Regulatory Agencies and Products Safety

When regulations are weak then it reflects in the product safety monitoring and if it results in injuries or harm then it falls into the category of defective product liability. Manufacturers that experience suits for dangerous products using tort law often begin their own product safety regulations within the company for product quality assurance and optimal safety.

class_actionOver past decades defective and dangerous product injuries and deaths have declined, with the credit for this being a combination of regulatory agencies and tort law litigation. One of the largest problems now is with the regulatory agencies that have inadequate funding and other issues, including limited access to pertinent information of manufacturer. These lacks of information is because of political pressures and then add the fact that these agencies use their power to access information very limited.

Then there are trade secrets and confidential information that creates even more problems in product safety and defective products, plus the regulatory agencies being lenient. All of this often results in the regulatory agency reacting after there are problems in the form of voluntary recalls by manufacturers instead of preventing problems by using a preventive strategy.

The inefficiency of these agencies has been seen time after time, once an issue becomes clear instead of being on top of issues like one problem causing danger to children in the past. This was when children were being harmed by disposable lighters and nothing was done until there was a substantial numbers of injuries. Then the regulations made manufactures change the way these lighters were made, but it was a mandatory minimum standard for manufacturers.

Manufacturers and importers standard falls under the state common law liability, which means that when their products are dangerous or defective tort law litigation can result in holding them responsible for injury or death related directly to their product. Another of these prominent issues was with specific motor vehicles and this resulted in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 216, which regulates roof structure of vehicles, crashworthiness in most motor vehicles, and severe roof collapse.

These are to protect consumers and passengers in crashes as much as possible from impact, rollovers and roof crush, which result in severe injuries such as head, neck and spinal cord injuries. This was added too with FMVSS207, which is the standard for passenger vehicle seatbacks. This requires that folding forward brackets locks on seats must withstand 20 times the weight of the entire seat. This is below the force that can occur during a rear end collision and it is said that many lawn chairs pass the standards.

There are some auto manufacturers that have internal standards that are much more stringent than the seatback lock standards, while others have seats that collapse toward the back during a rear end collision and when this happens the driver or passenger can be ejected from the vehicle, suffering severe or fatal injuries in what could have been a collision that is survivable.

When regulations are weak then it reflects in the product safety monitoring and if it results in injuries or harm then it falls into the category of defective product liability. Manufacturers that experience suits for dangerous products using tort law often begin their own product safety regulations within the company for product quality assurance and optimal safety.


Consumer Products Safety Commission- Regulations, Laws & Standards:–Standards/


Testosterone Therapy Lawsuit Attorney

Due to these and other issues, lawsuits against the manufacturers of various testosterone replacement treatments have increased. Some of the effects caused by these popular drugs are just now being discovered, and many men that received these drugs do not yet realize.

class_actionTestosterone therapy has become significantly more popular over the last decade. With an aging Baby Boomer generation, many men have needed or been told that they needed testosterone therapy. While many have benefited from the treatment, others faced severe repercussions due to faulty medicine or diagnoses.

Since testosterone therapy drugs are used by both young and old men, the risks of severe issues increases. There have already been documented cases where women have come into contact with the gel or delivery method and had severe side effects. Children that have come into contact with the drug also have faced severe issues.

For many, they believe that since testosterone is a naturally occurring hormone, that this type of therapy does not contain a drug. This could cause many problems, as people become less careful with a potentially deadly treatment. While some cases of testosterone therapy is necessary and properly prescribed by a doctor, other cases see shady doctors giving medicines that are now being discovered with severe side effects.

Among the types of side effects that men are now facing are debilitating cardiovascular issues. While these testosterone therapy drugs claim that they will make a man “feel younger,” instead some men have found weaknesses in their heart and inability to do many of the physical activities that they had done beforehand. A recent study has shown that older men with existing heart issues will have the risk of heart attack sharply increase.

Due to these and other issues, lawsuits against the manufacturers of various testosterone replacement treatments have increased. Some of the effects caused by these popular drugs are just now being discovered, and many men that received these drugs do not yet realize.

If you or a loved one took a testosterone therapy drug such as Androgel, Androderm, Foresta, Striant, or a similar product, you need to call two people: a doctor and an attorney. Get checked for heart issues and keep a record of heart function both before and after taking the drugs. An attorney can help you determine your legal rights after being exposed to such a potentially dangerous treatment. Call an expert in medical malpractice at the Ehline Law Firm PC at 213-596-9642 today for a free, no-pressure consultation.

