Posts Tagged ‘class action lawyer’
Actos does have warnings for bladder cancer with use for extended periods of time. Actos lawyers are filing lawsuits for people who have developed bladder cancer as a part of a multi district litigation.
FDA Warnings For Actos and Bladder Cancer
FDA Drug Safety Communication: Update to ongoing safety review of Actos (pioglitazone) and increased risk of bladder cancer
Actos Bladder Cancer Safety Announcement
[6-15-2011] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is informing the public that use of the diabetes medication Actos (pioglitazone) for more than one year may be associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer. Information about this risk will be added to the Warnings and Precautions section of the label for pioglitazone-containing medicines.
Actos Bladder Cancer Lawsuit
Actos lawsuits are being filed on behalf of type II diabetics who developed bladder cancer from long-term use of the drug Actos. These lawsuits continue to move forward in a multidistrict litigation in U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana. More than 2,500 Actos bladder cancer lawsuits are currently pending in the Western District of Louisiana, where the first trials are scheduled to begin in January.
Actos Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2299
If you believe you, a loved one or someone you are a caregiver for has gotten bladder cancer and has been on Actos call and speak to an Actos lawyer today. There must be a confirmed diagnosis of bladder cancer to be added to the lawsuit.
Dialysis Medication Lawsuits Filed For Heart Attacks
Our lawyers have been filing both Naturalyte GranuFlo Acid Concentrate and Liquid Acid Concentrate GranuFlo recall lawsuits due to reported immediate heart attacks . These products are used in dialysis treatment to cleanse the blood in conjunction with a dialysis machine. Fresenius Medical Care is facing lawsuits due to failure to warn the public of the GranuFlo heart attack risk when it was aware of GranuFlo has a tendency to increase bicarbonate levels to a hazardous degree. Fresenius Medical Care is a leading provider of dialysis clinics, machines and other dialysis products.
GranuFlo Heart Attack Risks
The risk of GranuFlo heart attack (myocardial infarction) known by Fresenius Medical Care in 2011. The GranuFlo heart attack risk was first disclosed in a Fresenius internal company memo which stated the company had made “troubling findings” related to GranuFlo heart attack death risks, and noted that, “the issue needs to be addressed urgently.” The drug's have elevated bicarbonate levels in the bloodstream, resulting in metabolic alkalosis. Our GranuFlo heart attack risk lawyers will expain to you what the medical product lawsuits are amd review your case.
GranuFlo FDA Recall, GranuFlo FDA Warning
- The FDA issued a GranuFlo Heart Attack Warning on May 25, 2012,
- Class 1 FDA GranuFlo Recall on June 27, 2012.
GranuFlo Lawsuits, GranuFlo Recall Lawsuits
Dilaysis medication lawsuits are being filed by or on behalf of persons who have had a heart attack immediately after GranuFlo was used in their dialysis treatment.
Class Action Lawyer Network, vaginal mesh lawyers are accepting all TVT, Vaginal Mesh and Bladder Sling lawsuits at this time. Although many states have reached the 2 year statute of limitation cut off dates, our vaginal mesh lawyers are still accepting these lawsuits on a case by case basis.
The following is a list of vaginal mesh lawsuit states that do not have a 2 year statute of limitations. Kentucky, Louisiana and Tennessee have a one year statute of limitations.
Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits Statute Of Limitations
MDL – 2325, IN RE: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation
MDL No. 2187 | In RE: CR Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation
MDL – 2326 IN RE: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation
MDL – 2327 IN RE: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation
MDL – 2387 IN RE: Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation
Cook Medical Surgical will be the 5th MDL
Vaginal mesh lawsuits are being accepted for all of the manufacturers listed above. Boston Scientific and AMS vaginal mesh cases have a unique advantage. If you have had your vaginal mesh implanted in a 2 year statute state and it is a Boston Scientific or AMS product the lawsuit can be moved to the state's of the mnaiufacturers. This is Minnesota and Massachusetts. These states have not reached the statute filing date as of yet.
Contact our vaginal mesh lawyers for more information on filing you vaginal mesh lawsuits for class action lawsuit against mesh.
