Product Liability Attorneys Blog

Product Liability: X-Rock Sex Drug Recalled

Thu, 03 May 2012 09:54:12 -0500

A potentially dangerous drug has been yanked from the market, after testing by the government revealed potential risks involving ingredients that were unlisted on the label.

Our product liability attorneys know that companies have a responsibility to let consumers know what is in the products they are selling so that buyers can make informed choices. Failure to do so may result in product liability lawsuits.

In this case, the drug in question is X-Rock, a drug that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of erectile dysfunction. News outlets are reporting that when the FDA tested the drug, it found two substances that weren't on the label - sildenafil and hydroxythiohomosildenafil. The problem with these substances is that when they interact with other prescription drugs, like nitroglycerin, a person's blood pressure can be reduced to a dangerous level.

This is especially concerning because men who are likely to have issues with erectile dysfunction are also more likely to have diabetes, high cholesterol, heart disease and high blood pressure. For each of these conditions, they are generally more likely to have been prescribed medication with nitrates.

In addition to the possibility of negative drug interactions, those two substances have been associated with a wide range of side effects, including flushing and headaches.

Both the FDA and the company claim they haven't received any reports of problems as a result of taking the drug, and that this was a precautionary measure. However, the problem of reporting in this case may be two-fold.

For one thing, individuals who suffer from these other conditions may have mistaken any adverse side effects as being solely related to their original condition. And secondly, even if they suspected that X-Rock was to blame, erectile dysfunction is a sensitive issue. They may fear that a complaint or product liability lawsuit may make their information public. Fearing ridicule, they may have simply kept quiet.

What's especially troubling about this recall is that, first of all, the drug was approved by the FDA before testing found these undeclared ingredients. And secondly, advertising for the product indicates that the drug, made in the U.S., is "totally organic." It claims that the active ingredients are derived from potent natural ingredients and are totally void of steroids or chemicals.

Clearly, that's not the case.

Much of the company's profit appears to be derived from Internet sales, although there were reportedly retail locations in Florida, New York, California, Nevada, South Carolina, New Jersey and other states.

Those who have been using the X-Rock product should stop immediately, and talk to your doctor if you have experienced any of these problems. The FDA is asking that anyone who suffered negative side effects as a result of taking this drug to report it to the agency's MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program at www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm.

If the complications you have experienced as a result of using this drug were severe, you should contact a knowledgeable product liability attorney, who can help you determine whether you may have grounds for product liability litigation.

Product Liability Watch: Lax Standards for Medical Devices

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:08:11 -0500

Product liability cases are likely to stem from the latest news out of a Consumer Reports investigation.

The research determined that while tens of millions of Americans have some sort of implantation of a medical device in their bodies, the vast majority of those products have never been vetted for safety.

Our Product Liability Attorneys understand that this research encompasses a host of medical implants, including metal-on-metal hips, Lap-Bands, cardiac devices and surgical mesh. While these are the products highlighted by researchers, the study points to the larger issue of a regulatory system that doesn't do what it claims: protect consumers.

Consumer Reports goes so far as to call it "broken." Our product liability attorneys would concur, especially after reading the contents of the report, which indicates that most of the "testing" of these products takes place in the bodies of patients - who mistakenly believe that a surgeon would never push a product on them that could potentially be unsafe.

First, we need to understand that this is not a fringe issue. About one in five adults in America has had some kind of medical device implanted into their bodies for one reason or another. That's roughly 20 percent, so this is not a minor problem.

While the Institute of Medicine has recommended that the federal Food and Drug Administration completely scrap its current medical product regulatory system and start over, U.S. legislators are instead tossing around a bill that would keep the status quo intact - and in fact, speed up the process of getting these products onto the market.

This legislation has terrifying implications in terms of the health of countless Americans. The reasoning is illustrated in the process that has already been applied to the four most common implantation devices.

The first is surgical mesh, for which there was no prior testing required. Specifically, women were implanted with a transvaginal mesh - which is basically woven fabric used to strengthen tissue - in order to offer bladder support. Although there have been thousands of reports indicating that these mesh products have caused major damage, they are still being hawked as a "moderate risk." Manufacturers were able to bypass even the minimum testing requirements by exploiting a legal loophole that gave them the ability to grandfather in their product with zero safety testing.

The second major device analyzed was metal hips. In this case, manufacturers missed serious alarms. A subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson was approved to distribute the devices without any medical testing because it was considered a "substantial equivalent" to devices that had already been manufactured. In 2010, five years after hitting the market, nearly 95,000 of these devices were recalled. Metal hips can cause tissue destruction and metal poisoning.

