Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

Babies born prematurely, or "preemies," inevitably face a greater struggle than babies carried to term. However, few babies have struggled more than one born weighing less than one pound. In 1989, Madeline Mann was born weighing 9.9 pounds, while Rumaisa Rahman was born in 2004 weighing 9.2 pounds. They were born at 27 and 26 weeks respectively, although their birth weights were equal to that of an 18-week old fetus. Despite the difficult beginning, both are doing well today.

A report found that Mann was leading a fairly normal existence as a college senior. "I'm the pretty normal, tough cookie, nice kinda girl," she stated in an email. She does not spend much time thinking about the circumstances of her birth, instead choosing to think ahead. Rahman also appears to have a normal existence. The only thing suggesting a link to their premature births is their size: Mann is 4 feet 8 inches and has asthma, while Rahman was 3.5 feet tall at five years of age. Both of their mothers suffered from pre-eclampsia, where women develop severe hypertension as a result of their pregnancies. The condition is believed to be caused by the immune system's adverse reaction. While Mann and Rahman's mothers took steroids to develop their babies' lungs, both Mann and Rahman spent two months on breathing machines after birth. That both are doing well suggests that even though children born prematurely may have more struggles, premature birth does not necessarily condemn them to a poor-quality life.

Premature births have been traced to a number of factors, including genetics, parental habits, and environmental factors. Studies have shown that women who live in more polluted environments are more likely to give birth prematurely than women who don't. Children born prematurely are more likely to suffer from health and development problems. If your child was born prematurely and is suffering from related problems, and if you believe that the environment was a factor, you may want to consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit. You would first need to locate the offender responsible for causing your child's premature birth. Was it emissions from a power plant, or something less specific, such as emissions from thousands of vehicles passing through the area on the freeway? In order for a lawsuit to succeed, you must sue specific persons or entities. A lawsuit will always be dismissed if the plaintiff cannot identify the offender.

If a power plant were responsible, you would most likely receive a monetary award if you succeeded with your suit, which could pay for medical expenses and therapy, among other things. If the culprit were harder to pin down, however, such as thousands of cars on a freeway, your best option might be to seek an injunction: you could use it to force the entity responsible for regulating pollutants to take action. Past groups have sued the EPA in an effort to get it to enforce environmental laws.

Continue reading "Report Finds That Two Girls Who Were Born Weighing Less Than a Pound Are Now Thriving" »

This blog has frequently monitored the progress of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) planned rule to curb toxic emissions from coal-burning power plants. Research has shown that these toxins, especially mercury, have contributed to a greater risk of birth defects and health problems in general. Now, after two decades of inaction and many attempts by foes to delay or thwart the new rule, it is at last official.

The new rule is expected to reduce mercury and other toxic emissions by 90%. It will do so by imposing tougher standards on coal-burning power plants. While critics complain that the new rules will lead to higher utility rates, supporters of the new rule point out that the technology for reducing emissions is already well developed. Many power plants have already voluntarily implemented the technology without trouble. Supporters also point out that the small increase in utility prices, $10 billion overall, is far outweighed by the $90 billion in benefits.

Mercury emissions have been linked to nervous system damage and learning disabilities in young children. Once mercury enters the water, microbes can turn it into methylmercury, which can build up in fish and harm those who consume it. Children born to pregnant women believed to have consumed toxic fish have been shown to have lower IQs than children whose parents were not exposed.

The new rule is vulnerable to restriction by future administrations. However, for now, people across the United States can breathe a little easier.

Now that the new rule is official, anyone harmed by toxins from a power plant should have a much easier time succeeding with a toxic tort lawsuit. You could simply argue that emissions from the power plant exceeded the rule put in place by the EPA. This would also be the case if you got pregnant after the rule was implemented and later had a child with a birth defect. You could use evidence that the power plant violated the rule to make your case that the power plant was negligent. However, it would be more difficult if you were pregnant before the rule went into effect. You could not claim that the power plant violated a rule that was never there. At the same time, you might be able to refer to the rule if your argument is that the power plant continues to pollute and cause damage to your health.

