Peter Cambs, an attorney with the national law firm of Parker Waichman LLP, has been named to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) in the litigation surrounding certain Ford Navistar diesel engines (In re: Navistar Diesel Engine Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2223).  The Ford Navistar PSC will coordinate the litigation and work together to represent all plaintiffs.

The litigation involves Ford 6.0 L diesel engines made by Navistar that were installed in certain models of Ford heavy duty vehicles between 2003-2007. Plaintiffs allege that the enormous costs associated with Ford 6.0 L diesel engine repairs, loss of use of their vehicles, and loss of resale value has caused them significant financial harm. Return of the purchase price of the vehicles, costs and expenses incurred in attempted repairs, as well as the loss of use of the vehicles are some of the damages being sought by plaintiffs.

Peter Cambs is Senior Litigation Counsel for Parker Waichman LLP.  His Area of Practice includes Mass Torts; Toxic Torts; Defective Medical Devices and Pharmaceutical Liability; Personal Injury Litigation and Wrongful Death Claims; Medical Malpractice and Product Liability claims.

An MDL allows lawsuits associated with a particular product to be coordinated under one judge for pretrial litigation to avoid duplicative discovery, inconsistent rulings and to conserve the resources of the parties, witnesses and the court.   It is the responsibility of PSC team members to conduct all pretrial discovery, work with Lead Counsel to call meetings of counsel for plaintiffs for any appropriate purpose, prepare and examine witnesses, act as a spokesperson for all plaintiffs at pretrial proceedings, negotiate with defendants on the litigation and perform any other necessary tasks.

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

parker attorney levaquin lawsuit

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Attorney Appointed to Leadership Role in Ford Navistar Diesel Engine Litigation
• Parker Waichman LLP Files Second Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Second Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit

Parker Waichman LLP is one of several firms representing plaintiffs in an Imprelis class action lawsuit.  The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, seeks to represent anyone who has sustained significant damage to mature landscape trees, especially Norway spruce and others with shallow roots systems, including willows, poplars and conifers.

Luanne Miller, a property owner in Seven Hills, Ohio, is lead plaintiff in the Imprelis class action lawsuit.  The complaint accuses DuPont, the maker of Imprelis, of fraud and negligence. 

According to the lawsuit, Imprelis was applied to Miller’s property on several separate occasions in accordance with directions and instructions supplied by DuPont.  The complaint alleges that as a result of the Imprelis applications, Miller suffered significant damage and harm to trees, and will continue to suffer even further damage to her lawn and garden because of Imprelis.  The lawsuit further alleges that rather than being isolated incidents, thousands of trees have been reported as being infected by Imprelis, and tens of thousands more reports are expected in the future.  

Imprelis, brought to market by DuPont in 2010, is designed to kill broadleaf weeds, including dandelion, clover and wild violet.  Imprelis is only available to landscapers and professional gardeners, and is touted by DuPont as an environmentally-friendly herbicide and an "innovative solution to control a wide spectrum of broadleaf weeds." 

Property owners and landscapers from around the country began reporting Imprelis tree damage  around Memorial Day.  By June, extension services in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana issued alerts about tree damage and death possibly linked with Imprelis.  Now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is investigating, and has promised an expedited review of Imprelis.  According to the EPA, it has received complaints about Imprelis from Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Wisconsin and West Virginia. 

DuPont Professional Products acknowledged receiving reports of tree deaths and damage possibly associated with Imprelis in a letter to turf management professionals dated June 17.   The company said it is investigating the reports, and has cautioned that Imprelis not be sprayed near Norway spruce or white pine, or in places where the product might drift toward such trees or run off toward their roots.

Parker Waichman LLP continues to receive reports regarding Imprelis tree death and damage.  The firm is investigating these complaints, and expects to file other Imprelis lawsuits in the near future.

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Ohio Property Owner
• Parker Waichman LLP Files Second Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Second Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit

Jerrold Parker, Managing Partner with Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, has been named to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) in the Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation (MDL NO. 2047) currently underway in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.  Parker Waichman Alonso LLP filed the first Chinese drywall lawsuit in federal court earlier this year.

The PSC was appointed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon, who is presiding over the Chinese drywall MDL, in an order dated July 27, 2009.  Judge Fallon appointed  Arnold Levin to be lead counsel of the PSC.  Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel, Russ Herman, was appointed as an ex-officiomember of the Committee. Other attorneys appointed to the PSC are:

Dawn M. Barrios
Daniel E. Becnel, Jr.
Victor Manuel Diaz Ervin
Amanda Gonzalez
Ben Gordon
Hugh P. Lambert
Gerald E. Meunier
James Robert Reeves
Christopher Seeger
Bruce William Steckler
Scott Weinstein

Appointments expire one year from the date of Judge Fallon's order, however appointees to the PSC may apply to be reappointed at that time.

The PSC  will, among other things,  conduct and coordinate the discovery stage of this litigation with the defendant’s representatives or committee. The PSC will also act as a spokesperson for all plaintiffs at pretrial proceedings and in response to any inquiries by the Court.  