A third device looked at was the Lap-Band. There was minimal testing conducted on these weight-loss devices. That testing included a sample of some 300 people. Of those, more than half reported vomiting, nausea or both. A quarter of those involved had to have the devices removed before the completion of the three-year study because the product was either ineffective or was causing other serious problems.

Finally, the Consumer Report watchdogs looked at cardiac devices - mainly, defibrillators. In the last three years, nearly 30,000 people have died or been hurt as a result of usage of these devices. In most cases, it has to do with the wires that connect to the heart muscle.

Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Burris, et al. Shows How Insurance Companies Can Try to Avoid Product Liability in Cases Around the Country

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:27:03 -0500

Insurance companies have very deep pockets, and when you sue for benefits their team of attorneys can seem very intimidating. However, it is important to know that attorneys are uniformly responsible for providing their clients with the zealous representation regardless of wealth or resources.

Our product liability attorneys have the experience and understanding to know what it takes to get the award you deserve in your defective or dangerous product case.

Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Burris is a case that arose when Lowell Burris fell from a ladder and was seriously injured. Burris sued the manufacturer ("Versa") of the ladder and the retailer who sold the ladder. Gulf Underwriters Insurance Company ("Gulf") was the company that provided a commercial general liability insurance policy to the manufacturer and retailer. In addition to the policy, there was a "Self-Insured Retention" endorsement ("SIR") in the amount of $50,000.

Gulf argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue for recovery under the terms of the policy they issued to Versa and retailer because Versa was not meeting their obligations under the SIR policy. Versa dissolved after expiration of the policy and Gulf argued this was a material breach of Gulf's contract with Versa, therefore releasing Gulf from its obligations under the policy. This question of whether a third party claimant would be deprived of coverage where the insured produced or sold a defective product was controlled by the definition of key terms in the policy.

However, after a careful reading of the policy the court found a statement that stipulated that all of the terms of the general liability insurance policy apply regardless of the SIR. The policy went on to explain that the amount of coverage provided would change with the SIR but the fact that third parties were entitled to coverage in liability actions remained constant.

Although the court here stated that they believed the policy drafters knew that coverage remained the same, it goes on to further explain why a third- party was entitled to coverage in this case. The distinction is held in the definitions of "termination" and "cancellation" in terms of insurance policies. Because these two words were used interchangeably in the policy, the court found there was ambiguity and confusion that must be resolved in favor of the insured. Therefore, in this case Versa is the insured and the policy must be interpreted in a way as to protect Versa from losing coverage.

The next question the court addresses is the type of contract this policy and the SIR are. Gulf argued that these contracts were executory, which means the contract needed more performance by one of the parties in order to be legally executed. The problem here was the precedent in Vandeveer which "every court in the country" has followed and which states that, "insurance policies for which the policy periods have expired and the premium has been paid are not executory contracts." In re Vanderveer Estates Holding, LLC, 328 B.R. 18, 26 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y 2005).

The court here dismissed Gulf's action for declaratory judgment in this case with prejudice, and remanded the case to the lower court to be heard. This court went so far as to suggest sanctions to Gulf's attorneys for failing to present to the court statutes and cases that countered their position.

All attorneys have a duty to provide case law and statute that support their arguments, as well as case law and statute that counter.

Product Liability Watch: Linden, Jr. v. CNH America & Identifying Parties in a Liability Claim

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:52:15 -0500

Things just are not made how they used to be.

Because of the lower standards in production, there has been an increase in injuries suffered because of faulty products. Product liability actions may seem intimidating because they are usually a lawsuit against a manufacturer, but our product liability attorneys have the experience to take on big business when defective products result in serious injury or death.

Linden, Jr. v. CNH America is a case that shows the importance of properly identifying negligent parties.

Plaintiff in this case was operating a bulldozer that was manufactured by CNH. This bulldozer had a rollover protection system for safety purposes. The bulldozer began to roll causing the plaintiff to be thrown from it. Subsequently the bulldozer landed on the plaintiff's legs causing him to suffer severe injuries.

Plaintiff alleged that the seatbelt inside the bulldozer was defective in the way it was manufactured, designed and the warnings associated with it. This seatbelt was made by one manufacturing company and then incorporated into the bulldozer. Plaintiff sued the manufacturer of the bulldozer, CNH America, LLC ("CNH") and the manufacturer of the seatbelt Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. ("IMMI").

As to IMMI, the manufacturers of the seatbelt, the court held that under Iowa law CNH can be held responsible for the defects to the seatbelt because "the seatbelt was a component part of the bulldozer." Because of this rule, the case against IMMI was dismissed.

