Archive for the ‘Product Liability’ Category

Deceptive Marketing of Statins, Cholesterol Drugs

Thursday, August 26th, 2010

Our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys are, unfortunately, not shocked to learn that yet another class of drugs has been over-marketed and over-prescribed, to the financial benefit of the pharmaceutical companies and the harm of patients and the general public. This time it is statins that we have learned have been unnecessarily prescribed to millions of patients, causing untold harm. This overuse, and the marketing that led to it, trigger viable medical malpractice and products liability claims.

These drugs are marketed under a wide variety of brand names, the most commonly known of which include Lipitor, Crestor, Zocor, Pravachol, and Mevacor. They work by lowering a patient’s LDL, the so-called “bad cholesterol.” Statins can reduce fatty deposits in a patient’s blood, and may also reduce inflammation, which leads to plaque deposits breaking away from the walls of blood vessels, causing blocked arteries: heart attack or stroke. The problem, however, is that no one – not even our nations top research physicians – really understands the relationship between bad cholesterol, inflammation, and heart disease.

Statins arrived on the U.S. scene in 1997. They are now the world’s most prescribed medications. In the United States alone, about 24 million – that’s right, million – people take these drugs. At one time, these drugs were earning manufacturers over $26 billion dollars a year. That figure has dropped slightly, as statins are now available in generic form. The availability of generics, however, and the corresponding availability of cheaper versions of these medicines, has only increased the number of people using them. In 2009, the number of statin prescriptions filled in the U.S. was double that of prescriptions filled in 2001.

This class of medications was originally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for “secondary prevention,” or use in patients who had already suffered a heart attack or stroke – used to prevent recurring attacks.

But the rampant increase in use has been driven by “primary prevention,” the notion that statins should be used in patients who are otherwise healthy, but have high levels of LDL cholesterol. These primary prevention patients make up the majority of those on statins today – and it is these patients who are being placed at an unnecessary risk at risk, and may have valid medical malpractice or product liability claims in the future.

The latest round of the debate over statins appeared in late June in the Archives of Internal Medicine. The Journal published three studies, each looking at whether statins are all that they are cracked up to be. The first found that statins do not lower death rates among primary prevention patients. The second cast doubt on a key study used to justify primary prevention prescriptions. The third looked at the many conflicts of interest – ethical, clinical, and financial – that were present in that same study. Indeed, the principal researcher in that influential study (the JUPITER trial) had millions of dollars in royalties on the line. Our Chicago products liability attorneys believe that it will not be long before one – or many – class action suits are filed against the doctors and companies who conducted the JUPITER trial.

Conflicts of interest are simply at the heart of the booming popularity of statins. Indeed, primary prevention use skyrocketed after 2001, the year in which the National Heart, Blood and Lung Institute adopted guidelines calling for primary prevention prescriptions for as many as 36 million Americans with elevated cholesterol. But the National Institutes of Health has now acknowledged that of the nine physicians involved in crafting these guidelines, eight had “substantial financial ties” to drug companies that manufacture statins.

This over-prescription is not simply an academic matter: the side effects of statins, which untold numbers of Americans have suffered unnecessarily, are many and varied. At the tolerable end, the most common side effect of statins is simply muscle aches. Although this side effect is mild, somewhere between 5% and 20% of statin patient experience this effect. Some patient also experience headache, nausea, sleep disturbances, weakness, joint pain, memory loss, and diarrhea. Other side effects are not so manageable: tendon problems, depression, sexual dysfunction, peripheral neuropathy, and cataracts.

Then there are the larger problems: pancreatitis, osteoporosis, hemorrhagic stroke, even interstitial lung disease. Additionally, statins can cause muscles to actually break down, releasing a substance that damages the kidneys. They can also increase a patients liver enzymes. This particular effect is so common and serious that all statin patients are advised to have liver function tests after starting the medication and every year thereafter. Shockingly, if the increase in liver enzymes is present but low, the patient is often advised to remain on the medicine. But this increase can lead to permanent, irreversible liver damage. Frighteningly, Dr. James M. Wright of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, sums up our understanding of the effects of statins with this statement: “I don’t think we know all the harms yet.”

In the face of the statin craze, true experts continue to remind us that the best way to prevent heart disease, heart attack, and stroke is to exercise, refrain from smoking and excessive drinking, and eat a healthy “Mediterranean” diet. Perhaps the problem was best summarized by Dr. John Abramson of Harvard Medical School, a vocal critic of the over-prescription of statins. “There’s a conspiracy of false hope. The public wants an easy way to prevent heart disease, doctors want to reduce their patients’ risk of heart disease and drug companies want to maximize the number of people taking their pills to boost their sales and profits.” Indeed, the drug companies have sought every avenue to increase the use of statins, testing their effectiveness (with negative results) on everything from Alzheimer’s and rheumatoid arthritis to prostate and breast cancer, from kidney disease to macular degeneration and even diabetic neuropathy

It is important to note that these new studies do not call into question the effectiveness of statins for those who have already had a heart attack. For those patients, statins are a proven and effective weapon for fighting off additional attacks.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

Honda Recall the Latest Automotive Safety Failure

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010

In the latest in a troubling series of automotive recalls, last week Honda Motor Company announced a recall affecting nearly 400,000 vehicles nationwide.  The recall covers the widely popular Accord and Civic models in the 2003 and 2004 model years, as well as the Element model.  Our Chicago personal injury attorneys urge those who own these models to get the details of the recall and ensure that their vehicles are safe.

