The New York Times Investigates Reported Side Effects of Yaz/Yasmin Birth Control Pills

On September 25, 2009, The New York Times published an article entitled Health Concerns Over Popular Contraceptives, exploring reported side effects associated with the popular birth control pills, Yaz and Yasmin.  Reported side effects of Yaz and Yasmin include blood clots (including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism), gallbladder disease, heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, liver failure or cardiac arrhythmia.  The primary concern with Yasmin and Yaz is that the active ingredient, drospirenone, increases potassium in the blood to dangerous levels. 

AA LLP represents women who have suffered one or more of the above-listed events after taking Yasmin or Yaz birth control.  For more information on the potential dangers of Yasmin and Yaz, or to have your case evaluated by an AA LLP attorney, please click here.

AA LLP’s Jennie Lee Anderson Among Faculty At Litigating Toxic Tort, Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Cases Seminar

On September 24-25, AA LLP partners Lori E. Andrus and Jennie Lee Anderson attended the American Association for Justice’s Litigating Toxic Tort, Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Cases Seminar in Las Vegas, Nevada.  On September 25, Ms. Anderson moderated the program, which included insightful presentations on a variety of pharmaceutical and medical product cases that AA LLP is actively litigating or investigating, including Avandia, Hydroxycut, Paxil Birth Defects and Gadolinium-based MRI contrast agents.  If you believe that you or a loved one has been injured in connection with use of a pharmaceutical or medical device, please click here to have your case reviewed by an AA LLP attorney.

Andrus Anderson Achieves Nationwide Class Action Settlement In Connection With Honda and Michelin PAX System Litigation

Andrus Anderson LLP announces that on June 23, 2009, the Honorable Roger W. Titus entered an Order granting final approval of a nationwide settlement in a consumer class action, which was filed on behalf of Plaintiffs from various States against Defendants, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Honda”) and Michelin North America, Inc. (“Michelin”). The litigation involves the marketing and sale of certain Honda and Acura Vehicles equipped with Run-Flat Tires (“Vehicles”).  The Settlement was negotiated over a number of months with the assistance of a nationally recognized mediator on behalf of Plaintiffs in all of the pending cases and on behalf of a proposed nationwide class with Honda and Michelin.  
 
For settlement purposes, the Court certified a nationwide class consisting of all person or entities who currently own or lease, or previously owned or leased, a Honda Odyssey Touring edition model or Acura RL model equipped with the “Technology Package,” which included Michelin’s PAX® Tire and Wheel Assembly in the United States. Excluded from the class are Defendants, Defendants’ employees, officers and directors, and the Judge to whom this Action is or has been assigned. For a copy of the Court’s Order Preliminarily Approving the Settlement and the Settlement Agreement, please click on the appropriate links below.  A detailed explanation of the relief under the Settlement can be found in the Class Notice. To view a copy of the Class Notice, please click here.  To submit a claim in connection with this settlement, click here to down load a copy of the claim form which should be submitted by mail as directed.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Consumers’ Rights In State Courts

Andrus Anderson LLP lauds a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Altria v. Good to deny immunity for cigarette manufacturers who violate state consumer protection laws with false claims of lowered tar and nicotine.

Partner Lori Andrus agrees with the statement issued by the America Association for Justice (www.justice.org): “Today’s decision is a victory for consumers and affirms that cigarette manufacturers cannot claim immunity from consumer fraud when they claim their products have lowered tar and nicotine levels, even though they do not. State laws have an important role to play in helping the federal government police false claims, and today’s decision supports that role.”

“We hope that the court continues to look at claims of corporate immunity from the perspective of consumer health and safety and continues to support the rights of consumers to get justice through the courts.”

To view the full Supreme Court opinion, click here.

New Report Shows How Drug Industry Immunity Would Endanger Women - U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Major Case Soon

New York - A new report released today by the national consumer rights group Center for
Justice & Democracy finds that many of this country’s dangerous government-approved drugs and devices have been marketed specifically for women. Many of these products were removed or made safer only after women filed lawsuits.

The release of the report, THE BITTEREST PILL – How Drug Companies Fail To Protect Women and How Lawsuits Save Their Lives, comes less than a week before the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in Wyeth v. Levine, widely considered to be one of the court’s most important decisions this term. The Court will hear arguments on November 3 whether to afford the drug industry unprecedented legal immunity for causing injuries or death, despite negligent or irresponsible behavior.
“This report tells the story of the hyped marketing to women of a disproportionate number of unsafe drugs and devices resulting in countless deaths and injuries,” said report co-author Joanne Doroshow, Executive Director of the Center for Justice & Democracy. “Many times, these dangers were only known, or in some cases products pulled from the market, after women and their families filed lawsuits. As a result, the lives of countless other women have been saved. Blanket immunity for drug companies would be devastating for American women of all ages.” “Women have been hurt many times over the years by FDA-approved drugs, whether because drug companies withheld information and lied about health risks, or because the FDA has lacked the resources or political will to keep dangerous products off the market,” said Cynthia Pearson,
Executive Director of the National Women’s Health Network. “This report from Center for Justice & Democracy documents the devastating consequences of these regulatory failures and shows how women who have been hurt by unsafe drugs have used lawsuits to bring critical information to light, protecting other women from suffering similar harm.”

THE BITTEREST PILL examines the history of a variety of products including many types of birth control methods and hormone therapies, as well as lactation and acne drugs. Said report coauthor Amanda Melpolder, “This report clearly shows how the health and safety of women have greatly benefited from lawsuits over these products. As new drugs and devices are developed and marketed, it is imperative that women have the safest and most effective products available. That means making sure corporations are held legally accountable for causing injuries.”

Get Out of Jail Free: How the Bush Administration Helps Corporations Escape Accountability

The United States Supreme Court and Congress are currently facing critical issues that—depending on how they are resolved—could provide negligent corporations complete immunity from lawsuits.

It’s called “federal preemption,” and it refers to situations in which federal regulation trumps state law. And, perhaps most surprising, Americans and many policymakers have never heard of it. When viewed through the context of unsafe products, preemption of state law means complete immunity from lawsuits for corporations and a full escape from accountability when they have knowingly injured and endangered Americans. The civil justice system offers corporations a powerful incentive to make their products safer. All people should have a fair chance to receive justice through the legal system when they are injured by the negligence or misconduct of others—even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations.

The American Assocation for Justice recently released a series of documents that detail how helping negligent corporations escape accountability has been a top priority for the Bush Administration. The documents were obtained through repeated Freedom of Information Act requests by AAJ and reveal how the Bush Administration has silently ordered federal agencies to usurp state law and consumer protections.

You can obtain a copy of the AAJ report (titled “Get Out of Jail Free: A Historical Perspective of How the Bush Administration Helps Corporations Escape Accountability”) by clicking here.

AA LLP Appointed Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs in Nationwide PAX System Litigation

On May 15, 2008, Judge Roger W. Titus, United States District Court Judge for District of Maryland appointed AA LLP partner Lori E. Andrus as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the consolidated action entitled In re Michelin North America, Inc., PAX System Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 8:08-md-1911 RWT. Plaintiffs in the consolidated actions allege on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated that Michelin North America, Inc. (”Michelin”) and American Honda Motor Co. (”Honda”) concealed and failed to disclose material information regarding Honda vehicles equipped PAX Systems manufactured by Michelin, including that the PAX Systems are unreasonably inconvenient and expensive to repair and that the PAX System tires are defective and wear prematurely. Honda included PAX Systems on 2005-2007 Honda Odyssey Touring Models and certain 2008-2009 Honda Odyssey Touring Models, as well as certain Acura RL models.