Thus, in the trial for this case the plaintiff argued that CNH was liable because there were inadequate warnings, there was a design defect, and a manufacturing defect. As part of the argument regarding the manufacturing defects, plaintiff argued that the buckle design was faulty.

The court here cites the difference between a manufacturing defect and a design defect. Where there is an unintended configuration it is classified as a manufacturing defect and where there is an intended configuration that generates accidental and unwanted results it is considered a design defect.

After the original trial, the court dismissed the manufacturing defect claim and the jury granted a directed verdict as to the other two claims. Plaintiff disagreed with this finding and appealed. He claimed that the jury instructions were inappropriate surrounding the sophisticated user doctrine, among other things.

The sophisticated user doctrine addresses the manufacturer's duty to warn of potential dangers associated with the use of their products. This doctrine states that a manufacturer has no duty to warn users if the user knows or should know of the potential dangers associated with the use of the product. This is mostly applicable when the user is a professional who should be cognizant of the characteristics of the said product.

CNH argued that because the plaintiff's occupation was a bulldozer operator, it could be assumed that he had particularized knowledge of the potential dangers associated with use of a bulldozer. Plaintiff argued that this instruction was incorrect because it did not address the seatbelt issue. However, this court affirmed the ruling of the lower court and found that there was no error in the jury instructions.

This court explained that the jury instructions are required to fairly and adequately represent the evidence and the law applicable to the case in the light of the issues presented. The only time that a court reverses a jury instruction is when, after they are reviewed in their entirety, an error is found that affected the substantial rights of the parties in the litigation.

FDA Asks for More Power to Halt Sale of Defective Products

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:32:18 -0500

The chief of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is pressing Congress for more muscle to block defective medical products to help prevent serious injury and death.

The request follows a slew of cases of severe injury and even death caused by faulty vaginal mesh and hip implants.

Our defective medical product attorneys understand that essentially, what the FDA is dealing with is a loophole. The agency is asking to have the authority to veto the sale of products with designs similar to those that have already been singled out or recalled for deficiencies in safety. A bill granting this authority was introduced in the House of Representatives late last month.

Sponsors of the bill are specifically citing the cases in which products such as the vaginal implants and hip replacements, which were made by Johnson & Johnson, were approved by the FDA, even though there had been concerns raised about earlier versions of the products.

FDA Chief Jeffrey Shuren hasn't come out in full support of the House bill, but said there is a definite need for some sort of legislative remedy. In an interview with Bloomberg News, he said patients and companies need to have confidence in the products they purchase. Right now, the problem is that even if safety issues are identified, that won't stop a product from being replicated.

The vaginal mesh implants, which were approved by the FDA in October, were using essentially the same technology and design as a product that had previously been recalled. With more than 300,000 of the new products sold in an effort to treat weak pelvic muscles. After the products were implanted, however, they caused incontinence, internal injuries and painful sex.

The program that the bill targets is the 510(k) program. This is a system that is used to review the vast majority of the medical products that hit the U.S. market every year. The process for approval doesn't require human testing if the agency determines that there are previously approved products that are "substantially equivalent."

Right now, the FDA must approve products that fall under this category unless they have been removed from shelves by a court order. However, most companies will issue a voluntary recall before that ever happens. That means that those faulty products can continue to be used as a jumping off point for spin-off products that use the same technology.

Bloomberg reports that in an average year, the FDA clears nearly 30 products that have been known to use technology that has already been recalled. It would seem a small number in comparison to the 3,000 products that agency reviews each year, but it's enough to rattle consumer faith.

This bill, which was introduced by Democrats, would additionally mandate that manufacturers supply the FDA with any information about recalls of products they would be using as a basis for their own product approval. Then the FDA would have to analyze these older products to determine if the safety issues were significant enough to halt the sale of the new product.

Single-Serve Coffee Makers Recalled Due to Defect That Causes Burn Hazard

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:01:24 -0500

Reuters is reporting that more than 1.7 million single-cup coffee makers manufactured by Tassimo plus another 4 million espresso coffee pads were recently recalled because dozens of customers reported that they were sprayed with hot liquid, causing major burn injuries.

Consumer protection laws are designed to help people who buy products that either don't work as advertised or cause potential injuries. People who invest their hard-earned money in products should be getting what they paid for.

Sometimes, as product liability attorneys have seen, companies attempt to cut corners in the materials they use, the testing they're supposed to do or the time they're supposed to take to craft a solid product. Instead, they rush things through just so they can get the product onto the shelves as quickly as possible.

