Do I Have A Lawsuit ?

Lawsuit Attorney Litigation News Legal Help Question And Answer Information And Support Community

Class Action Lawsuit Alerts And News Information

Metoclopramide Side Effects Lawsuit


Metoclopramide Side Effects Lawsuit

Metoclopramide Side Effects LawsuitMetoclopramide, generic name of Reglan, is an antiemetic medication that offers short-term relief from heart burn and vomiting caused by gastroesophageal reflux. It speeds up stomach muscle functions that help in quick digestion of food. However, metoclopramide side effects lead to drug-induced movement disorders, nervous system breakdowns, and numerous major health problems. The drug has been linked to tardive dyskinesia, a serious and irreversible movement disorder.

Metoclopramide FDA Warning

The FDA allows metoclopramide drugs only as a short-term measure – up to 12 weeks. It has notified both doctors and consumers about the serious side effects of the drug associated with the off-label use. In February 2009, the FDA issued a public health advisory alerting healthcare professionals in the United States to the possible link between metoclopramide and tardive dyskinesia. It added a black box warning to the drug informing consumers and doctors about the possible side effects due to long-term use and overdose of the drug. The new label changes were made mandatory for both metoclopramide tablets and injections. The FDA also asked the manufacturer of these drugs to make necessary arrangements to put in place a proper risk evaluation and mitigation strategy so that patients receiving their drugs would be fully informed about the risk associated with metoclopramide side effects.

Metoclopramide Side Effects

Tardive Dyskinesia

Metoclopramide can cause tardive dyskinesia, a rare and fatal movement disorder. The risk of this irreversible disorder is proportionate to the duration of the drug therapy and the total cumulative dose. The longer is the duration, the greater is the risk. This neurological disorder leads to involuntary and repetitive movements of upper limbs and the lower face. Lip smacking, pursing one’s lip, chewing, impaired finger movements, unexplained and uncontrolled grimacing, troubled respiration, and brisk eye movements are the common symptoms of this syndrome. These conditions induced

Discuss this article in the forums (0 replies).

Avandamet Side Effects Lawsuit



Avandamet Side Effects Lawsuit

Avandamet Side Effects LawsuitAvandamet, comprising rosiglitazone and metformin, is a commonly prescribed drug for Type 2 diabetes patients. Approved in 1999, Avandamet works by reducing the amount of sugar produced by the liver, thus making the body more sensitive to the naturally produced insulin. However, avandamet is often linked to heart attacks, primarily because of the presence of Avandia or rosiglitazone. Manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline faces numerous lawsuits, linking the drug to severe side effects.

FDA and Avandamet

In 2010, the Federal Drug Administration first reported the possible risk of cardiovascular events on patients using rosiglitazone and thus restricted its use, allowing only those individuals to continue using the drug who do not respond to other diabetes medications.

Earlier, in 2005, the FDA seized the current Avandamet stock, thus removing the drug from the market, after its inspection team reported violation of good manufacturing norms at a GlaxoSmithKline factory. The FDA inspection team found that some Avandamet tablets had lower than the average dose of rosiglitazone, which might have resulted in poor quality drug products, causing health complications for some patients. Following this, GlaxoSmithKline only recalled some of the affected lots of Avandamet. This prompted the FDA to interfere, which

Discuss this article in the forums (0 replies).

Vaginal Mesh Implant Lawsuit


If you have received a transvaginal mesh implant, you might be at risk.

The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has issued a warning regarding the risks involved in using surgical mesh implants, which are used to treat cases of pelvic organ prolapse. About 1,503 adverse event cases related to the vaginal placement of mesh have been reported to the FDA between 2008 and 2010. The FDA warning says that the risks outweigh the benefits of mesh implants, which are permanently implanted vaginally or abdominally to reinforce the vaginal tissue or wall.

The FDA review, carried out from 1996 to 2010, found that mesh implants used in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapsed repair posed a greater risk of pain, bleeding, and infection to the patient. Besides, women with such implants might even be forced to undergo additional surgeries or hospitalization.

Studies comparing mesh surgeries to non-mesh surgeries conducted between 1996 and 2010 have found that the number of adverse events has been constantly rising. Following the review, the FDA suggested that many patients having undergone transvaginal mesh implant surgery were exposed to additional risks compared to patients opting for POP repair with stitches. The first safety warning about the mesh implants came up in 2008 following increasing concerns about adverse events.

The federal body has received numerous complaints of adverse events associated with mesh implants, which include pain, bleeding, infection, erosion through the vaginal tissue, pain during sexual intercourse, urinary problems, and organ perforation from surgical equipment.

The latest FDA warning says patients undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse are at a greater risk than other surgical procedures. Further, the FDA has not found any improvement in the quality of life of patients who had undergone implantation of surgical mesh.

Patients have complained that they experience sparking constant pain around the area and have to undergo a number of surgeries to remove the mesh that eroded in their vagina. The FDA has not ruled out “serious complications” in some cases. According to the federal agency, nearly half of all women

Discuss this article in the forums (0 replies).

Toyota Class Action Lawsuit Settlement 

Toyota Class Action Lawsuit SettlementAfter more than two years of hard work by attorneys , investigators , professional specialist and engineers working in conjunction with the law firm staff required to win in these major class action lawsuits filed against large corporations … Do I Have A Lawsuit can now announce that a settlement has been reached in the Toyota Class Action Lawsuit cases related to defective acceleration systems in their vehicles that were causing some models to accelerate unexpectedly.