Class Action Lawyer Network Carnival Cruise class action lawyers are accepting clients for lawsuits against the Carnival Triumph in a class action lawsuit.
(CNN) — A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carnival Corporation surrounding the events that crippled the cruise ship Triumph in the Gulf of Mexico.
Filing on behalf of other passengers, Matt and Melissa Crusan of Oklahoma alleged in their lawsuit that "Carnival knew or should have known that the vessel Triumph was likely to experience mechanical and/or engine issues because of prior similar issues," the court filing said.
The lawsuit alleged that conditions on the ship "created a severe risk of injury, illness and/or disease."
The case was filed this week in U.S. District Court in the southern district of Florida.
Carnival spokesman Vance Gulliksen said: "We are unable to comment on pending litigation."
The Triumph experienced propulsion issues on prior voyages in mid-January, and on January 28, "there was an incident which resulted in damage to the Triumph's … propulsion system and generators," the suit said. "Notwithstanding said issues, Carnival knowingly decided to embark on the subject voyage."
On February 7, the Triumph departed from Galveston, Texas, for planned four-day cruise to Mexico, but on the third day, a fire broke out, bringing the trip to a halt.
The vessel was carrying more than 4,200 people, including 3,100 passengers, and conditions became unsanitary as human waste overflowed into public spaces on the ship.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Coast Guard said the fire started with a leak in a fuel-oil return line running from one of the ship's engines. When the leaking oil hit a hot surface, the fire ignited. The Coast Guard is continuing its investigation into why the ship was disabled for so long.
The fire started about dawn February 10. Tug boats pulled the disabled ship to safe harbor in Mobile, Alabama, late on February 14. The debarkation process lasted until February 15.
"From February 10, 2013, until February 15, 2013, Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated passengers were harmed and/or injured as a result of the engine room fire by way of being stranded at sea without necessary services and supplies," the lawsuit said.
Passengers slept on deck or in other public areas and used buckets, bags, showers and sinks to relieve themselves of waste, the suit said.
They were given "spoiled and rotting food" to eat, the lawsuit said.
"Due to the lack of working plumbing and sanitation systems on the vessel, sewage and/or putrid water filled with urine and feces leaked onto floors, walls, and ceilings. This sewage and/or human waste sloshed around the vessel as the vessel listed while drifting and/or while under tow," the suit said.
If you or a loved one was on the Carnival Cruise Triumph and was injured or wants to be added to the Carnival Cruise calss action call the Carnival Cruise class action lawyers of Class Action Lawyer Network.
Class Action lawyers Filing lawsuits for vaginal mesh, Bladder sling, Stryker Hip replacements and other Hip replacements, GranuFlo, Actos, Pradaxa, Mirena IUD, and many others. Many devices harming victims were pushed thru on the FDA fast track process.
Medical Devices and the Public’s Health: The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years
July 29, 2011
Public Health, Quality and Patient Safety
Public Health Effectiveness of the FDA 510(k) Clearance Process
Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice
Medical devices play a critical role in the health care of Americans. They can range from simple tools, such as tongue depressors and bandages, to complex or life-saving equipment, such as pacemakers, magnetic resonance imaging machines, and heart–lung machines. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) requires a "reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness" before a device can be marketed, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for enforcing this requirement. Devices that are deemed to have a moderate risk to patients generally cannot go on the market until they are cleared through the 510(k) process, named for Section 510(k) of the FFDCA. Some policymakers and patients have expressed concern about the ability of the 510(k) process to ensure that medical devices on the market are safe and effective. Other policymakers and patients, as well as the medical-device industry, have asserted that the process has become too burdensome and time-consuming and that it is delaying important new medical devices from entering the market.
The FDA turned to the IOM to review the 510(k) process and answer two questions:
Does the current 510(k) process protect patients optimally and promote innovation in support of public health?
If not, what legislative, regulatory, or administrative changes are recommended to achieve the goals of the 510(k) process optimally
The IOM finds that the current 510(k) process is flawed based on its legislative foundation. Rather than continuing to modify the 35-year-old 510(k) process, the IOM concludes that the FDA’s finite resources would be better invested in developing an integrated premarket and postmarket regulatory framework that provides a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness throughout the device life cycle. The IOM outlines its criteria for this framework in the report.