Jordan Chaikin, an attorney with Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, said the firm was pleased with Mr. Parker's appointment.  "It is a tremendous honor and  responsibility to be appointed to the Committee," he said.   "We look forward to opportunity to represent Chinese drywall plaintiffs in this way."

In an order dated June 15, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all pending Chinese Drywall lawsuits filed around the country before Judge Fallon in the  U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans. On July 2, the Court issued Pretrial Orders regarding procedures for the transfer of cases, and appointing Plaintiffs' and  Defendants’ Liaison Counsel.  On June 9, a monthly status conference was held before Judge Fallon to consider issues raised by Liaison Counsel.  The next monthly status conference will be held on Tuesday, August 11, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., CST.
<a xhref="http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/10144#more-10144"></a><a xhref="http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/10144#more-10144"></a>

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• Judge Grants Parker Waichman Alonso Motion to Remand Marlboro Lights Cigarette Lawsuit
• Mississippi River Oil Spill Class Action Lawsuit
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Partner to Take a Lead Role in Denture Cream Lawsuits

The number of investigations Toyota faces over its recent recalls for problems involving unintended acceleration is growing.  In addition to probes being conducted in Congress and by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrion (NHTSA), several more investigations have been opened in recent weeks.

This month, the Los Angeles city attorney’s office began investigating Toyota. Assistant City Attorney Jeffrey Isaacs, who is in charge of the probe, recently told myfoxla.com that if complaints about malfunctions can be verified, “the city attorney is authorized by state law to file an unfair competition law action on behalf of the people of the state of California in which he could seek injunctive relief, civil penalties — which could be very large in this instance, depending on the number of incidents — and also, most importantly, restitution for victims.”

The Los Angeles city attorney’s office is urging members of the public who bought Toyota or Lexus vehicles over the last 10 years to fill out a form on the city attorney’s Web site — atty.lacity.org — and describe any incidents of sudden unintended acceleration, braking or steering problems.

While the U.S. Department of Justice won’t say one way or another whether it’s investigating Toyota, the automaker has confirmed that such probes are underway. According to the Tribune, Toyota has said that it was served with a subpoena from a federal grand jury in New York in February that asked for “certain documents related to unintended acceleration of Toyota vehicles and the braking system of the Prius.” That investigation could ultimately result in criminal charges.

Toyota has also been served with a subpoena from the SEC, relating to unintended acceleration and “the company’s disclosure policies and practice,” The Chicago Tribune said.

Toyota has indicated that it intends to cooperate with both of the subpoenas.

Since last fall, Toyota has recalled more than 8 million vehicles worldwide for problems involving sudden acceleration. Toyota has blamed the speed control issues on defective floor mats and faulty accelerator pedals, but some experts suspect that problems with the vehicles’ electronic throttle control system could really be behind the problems. Such suspicions have increased recently, as dozens of Toyota owners whose vehicles underwent recall repairs have recently complained that their vehicles are still experiencing problems with unintended acceleration.

As we’ve reported previously, five deaths in the U.S. have occurred in auto accidents involving the unintended acceleration of a Toyota or Lexus vehicle. Last August, a California Highway Patrol trooper and three members of his family were killed in such a crash in San Diego County, just south of Orange. At least 47 other fatalities over the past decade alleged to be the result of Toyota unintended acceleration crashes are currently being investigated by the NHTSA.

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

levaquin lawsuit

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• California DMV after a DUI – Daniel M. Smith
• Justice For All Part One : Pre-Paid Legal Services
• Hollywood Dealmaking : Negotiating Talent Agreements

Parker Waichman LLP and its partner firms have filed a second class action lawsuit claiming DuPont's Imprelis herbicide caused damage to landscape trees.  The Imprelis lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division, and seeks damages from DuPont on behalf of any property owner who sustained damage as a result of Imprelis. 

The lead plaintiffs in the Imprelis class action lawsuit are Daryl and Mary Ann Haley.   They are seeking injunctive relief barring DuPont from continued sale of Imprelis, and compensatory and other damages including the cost of replacing trees damaged by Imprelis. 

The Haley's lawsuit alleges that Imprelis is a "frighteningly effective tree killer," and that "thousands of trees have been reported as being infected by Imprelis, and tens of thousands more reports are expected in the future.” The Haley's lawsuit charges DuPont with, among other things, negligence and breach of implied warranty. 

Just yesterday, DuPont issued a letter to turf management professionals acknowledging its own investigation had found tree injuries associated with Imprelis, primarily on Norway spruce and white pine trees.  The problems are concentrated in Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Wisconsin, the letter said. The letter promised to work with recipients to "promptly and fairly resolve problems associated with our product," and announced the launch of the Imprelis-Facts website, as well as a toll-free number for information that will go online next week.

