Depakote and Impaired Cognitive Development

By on 11-06-2014 in Defective Product Lawsuits

If you have even gotten on a commercial airplane, one of the first things they will tell you that in the event of a cabin decompression, you should put on your oxygen mask first before helping your child. This is because if you are incapacitated, you will be unable to help anyone effectively. The same is true in life. You need to take care of your mental and physical health before you can start taking care of your children.

If you suffer from epilepsy, bipolar disorder, or migraine headaches, it can be very hard to function normally. Fortunately, there are anti-seizure and mood-stabilizing medications that can help control the symptoms of these medical conditions. One of these is such as Depakote (valproate), which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of bipolar disorder in 1983, and for epileptic seizures and migraine later on.

Unfortunately, women that take with Depakote during their pregnancy risk impaired cognitive development in their children.

A link between certain birth defects such as cleft palate and extra digits (polydactyl) and Depakote had already been established, but it was only in 2011 that the FDA had enough information to issue a notice that it could adversely affect a child’s cognitive development. Depakote is currently a Pregnancy category D, but there are indications that it will be re-categorized as X, which means that the risk of harm to the fetus outweigh the possible benefits of the medication.

This warning is all well and good for women who are pregnant or planning to get pregnant, but According to the Williams Kherkher website, many women on the drug are not even aware they are pregnant until it is too late. It is definitely much too late for people, mothers and children alike, who are already living with the consequences of these side effects.

If you are one of the unfortunate ones, you may still salvage something from the wreckage. You may be eligible for financial compensation from the manufacturer.

Xarelto Overdose

By on 11-06-2014 in Defective Product Lawsuits

Blood thinners are a common medication prescribed for individuals that are prone to clotting or suffer from cardiovascular medical conditions. Xarelto, a popular anticoagulant released in 2011 by drug manufacturers Bayer and Johnson & Johnson was originally intended for use after knee or hip replacement surgery. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration then approved the drug to help treat blood clots and atrial fibrillation. According to the website of the lawyers at Williams Kherkher, over 7 million people are currently prescribed Xarelto.

Previously, Warfarin was the leading blood thinner on the market. The older drug had been used for more than 50 years at the time of the release of Xarelto. Xarelto presented a simpler option for users as it did not require the constant physicians’ visits and blood work that Warfarin required. While Xarelto did not have the negative attributes of Warfarin, it also did not have some of the positive features of the older drug.

Unlike Warfarin, Xarelto does not have an antidote or reversal agent. Blood thinners, while aiding many Americans in treating their health conditions, also increases the risk of excessive bleeding. The purpose of Xarelto and other anticoagulants is to prevent blood from clotting. If a patient on a blood thinner were to fall and obtain a flesh wound, that injury would be at risk of severe blood loss. Some of these incidents are fatal.

The lack of antidote was not advertised information to the public being prescribed Xarelto. Patients experiencing bleeding events do not have many treatment options. Other blood thinners can use vitamin K or specific reversal agent injections to keep blood loss under control. Xarelto does not have these options and, furthermore, cannot be flushed from the system with dialysis. Patients must wait until the drug is removed from the blood stream naturally.

Manufacturers of faulty products should be held accountable for the pain and suffering of their clients. If you experienced adverse side effects while taking Xarelto, consult a lawyer that specializes in Xarelto cases to discuss your legal options.

Sorting out the Mesh

By on 11-06-2014 in Defective Product Lawsuits

There seems little doubt that transvaginal mesh products pose a significant health risk to women already having trouble with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI), mostly brought on by age and lifestyle. With the device making the bad even worse by shifting out of position, causing pain, and increasing the risk of a serious infection, these women have had enough. They have come in droves to their state courts and demanded compensation from the manufacturers of the ill-conceived device. Many will get what they want out of court as Endo (a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary) has seen the wisdom of working for a settlement, with C.R. Bard following suit. Others such as Boston Scientific are not as perspicacious as evidenced by the continuation of the litigation process.

The transvaginal mesh device is basically an adaptation of a highly successful product called a surgical mesh. The original mesh was used to provide support for hernia sufferers during surgery, and came in two kinds: permanent and temporary. The temporary mesh (usually made of biologic material) eventually dissolved as the hernia resolved, while the permanent mesh was designed to prevent future occurrences of herniation. Because it was so successful in hernia repair, it was believed that it would be equally effective in POP and SUI in women. According to the website of Williams Kherkher, and as illustrated by recent events, it wasn’t.

The main problem with transvaginal mesh is the location. The vagina constantly expands and contracts, making it next to impossible for something like a mesh to stay in place. In addition, that area of the female anatomy has naturally-occurring flora essential to feminine health but can be a problem during surgery because it is never completely sterile. The mistake of transvaginal mesh manufacturers is that they did not do their homework; they did not do adequate clinical testing to find out the possible issues that may come out with this new application of an old product.

If you have problems with your transvaginal mesh implant, this is the time to seek compensation. Contact a transvaginal mesh lawyer in your area to get a rundown of the legal process for suing your manufacturer.