Class Action Article

  • File A Talcum Powder Lawsuit: Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuits Talcum Powder Fallopian Tube Cancer Lawsuits Baby  Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuits Filed If you or a loved one used talcum powder products and were diagnosed with ovarian cancer, or fallopian tube can...

Class Action News

Drug Class Actions

  • Taxotere Lawyers for Permanent Hair Loss: Taxotere Baldness Lawyers For  Permanent Hair Loss Lawsuits Have you received Taxotere for breast cancer? Taxotere can result in hair loss or baldness  that is permanent. Taxotere  is a chemotherapy drug used for the treatment of breas...

Medical Device Lawsuits

  • Get A Hernia Mesh Lawyer | Hernia Mesh Lawsuits Filed: The hernia mesh lawyers of Class Action Lawyer Network are filing hernia mesh lawsuits for victims of a failed hernia mesh. We have Ethicon, Bard and Cook hernia mesh lawyers. Hernia Mesh Lawsuits Filed  For: Ethicon: Physiomesh Pro...

Posts Tagged ‘Miami’

New News on Actos, Takeda Named In Actos Lawsuits

Written by Class Action Lawyer on . Posted in Class MDL Class Action News

Takeda named in suits over use of diabetes drug Actos
2/2/2012 7:32 AM By Andrea Dreaden


Three Illinois couples have filed lawsuits claiming the manufacturers of a diabetes medication knew the drug caused cancer but intentionally hid that from patients.

Donald E. and Sharon Sandidge, of Alton, Phillip A. and Mickey Block, of Rinard, and John L. and Sandra Allen, of Washington, each filed complaints Jan. 18 in Madison County Circuit Court against Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited and Eli Lilly and Company.

Donald Sandidge, Phillip Block and John Allen say they were each prescribed Actos for the long-term maintenance of high blood sugar. Produced joinly by Deerfield, Ill.-based Takeda and Eli Lilly, Actos was first manufactured to be used by patients in 1999. The diabetes drug received FDA approval later that year.

The three men say they took Actos every day as part of their doctors' plans to treat type-2 diabetes. They say it wasn't until they had been taking the drug for several years that they learned the blood-sugar-lowering medication increased the likelihood of developing bladder cancer.

Sandidge, Block and Allen have all been diagnosed with bladder cancer since taking Actos, according to the complaint.

The complaints cite numerous studies documenting an increased risk of bladder cancer in patients taking Actos for more than 12 months. The men, however, claim none of those studies have ever been released or published by researchers or the defendants. They contend Takeda and Eli Lilly intentionally withheld that information to avoid Actos being rejected by the FDA.

An FDA study in late 2010 allegedly found an increased risk of bladder cancer in patients using Actos. The patients say the manufacturers publicly denied the accuracy of the findings and continued to tout Actos as safe for patients.

Based on the results of that 2010 study, the FDA issued a safety announcement in June 2011 that said the "use of the diabetes medication Actos (pioglitazone) for more than one year may be associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer." The information was immediately added to the drug's warning label.

A month after the FDA warning, Sandidge, Block and Allen claim Takeda Limited issued a recall on Actos in France but refused to issue the same recall in the U.S. They say the companies allowed profits to overshadow patient safety. The men claim the diabetes medication accounts for $4.8 billion — approximately 27 percent — of the company's revenue.

Sandidge, Block and Allen accuse the defendants of knowingly "concealing their knowledge of Actos' unreasonably dangerous risks" from patients, their doctors, other consumers and the medical community as a whole. They say they each have bladder cancer as a direct result of the companies' failure to properly share information with patients. Had those risks been disclosed, the men say they would not have taken Actos.

The three men and their wives accuse Takeda and Eli Lilly of negligence, strict liability and negligent failure to warn for allegedly hiding information about the risks posed by Actos. They say the companies were also negligent for failing to improve the medication and reduce the risk posed to patients. They say the manufacturers knew that the risks of Actos far outweighed its benefits yet continued to distribute the drug. They also accuse the defendants of breach of express warranty and violation of Illinois Consumer Protection laws.