Currently there are 1000's of people involved in MDL litigations against various drug and medical device manufacturers. Some of the largest effecting the most injured people include: The vaginal mesh lawsuits, DePuy Hip Replacement, Yaz, Pradaxa, Fosamax, Levequin, Actos and others. There are many MDL litigations that are not agianst medical drug and device manufacturers. There is a difference between a class action and an MDL.
We present the article below we found on line for explanation:
It’s 10:00 a.m. when you get The Call. Your company has been sued by the family of a man who died while using your cancer drug, Prolonga. Your general counsel sounds glum.
“The complaint alleges that Mr. Rogers was 85 years old, had Stage Four cancer, was prescribed Prolonga, and died two weeks later.”
Don’t elderly men sometimes die of heart attacks?
“Of course they do. So, causation will be hard to prove, and damages should be limited. We should be in great shape. Unless —”
“Unless the mass tort bar mobilizes, advertises for similar claims and starts filing suits in unfriendly jurisdictions. Fortunately, Prolonga is relatively new to the market and has been used by only a few thousand patients. We have had very few adverse incident reports. That, coupled with the age and health of the typical Prolonga user, should make us an unattractive target. We should prepare for more lawsuits — perhaps a few, perhaps a dozen or two, but hopefully no more. And we need to think carefully about an MDL.”
An MDL. It stands for “multidistrict litigation,” a type of legal proceeding designed to help federal courts efficiently manage many related cases filed in different jurisdictions. The federal MDL statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1407, permits the temporary transfer of federal civil lawsuits to one or more district courts for pretrial consolidation or coordination.
To be eligible for an MDL, a group of lawsuits must involve one or more common questions of fact. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, consisting of seven appellate and district court judges all from different circuits, decides by majority vote whether to create an MDL and where to send it. The Panel may find an MDL appropriate, even if no party requests or desires one, if it concludes that transfer will serve “the convenience of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions.”
The district court presiding over an MDL is called the “transferee” court. It has jurisdiction over all pretrial matters in all transferred cases. It can dispose of claims completely through dismissal or summary judgment. It controls the pace and scope of discovery and the limits of expert testimony. Although it must remand each case to its “transferor” court for the trial itself, most mass tort claims are resolved before then.
The Panel’s selection of the transferee court may affect the outcome of the litigation. There are friendly jurisdictions and not-so-friendly ones. That is why parties sometimes file MDL motions preemptively — to try to steer the case to a receptive judge if transfer seems inevitable. Parties also try to influence the Panel by proposing, when they can, a single, consensus choice for the transferee court, or at least one offered by all plaintiffs and one by all defendants.
In ruling on an MDL motion to transfer, the Panel should not consider whether the proposed transferee courts will be more or less favorably disposed to particular rulings, or which state’s law each court is likely to apply. Instead, the Panel will consider other practical issues, such as geographical convenience: Where are the parties located? Where are the documents and witnesses? Where was the product manufactured? How hard is it for out-of-towners to get to the courthouse?
The Panel also will review the current status of the litigation. Where was the first case filed? Where are most lawsuits pending? Do any courts already have specialized knowledge or experience? Are any familiar with the facts of the case? How advanced are the competing lawsuits? What is the condition of each court’s docket and available courtroom technology?
Weighing the Pros and Cons
Although an MDL sounds complicated, it provides benefits, both economic and strategic. First, an MDL promotes efficiency. Instead of 10 or 30 or 100 cases pending in different courts across the country, the litigation is coordinated in a single forum. It proceeds in an orderly fashion in a manner that saves the parties attorneys’ fees and costs.
An MDL also should reduce the disruption to the parties’ business. Without an MDL, key employees could be deposed repeatedly, and a corporate defendant could spend hundreds or thousands of hours responding to similar sets of document requests, interrogatories and requests for admission. In an MDL, however, discovery is coordinated, staged and limited. Most witnesses are deposed only once, with the transcripts and videos made available for use in all related cases. Written discovery on common issues is limited as well. And discovery already completed in some cases might be used in others. These advantages allow the corporate defendant to keep its eye on the ball — making money for its shareholders — and minimize the distraction of litigation.
