamax fracture lawsuits are reviewed for users of the drug throughout the United States, and there are no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained. To have a case reviewed by one of our Fosamax attorneys, request a free consultation and claim evaluation.

During the recent health care summit, Senator Richard Durbin, who is an attorney who has worked for both plaintiffs and defendants in malpractice cases, spoke about the problems with the arguments made in support of limiting malpractice litigation. Sen. Durbin pointed out that researchers and scientists have determined that the medical malpractice reform being put forward by Republicans threatens to not only deprive innocent medical mistake victims of fair compensation, but will also actually result in thousands more people dying each year from medical errors.

Before the summit, the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen released a report on medical malpractice litigation in response to misinformation about medical liability reform. The group pointed out that the cost of medical malpractice claims have been steadily dropping and only represent 0.6% of the national cost of health care.

The report highlights five key points that have largely been ignored by proponents of medical malpractice reform:

1. Medical malpractice payments have fallen steadily for years and are now at or near historic lows;
2. Although an experiment in Texas has been promoted as proof of the potential benefits of so-called “tort reform,” health care cost increases in that state have far outpaced the national average since it instituted strict liability limits in 2003. Meanwhile, its worst-in-the-nation uninsured rate has gotten even worse;
3. Most of the money paid out for medical malpractice is for serious outcomes, such as death or quadriplegia. Damage caps would affect the ability of seriously injured people to obtain reasonable compensation; they would not reduce the incidence of alleged “junk lawsuits”;
4. A serious patient safety crisis does exist; and
5. Addressing senseless medical errors would save several times as much money as the combined costs of the medical malpractice litigation system, including those for verdicts and settlements, defense litigation, and liability insurance companies’ profits and overhead.

>>INFORMATION: Yaz and Yasmin Litigation

The Yasmin and Yaz litigation involves claims against Bayer Healthcare for failing to adequately research their popular birth control pills or warn users and the medical community about the potential increased the risk that women may suffer a stroke, heart attack, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, gallbladder disease or sudden death.

Last October, all federal Yasmin and Yaz cases were consolidated and centralized in the Southern District of Illinois for pretrial proceedings as part of an MDL, or multidistrict litigation.

According to an order issued last week by Chief Judge David Herndon, plaintiffs and defendants involved in the cases must preserve all potentially relevant documents, data and tangible things within their possession, custody or control. For individuals pursuing cases, this could include:

• Labels
• Bottles and containers
• Product packaging and inserts
• Paper documents or electronic information about your use of Yaz, Yasmin or Ocella, or regarding injuries caused by the drugs
• Paper or electronic documents pertaining to Yaz, Yasmin or Ocella litigation
• Medical and pharmacy records of medical expenses related to the use of Yaz, Yasmin or Ocella

For clients with questions about this preservation, please contact our office to review this in further detail. Individuals who have not yet spoken to an attorney about a potential lawsuit for Yaz, Yasmin or Ocella, you can request a free consultation or call our office toll free.

YAZ AND YASMIN LITIGATION LAWYERS

The Yasmin and Yaz lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. are continuing to review potential birth control lawsuits for women who have suffered an injury that may have been caused by side effects of these drugs, such as:

• Stroke or Heart Attack
• Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)
• Pulmonary Embolism (PE)
• Gallbladder Disease
• Sudden Death on Yaz

Both Yasmin and Yaz contain a combination of the hormones ethinyl estradiol (estrogen) and drsp or drospirenone (progestin). Although other birth control pills are combined hormonal oral contraceptives, drospirenone is unique to Yaz, Yasmin and the generic drug Ocella.

The serious health problems linked to Yaz and Yasmin side effects may be caused by drospirenone. It causes the body to retain potassium, which can lead to hyperkalemia. This can cause an increased risk of Yasmin and Yaz heart problems and other health concerns.

To find out if you, a friend or family member may have a potential case, request a free consultation and claim evaluation.