The Toyota Class Action Lawsuit has been settled for over 1.2 billion dollars and is now possibly the largest lawsuit settlement amount in United States history for any type of litigation involving motor vehicle recalls or automobile defects.

While there had been reports of personal injury as a result of the defects the primary basis of the lawsuit was the fact that as a result of these defective acceleration systems , owners of Toyota vehicles were subject to a reduction in resale / ownership value of their vehicles as a result of the defect.

The settlement will bring to an end the hundreds of lawsuits filed by Toyota owners against the automobile manufacturer as a result of these defective systems.

Do I Have A Lawsuit readers , supporters and network attorneys should note that although this settlement has been proposed and will likely be signed off on. We must still await approval by U.S. District Judge James Selna and we expect that he will review the proposed class action lawsuit settlement on Friday.

Readers should also note that although all cases were consolidated in U.S. District Court in santa Ana, this settlement does not include cases where injury or death was a result of Toyota vehicles accelerating on their own. Those accident and personal injury lawsuit cases are scheduled to be heard during court trials starting in February 2013.

This settlement pertains to those of you who suffered economic loss as a result of vehicle devaluation only.

Discuss this article in the forums (0 replies).

Class Action Lawsuit Attorney


Hal Rosner was apoplectic.

The Scripps Ranch lawyer turned ever-darker shades of pink as he outlined what he called the U.S. Supreme Court’s war against consumers. He was brandishing a 28-inch, yellow automobile purchase contract and waving it like a pennant.

“It’s a basic, fundamental attack on the United States Constitution, and it’s why our Supreme Court should walk around with shame,” Rosner said. “Our Supreme Court violated the United States constitutional right to jury trial like a group of little whores.”

Rosner’s a trial lawyer, so it’s fair to chalk up some of his outrage down to the natural theatrics of his profession.

But he’s also got good reason to be mad. And so do consumers.

In a game-changing 2011 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to consumer advocates. In a 5-4 ruling, the court essentially said that not only is it OK for companies to put clauses in their contracts forcing customers to settle disputes in private arbitration, but they can also bar customers from bringing class action lawsuits against them or even arbitrating their disputes as a class.

The decision in the case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, a class action lawsuit that originated in San Diego, involved customers who had been charged small amounts for phones advertised as “free,” overturned years of law developed in the California Legislature and upheld by its courts to protect consumers against a seemingly unstoppable trend.

For decades, businesses across the country have increasingly been writing their way out of the judicial system. By inserting “mandatory arbitration clauses” into their contracts, companies ranging from auto dealers to cell phone companies to health care providers have cut off their customers’ access to the courts, forcing them instead to settle disputes in private arbitration.

That has long concerned consumer advocates and even some industry insiders, who say arbitration is biased in favor of big business. But, for many observers, those worries are nothing compared with the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision.

“It’s earth-shattering. It takes away your right to hold companies accountable for transactions that we all engage in every day,” said Deepak Gupta, one of the attorneys who represented the plaintiffs in the Concepcion case before the Supreme Court. “We all assume that we have a right to hold a company accountable if they’re cheating us. We assume the consumer protection laws will apply. What’s frustrating is the average person doesn’t know that when they take out a contract … they’ve given away their rights.”

The Golden State for Consumer Protection

Historically, California hasn’t been a bad place to be a consumer.

The legislature in the Golden State has spent the last few decades trying to protect the little guys, and successive big court decisions have upheld consumer rights. Legal Leads

In the 1990s and early 2000s, as mandatory arbitration clauses became all the rage for corporations across the country, the California Legislature pounced, passing a slew of laws in 2002 aimed at protecting consumers from the ever-growing trend toward private justice. (Though one of the key laws has since been widely ignored by much of the arbitration industry).

The activism wasn’t limited to lawmakers. Several high-profile lawsuits concerning arbitration clauses found their way to the California Supreme Court. The granddaddy of these was a case called Discover Bank v. Superior Court, in 2005.

The California Supreme Court ruled in that case that companies couldn’t put blanket bans on class action lawsuits in their contracts. To do so was “unconscionable” in legalese. It wouldn’t fly.

Over the next few years, at least 13 other states ruled that blanket class action bans by companies were illegal, according to a research paper by Myriam Gilles of the Cardozo School of Law and Gary Friedman, a New York attorney.

Then, in 2011, California’s groundbreaking rules were put to the ultimate legal test.

The Concepcion case originated in 2006, when a San Diego couple, Vincent and Liza Concepcion, signed a deal offered by AT&T to receive a “free” phone if they signed a two-year cell phone contract. The couple was later charged $30.22 in sales tax for the phone, and they sued AT&T in a class action.

Discuss this article in the forums (0 replies).

Ask An Attorney

Do I Have A Lawsuit?

Please enter your name.


Please enter your email address


Please enter your phone number


Please enter your city.


Select your state from the menu.

Zip Code(*)

Invalid Input

Have you already hired a lawyer(*)

Do you already have an attorney?

Briefly describe your complaint or legal questions.

Please briefly explain your complaint or legal question.

I understand that submission of contact and case information via this form does not establish nor constitute a contractual attorney-client relationship. An attorney will review this information and contact the submitter to establish a client-law firm relationship.