1. Staphaseptic First Aid Antiseptic/Pain Relieving Gel (Tec Laboratories)
2. Safe4Hours Hand Sanitizing Lotion and Safe4Hours First Aid Antiseptic Skin Protectant (JD Nelson and Associates)
3. Dr. Tichenor’s Antiseptic Gel (Dr. G.H. Tichenor Antiseptic Co.)
4. CleanWell All-Natural Foaming Hand Sanitizer, CleanWell All-Natural Hand Sanitizer, CleanWell All-Natural Hand Sanitizing Wipes, and CleanWell All-Natural Antibacterial Foaming Handsoap (Oh So Clean, Inc, doing business as CleanWell Company).

The FDA letters warned each company that their products’ marketing is in breach of federal law and gave them 15 days to correct the violations.

A veteran of class action and complex litigation, Arsenault’s firm is actively involved in the pending lawsuits against the makers of the recalled painkillers, and continues to investigate additional claims.

Darvon, Darvocet and other forms of propoxyphene where pulled from the U.S. market by the FDA in November 2010 because of serious, potentially fatal heart-related problems and overdose risks, which were determined to outweighed the drugs’ benefit.

Earlier this year, DePuy Orthpaedics, a division of Johnson & Johnson, initiated a worldwide recall of its ASR hip replacement products because of higher-than-expected failure rates. It has been reported that 1 in 8 patients implanted with the recalled hip systems will have to undergo revision surgery within 5 years. A veteran of complex and class action litigation, Arsenault is a frequent speaker and chair of legal conferences. Arsenault’s firm has filed a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson DePuy and continues to investigate other claims against the makers of the recalled ASR hip replacement systems.

The retailer is cooperating with the recall although the importer maintains the toy meets federal safety rules. Their attorney insists the toy is not unreasonably dangerous because “there really isn’t any reason for a child to put this plastic dart in their mouth” even though the company has known the toy was deadly for more than three years. The first child death occurred in late 2006 and Gordy was notified in January of 2007.

The CPSC sent a draft recall alert letter to Gordy’s attorney last September, but the company declined to recall the $1.50 toy. Because nearly all recalls are voluntary, the safety commission negotiates the wording of recall alerts with the manufacturers or importers to avoid forcing mandatory recalls which can result in lengthy court battles. Despite lengthy negotiations with Gordy, the importer continued to refuse to recall the toy so the CPSC turned to the retailer Family Dollar who voluntarily stopped selling it in January 2009.

This recall and one involving a different suction cup dart toy imported by OKK Trading Inc. which was linked to the 2007 death of a child in Texas has caused consumer advocates and toy industry officials to rethink their position regarding choking hazards in children older than three years of age. Rules generally are written with the idea that children over the age of 3 don’t put toys in their mouths.The committee that sets toy safety standards will now study which toys older kids put in their mouths. In the meantime, parents should immediately discard the Auto Fire toy gun dart sets and make sure their children stay away from any short, pliable toy darts with a suction cup end.

A review of past headlines illustrate the vast number of defective products that have caused a multitude of injuries and cost Americans dearly: Bridgestone and Firestone tires, prescription drugs Vioxx, Baycol and Halcion, dietary supplement ephedra, medical devices like Guidant defibrillators, Medtronic pacemaker leads,and  Dalkon Shield; silicon breast implants, asbestos, and tobacco products just to name a few. Litigation has resulted in recalls of numerous products including Ford Pinto and Explorer, Chrysler minivans, baby cribs and strollers and infant car seats, children’s Tylenol, flammable clothing, birth control medication and devices, tainted food products, and the most recent Toyota vehicles causing unintended acceleration just to name a few.

Aviation litigation has resulted in a drastic drop in the number of crashes and deaths involving aircraft. According to the Consumer Federation of America, there has been a dramatic change in the rate of accidental deaths and injuries since the enactment of products liability laws and stiffer regulation. As a result they estimate that approximately 6,000 deaths and millions of injuries have been prevented on an annual basis.