Imprelis, which is sold exclusively to licensed landscapers, was only brought to market last October.  It is used to eliminate broadleaf weeds, and was touted by DuPont as being environmentally safe and an "innovative solution to control a wide spectrum of broadleaf weeds."   However, by Memorial Day, turf professionals around the country began reporting damaged and dying trees on lawns were Imprelis was sprayed.  By June, extension services in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan had issued alerts about Imprelis, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was preparing to launch an "expedited" review of Imprelis.

Just last week, Parker Waichman LLP and it  partner firms filed their first Imprelis lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division on behalf of an Ohio property owner.  The group expects to file additional Imprelis tree poisoning claims in the near future.

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

imprelis, ohio imprelis class action attorneys

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Second Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit
• Parker Waichman LLP Files Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Ohio Property Owner
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Ohio Property Owner

Parker Waichman LLP has filed suit against the makers of Actos on behalf of a man who was diagnosed with bladder cancer following long-term use of the type II diabetes medication.  The Actos bladder cancer lawsuit was filed yesterday in U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York.

Plaintiff Clement Dabiere claims Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc.; Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc.; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited; and Eli Lilly and Company concealed and continue to conceal that they were aware that Actos can cause bladder cancer.  He further alleges the defendants have never appropriately informed consumers and the medical community about bladder cancer risks when taking Actos for over 12 months.

According to his complaint, Mr. Dabiere began taking Actos in 2006, and was diagnosed with bladder cancer in September 2010.  His lawsuit points to a number of studies that demonstrated a possible bladder cancer risk associated with Actos, including five-year data  from an ongoing, 10-yeara Kaiser Permanente study that demonstrated the risk of bladder cancer increases with increasing dose and duration of Actos use, reaching statistical significance after 24 months.

While that study prompted the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to  announce in September 2010 that it was launching a safety review of Actos, Mr. Dabiere's lawsuit alleges that Robert Spanheimer, Vice President of Medical and Scientific Affairs for Takeda, told Reuters that the Kaiser Permanente study has not shown a risk to patient's of bladder cancer or other cancers from Actos.

On June 15, 2011, the FDA issued another safety communication stating that use of Actos for more than one year may be associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer.  This was followed just days later by  announcements that regulators in France and Germany suspended sales of Actos after a French-commissioned study also demonstrated a higher risk of bladder cancer in Actos patients who took the drug at the highest cumulative doses and for the longest time.

Mr. Dabiere alleges that his years of Actos use caused him to suffer severe, permanent and life-threatening personal injuries, pain, suffering, emotional distress, and lifelong fear of premature death.  He further alleges that because of his use of Actos, he will require continued lifelong monitoring, treatment and medications.  The lawsuit charges Takeda and Eli Lilly with, among other things, negligence; three counts of strict products liability, including failure to warn; breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranties; and fraud and deceit.

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

parker waichman files actos lawsuit

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Actos Bladder Cancer Lawsuit on Behalf of New York Man
• Parker Waichman LLP Files Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Ohio Property Owner
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Ohio Property Owner

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, a national law firm dedicated to protecting victims' rights, has announced that one of its partners, Andres F. Alonso, Esq. has been named to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2197) currently underway in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio.  The appointment was made by U.S. District Judge David A. Katz in an order dated January 26, 2011.

Judge Katz appointed Ellen Relkin and Steven J. Skikos Co-Lead Counsels of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee. Other attorneys appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee include:

Esther Berezofsky
Ed Blizzard
Jane Conroy
Leonard A. Davis
Wendy Fleishman
Lawrence J. Gornick
Seth Katz
Mark Lanier
Michael London
Donald A. Migliori
Peter J. Polos
Nava Ward, Jr.

The DePuy ASR Hip Implant Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee will, among other things, conduct and coordinate the discovery stage of this litigation with the defendants’ representatives or committee. The Committee will also act as a spokesperson for all plaintiffs at pretrial proceedings and in response to any inquiries by the Court.

Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy unit issued a worldwide recall for the ASR XL Acetabular Hip Replacement System after data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales showed that 1 out of every 8 patients (12%-13%) who had received the recalled devices had to undergo revision surgery within five years of receiving it. In an order dated December 7, 2010, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all pending DePuy ASR hip implant lawsuits filed around the country before Judge Katz in the Eastern District of Ohio. 

In addition to the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, Judge Katz's order of January 26 also appointed attorneys as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and Plaintiffs’ State Liaison Counsels, as well as members of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, the Science Committee, the Discovery Committee and the Laws & Motions Committee. According to Judge Katz’s order, chairs of the additional committees will be appointed by the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee. Appointments to the plaintiff committees and/or the creation of additional subcommittees “will be approved, as necessary, as litigation progresses," the order said.

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• Parker Waichman Alonso Managing Partner Named to Chinese Drywall Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee
• Parker Waichman LLP Attorney Appointed to Leadership Role in Ford Navistar Diesel Engine Litigation
• What happens to an attorney if negligence is found in a grievance complaint?

