According to The Denver Channel, Jake had been taking Clonadine to help curb his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) for three years. Last Halloween, however, he took his usual dose and “immediately started having reactions to it,” his mother, Caroline Steinbrecher says. At the hospital, doctors discovered that he had brain swelling and tested his Clonadine pills. This is when they discovered that he had been given a much higher dose of the Clonadine than his prescription called for. In fact, he had been given 30 mg of Clonadine rather than his customary dose of .03 mg. This is 1,000 times the dose he should have been given.

When Jake’s symptoms eased, he was released from the hospital and life returned to normal. However, in early June, he began to show similar symptoms to those he exhibited when he was previously overdosed with Clonadine. He returned to the hospital, but this time he didn’t make it. Jake died on June 8, potentially from the overdose of Clonadine.

According to an attorney representing Jake’s family in this wrongful death and medical malpractice case, Good Day Pharmacy has admitted to “making a mistake in the dosage” given to Jake. Jake’s family, though, says that this is much more than a mistake. His mother says, “It wasn’t a mistake. It was a sentinel error.”

An autopsy is still underway, so at this time Jake’s true cause of death is unclear. Still, his mother believes the pharmacy’s mistake during the fall led to his death, and she is broken-hearted and furious. “How could somebody do that?” said Steinbrecher, “how there was no other way to make sure the medicine was mixed correctly before it was out the door other than the say-so of the pharmacist who made it?”

Even more shocking, an investigation by The Denver Channel with the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies shows that the pharmacist who erroneously filled Jake’s prescription is still licensed to practice in the state. Instead, Steinbrecher says she believes the woman still works at Good Day Pharmacy and there is no record of her even being disciplined. “She’s continued to work on at the pharmacy every day,” she said, “still has her license still is allowed to make other prescriptions for other children.”

Tragically, it is too late for Caroline Steinbrecher to save her son, Jake. She says, “We’ve lost our purpose,” but perhaps she now simply has a different purpose: to help prevent pharmaceutical errors like the one that ended her young son’s life. She has established a memorial fund in Jake’s honor to help children have access to his greatest passion—dance. Also, she hopes that by speaking out and sharing her unspeakable tragedy she may help to spread awareness of the dangers of pharmaceutical errors and show parents that they always need to double-check their children’s medications.

“People need to be aware of what is being given to their children,” she said, “they trust doctors and they trust pharmacists to do the right thing for them and to keep their children safe, but these are all just people and people make mistakes and errors and that’s where more protection needs to be in place.”

Sadly, there may no amount of consumer oversight which can prevent tragic medication errors like the one that killed Jake. Still, though there is no way to compensate for a person’s personal suffering or the loss of a beloved child, there may be a way for families affected by medication errors to hold all negligent parties accountable for their actions. If you have suffered or lost a loved one due to a prescription error or a medical mistake, an experienced personal injury lawyer may help you achieve a sense of justice. For more information, please contact us today for a free legal consultation.

On June 10, 2016, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced the recall of roughly 219,800 Kia Sedona minivans and an estimated 81,000 Hyundai Tucson sports utility vehicles because of issues with hood latches which may cause the hoods of these vehicles to open while the vehicles are in operation. While no injuries or crashes have yet been reported in association with these issues, there is a potential for severe injury or even death to vehicle occupants if hood latches disengage, which could block drivers’ vision and bring about a serious accident.

In the Kia vehicles, it has been reported that a secondary hood latch (which secures the hood when the primary latch has already been opened) may rust and bind. This means that the hood may not be fully latched in place, which could cause it to open suddenly due to the wind force when a vehicle is “in speed”. The NHTSA recall notice states, “If the primary hood latch is inadvertently released and the secondary latch cannot secure the hood, the hood may unexpectedly open while driving, increasing the risk of a crash.”

The Kia Sedona vehicles affected by this hood latch recall include certain model year 206-2014 Kia Sedonas manufactured from June 15, 2005 through April 4, 2014. Kia will notify all owners affected by the recall and will direct them to a certified dealer or mechanic where the secondary hood latch will be cleaned and lubricated or replaced entirely at no cost.

In the Hyundai vehicles, it has been reported that the secondary hood latch may not be strong enough to secure the hood. Thus, though the hood may appear to be securely closed, if the primary latch is already opened the hood may fly up while the vehicle is in use. According to the NHTSA recall notice, “In the affected vehicles, if the primary hood latch has been released, and the vehicle is driven, the secondary hood latch may not hold adequately secure the hood to prevent it from opening while the vehicle is in motion.”