The Sandidges, Blocks and Allens say they have endured pain and suffering, economic loss and loss of consortium as a result of the defendants' alleged negligence. The couples are each asking to be awarded more than $50,000 in actual damages along with punitive damages and court costs.

Attorneys Trent B. Miracle and John J. Foley of the Simmons firm in Alton and Paul Hanly and Jayne Conroy of New York are representing the three couples. They demand a jury trial.

If you or a loved one has been injured by Actos causing bladder cancer contact Class Action Lawyer Network today.

Propecia MultiDistrict Litigation

Written by Class Action Lawyer on . Posted in Class MDL Class Action News

Federal Panel to Decide on Propecia Multidistrict Litigation in 2012
Ryan Green | January 24th, 2012 | Posted in Propecia Lawsuit News

A panel of federal judges are about to decide whether to designate Propecia multidistrict litigation (MDL) for cases in which plaintiffs seek damages for alleged Propecia side effects. If MDL is implemented, each Propecia lawsuit filed in any federal court across the country will be transferred to a single courthouse for consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Defendant Merck, the manufacturer of the hair loss drug, has requested that Propecia side effects cases be transferred to New Jersey for MDL. Other possible venues are New York or Washington State.
Propecia side effects may last longer than initially thought

Research shows that even as Propecia (finasteride) can lead to increased hair growth it can also lead to decreased sexual function. Propecia side effects that have formed the basis of a Propecia lawsuit include erectile dysfunction, libido loss, decreased ejaculate, breast tenderness, testicular pain, depression and prostate cancer.

A 2011 Boston University School of Medicine study found that Propecia side effects could occur more frequently than initially thought, including, in the case of sexual dysfunction, at a rate of  8%. Furthermore, another study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found that Propecia side effects may persist after a man has stopped taking the drug and may even be permanent.
Propecia lawsuit may help plaintiffs get compensation for injuries

Many men suffering debilitating Propecia side effects are pursuing compensation through a Propecia lawsuit. In addition to cases filed in federal court, other cases have been filed in state courts. Regardless of where it is filed, a Propecia lawsuit generally alleges that Merck is responsible for injuries caused by the drug because the company knew or should have known about Propecia side effects, but failed to warn consumers.

The question asked by Propecia litigation is: How many men, if they had been adequately informed of the risks, would trade sexual function for a fuller head of hair?
Lawsuits likely to be consolidated in Propecia multidistrict litigation

As long as all the Propecia side effects cases filed in federal courts involve a common question of fact, they can be consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL) for pretrial proceedings. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation makes the decision about whether to consolidate cases into an MDL based on convenience and efficiency. The goal is to avoid duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent rulings and conserve resources.

One Propecia lawsuit plaintiff has requested that the Propecia multidistrict litigation be sent to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York or to the Western District of Washington.

Merck, on the other hand, has requested that the MDL be transferred to New Jersey, where the majority of Propecia side effects cases have been filed. New Jersey is also where Merck is headquartered.

The next hearing on Propecial multidistrict litigation is on March 29, 2012 in San Diego.

Cochlear Implant Recall, Cochlear Implant Lawyers

Written by Class Action Lawyer on . Posted in Medical Device Lawsuits


Cochlear Ear-Implant Recall Costs May Reach A$150 Million

Cochlear Implant Recall, Cochlear Implant Helpline

Oct. 18 (Bloomberg) — Cochlear Ltd., maker of the world’s best-selling ear implant, said costs from a voluntary recall of one of its hearing devices may reach A$150 million ($152 million). The shares fell the most in two weeks.

Recall-related costs will be in the A$130 million-to-A$150 million range, Cochlear Chairman Rick Holliday-Smith said in speech notes prepared for today’s annual meeting in Sydney. That’s more than the A$100 million estimated by UBS AG in a report yesterday. The after-tax cash cost of the provision may be A$20 million to A$30 million, the company said.