GM Ignition Switch Hazard Disclosure

Class Action Lawsuit AttorneyThere is no question that the U.S. is no longer a competitive place to have a manufacturing business.  The govt constantly forces up prices with artificial, un earned wage increases and conditions “bailouts” on raising union worker benefits. Progressives argue that profits are evil.  Business owners argue that their contract between their employees and them should be unhindered by politicians. The bottom line is that with every wage increase, prices for everything else go up, and thus, the need for more wage increases. In the interim, manufacturers are unable to compete with other countries that offer business friendly environments, and they make cheap junk that few people want to buy.

Case in point, General Motors recently disclosed information about the defective ignition switch in millions of General Motors cars and how early they knew about this hazard. This is disturbing, but not the first of these types of scandals for GM. Earlier they were involved in a large safety scandal involving millions of GM pickup trucks that were prone to catch fire. This was before the bailout that the American taxpayers footed to pull General Motors out of bankruptcy.  GM did rebound from their financial failure, with a bailout by the administration, with American taxpayer dollars that saved the automaker. The auto company at the same time put in place new leadership, but since then there has been the ignition switch and pickup truck issues, which questions the morality of the company.

In the 1970’s the dominant auto companies were GM, Dodge and Ford for full sized pickup trucks and GM to have an advantage over the other two began offering a 40 gallon fuel tank. This was done with a reckless design of two twin 20 gallon tanks mounted on the flank of the truck. This placed them in a way that they were predisposed to vulnerabilities like exploding or being punctured during side impact crashes. There were approximately 9 million of these trucks with duel side gas tanks designed between the years of 1973 through 1987. This issue of explosive gas tanks has resulted in over 750 deaths and even more people disfigured from agonizing burns. The design defect, which resulted in many lawsuits due to the design flaws of the duel fuel tanks, is still considered the most deadly American automaker design defect.

The defect was never admitted by General Motors, even after paying out more than $500 million in settlements to victims and families. Then in 1994 Frederico Pena Transportation Secretary concluded the investigation of the pickup trucks. In his statement he said “GM was aware, possibly as early in the 1970’s and positively knew in the early 1980’s” that the design made the trucks vulnerable to side-impact fires and fatalities were occurring. He said GM decided not to alter the design of the pickup trucks for 15 years.  The more recent defect in GM small cars is the ignition defect that has been linked to at least 13 deaths. This defect can result in the engine shutting down without warning, which causes the power steering to be disabled, the brakes and the airbags. There have been other vehicles that have had airbag issues that were not related to ignition shutdown.
In both of these instances GM executives and engineers knew about the defects for a number of years, but continued to produce more vehicles with the same defect design. They did not acknowledge the defects and they were not discovered by regulators. The way these design defects were brought out in the open was through lawsuits on behalf of the individuals who had been hurt and the families that had lost loved ones.  When the time when the pickup trucks were still on the road the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was set to order a recall. They backed off issuing the recall after GM placed pressure on them and their congressional allies. The agency then permitted GM to pay $51 million dollars for safety programs.

The ignition switch issue has turned out differently, with GM recalling millions of small cars, including the Cobalt model. One other difference between the ignition design problem and the duel fuel tanks is during the bankruptcy a disclosure was made about the pickup truck defect and existence of claims against the automaker. The ignition defect existed at the time and claims, but this was not disclosed during the bankruptcy filing. This places GM in a position that there could be fraud charges. The ignition defects were ignored by the automaker causing vehicle owners to be in danger and by not disclosing this issue and claims during the bankruptcy they have defrauded the American taxpayers. The question remains whether General Motors will be held responsible or not.



Uber App Basis of Lawsuit of Six Year-Old Girls Death

In the lawsuit the Uber driver is also said to have been negligent in its responsibility to train drivers, on how to use the app safely, which resulted in the death of Sophia Liu.

By attorney Michael Ehline of Ehline Law Los Angeles injury attorneys (Click Here): A wrongful death lawsuit was filed against a Uber driver in the New Years Eve death of a six year old girl. This is the first Uber wrongful death suit that has been filed in the death of six year-old Sophia Liu in the transit startup. But Ehline law believes we are seeing a trend that could lead to mass class action lawsuits.

The transit company has distanced itself from the driver, stating that they were just the contractor. The basis of the lawsuit is that the driver was distracted and it is a dangerous design and violates California state law. The suit claims that the company also shares responsibility in the deadly accident.