To be eligible for an MDL, a group of lawsuits must involve one or more common questions of fact. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, consisting of seven appellate and district court judges all from different circuits, decides by majority vote whether to create an MDL and where to send it.
Another advantage of an MDL is consistency. Most important decisions are made by a single judge, who is, or will become, an expert of both the facts and relevant law. Without an MDL, a defendant might win certain battles in some courts and lose the same battles in other courts. That inconsistency increases a defendant’s exposure and could make it difficult for it to develop a unified discovery or defense strategy. An MDL should provide the defendant with a fuller understanding of the nature and scope of the claims. That in turn should put it in a better position to consider settlement, which it can tackle globally. In many respects, an MDL should make a defendant’s life easier.
But there are disadvantages, too. First, coordination reduces overall delay, and delay can be a defendant’s friend.
Second, the publicity of an MDL may attract other lawsuits. Some lawyers may run television, radio, print or Internet ads seeking potential plaintiffs to represent or refer to other firms for a fee. This is not to say that these new claims would be frivolous (although some might be). But many new claims would not be brought without the prodding of commercials. And the more lawsuits the defendant faces, the greater its exposure and the more pressure it will feel to settle.
Third, the combination of claims in a single forum will increase the plaintiffs’ leverage by permitting counsel to pool their resources and to work for the plaintiffs’ “common benefit.”
Imagine 100 Prolonga cases, each worth $100,000. Each $100,000 recovery might generate a contingent fee of between $30,000 and $40,000. This means that the lawyer handling a single case could spend no more than 120 to 160 hours in total to earn $250 per hour. That’s not much time when you consider all that must be done. In some complex cases, it might be reasonable to spend 120 to 160 hours preparing for and taking the deposition of a single, key expert witness alone. Then there are the litigation costs — for factual investigation, expert analysis and testimony, depositions, document production, travel, etc. A lawyer handling a single $100,000 case could only spend $10,000 to $30,000 to generate a recovery that made economic sense.
But with 100 or 1,000 coordinated cases, the plaintiffs can share common expenses, achieve economies of scale and produce a better work product. Cumulatively, for example, with tens or hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, it would be easy to justify paying $750 per hour to hire the world’s leading expert from Harvard.
An MDL also might give the plaintiffs an organizational advantage. Without an MDL, it might be difficult and time consuming to coordinate dozens or hundreds of plaintiffs’ lawyers from across the country, agree on leadership and litigation strategy, and equitably allocate both the work assignments and the work product. The scope of that effort alone might discourage some from even trying to organize voluntarily.
The Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee
But in an MDL, organization is court imposed and participation is required. One of the first things, in fact, that a transferee court should do is appoint a plaintiffs’ steering committee (PSC). While the leadership structure varies from one MDL to another, the PSC’s purpose remains the same: to represent effectively and efficiently the common interests of all MDL plaintiffs.
For (fictitious) Prolonga and other products liability cases, there will be factual and legal issues common to all plaintiffs. Did the defendant, for example, act reasonably in marketing the drug? Were its warnings adequate?
Under the supervision and direction of the PSC, volunteer lawyers and paralegals will review documents, take depositions, write briefs, and develop and prosecute the common aspects of the litigation. Ultimately, they will prepare and distribute to all MDL plaintiffs a trial package consisting of “hot documents,” deposition transcripts and videos, research memoranda, briefs and other materials that a lawyer might need to try the general causation issues in a case. With much of the proof prepackaged, a trial lawyer can focus solely on issues that are unique to his or her client: what did the plaintiff know about the risks of the drug and when? How did the plaintiff ‘s medical condition affect the outcome? What is the appropriate measure of compensatory damages?
Overall, because of the coordination and economies of scale, the defendant could wind up settling weaker cases that it otherwise could have successfully defended.