The affected Hyundai vehicles were manufactured from May 19, 2015 to March 14, 2016. Hyundai will notify all owners of these vehicles of the recall and instruct them to a nearby dealer where the hood latch will be replaced for free.

Also this week, Kia recalled roughly 5,000 Kia Forte vehicles from model year 2013 because of potential flaws which may cause seatbelt retractor retaining plates to fracture in a crash.

Fortunately, the issues behind these recent automotive recalls have not been associated with any crashes or injuries, but this is not always the case. Recently, the largest automotive recall in U.S. history was issued to address potentially faulty airbags made by Takata Corp. which may explode with lethal force and have already been implicated in at least 11 deaths and hundreds of injuries worldwide.

When innocent drivers and passengers suffer severe injury or even wrongful death as a result of recalled or potentially defective auto parts, it may be possible for victims and their loved ones to recover substantial compensation for their damages and suffering. To learn more about automotive product liability lawsuits and whether you may be entitled to compensation, please contact us to speak with an experienced attorney at no cost to you.

Bloomberg reports that Illinois Union Insurance Co. and Navigators Specialty Insurance Co. claim that Intuitive revealed only 24 claims regarding patient injuries tied to their da Vinci surgical robot when they applied for coverage in 2013—and failed to mention an additional 734 claims. The insurers state that this was “a massive concealment of claims from an insurer, the most egregious in history.”

Had they known of the high number of claims of serious patient injuries, the insurers state that they would not have viewed covering Intuitive as a safe investment. It is now clear that the company had already entered into hundreds of tolling agreements with attorneys representing injured patients, designed to suspend litigation deadlines while settlement negotiations took place.

While the insurers claim that Intuitive deceived them into supplying coverage, the medical device maker says that they have evidence that the insurers knew about the tolling agreements but chose to take the “substantial risk” of covering them because they were interested in doing business with Intuitive. They also claim that the insurers never asked about incidents “likely to result in a claim” in their applications, and that the tolling agreements did not apply to this.

If the judge grants these two insurance companies the ability to rescind their coverage of Intuitive Surgical, the company will lose roughly $25 million in coverage. The company has countersued the insurers as a result of their refusal to cover multiple da Vinci robot claims. In this counter lawsuit, Intuitive has asked a judge to force Illinois Union to cover 860 da Vinci claims and Navigators to cover another 111.

Intuitive Surgical’s device known as the da Vinci surgical robot is comprised of four independent arms which surgeons operate through complex controls to conduct minimally-invasive, laparoscopic surgery. Many patients preferred to undergo robotic surgery rather than traditional, “open” procedures because the da Vinci offers smaller scars, shorter recovery time, and other alleged benefits. However, a high number of patients have suffered serious and sometimes fatal injuries during or following surgery where a da Vinci robot was employed and at one point Intuitive faced roughly 3,000 personal injury lawsuits filed by these injured patients and their loved ones. Though fewer than 100 of these lawsuits remain now, the scope of this litigation could make Intuitive a poor bet for insurers.

In da Vinci surgical robot lawsuits, plaintiffs have alleged that the device is improperly designed and inherently dangerous, and that Intuitive failed to provide adequate training for the doctors who use this complex and very expensive device. The company has also faced lawsuits from shareholders who claim they misrepresented the safety of the da Vinci robot.

If you or your loved one suffered serious or even fatal injuries during or as a result of surgery with a da Vinci surgical robot, you may be entitled to substantial compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering, and other damages. Please contact our personal injury law firm today to schedule a free consultation with an experienced attorney.

A growing number of individuals are filing personal injury lawsuits in pursuit of compensation after they suffered serious injuries or the loss of a loved one due to infections allegedly caused by a Bair Hugger forced air warming blanket. Most of these lawsuits have concerned infections sustained during knee or hip surgery, but recently a woman filed a Bair Hugger lawsuit after suffering an infection following stomach surgery.

Heather Wheeler filed her Bair Hugger lawsuit on May 19 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, naming both 3M Company and their Arizant Healthcare subsidiary as defendants. Here, she claims that use of a Bair Hugger during her stomach surgery caused her to develop a serious MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) infection. She also claims that the makers of the Bair Hugger had been warned of the risk of infection linked to their device, but failed to modify the warming blanket system to eliminate this potentially fatal risk.