Cochlear, formed 29 years ago to develop a so-called bionic ear invented by Melbourne researcher Graeme Clark, aims to maintain its A$1.20-a-share dividend, Holliday-Smith said. The shares have lost 26 percent of their value since Sept. 11, when Cochlear said it was recalling its Nucleus CI500 range because of an increase in failures of its CI512 units.

“Statistically the recall is still accelerating, and may increase three fold yet,” UBS health-care analysts Andrew Goodsall and Dan Hurren said yesterday. They estimated a 4 percent decline in per-share earnings in the year ending June 2012 and reiterated their “sell” rating on Cochlear shares.

Cochlear ended trading down 1.8 percent at A$53.54 on the Australian stock exchange, the biggest decline since Oct. 4. Before the recall, Cochlear had about 70 percent of the global market for hearing devices implanted in the snail shell-like part of the inner ear.

Reputation Untarnished

Of 20 cochlear-implant surgeons surveyed globally, 85 percent indicated Cochlear’s reputation was little or untarnished by the recall, Nomura Holdings Inc. wrote in a report today.

“We are more confident that Cochlear’s reputation in the market is not as damaged as we had feared,” Nomura health-care analysts David Stanton and Zara Lyons said.

Switzerland’s Sonova Holding AG is Cochlear’s second- largest competitor with about 15 percent of the market, Nomura said last month, adding that potential recipients and surgeons were more likely to use cochlear implants from other suppliers.

“So far, we’ve seen minimal impact on market share,” Cochlear Chief Executive Officer Chris Roberts said in a phone interview today. “We’ve got a strong position that we can defend.”

Rather than switch to an alternative supplier, surgeons have instead used Cochlear’s CI24RE implants, Roberts said.

The company plans to fund the cost of the recall with cash, and increased a loan facility with Westpac Banking Corp. by A$50 million in case additional funding is needed to maintain the current level of dividend, Roberts said.

February Update

More details of the cost of the recall will be announced in February, when the company reports first-half earnings, Holliday-Smith said. Items related to the recall will be accounted for in the period ending Dec. 31, he said.

Checks on the recalled products found failures were caused by a malfunction of one of four electronic components due to moisture entering the device via a breach in the hermetic seal. The malfunction causes the implant to shut down as it can no longer receive information and/or sufficient power from the unit’s sound processor, the company said.

“We regret the difficulties it has created for so many of our stakeholders, but it was the right thing to do especially when our primary consideration is always the welfare of our recipients and our long term reputation,” Holliday-Smith said.

The  Class Action Lawyer Network  Cochlear Implant lawyers are currently evaluating and accepting Cochlear Implant Injury and Recall cases in all 50 states. If you or somebody you know has been injured by a defective Cochlear Implant, you should contact our Cochlear Implant lawyers  immediately for a free case consultation.

–Editors: Jason Gale, Terje Langeland

To contact the reporters on this story: Natasha Khan in Hong Kong at

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jason Gale at

FDA Report on Risks of the Cochlear Implant

Risks from the Surgical Implant Procedure

    Injury to the facial nerve –this nerve goes through the middle ear to give movement to the muscles of the face. It lies close to where the surgeon needs to place the implant, and thus it can be injured during the surgery. An injury can cause a temporary or permanent weakening or full paralysis on the same side of the face as the implant.
    Meningitis –this is an infection of the lining of the surface of the brain. People who have abnormally formed inner ear structures appear to be at greater risk of this rare, but serious complication. For more information on the risk of meningitis in cochlear recipients, see the nearby Useful Links.
    Cerebrospinal fluid leakage –the brain is surrounded by fluid that may leak from a hole created in the inner ear or elsewhere from a hole in the covering of the brain as a result of the surgical procedure.
    Perilymph fluid leak –the inner ear or cochlea contains fluid. This fluid can leak through the hole that was created to place the implant.