According to Reuters, Tassimo, which manufactures their product in China and Slovenia, had to recall about 835,000 single-cup brewers in the United States and another 900,000 in Canada. About 4 million espresso pads were also recalled.

About 160 consumers so far have reported being injured by the machines, including a 10-year-old girl in Minnesota who was hospitalized with second-degree burns on her face and neck. A 2-year-old from Canada reportedly also has second-degree burns on her face because of the product.

The product debuted in 2008 and sold for between $100 and $250. Of the 160 people who so far have reported injuries, 37 reported second-degree burns. Customers are being warned to immediately stop using the models reported as dangerous by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The commission reports that consumers can end up being sprayed with hot liquid, coffee grounds or tea leaves. This can injure users as well as bystanders. Second-degree burns are serious and can leave life-altering marks and scars.

The first recall related to the Tassimo machines themselves, while a separate recall dealt with espresso T Discs, which contain pre-packaged ground beans in their own filter. Kraft recalled 2.1 million packages in the United States and another 1.9 million north of the border.

These packages, made in the United States and involving brands such as Maxwell House, Nabob and Gevalia, were sold for between $8 and $11 from August to February. All of these products should not be used and consumers should contact the company for a full refund.

Regardless of the price of the product, it should work as advertised. And companies are required by law to warn consumers if they receive safety complaints. Hiding this information can lead to penalties and fines.

Consumers have a right to know if what they've purchased is defective. Consumers may be surprised at the number of goods that end up being recalled because of manufacturer errors or other problems. In some cases, a problem can simply make the product not work as it should.

But in some cases, a person can be severely injured if the product not only fails to work as advertised, but does so in a way that leads to burns, cuts or other risks of serious or fatal injury. These victims often need representation to make sure their hospital bills and other damages are covered.

Pfizer Birth Control Recall Highlights Defective Drug Issues

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:21:14 -0500

Giant drug maker Pfizer has come under pressure of late because it has recalled birth control pill packets it believes were incorrectly packaged, which caused women to take a lower dose than needed to prevent pregnancy, The New York Times reports.

Product liability attorneys hear examples of products coming out of the manufacturing plant defective all the time, but sadly the news doesn't spread until there's a problem. Companies often under-test their products because they want to get them on the shelves as quickly as possible.

Consumer protection laws are designed to help the public when they suffer as a result of a defective drug or defective product. Drugs are important to curing illnesses and fending off diseases. But they can also have major side effects.

While government agencies are designed to screen for these problems, the oversight is weak -- typically the Food and Drug Administration relies upon the studies conducted by the company seeking to have a drug approved. But that is still no excuse. The companies themselves are to have stringent testing protocols to make sure the products they are selling are free from serious risk. Instead, they frequently conduct mandatory testing in third-world countries, far from the prying eyes of regulators.

In this situation, Pfizer, a leading pharmaceutical company, recalled about 1 million packets of birth control pills. The company believes as few as 30 may have actually been affected. While that's a low percentage, that is still 30 people, potentially, who were using birth control and may now be pregnant.

The 21-pill "blister" packs typically contain 21 hormone-containing pills and seven inactive pills for women to be protected from an unwanted pregnancy. In some packages, the inactive pills may have been put in the wrong spots, meaning women could have taken inactive pills on days when they should have been taking active pills. This could lead to an unplanned pregnancy.

The Times reports that it asked Pfizer if it was going to pay for health care costs related to a pregnancy or abortion and other issues, but the company hasn't directly answered the question. The company said in a written statement that women should use a non-hormonal contraception immediately.

Consumer protection laws may very well be useful to people who are affected by this issue. Women take birth control specifically because they are not ready or willing to have a child. In some cases, they have a serious medical condition that could impact the health and welfare of mother or child.

Obviously, users understand that the drug may not completely stop pregnancy, but it becomes a bigger problem if it is a manufacturing issue that leads to the defect. Regardless of the type of drug, consumer protection laws can help.

Even if the drug is designed to treat a certain ailment or problem, the effects - unintended or otherwise - of the drug can cause bigger problems than the initial symptoms. These are also issues that must be addressed by an experienced consumer protection lawyer. These drug companies make billions of dollars, but that's no excuse for putting people at risk. Despite testing, sometimes the process is rushed and that creates problems for the consumer that can lead to serious or fatal injury.

Johnson & Johnson Delayed Reporting Defective Product, FDA Says

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:22 -0500

Johnson & Johnson has come under scrutiny lately from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which reports that the company delayed reporting to consumers that insulin pumps they created were having problems, the Associated Press reports.