Nor is there ever a shortage of volunteers willing to serve on a PSC. Most PSC members have their own individual cases, sometimes quite a few. A PSC position permits a lawyer to protect his clients by ensuring that all common issues are well litigated. PSC membership also can provide negotiating leverage during settlement discussions. Lawyers choose to serve on a PSC to protect their clients’ claims and their own fee interests in those cases.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers also can make money in an MDL without a single client. The transferee court typically collects a “tax” or assessment of four to eight percent of each gross recovery from all parties that have cases in the MDL or that rely on MDL work product. That assessment is used to compensate those who perform “common benefit work,” and usually is deducted from the attorneys’ fee portion of individual recoveries. In large MDLs, the common benefit fund could total tens of millions of dollars, which would motivate lawyers to join the MDL team.
Class Actions Distinguished
For mass tort defendants, an MDL is often better than a class action, in which a single plaintiff represents numerous others who are similarly situated. Depending on the size of the class, the potential liability could be enormous. Fortunately, the claims likely to be faced in a typical mass tort situation are too case specific to be “classable.”
Before a court can certify a class action, it must find that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class” and that “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” In most litigation involving pharmaceuticals and medical devices, however, there are unique (i.e., uncommon and atypical) issues of law and fact that preclude class certification. Each plaintiff, for example, has his or her own distinct medical conditions. How one patient tolerates Prolonga might be very different from how another patient does. A class action would be appropriate in only very limited circumstances.
With many mass torts, there is little to discuss. There are so many parties, so many cases, and so much at stake, the question is not whether the claims should be MDL’d, but how, when and where. With Prolonga, where the number of lawsuits should be relatively small, it’s a much closer call.
Back to The Call:
“We need not decide today whether to request or oppose an MDL. For now, we should interview our key employees and outside experts, and learn the case inside and out. We also must preserve all documents and data relating to Prolonga; there is a lot of it and we need to know what’s there. With all the e-mails, memos, reports and correspondence generated in today’s business world, plaintiffs’ lawyers always seem to find something.”
The author is a former managing partner of a national plaintiffs’ mass tort and class action law firm.
If you require a lawyer for a clas action or MDL litigation and have questions as to which classification your case is in contact one of our class action or multi district litigation lawyers today.
NuvaRing lawyers filing lawsuits for blood clots and pulmonary embolisms from NuvaRing. Women are alerted to contact a NuvaRing lawyer immediately for review of their potential NuvaRing lawsuit.
on May 30th, 2012, an Iowa woman, Kristina Marie Isaac, filed a lawsuit in New Jersey District Court (case no. 2:2012cv03240) alleging that her NuvaRing caused her an acute pulmonary embolism. NuvaRing is a popular internal birth control device, a vaginal ring placed near the cervix that was approved by the FDA in 2001. A study published on May 10th 2012 in the British Medical Journal revealed that women who used a vaginal ring had a 6.5 times higher risk for developing blood clots. NuvaRing is a dangerous birth control device causing injury.
What is NuvaRing?
NuvaRing is a ring used for birth control that is inserted in a woman’s vagina once a month, releasing a low dose of hormones to prevent pregnancy.
NuvaRing also has risk of more serious side effects.
- blood clot,
- deep vein thrombosis (DVT),
- cerebral venous thrombosis
- pulmonary embolism
The Problem with NuvaRing? NuvaRing releases the hormones estrogen and progesterone into the patient’s bloodstream.These hormones can cause blood clots and pulmonary embolisms. Organon failed to provide proper and full information for women regarding these severe side effects.
NuvaRing Lawyers are filing Lawsuits for NuvaRing. If you or a daughter or wife or mother has been injured by NuvaRing contact us immediately.
Managing More Class Action Litigation, Spending Less To Do It
By Catherine DunnContactAll Articles
April 19, 2012
Could it be that in-house counsel are tapping into a Murphy’s Law of sorts when it comes to class action litigation management? According to a report out from Carlton Fields, corporate law departments expect to see an increase in the number of class action lawsuits they handle, but they also expect to decrease the amount of money they spend on those matters.
In 2011, U.S. companies juggled an average of 4.4 class action matters, and total legal spending on these suits stood at $2.17 billion. In 2012, law departments predict an average load of 5.4 class action suits, while the national legal spend is projected to take a 13 percent dip to $1.89 billion, according to the “2012 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey,” based on 322 in-depth interviews with general counsel, chief legal officers, and direct reports to general counsel.