  •     Infection of the skin wound,.
  •     Blood or fluid collection at the site of surgery.,
  •     Attacks of dizziness or vertigo.ngitius form cochle
  •     Tinnitus, which is a ringing or buzzing sound in the ear.
  •     Taste disturbances as the nerve that gives taste sensation to the tongue also goes through the middle ear and might be injured 
  •     Numbness around the ear.
  •     Reparative granuloma –this is the result of localized inflammation that can occur if the body rejects the implant.
  •     There may be other unforeseen complications that could occur with long term implantation that we cannot now predict.

There other risks associated with the Cochlear Implant sited in the FDA report  but, the ones listed above appear to be the most serious Cochlear Implants complications.

People of all ages have  been implanted with these devices.  Yhey may have been born deaf, or lost their hearing gradually or suddenly. Yet virtually all enjoyed and appreciated  better quality of life and being able to hear with a cochlear implant prior to their implant failures.

However This was cut short by a defective cochlear Implant

Potential symptoms of defective cochlear implants include:

  •  A sudden sensation of discomfort or pain 
  •  A sudden loud noise or popping sound
  •  An intermittent functioning;
  •  A complete loss of sound;

·  In infants or children, an unwillingness to wear the external headpiece, crying or fussiness when the sound processor is turned on, lack of expected progress or diminished progress in achieving speech/language milestones, or apparent loss of audiological benefit.

If you or your child has been implanted with a defective cochlear implant, or you have received notification that your Advanced Bionic’s cochlear implant may fail or have experienced any of the complications, injuries or side effects liste above contact The cochlear Implant helpline today 1 877 522 2123



Asthma Inhaler Dangerous, Advair Class Action Helpline

Written by Class Action Lawyer on . Posted in Drug Warnings

Class action lawyer Network launches Advair Helpline for victims of this Asthama Inhaler.  Advair has been linked to severe side effects.

 GlaxoSmithKline is the manufacturer of the asthma inhaler, Advair & Serevent. There are  serious complications from this asthma inhaler.

There have been Advair & Serevent Inhaler Deaths and lawyers are filing lawsuits

If you have had complications  or adeverse reactions to Advair or Serevent you must take action. You must contact the Advair Drug Helpline to protect your rights. There is not currently an Advair class action lawsuit  or a Serevent Class Action Lawsuit pending. However, There are

Fatalities linked to popular asthma drug Advair

The popular asthma drug Advair (salmeterol xinafoate inhalation powder), "… may increase the chance of severe asthma episodes, and death when those episodes occur," according to a warning issued by the FDA in November of 2005, after fatalities were reportedly attributed to its use.

If You have been injured by an Asthma Inhaler talk to a Lawyer now.


Lawyers for Reglan, FDA Warnings for Reglan, Tardive Dyskinesia

Written by Class Action Lawyer on . Posted in Class MDL Class Action News, Drug Warnings

What is Reglan (Metoclopramide)? A. H. Robins Co. Reglan Metoclopramide
Reglan (metoclopramide) is a prescription drug often prescribed to treat gastrointestinal problems in children and adults. Reglan is most often used to control gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), or to reduce nausea and vomiting.  Physicians will often use Reglan for both children and adults suffering from reflux, gastroparesis, and other conditions related to the stomach such as heartburn, decreased appetite, and prolonged fullness after eating.  Even infants are sometimes given Reglan for reflux.
Reglan works by affecting the lower esophageal sphincter pressure, which then helps to improve gastrointestinal emptying.  The FDA has only approved Reglan for short-term treatment (between 4 and 12 weeks) of these conditions, and  only after conservative methods of treatment have failed.  Unfortunately, prescription trends prove that many patients are prescribed Reglan for longer than 12 weeks (often for years), which is against FDA recommendations.  The manufacturers of Reglan are well aware of these extended prescription trends.
Medical science and studies have proven that Reglan can cause Tardive Dyskinesia, a serious and often irreversible movement disorder.  Infants who are given Reglan appear to be at an even greater risk for this serious drug side effect.

