Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

A new discovery may provide hope for those born with genetic disorders that lead to neurological diseases and other illnesses. University of San Diego researchers have found a pathway in the brain that protects it from environmental and genetic threats.

The findings, published in Molecular Cell, discuss the importance of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) for the normal development of the brain and nervous system. The molecule mRNA reads genetic information and uses it to create proteins essential to life. One important aspect of mRNA is its "stop" feature, which tells the cellular material to stop reading the mRNA because it has produced a full-length protein. However, on some mRNA molecules, the "stop" comes too early, resulting in a shorter-than-normal protein that can potentially be toxic to cells. To prevent this problem, many cells use what is called "nonsense-mediated mRNA decay" (NMD), which degrades bad mRNAs with early stop signals.

Researchers found that when NMD does not work properly, the results can be one of several neurological conditions, including autism, mental retardation, attention deficit disorder, and schizophrenia. These researchers believe that this is due to a build up of short proteins in the brain. Although the NMD pathway is vulnerable to environmental toxins and genetic mutations, cells appear to have evolved in a way that helps them overcome attacks. If a molecule in the NMD pathway is injured, a cell can send in "reinforcement" molecules.

While short proteins are less desirable than long ones, they are still functional. Scientists hope to come up with a process that can inhibit the NMD so that these proteins can be allowed to function, limiting many of the problems associated with mental disorders. The problem of how to inhibit NMD without overloading the brain with too many short proteins still needs to be considered. However, in the future, it could be possible to produce selective NMD inhibition therapy.

In the meantime, people with mental disorders have more limited options. If your child has a disorder that you believe may be linked to environmental toxin exposure in the womb, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit. First, you should be confident that the source of your child's birth defect really is a specific environmental source, such as herbicide at a nearby farm or a local power plant. Once you have strong evidence that an environmental source at fault, you would argue that the local power plant was negligent because it owed you a general duty to follow the reasonable standards of the industry, it breached the duty by acting unreasonably (such as by ignoring certain health and safety rules), the breach caused you an injury, and you suffered damage in the form of your child's birth defect. Modern science may one day help us heal from these types of situations, but until then, you can try to collect damages (a money award) or seek an injunction that would prevent the offender from being able to continue until the problem was corrected.

Continue reading "Researchers Discover Brain Pathway That Could Lead to New Treatment for Mental Disorders" »

Earlier this year, the Obama administration pushed to limit the amount of mercury emissions from power plants. Yet this month, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives resisted any tightening of EPA rules. They passed the first of a series of bills designed to prevent the EPA from restricting toxic pollution under the Clean Air Act.

The "Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation" -- or the TRAIN -- Act passed the House on a mostly party line vote of 233 to 180. It would hinder the EPA's ability to move forward on the new rule requiring power plants to slash 90% of their mercury emissions. Although required by the Clean Air Act, the rule has been delayed for 20 years. It was finally going to be implemented in November.

Although the TRAIN Act passed the House, it is virtually guaranteed to go nowhere in the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats. Nonetheless, members of the House who supported the Act took the opportunity to criticize the Obama administration's rule tightening as a "job killer." Congressman Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, for instance, charged that millions of Americans had stopped looking for work because the EPA is "creating obstacles to job creation in America and also to stimulating the economy." Congressman Henry Waxman of California responded that if the TRAIN Act is enacted, "more babies will be born with birth defects and learning disabilities."

While the TRAIN Act might never reach President Obama's desk, there is the possibility that pieces of it could emerge in an omnibus spending bill or a short-term spending bill in December. Midwestern Democrats already nervous about new EPA rules might decide to join Republicans in passing the measures, or risk not passing much-needed funding. One of the elements of the TRAIN Act would be to require a comprehensive study to be conducted before the new rule was enacted, causing a delay that might appeal to Democrats in coal mining districts. However, as a recent poll showed, voters in those districts are strongly opposed to mountaintop mining and mercury pollution.