The attorney for the family said in the lawsuit that UBER and/or Uber X Drivers are required to respond fast when a user makes a request for service, which is done by physically interfacing the APP on wireless communication devices including GPS and smartphones. This is in violation of California Vehicle Code 23123. In subsection (a) that states a person shall not use a wireless phone without the telephone being designed specifically and configured to be hand-free to talk and listen while driving a motor vehicle.

The suit goes on to detail that in a Uber there will be at least one smartphone next to the steering wheel and prior to pick-up the driver is required to tap on the app to fine the fare, accept it and then make a rating when the ride is over. If the driver needs to be contacted either prior to or after the ride, then there is more interaction.

In the lawsuit the Uber driver is also said to have been negligent in its responsibility to train drivers, on how to use the app safely, which resulted in the death of Sophia Liu.  The attorneys stated that they will need to prove the Uber app is a distraction and violation of California’s state law. They said this case will be revolutionary in the fact that they will be using theories of the agencies employees and their relationship with their drivers. The attorneys said this may be the first time that Uber has to take responsibility, since they are a company that generally lays blame elsewhere.  Look out for more cases like this.


Recall Issued for Symbios Pain Pumps

The recall was initiated on June 6, 2013 and distributed by B. Braun Medical Inc.

There has been a manufacturer’s recall issued due to a malfunction that may result in anesthetic toxicity in patients. The Symbios Medical Products LLC is the manufacturer, who has issued the recall for disposable pain pumps.

The disposable pain pumps that are involved in the recall are local anesthesia infusion pumps GoPump and GoBlock. They work using an elastomeric balloon type reservoir and the lot that is included in the recall may have an unpredictable high flow rate, which may deliver more anesthetic than is planned. The balloon is inflated with a local anesthetic medication that is delivered slowly through tubes from the balloon to the surgical site of the patient.

The patients most at risk are the elderly and patients with low body masses for the adverse effects that may occur with the high flow rate.

The product recall by the Symbios Medical Products LLC manufacturer includes the GoPumps in Rapid Recovery System Kits and the GoBlock Kits, which have flow control components. The kits would have a manufacture date prior to July 2012 and distributed between April 27, 2011 and April 30, 2013. The recall was initiated on June 6, 2013 and distributed by B. Braun Medical Inc.

Investigation by Federal Safety Regulators into Honda Odyssey Airbag Deployments

The probe by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) involves models between 2003 and 2004, after receiving six driver complaints.

As many of my friends know, federal safety regulators have initiated an investigation into airbag deployments on approximately 320,000 Honda Odyssey vans. Do you own or drive one? If so, read on.

The probe by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) involves models between 2003 and 2004, after receiving six driver complaints. The complaints were for front airbags that suddenly deployed, even though the vehicle had not been involved in an accident.

In these complaints three drivers said they were injured, when the airbags deployed unexpectedly. All of the complaints involved the airbags deploying while the vehicle was in motion on the road.

Chrysler and Toyota faced large recalls over this same airbag issue. According to the NHTSA said they have another 41 complaints involving the Odyssey’s airbag warning light coming on in the vehicles.

Chrysler had an airbag issue that was similar, which caused the safety regulation agency concern with the Honda models. Chrysler Jeep Liberty vehicles had the same problem and Honda has purchased the same electronic air bag module for their Odyssey model.

According to the NHTSA the module was purchased from the same supplier, TRW Automotive Inc. The problem in the Jeep Liberty’s, the NHTSA said that they know of 131 incidences of sudden airbag deployments in the 2002 and 2003 models.

This resulted in 62 people being burned, cut and sustaining bruises to the upper body. When this airbag issue occurred it involved 900,000 Jeep Cherokee SUV’s and Dodge Vipers in the recall by Chrysler and approximately another 900,000 Toyota Corolla’s and Matrix compacts in the recall issued by Toyota.

More Info:

Update On The Stryker Hip Recall Lawsuits:

Nearly one year ago, Stryker voluntarily recalled its Rejuvenate
Modular Hip System and ABG II Modular-Hip Neck Stem from the market
after various medical problems in recipients of the product were
attributed to the design of the hip prosthetic.

Nearly one year ago, Stryker voluntarily recalled its Rejuvenate Modular Hip System and ABG II Modular-Hip Neck Stem from the market after various medical problems in recipients of the product were attributed to the design of the hip prosthetic. In particular, the
design of the hips have metal-on-metal connection point between the ball and stem of the products which has been associated with complications seen in other metal-on-metal hips like the DePuy ASR.

