PA Law Blogs » Legal Information

Fosamax-Where is Femur Fracture:

Jackie Fedeli — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:36:11 +0000

Many people who take Fosamax are now hearing of the risks of a femur fracture. The leaves patients wondering Where is a femur fracture suffered?

The femur, or thigh bone, Is the longest bone in your body, running between your hip and your knee. Your femur is also the strongest bone in your body,which may leave even people with weak bones due to osteoporosis baffled when they suffer a femur fracture from a minor fall, or simply engaging in an ordinary, daily activity, such as walking or climbing stairs. What’s baffling is these individuals are taking Bisphosphonate drugs to treat their osteoporosis.

Bisphosphonates, such as Fosamax, are medications used to reduce the risk of bone fracture and to increase bone mass in people who have osteoporosis. Ironically, Fosamax is being prescribed to make bones stronger, yet it makes the strongest bone weaker.

About 10 million Americans suffer from osteoporosis, many more are experiencing osteopenia, a less severe condition that is often a prelude to osteoporosis. Fosamax is prescribed to prevent bone loss, and maintain bone mineral density regardless of the age of the patient or the extent of bone loss at the start of treatment. Fosamax label warns of very rare instances of fractures, but a new study from the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research showed that 310 osteoporosis patients suffered a rare femur fracture and that 94 percent of them had been taking a Bisphosphonate drug like Fosamax. Thus individuals taking Fosamax to strengthen their bones may be more susceptible to dangers of fracturing femur bones.

Is Actos safe to use?

Deborah Forrister — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:43:02 +0000

Is Actos safe to use? That is a question you should be asking your doctor. That is a question you should be asking yourself as well. Sometimes doctors do not have all the answers.

Most diabetics have to be on medication long term unless perhaps they lose a lot of weight, diligently exercise, and change their lifestyle drastically. Most people are unable to do that.

So, most diabetics are on Actos long term. It’s the nature of diabetes. But is Actos safe to use?

On June 15, 2011, the FDA alerted the public that using Actos for more than one year may be linked with an increased risk of bladder cancer. Information about this risk would be added to the Warnings and Precautions section of the label for medicines containing Actos. The patient Medication Guide for these medicines will also be revised to include information on the risk of bladder cancer.

Also in June 2011, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was informed by the French Medicines Agency of its decision to suspend the use of Actos-containing medicines in France, while awaiting the outcome of the ongoing European review on the risks and benefits of some anti-diabetic medicines.

So there are precautions. But is Actos safe to use? This is the conversation you should be having with your doctor and healthcare team. Your doctor may say that the risk is small and the benefits outweigh the risk. Perhaps, except for those people who have been diagnosed with bladder cancer from taking Actos for more than one year, Actos was not safe to use.

Risky business: Diabetic Clinical Trial Ends Abruptly

Michael Monheit — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:09:51 +0000

Late last year Novartis announced termination of ALTITUDE study with Rasilez®/ Tekturna® in high-risk patients with diabetes and renal impairment; 8,609 patients from 36 countries were involved.

There was an increased incidence after 18-24 months of non-fatal stroke, kidney complications, hyperkalemia (high potassium levels) and hypotension (low blood pressure) in the diabetic high-risk study population.

According to the press release put out by Novartis, following the seventh interim review of data from the ALTITUDE study with Rasilez®/Tekturna®, a decision to terminate the trial has been taken on the recommendation of the independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC).

The DMC noted that patients were unlikely to benefit from treatment added on top of standard anti-hypertensives, and identified higher adverse events in patients receiving Rasilez/Tekturna in addition to standard of care in the trial.

As a precautionary measure Novartis will cease promotion of Rasilez/Tekturna-based products for use in combination with an ACE-inhibitor or ARB.

Patients involved in the ALTITUDE study should have contacted their study site for guidance on medication but should not stop treatment until they have seen a doctor who can help control high blood pressure.

Reasons To File A Lawsuit After A Car Accident

Jackie Fedeli — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:57:23 +0000

Every Five seconds, there is an automobile accident somewhere in the United States. Half involve some sort of injury. Your First thought after an auto accident might be to call your insurance company and let them handle all of the details. For some this may be the best option. Others may contact an attorney to file a lawsuit against the negligent driver on their behalf. If you were involved in an auto accident, you may want to ask yourself what are the reason to file a lawsuit after a car accident?

The main reason to file an auto accident lawsuit is death or permanent or catastrophic injuries that render one incapable of working or performing daily activities permanently or a significant period of time.

One of the reasons to file a lawsuit after a car accident is a lack of insurance by the responsible party. The victim would need to file either an Uninsured or Underinsured Motorist claim.

Automobile and truck accident cases also may involve other complex issues, including dangerous highway design, dangerous design of an automobile, an airbag failure or truck, as well as liquor liability claims against bars that serve drivers to the point of intoxication. If any of these factors caused or contributed to your auto accident, you may want to consider contacting an attorney to review your accident report. Some of these more complex cases can involve multiple defendants, including state and local governments, the Department of Transportation and automobile manufacturers.