The attorneys at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. represent individuals throughout the United States who are pursuing similar cases against AstraZeneca. While the drug maker has continued to defend their popular antipsychotic medication, documents uncovered during the litigation establish that they have been aware of the risk of diabetes and weight gain from Seroquel for years, yet withheld this information from doctors and attempted to promote the drug as weight-neutral.

While the results of the Seroquel trial in New Jersey, which began this week, will not have any binding impact on other cases, it is always good to evaluate how juries respond to similar evidence that will be presented in other cases filed by users who have suffered injuries from Seroquel.

In the case, plaintiff Ted Baker alleges that he developed diabetes after taking Seroquel for three years for post-traumatic stress disorder. A big issue at trial will be other risk factors for diabetes that Baker may have had.

Regardless of the outcome of this case, AstraZenca’s Seroquel problems are unlikely to end any time soon. According to the latest figures disclosed in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) earlier this year, the drug maker is now facing 26,000 Seroquel lawsuits. This is a 65% increase over the number of cases reported one year ago, according to a report by Bloomberg News.

Our Seroquel lawyers are continuing to review and evaluate potential cases for users of the antipsychotic who developed diabetes, pancreatitis or tardive dyskinesia. To review a potential claim on behalf of yourself, a friend or family member, request a free consultation and claim evaluation.

>>MORE INFORMATION: St. Joseph Stent Problems with Dr. Midei

Senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley, who head the Senate Finance Committee, have given the Towson, Maryland hospital until March 12 to surrender records on Medicare payments over heart stents that were not needed. The senators are looking at whether the hospital intentionally ripped off Medicare, and whether the hospital had any ties to stent manufacturers that may have encouraged them to promote unnecessary heart surgeries.

The allegations center on the activities of Dr. Mark Midei, once a marquee heart surgeon at the medical center. Midei was stripped of his duties at the hospital amid another federal investigation last summer following a patient complaint. The hospital has since acknowledged that hundreds of former patients of Dr. Midei, who were told they had potentially dangerous heart blockages, actually had minimal blockages that may not have required a stent implant.

In a story published this weekend in the Baltimore Sun, the paper reports that the senators are concerned both with the allegations that a St. Joseph doctor unnecessarily put patients at risk, and also with the broader implications of health care fraud and abuses:

“In addition to putting patients’ lives at risk, unnecessary medical procedures amount to wasteful spending of precious federal health care dollars,” the senators wrote in a letter to the hospital, which was sent to CEO Jeffrey K. Norman this week and shared with The Baltimore Sun.

St. Joseph officials pledged to cooperate, calling the committee’s interest understandable, given the hospital’s disclosure that hundreds of patients received expensive and potentially dangerous procedures that they might not have needed.

ST. JOSEPH STENT LAWSUITS

The lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. represent individuals who are pursuing claims against Dr. Mark Midei and St. Joseph Medical Center as a result of an unnecessary stent procedure.

If you, a friend or family member received a letter about a stent implant by Dr. Mark Midei at St. Joseph Medical Center you have important legal rights. It is important to protect yourself and your family by requesting a free and confidential consultation and claim evaluation.

>>INFORMATION: Saiontz & Kirk Avandia Blog Posts

The Avandia lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. have been representing individuals who suffered a heart attack or other injury from Avandia since May 2007, when the first study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine about the risk of problems with Avandia. The Senate report echos allegations raised in hundreds of Avandia lawsuits filed against GlaxoSmithKline.

According to the Executive Summary of the Senate report:

[T]he reviewed evidence suggests that GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) knew for several years prior to this (May 2007) study that there were possible cardiac risks associated with Avandia. As a result, it can be argued that GSK had a duty to warn patients and the FDA of the Company’s concerns. Instead, GSK executives attempted to intimidate independent physicians, focused on strategies to minimize or misrepresent findings that Avandia may increase cadiovascular risk, and sought ways to downplay findings that a competing drug might reduce cardiovascular risk.