Continue reading "New EPA Mercury Rule Will Curb Pollution, Lower the Rate of Birth Defects" »

The City of Boston is looking into curbing pollution from diesel exhaust, which has often resulted in a "dark halo of soot" over construction projects. Environmental groups have targeted diesel fumes from bulldozers and other construction equipment for higher rates of asthma and other ailments. They pointed to data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealing that Suffolk County had 300 times the amount of diesel pollution considered acceptable under federal standards, and more than 99% of counties across the nation. More than one third is emitted from construction equipment, while the rest comes from other sources.

With the federal government reducing grants for the purpose of lowering diesel emissions, environmentalists are turning to local governments to act. They have urged Boston to require that those who do business with the city buy filtration devices that would dispose of substantial amounts of the toxic pollutants emitted. City officials will review any possible ordinance, but many fear that requiring filtration devices -- which can be quite expensive -- would harm smaller contractors. They also note that federal aid has already resulted in all of their diesel-fueled buses, and most other diesel-fueled vehicles, being retrofitted. Nonetheless, with one in 10 children suffering from asthma, environmental groups are unlikely to take the pressure off of city officials until some sort of restriction is in place.

Boston has such high levels of diesel pollution due to being one of the nation's most densely populated cities and a center of commerce. Emissions from diesel engines have been linked to stronger asthma attacks, lung damage, heart attacks, and even premature death. While there is no clear link between diesel pollution and birth defects, air pollution linked to vehicle exhaust in general has been known to cause a higher rate of birth defects and premature births. If you live in an area known for high levels of vehicle exhaust and believe it to be the cause of your child's birth defect, you may want to consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit. Since the "offender" is thousands of different cars, you would not succeed in suing one, or even a handful, of drivers since you would not be able to prove that those cars' exhaust was directly responsible for the birth defect. Instead, you might want to seek an injunction against the entity responsible for enforcing air quality rules. An injunction is equitable relief, which is meant to achieve a specific objective, as opposed to "damages," which simply provide money for expenses, pain and suffering, and more. An injunction can be used to stop an activity or compel someone to act. In this case, you could seek an injunction compelling the regulating entity to enforce air quality rules.

Continue reading "City of Boston Considering An Ordinance That Would Curb Diesel Pollution" »

Researchers have found that the number of babies born with birth defects in the British Isles is higher than previously thought. Whereas before, it was believed that one in 80 babies was born with a birth defect, researchers now put the number at closer to one in 50. The birth defects range from Down syndrome to spina bifida.

While many believe that the higher rate is due to better data collection, researchers have noted that the numbers for some types of birth defects have increased while others have dropped. At present, London has the highest rate of Down syndrome, with 34 out of every 10,000 births, while the North West has the lowest incidence, with just 21 out of every 10,000 births.

The most common birth defect found was congenital heart disease, affecting one out of every 1,000 babies born. Neural tube defects, such as spina bifida, and gastroschisis (where the intestines develop outside the abdomen) also affect one out of every 1,000 babies born. Cleft lip and/or palate have been found in 15 out of every 10,000 babies born. The percentage of those born with neural tube defects has gone down, but is still considerably higher than in the rest of Europe.

The reasons for the birth defects vary. In the case of Down syndrome, the mother's age often plays a role. With regard to other birth defects, smoking, drinking, and other lifestyle habits are believed to be partially responsible.

Meanwhile, in the United States, reportedly 120,000 babies are born each year with a birth defect. With an annual birth rate of more than four million, that means the rate of birth defects is even higher than in Britain -- one in every 35 births. The same factors are present with American birth defects as with British birth defects. In addition, several birth defects such as cleft lip and/or palate, or neural tube defects, have been directly linked to environmental toxins.

If you live in the United States and your child was born with a birth defect, what are your options? If you believe that your child's birth defect was due to exposure to environmental toxins while in the womb, you might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the wrongdoer. To do so, you would need to first determine which source was at fault. Was it a power plant, a toxic waste site, or a strip mine? If you can find strong evidence to link to one particular offender, you can then argue that the offender owed a duty to the community to operate safely and follow environmental regulations applicable to the industry. The offender breached its duty by failing to follow regulations, the breach led to your injury, and the damage was your child's birth defect. If enough people have situations similar to yours, you could form a class-action lawsuit against the offender.

Continue reading "1 in 50 of British Babies Born With Birth Defects, Higher Than Previously Thought" »

A new study has found that babies born to parents who had cancer as children are unlikely to suffer from birth defects.

