Toxic Exposure | Chicago Personal Injury Law Blog - Passen Law Group - Top Chicago, Illinois Personal Injury Lawyers

Archive for the ‘Toxic Exposure’ Category

Study Finds Brain Imaging Can Predict Pain Intensity

Thursday, April 11th, 2013

Pain and suffering is often difficult to measure, even by the most experienced pain specialists. Patients are typically asked to rate their own pain on a scale of 1-10. Although there are objective ways to confirm physical and psychological injuries consistent with pain, the nature and extent of pain is typically measured by the patient’s own subjective self-reporting.

A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine finds that brain imaging can be used to objectively assess pain — both physical and emotional pain.

The study involved a total of 114 patients who underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) — a unique and new form of neuroimaging — while being stimulated with heat-induced pain, as well as “social pain.”

What is Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)?

fMRI is a relatively new form of neuroimaging used to measure brain activity by detecting changes in blood flow that occur in response to certain stimuli. fMRI can identify the parts of the brain that are involved in certain mental processes.

fMRI use is controversial, because it is a relatively new neruoimaging technique. However, fMRI can be extremely beneficial to identifying a brain injury in patients who are symptomatic of neurologic dysfunction, yet have “normal” brain scans using typical imaging techniques.

As the above-mentioned study demonstrates, fMRI can also be extremely helpful in identifying pain.

fMRI to Identify Physical and Emotional Pain

The study found that in those patients who were subjected to heat-induced pain while being imaged with fMRI, a “nerologic signature” emerged: increased brain activity in the thalamus, posterior and anterior insulae, secondary somatosensory cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, periaqueductal gray matter, and other regions of the brain.

Even more interesting, the study found that fMRI was helpful in identifying emotional-related pain — related to depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or other events that cause emotional pain. When subjecting such patients to “social pain,” the fMRI showed that many of the same brain regions were activated as with physical pain.

In general, the study found fMRI to be over 90% sensitive (or accurate) in identifying physical and emotional pain.

This is a huge breakthrough for pain research and treatment for those with chronic and acute pain — both physical and emotional. Based on this research, new treatment may be developed to focus on these specific areas of the brain that are triggered, rather than on the conventional approach to attempting to block pain impulses from getting into the spinal cord and the brain.

At Passen Law Group, most of our clients have experienced significant pain — both physical and emotional — as a result of serious motor vehicle accidents, medical malpractice, and other contexts which produce pain. We welcome these new developments addressed at identifying pain, and hopefully leading to beneficial treatment for pain.

For a Free Consultation with one of our attorneys, Call us at 312-527-4500.

Tags: fMRI, Pain and Suffering
Posted in Aviation Liability, Birth Injury Law, Brain Injury Law, Bus Accident Law, Car Accident Law, Child Injury Lawyer, Construction Liability, Latest News, Medical Malpractice, Motorcycle Injury, Nursing Home Neglect, Personal Injury Law, Police Misconduct, Premises Liability, Product Liability, Spinal Cord Injury Law, Toxic Exposure, Train Accident Law, Truck Accident Law, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

Avastin Breast Cancer Approval Withdrawn

Wednesday, November 30th, 2011

avastin 300x231 Avastin Breast Cancer Approval Withdrawn This week, the federal Food and Drug Administration announced its withdrawal of approval for Avastin, a commonly-used breast cancer drug.

Avastin, the trade name for the drug bevacizumab, is one of a class of drugs known as “biological therapy.” The drug is a product of Genentech, a biotechnology company based in San Francisco, California.

Avastin is designed to inhibit or prevent the growth of blood vessels which feed cancerous tumors, thus inhibiting or even reversing the growth of the tumors themselves. The drug itself is an antibody, which binds to a specific protein known as vascular endothelial growth factor A. This protein is important in blood vessel growth and development in the human body.

The drug thus works through a process known as anti-angiongenesis. Cancerous tumors over-produce VEGF, which then works to form blood vessels connecting to the tumor, so that the tumor can receive nourishment and grow. The process was developed by Judah Folkman, a recently-deceased surgeon with Harvard Medical School.

Although the process took a long time to gain credence, there are now at least 10 drugs utilizing anti-angiongenesis sold in the United States, and industry reports reveal that roughly 50 more such drugs are in the development pipeline.

The FDA’s revocation does not extend to Avastin’s other approved uses. The drug is still approved for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, advanced non-small-cell lung cancers, gliobastoma which has spread even after prior treatments, and certain metastatic kidney cancers.

