Blog

Posts tagged ‘Robert D. Rowland’

Social Media Dos and Don’ts when you are Involved in a Lawsuit

Posted on April 11th, 2012 by Robert D. Rowland

The use of social media as legal evidence is a growing trend in lawsuits. Lawyers are increasingly scouring the internet and social media websites for comments, photos, videos, and other information that can discredit or reflect badly for the other side.

If you are involved in a lawsuit, and have a blog, personal website, or accounts on social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, Google+, Twitter, YouTube, Vimeo, Flickr, LinkedIn, Foursquare, or Meetup, here are some social media dos and don’ts to keep in mind during your case:

DO:
Remember That What You Post on the Internet Can (And Will) Be Used Against You. If you have a pending case, you can count on the fact that the other side is searching the internet for any information it can find to harm your case.

Use the Most Restrictive Privacy Settings Possible. Review the privacy settings on all your social networking profiles to ensure that only people you trust can see your personal information, posts, photos and videos. Update your privacy settings every three months.

Keep in Mind That the Internet Is a Public Place. Social media accounts can be hacked, and even the most stringent privacy settings do not keep the people you friend from sharing your posts and information on their own pages or elsewhere.

Consider Everything You Post a Permanent Record. Much of what you post on the internet is permanently recorded somewhere. Facebook keeps all of your information even if you close your account, and search engines such as the Internet Archive Wayback Machine can find old webpages that have been altered or deleted.

Think about Quitting or Limiting All Social Media During Your Case. By doing so, you can avoid a lot of unnecessary risk of compromising your case, or having courts and lawyers scrutinize your private life.

DON’T:
Post Anything on the Internet about Your Case, Your Incident, or Your Injuries. Also ask your family and friends not to discuss your case on the internet, either on your page or theirs.

Use Social Networking Messaging Platforms to Discuss Your Case. Sometimes even private messages can be shared by your friends or discovered by the other side.

Friend Anyone You Do Not Know Personally. Sometimes unethical lawyers or investigators may try to access your webpage under a false name. Make sure you know a person before allowing them to access your website, blog or profile.

Comment on News Articles or Blog Posts about Your Case. Even if you make comments “anonymously” or with a different username or email, in some cases your comments may still be traced back to you.

Do you have any questions about social media or a claim? Contact us.

Metal on Metal (MoM) Hip Replacements: Risks, Replacements and Revisions

Posted on February 20th, 2012 by Robert D. Rowland

For years, the material of choice for total hip arthroplasty was polyethylene-lined acetabular cups, mated with ceramic or metal femoral heads. But over time, the polyethylene liner would wear out – even more quickly for more active people – requiring replacement surgery. Ceramic hip components, also a popular choice for years, could chip or break from use.

These materials led the way for the metal-on-metal (MoM) hips. Recent high-tech developments in hard metal alloys made hip components with smooth components, so a cup and head could fit together perfectly.

The new MoM hip was well-praised in the medical community, and marketed heavily as an ideal option for younger, more active patients. It was promoted as having a longer life than other hip options – 20 years or more. Yet significant problems arose, including:

Aseptic loosening: The cup becomes loose for reasons other than infection, requiring revision surgery.

Bone loss: The release of metal ions is suspected to cause osteolysis and inhibit or reverse the bony ingrowth process that holds the devices in place. Many MoM recipients first report great results, then later need revision surgery.

Metallosis: This serious reaction to the accumulation of metal ions or metal debris in the body, metallosis can result in tissue death, pseudotumors and bone degradation.

Neurological problems: Long-term exposure to cobalt and chromium ions can lead to headaches, memory issues, metallic taste in the mouth and cardiac abnormalities.

The FDA is currently gathering information about MoM hip systems, including information about adverse effects of increased levels of cobalt and chromium in the blood stream.

Current MoM hips with alleged injuries include the Zimmer Duron Cup, the DePuy ASR, the DePuy Pinnacle and the Wright Conserve.

If you or a loved one is currently suffering from a MoM hip replacement, contact Robert D Rowland.

A look back at thalidomide – 50 years later

Posted on February 17th, 2012 by Robert D. Rowland

Recently the FDA office of Women’s Health released a message authorized by Margaret Hamburg, M.D. about the beginning of the FDA and Thalidomide. It was called “one of the biggest medical tragedies of modern times.” Introduced as a sedative drug in the late 1950s, thalidomide was commonly used to treat the symptoms of morning sickness. From 1957 until 1961 it was sold across the world, but was taken off the market after being found to cause a number of birth defects. More than 10,000 children in 46 countries were born with deformities. These were the famous “flipper babies”.

Yet thalidomide never had a significant impact on the United States. Why? Because before it could reach the market in the U.S., pharmacologist and M.D. Frances Oldham Kelsey refused to give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to Richardson-Merrell to market thalidomide. She strongly believed further studies were needed. Kelsey discovered that although thalidomide was being used across the globe, it hadn’t received much testing; In fact, it hadn’t even been tested on pregnant animals. Her decision to deny FDA approval exemplified the need for scientific product development, regulation and review.