Our defective medical device lawyers recognize that not every product that comes out of the manufacturer's plant is going to be perfect. In fact, many are going to be flawed.

But many defective medical products and defective drugs could be made better if not for rushed production by companies trying to maximize their profits. While there are procedures and mandatory testing put in place, the system doesn't always do enough to prevent bad products.

And these rushed products can lead to major injuries for consumers. Any type of drug or product that a person puts into his or her body or uses to treat other problems can have side effects. Sometimes these side effects are worse than the original ailments and often can lead to major medical issues.

In this case, the Associated Press reports that this is Johnson & Johnson's seventh business that has come under scrutiny in recent months. The company was once seen as a pillar of consumer safety, when decades ago it recalled Tylenol bottles that had been poisoned. It now faces major problems.

A unit of the company produces insulin pumps for diabetics that are known to fail, and yet, Johnson & Johnson continued to sell them, the FDA said. Now, the government regulation agency could impose fines and other sanctions, not only because of the faulty pumps, but also because the company didn't disclose that information quickly enough.

The agency sent a letter to the company in late December asking why it didn't report a complaint about a serious patient injury and delayed reporting two other complaints. Those patients were hospitalized after experiencing high blood sugar, respiratory failure and coma and other life-threatening complications because of a lack of insulin.

Since September 2009, Johnson & Johnson has faced 30 product recalls, the latest coming in recent weeks. Millions of bottles of non-prescription medicines for adults and children, prescription drugs that treat HIV and seizures, hip implants and contact lenses have all been under scrutiny. The reasons for the recalls range from contamination with metal shards and glass particles to some patients experiencing nauseating smells and incorrect levels of active drug ingredients.

Company officials said the reason they didn't report the problems initially was because they believe patients used the pumps improperly, which caused their injuries. The company told the Associated Press it will report all problems from now on.

In 2010, Johnson & Johnson's recalls cost them more than $900 million in lost revenue when products were lifted from shelves. Millions more was lost for legal expenses and factory upgrades.

But these problems can cost patients their lives. This is why companies must be more diligent in their handling of these products and drugs. Defective products and drugs are a major problem in this country because so much research is being done to try to find cures. But a company's primary goal is typically to maximize profits.

This causes problems for consumers and the companies themselves. Do your research when using a new drug and look for side effects and other problems. Just because a product or medical procedure has been approved, doesn't mean it's safe.

French PIP Breast Implants Come Under Scrutiny Worldwide

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:45:33 -0500

Authorities worldwide are warning women who had breast implant surgery to get checks because the French company that produced the implants has been accused of using defective material.

Breast implants for years have come under scrutiny after problems emerged; implants have leaked and other health and welfare issues have been associated with defective breast implants.

Our defective product attorneys recognize that breast implant surgery is more common today than ever before since it has become more affordable. It is commonly done on women who have had breast cancer and require the surgery. Others decide to get the elective surgery simply to improve their looks or self esteem.

And as the product has become safer after years of testing and monitoring, there are still risks. The surgery itself can be dangerous, but the product can have long-lasting effects if it is defective.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns women with breast implants have a small, but possible risk of developing ALCL, or anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Scientists examined cases of 34 women with implants on top of reading expert writings, manufacturer literature and other information.

Since there are five to 10 million breast implant recipients worldwide, such a small study can't say that implants cause the disease. While the case number is small worldwide and it's unclear how much of a connection there is, the agency warns women that silicone- and saline-filled implants can lead to the illness after noticing changes in the look or feel around the area of implant.

Czechoslovakia government officials have told women to undergo checks of their implants if theirs came from the French company Poly Implant Prothese SA, which is now defunct. Distribution of the implants were halted in 2010 after a woman died from cancer after having breast implant surgery.

The Australian consumer goods agency is now investigating PIP implants as well. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation reports that some 400,000 women worldwide ordered the implants. The company went bankrupt in 2010 after an investigation into the business found it was using an unapproved and less-expensive industrial grade silicone in some of its products. The gel was found to increase the risk of leaks and lead to cancer.

The Australian news report goes on to say that new information out of France states that the risk may be higher than once thought, though that hasn't been confirmed. It's also possible that France officials will pay for removal of the implants, but other countries haven't been as quick to act. Based partly on the FDA report that the cancer is rare and not conclusively linked to the breast implants, some experts don't necessarily agree that there is an increased risk of cancer.

Certainly, a leaking breast implant isn't a good thing because foreign objects would be introduced into the body. And given that there is even some evidence that women with breast implant leaks have gotten cancer, all women who have implants should take note. These defective products obviously come with a risk that can be avoided and it's on the manufacturer to make sure they are created properly.