The TRAIN Act illustrates the challenges of curbing pollution that causes birth defects and other health problems. Yet it is clear that mercury emissions are linked to birth defects. Women with high levels of mercury in their system have given birth to babies with brain damage, learning disabilities, hearing impairment, and even Minamata disease. In the future, the stricter EPA rule may be in place; for now, if you believe that your child's birth defect may be due to in utero exposure to high levels of mercury, you might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the offending power plant. In a toxic tort lawsuit, you could argue that the power plant had a duty to operate safely, but breached that duty with careless behavior, resulting in damage to your child. If enough people are similarly situated -- that is, live in the same location and have given birth to babies with similar birth defects -- you may be able to form a class action lawsuit against the power plant.

Continue reading "House of Representatives Votes to Stop EPA From Implementing Rule That Would Curb Mercury Pollution" »

One of the foundations most responsible for raising awareness of birth defects is the March of Dimes. Formed in 1938 as a response to the polio epidemic, the March of Dimes later progressed to combating birth defects through a combination of advocacy and education. Today, it provides pregnant women and women of childbearing age with information on new motherhood and their babies' health. This includes prevention of babies being born prematurely, which is linked to a variety of birth defects. The March of Dimes also advocates for research into birth defects and federal and state programs that protect pregnant women and babies' health. It was credited with helping pass the 1998 Birth Defects Prevention Act, which created a national network for monitoring birth defects.

The March of Dimes's activities have not gone unnoticed, as shown by recent efforts such as Macy's to contribute to the foundation. Macy's started the Shop for a Cause charity program in 2006, raising $40 million through customer donations. Customers donate to a cause while saving money. This year, Macy's made the March of Dimes its exclusive recipient, resulting in $3.3 million for the foundation.

Much of the March of Dimes's focus is on preventing or treating birth defects caused by individual behavior, such as alcoholism, or caused by infections like rubella. However, it also is focused on preventing prematurity or birth defects that may be caused by environmental factors. If your baby was born prematurely and suffers from cognitive defects that you believe were due to environmental toxins or prescription drugs, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit or a medical malpractice suit, whichever applies directly to your situation. For a toxic tort lawsuit, you would have to prove that a specific source, such as a power plant or a chemical factory, was primarily responsible for your child's birth defects. You would need to show that other sources -- such as genetics, poor personal habits, or household chemicals -- were not responsible. If you feel that you have the evidence to make this argument, you would then claim that the offender owed you a duty to behave reasonably according to industry practices, that the offender breached the duty by acting unreasonably, the breach caused you injury, and you suffered damage in the form of your child's birth defect. The usual remedy for a tort lawsuit is damages (a money award), but you could also sue for an injunction to stop the plant or factory from operating.

If your child's birth defect were due to medicines your doctor prescribed, you might consider a medical malpractice suit. A malpractice suit would be successful if you argued that your doctor owed you a duty of care; that he or she breached the duty by not staying reasonably informed of the dangers of the medication, or by failing to inform you so that you could decide whether or not to take the medication; the breach caused you injury; and you suffered damage in the form of your child's birth defect. The remedy for medical malpractice is typically damages, such as medical expenses and pain and suffering.

The birth defect attorneys at Oshman & Mirisola, LLP have successfully represented clients in birth defect lawsuits for more than 35 years. If your child suffers from a birth defect that you believe may be due to environmental toxins or prescription drugs, please contact us today at (800) 400-8182 or submit our online Contact Us form.

Recently, this blog looked at the connection between aged fathers and children with mental health disorders. This included fathers whose sperm might have been exposed to Agent Orange, a powerful herbicide used during the Vietnam War. Now more people are starting to speak out about the harmful effects of Agent Orange and what it means for people living in Vietnam today.