The Bair Hugger forced air warming blanket was invented by Dr. Scott Augustine and is designed to move warmed air over a patient during and after surgery with the intention of reducing blood loss and speeding recovery. Dr. Augustine sold the rights to the Bair Hugger to Arizant Healthcare, which was then purchased by 3M. For years, Dr. Augustine himself has warned that the design of the Bair Hugger may allow it to circulate dirty air from operating room floors directly over open wounds and significantly increase the risk of hospital-acquired infections. Dr. Augustine even warned about Bair Hugger infection risks in a New York Times article in 2010.

Heather Wheeler underwent pyloric valve surgery in June 2015. This procedure involves widening the bottom of the stomach to ease the passage of contents into the intestines. A Bair Hugger warming blanket was used during the procedure, and she claims that this caused her to contract a serious MRSA infection. As a result of her infection, Wheeler required additional surgical procedures and also suffered diminished mobility which has substantially complicated her recovery and affected her daily life.

In her lawsuit, she claims that 3M and Arizant knowingly put countless patients at risk, stating, “The publication of numerous peer-reviewed studies identifying and documenting the critical safety shortcomings of the Bair Hugger should have prompted the Defendants to redesign or discontinue their product. Instead, those criticisms only caused the Defendants to amplify their efforts to champion the Bair Hugger.”

So many people have filed Bair Hugger lawsuits that they were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen in the District of Minnesota in December 2015. Since these lawsuits are based on common claims, centralization will help to reduce duplicative discovery, prevent conflicting rulings, and serve the convenience of all parties involved.

If you or someone you love has suffered a serious infection after a Bair Hugger was used during surgery, or if you have lost a loved one to a Bair Hugger infection, you may be entitled to compensation for your pain and damages. To learn more, please contact us to schedule a free legal consultation with a personal injury lawyer you can trust.

Reuters reports that this morning Toyota announced that the recall includes “some but not all” 2006 through 2011 Corolla, Matrix, Yaris, 4Runner, Sienna, Scion xB, Lexus ES, GX and IS vehicles.

With the vehicles recalled today included, Toyota says that they have now recalled 4.73 million vehicles in the United States to address Takata airbag issues.

It is expected that additional recalls will be issued by the 17 other automakers with vehicles equipped with Takata airbags by the end of the week. Last week, Daimler AG reported that they will recall at least 197,000 additional vehicles in the United States. All of these vehicles have already been affected by driver-side Takata airbag recalls. Previously, 14 auto makers had been affected, but it was recently announced that Tesla, Fisker Automotive, and Jaguar Land Rover also feature Takata airbags in some vehicles.

Also last week, Takata reported that their investigations showed that, in addition to the 28.8 million airbag inflators already recalled in the United States before May 4, between 35 and 40 million additional airbags will be recalled by 2019.

Even before the recent recall expansions were announced, the Takata airbag recalls were the largest automotive recalls in U.S. history. The inflators in both driver-side and passenger-side airbags made by this Japanese manufacturer may become unstable and could deploy with such explosive force that they send metal and plastic shrapnel flying through vehicle cabins. Already, 13 deaths and more than 100 severe injuries have been blamed on defective Takata airbags.

A number of injured passengers and drivers as well as families of individuals killed by exploding Takata airbags have already filed personal injury lawsuits in demand of compensation from the allegedly negligent auto parts manufacturer, and it is expected that more lawsuits will follow as the demand for replacement airbag inflators far exceeds the current supply. For more information on Takata airbag lawsuits, please contact us to schedule a legal consultation at no cost to you.

Jenoise Callahan filed the malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Scott Bledsoe and Wesley Medical Center on May 13 in Kansas. Here, she claims that she sought treatment for vision loss and severe headaches at the Wesley emergency room on May 15, 2014. She says that though she was previously diagnosed with pseudotumor cerebri, Dr. Bledsoe believed treatment for that condition was unnecessary and sent her home from the ER with a prescription for Diamox (a drug prescribed for symptoms of altitude sickness W) and for Lasix (a diuretic).