Hiring a Personal Injury Attorney to represent you may also increase your chances of getting a larger settlement.

To find out more about automobile accident cases, please visit: http://www.anapolschwartz.com/practices/auto_accidents.shtml

Anapol Schwartz’s Larry Coben takes on the NFL

Michael Monheit — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:57:16 +0000

Imagine that you worked many years for an employer — for good pay — only to find after retirement that your job exposed you to long-term health risks, including brain injury. Your former bosses protest that you were compensated well enough during your professional years that you need no additional compensation. Where do you turn?

A December 2011 New York Times story considers just that issue. At stake: the future care for over a hundred retired National Football League players and their spouses, who assert in a series of lawsuits that team owners, helmet manufacturers, and the NFL itself knew about the dangers of concussions during play — or, at least, they should have known about those dangers, yet looked away.

Larry Coben, an attorney with Anapol Schwartz, represents seven retirees, including famed Chicago Bears quarterback Jim McMahon. In the New York Times article, he makes the case against the league in stark terms: “We believe that the long-term medical complications that have been associated with multiple concussions — such as memory loss, impulse anger-control problems, disorientation, dementia — were well documented, and that factually the N.F.L. knew or should have known of these potentially devastating neurological problems, and yet it didn’t take any active role in addressing the issue for players.”

The science of head trauma

The Times hints that the NFL’s defense against these lawsuits will be to claim that the NFL has always placed a high emphasis on safety. The evidence of this is mixed, however. The players and their attorneys argue that the NFL rejected conventional medical advice on head trauma, and in 2007 even informed players that “Current research with professional athletes has not shown that having more than one or two concussions leads to permanent problems if each injury is treated properly.” They also claim the league’s doctors produced research — later discredited — that minimized the risks to players.

In fact, medical studies over the last decade have shown that football concussion injuries are associated with severe challenges later in life. Retired NFL players who had received concussions in their careers “reported more problems with memory, concentration, speech impediments, headaches and other neurological problems than those who had not,” as determined by a 2000 survey. A 2007 study found that multiple career concussions was linked to depression in NFL retirees at triple the rate of uninjured players. In 2009, a study found that Alzheimer’s disease and similar memory impairments may affect former NFL players at a rate of 19 times the normal rate for men ages 30 through 49.

The changing climate of public opinion

The Times report suggests that public opinion may have a huge influence on these lawsuits. Certainly the NFL would like to dismiss the suits as mere nuisances, but the potential danger to the league’s image probably makes that impossible.

Recent legal controversies dealt with arcane issues — such as merchandising and antitrust exemptions — that were unlikely to stir the passions of everyday sports fans. A parade of retired football heroes testifying how NFL neglect lead to their mental disabilities would be different.

It would be a public relations disaster for the NFL. “The notion of retired players telling a jury the league is at least partly liable for their dementia and other cognitive disabilities is an entirely different matter, legal experts say, because the players’ testimonies are bound to get a sympathetic audience and cast a shadow over the league,” reports Ken Belson in the New York Times.

New Year New Partner

Jackie Fedeli — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:44:51 +0000

As the world welcomed a new year, on January 1, 2012, The shareholders at Anapol Schwartz welcomed another member to their table. Gregory Spizer a non-equity partner at Anapol Schwartz became an Equity Partner and Firm Shareholder.

Spizer serves as Co-Chair of the firm’s Mass Tort Department, along with Tom Anapol. He has been consecutively named a Rising Star Super Lawyer for the past five years.

Greg concentrates his practice in Pharmaceutical Liability and other Civil Litigation Matters.

What is the Problem with Topamax?

Jackie Fedeli — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:33:00 +0000

Topamax, and it’s generic, topiramate, is used to treat epileptic seizures. It is also occasionally prescribed to treat migraines. The issue is not whether or not Topamax is effective in preventing seizures, the problem lies with the risks it poses to women of childbearing age.

Is it Possible to get pregnant while taking Topamax?

Yes.

Women this drug may be even more likely to become pregnant than those treating with something else. Topamax may decrease the effectiveness of some types of birth control. This drug poses an even bigger hazard, of a user does become pregnant. Originally classified as a Pregnancy Category C drug when it was introduced to the market, Topamax was reclassified to a Category D by the FDA in April 2011.

What does this mean? This means that Topamax can cause harm to your unborn child. The problem with Topamax is that it can cause a cleft lip and/or cleft palate if taken during pregnancy. Because this drug may interfere certain forms of birth control, it makes young female patients even more susceptible to giving birth to a child with a cleft lip or cleft palate.

If you are a young woman taking Topamax or Topirimate to teat epilepsy, please talk to your doctor about the benefits and risks about taking this drug. If you are planning on starting a family, please ask your doctor about the risks of taking Topamax when trying to conceive. He or she would be able to advise of you of the best alternative treatments.