My friend, colleague and esteemed medical device recall attorney Jonathan Rosenfeld is one of the leading attorneys around the country who is litigating these complex cases. Recently, I asked Jonathan for an update on this litigation as quite a bit has occurred over the past year in relation to these cases.

Analysis Of Stryker Rejuvenate Recall From Hip Defect Lawyers fro Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers

Q: What types of problems are patients with the Stryker
Rejuvenate and ABG II Modular Hip experiencing?

A: At some point after the patients receive these hip replacement devices, many patients have noticed:

  • Pain in the hip area around the
  • Fatigue
  • Squeaking noises
  • Dislocation of the hip prosthesis
  • Difficulty with certain basic movements
  • Redness, rash or other irritations around the artificial hip

Q: What is the cause of the complications with the recalled Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II hips?

A: The medical community is still closely studying the design and materials used in the manufacture of the defective Stryker hips. Nonetheless, the focus of the investigation and the assumed culprit for the complications is the actual junction in the ball and socket of the hip where there are two metal parts that connect to keep the hip in place. After some time after the joint has been positioned in the body, the inherent stress put upon the joint under normal conditions has been shown to result in ‘corrosion’ and ‘fretting’ where pieces of the metal actually break off and become embedded in the body.

In addition to the physical discomfort associated with the metal fragments becoming embedded in the tissue surrounding the hip implant, the fretting has also been associated with metal poisoning or metallosis where the metals used in the manufacture of the device actually get absorbed into the body and blood stream. As a result of the pain and elevated heavy metal levels in the blood, many people who received Stryker Rejuvenate hips will required a revision surgery where the prosthesis is removed and replaced with new one.

Q: Does someone need to have active symptoms with their Stryker hip in order to have a legal claim for compensation?

A: Many of the pending Stryker Rejuvenate lawsuits involve patients who have have verified medical complications that have been attributed to these recalled devices. However, there are many patients who have received these Stryker hip implants and are unsure of what their legal rights are. Given, that the time period for initiating a legal claim or statute of limitations can be interpreted according to different interpretations, it is important that all people with a Stryker Rejuvenate Modular Hip System or the Stryker ABG II Modular-Neck Hip Stem talk with a law firm to ensure that their rights are not compromised at a later date should they develop complications or require care in the future. The truth is that even if you are not experiencing symptoms related to a failure,
does not mean that your body is not being harmed.

Q: What type of legal recourse does a patient with a recalled Stryker hip have?

A: A patient who has received Stryker Rejuvenate or ABG II hip may pursue a lawsuit against the manufacturer to recover compensation for their past and future: pain, disability, lost wages and medical expenses.

Presently, patients have filed individual lawsuits in different jurisdictions across the country. The bulk of the pending Stryker Rejuvenate lawsuits are pending in Bergen County, NJ close to where Stryker is headquartered. The pending cases are being consolidated before an individual judge who will help streamline the litigation

There is a good chance that the Stryker litigation may take a page from the well-known DePuy ASR litigation where the courts have consolidated the cases in what is referred to as an MDL (Multi District Litigation) where cases are consolidated for discovery purposes, yet kept independent for trial.

Q: It sounds like there may be a long road for people with recalled Stryker hips in order for them to recover compensation?

A: At this point we are really in the initial phase of Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II hip litigation. There are many variables that will impact how these cases proceed over the
coming months. At this point, it is clear that the interests of Stryker and the individuals impacted by these devices are adverse. I tell my clients that we’re going to ‘prepare for war and hope for peace’. Hopefully, when more information is disclosed about the companies
knowledge of these hip replacement devices comes to light in conjunction with the significance of these injuries, there may be genuine effort to resolve these cases. But honestly, we can not say with certainty how these cases will play out.

For the latest information on the Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II litigation, take a look at the website sponsored by Rosenfeld’s law firm


General Motors Issues Recall For Nearly 474,000 Vehicles for Roll-Away Problems

According to GM spokesman Alan Adler, dealers will put retainer covers over both ends of the cables to fix the problems.

General Motors has issued a recall for approximately 474,000 vehicles to repair a transmission problem, which can cause the cars to roll away unexpectedly. The vehicles involved in the recall are Chevrolet, Pontiac and Saturn.

According to GM spokesman Alan Adler, dealers will put retainer covers over both ends of the cables to fix the problems.

An Allen County truck assembly plant spokesperson said a part of the transmission cables can break, causing the shifter to show the vehicle is in park, when it is actually in gear.

