Arizona’s policy that denies the granting of driver's licenses to young immigrants has been issued a preliminary injunction by 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ panel of three judges, who saw the state’s policy as nothing more than an expression of hostility toward young immigrants. About 19,000 young immigrants, who are taking part in the 2012 Obama program which deferred any action on their deportation, have been granted extended stay in the U.S. and have been given a legal right to a two-year renewable employment permit stand to benefit greatly from the recent federal appeals court ruling. The directive to state agencies to refuse young immigrants a driver’s license and other public benefits began in August 2012 through an executive order issued by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer. Gov. Brewer’s order was aimed at preventing any opportunity to use one’s license to access public benefits improperly and on matters of liability concerns. Despite the court’s decision, which Gov. Brewer considers as misguided, she plans to pursue the case through an appeal. Besides Arizona, the only other state that has, and continues to have, a similar policy is Nebraska where, also this year, an attempt to contest its policy was dismissed by a federal judge.
Small incisions can lead to big problems with certain surgical procedures. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an advisory on April 17, 2014 against the use of morcellation surgical devices in laparoscopic procedures, particularly for hysterectomies and myomectomies. It turns out that morcellation (basically cutting up tissue for easy removal through small incisions) may stimulate the spread of unsuspected cancers already present in 1 out of 350 women patients with uterine fibroids. The widower of a woman who died of metastatic myleosarcoma (cancer of the uterus) a year after undergoing a robot-assisted hysterectomy using a morcellation device filed suit against Ethicon Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson that manufactures the medical device, among others for failure to warn. Prior to the surgery, the patient had no signs or symptoms of cancer. The lawsuit was filed in March 14, 2014, nearly a full month before the FDA issued its advisory. According to a report published in the Pittsburgh Business Times, a pathologist from Pennsylvania named Robert Lamparter had alerted J&J about the potential risks of spreading uterine cancer with the use of a morcellation device in hysterectomies back in 2006. However, it was only when the FDA issued its alert that J&J suspended the sale of the device, 12 years after they had been advised to do so by Dr. Lamperter. Ethicon representatives maintain that the device carries the warning in its instructions for use. If you have been the victim of a defective surgical device, you may feel like taking legal action is prohibitively costly for you. Fortunately, lawsuit funding can provide you with the financing you need to take legal action now. Learn more by contacting the compassionate team at Downey Lawsuit Funding today.
The first bellwether case selected as representative of the cases brought against Boehringer Ingelheim for its product Pradaxa included in multidistrict litigation (MDL 2385 - Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation - heard in the Southern District of Illinois) will start jury selection on September 8, 2014. This is according to a case management order (CMO 60) of MDL 2385 released on March 5, 2014. Opening arguments are scheduled to begin on September 15. Pradaxa is an oral anti-coagulant prescribed to treat nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in order to reduce the risk of stroke. The cases filed against Boehringer allege that the product caused uncontrollable and irreversible internal bleeding, which in some cases led to death, and that the drug maker knew about this danger but failed to issue appropriate warnings. The first cases were filed against Boehringer in March 2012, although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration started receiving complaints the previous December. Boehringer was sanctioned for discovery violations and bad faith in December 2013, earning the company a rebuke from Chief Judge David R. Herndon as well as a $931,500 fine. Three other cases designated as bellwether cases 2, 3, and 4 have been given initial trial dates for December 1, 2014, February 17, 2015, and March 23, 2015 respectively. There are currently more than 2,000 cases included in MDL 2385, but the numbers are expected to rise as increased awareness of the risks associated with Pradaxa becomes more widespread. Lawsuits against major pharmaceutical manufacturers can, unfortunately take months, even years, and many individuals may find themselves in desperate need of financial assistance before their case is finished. However, lawsuit funding can provide individuals with an important lifeline in situations such as this. To learn more about how lawsuit funding can help you if you've been the victim of a dangerous medication, contact the team at Downey Lawsuit Funding today.
Pier 1 Imports, the popular national furniture and home décor chain, has become the subject of a class-action lawsuit alleging discrimination against a pregnant employee. According to the suit filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Kimberley Caselman, a 31-year old sales associate at one of the store’s San Jose locations, was denied an extension of an exemption she had been given to help preserve her health during her pregnancy. Caselman, on her doctor’s recommendation, had requested that she not be required to life objects heavier than 15 pounds or to climb ladders in the store. While she was initially granted an 8-week exception for these duties, when she requested to have the exception extended, she was denied and forced to go on medical leave. Unfortunately, the four-month forced leave expires well before she is due to give birth, meaning Caselman will no longer have the leave she needs to be able to take off from work when it comes time to deliver her child. As a result, she and her attorneys have filed preliminary paperwork to fight back against this unjust form of pregnancy discrimination. At Downey Lawsuit Funding, we understand how hard it can be to fight back against employer discrimination on your own, and we help to provide clients with the financial support they need in order to take legal action to fight for justice.
A U.S. federal jury recently imposed a total of over $9 billion in damages on Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd and Eli Lilly and Co., the defendants in the consolidated multidistrict case regarding allegations that the companies had hidden the dangers Actos, a diabetes drug, posed to consumers. According to court documentation, plaintiffs stated that the two companies failed to disclose the cancer risks associated with Actos. Specifically, Takeda was ordered to pay $6 billion in punitive damages, and Eli Lilly was ordered to pay $3 billion in punitive damages. The jury also determined that both companies should pay a total of $1.475 million in compensatory payments, with Takeda taking 75% of the responsibility for those payments and Eli Lilly taking 25%. Both companies have released statements saying they plan to fight the punitive damages. According to the general counsel for Takeda, Kenneth Greisman, “We intend to vigorously challenge this outcome through all available legal means, including possible post-trial motions and an appeal.” Filing a lawsuit against another party, especially a major pharmaceutical one such as Takeda or Eli Lilly, can be a drawn out process and, as a result, expensive. Fortunately for people who believe they should be owed money from another party, there are many options available to make filing a lawsuit possible, including getting funding. To learn more about the options available to you, contact Downey Lawsuit Funding today.
Two interns who worked for Fox Searchlight Pictures have won a key ruling in their lawsuit against the company over allegations that they were improperly classified as interns and denied pay for their work on the 2010 production of the film “Black Swan.” Eric Glatt and Andrew Footman filed suit in 2011, alleging that the type of work they were asked to perform, including getting lunch for production staff and other menial tasks, did not fit the legal requirements necessary for their status as unpaid interns. U.S. District Judge William Pauley agreed, claiming that the two should have been treated as employees under New York’s labor laws, as well as federal employment regulations. Attorneys for Fox Searchlight have vowed to appeal the decision to the 2nd Court of Appeals. This case demonstrates something important for those pursuing lawsuits, particularly against larger companies, to keep in mind: namely, that these types of defendants have access to substantial legal resources, and can often drag cases out over many years in order to discourage litigants from fully pursuing the justice they deserve. Fortunately, lawsuit funding can help to ameliorate this problem. Contact the professionals at Downey Lawsuit Funding today to learn more about how this service may be able to help you win your case.