Throughout the Vietnam War, U.S. planes sprayed 12 million gallons of Agent Orange chemical over vegetation in Vietnam, both to destroy a food source and cover used by Vietnamese soldiers. Traces of the chemical can still be found in the soil and waterways in 28 Vietnam "hotspots," causing birth defects, cancer, and other illnesses among the Vietnamese population. Charles Bailey, a former humanitarian worker, helped establish the Ford Foundation's Agent Orange Cleanup Initiative after seeing the lasting damage. He and Son Michael Pham, a Vietnam refugee, have been speaking to clubs in the state of Washington in an effort to encourage them to join the cause. Already, foundations and other sources have raised $36 million to help millions with disabilities caused by Agent Orange (for its part, the United States has spent $40 million). To encourage more participation, in his presentation to a Yakima, Washington Rotary club, Bailey showed a video of a Vietnamese woman born without legs from the knees down.

While Agent Orange's greatest impact is obviously felt in Vietnam, it has also had an impact on many people in the United States. Many U.S. soldiers were exposed to Agent Orange and now suffer higher rates of throat cancer, Hodgkin's lymphoma, nerve disorders, chronic leukemia, and other illnesses. Many also had children who very likely suffered from birth defects related to the chemical.

If you were born with a birth defect that you believe may be traced to your parent's exposure to Agent Orange, what are your options? Could you file a toxic tort lawsuit for relief? You could, though one problem you would likely encounter is proving that Agent Orange caused your birth defect. As this blog has previously noted, birth defects can come from a variety of sources, from serious environmental pollution to genetics to local herbicide use on nearby grass. You would need to first show that your parent was exposed to Agent Orange, and that the exposure led to your birth defect. That could involve establishing that the time window between your parent's exposure and your birth was very small. Or it could require scientific evidence that Agent Orange damages sperm sometimes years after exposure, and the damaged sperm caused your birth defect. People living in Vietnam "hotspots" have an easier time proving their case because the effects of Agent Orange are still around them. Many have already filed class action lawsuits. In the United States, it might be more difficult to prove that exposure caused your birth defect, but that does not mean it is impossible. If you feel you could make a strong case, you can go forward and file a toxic tort lawsuit against the manufacturer.

The birth defect lawyers at Oshman & Mirisola, LLP have successfully represented clients in birth defect lawsuits for more than 35 years. If your child suffers from a birth defect that you believe may be due to the effects of a harmful chemical like Agent Orange, please contact us today at (800) 400-8182 or submit our online Contact Us form.

Personal injury attorneys always need to be aware of the latest court decisions in their field, because the law changes frequently. This past month in the State of Washington, the Supreme Court ruled in Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. that new scientific evidence linking birth defects to the mother's exposure to workplace toxins could be admitted in court even if it did not meet a "generally accepted" standard.

Julie Anderson worked for Akzo Novel Coatings, Inc. from 1998 to 2003. Nearly every day, she mixed paint without wearing a safety mask. While a company policy required the use of masks, it was not rigorously enforced. Anderson claimed that her supervisor told her that she "did not need to wear a respirator when mixing toxic paint because the air monitoring that was conducted by Akzo Nobel headquarters . . . had purportedly determined that there was no health threat." In 2000, Anderson gave birth to a son with multiple serious birth defects, including neuronal migration defect, congenital hemiplegia, and microcephalus. He showed problems with motor control and communication. One of her son's doctors believed that his birth defects were the result of Anderson's daily exposure to paint, causing "significant exposure to organic solvents while in utero." Dr. Sohail Khattack, who had published a paper linking birth defects to exposure to these solvents in the womb, agreed to testify that organic solvent exposure caused the baby's birth defects.

However, Akzo sought to have him removed as an expert, claiming that his scientific evidence did not meet the Frye v. United States evidentiary standard, which states that expert opinion based on scientific technique can only be admitted to court if the technique is "generally accepted" among the scientific community. If Anderson lost her expert witnesses, she was certain to lose her case. The Washington Supreme Court found that Dr. Khattack's new theories of what caused birth defects did not need to meet the burdensome "general acceptance" standard to be admissible in court. It was enough that the scientific techniques behind the theories were widely recognized and accepted; the theories themselves could be new. Thus, Anderson could keep her expert and proceed with her case.