GM said that it is aware of four crashes that were the result of the problem, and there were no injuries in these accidents. The problem was discovered while GM data was being gathered for a U.S. government investigation for a similar transmission problem with the same cars.

Adler said the whole cable will need to be replaced in some cases. Owners will be told by letter to setup appointments with dealers, who will put a retainer over the end of the cable or replace them.

The vehicles involved in the GM recall are cars between 2007 and 2011, in the U.S. Canada, Mexico and a small number of exports. The affected cars are four speed automatic transmissions. Chevrolet Malibus, Saturn Auras and Pontiac G6s. Learn more


Unapproved Neptune Systems Recalled by Stryker

The FDA advisory stated that they never cleared or approved the Neptune 1 Silver and Neptune 2 Ultra (120v and 230v) fluid waste management systems for sale in the U.S.

According to Ehline Law Firm PC – The distribution of the Neptune Systems have been halted and are being recalled by Stryker. The FDA advisory stated that they never cleared or approved the Neptune 1 Silver and Neptune 2 Ultra (120v and 230v) fluid waste management systems for sale in the U.S.

Neptune 1 Gold was approved, though the others have not been and the FDA said the safety and effectiveness is basically untested.

The FDA in a recall notice on September 25th advised owners of both the Neptune 1 and the Neptune 2 Ultra systems to stop use or do not use them, unless they have no fluid waste disposal alternative. They said that continued use of the devices, could have risks and users should weigh the risks and benefits associated with the device. The owners of these devices were told to submit a certificated of medical necessity to Stryker by October 12th.

This recall is an expansion on a June 5th recall, when the company issued a recall on the instructions for these two models, the Neptune 1 Gold and the Neptune 1 Bronze. This recall was issued after there were 2 reports of improper use resulting in tissue damage in surgical patients.

The first reported incident was of a Neptune 2 system that was used improperly as a passive chest drainage tube, with fatal results. The instructions had no warning to this effect.

The company is sending revised instructions and warning labels for staff education on the Neptune 1 Gold and the Neptune 1 Bronze users. They will also send this information for the Neptune 1 Silver and the Neptune 2 Ultra users who submit certificates of medical necessity.

Product Error and Auto Accidents

Attorney Ledger
Ledger speaks on vehicle defects and relationship with auto accidents

Human beings make cars and fix cars and sometimes they make mistakes. Unfortunately, when dealing with cars traveling at great speeds, those mistakes can cause serious injury or even death. Prosecuting such cases, holding a mechanic or an auto technician liable, are incredibly complicated to undertake are require only the most experienced auto accident personal injury lawyer. As with any legal action against a corporation, your auto accident attorney will have to prove that the automobile failure, the malfunction that caused your accident, was not performed to the appropriate standards and that it specifically caused your accident and injuries. Now, let’s say that nothing on your car failed. Let’s day you got into an accident because something on another vehicle failed – a tire or a foreign object flew off another car, struck yours and caused injury or even death. These types of accidents occur all of the time and they are very challenging cases to pursue. (Learn more.)

  • Can a car accident happen because the mechanic did something wrong? Yes.
  • Can a car accident happen because a tire was put on incorrectly? Absolutely.
  • Can a driver get injured or killed because a product malfunctions? It happens every day.
  • Car accidents are the leading cause of avoidable deaths in the United States.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), every year there are more than 6,000,000 car accidents with more than 1,500,000 injuries and more than 20,000 deaths.

Yes, These are Sobering Statistics

While most car accidents are caused by driver negligence there is an increasing amount that are caused by external events. For example, you could get into an accident because your mechanic installed your cars tires incorrectly. There are countless ways for something to fail in your vehicle that causes you to crash and cause great harm to your vehicle or your person. An incident caused not by your or another drivers error, but by the work of another. If that’s the case, a legal advocate would be a great place to start to ensure that you are protected under the law.

Tires and Brakes

Now, tires are not the only thing that can fail on a car – brakes, steering or even the engine itself. Sometimes human error or gross negligence can cause a car to lose control, fires to start, brakes to fail etc., etc. Can you file a personal injury lawsuit because your vehicle malfunctioned in some way? That would be a good question to ask one of the lawyers at Ledger & Associates. In fact, they are so eager to answer your personal injury questions that you are eligible for a free, confidential, detailed evaluation with a personal injury lawyer at Ledger & Associates. To do so, please call 1-800-300-0001 or visit the firm’s website for more information at