This latest recall was issued to address a defect in the ignition switch.  These vehicles’ ignition interlock can either be worn down from use, or damaged during use.  If this occurs, the defect could allow drivers to remove their keys from the ignition even though the transmission is not shifted into park.  There is thus the risk that a car could begin to roll away if the parking brake is not engaged, causing accidents and serious injuries or wrongful death.

Honda acknowledged that it has received several complaints about the issue, and is aware of at least one resulting injury.  The NHTSA, however, states that prior to opening an investigation into this issue in January 2009, it had already received sixteen complaints about the problem – eleven of which had resulted in crashes.

This recall is particularly troubling because it is the third recall from Honda to address this same problem.  The company has issued two prior recalls regarding the same problem since 2003.  In October 2003, Honda recalled over 500,000 minivans and sedans due to the ignition interlock issue, including earlier models of the Accord (1998-99).  Then, in January 2005, the company issued a second recall, of multiple models of passenger cars, affecting nearly 500,000 vehicles.  Again, the Accord was implicated, this time certain of the 1999-2002 Accords.  The three recalls together have involved a total of nearly 1.5 million vehicles.

The recalls do technically each address a separate issue with the ignition interlock.  In 2003, the vehicles recalled had a casting failure that could cause the ignition interlock to wear down, thus leading to the problem described above.  Then, in 2005, the recalled vehicles had an ignition interlock lever that could slip out of position, leading to the exact same problem.  This time, an interlock pin and lever must be replaced, but the possible result is the same.

Still, the fact remains that after each of the previous recalls, Honda failed to adequately correct the problem and put a correct ignition interlock in place.  Honda was clearly aware of the problems with its interlock, yet it took an additional five and a half years for the company to realize that it had still failed to fix these issues.

It seems that Honda, like Toyota and others in the automobile industry, simply cannot be trusted to prioritize public safety over its own convenience and profit – nor can the U.S. authorities force these automakers to do so.  It is thus essential that those harmed by these dangerous automotive defects bring suit for their losses.  Only through civil judgments, or at least the realistic expectation of such judgments, can we hope to see real change.  If you or someone you love has been injured, sustained serious financial loss, or even lost their life due to a defective product (whether a Honda or not), your bravery and action may help to save others from future misery.  Our Chicago product liability attorneys urge you to come forward, and make these companies reconsider their indifference to safety.

If you have not been injured, but have a vehicle that may be involved in the recall, you can visit the Honda website at http://www.recalls.honda.com or you can get information by phone by calling (800) 999-1009 and selecting option 4.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago car accident lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

CPSC Identifies Dangerous, Potentially Deadly Consumer Products

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recently released its analysis of product-related deaths and injuries in the United States, as part of its 2009 annual report.  In its analysis, the CPSC attempted to use a representative sampling of deaths and injuries to determine which types of consumer products are most likely to be associated with – although not necessarily cause – death and injury.  Our Chicago personal injury lawyers reviewed this data and were surprised at the broad scope of product-related deaths and injuries identified.

Of the product-related deaths identified by the CPSC, several categories stood out.  First, and perhaps most expected, were product-related deaths associated with sports and recreational activities and equipment.  Our top-rated Chicago product liability attorneys have previously written about some of the dangers associated with popular sports.  But several of the other prominent categories were less expected or intuitive.

For example, deaths associated with home furnishings and fixtures were nearly as high as those associated with sporting equipment.  Notably, the largest portion of these deaths were in those under the age of five, although this category excluded deaths associated with children’s nursery equipment such as cribs and highchairs, which itself was associated with a number of deaths.  Home furnishings can be associated with death in infants and young children in many ways:  from falls from the furniture to the failure to secure heavy, climbable furniture to the walls, resulting in furniture falling on top of adventurous young climbers.

Stephen Passen of Passen Law Group secured a $19 million jury verdict on behalf of the family of a 9-year-old boy who suffered a permanent traumatic brain injury when he was left unsupervised in a private school classroom, and an unsecured TV fell off of an old TV stand onto the boy’s head.  Call Passen Law Group to speak with one of our top-rated Chicago traumatic brain injury lawyers or wrongful death attorneys.

These numbers were closely tracked by the CPSC’s data on injuries associated with consumer products:  specifically, injuries resulting in emergency-room visits.  Far and away the most common consumer products associated with emergency room visits were, again, sports and recreational activities and equipment.  And, as with product-related deaths, the second highest product category associated with injuries was home furnishings and fixtures.  Also associated with sizable numbers of emergency-room visits were home workshop apparatus and tools, and home structures and construction materials.  Unlike product-associated deaths, however, each of these categories was most likely to result in injury to adults than young children.

Interestingly, the CPSC analysis also looked at the approximate costs of treating the injuries related to each category of consumer products.  Although more injuries were sustained associated with certain categories, such as sporting goods, these injuries were not necessarily the most expensive.  Instead, the most expensive injuries were those associated with home structures and construction materials.  And although product-related injuries associated with housewares were responsible for one of the largest numbers of injuries reported, the cost of these injuries was extremely low.

The CPSC’s analysis should give American consumers pause.  Although the study did not distinguish between injuries and deaths actually caused by consumer products and those only associated with those products, this data serves as an excellent reminder of the dangers around us.  Because no product is ever completely safe, especially if not used properly, consumers must take the incentive in protecting themselves and taking every possible precaution against injury.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago personal injury lawyer with Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.