Why the rosier view on legal spend? There are a few factors driving the forecast, says Carlton Fields partner Chris Coutroulis. One is that in-house counsel have to do more with less in today’s economy, so they’re already focused on managing risks and controlling costs. And given the high-risk potential and protracted nature of class action litigation, it merits the same rigor. “Class actions in particular tend to be big-ticket items,” says Coutroulis.
Another important factor is that more than half of the companies surveyed said they perceive a general anti-business sentiment in the U.S., so they’re taking proactive risk management steps accordingly, Coutroulis points out.
Fifty-seven percent of companies said they have implemented tools to mitigate the risks and costs of class action suits—including “enterprise risk management tools (17 percent), document retention/e-discovery/tracking systems (14 percent), better management of outside counsel (nine percent), and increased insurance (six percent),” the report states. Although that still leaves a sizeable portion of respondents—43 percent—who said they are not implementing any such tools, Coutroulis notes.
One in three respondents recommend enforcing strong compliance in order to reduce class action risk. “Companies are trying to engage in some good preventative medicine as a way of doing business,” says Coutroulis.
Early case assessment, and spending more time in-house on a case early on, was also correlated with savings. For example, among companies that set a litigation reserve amount, 24 percent said they take a rigorous approach to calculating the potential for financial exposure, based on the particular circumstances of a given suit. For those that did so, they spent considerably less than other companies that didn’t adopt the in-depth approach:
. . . companies that engage in such a process and calculate financial exposure on a fact-specific basis to set their class action reserve spend 36 percent less per class action, per year. They save more than 41 percent on outside counsel spending. While they invest 65 percent more in-house attorney time per class action suit, their total savings considerably outweigh this investment. Overall, they save $341,320, devoting only 177 more in-house hours per suit.
Designating one individual in-house to be accountable for the outcomes and defense of litigation also created a positive impact. Law departments that take this approach to managing class action litigation “are seeing a reduction in their spend on the defense side,” Coutroulis says.
Class Action Lawyer Network Cochlear Implant Lawyers are accepting cases for Adults and Children injured by faulty Cochlear Implants
If you have been Injured by the Cochlear Implant Contact Class Action lawyer Network
Cochlear, the Australian company behind the revolutionary hearing implant, has worn over $100 million in losses as a result of a product recall initiated last year..
"This takes into account inventory write-downs, property, plant and equipment and intangible asset impairments, and warranty and other costs, which include factors such as estimated return rates for the affected units, unit replacement costs, consulting, logistical and administrative expenses directly associated with the recall," the company said in its accounts.
Cochlear triggered the recall after it found a higher than usual number of CI500 series were failing. Symptoms of failure included a gradual drop in implant performance before a complete failure of the unit. The recall was a global event for the company.
The faulty implants were replaced with a different product, the CI24RE implant.
Cochlear has since identified the problems with the Nucleus CI500 series and is still working on a fix.
Problems With the Cochlear Implants
Cochlear Americas, a Colorado-based cochlear implant manufacturer, agreed to pay $880,000 to resolve allegations that it paid illegal remuneration to health care providers to induce purchases of cochlear implant systems, according to the Justice Department. Cochlear Americas is a subsidiary of an Australian company, Cochlear Limited.
Advanced Bionics (California) has had several recalls and is awaiting approval from the Food and Drug Administration to resume sales in the U.S. after its latest recall due to a leakage that could lead to neural tissue damage.
Advanced Bionics also produced a cochlear implant with a positioner that had an increased number of people coming down with meningitis post surgery of which some people died from. Other Cochlear Implant manufacturers also have cases of meningitis post surgery.
Class Action Lawyer Network Cochlear Implant lawyers are accepting cases from adults and childeren harmed by the Cochlear Implants
If you were the recipient of an Advanced Bionics Model HiRes90k cochlear implant and have sustained physical or emotional injuries as a result of the recall of this medical device call Class Action lawyer Network regarding the HiRes90k recall.