Category: Product Liability

city of covington town hall meeting

Covington, GA – City Council Meeting – Ethylene Oxide News

OCTOBER 21, 2019

covington ethylene oxide contaminationATLANTA, GA – Attorney General Chris Carr today filed a complaint in Newton County Superior Court on behalf of Governor Brian Kemp and the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (EPD) to temporarily stop Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) from operating its Covington medical device sterilization facility in an unlawful manner.

From September 15, 2019 through September 22, 2019, BD violated the Georgia Air Quality Act and the Rules for Air Quality Control when it negligently allowed the release of 54.5 pounds of ethylene oxide into the atmosphere, which upon further investigation has been determined to have been caused by a lack of diligence and prolonged operator error rather than an equipment malfunction.

In addition, BD has failed to take all responsible precautions to prevent fugitive emissions of ethylene oxide in a timely manner as required by the Act, the Rules and its Air Quality Permit.

The state believes that BD should be shut down until it demonstrates to the Court that it has completed the following actions:

Trained all technicians on the proper operation of all valves in the facility;Completed corrective action to prevent a future release from all vacuum exhaust valves at the facility by installing blanks on the outlets to all vacuum exhaust valves to prevent flow regardless of valve position or condition; andInstalled necessary pollution control equipment to capture fugitive emissions of ethylene oxide at the facility and route them to a control device with at least 99 percent efficiency.

Today’s action by the state of Georgia is a result of BD’s lack of response to these recent violations, which is in stark contrast to the response that Governor Kemp and EPD have gotten from other similar medical commercial sterilizers in Georgia that have complied with EPD’s requests and are progressing in their efforts to reduce ethylene oxide emissions.

Despite Governor Kemp and EPD’s attempts at continued, transparent communication, the state believes that BD has failed to be a cooperative partner and has not demonstrated to EPD that it has made progress toward reducing ethylene oxide emissions at its Covington facility.

Georgia Contamination Lawsuit Intake

takta airbag injury lawsuit claims

Takata Airbag Lawsuit FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions On Takata Airbag Injury Claims

We know that deciding to contact a lawyer may not be an easy decision for many people.  We want you to know that we offer no pressure, free consultations to explain what why Takata airbags are defective, how they have injured many people and what a Takata airbag injury claim involves.  Our experienced legal team has already made substantial settlements for many people injured by these defective airbags.

For more detailed answers relating to your own circumstances, please contact our firm at 678-242-7626 for a free, no-obligation Takata airbag injury consultation.

Who can make a Takata airbag injury claim or file an airbag injury lawsuit?

Any person injured by a Takata airbag may be eligible to make an injury claim against Takata.  This is true even if you were the one who caused the crash that led to the airbag to deploy or even if you have already settled an injury case with the at-fault driver who caused the crash.  These are defective product claims against Takata, who negligently designed and manufactured the airbag deployment system.

What is the defect in the Takata airbag that caused injury?

The defect in the Takata airbag involves the inflator.  When the airbag is triggered during a crash to deploy, there is a mini explosion in the inflator that causes the airbag to deploy from the steering wheel housing.  Because of the defect, the mini explosion is much more powerful than it should be and the explosion causes pieces of metal and plastic to be shot out into the vehicle like shrapnel from a grenade explosion.  The flying shrapnel causes cuts, lacerations and even penetration injuries to the people sitting in the vehicle.

What types of injuries do I need to have a claim? 

The most common injuries we see are cuts, lacerations and puncture wounds.  These wounds are caused by the flying metal and plastic shrapnel that shoot out into the vehicle when the airbag deploys.  We have recovered money for people who have scarring on their head, face, neck, chest and arms.  When a person suffers these types of wounds and there has been no glass breakage in the crash, we look to see if we can show the injuries came from the airbag deployment.  In certain cases, we have also recovered money for people who suffered from broken bones, internal injuries and severe burns.  If you suffered injuries from an airbag, call us for a free case review to see if your injuries may have been caused by a defective Takata airbag.

What does it cost to have an attorney review my case?

Nothing.  We offer free, no obligation case reviews.  If we get the specific facts surrounding your crash and airbag injuries and we can help you, you owe us nothing unless we get you a recovery of money from Takata.  If we cannot help you get a recovery of money for your airbag injuries, you owe us NOTHING.

How do I know if my vehicle had a defective Takata airbag?