In the aftermath of the thalidomide tragedies, the United States Congress enacted the Kefauer-Harris amendments in 1962 requiring proof of safety and efficiency before a drug can receive approval for sale in the U.S.

This turning point led to a new era of medical responsibility and science that has continued to this day. All new drug applications must demonstrate “substantial evidence” of the drug’s efficacy for a marketed indication, in addition to the existing requirement for pre-marketing demonstration of safety.

It’s funny to hear politicians argue that government regulation is holding back our economy. FDA regulation is holding back pharmaceutical companies who, in their rush to market, put profits over people. We still need a strong FDA, “one endowed with the necessary resources to ensue smart, sound, and science-based regulation”.

Contact Robert D. Rowland here.

A Closer Look at Why HCG Diet Products are Illegal

Posted on January 31st, 2012 by Robert D. Rowland

While last month we posted about the FDA’s HCG alert advising consumers to avoid all HCG weight loss products, I wanted to take a closer look at why HCG is considered dangerous.

Unsafe Claims

Most HCG diet products are marketed in conjunction with extremely low calorie diets – as low as 500 calories a day. These diets claim consumers will lose up to 30 pounds in 30-40 days.

The problem is, any weight loss experienced is a result from severe calorie restriction – not from HCG. The FDA has approved HCG as a prescription drug for the treatment of female infertility and other medical conditions – but not for weight loss. Its prescription drug label states there “is no substantial evidence that it increases weight loss beyond that resulting from caloric restriction, that it causes a more attractive or ‘normal’ distribution of fat, or that it decreases the hunger and discomfort associated with calorie-restricted diets.”

A Dangerous Diet

Eating 500 calories a day is extremely dangerous, and can leave you at an increased risk for gallstone formation, an imbalance of the electrolytes that keep the body’s muscles and nerves functioning properly, and an irregular heartbeat. Without constant medical supervision for a condition such as obesity, such a restrictive diet could even be fatal.

FDA Legal Action

It’s illegal to sell products claiming to contain HCG as an OTC drug product. Companies marketing and selling these products could face enforcement actions, legal penalties or criminal prosecution. The FDA also advises consumers who have purchased homeopathic HCG for weight loss to stop using it, throw it out, and stop following the dieting instructions.

If you or a loved are on an HCG diet and have experienced any illnesses while taking HCG, contact Robert D. Rowland.

Medtronic INFUSE Bone Graft Off-Label Complications

Posted on December 20th, 2011 by Robert D. Rowland

It is estimated that 900,000 patients may have used the Medtronic INFUSE Bone Graft, a medical device with an active ingredient, rhBMP-2, that’s described as “a “genetically engineered version of a naturally occurring protein that is capable of initiating bone growth in specific, targeted areas of the spine.”

In 2002, the Food and Drug Administration approved INFUSE for only one type of spine surgery – anterior approach lumbar fusion. It has not been approved for any other type of spine surgeries, such as lateral or posterior approach lumbar fusion surgeries, or for surgery on the neck or cervical spine (the portion of the spine that runs from the shoulders to the head).

Despite its limited authorized use, INFUSE has been used off-label in surgeries on the lumbar or cervical spine for many patients. Today, as much as 85% of INFUSE use is off-label. In cases like these, when any drug or medical device is used off-label, the surgeon must fully disclose any and all risks prior to the surgery, so that the patient may make an informed decision as to whether or not to proceed with the surgery.

In June of 2011, a medical journal called The Spine Journal criticized earlier studies by physicians with financial ties to Medtronic that supported the widespread use of INFUSE. The Spine Journal charged “biased and corrupted research,” alleging the studies greatly understated INFUSE’s serious side effects and risks. In fact, in none of the 13 trials funded by Medtronic were any adverse events disclosed.

U.S. regulators and other research has now shown that up to 50% of patients who have received an INFUSE implant have suffered adverse effects, including ectopic bone growth, uncontrolled bone growth, swelling in the neck and throat, infection, inflammatory cyst formation, cancer, and infertility in men.

Have you or a loved one suffered side effects after receiving an INFUSE implant? Contact Robert D. Rowland.

Asthma and pre-term labor medication Terbutaline warning due to infant brain damage

Posted on December 1st, 2011 by Robert D. Rowland

Terbutaline, an asthma medication that’s commonly prescribed to halt pre-term labor and premature birth, has been shown to leave the brains of children susceptible to other chemicals ubiquitously present in the environment. A Duke University Medical Center study found that rats exposed to Terbutaline suffer greater brain cell damage than those not given the drug upon secondary exposure to insecticides.

Nearly 20 percent of all pregnancies in the United States result in early labor, and an estimated one million women are treated with Terbutaline or similar drugs to halt early contractions every year. The use of Terbutaline for use in pre-term labor and premature birth is not approved by the FDA. In fact, in 1997 the FDA issued its first warning concerning the potential dangers associated with the use of Terbutaline for the treatment and prevention of pre-term labor.