Standards like Frye and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals are meant to prevent theories based on shaky science from cluttering up court proceedings and confusing juries. However, they can also pose quite a hurdle for plaintiffs who sincerely believe that they were harmed by a toxin, but lack hard scientific evidence. At least in Washington, it will be somewhat easier for plaintiffs to file lawsuits based on new theories about birth defects. Since new theories are arising all the time, it could have been devastating if they were stopped at the courtroom door because they needed time -- sometimes years -- for the theories to become accepted. Since this decision was handed down by the Washington Supreme Court, it is only binding on the residents of Washington. Courts in other states might have different interpretations of evidence rules. So before you file a lawsuit in state court, be sure that you understand your state's laws.

The birth defect attorneys at Oshman & Mirisola, LLP have successfully represented clients in birth defect lawsuits for more than 35 years. If your child suffers from a birth defect that you believe may be due to exposure to harmful chemicals in your work environment, please contact us today at (800) 400-8182 or submit our online Contact Us form.

Recent studies reveal that older fathers are more likely to have children who are at greater risk of developing psychiatric disorders. Experts believe that as sperm ages, it develops more genetic mutations that can then be passed on to the children. The link has never been conclusively proven -- but two recent studies suggest that there is at least an associative connection.

The Malaysian Mental Health Survey found that people with older parents, and people with fathers more than a decade older than the mothers, had a greater risk of anxiety, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, and various phobias. No matter what the father's age, if he was 11 years or more older than the mother, the likelihood of their child developing a disorder rose to 24%. If a father with that age gap happened to be more than 50 years old, the likelihood of a child developing a mental health disorder was 42%.

Another study, performed by the Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience in the Netherlands, examined the mental health of children born to fathers 40 years of age and older. Using 71,000 participants, the first large-scale population study of its kind, the study looked at the effect of father's age on autism spectrum disorder, major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. The results were that fathers 40 years or older were more than three times more likely to have children with autism than under-40 year old fathers. Results in other mental health areas were inconclusive.

Reasons vary for why older fathers have more children with mental health problems. One theory is that as fathers grow older, environmental toxins alter their sperm, producing a greater variety of mutations. For example, children of fathers who were in Vietnam might have been affected by the fathers' exposure to Agent Orange. Another theory is that the aging process itself causes defects in the sperm. As men's sperm cells continue to divide throughout their lifetime, the divisions create a higher risk of mutation. Finally, there is the "weird gene" theory: that men with autism have an easier time with social functioning later in life, which leads them to be older fathers and pass on their autism to the child.

Regardless, what the research suggests is that if your child has one of the above-mentioned mental disorders, you could have a difficult time proving that it came from a non-genetic cause. While some of the research suggests that environmental factors were a cause, it is far from clear whether environment is the predominant cause, as opposed to the natural aging of sperm. Therefore, if you tried to file a lawsuit against an environmental polluter on the grounds that it damaged your sperm, leading to your child's mental health disorder, you would have quite a struggle. You would need to provide strong evidence that environmental pollution -- and not just general, but specific -- caused deficiencies in your sperm. Since some researchers believe that environmental toxins built up over the years harm the sperm, it would be difficult to isolate one or two causes in particular. If you cannot establish a specific outside cause for the birth defect, you do not have a party to sue and your case will be dismissed.

Continue reading "Recent Studies Reveal That Older Fathers More Likely to Have Children With Mental Health Disorders" »

Is it more risky to have a midwife deliver your baby than a physician? While it is common to assume so, many midwives are highly trained and licensed nurse-midwives who practice in hospitals and medical clinics. Aspiring midwives attend midwifery education programs accredited by the American College of Nurse-Midwives and then later take an examination administered by the American Midwifery Certification Board. They frequently collaborate with physicians on a number of cases, including high-risk pregnancies. Yet what happens when a midwife delivery goes wrong?