A class lawsuit claiming Maytag sold defective gas ovens filed by Parker Waichman LLP on behalf of New York man will go forward, after a federal judge partially denied a defense motion to dismiss the suit.

The lawsuit stems from a Maytag gas oven purchased by Gary Woods in 2005 from Plesser's M.S.H. Inc., a Babylon, New York, department store.  According to the original complaint, which was filed on December 10, 2009, a malfunction occurred in February 2008 that caused the oven to explode.  Woods alleged that the oven's igniter was defective and that Maytag knew of and intentionally concealed the oven's defect.

In an order dated November 2, 2010, Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, granted a defense motion to dismiss the original complaint.  He dismissed the plaintiff's claims of breach of implied warranty with prejudice, finding they were time barred.  However, Judge Spratt dismissed the lawsuit's fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment claims with leave to amend.

On November 10, 2010, Woods did file an amended complaint, this time charging Maytag Co., Maytag Sales Co. and Plesser's with fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation, as well as violation of Section 349 of the New York General Business Law (GBL), which declares that "deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce, or in the furnishing of any service" are unlawful in New York. 

In December the defendants gain filed a motion with the Eastern District of New York to dismiss the amended claim in its entirety. In an order dated August 31, 2011, did dismiss, with prejudice, the lawsuit's fraudulent misrepresentation claims against the Maytag defendants, as well as the fraudulent concealment and GBL Section 349 claims against Plesser's. 

Judge Spatt denied the defense motion to dismiss  a claim of  fraudulent concealment against  Maytag Co. and Maytag Sales Co, writing that  he disagreed with the defense contention that Woods "had not sufficiently alleged that (1) Maytag had knowledge of the alleged defects; and (2) any failure to disclose was done with the requisite intent to defraud."  Judge Spatt also allowed the plaintiff to proceed with his GBL claim against the Maytag defendants, writing  that Woods plausibly alleged that they "had knowledge of the purported defect and failed to disclose that information for the purposes of fraudulent concealment," thus satisfying the pleading requirement for a claim under Section 349 of the GBL.

Finally, he allowed the fraudulent misrepresentation claim against Plesser's to go forward, writing the amended complaint "sufficiently alleged facts that meet the heightened pleading requirements for fraudulent misrepresentation, made with the requisite scienter, which the Plaintiff reasonably relied upon to his detriment."

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• PWA Maytag Oven Class Action Lawsuit to Proceed
• Parker Waichman LLP Files Second Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Second Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit

A federal judge has granted Parker Waichman LLP's motion to suggest that a light cigarette class action lawsuit it filed on behalf of a New York man be remanded back to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The lawsuit, Bryant Tang vs. Philip Morris, USA, alleges purchasers of Marlboro Lights suffered economic damages as a result of misrepresentations made by Philip Morris and Altria Group about the cigarettes.

The Tang lawsuit was one of several consolidated in a multidistrict litigation before John A. Woodcock, Jr., Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court, District of Maine.  On November 24, 2010, Judge Woodcock denied class certification to four test cases submitted in the multidistrict litigation, finding non-commonality. Defendants then sought to apply Judge Woodcock's ruling to dismiss complaints remaining in the multidistrict litigation, including the Tang lawsuit.

Parker Waichman LLP opposed the dismissal and moved to have the Tang lawsuit remanded back to the Eastern District of New York, asserting that Section 349 of New York State's General Business Law provides a common element of damages applicable to all New York class members.

In an order issued yesterday, Judge Woodcock refused to dismiss any of the remaining lawsuits. He also granted the Parker Waichman LLP’s Motion to Suggest Remand of the Tang lawsuit to the Eastern District of New York.  The final decision on whether to remand the complaint will be made by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• Judge Grants Parker Waichman Alonso Motion to Remand Marlboro Lights Cigarette Lawsuit
• Parker Waichman LLP Files Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Ohio Property Owner
• PWA Maytag Oven Class Action Lawsuit to Proceed

Herman Badillo, a prominent New York City politician and the first native Puerto Rican ever elected to the United States House of Representatives, has joined the New York office of Parker Waichman Alonso LLP.  Mr. Badillo, who will join the firm as Senior Counsel in mid-January, is expected to oversee client development and litigation matters.

In addition to representing the Bronx in Congress for three terms, Mr. Badilllo also served as Bronx Borough President, Deputy Mayor to Ed Koch, Special Counsel in the Giuliani Administration and Chairman of the CUNY Board of Trustees.

“My career has always been about defending the rights of individuals and underserved communities,” Mr. Badillo said.  “Protecting everyday people is the focus of Parker Waichman Alonso’s practice, and I’m honored to continue my work with them.”

“Herman Badillo is a brilliant politician and an outspoken advocate for consumers and workers - his legal knowledge and his breadth of experience is second to none. We are thrilled to have him aboard, Jerrold S. Parker, founding partner of Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, said in a statement.

