'Defective products' Archive

Metal Hip Implant Alert: Stryker Hip Recall Of Rejuvenate And ABG II Modular Neck Stem Implants

Andrus Anderson LLP, a nationally-recognized law firm representing clients who have been injured by defective pharmaceuticals and medical devices is investigating potential cases involving Stryker Rejuvenate / ABG hip implants systems. On July 6, 2012, Stryker voluntarily recalled the company’s Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck stems, components used in many of the company’s hip implant systems.

Stryker’s website cited the risks of “fretting and/or corrosion at or about the modular-neck junction, which may result in adverse local tissue reactions manifesting with pain and/or swelling” as the reason for the recall. The company decided to voluntarily recall the devices after discovering a potential trend in post-market surveillance data.
There have been at least 45 adverse events reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regarding the Rejuvenate modular-neck stem since the beginning of 2012.

While the Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck hip stems can be used as a component of either metal or ceramic hip implants, the metal-on-metal modular junction can fret or corrode, which may cause toxic metal debris to loosen and enter the bloodstream. This can result in pain, inflammation, swelling, tissue damage, and even metallosis.

Medical experts in the United States and abroad have been studying the potential dangers of metal hip replacement systems. Most recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration convened a panel of experts to weigh in on the safety of metal-on-metal hip implants. Though they stopped short of recommending a recall of all metal-on-metal hip systems, they cautioned doctors against using the devices.

Those who experienced complications or side effects after receiving metal-on-metal hip implants may be able to file a Stryker Hip Recall lawsuit to seek compensation for their injuries, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Contact our lawyers today for a free case review.

California Court of Appeal Allows Lawsuit Against Nissan To Move Forward

The California Court of Appeal has ruled that a consumer lawsuit alleging that certain Nissan vehicles have defective engine screws can go forward. Andrus Anderson LLP represents plaintiffs in the proposed class action, who claim that Nissan North America, Inc. concealed a known defect in the engines — that power valve screws can loosen and  detach, resulting in engine failure and/or loss of control of the vehicles.

The lawsuit involves 2001 -2005 Nissan Pathfinders, Altimas and Sentras. Plaintiffs claim that Nissan was aware of the defect by at least 2002. The fix for the vehicles (replacing the engine screws with another type that cannot “back out”) is not expensive, compared to the cost of repairing the vehicles, which can amount to several thousands of dollars.

Internally, Nissan has acknowledged that the screws which secure the engines’ power valve plates are prone to loosen, fall out and be ingested into the engine, causing severe damage to the spark plug, piston and/or cylinder head, and resulting in rough engine running and engine failure. Internal documents further show that Nissan was aware that the screw adhesive deteriorates over time, but Nissan only notified owners of 2004 and 2005 Altimas and Sentras of the problem in an August 2005 Service Campaign Bulletin.

The lawsuit will now proceed to the “discovery” phase, during which the parties will exchange documents, take depositions and develop evidence in the case. The case is a proposed class action, but a class has not yet been certified by the Court. If you have a 2001-2005 Nissan Pathfinder, Altima or Sentra and are interested in learning more about the lawsuit, please contact Andrus Anderson today.

Andrus Anderson LLP Represents Individuals Injured In Pourable Gel Fuel Explosions

Andrus Anderson represents consumers who have suffered serious burns or other injuries as a result of the unexpected ignition of pourable gel fuel used in their firepots.  Until a recent recall, pourable gel fuel was sold by a number of manufacturers, including Bird Brain Inc., Bond Manufacturing, Sunjel Company (2 Burn Inc.), Fuel Barons Inc., Lamplight Farms Inc., Luminosities Inc. (Windflame), Pacific Décor Ltd., Real Flame, and Smart Solar Inc.  Often consumers are unable to see that the flame in their firepot is still ignited when they refill it with additional fuel gel.  This causes the gel to violently and unexpectedly ignite, exploding onto people and objects nearby.  Gel fuel can pose serious fire and burn risks to consumers that can potentially be fatal.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a recall for all of the above listed manufacturers fuel gel products in late 2011.  All pourable fuel gel, regardless of the manufacturer, has the potential to explode.  For more information on the potential dangers of pourable fuel gels, or to speak to an attorney to evaluate your case, please contact Andrus Anderson LLP by clicking here.

Federal Judge Approves Class Action Settlement To Benefit Current and Prior Owners of Toyota RAV4s

On January 6, 2012, the Honorable Richard Seeborg, District Court Judge for the Northern District of California, granted final approval of a class action settlement which will benefit current and former owners of 2001-2003 Toyota RAV4 Vehicles with an automatic transmission.  The lawsuit alleges that the 2001-2003 model Toyota RAV4 Vehicles were equipped with defective Engine Control Modules (“ECMs”), which cause drivers to experience “hard shifting” and ultimately results in the automatic transmission failing prematurely.   “The settlement is an excellent result for consumers,”  said Andrus Anderson partner, Jennie Lee Anderson, who the Court appointed co-lead counsel for plaintiffs and the class in the case.   “It ensures that current and former Vehicle owners will either have their Vehicles repaired under 10-year or 150,000 mile extended warranty program or be fully reimbursed for the costs of prior repairs.”  For further information about the settlement or to file a claim, class members should visit the Toyota RAV4 Class Action Settlement Website.