Companies Recall Popular iProducts in the Middle of the Holiday Season

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:06:09 -0500

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recently put out recalls for two electronic products that could cause burns of fire hazards.

At this time of year, every consumer must be aware of what they are purchasing, especially when considering the vast amount of electronics products that are on the market. Technology is always changing and companies are clamoring to get the first great product on the shelves to maximize profits.

But consumer protection should be the No. 1 goal of companies when it sometimes isn't. Our defective product attorneys are prepared to help everyday people when they are injured because of the recklessness of businesses that cut corners in manufacturing products in order to make big profits.

In many cases, companies will produce a children's toy, a drug or even a 3,000-pound vehicle without taking into consideration all potential problems. They may rush the product into manufacturing and then to consumers without properly conducting safety tests.

Sadly, it may take an accident or a death before the company agrees to recall the product, even though federal standards require companies to notify the government within 24 hours of discovering an injury or death from one of their products. Many times, they will risk a large fine from the CPSC and instead leave the product on the shelf to try to make as much money as possible, regardless of the dangers.

However, the consumer must take responsibility, too. You shouldn't necessarily trust that the company making the product is going to do the right thing in ensuring your safety.

The CPSC recently recalled two electronics products because they could burn someone or catch fire. In one case, a Michigan-based company, Morphie, recalled its iPod Touch rechargeable external battery case because it's possible a person could get burned by it.

The Morphie Juice Pack Air rechargeable external battery has a lithium polymer battery built into a casing made of plastic that is designed to attach to the back of an iPod Touch 4G MP3 music player. The company received word from consumers -- 100 users said the product became warm to the touch, in 44 cases the product became deformed and there were nine reports of people receiving minor burns.

Only cases with numbers TR113 to TR120 are subjected to the recall. They were sold at B&H Photo, Barnes & Noble, InMotion Entertainment, J&R Music World, Marine Corps Exchange stores, Amazon.com and morphie.com for $50 since April.

A second product -- the Rocketfish Model RF-KL12 battery case for the iPhone 3G and 3GS was recently recalled after consumers found that the battery case can overheat and cause a fire hazard while its charging.

The product was imported from China by Best Buy and more than 31,000 have been sold nationwide. In 14 instances, people found that the battery case that is designed to hold the phone and comes with a built-in battery overheated. There were four reports of minor property damage and three situations where a person received minor injuries.

The products were sold exclusively at Best Buy from April 2010 to September 2011 and sold for between $10 and $60. The CPSC recommends not using the product and contacting Best Buy for a refund and instructions on how to return the product.

Government Reports Toys Safer This Holiday Season, But Defective Products Still Exist

Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:41:14 -0500

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the organization dedicated to ensuring consumer products are safe, recently reported that recalls of child toys are down.

That's likely because there are plenty of stringent guidelines that companies must take into consideration when they are producing consumer goods, especially children's toys. Still, that doesn't necessarily mean that every single new toy this holiday season is going to be safe for children. That is why parents and other adults who buy toys must remain vigilant.

Our product liability lawyers have seen children injured or killed because of bad products. And, sadly, it usually takes a tragic accident or more than one incident before companies voluntarily recall products that are defective.

And sometimes it requires more than one accident before companies are willing to admit fault. They are sometimes forced into it by the CPSC and other safety organizations. Manufacturers of toys and other products realize that a recall means bad public relations and a big loss of money. Yet, they don't consider the harm that can be done to the consumers they are catering to -- children.

The recent press release reports that stronger federal rules about production of toys and other children's goods are helping to restore the public's confidence in toy safety. There are some new toy safety guidelines:

Low lead content and lead paint limits worldwide

A stringent limit on phthalates

Converting voluntary toy standards into mandatory standards

Third-party testing required and certification for toys aimed at children 12 and younger

New limits for cadmium in toys

Tracking shipments with border protection agencies to increase seizure of dangerous imported toys

Since 2008, there has been a decrease in the number of toy recalls. In the fiscal year for 2011, there were 34 recalls, down from 46 the year before, 50 in 2009 and 172 in 2008.

Small balls, rubber balls and balloons were attributed for nearly half of the 17 fatalities reported in 2010. That was up 2 from 2009. This shows that there are still inherent risks for certain types of toys. Consumers must use common sense when considering which toy to buy.

Some safety tips for consumers:

Balloons: Children can choke or suffocate on deflated or broken balloons, so throw them away if they're broken.

Small balls and toys with small parts: Keep away from children under 3.
Scooters and riding toys: They can go fast and falls can be fatal. Require helmets and safety gear.