This was the case last month, when a midwife in Concord, New Hampshire settled a lawsuit for $730,000 after a delivery gone wrong resulted in the baby being born with a severe brain injury. Sarah Sadowski, the mother, accused Jeanne Browne, founder of the Concord Birth and Wellness Center, of not giving her proper care during the course of her pregnancy. Even though she showed several risk factors, Browne never referred her to an obstetrician. She also did not send Sadowski to the hospital when the baby showed no signs of a heartbeat in utero. Even after birth, when the baby still had no heartbeat, Browne did not call for an ambulance. As a result of her medical mistakes, the Sadowskis' baby spent 21 days in the hospital and now suffers from cerebral palsy. Of the $730,000, $386,000 will be put in a trust for the girl so that she does not lose her Medicaid eligibility. Most of the rest will go to pay attorney's fees and Medicaid reimbursement for expenses incurred after the birth.

It is not clear whether Browne carried malpractice insurance. Midwives are not required to in the state of New Hampshire, but many choose to do so. Several insurance companies will not cover midwives who do not carry malpractice insurance.

What this case illustrates is that even though midwives are not physicians, they are medical professionals who can be sued for malpractice when a baby suffers from birth trauma after a delivery gone wrong. In a malpractice suit, you would argue that the midwife owed you a duty of care to provide as safe a delivery as possible, that the midwife breached this duty by making a mistake that was preventable, the mistake caused you injury, and you suffered damage in the form of your child's birth defect. People who sue for malpractice can potentially get damages (a money amount) for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and more.

A hospital or physician who employs the midwife can also be sued under the "vicarious liability" theory. With vicarious liability, an employer is found to be liable for the mistakes of his/her employees -- as long as the employee made the mistakes while performing his/her regular job duties. Therefore, in the case of a midwife who makes a medical error, the hospital or physician could be held responsible for his/her mistake.

Continue reading "Are Midwives Held to the Same Standard as Physicians When a Birth Goes Wrong?" »

President Obama recently ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdraw its new ambient air quality standard for ozone, sparking a fierce reaction from environmentalists and members of the general public. Instead of ozone standards immediately being tightened, they would instead be reviewed in 2013. Many businesses had complained that enacting tougher limits now would harm economic growth at a time when the economy threatens to dip back into recession.

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to establish ambient air quality standards that protect human health. Every five years, the EPA evaluates the available science to determine whether the standards need to be adjusted. The current standard (84 parts per billion (ppb)) was enacted in 1997. President George W. Bush pushed off the next review until 2008, and then proposed a standard that was higher than the one proposed by the Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee, a board created in 1990 to assist the EPA. When President Obama came to office, a deal was made to keep the 1997 standards in place until more stringent standards could be enacted in 2010.

Obama's decision to postpone enactment of a more stringent standard (60-70 ppb) led environmentalists to attack him for pandering to industry at the expense of the public. They pointed to statistics showing that 2,200 people had heart attacks due to ozone levels each year, and 4,300 deaths overall. If the more stringent standards were enacted, they would produce $37 billion in health benefits each year.

This blog has discussed recent efforts to make the EPA enforce stricter ozone standards. Ozone pollution has been linked to a variety of serious respiratory ailments in addition to heart attacks. It can cause premature aging of the lungs, respiratory infections, and an aggravation of existing ailments, such as asthma or emphysema. Yet has ozone pollution been linked to birth defects? Some evidence suggests that the answer is yes. A 2002 study conducted by UCLA found that women exposed to ozone during their first trimester were more likely to give birth to babies with heart problems. Other groups have linked ozone to low birth weight and stunted lung growth. Still, more research needs to be done before a consensus view develops that ozone pollution causes birth defects.