Two days later, her symptoms had worsened to more severe pain and increased vision loss. She returned to the Wesley ER on May 17, 2014. This time, an MRI and a spinal tap (lumbar puncture) confirmed that she had elevated cerebrospinal fluid indicative of psuedotumor cerebri. Though a neurosurgeon implanted a shunt to drain this excess fluid from around her brain, the treatment was too late and she says she suffered irreversible vision loss.

Pseudotumor cerebri (PTC) gets its name (“false brain tumor”) because it mimics the symptoms of a brain tumor. Also referred to as idiopathic intracranial hypertension, this condition is a result of accumulated cerebrospinal fluid in the skull which puts pressure on the brain and optic nerve. According to the Mayo Clinic, symptoms of PTC may include headaches, vision loss, visual disturbances, and double vision, among others. If diagnosed early, some patients may be effectively treated with medications. In other cases, however, it is necessary to place a shunt or take more extreme measures to reduce the pressure caused by the excess fluid as quickly as possible. When this does not occur, as in the alleged case of Jenoise Callahan, permanent blindness can result.

According to Callahan’s lawsuit, Dr. Bledsoe should have recognized that her symptoms were indicative of excess cerebrospinal fluid, especially as she had already been diagnosed with pseudotumor cerebri. As a result of his failure to provide the correct treatment, she claims, she has suffered permanent vision loss.

She claims, “Plaintiff Jenny Callahan’s permanent loss of vision/blindness was caused or contributed to be caused by the failure to decrease her intracranial pressure and cerebral spinal fluid pressure through a lumbar puncture/spinal tap while she was a patient of the emergency department of defendant Wesley during the afternoon of May 15, 2014, and the failure to decrease her cerebral spinal fluid pressure and her intracranial pressure through the placement of a shunt.”

It is not noted what caused Callahan’s pseudotumor cerebri. In recent years, a number of women have claimed that the birth control device Mirena caused them to develop this condition, and that the makers of this IUD (intrauterine device) failed to disclose this risk to American consumers. If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with pseudotumor cerebri or other dangerous Mirena side effects, you could be entitled to compensation.

When patients’ trust in their doctors is violated by medical negligence and/or malpractice, those patients may suffer severe, permanent, or even fatal consequences. To learn more about how injured patients and their loved ones can pursue justice after medical errors, please contact us for a free legal consultation.

Gerald F. Grey filed his Viagra melanoma lawsuit on May 12 i Man files Viagra Metastatic Melanoma Lawsuit against Pfizer the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Here, Grey alleges that Pfizer knew or should have known that the drug Viagra may increase the risk of melanoma but that they willfully failed to warn of this serious side effect. As a result of this alleged negligence, he claims that he was diagnosed with metastatic melanoma.

Viagra (sildenafil citrate) has become a wildly popular prescription drug since it was approved by the FDA in 1998. Viagra is used to treat erectile dysfunction, male impotence, and the inability to develop or keep an erection. The popularity of Viagra has been in large part due to aggressive direct-to-consumer advertising which leads men to believe that this small pill will help them to feel more vigorous, enjoy a better lifestyle, and will greatly enhance their romantic relationships. However, a growing number of men now claim that they have developed melanoma as a side effect of Viagra and are attempting to hold Pfizer responsible for their suffering and damages.

According to Grey’s lawsuit, he began to use Viagra in 2002 and continued to use the drug to treat erectile dysfunction until April 2016. He was diagnosed with malignant melanoma skin cancer in March 2014, and biopsies taken during a wide incision of his left chest wall showed that the cancer had spread to his lymph nodes. He underwent a lymph node dissection on the left side in August 2014. Now, he claims he must undergo regular check-ups to ensure the cancer has not returned and be vigilant in protecting himself from sun exposure. The American Cancer Society states that metastatic melanoma is much more difficult to treat than localized melanoma, and roughly 6,750 men are expected to die from melanoma this year in the United States.

Multiple recent studies have linked Viagra to a higher risk of melanoma skin cancer. The journal JAMA Internal Medicine published research in April 2014 that suggested Viagra is “significantly associated with increased risk of melanoma,” and that the risk of melanoma may be up to 84% higher for men who take Viagra than for those who do not.

It is believed that Viagra may affect a protein called PDE5A, which is instrumental in killing cancer cells. Mr. Grey mentions this protein specifically in his Viagra lawsuit, stating, “While designing and formulating Viagra, Pfizer discovered or should have discovered that the drug’s mechanism of action, the inhibition of PDE5, also presented a significant risk of the development and/or exacerbation of melanoma. Despite these significant findings, Pfizer has made no efforts in its ubiquitous Viagra advertisements to warn users about the potential risk of developing and/or exacerbating melanoma that has been scientifically linked to its drug.”

