Friday, March 18, 2011 at 9:13PM If you took Topamax during your pregnancy and gave birth to a child with Topamax, you might want to read this Topamax lawyer post. It turns out that Topamax is strongly associated with oral birth defects such as cleft lips.
Feel free to e-mail me at justinian@justinian.us if you have any questions about Topamax and pregnancy.
Monday, March 14, 2011 at 4:50PM I've recently become aware of the fact that many antidepressants (including Zoloft) can cause severe and life threatening birth defects. I'm currently reviewing cases for any women who took Zoloft and gave birth to a baby with any of the following symptoms:
Heart Defects such as Atrial Septal Defects (ASD) or Ventricular Septal Defects (VSD).
Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn. (PPHN)
Cranial defects such as craniosynostosis
Club foot or other limb defects
Oral defects such as cleft lip and cleft palate
Anal atresia
Abdominal defects such as omphalocele
Neural tube defects such as brain or spinal cord problems
Zoloft and other SSRI's are becoming increasingly more associated with birth defects like those above. I'd be happy to talk with you if you think your child's injuries were caused by Zoloft. Contact me using the contact form above, or e-mail me at justinian@justinian.us if you'd like to discuss your potential Zoloft birth defect lawsuit.
Friday, March 4, 2011 at 5:03PM I'm now reviewing Topamax birth defect cases. Especially those cases in which a child was born with a cleft lip or a cleft palate. These injuries have been linked to the usage of Topamax during pregnancy. The FDA has recently issued an advisory regarding the usage of Topamax while pregnant.
Other birth defects linked to Topamax are spina bifida, genital defects, and low birth weight. These birth defects were 11 times more likely to occur when the mother took Topamax than when the mother did not.
Contact me using the contact form above, or e-mail me at justinian@justinian.us if you'd like to discuss your potential Topamax birth defect lawsuit.
Legal Reader | in Topamax Birth Defects Sunday, January 9, 2011 at 11:45AM I've recently launched the Asbestos Legal Journal. It is a blog about asbestos and mesothelioma lawsuits written from the perspective of a plaintiffs' lawyer. I'll be blogging about my day-to-day experiences working on asbestos lawsuits, as well as detailing the history of asbestos litigation. I'm particularly excited to have a place where I can share the thousands of damning documents that show just how little asbestos companies cared about the people they killed.
I'm also going to be creating a very detailed timeline of asbestos that dates all the way back to ancient Rome. The timeline will be complete with citations to scholarly articles and other resources to back up any allegations I make. The story of asbestos hasn't yet been properly told on the web, and I hope to change that.
If you've got any questions about asbestos, mesothelioma, or lawsuits relating to either of those, feel free to contact me.
Legal Reader Monday, November 22, 2010 at 3:42PM I’m a plaintiffs’ product liability lawyer. I’m therefore generally on the side of those who are injured by defective products. But this lawsuit epitomizes a frivolous lawsuit:
Janice Rivera, 20, was ejected from a car on State Road 417 in an Aug. 13 crash in Seminole County. The driver of the car, Danielle C. Joseph, 20, who is also named a defendant in the suit, drank the energy drink Four Loco before she struck another car while driving at a high rate of speed.
So, an underage girl illegally consumes some Four Loco. She then drives at a high rate of speed while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. Her underage passenger is injured and sues the manufacturer of the drink.
I’m probably a bit more pro-plaintiff than your average juror, and even I think that Four Loco shouldn’t pay a dime here. For one thing, the driver who consumed the beverage was underage and thus illegally consumed the beverage. That alone should absolve Four Loco of any liability.
The case is even worse if the passenger knew that the driver had been drinking. If you voluntarily step into a vehicle that’s being driven by someone you know has been drinking, you’re an idiot. And juries don’t like to give money to idiots.
Four Loco, which is premixed with the stimulants taurine, guarine and caffeine, are made to appeal to younger drinkers because "it tastes more like a soft drink than an alcoholic beverage," Rivera's lawsuit states.
* * * *
"The presence of stimulants in an alcoholic beverage is a dangerous and potentially fatal combination," the suit states. "Because the consumer will engage in dangerous behavior such as driving because he or she will not feel intoxicated."
With respect to the first point about flavoring: Lots of (gross) people like to mix Red Bull with Vodka. Should Red Bull be held liable under the same theory? After all it’s reasonably foreseeable to Red Bull that someone will slam one back with a few shots of Vodka. And let’s not forget that Coke (or Pepsi) contains stimulants. People have been drinking Rum/Whiskey/etc. & Coke for years.
The second point about stimulants preventing people from feeling intoxicated is going to be problematic. Is there any reliable scientific evidence to back that up? Have their been any peer-reviewed studies to support it? “Feeling” drunk is obviously subjective and will thus be difficult to prove.
The first and second points imply that alcoholic beverage manufacturers are supposed to make awful-tasting drinks that make you feel intoxicated. I’m not aware of any legal authority that supports that implication.
My prediction: This case will not survive summary judgment. If it does survive summary judgment, I’ll buy the plaintiff’s lawyer a drink.
Justinian Lane | in Misc. Products 