Therefore, if your baby was born with one of the defects listed above, you may want to proceed with caution before deciding whether to file a toxic tort lawsuit. If you filed a toxic tort suit, you would need to be very certain that ozone was the cause of the birth defect. That is not necessarily easy to prove, because so many things, from genetics to common household products, have been linked to birth defects. If you cannot prove that ozone was the cause, you will not have met your burden as a plaintiff, and the case would likely be dismissed. If you were confident that you could prove ozone was responsible, you would need to determine whom to sue. Since ozone pollution is caused by a variety of pollution sources, you may want to consider filing a lawsuit against the EPA for the purpose of enforcing environmental standards. If many people are in a similar position to you, you could form a class-action lawsuit, as environmental groups in Los Angeles did this past July.

Continue reading "Could President Obama's Decision to Postpone New Ozone Rules Result in More Birth Defects?" »

Someday, it may be possible for each woman to know ahead of time if she will give birth to a child with a neuro-developmental disorder. That is because SUNY Downstate Medical Center received a grant worth $50,000 to develop a diagnostic test that would pick up the folate receptor autoantibody. The autoantibody has been linked to autism, neural tube defects, and cerebral folate deficiency.

Babies with neural tube defects have either brains or spinal cords that do not properly develop. The result may be lifelong paralysis, or even death shortly after birth. Cerebral folate deficiency can lead to progressive retardation, starting as early as four months. Children with autism can show a wide spectrum of behavior, usually showing difficulty with social interaction and repetitive behavior. Over the years, proper amounts of folate in the diet have reduced the number of babies born with neuro-developmental disorders. Yet the folate receptor autoantibody prevents folate from doing its work by blocking folate nutrients from entering the cells that require them. They may also cause a severe immune system response that works to counteract any folate benefits.

By locating the women who have folate receptor autoantibody, whether they intend to get pregnant or not, doctors hope to be able to intervene early and prescribe folate supplements. One SUNY researcher, Dr. Edward Quadros, has already created a test for the autoantibody, and hopes to develop it into a tool that is clinically useful.

There is little evidence that folate production is anything other than a biological issue, unrelated to environmental factors. Therefore, if your child were born with a neuro-development disorder that could be traced to folate deficiency, you would not have any luck filing a lawsuit against an environmental polluter. If the circumstances were that the test became the norm within the next several years, and your doctor knew about it, but did not test you, you might have a case for medical malpractice. You would argue that your doctor had a duty to you to inform you of this test (especially if you were thinking of having children) and breached this duty by failing to do so. The breach caused you injury, and damage in the form of your baby's neuro-developmental disorder. However, it could be a number of years before this becomes an issue. Until then, your doctor has no means of testing whether you have the folate receptor autoantibody.

Some of the disorders attributed to lack of folate also have environmental causes. If you believe that the environmental polluter, and not folate deficiency, caused your child's birth defect, you might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit. You would argue that the polluter was negligent for not following the reasonable standards set by the industry, that the polluter's actions led to your injury, and that you suffered damage in the form of your child's birth defect. One of the most important things you would need to do is produce evidence that showed the polluter, and not another cause (like folate deficiency), was responsible for the neuro-development disorder.

Continue reading "SUNY Researchers Working to Develop a Folate Diagnostic Test for Women" »

In July, this blog discussed a lawsuit by Latinos in Kettleman City against the EPA for failing to clean up three toxic waste dumps in California that were believed to cause birth defects. Now one toxic dump, owned by Chemical Waste Management, has agreed to a settlement where it will pay $400,000 in fines. It will also pay $600,000 to upgrade its laboratory facility in order to better manage hazardous material.