Magnets: For children under 6, avoid toys with magnets.

Everyone wants their children to enjoy the toys we buy them, but we don't want them to be harmed. Take a common sense approach to products that you may question as being dangerous. Regulators can only do so much to make a difference. Your children are relying on you.

Cadillac, Toyota Recall Thousands of Defective Vehicles

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:17:02 -0500

The Associated Press is reporting that Toyota recalled more than 550,000 vehicles worldwide because of a steering problem it discovered, while GM is recalling nearly 700 Cadillacs because of a brake issue, UPI reports.

You would think by now vehicle makers would be at the point where the number of vehicles they have to recall would be limited. They spend years building vehicles and have top-notch designers coming up with the newest concepts for safety and technology. Yet here we are at the end of 2011 and half a million cars are going to have to be repaired because of problems that could potentially lead to a serious or fatal accident.

Don't misunderstand. Our product liability lawyers are thankful that companies voluntarily, and sometimes with pressure from the government, recall vehicles that can be dangerous to consumers.

But defective vehicles are much more serious of an issue than other products that can be called back after a problem is discovered. These are several-ton vehicles that can be driven at speeds over 100 mph. They are killing machines if not properly handled right and certainly if they are designed poorly.

Car companies have many standards to hit in terms of safety and making sure that in a crash a person will be relatively safe. But they apparently lack when it comes to ensuring that a vehicle will work correctly.

This comes with many still remembering the braking issues that Toyota had in recent years that led to several deaths. According to the Associated Press, the Toyota recall affects 447,000 vehicles in North America, along with another 100,000 abroad. The models include Camry, Highlander, Sienna, Solara, Avalon and Highlander HV.

The company has received about 80 reports of a defect in steering going back to 2007, but the company says there are no reports of accidents or injuries. In the last two years, the companies have recalled nearly 14 million vehicles.

Consumers should be aware that if a strange noise is heard coming from the engine, they are urged to make an appointment with a Toyota or Lexus dealer to get the vehicle inspected. If parts are required to fix the issue, they will be furnished without a charge to the consumer.

The Cadillac issue relates to a brake boost push rod issue in its 2012 model year Cadillac CTS vehicles made in a five-day period in October. Nuts holding the power vacuum brake boost push rods may not be torqued to the proper specifications, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The issue could cause a nut to loosen and allow the brake boost push rod and the brake pedal to separate. GM has told consumers they will service the vehicles for free.

Thankfully, the companies are able to get the word out about the recalls so that people who have these vehicles can get them fixed. But considering that vehicles can cost tens of thousands of dollars, they should be right the first time.

As Holidays Approach, Beware of Defective Child Products

Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:40:26 -0500

With Halloween passing and Thanksgiving on the horizon, the holiday is officially here. And that also means that parents will be shopping for presents for their children.

As the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recently reported, Spin Master Inc. agreed on payment of a $1.3 million civil penalty for not reporting the defective and hazardous nature of Aqua Dots. The children's craft kit stuck together when water contacted it, allowing children to create different shapes.

Defective products come in all shapes and sizes. For children, there are millions of toys available at department stores, specialty toy stores and online. While the first thing people may look for is what the child is interested in, they must also consider the potential risks of the toy.

Our defective product attorneys have seen many children harmed by dangerous products. Like any industry, the toy industry rewards those who get their products out quicker. The more advertisements on television and in weekly fliers, the more profits between now and the new year.

But companies are required to test products to ensure they are safe. And they must report if there are defects that could pose a safety risk to children. In October 2007, Spin Master received reports that children were becoming sick after swallowing Aqua Dots. The company also found out the children who ingested a similar product containing TMG were also getting sick. That product was manufactured oversees.

The next month, the company received reports that children had ingested its product, fallen ill and into comas and required hospitalizations. It took several days before the company and the CPSC recalled about 4.2 million packages of the product. The recall noted that children who swallow the beads can fall into comas, have seizures or develop respiratory problems as a result.

The kits were sold for between $17 and $30 from April to November 2007. Spin Master had an outside testing company analyze the toxicity of the product, but the CPSC found it to be inadequate. Federal law requires companies to report problems within 24 hours after hearing of a defect than can cause injury, potential harm or death.

But companies often will wait longer, taking time to strategize about the best way to handle the situation rather than focusing on the safety and well-being of consumers.

This holiday season, please do a good job of looking at the products you are buying for children in your family. Be sure there isn't a choke hazard or that the child is old enough to avoid a potential problem. Some companies won't take the time to warn consumers until it's too late, so consumers must take on that role themselves. The holidays are the time of year we most often bring new products into the home. Too often, a victim and family blame themselves for injuries caused by defective products. Such cases should always be reviewed by experienced legal counsel.