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP,  a leading products liability and personal injury law firm that represents plaintiffs nationwide, has taken on  some of America’s largest corporate entities including BP, Toyota, Merck, Yamaha, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson. Established more than two decades ago, the firm has successfully protected victims in some of the most significant cases of our time, including the first U.S. court case proving AIDS could be transmitted through blood transfusions and some of the first asbestos poisoning claims. 

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

parker waichman

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Wins Appeal on Behalf of an Elderly Woman who Sustained Injuries while Residing at a Nursing Home
• Bronx Jury Awards $60 Million in Medical Malpractice Case
• Judge Grants Parker Waichman Alonso Motion to Remand Marlboro Lights Cigarette Lawsuit

A federal judge has granted Parker Waichman Alonso LLP's motion to suggest that a light cigarette class action lawsuit it filed on behalf of a New York man be remanded back to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The lawsuit, Bryant Tang vs. Philip Morris, USA, alleges purchasers of Marlboro Lights suffered economic damages as a result of misrepresentations made by Philip Morris and Altria Group about the cigarettes.

The Tang lawsuit was one of several consolidated in a multidistrict litigation before John A. Woodcock, Jr., Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court, District of Maine.  On November 24, 2010, Judge Woodcock denied class certification to four test cases submitted in the multidistrict litigation, finding non-commonality. Defendants then sought to apply Judge Woodcock's ruling to dismiss complaints remaining in the multidistrict litigation, including the Tang lawsuit.

Parker Waichman Alonso opposed the dismissal and moved to have the Tang lawsuit remanded back to the Eastern District of New York, asserting that Section 349 of New York State's General Business Law provides a common element of damages applicable to all New York class members.

In an order issued yesterday, Judge Woodcock refused to dismiss any of the remaining lawsuits. He also granted the Parker Waichman Alonso’s Motion to Suggest Remand of the Tang lawsuit to the Eastern District of New York.  The final decision on whether to remand the complaint will be made by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• Judge Grants Parker Waichman LLP Motion to Remand Marlboro Lights Cigarette Lawsuit
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Ohio Property Owner
• PWA Maytag Oven Class Action Lawsuit to Proceed

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP partner, Andres F. Alonso, delivered his closing statement yesterday in an important Levaquin tendon injury lawsuit trial underway in a New Jersey state court.  During his statement, Mr. Alonso asserted that Johnson & Johnson should have included a "comparative risk" label on Levaquin noting it posed greater tendon injury risks than rival antibiotics.

Levaquin, part of a class of antibiotics known as fluoroquinolones, is prescribed for bacterial infections of the lungs, urinary tract, and skin. In 2008, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) required that the labeling of Levaquin and other fluoroquinolone antibiotics be revised to include a Black Box warning about tendon injuries.  In 2008, the FDA's database showed 262 reported cases of tendon ruptures, 259 cases of tendinitis, and 274 cases of other tendon disorders associated with these drugs. The majority of tendon ruptures - 61 percent - were tied to Levaquin.

Mr. Alonso is representing plaintiffs Paul Gaffney and Robert Beare, both of New Jersey, in the first Levaquin lawsuit to go to trial in a New Jersey mass tort litigation.  Both suffered tendon injuries when they took Levaquin for sinus infections.

"Nobody had more information about this drug than J&J and they didn’t share it,” because they wanted to protect Levaquin sales, Mr. Alonso said yesterday.  He urged the jury to find that Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn Levaquin users of its association with tendon ruptures and other tendon injuries.

Currently just over 3,000 Levaquin tendon injury lawsuits are pending against Johnson & Johnson.  This includes 1,763 in the New Jersey mass tort, and another 1,314 that have been consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Court Judge John R. Tunheim in Minneapolis. Two test trials have already been completed in the federal litigation. The first, which wrapped up in December 2010, ended with a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.  The second trial in the multidistrict litigation, which ended in June 2011, resulted in a verdict for the defense.  A third trial is slated to start in November.

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

closing statement trial, feb 15 2012 levaquin trials, levaquin trial news 2012, March 2012 news in levaquin trials

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• Andres F. Alonso Delivers Opening Statements in Levaquin Trial, Alleges Tendon Risks Were Hidden
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Actos Bladder Cancer Lawsuit on Behalf of New York Man
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Partner to Take a Lead Role in Denture Cream Lawsuits

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP has filed suit against the makers of Actos on behalf of a man who was diagnosed with bladder cancer following long-term use of the type II diabetes medication.  The Actos bladder cancer lawsuit was filed yesterday in U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York.

Plaintiff Clement Dabiere claims Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc.; Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc.; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited; and Eli Lilly and Company concealed and continue to conceal that they were aware that Actos can cause bladder cancer.  He further alleges the defendants have never appropriately informed consumers and the medical community about bladder cancer risks when taking Actos for over 12 months.