The FDA’s decision to revoke Avastin’s approval for breast-cancer treatment is based upon what is, to our drug injury attorneys, a particularly troubling combination: lack of effect and dangerous side effects.

First, the drug in fact has no effect on breast cancer. Despite some initial slowing of the growth of breast cancer tumors, patients treated with Avastin did not have an increased survival rate, or live longer, than patients not treated.

Second, the drug triggers a number of extremely serious side effects.

Indeed, roughly 1% of Avastin patients died not from breast cancer, but from side effects of Avastin. These side effects include (among others) heart attacks, strokes, and congestive heart failure.

Moreover, the company was hardly unaware of the concerns which triggered the removal of approval, even as it continued to market and sell the drug as a breast cancer treatment. Even from the early days of the drug’s approval, there were many questions concerning whether the drug had any meaningful effect on breast cancers. In fact, when the drug was approved, it was despite the 5-to-4 recommendation against approval by an advisory panel. Although the FDA considers the recommendations of its independent advisory panels, it is not bound to do so.

Studies since have simply confirmed what many researchers were already saying: Avastin does not improve patients’ chances of survival, or prolong patients’ lives.

The move to revoke the approval began in July of 2010, when a second advisory panel recommended withdrawal based on further studies showing no benefit. But it took until December of 2010 for the FDA to take any action to begin the withdrawal – action that was fiercely challenged by Genentech. Yet another advisory panel conferred, and took testimony on the matter for two days, eventually voting unanimously to revoke the approval – a vote which did not occur until June of this year.

Our personal injury attorneys are appalled that, even with the overwhelming evidence that Avastin was costing lives, not saving or prolonging them, the company continued to actively market and sell this drug, under the FDA’s approval. There is no excuse for a bureaucratic process lasting nearly a year and a half before this confirmed dangerous drug could be withdrawn.

If you have any questions about a possible serious injury or wrongful death claim, please give us a call us at 312-527-4500 or email us at info@passenlaw.com for a complimentary consultation. You can also learn more by following us on Twitter, reviewing our LinkedIn or Avvo.com pages, and by reviewing our website.

Tags: Avastin, Breast Cancer, Dangerous Drugs, Product Liability
Posted in Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury Law, Product Liability, Toxic Exposure, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

Generic Drug Risks

Monday, August 1st, 2011

While generic drug manufacturers would like consumers to believe that generic versions of drugs are exactly equivalent to the name brands, this is not usually the case.

Consequently, some people who switch from a name brand to a generic drug experience what doctors term a “therapeutic failure.” What this means is that while the name brand drug worked to control the patient’s condition, the generic version does not. Patients may also experience new or different side effects. Hardly chemically identical.

Poor Quality Control

So, how are dangerous generic drugs getting into the American marketplace? One problem is that manufacturers are using raw materials from China, India, and other areas where quality assurance is not strict. It is worth noting that many over-the-counter medicines, such as ibuprofen and acetaminophen, are currently being imported from these same areas. In the opinion of our Chicago injury attorneys, it is only a matter of time before a major safety incident occurs with these products, as well.

But why doesn’t the FDA stop these problems? The simple answer is that the FDA is dramatically underfunded and understaffed to confront the task before it. The FDA pulls and tests only about 300 doses of prescription medication each year. This means that only about one in ten million doses are inspected each year. And, although the FDA is supposed to inspect the facilities where drugs are manufactured at least once every two years, due to the lack of adequate resources, in fact some drug companies have only one plant inspected every four years. And only 200 plants have been inspected in China and India in the last seven years.

Risks of Generic Drugs

The risks of generic medications are hardly academic. The next year will bring a rash of new generic medications on the market, as the patents expire on a number of the biggest drugs in America. In fact, 7 of the top 20 best-selling international medications have patents expiring in the next 14 months. This includes Lipitor, a commonly-prescribed anti-cholesterol medication, and Plavix, a commonly-prescribed blood thinner.

Also included are common medications for asthma, diabetes, depression, HIV, blood pressure, and bipolar disorder. In the next four years, drugs which account for around $255 billion in annual international sales have expiring patents. In fact, Blue Cross Blue Shield estimates that up to fifteen percent of the American population is currently taking a medicine with a patent expiring in the next few years.