The Senate report links Avandia to more than 300 deaths in the third quarter of 2009, and estimates that every month about 500 heart attacks and 300 cases of heart failure could be avoided if diabetes patients were given Actos instead of Avandia.

On this blog, our lawyers have been posting for nearly three years about the dangers of Avandia and the overwhelming information that supports removing Avandia from the market:

• Following publication of the May 2007 study, which indicated Avandia side effects may increase the risk of heart attacks 43%, the FDA held advisory panel meetings in July 2007 to review whether a recall of Avandia was necessary. Although the panel voted 20 to 3 that the diabetes drug does increase the risk of heart attacks, they did not recommend a recall based on the evidence available at that time.
• In October 2007, an internal FDA board narrowly voted against an Avandia recall, with the drug-safety over-sight board voting 8 to 7 against removing the diabetes drug from the market.
• In November 2007, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and American Diabetes Association updated their “consensus statement,” urging doctors to exercise greater caution when prescribing Avandia, pointing to the increased risk of heart attacks and heart failure.
• Although the FDA did not remove Avandia from the market, doctors took the issue into their own hands and stopped prescribing the dangerous diabetes drug in great numbers during the first year after the study was released. Amid concerns that Avandia increases the risk of heart problems, prescriptions plummeted between May 2007 and April 2008.
• In August 2008, an editorial published by the medical journal Heart questioned the logic for not recalling Avandia, indicating that the justification for continuing to use the drug was weak to non-existent.
• In October 2008, the prominent consumer advocacy group Public Citizen petitioned the FDA to recall Avandia, indicating that the risk of serious and potentially life-threatening side effects outweigh any potential benefits provided by the diabetes drug.
• In November 2008, another group of researchers, who presented data on a small study at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association, questioned the benefits provided by Avandia, indicating that it provided no statistically significant reduction in plaque buildup at 18 months when compared with an older generic diabetes drug.
• In December 2008, the FDA announced new guidance for approval of future diabetes drugs, requiring new medications go through additional studies designed to provide evidence that they will not increase the risk of heart attacks or other cardiovascular events. This raised the question of whether the Avandia heart attack risk would keep the drug from being approved today.

NOTE: No decisions about whether to stop taking a medication should be made without consulting your doctor.

AVANDIA RECALL LAWSUIT

The lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. are continuing to review potential Avandia lawsuits for individuals who have suffered a:

• Heart Attack
• Stroke
• Heart Failure
• Liver Failure
• Bone Fracture
• Vision Loss or Blindness

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

>>INFORMATION: Super Poligrip Zinc Poisoning Lawsuits

The company issued the announcement on Thursday, saying that it plans to replace Super Poligrip Original, Super Poligrip Ultra Fresh and Super Poligrip Extra Care denture adhesives with zinc-free alternatives. After claiming for years that there was no risk of problems with zinc in Poligrip, Glaxo acknowledged that their popular products could increase the risk of zinc poisoning, neuropathy and other neurological injuries:

“We are taking these actions because we have become aware of potential health problems associated with the long-term excessive use of our zinc-containing denture adhesive products.”

This is a change of tune for a company that has been defending a growing number of denture adhesive lawsuits, which claim that the zinc contained in Poligrip can enter the body at high levels. This can deplete copper levels, resulting in the development of neuropathy and other neurological injuries caused by zinc poisoning. Symptoms can include:

• Numbness
• Tingling or Pain (Pins and Needles Sensation)
• Muscle Weakness
• Unexplained Pain
• Loss of Balance
• Difficulty Walking
• Loss of Sensation
• Paralysis

Similar lawsuits over Fixodent denture cream are also being pursued against Proctor and Gamble, who indicates that they have no plans to issue a Fixodent recall to remove denture adhesives with zinc from the market. Proctor and Gamble officials maintain that Fixodent denture adhesives are safe, as they contain less zinc than Super Poligrip. However, plaintiffs who have suffered zinc poisoning from Fixodent will establish that the denture adhesive is also unnecessarily dangerous, and that better warnings should have been provided to users of both Fixodent and Super Poligrip about the potential side effects of the denture cream.