The toxic dump near Kettleman City was charged with causing more babies to be born with cleft lips and brain and heart defects. While it is unclear whether pressure from El Pueblo Para El Aire y Agua Limpio (People for Clean Air and Water) played a role in Chemical Waste Management's decision, what is clear is that it is the result of continuous pressure from environmental activists. Two years ago, they petitioned the state and federal government to investigate a possible link between the site and rising numbers of birth defects. The EPA and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control launched an 18-month long investigation. What they found were company records that showed over the past six years, toxic waste was evacuated from the landfill 18 separate times, after laboratory technicians mistakenly concluded that the waste met treatment standards.

The settlement required the Kettleman City toxic waste site to use an outside laboratory every two years. It will also be required to invest more in improved monitoring equipment, monitoring programs, and records management. Currently, Chemical Waste Management is seeking to expand its facility, which environmental groups like Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice are anxious to stop. They have requested that state health authorities deny them a permit.

If your child was born with a cleft lip or a heart or brain defect that you believe may be due to a local toxic waste source, you may want to file a toxic tort lawsuit against the company responsible. You would argue that the company was negligent because it owed you a duty of care, which was to manage the waste site as reasonably as possible according to industry standards; company employees breached that duty by failing to act reasonably; the breach caused your injury, and you suffered damage as a result. To strengthen your case, you should be able to prove that the toxic waste source, not any other source, was the primary cause of your child's birth defect.

The majority of lawsuits never make it to trial -- instead, settlement is the most common result. Parties typically choose settlement because, even if they have strong evidence on their side, there is always the risk that they will lose. Many plaintiffs would prefer to get some of what they wanted compared to none of it. Many defendants recognize that the plaintiffs have some damaging evidence, and would prefer to pay a smaller penalty -- even if it is possible the defendant could win at trial -- than risk paying a much higher penalty if the defendant lost. It is possible to settle at any time during the lawsuit, even right up to the point of trial. Typically one side will make an offer, and the other will consider whether it is within the client's best interests. Attorneys will always keep their clients informed of the settlement terms. By the end of the process, it may be possible to reach an agreement that both sides will be mostly satisfied with.

Continue reading "California Toxic Waste Company Agrees to a Large Settlement After Causing Birth Defects in Local Community" »

To determine which newborns could have congenital heart disease, a federal advisory panel is recommending that every newborn receive a simple test before leaving the hospital. The test would consist of placing a probe on one hand and one foot, which would then use a light source and sensor for measuring the level of oxygen in the blood. If the oxygen level were low, that would suggest that more testing needed to be done to see if there were any heart problems.

Congenital heart disease affects seven to nine babies in every 1,000 born. The disease consists of defects in valves, arteries, walls, or veins of the heart. Of the babies that get it, one-fourth become seriously ill. Once congenital heart disease is diagnosed, doctors must intervene early. Dr. Alex Kemper of Duke University noted that many babies with heart defects look healthy in the nursery. However "if you can fix these kids before they get really sick, they have better outcomes."

The disease can be the result of a variety of causes, including exposure to certain prescription drugs or harmful levels of environmental toxins in the womb. The most critical cases of congenital heart disease can involve the ductus arteriosus vessel failing to close shortly after birth, which can lead to damage of the organs and even death.

While states such as New Jersey already have a screening program, some object to the test on the grounds that it has resulted in some false positives, causing families unnecessary grief. Also, many hospitals lack the necessary equipment and would need to purchase it. Still, with the plan endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, the American Heart Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, it seems likely to be adopted widely in the near future.

Often, the cause of a congenital heart defect is unknown. If you believe that your baby's congenital birth defect was caused by a specific local source of pollution, you may want to file a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender. You would need to provide strong evidence that that source, and not other factors, was responsible for your child's birth defect. You would then argue that the source (for instance, a chemical company) was negligent: it had a duty to the local community to behave according to the reasonable standards of the industry; the company breached this duty by acting unreasonably; the breach was the cause of your injury, and the damage was your child's heart defect. With more studies coming out linking heart defects to toxins, you may have an easier time making your case.

Continue reading "Federal Panel Recommends a Congenital Heart Disease Screening Test for Newborns" »