In April, all federal Viagra melanoma lawsuits were centralized before U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District of California. Mr. Grey’s lawsuit will also be consolidated into this multidistrict litigation (MDL) for pretrial proceedings. According to the most recent court documents, there are now at least 30 individual Viagra lawsuits held in this MDL.

If you or a man you love has been diagnosed with melanoma skin cancer after using Viagra, you could have grounds to pursue compensation based on claims that Pfizer negligently failed to warn of this dangerous side effect. To learn more about Viagra lawsuits, please contact us to schedule a free legal consultation with an experienced personal injury lawyer.

Cassandra Jackson and other members of Ide Mae Jackson’s family filed their Invokana wrongful death lawsuit against Janssen Research and Development in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on January 7, 2016. Here, they claim that Janssen and parent company Johnson & Johnson knew or should have known of the serious side effects of Invokana but that they failed to provide adequate warning of these risks. As a result, neither Ms. Jackson nor her doctors were aware of the severity of Invokana side effects so her symptoms were not properly treated, and she died.

Ide Mae Jackson began to take Invokana in February 2015 to help regulate her blood sugar levels, which were unstable as a result of her type 2 diabetes. Only one year later, she had suffered diabetic ketoacidosis, a stroke, a heart attack, and severe damage to her kidney, and the combination of these Invokana side effects proved fatal. According to her family’s lawsuit, neither Ms. Jackson nor her doctors had been warned of these Invokana side effects by Janssen, and proper warning may have saved her life.

In their lawsuit, the Jackson family claims, "The development of the injuries at issue herein were preventable and resulted directly from Defendants’ failure and refusal to conduct proper safety studies, failure to properly assess and publicize alarming safety signals, suppression of information revealing serious and life-threatening risks, willful and wanton failure to provide adequate instructions, and willful misrepresentations concerning the nature and safety of Invokana. This conduct and the product defects complained of herein were substantial factors in bringing about and exacerbating Ida Jackson’s injuries and the damage to Ida Jackson’s family and children."

Since Invokana was introduced as the first SGLT2 inhibitor in March 2013, scientific studies and FDA adverse event reports have shown that this drug is associated with multiple potentially fatal side effects. The FDA has issued two Invokana diabetic ketoacidosis warnings, in May 2015 and again in December 2015. The FDA also warned of a risk of Invokana bone fractures in September 2015. Additionally, in light of the high rate of reports of diabetic ketoacidosis and severe kidney damage, the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) recently stated that much of the suffering of Invokana patients "could have been reasonably anticipated, given the mechanism of action and the pre-approval clinical trial data", and that the risks of this and other SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the benefits.

The above statement made by the ISMP is echoed by a growing number of Invokana lawsuit plaintiffs, who claim that the makers of this drug acted in negligence by failing to warn of dangerous side effects. If you or your loved one suffered diabetic ketoacidosis or another serious diabetes drug side effect, you may be entitled to compensation for your damages. Please contact our respected personal injury lawyers to learn more in a free legal consultation.

The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the deaths occurred in August and that the patients were likely infected with hospital-acquired pathogens the month before that, but that hospital officials believed it would violate patient privacy laws to publicly report the deaths. They did, however, tell the company that made the scopes, Olympus Corp. about the deaths, and the company passed the report on to federal regulators.

Earlier this year, Olympus Corp. announced that they had recalled the duodenoscopes which were implicated in these deaths. In February 2015, at least two patients also died after being infected by the contaminated scopes, this time at Ronald Regan Medical Center at UCLA. Upon investigation, the FDA determined in August that Olympus and two other scope manufacturers were guilty of several safety violations noted in the design and manufacture of the devices, and despite taking steps to make their scopes safer Olympus finally felt forced to issue a recall.

Duodenoscopes are long tubes which are passed down patients’ throats and are equipped with tiny cameras and surgical tools which allow doctors to diagnose and treat some conditions of the pancreas and bile duct. Due to the miniscule size of these scopes and their intricate design, it has been discovered that they are very difficult to clean and may remain contaminated between procedures. This has led to several outbreaks of hospital-acquired infections in recent years, including at least five patient deaths.

