Early Bird Talcum Powder Lawsuit Caught No Worms–Yet

The first successful talcum powder lawsuit in the US against a drug company was not the slam dunk it appeared to be at first. The case was filed in 2009 on behalf of Deane Berg, who diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2006. She was a long-time talcum powder user for feminine hygiene, believing that it was a safe product because the manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) encouraged its daily use for that purpose. When studies indicating that genital use of talcum powder increased the risk of developing ovarian cancer in women began to gain prominence, Berg realized that she may have unwittingly paved the way for the disease with the scented white powder.

Berg succeeded in proving that J&J was negligent in failing to include a warning about the potential dangers of the genital use of talcum powder and other talc-based products, but the victory was short on one crucial element: damages. The South Dakota jury found for the plaintiff but declined to award any compensation, which is allowed under state law. Even the denial of the court of the motion for judgment as a matter of law by J&J failed to even the score for the plaintiff, who appealed for a new trial to address the award decision on April 28, 2014. That appeal was likewise denied.

The product liability costs to J&J so far is zero in terms of awards, but the drug company may dread the day when another judge or jury decides that with liability comes compensation. Its talc-based powder line of products was used by millions of women over the decades; the drug company could soon be facing an unprecedented number of litigants for substantial awards.

Berg may not have received any compensation for her injuries so far, but hers is the first talcum powder lawsuit of many more to come. It is entirely possible that she will someday get the financial awards she deserves in the future. If you have been in a similar situation, make sure to contact a talcum powder lawyer who knows the ins and outs of product liability laws in your state to address the issue of your own injuries.

Choosing the Right Hair Color for You

It’s undeniable that most women prefer to change their natural hair color to something different. There are many reasons why women choose to change their appearance: to boost their confidence, make a more lasting impression, taking a new direction in life, and many others. Regardless of the reason, choosing the right hair color is essential in getting the effect that they would like to see. There are, however, things that should be considered if a woman chooses to change her hair color. It may seem easy, but choosing the right hair color is hard.

One way to help in determining which hair color would suit you best it by checking your skin tone and undertones. This can be done by checking the veins in your wrists: blue veins means you have cool undertones (which would look good in cooler colors, such as black, auburn brown, or ash blond), green veins means warm undertones (good for warmer hair colors such as golden and honey browns), while anywhere in between means you have neutral undertones. Eye color can also be used as basis: warm colors appear natural to those with brown, green, or hazel eyes, while cool-toned hair color suit blue and green-eyed people.

It should also be noted that age plays a part in choosing hair color. Certain extreme hair colors can bring out imperfections such as wrinkles, therefore those who would like these colors should proceed with caution. Also, those over the age of 25 should be wary of having full block of color since they can bring out facial flaws. Choosing unnatural color should be reconsidered as it can cause conflict with your wardrobe, and even cause issues at your workplace. If you would want to look more natural, hair styling experts recommend choosing shades that are 2 levels lighter or darker than your natural hair color.

An Overview of the Deferred Action Program

The Deferred Action Program was issued on June 15th of 2012. Deferred action was put in place in order to de-prioritize legal removal action against illegal immigrants that entered the Unites States as children. In order to qualify for the Deferred Action Program, the candidate must not pose a threat to public or national security. Additionally, applicants must also meet other criteria such as having entered the United States before the age of sixteen and having lived in the United States steadily for five years. The applicant must be a student or have in their possession academic accreditation such as a high school diploma, general education development (GED) certificate, or college diploma. Likewise, the applicant cannot exceed the age of thirty and not have any felony charges.

Unlike the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, the Deferred Action Program is not a path to permanent legal citizenship. However, the Deferred Action Program would give applicants authorization for legal employment andl protection from deportation. This legal protection lasts for two years as long as the recipient abstains from violating terms of the program. The most severe violations would include a felony offense or multiple misdemeanors, indicating that the person potentially threatens the safety of United States citizens. At the end of the two year timeline, the deferred action is subject to renewal.

The Deferred Action Program is referred to as a discretionary program, which indicates that each case is reviewed individually. Opponents of the DREAM Act and the Deferred Action Program claim that these initiatives encourage illegal immigration since they give benefits to young illegal immigrants. However, these programs are put in place in order to avoid unfair punishment against young immigrants who contribute socially, culturally, and academically to the United States. For more information on deportation, contact the immigration attorneys of William Jang, PLLC, today.

The Pressure to Sell Could be Behind da Vinci Surgical Errors

Any surgical procedure carries some risk, even something as routine as an appendectomy. This is a given and acceptable provided that negligence or recklessness on the part of the hospital staff did not cause a patient’s injuries. However, when surgical errors occur that lead to injury or death because the surgeon did not know how to use the tools provided, that would be considered an actionable case.

In the cases against Intuitive Surgical Inc., manufacturer of the famed robotic surgery system da Vinci, one of the main problems with its use is the fact that many surgeons who use it did not have enough training to do so effectively and efficiently. As a result of this lack of training, surgical errors that would have a significant impact on a patient’s health and life occur.

It could be argued that hospitals are required to verify the credentials of a surgeon to use new technology such as da Vinci in surgery prior to an operation. However, since the robotic system is something new to the playing field, hospitals tend to follow the lead of the manufacturer in what would constitute a sufficient number of supervised operations before the surgeon is allowed to go solo. And since Intuitive would like to see more surgeons switching over to da Vinci, which would help drive sales in the future, the faster the surgeon is given credentials for its use, the better.  As a result, instead of being supervised by a more experienced surgeon for 5 operations, some new users get credentials after only three.

There are some indications that this short-cut was being urged on hospitals by Intuitive sales representatives, although the company denies any involvement in hospital credentialing policy. In light of the number of botched surgeries associated with the use of da Vinci, it is important to establish just how far Intuitive is responsible for quite serious surgical errors by otherwise well-trained surgeons with wide experience in the operations in question.

Woman Gets 18 Months Probation after Abusing Pit Bull

A New Jersey woman who abandoned her dog in a trash chute in 2011 has received 18 months of probation, a sentence animal rights activists are lambasting as too light. 29-year-old Kisha Curtis left her young pit bull, nicknamed Patrick by caretakers, tied outside her apartment building for a week while she left town, then threw the dog into the building’s trash chute on her return.

Residents found the dog and brought him to a veterinary hospital, where he was fed and received medical treatment. News of Patrick’s situation, which spread virally in the weeks after he was found, unleashed a flood of letters and emails from people across the country. The overwhelming support even brought about landmark legislation in New Jersey, which will increase fines and prison sentences for crimes of animal cruelty.

Judge Joseph Cassini III justified his sentence to those in the courtroom, calling the case much less serious than others he would hear later in the day.

“In this case, fortunately, no one was killed,” Cassini said. “Patrick survived and is thriving. We have to put things in perspective.”

Curtis received probation because she had no prior criminal record. Officials said she has complied with court-ordered mental health and drug-abuse counseling.

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Powered by WordPress | Designed by Elegant Themes