Kentucky Injury Attorney Blog

Between 1940 and the early 1970s, millions of expectant mothers were given the drug diethylstilbestrol (DES) to help prevent miscarriages and premature births. A study in 1971 found a potential link between the drug and an increased risk for vaginal cancer in young women whose mothers took DES. Doctors were told to stop prescribing it. Many product liability lawsuits have been filed over the years by women who allegedly have vaginal cancer, cervical cancer, or infertility issues as a result of their mothers being given DES during pregnancy.

In a recent lawsuit, a Boston woman is claiming something different. Arline MacCormack developed breast cancer when she was 44. While many women have breast cancer at that age or even younger, her type of cancer is typically not seen in women younger than 60.

After discovering research that linked DES to a significant increase in breast-cancer risks for women, Ms. MacCormack filed her lawsuit against several drug companies that manufactured and sold the drug to women like her mother in the 1960s. Her suit alleges that the drug companies were not only aware that DES did not prevent a woman from having a miscarriage, but also that there were safety issues with the drug that the companies kept from physicians.

The drug companies have filed pre-trial motions stating there is no scientific evidence regarding this supposed link between DES and breast cancer, and the presiding judge has heard testimony from experts for the companies and Ms. MacCormack. If the judge grants the companies' motion, the case will not go to trial. If their motion is denied, the case will go to trial.

Drug liability cases can become very complex. In the case above, the plaintiff, Ms. MacCormack is seeking restitution for a drug that was not even given to her directly, but to her mother 50 years ago. While this can make a case more challenging, this situation is not that uncommon. Side effects of drugs given to women during pregnancy can take years to show up in their offspring. Other types of product liability cases, such as those involving asbestos, can also have a significant delay between the time of the exposure and the appearance of symptoms. Trying to prove which company manufactured and sold the drug that a particular individual took many years ago would be difficult, so oftentimes multiple companies are included in the suit and may share the liability and be required to pay damages.

Continue reading "Woman Sues Drug Companies over Drug Given to Her Mother before Birth" »

Attorneys who represent victims of defective products anxiously await to hear hour the United States Supreme Court decides the Baycol case.

The Court just announced that it will review fourteen cases in it's coming term, one being this Bayer Corp. class action. The case involves Bayer product, Baycol which went on the market in 1997 and is claimed to caused side effects including muscle toxicity which can lead to kidney failure and ultimately to death.

The plaintiffs from West Virginia, found their way to a Minnesota court where several cases had been consolidated. Bayer argues that a judge has already banned these lawsuits in 2005. The Supreme Court will now decide.

Products liability cases are very serious. If your life has been effected by a defective product, including a dangerous drug, it is important that you speak with an attorney to learn more about your rights.

A Kentucky family filed a personal injury action against Walmart in Jefferson Count Court on Monday, August 16, 2010. The plaintiffs, Robert and Rosalind Grant, claim that they drank milk purchased at a Sam's Club over the course of three days, only to discover a dead mouse at the bottom of the container.

According to the pleadings, the Grants purchased the carton of milk from the Sam's Club operating on Alliant Avenue on May 3. On May 5, they opened the container and proceeded to drink the contaminated milk for three days. Their granddaughter also consumed the milk. On the third day, Mrs. Grant found the dead mouse in the jug.

After finding the mouse, the Grants reported the incident to the Kentucky Department of Public Health. Their lawsuit alleges that they "suffered embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress" and that their granddaughter suffered from blood in her stools.

According to the attorney for the family, "This has been a traumatic experience for the Grants.. They were completely shocked."

If you have been injured by a consuming a product, you should speak with an experienced products liability attorney to learn more about your rights.

In a landmark decision, the United States Supreme court rejected the arguments of drugmaker Wyeth and held that pharmaceutical companies can be held liable for failure to provide adequate warnings for their products even when their warnings have been approved by federal regulators.  In this case, the plaintiff, Diana Levine, was being treated for a migraine and was given the anti-nausea drug Phenergan manufactured by Wyeth.  She claimed she was improperly injected by an IV-push with this medication, and as a result had to have part of her arm amputated.  A jury in Vermont awarded the Plaintiff $7 million.


Wyeth appealed the verdict arguing that by having their warning label approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. agency pre-empted state laws and therefore shielded pharmaceutical companies from any damages in state liability claims.  Wyeth argued it would be impossible for drugmakers like themselves to comply with both federal and state labeling requirements.  The Court disagreed in their 6-to-3 decision with Justice Steven's noting in the majority's opinion that Wyeth could comply with both state and federal labeling requirements by adding a stronger labeling requirement.  

For more information please refer to the United States Supreme Court Opinion: Wyeth v. Levine. 

Continue reading "Victory for Victims of Defective Drugs: Drug Company Wyeth Held Accountable" »