Retired Cases Archive

Philips CPAP Recall Information; Can I Sue For Injuries?

Philips Respironics manufactures “continuous positive airway pressure” (CPAP), bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), and ventilators for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Those with this condition experience disruption of normal breathing during sleep, as manifested by snoring.

These machines use polyester-based polyurethane foam to diminish the noise and vibrations generated while the user sleeps. When the foam degrades, it releases toxic gases and matter, which the users may inhale and ingest. As explained more below, the toxins may sicken users and expose them to serious conditions such as organ failure and cancer.

Philips issued a recall on June 14, 2021, for the first-generation devices. In the wake of this recall, numerous users have sued Philips for personal injuries and other damages. Below, we explain whether you can sue Philips if you claim one of its devices has resulted in illness or serious disease.

Did You Use One of the Recalled Models?
Determine if you used a device with potentially toxic foam. Philips manufactured the CPAP, BiPAP, and ventilator machines that used polyester-based polyurethane foam between 2009 and April 26, 2021. The devices which Philips recalled include these products.

The company has a page devoted to the recall of these devices. You can enter the device’s serial number to learn if Philips has recalled it.

The fact that your machine is subject to recall does not automatically mean you will recover from Philips. Generally, a voluntary recall is not admissible to prove fault. However, you can use evidence of such a recall to show that Philips manufactured and controlled your device. Below, we’ll tell you the specific legal theories upon which plaintiffs may rely in Philips CPAP lawsuits.

Popular Blood Thinners May Lead to Brain Bleeding after Head Injury

A three-year study of more than 1,000 patients found that the risk of delayed intracranial hemorrhage and death following head trauma was significantly higher for adults taking older blood thinning medications including clopidogrel (Plavix) and warfarin (Coumadin), according to research being presented today at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA).

The effects of newer blood thinners such as Pradaxa and Xarelto were not included in the report.

Taking aspirin concurrently with any blood thinner may increase the risk of delayed hemorrhage.

Intracranial hemorrhage occurs when blood vessels within the brain rupture, releasing blood into the brain tissue. In a delayed traumatic intracranial hemorrhage, bleeding in the brain occurs after the initial trauma, usually within 48 hours, after an initial negative head CT.

High blood pressure, head injury and the use of blood thinners are known causes of intracranial hemorrhage. As the population ages, the prevalence of patients taking blood thinners is increasing.

“The incidence of delayed posttraumatic intracranial hemorrhage in patients on different types of blood thinners with and without the addition of aspirin is not well established,” said Warren Chang, M.D., neuroradiologist and director of research at the Imaging Institute of the Allegheny Health Network in Pennsylvania. “This is an active area of investigation, especially as novel blood thinners become more widely adopted.”

Juul to pay $14.5 million to settle Arizona vaping lawsuit

E-cigarette giant Juul Labs will pay Arizona $14.5 million and vowed not to market to young people in the state to settle a consumer fraud lawsuit.

The settlement announced by Attorney General Mark Brnovich Tuesday is the second Juul has reached with state prosecutors. It ends litigation the Republican U.S. Senate candidate filed in January 2020 against Juul and another maker of electronic cigarettes, alleging they illegally targeted young people in their marketing.

Arizona previously obtained a $22.5 million judgment against defunct vaping product maker Eonsmoke but has not and is not likely to collect any of the money.

Juul Labs admitted no wrongdoing in settling the case and called it “another step in our ongoing effort to reset our company.” The company had stopped all advertising before Brnovich sued and ended sales of all flavored products except menthol.

Juul has faced lawsuits from multiple states over marketing of its products, which it touts as a safer alternative to regular tobacco products. In June, it reached a similar deal with the attorney general of North Carolina that included a $40 million payment and promises not to market to minors and boost enforcement of retailers who sell its products.

Lawsuits with a handful of other states remain.

E-cigarettes are touted as safer than tobacco cigarettes because while they deliver the addictive drug nicotine they do not give off smoke that contains carcinogens. But they are still addictive and dangerous to health, especially for teenagers whose brains are still developing.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first e-cigarette last month, saying the R.J. Reynolds’ product has a clear benefit because it can reduce the use of regular cigarettes. Juul’s product remains under FDA review. Some adulterated vaping products have caused serious health effects.

All but $2 million of the $14.5 million Arizona settlement will be used for programs that discourage use of vaping products,

Xarelto Judge Taps Attorneys to Allocate $93M in Fees to Leading Firms

The federal judge handling the $775 million settlement over the blood thinner Xarelto has established a committee of five attorneys to assess how up to $93 million set aside for leading plaintiffs firms should be doled out.

U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon of the Eastern District of Louisiana tapped Pensacola, Florida, attorney Brian Barr of Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor; Andy Birchfield of Beasley Allen in Montgomery, Alabama; Leonard Davis of Herman Herman & Katz in New Orleans; Gerald Meunier of Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer, also in New Orleans; and Levin Sedran & Berman attorney Michael Weinkowitz in Philadelphia to form what the judge referred to as a “fee allocation liaison counsel” in the Xarelto litigation. The attorneys will be tasked with coming up with a recommendation for how the court should divide up the common benefit fund.

Third Circuit Clarifies Next Steps in Fosamax Decision

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has in turn remanded the case to the district court to determine whether state law claims are preempted by federal law in the 500+ lawsuits pending regarding the medication Fosamax in Merck Sharpe & Dohme v. Albrecht. As previously discussed on this blog in May 2019, the United States Supreme Court held that the issue of federal preemption is one to be decided by the court and not a jury, while somewhat clarifying the “clear evidence” standard governing the analysis.

After the high court’s decision, it was unclear whether the Third Circuit would remand the cases to the district court for application of the Supreme Court’s guidance or decide the issue – a legal one, after all, as just declared by the Supreme Court – itself de novo. Following supplemental briefing by the parties, with a November 25, 2019, Order, the Third Circuit elected the former procedure, kicking these cases back to the district court on remand:

* Word-Use Disclaimer

Legal funding is not a loan. It is the non-recourse purchase of an equitable lien in a plaintiffs’ legal claim. Words such as ‘loans,’ ‘lending,’ ‘borrow,’ etc., are used for search and marketing purposes only.
More info

TriMark Legal Funding LLC
1056 Green Acres Rd #102
Eugene, OR 97408