People are powerless to protect themselves against defective products and the harm they cause without these laws and regulation, as well as the courageous attorneys willing to take on the manufacturers. Beware of the political hue and cry for so-called “tort reform” by business interests and insurance companies trying to gut these important safeguards. Those who support such disingenuous political initiatives just may end up being the victim of a dangerous product without legal recourse to compensate them for the resulting injuries.

During golf games, a doctor agreed to start new patients on Zyprexa for each time a sales representative parred, or put the ball in a hole within a predetermined number of strokes. If the sales rep parred four holes, the doctor agreed to prescribe Zyprexa to four new patients.

The notes were made public in South Carolina’s lawsuit against Lilly over Zyprexa marketing practices. State officials contend Indianapolis-based Lilly marketed the drug for unapproved uses and seeks to recoup $200 million it contends it wrongfully spent on Zyprexa prescriptions for ailments other than the approved schizophrenia and bipolar disorders. The state also is seeking a $5,000 fine for each Zyprexa prescription dating back to 1997 that could result in billions of dollars in fines.

Lilly resolved a marketing investigation over Zyprexa in January with the U.S. Justice Department, promising to pay $1.42 billion, including about $362 million to more than 30 states. South Carolina opted not to join that settlement. The only trial of a state’s lawsuit ended with an out-of-court settlement in which Lilly agreed to pay Alaska $15 million.

Zyprexa has been linked to excessive weight gain and diabetes. The lawsuits claim Lilly, faced with the loss of patent protection for its antidepressant Prozac, pushed its sales force to market Zyprexa for numerous non-FDA approved ailments including depression, anger and agitation and failed to properly warn of Zyprexa’s side effects. Lilly already pled guilty to a federal criminal charge of off-label promotion of Zyprexa for use in elderly patients.

Eli Lilly’s Zyprexa scam is just the latest in a long line of examples of a huge drugmaker unjustly enriching itself in the billions of dollars at consumers’ expense.

I have blogged earlier about the type of problems this defective drywall causes and the uncertainty of recovery from the Chinese manufacturers.

Now that the insurance companies have become aware of the existence of the Chinese drywall in their insureds’ homes, they are delivering the second whammy to the beleaguered homeowners with notices of cancellation or non-renewal.

Innocent consumers are now facing the situation of owning and living in homes with corroding pipes and electrical wiring, noxious odors, damaged appliances, no realistic hopes for damage recovery and now, no insurance coverage… a requirement for most mortgages. Without insurance coverage, the banks will begin foreclosing on the homes putting more innocent victims in debt and out of their homes.

It’s past time for our legislators to start looking out for ordinary citizens. For too long foreign companies have had unfettered access to American markets, but hide behind their own governments’ refusal to make them answer to victims in our court system. Restricting victim’s rights in the name of international commerce and corporate profits have brought about terrible consequences for many Americans. It’s also past time for the bloated insurance industry to continue to enjoy anti-trust exemption status as they readily give their policyholders the shaft.

Criticism and complaints have been mounting from former users of Yaz. As a result, Bayer is currently facing at least 74 lawsuits filed in connection with injuries caused by Yaz and Yasmin. The plaintiffs in the filed cases claim the pills put women at higher risk for strokes, blood clots and other health problems than other birth control pills on the market. Until the scientific data is more definitive, women may be taking unnecessary risks by using these drugs. Its up to them to weigh the potential risks to their health.

This is yet another example of the profits at any cost business model that is pervasive in our economy today. Companies that profit by knowingly evading safety laws, especially those designed to protect children, should face the stiffest civil penalties allowed by law and consumers should be better informed so they can boycott those companies. If they are driven only by profit the best place to hurt them is in their pocketbook.