SUPER POLIGRIP RECALL LAWSUITS

Potential Fixodent and Super Poligrip lawsuits are pending throughout the United States on behalf individuals who have been diagnosed with elevated zinc levels or depleted copper in the blood that may have been caused by use of the denture cream. Using large amounts or using the product over a long period of time, may increase the risk of a user suffering debilitating injuries from zinc poisoning.

To have a potential case reviewed by our Super Poligrip recall lawyers on behalf of yourself, a friend or family member, request a free consultation and claim evaluation.

The Accutane skin reaction warning was issued by Health Canada on February 11, indicating that there have been at least 66 cases of severe reactions potentially caused by Accutane side effects, including cases of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrosis (TEN), and erythema multiforme (EM). At least two people have died from the problems, according to a global database maintained by the manufacturer, Roche Holding AG.

Accutane (isotretinion) was first introduced in 1982 for the treatment of severe acne. Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed by former users of the medication, alleging that the manufacturer failed to adequately research their drug or warn about the risk of Accutane problems. Following a $25.16 million verdict in an Accutane lawsuit in New Jersey this week, the drug maker has lost all six cases that have gone to trial so far, with verdicts totaling $56 million.

ACCUTANE SKIN REACTIONS

Health Canada warns that the possibility of severe skin reactions and SJS, while rare, mean that patients should be closely monitored for signs of problems, and use of Accutane should be discontinued at the first signs of a skin reaction.

Stevens-Johnson syndrome is one of the most debilitating side effects which can occur as an adverse reaction to a medication. It results in a severe rash and blistering of the skin and mouth, and could include symptoms such as:

• Rash, blisters or red spots on the skin
• Blisters in the mouth, eyes, ears, nose or genital area
• Swelling of the eyelids
• Fever or flu-like symptoms

SJS causes the skin to burn from the inside out, and generally requires treatment in hospital’s intensive care unit or burn unit. When the condition covers more than 30% of the body it is referred to as toxic epidermal necrosis (TEN). SJS or TEN are fatal in about 5-15% of all cases.

>>INFORMATION: Avandia Fracture Lawsuits

The latest study, conducted by researchers at Detroit’s Henry Ford Hospital and published in the current issue of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism involved an analysis of data on 19,000 people given oral diabetes medications. Researchers found that among users of Avandia and Actos, which are both part of the same class of medications, women faced a 50% higher risk of bone fractures, and women over 65 years-old faced a 70% higher risk.

Among prior studies and research on the risk of Avandia fracture problems:

In the December 2, 2007 issue of the journal Nature Medicine, a study provided information about the risk of osteoporosis and fractures from Avandia by evaluating mice. Researchers found that while the drug was known to inhibit the formation of new bone, it also increases bone resorption, or the breakdown of bone.

A study published in December 2008 by the Canadian Medical Association Journal, examined data on 14,000 patients from 10 prior drug trials. Researchers found that for women in their 70’s who took Avandia or Actos for at least a year, approximately one out of every 20 had a chance of suffering a fracture. For women in their mid-50s, approximately one out of every 55 women had a risk of fractures.

A study presented at a conference of the American Diabetes Association in June 2009 found a 43% increase in the risk of bone fractures among users of Avandia and Actos. Researchers also found that women were twice as likely as men to suffer bone fractures from Avandia and Actos.

In a study published in August 2009 in the Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers looked at nearly 85,000 patients and compared the bone fracture rates of patients taking Avandia or Actos with those taking another class of antidiabetes drugs known as sulfonylureas. Researchers found that users of Actos and Avandia faced a 28% increased risk of fractures.

According to a study published in September 2009 by the medical journal PLoS Medicine, which examined a database of 6 million patients from the U.K. to look at the rate of bone fractures among individuals over 40 who had been prescribed Avandia or Actos. After adjusting their findings for the likelihood of bone fractures due to age, researchers concluded that patients have a 1.5 times higher risk of bone fracture on Avandia or Actos.