In February, a Senate minority staff report released after a year-long investigation into duodenoscope infections concluded that Olympus and other manufacturers had failed to adequately protect patients, especially after receiving multiple warnings about the risk of duodenoscope infections and failing to report these issues to the FDA. At this time, Senator Patty Murray said in a press release, “Following the tragic impacts outbreaks have had on patients and families in my home state and across the nation, I made it my priority to ensure we fully understood how this could have happened in the first place, and what could be done to protect patients going forward. Patients should be able to trust that the devices they need for treatment are safe and effective. Unfortunately this investigation makes clear that current policies for monitoring medical device safety put patients at risk, and, in this case, allowed tragedies to occur that could have, and should have, been prevented.”

As the leading provider of duodenoscopes in the United States, Olympus has taken heavy fire for the epidemic of hospital infections and patient deaths related to their instruments. Now, Huntington Hospital is also drawing sharp criticism for their alleged attempts to keep three duodenoscope deaths quiet. Lawrence Muscarella, a medical safety expert who found the records of the Pasadena deaths in an FDA database, says, “What were those three families told? The new norm for hospitals appears to be silence.”

Even with the news of the three deaths at Huntington Hospital, many wonder whether more patients died and just how many were infected. Additionally, the scope tied to these deaths is a different model from the one recalled earlier this year by Olympus, which means that patients could still be in danger.

Representatives of Olympus have commented that they will conduct further investigations into the outbreak and take all necessary steps to ensure patient safety, but for some families these actions are far too late. If you or someone you love has suffered a hospital-acquired infection after a duodenoscope procedure, you may be entitled to compensation. Please contact our personal injury law firm to learn more in a free legal consultation.

Another patient has filed a Bair Hugger lawsuit after suffering serious complications following hip replacement surgery where a Bair Hugger warming blanket was used.

Bobby Thomas filed his Bair Hugger lawsuit on April 13 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, naming both 3M and Arizant Healthcare as defendants. Here. Mr. Thomas claims that his surgical wound was infected as a result of use of a Bair Hugger warming blanket during his hip replacement surgery in April 2013. He says that the bacteria introduced into his wound by the warming blanket led to an infection so severe that he required further surgical procedures to remove the portion of his hip which became infected. He also says that he continues to suffer pain, impaired mobility, and other problems as a result of the Bair Hugger infection.

The Bair Hugger is a forced-air warming blanket which is sometimes used during surgical procedures to keep a patient warm, which may reduce blood loss and speed healing. However, even the designer of the Bair Hugger, Dr. Scott Augustine, now claims that the device is defective in that it may circulate contaminated air from operating room floors over open wounds, greatly increasing the risk of infection. In 2010, Dr. Augustine told the New York Times that he had warned Arizant Healthcare, the company that purchased rights to the Bair Hugger from him, that the device “is a danger to patients receiving implant devices like artificial heart valves and joints because the forced air can spread bacteria associated with hospital-acquired infections.”

Arizant Healthcare was purchased by 3M, and now a growing number of plaintiffs in Bair Hugger lawsuits claim that these companies were negligent in failing to protect them from the known risk of Bair Hugger infections. In his lawsuit, Mr. Thomas states, “Any reasonable and competent physician would not use a Bair Hugger in an orthopedic implant surgery if they were fully apprised of the dangers and risks associated with doing so. However, through misrepresentations to the public, medical community, and the FDA, the Defendant actively and knowingly concealed a propensity of these devices to cause infection in orthopedic implant surgeries.”

So many plaintiffs have filed Bair Hugger lawsuits after surgical infections that all such lawsuits filed in federal courts have been centralized before a single judge for pretrial proceedings. The formation of such a multidistrict litigation (MDL) is beneficial in preventing duplicate discovery and eliminating conflicting rulings from separate judges, and it also serves the convenience of all parties involved. Even as new Bair Hugger lawsuits continue to be added to this MDL, attorneys are currently working to assemble a small group of claims for early “bellwether” trials to gauge potential jury responses. In many MDLs, verdicts from bellwether trials often lead to early settlements.

If you or someone you love was diagnosed with a hospital-acquired infection after a Bair Hugger warming blanket was used during surgery, you could be owed compensation. Please contact an experienced personal injury lawyer to learn more about your rights in a free consultation.