Call us if your suffered an injury from an airbag.  We can help you determine if the airbag that injured you was made by Takata.  You may be surprised to learn that Takata airbags are in 42 million vehicles from 19 different automakers.  These include:  Acura, Audi, BMW, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Dodge, Ford, GMC, Honda, Infinity, Jaguar, Jeep, Land Rover, Lexus, Lincoln, Mazda, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Saab, Subaru, Tesla, Toyota, Volkswagen.

Is this a class action lawsuit where you can only expect a small settlement equal to the small amount received by others?

No.  These are not class action cases.  Takata airbag lawsuits have been consolidated in U.S. District Court in Miami as a Multi-District Litigation (MDL). This is a legal procedure that allows individual cases to be consolidated with other similar cases, and then the cases can be evaluated and processed individually in a framework chosen for the MDL.  These are not small class action settlements where each injured person gets the same small amount of money.  Each case stands on its own, and each person is compensated based on the severity of his or her own injuries.  Our experienced legal team has already settled many of these Takata airbag injury cases for clients for substantial compensation.

What time limits apply to filing a Takata airbag injury claim? 

There are time limits that apply to these claims.  The time limit is determined by the law of the state involved.  We will help you determine if the time to file your Takata claim is still open.  However, do not delay in contacting us!  We have seen people with airbag injury claims lose out on the ability to recover substantial money from Takata because they just waited too long to contact us.

For more detailed answers relating to your own circumstances, please contact our firm at 678-242-7626 for a free, no-obligation Takata airbag injury consultation.

Takata Airbag Injury Intake

Airbag Injury Intake Form


Takata Airbag Recall List

This is a list of vehicles that have been part of the Takata airbag recall.