FDA Issues Advisory for Reglan
In February 2009, the FDA issued an advisory, that forces the manufacturers of Reglan (MCP) to update their label. The advisory calls for a "black box" warning – the strongest warning that the FDA can issue. The advisory (and the proposed black box warning) are attached here … In addition, the FDA has requested that the drug companies send Dear Doctor letters – enclosing the new label and the new warning. This also is one of the strongest ways the FDA can spread the word – both to doctors and to patients taking Reglan.

What is GERD or Reflux?
For infants, it is often called reflux, short for the medical term gastroesophageal reflux (GER).  It is a common condition in infants, and typically resolves between six and twelve months of age.  Infants with reflux will often spit up after feeding, and have difficulties taking in enough nutrition.  Many babies suffer from reflux, and rarely need treatment.  Some, however, do receive Reglan for treatment.
For adults, the symptoms usually progress to a greater set of problems, such as chronic heartburn, decreased appetite, or the more difficult issues of constant nausea and vomiting.  Treatment with Reglan is intended to last for 4 to 12 weeks.  Many doctors are unaware of this recommendation, and end up prescribing Reglan for significantly longer periods.  This can have terrible consequences for the patient.
As with any medication, a detailed risk/benefit discussion with your doctor is critical.  Your prescribing medical professional must adequately explain the increased risk of tardive dyskinesia posed by use of Reglan, particularly with extended use.  Since Reglan is only intended to be used for short-term relief of gastrointestinal problems when other treatments have failed, the risks associated with long term use are very serious.  Failure to properly monitor the duration of use, or the over prescribing of the medicine, may be negligent on the part of the physician.

What is Tardive Dyskinesia (TD)?
Tardive dyskinesia is a neurological syndrome that can be caused by the long-term use of neuroleptic drugs, including Reglan.  Different classes of neuroleptic drugs are prescribed for psychiatric disorders, but Reglan also has neuroleptic characteristics.
Tardive dyskinesia is most often characterized by repetitive, involuntary, purposeless movements.  Patients suffering from TD may exhibit involuntary facial gestures, such as grimacing, tongue protrusion, lip smacking, puckering and pursing, and rapid eye blinking. They may also suffer rapid and involuntary movements of the fingers, hands, arms, shoulders, legs, and trunk.   TD can even adversely affect the ability to breathe, swallow, walk, and talk.  
Tardive dyskinesia is a serious and potentially irreversible disorder.  It can be caused by Reglan and metoclopramide.

What is the connection between Reglan and Tardive Dyskinesia (TD)?
The FDA and the pharmaceutical manufacturers have long recognized that Reglan increases the risk of tardive dyskinesia.  The physicians and the patients using the drug are rarely made aware of the true nature of the risk, and the label for the drug does a poor job of explaining the dangers.  Many physicians are unaware that the drug is intended for short term use only, and continue to prescribe Reglan month after month.
Scientific and medical studies have suggested that as many as 1 in 4 patients who take Reglan for more than a year may develop symptoms of TD.  The conditions can occur in much shorter time periods as well.  Both the amount and the duration of the prescription appear to increase the risk of developing TD.
Likewise, studies have shown that the risk of developing TD is greater for children (especially infants) than for adults taking Reglan.  While TD can afflict anyone taking Reglan, children are apparently much more susceptible to the effects of Reglan.
Often the diagnosis of TD is a difficult one to make.  Reglan actually conceals the very symptoms it is causing, which makes it a difficult diagnosis to make.  For this reason, symptoms of TD will often surface only after the drug is discontinued.  As a result, the true extent of the injury is often greater than anticipated, because Reglan is continuing to cause a greater injury, while hiding the symptoms.

How is Tardive Dyskinesia treated?
Unfortunately, there is no known treatment for tardive dyskinesia.  In some cases, the syndrome may resolve or the symptoms may be reduced weeks or even months after a patient stops taking Reglan.   For some patients, however,  the damage is irreversible.