AVANDIA FRACTURE LAWYERS

The risk of fractures from Avandia is a serious health concern, especially among older individuals who have taken the drug for the treatment of diabetes. Older individuals may have balance problems which make them more prone to falling and broken bones can have a much more severe effect on their health, impacting their quality of life and reducing the level of independence they are able to enjoy.

The lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. are pursuing potential Avandia fracture lawsuits as a result of the drug makers failure to adequately research their medication or warn about the risk of this side effect. Potential Avandia cases are also being reviewed for injuries such as heart attacks, strokes, congestive heart failure, liver failure, macular edema (vision loss) and heart related death.

>>INFORMATION: Avandia Side Effects

If you, a friend, or a family member believes an injury may have been caused by the use of Avandia, request a free consultation and claim evaluation.

After St. Joseph Medical Center began sending letters to former stent patients of Dr. Mark Midei about subsequent reviews of their procedure, our lawyers started investigating potential claims on behalf of individuals. While the potential for a St. Joseph class action lawsuit was evaluated, we ultimately determined that it would likely not be the best way to investigate this matter and secure compensation for our clients.

Through a class action suit over St. Joseph stents, the individual circumstances of each case are not fully considered and individuals are not able to obtain compensation for all of the unique damages they may have experienced. In addition, the process of obtaining class certification is very long and often does not serve the best interests of those who have suffered injuries like those that could be caused by an unnecessary cardiac stent procedure.

Former St. Joseph stent patients will likely be in a better position to investigate their individual claims and secure a quicker, more complete recovery by contacting our attorneys to investigate and pursue their own St. Joseph stent case.

ST. JOSEPH STENT LAWYERS

The lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. are pursuing cases for stent patients who received a letter from St. Joseph Medical Center about medical concerns regarding their cardiac catheterization procedure with stent placement. Potential legal claims are also being investigated for former patients of Dr. Mark Midei who suspect that their stent procedure may not have been necessary.

All cases are investigated and pursued on a contingency fee basis, which means that our lawyers can obtain copies of the necessary records and have them reviewed by an expert with no fees or expenses charged unless a recovery is secured. To obtain a free consultation to review your options and legal rights, request a free consultation and claim evaluation.

>>TODAY SHOW LINK: Rare Allergic Reaction Made Teen’s Face Peel Off

On the Today Show last week, Matt Lauer interviews Eva Uhlin, a Swedish teenager, whose face literally fell off in pieces after taking acetaminophen to combat a virus four years ago, when she was only 15. It started with a rash, turned into watery blisters and then her skin began sloughing off with every touch, according to the interview below:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Uhlin suffered a TENS reaction, the most severe form of Steven-Johnson Syndrome (SJS). SJS is one of the most debilitating side effects that can occur as the result of an adverse medication reaction. It is a severe rash and blistering of the skin resulting in symptoms similar to severe burns. The syndrome causes the top layer of skin to begin to detach from the body, and patients often must be placed in intensive care in a hospital’s burn unit. The condition becomes toxic epidermal necrolysis syndrome (TENS), also known as Lyell’s Syndrome, when the effects of Stevens-Johnson syndrome cover more than 30% of the body.

Medical experts say that Uhlin’s case was brought on by a combination of the virus and acetaminophen, and she must now guard against ever being exposed to the almost ubiquitous medication ever again. A second exposure to a medication that causes SJS or TENS is usually worse than the first.

TOXIC EPIDERMAL NECROLYSIS LAWYERS

The lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. investigate and review potential legal cases on behalf of individuals diagnosed with Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis syndrome, as many medications that are known to cause the reaction do not provide proper warnings for consumers.

If you, a friend or family member have been diagnosed with either of these horrible conditions, our SJS and TENS lawyers can evaluate whether financial compensation may be available through a legal claim. There are no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained, so if you suspect you may have a case, request a free consultation and claim evaluation.