Make Model Model Years
Acura 3.2CL 2002-2003
Acura 3.2TL 2013-2016
Acura ILX 2013-2016
Acura ILX Hybrid 2014-2014
Acura MDX 2003-2006
Acura RDX 2007-2016
Acura RL 2005-2012
Acura TL 2009-2014
Acura TSX 2009-2014
Acura ZDX 2010-2013
Audi A3 2006-2013
Audi A4 Avant 2005-2008
Audi A4 Cabriolet 2006-2009
Audi A4 Sedan 2005-2008
Audi A5 Cabriolet 2010-2011
Audi A6 Avant 2003-2011
Audi A6 Sedan 2005-2011
Audi Q5 2009-2012
Audi R8 2017
Audi RS 4 Cabriolet 2008
Audi RS 4 Sedan 2007-2008
Audi S4 Avant 2005-2008
Audi S4 Cabriolet 2007-2009
Audi S4 Sedan 2005-2008
Audi S5 Cabriolet 2010-2012
Audi S6 Sedan 2007-2011
Audi TT 2016-2017
BMW 1 Series 2008-2013
BMW 3 Series 2000-2013
BMW 5 Series 2002-2003
BMW X1 2011-2015
BMW X3 2007-2010
BMW X5 2003-2013
BMW X6 2008-2014
BMW X6 Hybrid 2010-2011
Cadillac Escalade 2007-2014
Cadillac Escalade ESV 2007-2014
Cadillac Escalade EXT 2007-2013
Chevrolet Avalanche 2007-2013
Chevrolet Silverado HD 2007-2014
Chevrolet Silverado LD 2007-2013
Chevrolet Suburban 2007-2014
Chevrolet Tahoe 2007-2014
Chrysler 300 2005-2015
Chrysler Aspen 2007-2009
Chrysler Crossfire 2007-2008
Sterling Bullet 2008-2009
Dodge Sprinter 2007-2009
Freightliner Sprinter 2007-2017
Mercedes Sprinter 2010-2017
Dodge Challenger 2008-2014
Dodge Charger 2006-2015
Dodge Dakota 2005-2011
Dodge Durango 2004-2009
Dodge Magnum 2005-2008
Dodge Ram 1500/2500/3500 Pickup 2003-2008
Dodge Ram 2500 Pickup 2005-2009
Dodge Ram 3500 Cab Chassis 2007-2010
Dodge Ram 3500 Pickup 2006-2009
Dodge Ram 4500/5500 Cab Chassis 2008-2010
Ferrari 458 Italia 2010-2015
Ferrari 458 Speciale 2014-2015
Ferrari 458 Speciale A 2015
Ferrari 458 Spider 2012-2015
Ferrari 488 GTB 2016-2017
Ferrari 488 Spider 2016-2017
Ferrari California 2009-2014
Ferrari California T 2015-2017
Ferrari F12 2013-2017
Ferrari F12 tdf 2016-2017
Ferrari F60 2016
Ferrari FF 2012-2016
Ferrari GTC4Lusso 2017
Fisker Karma 2012
Ford Edge 2007-2010
Ford Fusion 2006-2012
Ford GT 2005-2006
Ford Mustang 2005-2014
Ford Ranger 2004-2011
GMC Sierra HD 2007-2014
GMC Sierra LD 2007-2013
GMC Yukon 2007-2014
GMC Yukon XL 2007-2014
Honda Accord 2001-2012
Honda Civic 2001-2011
Honda Civic Hybrid 2003-2011
Honda Civic NGV 2001-2011
Honda Crosstour 2010-2015
Honda CR-V 2002-2011
Honda CR-Z 2011-2015
Honda Element 2003-2011
Honda FCX Clarity 2010-2014
Honda Fit 2007-2013
Honda Fit EV 2013-2014
Honda Insight 2010-2014
Honda Odyssey 2002-2004
Honda Pilot 2003-2015
Honda Ridgeline 2006-2014
Infiniti FX 2003-2008
Infiniti I30 2001
Infiniti I35 2002-2004
Infiniti M 2006-2010
Infiniti QX4 2002-2003
Jaguar XF 2009-2015
Jeep Wrangler 2007-2016
Land Rover Range Rover 2007-2012
Lexus ES350 2007-2012
Lexus GX460 2010-2017
Lexus IS250/350 2006-2013
Lexus IS250C/350C 2010-2015
Lexus IS F 2008-2014
Lexus LFA 2012
Lexus SC430 2002-2010
Lincoln MKX 2007-2010
Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ 2006-2012
Mazda B-Series 2004-2009
Mazda CX-7 2007-2012
Mazda CX-9 2007-2015
Mazda 6 2003-2011
Mazda Mazdaspeed6 2006-2007
Mazda MPV 2004-2006
Mazda RX-8 2004-2011
McLaren 570 2016-2017
McLaren 650S 2015-2016
McLaren 675LT 2016
McLaren MP4-12C 2012-2014
McLaren P1 2011-2015
Mercedes C-Class 2005-2014
Mercedes E-Class 2010-2011
Mercedes E-Class Cabrio 2011-2017
Mercedes E-Class Coupe 2010-2017
Mercedes GL-Class 2009-2012
Mercedes GLK-Class 2010-2015
Mercedes ML-Class 2009-2010
Mercedes R-Class 2009-2012
Mercedes SLK-Class 2007-2008
Mercedes SLS-Class 2011-2015
Mercury Milan 2006-2011
Mitsubishi i-MiEV 2012-2017
Mitsubishi Lancer 2004-2007
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution 2004-2006
Mitsubishi Lancer Sportback 2004
Mitsubishi Raider 2006-2009
Nissan Maxima 2001-2003
Nissan Pathfinder 2002-2004
Nissan Sentra 2002-2006
Nissan Versa 2007-2012
Pontiac Vibe 2003-2010
Saab 9-2x 2005-2006
Saab 9-3 2006-2011
Saab 9-5 2006-2009
Saturn Astra 2008-2009
Scion XB 2008-2015
Subaru Baja 2003-2006
Subaru Forester 2009-2013
Subaru Impreza 2004-2011
Subaru Legacy 2003-2014
Subaru Outback 2003-2014
Subaru Tribeca 2006-2014
Subaru WRX/STI 2012-2014
Tesla Model S 2012-2016
Toyota 4Runner 2010-2016
Toyota Corolla 2003-2013
Toyota Corolla Matrix 2003-2008
Toyota Matrix 2009-2013
Toyota Rav4 2004-2005
Toyota Sequoia 2002-2006
Toyota Sienna 2011-2014
Toyota Tundra 2003-2006
Toyota Yaris (Hatch Back) 2006-2011
Toyota Yaris (Sedan) 2007-2012
Volkswagen CC 2009-2017
Volkswagen Eos 2010-2014
Volkswagen Golf 2010-2014
Volkswagen Golf R 2013
Volkswagen GTI 2009-2013
Volkswagen Passat 2012-2014
Volkswagen Passat Sedan 2006-2010
Volkswagen Passat Wagon 2006-2010

Texas High Court Ends Appeal With Mesh Patient and Johnson & Johnson

A woman whose $1.2 million pelvic-mesh injury award was erased by an appeals court has asked the Texas Supreme Court to call off a final review, citing a settlement with device maker Johnson & Johnson.