And the problems with generic safety will only get worse, thanks to a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. In this year’s term, the Court ruled that generic drugs are required to do nothing more on their labels than mirror the labels of the name-brand drugs. This decision, in Pliva v. Mensing, provides extensive protection for generic drug manufacturers, but none for innocent patients. In effect, the decision means that even when there are indications that a generic version of a drug causes catastrophic or fatal side effects not present in the name brand, up to and including kidney failure, the drug manufacturer need not provide a warning to those who take the drug.

In fact, the Court ruled that even if state consumer protection laws would require the drug maker to provide a warning, federal law preempts those state requirements and in fact mandates that the drugmaker not provide a warning, if that warning is not present on the name-brand label.

Our serious injury attorneys are more than troubled at this state of affairs. The lack of warning labels is by no means the only type of legal claim available to the victims of generic drugs. And as the legal responsibilities of the manufacturers of generic drugs continue to develop, we hope that the legal redress for those injured by these dangerous drugs will become easier to access. In the meantime, we urge consumers to take care when using generic drugs, and to weigh the risks carefully before choosing these products.

Stephen M. Passen of Passen Law Group has over 30 years representing individuals against large corporations in serious personal injury and wrongful death cases. To speak with one of our top-rated injury attorneys, call us at (312) 527-4500 or email us at info@passenlaw.com.

Tags: Chicago Injury Lawyer, Generic Drug Death, Pharmaceutical Drug Injury
Posted in Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury Law, Product Liability, Toxic Exposure, Wrongful Death | 1 Comment »

Toxic Torts: An Overview

Tuesday, July 19th, 2011

What Is a Toxic Tort?

Although the term “toxic tort” is used by lawyers who practice in this area, and even occasionally by the media, many people do not truly understand what it means. Simply put, a toxic tort is a form of wrongdoing – either intentional or negligent – which causes injury or property damage due to exposure to a toxic substance. Toxic torts can take many forms, from large-scale chemical spills, to employee actions, to individual injuries. Passen Law Group is proud to represent individuals and families who have been injured or killed by toxic substances.

Depending on the type of injury, a toxic tort case can be grounded in any of a wide variety of civil torts, including intentional torts, simple negligence, professional negligence, and products liability. Toxic tort cases can also be based on federal or state statutes. For example, the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA), a federal statute, requires employers to keep their workers safe from dangerous substances.

Types of Toxins Involved

The types of toxic tort cases vary greatly, as there is seemingly no end to the variety of toxins to which people can be exposed in modern life. The classic examples – asbestos in the workplace, a chemical spill leaching into residential groundwater – are really only the beginning. Indeed, even the highly-publicized tobacco litigation is made up of toxic tort claims, as these suits allege that tobacco is a toxin to which smokers were wrongfully exposed.

Among the types of toxic torts which have emerged in recent years are cases involving exposure to the following:

Heavy metals
Solvents
Emissions from oil and other recycling
Unsafe chemicals in drinking water (generally due to chemical runoff from manufacturing)
Emissions from refineries
Radioactive and radiographic chemicals
Gasoline or its unsafe components
Chemicals released in railroad accidents
Chinese drywall, which releases sulfur fumes
Mold contamination
Toxins or contaminants in medications
Lead paint
Asbestos

Forms of Toxic Tort Litigation

Toxic tort cases can take many forms. The form most commonly known is the class-action or mass-actions law suit: many individuals who were harmed by a single incident or practice band together to sue, or an individual or small group sues on behalf of this larger group. But toxic torts can take other forms, as well.

A single individual harmed by the practice, product, or incident issue can file his own, individual lawsuit. In many cases, particularly where an individual’s circumstances or damages differ from the norm, this strategy can be the best.

In addition, many states allow consumers and citizens to step into the shoes of the state’s Attorney General and file a “private attorney general” action to redress some types of toxic torts. Although the rules vary by state and by type of claim, these actions are generally regulatory (actions alleging the violation of a statute or regulation). This type of toxic tort claim is most often based upon exposure to a toxin via a consumer product (such as gasoline, or high lead content in a toy).

Summary

Whatever the type of toxic tort at issue, a highly-skilled, experienced attorney is essential. Toxic tort defendants are often large companies, which spare no expense, and are willing to spend significant amounts of money to defend what can become a high-profile case. If you believe that you have been injured through exposure to a toxin, seek out the counsel of an attorney who knows how to try these cases and combat these tactics.