What can you do?
Contact Class Action Lawyer Network for a Reglan Tardive Dyskenesia form Reglanlawyer

Coopvision Avaira Toric Contact Lense Lawyers, Lawsuits on the rise

Written by Class Action Lawyer on . Posted in Product Recall News

Class Action lawyer Network announces a new helpline for Avaira Toric Contact Lense Complications. CooperVision is  recalling  the Avaira Toric brand contact lenses because they were manufactured and distributed with unintended silicone residue. This harmful adulteration has led to serious  eye complications including eye pain, blurring, haziness of vision, and even total vision loss. There are increasing reports of serious eye injuries including corneal ulcers, corneal lesions, corneal abrasions, corneal edema, corneal erosion, and keratitis. Other complaints include blurry or hazy vision often described as a white or opaque film over the eye, severe eye pain, burning, redness, dryness, light sensitivity, and vision impairment. While some users may suffer only temporary side effects, others may require urgent medical care or experience permanent vision loss.The CooperVision Avaira Toric contact lens recall has been classified by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) as a Class I Recall, which means that using the product can potentially lead to severe side effects and complications. There can be sever damage to the eyes. If you or a loved one is useing the Coopervision Avaira Contact lenses and showing side effects see you eye doctor immediately and call Class Action Lawyer network for an immediate case review.

Anyone who used Avaira Toric contact lenses or Avaira Sphere contact lenses who has suffered adverse side effects or whose contact lenses are affected by the Avaira contact lens recall should contact a medical device or contact lens Class Action Lawyer Network attorney who will evaluate your case. It is also very important to keep the contact lenses and all original packaging because this is evidence that will be important in a lawsuit.

Call Class Action lawyer Network for a free CooperVision Avaira Toric Contact Lens Recall Lawsuit Evaluation: If you or a loved one has been injured by CooperVision Avaira Toric contact lense recall contact  the Class Action lawyer Network. You may be entitled to compensation by filing a lawsuit against CooperVision.



Anyone who used Avaira Toric contact lenses or Avaira Sphere contact lenses who has suffered adverse side effects or whose contact lenses are affected by the Avaira contact lens recall should contact a medical device or contact lens Class Action Lawyer Network attorney who will evaluate your case. It is also very important to keep the contact lenses and all original packaging because this is evidence that will be important in a lawsuit.

Call Class Action lawyer Network for a free CooperVision Avaira Toric Contact Lens Recall Lawsuit Evaluation: If you or a loved one has been injured by CooperVision Avaira Toric contact lense recall contact  the Class Action lawyer Network. You may be entitled to compensation by filing a lawsuit against CooperVision.

Avaira Contact Lense Recall Update Calls Flood our Lines

Written by Class Action Lawyer on . Posted in Product Recall News

Class action lawyer Network Attorneys are  accepting Avaira Contact lense recall cases. There has been an increase in calls from people injured by the Avaira Contact lenses. Avaira Contact lense attorneys reviewing cases. Suprisingly is the number of children effected by this recall.

Avaira recall
By JoNel Aleccia
Nearly 5 million contact lenses shipped to consumers are being recalled by CooperVision Inc. in an expanded action that includes a second Avaira brand that may be contaminated with silicone oil residue and linked to blurred vision, eye injuries and severe pain.
CooperVision Inc. officials on Tuesday added Avaira Sphere contact lenses to an August recall of Avaira Toric lenses because certain lots failed to meet quality standards because of the oil residue, according to a press release from the company's Pleasanton, Calif., office. Denise Powell, a company spokeswoman, said the line produced 6.6 million Avaira Sphere lenses affected by the recall, but 4.9 million were actually shipped.