Studies show a link between the use of Terbutaline during pregnancy and an increased risk of brain damage and cognitive deficits, which may become noticeable at infancy, continue through adolescence and cause permanent disabilities. Researchers at Duke suggest that exposure predisposes newborns and infants to fall victim to particular ailments and medical conditions later in life.

The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program has now recommended women with asthma no longer take Terbutaline while they are pregnant, as the drug may penetrate to the fetus and affect brain development.

Terbutaline is sold under the brand names Brethine and Bricanyl. If you or a loved one has suffered from the effects of this drug, contact Robert D. Rowland.

Bladder Cancer Warning For Diabetes Drug Actos

Posted on October 26th, 2011 by Robert D. Rowland

In June of 2011, the FDA issued a new warning of increased bladder cancer risk associated with use of the diabetes drug Actos (pioglitazone), after analysis of a 5-year study of the drug by manufacturer Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

The results of the Actos study showed an increased risk of bladder cancer among long-term users of the drug, and a greater risk of bladder cancer among users exposed to the highest cumulative dose. The FDA is now requiring that new information about an increased risk of bladder cancer be added to the Warnings and Precautions section of the Actos label.

The FDA has also acknowledged a recent 10-years study in France, which suggests an increased risk of the bladder cancer with Actos use. As a result of this study, France has banned Actos, and Germany is advising doctors not to start Actos in new patients.

Symptoms of bladder cancer can include:
• Abdominal pain
• Blood in the urine
• Bone pain or tenderness
• Fatigue
• Painful urination
• Urinary frequency
• Urinary urgency
• Urine leakage (incontinence)
• Weight loss

If you or a loved one has suffered using Actos or pioglitazone, contact Robert D. Rowland.

New FDA Warnings for Vaginal Mesh Implant

Posted on October 24th, 2011 by Robert D. Rowland

In August 2011, the FDA issued new warnings for vaginal mesh – a medical implant designed specifically for repairs of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), as well as urinary stress incontinence. During pelvic organ prolapse, the internal structures that support the pelvic organs such as the bladder, uterus, and bowel drop from their normal position and “prolapse” into the vagina.

The FDA warns that the risks of placing mesh through the vagina to repair pelvic organ prolapse may outweigh its benefits, as the number of adverse events has increased since it first issued a safety communication in 2008.

The most frequent complications reported to the FDA for surgical mesh devices for POP repair include:
• Erosion or protrusion of the mesh from the soft tissues
• Pain, including pain with intercourse
• Infections in the area of the mesh
• Urinary tract problems
• Bleeding from the mesh site
• Damage to nearby organs

There have also been reports of recurrent prolapse, neuro-muscular problems, vaginal scarring/shrinkage, and emotional problems. Many of these complications require additional intervention, including medical or surgical treatment and hospitalization.

In a study of almost 12,000 women, approximately 10% of women experienced mesh erosion within a year after surgery (Abed, 2011), and problems with the mesh tend to develop at least a month after surgery for POP (Caquant, 2008).

If you or a loved one have received a vaginal mesh implant and are experiencing issues, contact Robert D. Rowland to discuss your case.

Supreme Court decision protects makers of generic drugs

Posted on September 28th, 2011 by Robert D. Rowland

In a recent 5-4 decision in Pliva v. Mensing, the United States Supreme Court ruled that makers of generic drugs cannot be sued for failing to warn people of potentially dangerous side effects, as long as their warning labels contain the same warnings as their brand-name equivalents.

In Pliva v. Mensing, MN resident Gladys Mensing and LA resident Julie Demahy both sued Pliva and other generic manufacturers under their respective state laws, after they developed a severe neurological disorder after taking generic versions of the drug Reglan for digestive tract problems in the early 2000s. The drug contained the active ingredient metoclopramide, and the women alleged that the manufacturers had a duty to strengthen their warning labels as problems related to the long-term use of metoclopramide became evident.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, held that since federal regulations regulate generic drugs to have the same warning labels as their brand-name equivalent, this pre-empts any state personal injury law that would allow an individual to sue manufacturers for an insufficient label. Under most states’ laws, drug manufacturers must update their warning labels as they became aware of new risks. Justice Thomas even acknowledged that it “makes little sense” that those individuals injured by generic drugs have no state failure-to-warn claim when those injured by brand-name drugs do.

Justice Sotomayor, noted in dissent: “A drug consumer’s right to compensation for inadequate warnings now turns on the happenstance of whether her pharmacist filled her prescription with a brand-name drug or a generic. If a consumer takes a brand-name drug, she can sue the manufacturer . . . if she takes a generic drug, as occurs 75 percent of the time, she now has no right to sue”.

The Mensing decision is a victory for pharmaceutical companies and a defeat for injured consumers. There are still ways to hold some generic manufacturer’s liable for failure to warn of known dangers presented by their drugs, but the road to compensation just got a lot steeper.

Have you been harmed by a prescription drug – brand-name or generic? Let us help. Contact Robert D Rowland.