Stephen M. Passen has over 30 years experience representing individuals and families in serious personal injury and wrongful death actions against some of the largest and most powerful corporations. As an example, he recently secured a $4.2 million settlement for the family of a worker who was severely burned after a gasoline storage tanker he was working on exploded.

Contact Mr. Passen by phone at (312) 527-4500 or email at info@passenlaw.com for a Free Consultation.

Tags: Explosion Injury, Toxic Exposure, Toxic Tort Injury
Posted in Toxic Exposure, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

Leukemia Caused by Toxic Exposure

Friday, July 15th, 2011

Simply put, Leukemia is any cancer of the blood cells. Leukemia generally begins as a cancer in the bone marrow (the soft tissue housed inside of bones, which is responsible for making the body’s blood cells).

In healthy individuals, bone marrow makes white blood cells (which fight infections), red blood cells (which move oxygen throughout the body), and platelets (for clotting). But for victims of Leukemia, this production is out of sync. The victim’s marrow begins to make abnormal white blood cells (Leukemia cells), in large quantities. These cells do not fight infection, and grow faster and larger than healthy white blood cells. Eventually, these abnormal cells overwhelm and “crowd out” healthy blood cells. Patients then suffer anemia, bleeding, and mild to serious infections. Also, like other cancers, Leukemia can spread, most commonly to lymph nodes, but also to other organs and tissues throughout the body.

The causes of Leukemia vary. Some Leukemias can be inherited, while others are acquired. In addition, a patient can be born susceptible to Leukemia, but have his disease triggered by environmental factors such as toxic exposure. There are many types of blood disorders and, indeed, many types of blood cancer. But all types of Leukemia can be caused by toxic exposures, at home or at work. If you have Leukemia, particularly if you are or were employed in manufacturing or industry, you should investigate whether exposure to a toxic product caused Leukemia.

Those whose Leukemia was caused by toxins may have a cause of action for personal injury or wrongful death. For instance, auto workers exposed to benzene may have a claim against their employer or a products liability claim against the manufacturer or distributor of the benzene-based solvent to which they were exposed. Those who developed Leukemia from contaminated drinking water may have a claim against the company whose facilities spilled or leaked the chemicals which infiltrated the water supply.

Types of Leukemia

There are four major types of Leukemia. These types result from two primary divisions, which then occur in combination. These two divisions are:

Acute Leukemia or chronic Leukemia. Acute forms of the disease advance quickly, making patients sick almost immediately. Chronic leukemia, however, advances slowly. Many patients do not experience symptoms for years after developing the disease.
Lymphocytic Leukemia or myelogenous Leukemia. Lymphocytic (also called lymphoblastic) Leukemia affects one specific type of cells, lymphocytes (found in the bone marrow). Myelogenous Leukemia, by contrasts, affects another specific white blood cell type, myelocytes.

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

CLL is always acquired, not inherited. It originates from injury to the DNA of a singleresults from an acquired (not inherited) injury to the DNA of a single cell, a lymphocyte, in the bone marrow. This cell then grows and multiplies, and begins to produce lymphocytes in the blood. About four people in every 100,000 suffer from CLL in the United States. The Leukemia known as “hairy cell” Leukemia is a type of CLL characterized by severe susceptibility to infection.

Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL)

ALL, like CLL, involves abnormal lymphocytes, but it progresses rapidly, rather than slowly. ALL can occur in adults or children, but ALL makes up about 90% of childhood Leukemias, and only around 20% of adult Leukemias. ALL is commonly caused by solvents, glues, paints, petroleum, or rubber.

Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML)

CML can be acquired or inherited. It originates from an abnormal hematopoietic stem cell, which causes overgrowth of the granulocytic cell line, and too many granulocytes and blast cells (granulocytoic precursors) in the blood. CML is very rare, although slightly more common in those over the age of 80. Studies on CML are limited, but indicate that exposure to toxins can cause CML.

Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML)

AML is extremely aggressive. Of all the Leukemia types, AML is linked most closely with chemical exposures, especially benzene and other solvents – experts believe that benzene exposure causes AML. Therefore, if you have developed Leukemia and were exposed to benzene, it is critical to contact an experienced personal injury attorney to ensure your rights are protected.

For a free consultation with one of our serious injury and wrongful death lawyers at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

Tags: Leukemia Benzene Lawyer, Toxic Exposure Injury
Posted in Toxic Exposure | No Comments »