The move comes after the federal Food and Drug Administration issued a Class I warning about the products and pressured the company last month to increase public notice about the recall of nearly 780,000 Avaira Toric lenses. Class I recalls are the most serious kind and involve problems in which there is a reasonable chance of serious adverse health consequences or death.
As of late October, the FDA had received at least 40 reports of problems associated with various CooperVision contact lenses, agency records show. At least 15 mentioned Avaira Toric and at least two mentioned Avaira Sphere, according to data shared by Phyllis Entis, who maintains the eFoodAlert blog. An FDA official was not available to discuss the new recall Tuesday.
Dozens of Avaira Toric users reported problems ranging from hazy vision and pain to severe injuries, including torn corneas, which required emergency medical treatment. Company officials were accused of issuing a "stealth recall" in August that left many consumers unaware of the problem.
Company officials noted that no product lines other than Avaira Toric and Avaira Sphere use silicone oil to manufacture the products. The firm expects to set aside a reserve of $9 million for the costs of the expanded recall. All told, the company expects to spend $23.2 million on the Avaira recalls, according to the press release. 
Consumers with problems or questions related to the recalls should contact the company at 1-855-526-6737 [Call: 1-855-526-6737] . The firm says it has reached out to affected consumers to ensure their safety.

Class Action Lawyer Network is receiving calls and emails daily from adults and children injured by tthe Coopervision Avaira contact lenses. Many are discussing physician diagnosis of corneal damage. This appears to be serious and widespread. If you or a loved one has been injured by the Coopervision Avaira Contact lense recall contact Class Action lawyer network immediately to have your case reviewed by a lawyer on our Avaira contact lense team.

Breast implant Lawyers Look at Lymphoma Side Effects

Written by Class Action Lawyer on . Posted in Medical Device Lawsuits

Breast Implant Lawyers  Reviewing  Lymphoma Side Effects


There have been Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (ALCL) seen  In Women with Breast Implants

If you have breast implants and are diagnosed with lymphoma there may be a correlation.

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration has  recently warned  silicone and saline breast implants may be associated with anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). This is a rare form of cancer. Class Action Lawyers are reviewing  breast implant lymphoma cases. Contact our female Medical Social worker today to discuss your situation. Get connected to a female breast implant lymphoma lawyer.

Class Action Lawyer Network breast implant lymphoma lawyers are offering free case  evaluations. If you or a woman you love was diagnosed with lymphoma related to breast implants contact us today. A female medical social worker will be available top speak to you. You will then be connected to a female Breast implant lymphoma lawyer.

Breast Implant Lymphoma

In January 2011, The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) advised that women who had received breast implants should notify their doctors of any changes in their breasts because of a possible association with a rare type of lymphoma. In breast implant patients, ALCL has occurred in the scar capsule adjacent to the implant.

Symptoms of breast implant lymphoma include:

  • Pain
  • Lumps
  • Swelling
  • Asymmetry that developed after their initial surgical sites were fully healed

These symptoms were due to collection of fluid (peri-implant seroma), hardening of breast area around the implant (capsular contracture), or masses surrounding the breast implant. Examination of the fluid and capsule surrounding the breast implant led to the ALCL diagnosis, the FDA said.

ALCL is a rare malignant tumor (non-Hodgkin lymphoma) that may appear in several parts of the body including the lymph nodes, skin, bones, soft tissue, lungs or liver. Each year ALCL is diagnosed in about 1 out of 500,000 women in the United States. ALCL located in breast tissue is found in only about 3 out of every 100 million women nationwide without breast implants.

The FDA notification was based on a review of scientific literature published between January 1997 and May 2010 and information from other international regulators, scientists, and breast implant manufacturers. The literature review identified 34 unique cases of ALCL in women with both saline and silicone breast implants.

In total, the FDA is aware of about 60 cases of ALCL in women with breast implants worldwide. The agency said the number is difficult to verify because not all cases were published in the scientific literature and some may be duplicate reports. The FDA is requesting that health care professionals report any confirmed cases of ALCL in women with breast implants.

The FDA said it is working with breast implant manufacturers to update their product labeling to address this lymphoma risk. The agency recommended that health care professionals and women pay close attention to breast implants. Breast implant recipients should contact their doctor if they notice any changes, and women considering breast implants should discuss the risk of ALCL with their doctors.

Our Lawyers Are Ready to Help Female Victims of Breast Implant Lymphoma

If you or a loved one was diagnosed with lymphoma related to breast implants you are not alone To discuss your case with  our female medical social worker and be connected to a female breast implant lymphoma lawyer.