According to his complaint, Mr. Dabiere began taking Actos in 2006, and was diagnosed with bladder cancer in September 2010.  His lawsuit points to a number of studies that demonstrated a possible bladder cancer risk associated with Actos, including five-year data  from an ongoing, 10-yeara Kaiser Permanente study that demonstrated the risk of bladder cancer increases with increasing dose and duration of Actos use, reaching statistical significance after 24 months.

While that study prompted the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to  announce in September 2010 that it was launching a safety review of Actos, Mr. Dabiere's lawsuit alleges that Robert Spanheimer, Vice President of Medical and Scientific Affairs for Takeda, told Reuters that the Kaiser Permanente study has not shown a risk to patient's of bladder cancer or other cancers from Actos.

On June 15, 2011, the FDA issued another safety communication stating that use of Actos for more than one year may be associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer.  This was followed just days later by  announcements that regulators in France and Germany suspended sales of Actos after a French-commissioned study also demonstrated a higher risk of bladder cancer in Actos patients who took the drug at the highest cumulative doses and for the longest time.

Mr. Dabiere alleges that his years of Actos use caused him to suffer severe, permanent and life-threatening personal injuries, pain, suffering, emotional distress, and lifelong fear of premature death.  He further alleges that because of his use of Actos, he will require continued lifelong monitoring, treatment and medications.  The lawsuit charges Takeda and Eli Lilly with, among other things, negligence; three counts of strict products liability, including failure to warn; breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranties; and fraud and deceit.

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• Parker Waichman LLP Files Actos Bladder Cancer Lawsuit on Behalf of New York Man
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Ohio Property Owner
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Second Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit

A class lawsuit claiming Maytag sold defective gas ovens filed by Parker Waichman Alonso LLP on behalf of New York man will go forward, after a federal judge partially denied a defense motion to dismiss the suit.

The lawsuit stems from a Maytag gas oven purchased by Gary Woods in 2005 from Plesser's M.S.H. Inc., a Babylon, New York, department store.  According to the original complaint, which was filed on December 10, 2009, a malfunction occurred in February 2008 that caused the oven to explode.  Woods alleged that the oven's igniter was defective and that Maytag knew of and intentionally concealed the oven's defect.

In an order dated November 2, 2010, Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, granted a defense motion to dismiss the original complaint.  He dismissed the plaintiff's claims of breach of implied warranty with prejudice, finding they were time barred.  However, Judge Spratt dismissed the lawsuit's fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment claims with leave to amend.

On November 10, 2010, Woods did file an amended complaint, this time charging Maytag Co., Maytag Sales Co. and Plesser's with fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation, as well as violation of Section 349 of the New York General Business Law (GBL), which declares that "deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce, or in the furnishing of any service" are unlawful in New York. 

In December the defendants gain filed a motion with the Eastern District of New York to dismiss the amended claim in its entirety. In an order dated August 31, 2011, did dismiss, with prejudice, the lawsuit's fraudulent misrepresentation claims against the Maytag defendants, as well as the fraudulent concealment and GBL Section 349 claims against Plesser's. 

Judge Spatt denied the defense motion to dismiss  a claim of  fraudulent concealment against  Maytag Co. and Maytag Sales Co, writing that  he disagreed with the defense contention that Woods "had not sufficiently alleged that (1) Maytag had knowledge of the alleged defects; and (2) any failure to disclose was done with the requisite intent to defraud."  Judge Spatt also allowed the plaintiff to proceed with his GBL claim against the Maytag defendants, writing  that Woods plausibly alleged that they "had knowledge of the purported defect and failed to disclose that information for the purposes of fraudulent concealment," thus satisfying the pleading requirement for a claim under Section 349 of the GBL.

Finally, he allowed the fraudulent misrepresentation claim against Plesser's to go forward, writing the amended complaint "sufficiently alleged facts that meet the heightened pleading requirements for fraudulent misrepresentation, made with the requisite scienter, which the Plaintiff reasonably relied upon to his detriment."

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• PW Maytag Oven Class Action Lawsuit to Proceed
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Second Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit
• Judge Grants Parker Waichman LLP Motion to Remand Marlboro Lights Cigarette Lawsuit

Andres F. Alonso, a partner with Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, told a New Jersey jury that Levaquin maker, Johnson & Johnson, "did everything they could to hide" the antibiotics' association with serious tendon injuries.   Mr. Alonso is representing plaintiffs Paul Gaffney and Robert Beare, both of New Jersey, in the first Levaquin lawsuit to go to trial in a New Jersey mass tort litigation.

Levaquin, part of a class of antibiotics known as fluoroquinolones, is prescribed for bacterial infections of the lungs, urinary tract, and skin. In 2008, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) required that the labeling of Levaquin and other fluoroquinolone antibiotics be revised to include a Black Box warning about tendon injuries.

Currently just over 3,000 Levaquin tendon injury lawsuits are pending against Johnson & Johnson.  This includes 1,763 the New Jersey mass tort, and another 1,314 that have been consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Court Judge John R. Tunheim in Minneapolis. Two test trials have already been completed in the federal litigation. The first, which wrapped up in December 2010, ended with a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.  The second trial in the multidistrict litigation, which ended in June 2011, resulted in a verdict for the defense.  A third trial is slated to start in November.