Linda Batiste won $1.2 million in April 2014 over injuries allegedly caused by the TVT-O bladder sling. An appeals court overturned the trial award in November 2015 and Batiste quickly appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, where the case has been shelved ever since the two sides said last May that they’d reached a settlement in principle.

They asked the court Monday to dismiss the petition for review — despite still calling the deal an “agreement in principle.”

“The parties to this appeal have reached an agreement in principle to settle this case. Therefore, the parties file this joint request to dismiss the petition for review,” lawyers for Batiste and J&J said in the joint filing.

In the short motion, they also requested unspecified “general relief.”

TVT-O pelvic mesh is used to treat stress urinary incontinence. The Dallas appeals court had held in November 2015 that Batiste must show a link between an alleged defect — like the alleged propensity of the TVT-O’s heavyweight, small-pore mesh to erode — and her injuries, instead of just showing that injuries were caused by the device as a whole.

Representatives for the parties were not immediately available for comment.

Batiste had first requested that the state high court put the case on hold in May 2016, saying the parties had reached a settlement in principle but needed time to hammer out details and get them on paper. A status report from Jan. 31 of this year indicated that they’d made “significant progress” and asked for the last in a line of extensions.

Batiste had contended the appellate court wrongly required her to prove her injuries were caused by a specific defect, saying Texas courts are split on whether medical device cases are specifically exempt from a Texas product liability law that requires plaintiffs to isolate causation to a specific defect.

That’s a standard under which “it will be virtually impossible for any plaintiff to prevail on a product liability claim against a drug or device manufacturer in Texas,” Batiste had told the high court in her initial petition.

The Dallas appeals court said in November 2015 that while it’s undisputed that TVT-O can cause complications and it’s undisputed that Batiste suffered from those complications, the law of products liability doesn’t guarantee a product will be free of risk.

Batiste is represented by Tim Goss and Sara Turman-Vedral of Freese & Goss PLLC, Peter de la Cerda of Edwards & de la Cerda PLLC, Richard Capshaw of Capshaw & Associates, and David Matthews of Matthews and Associates.

Johnson & Johnson is represented by Stephen Brody and Charles Lifland of O’Melveny & Myers LLP and Scott Stolley of Cherry Petersen Landry Albert LLP.

The case is Batiste v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 15-0975, in the Supreme Court of Texas.

Link to appeal

If you have suffered from Hernia Mesh Complications then click here to submit a free case evaluation and analysis. There are no fees unless we win your case.

Baby Powder Linked To Ovarian Cancer

Third Jury Finds Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder Caused Ovarian Cancer

Jury Finds Negligence With Johnson & Johnson

On October 27, 2016, Johnson & Johnson® lost a third straight jury trial to a woman claiming that she developed ovarian cancer after using Johnson & Johnson baby powder for many years.  The St. Louis, MO jury awarded Deborah Giannecchini, age 62, an award of more than $70 million in damages.  This verdict follows damages verdicts of $72 million and $55 million against J&J returned this year in the first two talc powder cases to go to trial in St. Louis. Both of the earlier verdicts are being appealed and J&J also has said it will appeal this third verdict.

One juror interviewed after the trial said J&J should have provided a warning label on the product to let consumers decide whether to use the talc powder.  Juror Billie Ray of St. Louis said after the trial “it seemed like Johnson & Johnson didn’t pay attention.” She also said “it seemed like they didn’t care.”  J&J has denied any link to talc use and ovarian cancer.

J&J is facing hundreds of claims in St. Louis state court.  It is also facing about more suits in Los Angeles, CA and others in New Jersey by woman claiming to have developed ovarian cancer after long term use of the talc powder.  However, a New Jersey state court judge last month threw out two J&J talc cases set for trial, finding inadequate scientific support for the cancer claims.

 Our legal team is filing talc cases for women who have suffered from ovarian cancer after the use of talc powder products, such as Johnson’s Baby Powder® and Shower To Shower®.  If you or a loved one used Johnson’s Baby Powder® or Shower To Shower® for more than 5 years and have developed ovarian cancer, please contact us for a free, no obligation, case evaluation.  

Representatives are available 24/7 to take your call at (800)321-4477.