Company Fined $1.1 Million For Not Reporting Choking Hazard in Toy Gun Sets

Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:37:58 -0500

A New Jersey-based toy company has been fined $1.1 million by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission because it didn't report that a toy dart gun set was a choking hazard to children.

With the holiday season near and toy companies rushing to put out millions of toys, there are bound to be defective children's products on the market this time of year.

Sadly, the companies that are seeking the millions of dollars in revenue are sometimes more concerned with producing toys than ensuring they are safe. While there are standards that must be met, corners are cut in order to push the products onto the shelves faster. And to maximize profits, of course.

This means that parents must be ever more vigilant when looking over presents, deciding what to buy and watching their children when they play -- particularly with new toys. Injury cases can range from the minor to tragic disfigurement, amputation injuries, suffocation and death. Consumer protection lawyers work to hold defective product manufacturers accountable.

In this case, the Plainfield, N.J. company, didn't report a defect in the "Auto Fire Target Set" under federal law. The company knew in 2006 that the toy set was defective because if children place the soft plastic toy dart in their mouths, it can be inhaled and block their airwaves, causing them to lose the ability to breath.

The company recently agreed to the $1.1 million settlement with the commission, which is charged with ensuring product safety by enforcing federal laws. When staff investigated the issue in 2009, it alleges the company misrepresented the problems with the product and its knowledge of the defect.

In May 2010, 1.8 million of the sets were recalled by the commission and Family Dollar Stores because the company refused to conduct the recall. By then, three children had died as a result of choking on the dart sets. Family Dollar exclusively sold the toys between September 2005 and January 2009 for $1.50.

Federal laws state that manufacturers, distributors and retailers report within 24 hours after they get information that a product contains a defect that could cause a hazard, creates a risk of serious injury or death or doesn't comply with consumer product safety rules.

In agreeing to the settlement, the company denies allegations that there was a defect or it violated the law, the commission states.

While a settlement may allow the company to deny any allegations of wrongdoing, the allegations were that the company sold a bad product and clearly didn't take the steps to correct the problem. Three children died as a result. These were preventable deaths that didn't need to happen.

So, as we approach the holiday season and you consider buying toys or other products for your children, don't just look at price. Consider the potential hazards that such a product may pose, because the company that made it may not have taken that into consideration in its rush to make money.

Toy Workshop Sets Pose Choking Hazard in New York, Nationwide

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 11:15:39 -0500

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced recently that Little Tikes has expanded its recall of toy workshop and tool sets because of choking hazards for small children.

You'd think by now companies who create children's toys wouldn't create small, plastic pieces that are easily swallowed by kids. Defective children's products in Washington D.C., New York, Florida and throughout the country pose a health risk to young kids everywhere.

Our New York product liability lawyers never like talking with family members of someone who died because a product didn't work like it was supposed to. It's heart-breaking when a child is lost because they choked on a toy that had design flaws. The bottom line is these companies must be held liable for their negligence.

It's inexcusable that companies rush their designs to the production lines just to make more money -- particularly when those products are marketed to families with young children.

It's October, which means the holiday season is just ahead of us. Many people will be shopping for toys for family members and their own children. This is a time for parents to be extremely cautious of new toys and to keep an eye on infants and toddlers, who are more apt to put toys in their mouths.

According to the CPSC, Little Tikes, a Hudson, Ohio company, recently expanded its recall of the Little Tikes Workshop and Tool Sets. More than 1.7 units, on top of the 1.6 million that were recalled in August 2009 are now being recalled.

The oversized, plastic toy nails have been identified as being a choking hazard to young children. There have been two incidents in which small children choked on the toy nail after it became lodged in their throat. The CPSC reports both children were treated at a hospital and made full recoveries.

The toy nails are a little more than 3 inches by 1 inch and are made with soft plastic, easily able to be swallowed by young children. These sets were sold nationwide and with millions of them sold, the company brought in millions of dollars between 1990 and 2004. The sets sold between $25 and $100.

The company should be contacted if you have purchased this set in order to get a refund. Little Tikes can be contacted at 1-800-321-0183 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. EST.

Please take note of product recalls, which can range from children's toys to products that cause electrical short circuits to vehicles that have a problem with the braking system. Companies often bypass safety and sacrifice it to make more money. This is a shame, but it's something we must live with in these competitive times in the global marketplace. This means consumers must be even more diligent in checking products for safety concerns.