During opening statements yesterday, Mr. Alonso told an Atlantic County, New Jersey, jury that both Gaffney, 67, and Robert Beare, 72, took Levaquin to treat sinus infects.  According to a report from Bloomberg News, he alleged that their use of Levaquin caused them to suffer Achilles-tendon injuries that left them unable to walk and required surgery.

“They downplayed the risks of this product” in their marketing materials, he said of Johnson & Johnson.

According to Mr. Alonso, Johnson & Johnson failed to add stronger warnings about tendon injuries to the Levaquin label, even after receiving reports of tendon ruptures from Europe.  Instead, the company hired ghostwriters to compose medical journal articles touting the drug's safety and effectiveness, he charged.

Judge Carol Higbee is presiding over the New Jersey Levaquin litigation.  This first trial is expected to last four weeks, Bloomberg said.

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

andres f alonso

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• Andres F. Alonso Delivers Closing Statement in First New Jersey Levaquin Trial
• Judge Grants Parker Waichman Alonso Motion to Remand Marlboro Lights Cigarette Lawsuit
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Actos Bladder Cancer Lawsuit on Behalf of New York Man

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP is one of several firms representing plaintiffs in an Imprelis class action lawsuit.  The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, seeks to represent anyone who has sustained significant damage to mature landscape trees, especially Norway spruce and others with shallow roots systems, including willows, poplars and conifers.

Luanne Miller, a property owner in Seven Hills, Ohio, is lead plaintiff in the Imprelis class action lawsuit.  The complaint accuses DuPont, the maker of Imprelis, of fraud and negligence. 

According to the lawsuit, Imprelis was applied to Miller’s property on several separate occasions in accordance with directions and instructions supplied by DuPont.  The complaint alleges that as a result of the Imprelis applications, Miller suffered significant damage and harm to trees, and will continue to suffer even further damage to her lawn and garden because of Imprelis.  The lawsuit further alleges that rather than being isolated incidents, thousands of trees have been reported as being infected by Imprelis, and tens of thousands more reports are expected in the future.  

Imprelis, brought to market by DuPont in 2010, is designed to kill broadleaf weeds, including dandelion, clover and wild violet.  Imprelis is only available to landscapers and professional gardeners, and is touted by DuPont as an environmentally-friendly herbicide and an "innovative solution to control a wide spectrum of broadleaf weeds." 

Property owners and landscapers from around the country began reporting Imprelis tree damage  around Memorial Day.  By June, extension services in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana issued alerts about tree damage and death possibly linked with Imprelis.  Now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is investigating, and has promised an expedited review of Imprelis.  According to the EPA, it has received complaints about Imprelis from Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Wisconsin and West Virginia. 

DuPont Professional Products acknowledged receiving reports of tree deaths and damage possibly associated with Imprelis in a letter to turf management professionals dated June 17.   The company said it is investigating the reports, and has cautioned that Imprelis not be sprayed near Norway spruce or white pine, or in places where the product might drift toward such trees or run off toward their roots.

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP continues to receive reports regarding Imprelis tree death and damage.  The firm is investigating these complaints, and expects to file other Imprelis lawsuits in the near future.

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• Parker Waichman LLP Files Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Ohio Property Owner
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Second Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit
• Parker Waichman LLP Files Second Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP and its partner firms have filed a second class action lawsuit claiming DuPont's Imprelis herbicide caused damage to landscape trees.  The Imprelis lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division, and seeks damages from DuPont on behalf of any property owner who sustained damage as a result of Imprelis. 

The lead plaintiffs in the Imprelis class action lawsuit are Daryl and Mary Ann Haley.   They are seeking injunctive relief barring DuPont from continued sale of Imprelis, and compensatory and other damages including the cost of replacing trees damaged by Imprelis. 

The Haley's lawsuit alleges that Imprelis is a "frighteningly effective tree killer," and that "thousands of trees have been reported as being infected by Imprelis, and tens of thousands more reports are expected in the future.” The Haley's lawsuit charges DuPont with, among other things, negligence and breach of implied warranty. 

Just yesterday, DuPont issued a letter to turf management professionals acknowledging its own investigation had found tree injuries associated with Imprelis, primarily on Norway spruce and white pine trees.  The problems are concentrated in Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Wisconsin, the letter said. The letter promised to work with recipients to "promptly and fairly resolve problems associated with our product," and announced the launch of the Imprelis-Facts website, as well as a toll-free number for information that will go online next week.

Imprelis, which is sold exclusively to licensed landscapers, was only brought to market last October.  It is used to eliminate broadleaf weeds, and was touted by DuPont as being environmentally safe and an "innovative solution to control a wide spectrum of broadleaf weeds."   However, by Memorial Day, turf professionals around the country began reporting damaged and dying trees on lawns were Imprelis was sprayed.  By June, extension services in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan had issued alerts about Imprelis, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was preparing to launch an "expedited" review of Imprelis.