FDA asks Pelvic Mesh Manufactures to Study Risks and Report Complications

Jackie Fedeli — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:19:58 +0000

A few months ago, the FDA warned that Transvaginal Mesh used to treat Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Stress Urinary Incontinence was riskier than other treatments for these conditions, and that doctors and patients should explore all other options before going through with this surgery. Since then, the FDA had been leaning towards making Transvaginal Mesh a high risk device. Yesterday, the FDA issued an order requiring makers of implantable mesh used to treat urinary incontinence in women to study the risks.

The 33 Manufactures of pelvic mesh affected by this order include, Johnson & Johnson, Bard, American Medical Systems, and Boston Scientific. If the FDA chooses to reclassify this device as high risk, the manufacturers will have to prove the product’s safety and effectiveness before launching. Pelvic meshes were introduced to the general public without any prior human testing.

Similar to the request directed towards the manaufacturs of Metal on Metal Hip Implants, The FDA is now asking each Pelivc Mesh manufacturer to collect data on results and potential complications of Transvaginal Mesh procedures.

For more information on complications from Transvaginal Mesh, please visit: http://www.anapolschwartz.com/practices/transvaginal/

Pennsylvania Asbestos Lawsuits

Thomas Anapol — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:57:24 +0000

Since the link between Asbestos and Mesothelioma was discovered in the 1950s, regulations have been put into place for manufacturers and builders who would have used this product. Although you or a loved one may have been exposed to asbestos in the 1980s, it’s not too late to file Pennsylvania Asbestos Lawsuits. Lung Cancer Adenocarcinoma, the most common type of asbestos cancer, can take up to 20 or 30 years to completely manifest in individuals with prolonged asbestos exposure.

Lung cancer found in the lower lobes of the lungs are most typically associated with asbestos exposure. Lung Cancer Adenocarcinoma develops through the lung tissue, obstructing air passages. Adenocarcinoma is a cancer that begins in the glandular tissue also known as epithelial tissue.

Unfortunately, one does not need to be in contact with asbestos for a long period of time to develop lung cancer. Mesothelioma, a more severe type of asbestos related lung cancer, can affect even those who were only exposed to asbestos for a short, or intermittent period of time. Because such a limited amount of exposure is needed, Mesothelimoa is the most dangerous type of asbestos related disease. This type of cancer is found within
the thin tissue membranes lining the thoracic and abdominal cavities and surrounding internal organs.

Sadly, many people do not know they have Mesothelioma until it is too late. Common symptoms include, shortness of breath, pain in the lower back or side of the chest, coughing and weight loss. Many individuals experiencing these symptoms, may not attribute it to their asbestos exposure because it happened so long ago. Anyone who suffered asbestos exposure is encouraged to follow up with their doctor if any of these symptoms manifest. Because the manufactures knew of the dangers of asbestos at least 10 years before the dangers were revealed, anyone who was exposed may have grounds for Pennsylvania Asbestos Lawsuits

Don’t Hate The Players- Former Sports Stars Sue Much-Loved NFL

Jackie Fedeli — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 20:45:06 +0000

The National Football League is one of the largest conglomerates in the world of Entertainment. What more proof do you need than the $3.5 million asking price per 30-second spot for a commercial during the Super Bowl. Being that popular an organization, the NFL is no stranger to lawsuits. Most of which, such as merchandising drug testing, and anti-trust issues, can be viewed as nuisance cases: easily be settled and ignored by fans. But when the opponents going against the much-loved organization are former idolized players, the fans sympathy may not lie with the League.

During the last six months, more than 120 retired players and their wives filed suits against the NFL alleging that the league, and in some cases the helmet manufacturers, deliberately concealed information about the neurological effects of multiple concussions. The players claim that even if the NFL did not know the long term severity of repeated brain trauma sustained during the game, it should have.

The NFL believes that they have taken appropriate steps to protect their players. In 2007 a pamphlet was distributed through the league advising “Current research with professional athletes has not shown that having more than one more two concussion leads to permanent problems if each injury is treated properly.” But did the NFL prevent players from seeking proper treatment? The retired players claim the NFL rejected a widely accepted science on head trauma and that research provided by the league’s doctors was found out to be severely flawed.

The NFL defends that the players knew that the sport was dangerous when they signed up and they continued to play after being injured. The League also points out that that they have taken safety precautions, such as outlawing the practice of spearing as an offensive move.

The NFL will need to deal with the unflattering publicity as former players, such as Jim McMahon and Jamal Lewis, claim to be suffering from dementia, distortion as well as other cognitive disabilities resulting from repeated concussions experienced on the field. Attorney, Larry Coben, who represents McMahon and 7 other former players advised “We believe that the long-term medical complications that have been associated with multiple concussions — such as memory loss, impulse anger-control problems, disorientation, dementia — were well documented, and that factually the N.F.L. knew or should have known of these potentially devastating neurological problems, and yet it didn’t take any active role in addressing the issue for players”