Civil Justice System Spurs Auto Safety Innovation

Lori Andrus and Jennie Anderson, both active members of the American Association for Justice (“AAJ”), support AAJ’s efforts to make vehicles safer.  A new AAJ report shows how design defect litigation has led to safer vehicles.  The AAJ press release reads:

Washington D.C.—As the fallout from Toyota’s sudden acceleration fiasco continues, a new report released today by the American Association for Justice (AAJ) illustrates how similar vehicle design defects, when brought to light by the civil justice system, have spurred innovations in auto safety.

The report explains that since the 1960s, design defect litigation has enforced safety standards, revealed previously concealed defects and regulatory weaknesses, and deterred manufacturers from cutting corners on safety for the goal of greater profits.

“Runaway Toyotas may be front-and-center today, but unfortunately, this scenario has been repeating itself for decades,” said AAJ President Anthony Tarricone. “And if history is any judge, the litigation brought against Toyota will inevitably make the company more responsible and responsive to problems, and ultimately safer for consumers.”

For example, auto safety litigation was critical in forcing American manufacturers to install safer power window controls following multiple deaths of children. While a Texas mother spoke with her husband through the driver’s side window of a Ford F-150, her three-year old daughter leaned out of the passenger’s side window and accidentally hit the “rocker” style switch, causing the window to close and strangling the child to death.

Manufacturers were well aware of the risks of rocker switches inadvertently closing if a child leaned on one (in 2004, seven children died in the span of three months) and even installed safer “pull-up” switches in the cars they offered to foreign markets. But it took litigation for manufacturers to install safer switches in domestic cars, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had no rules governing power window safety.

Other safety improvements included in the report that were promoted by the civil justice system include life-saving repairs to vehicle gas tanks, seat belts, side impact design, roof strength, tires, electronic stability control, door latches, air bags, power windows and seats.

Click here to download the report, entitled “Driven to Safety: How Litigation Has Spurred Auto Safety Innovations.”


As the world’s largest trial bar, the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) works to make sure people 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. Visit http://www.justice.org/newsroom.

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.

Andrus Anderson Investigating Hydroxycut Injuries

Andrus Anderson LLP is investigating potential cases involving users of Hydroxycut® products who have experienced health problems that may include Rhabdomyolysis (muscle damage that can lead to kidney failure and other health problems), death, cardiovascular symptoms, hypertension, elevated liver enzymes (that can indicate liver failure), kidney failure and seizures.

If you would like to discuss Hydroxycut® cases, associate with us or refer cases to us, please contact attorney Lori Andrus at lori@andrusanderson.com.

Supplement Recall

On May 1, 2009, the FDA issued a consumer advisory that warned consumers to stop using Hydroxycut® products immediately, citing 23 reports of serious health problems and one reported death associated with use of Hydroxycut® products.  Reports of liver damage involved individuals taking the label’s recommended dosage.  Hydroxycut® products are distributed by Iovate Health Sciences USA Inc.  Iovate initiated a voluntary recall when it became aware that the FDA’s safety assessment differed from its own analysis.

Although the reports of serious health problems do not apply to all Hydroxycut® products, Iovate has issued a recall for the following 14 items:

*    Hydroxycut Regular Rapid Release Caplets
*    Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Rapid Release Caplets
*    Hydroxycut Hardcore Liquid Caplets
*    Hydroxycut Max Liquid Caplets
*    Hydroxycut Regular Drink Packets
*    Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Drink Packets
*    Hydroxycut Hardcore Drink Packets (Ignition Stix)
*    Hydroxycut Max Drink Packets
*    Hydroxycut Liquid Shots
*    Hydroxycut Hardcore RTDs (Ready-to-Drink)
*    Hydroxycut Max Aqua Shed
*    Hydroxycut 24
*    Hydroxycut Carb Control
*    Hydroxycut Natural

Supplement History

Hydroxycut® products are heavily advertised dietary supplements, energy enhancers and fat burners that are widely distributed and, according to the FDA, sold more than 9 million items in 2008.  Although Hydroxycut® products contain a variety of ingredients and herbal extracts, the FDA has not identified the ingredients, dosages or other health-related factors that may be associated with an increased risk of liver damage and other health problems.

Related Injuries

Symptoms of liver damage and other health problems associated with Hydroxycut® use may include:

*    Jaundice (yellowing of skin or whites of the eyes)
*    Brown urine
*    Light-colored stools
*    Nausea or vomiting
*    Excessive fatigue and weakness
*    Stomach or abdominal pain
*    Itching
*    Loss of appetite

As the manufacturer of dietary supplements, Iovate is required by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 to ensure product safety before placing it on the market, but the product does not undergo FDA approval.  Once a product is on the market, the manufacturer must report adverse events to the FDA within 15 days.

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.