Just last week, Parker Waichman Alonso LLP and it  partner firms filed their first Imprelis lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division on behalf of an Ohio property owner.  The group expects to file additional Imprelis tree poisoning claims in the near future.

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• Parker Waichman LLP Files Second Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Ohio Property Owner
• Parker Waichman LLP Files Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Ohio Property Owner

Some sick Ground Zero workers are being left out again.  This time they are being excluded from benefits under the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act because they have cancer, after a federal agency determined that there is not enough scientific evidence to prove a link between toxic dust at Ground Zero and cancer.

Many of these cancer-stricken Ground Zero workers were also left out of the World Trade Center Toxic Dust Settlement that was approved last year.  About 325 first responders were deemed not eligible for that settlement because they missed the deadline to file a lawsuit in the litigation - in some cases by just days.  The early April 2010 deadline was not announced until June of that year, exempting some who were impacted by rescue and recovery activities and who had filed cases as negotiations for the cut-off were ongoing.

Advocates for these workers, including Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, which represents 13 first responders in this position, had believed the Zadroga Act would provide them much needed health care.  But while it will cover asthma, interstitial lung disease and mental illnesses such as post-traumatic stress disorder, cancer is being excluded for now.  Yesterday, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) announced that WTC Administrator John Howard, M.D., had determined that cancers will not yet be considered covered conditions under the Zadroga Act.   

“These limitations in the exposure assessment literature make scientific analysis of a causal association between exposure and health effects, such as cancer, quite challenging,” the report said.

NIOSH will revisit the decision next year, when it conducts its next review.  But for then, Ground Zero cancer victims who lack health insurance, and/or are not eligible for the World Trade Center Toxic Dust Settlement will have to go without. 

“This is not just about compensation, this is also about healthcare,” Matthew McCauley, an attorney with Parker Waichman Alonso LLP said. “All of the people who are now barred from obtaining any compensation from the settlement are also barred from getting healthcare from Zadroga. It’s a triple whammy. Not only can’t you work, but now you have developed cancer and you have no access to healthcare to treat that cancer.”

McCauley also found it ironic that the NIOSH report cited a lack off scientific evidence. 

"The decision essentially said there is not enough scientific data to analyze these cases and this is due to the Bush administration's refusal to fund these studies,” McCauley said. "The Obama administration reversed this and I'm cautiously optimistic that in time, when additional studies can be conducted, that we can overturn this decision."

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• PWA Maytag Oven Class Action Lawsuit to Proceed
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Ohio Property Owner
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Second Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit

Another woman has filed suit against AstraZeneca claiming its Nexium and Prilosec prescription heartburn medications caused her to suffer painful broken bones.  Susan A. Poznanovich is being represented by David B. Krangle and Andres F. Alonso, attorneys with the national law firm of Parker Waichman Alonso LLP. 

Prilosec and Nexium are part of a class of drugs called proton pump inhibitors.  They are AstraZeneca's best selling drugs, while Nexium is the third largest-selling drug in the world. According to Poznanovich's lawsuit, the company sold over $26 billion worth of Prilosec between 1997 and 2002.  Nexium sales amounted $5.2 billion in 2008.

The safety labeling for prescription proton pump inhibitors includes a warning - added in May 2010 - that they might be associated with a higher risk of hip, wrist and spine factures. But like similar lawsuits filed before it, this complaint alleges that AstraZeneca knew from earlier studies that Prilosec and Nexium can prevent the absorption of calcium, leading to bone deterioration and eventual fractures.  In total, six studies have found that people over 50 who took proton pump inhibitors for more than 1 year were at a significantly higher risk of suffering a fracture.

According to her complaint, Poznanovich was prescribed and took Prilosec and Nexium between 1995 and 2010.  In June 2009, she suffered multiple fractures in her right foot.  In December, she suffered more fractures in her left foot.  As a result of her injuries, Poznanovich continues to suffer excruciating pain.  She also requires and will continue to require ongoing medical care, the lawsuit says. 

Poznanovich further alleges that safer alternatives to Prilosec and Nexium exist, and had she known of the drugs' risks, she would not have taken the proton pump inhibitors.  The suit, which is being brought under New Jersey Product Liability Act, claims the defendants were negligent and showed wrongful conduct in connection with design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distributing, labeling and sales.

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• Chinese Drywall Supplier Seeks to Settle Florida Claims
• PWA Maytag Oven Class Action Lawsuit to Proceed
• Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Second Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit

Read more:http://www.bradenton.com/2011/06/15/3274545/settlement-reached-in-drywall.html

View full post on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

Related Lawyer Attorney Entries

• Chinese Drywall Supplier Seeks to Settle Florida Claims
• Parker Waichman LLP Files Second Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit
• PWA Maytag Oven Class Action Lawsuit to Proceed