The recall involves SRAM PowerLock connector links, which are sold individually, on 10-speed bicycle chains and as original equipment on some bicycles. The recalled PowerLock connector links are identified by a date code of M or N, which is located on the side of the PowerLock connector link. 10-speed SRAM chains that were equipped with recalled PowerLock connector links include the following chain model numbers: PC-1030, PC-1050, PC-1070, PC-1090 and PC-1090R. The recalled chains were also installed on some Guru, Surly, Salsa, BMC, Serotta, Seven, and Ridley brand complete bicycles. The individual PowerLock connectors and bike chains with these connectors were sold from January 2009 through August 2009; bicycles with affected chains were sold from April 2009 through August 2009.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Name of Product: Office Max Task Chairs

Units: About 216,000

Importer: OfficeMax Inc., of Naperville, Ill.

Hazard: The back and the base post of the chair can break while in use, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

Incidents/Injuries: OfficeMax has received about 35 reports of the chair backs or posts breaking, including 15 reports of injuries involving lacerations, muscle strains, contusions and concussions.

Description: The recall involves OfficeMax Task Chairs with model numbers OM182 and OM96614. The model number is located under the chair’s seat on a white UPC label. The chairs are charcoal or dark charcoal in color and have black plastic arms and a rolling plastic and metal base.

Sold at: OfficeMax stores nationwide, on the firm’s Web site, in OfficeMax catalogs, and through direct commercial sales to businesses from September 2003 through July 2008 for between $40 and $65.

Manufactured in: China

Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the chairs and return them to any OfficeMax store for a full refund or a $55 gift card if the consumer does not have a receipt.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact OfficeMax at (800) 283-7674 anytime, or visit the firm’s Web site at www.officemax.com

To me, it all starts with a common sense approach. Typically, I to go to the scene of the accident to get a feel or visual of what the potential client is claiming caused the accident. This could be an intersection in a private parking lot where there are no signs or marking to show who has the right-of-way, it could be parking stops that are not painted, or it could be a failure by an individual or a company to provide adequate warning on products, etc.

I put myself in the shoes of the injured party and go to the scene of the accident and question whether it was reasonable for the person to be injured in the way they claim. I have to firmly believe in a case before I take the case and invest time, energy, and money.

By preventing accidents, individuals avoid needless pain and suffering, medical bills, and a loss of enjoyment of life. It is certainly gratifying to see that as a result of your efforts, changes are being made that will prevent future accidents to someone ranging from small children to elderly patients in a nursing home.

Two of the largest arbitration groups, The American Arbitration Association and the National Arbitration Forum, decided last month to stop accepting consumer-debt-collection cases.

All of these decisions are positive developments for consumers.  Forced arbitration robs consumers of their right to go to a local judge or jury and seek justice.  Some estimate that companies prevail in 94% of all cases submitted to arbitration.  As an attorney who has represented consumers who were bound by arbitration agreements, I applaud Bank of America’s decision and call on other financial institutions to do the same.

After Hurricane Katrina, Robert Fresh Market, a New Orleans grocery chain, made a claim for hurricane damage to five of its stores. According to a New Orleans jury, its insurer, United Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., failed to properly pay that claim. The jury awarded $21.6 million in favor of Robert Fresh Market. That was the largest insurance verdict after Hurricane Katrina.

The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed that award. That court also ordered United Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. to pay Roberts Fresh Market an additional $1 million in bad faith damages for unreasonably failing to pay what was necessary to fix Hurricane Katrina windstorm and other damage on the five supermarkets.

The jury’s verdict and the decision by the appeals court reminds that insurance companies may not engage in the same type of free-wheeling profit motivation like other companies and owe a special duty to their insureds.

Without passing on the merits of this particular settlement or the allegations against Sprint Nextel, it nevertheless bears noting that individual consumers who were inappropriately charged fees of $25, $50, or $100 could never economically take on a huge corporation, like Sprint, in court. Cases that cost more to litigate than any possible recovery are sometimes called “negative value” cases. Many negative value cases are in the consumer arena. The United States Supreme Court has said that the existence of a negative value case is one issue that weighs in favor of class certification. Class actions help level the playing field and allow a group of similarly aggrieved people to band together to take on a corporate wrongdoer. And most importantly, consumer class actions protect us from unscrupulous conduct and make wrongful conduct unprofitable.