For the study, published in the December 12th issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, researchers collected information on over 20,000 children who had survived cancer, between 1970 and 1986. Of those children, 57% were diagnosed with leukemia or lymphoma. The researchers then observed the health of children born later to the childhood cancer survivors. Even though most of their parents -- 63% -- had had radiation and nearly half (40%) of the fathers and half (50%) of the mothers had undergone chemotherapy, only 2.7% of the children had birth defects. These birth defects included Down syndrome, cleft lip, and achondroplasia.

Overall, the percentage of babies with birth defects born to mothers who experienced treatments such as chemotherapy was lower than that of babies born to mothers who never had such treatments -- 3% versus 3.5%. The birth defect rate of babies born to fathers who had treatments was slightly higher than that of babies born to fathers who had no treatments -- 1.9% versus 1.7%.

Researchers found the results encouraging, as it alleviated many longstanding fears that cancer survivors could have reproductive problems later in life. The study did not mention how these statistics compared to those of cancer survivors in adulthood.

Even though the likelihood of having a child with a birth defect is small, if you had childhood cancer and your child has a birth defect, what would you do? Would you just say "It happens" and go on, or would you look at whether something went wrong with your treatment?

Continue reading "Parents Who Had Childhood Cancer are Not More Likely to Have Children With Birth Defects" »

A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that women who take over-the-counter painkillers during pregnancy have a slightly higher risk of giving birth to babies with rare birth defects.

The study, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, consisted of interviews of women across the United States. These women answered a series of questions about the types of drugs they took during their first trimester of pregnancy. Included were questions about very common anti-inflammatory painkillers, such as aspirin, naproxen, and ibuprofen.

Researchers then compared the use of painkillers among 15,000 women with babies born with birth defects, as opposed to 5,000 women whose babies had developed normally. They found that most of the defects studied were not tied to the above painkillers. However, there were slight increases in certain birth defects. The risk of babies born with a cleft palate rose from 50% to 80%, while the risk of spina bifida rose 60% compared to the risk of babies born to mothers who took no anti-inflammatory painkillers. Most troubling, babies of mothers who took naproxen or aspirin were three times more likely to be born without eyes, or with eyes that were abnormally small.

The researchers emphasized that there may be no connection between the painkillers and these birth defects. However, they considered it a warning sign and stated that further research was needed. In the meantime, they advised pregnant mothers that they should take painkillers such as Tylenol, which undergoes a different process and has proven to be safe.

If you took the above anti-inflammatory painkillers and your child was born with a birth defect, what are your options? Since these painkillers are common and can be bought over-the-counter, a medical malpractice suit against your physician is likely not an option. However, you might have a product liability lawsuit against the painkillers' manufacturers. You would argue that the manufacturers were strictly liable in that they had a duty to consumers to create as safe a painkiller as possible. The manufacturers breached that duty by creating painkillers that were designed to be unsafe and/or had an inadequate warning label. The breach led to your injury -- your child's exposure to the painkiller's effects while in utero -- and the damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Pregnant Women Who Take Certain Painkillers are Slightly More Likely to Have Babies With Birth Defects" »

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a finding that suggested hydraulic fracturing, a method of improving productivity in oil and gas wells, causes groundwater pollution.

Hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," consists of using pressurized fluid in order to create fractures in rock, meant to release more oil or natural gas. While most of the pressurized fluid is water, some of it is composed of chemicals, including biocides, surfactants, and emulsifiers. These chemicals are commonly found in household products such as cosmetics, detergents, floor waxes, and paints. The chemicals are said to make up less than 2% of the total fluid, yet problems have been steadily reported over the years. For example, in Pennsylvania and New York, a study found higher levels of methane in the groundwater near fracking wells, creating a greater chance of explosion. At the same time, many argued that it was not the fracking process that caused groundwater pollution, but the process of drilling wells in and of itself.

Back in 2004, the EPA conducted a study of fracking and concluded that it posed little threat to underground drinking water. This time, the EPA's conclusions are much different and could influence how states regulate the fracking process. EPA officials drew these conclusions after discovering chemicals likely associated with fracking in the groundwater of a Wyoming community. Members of the community had earlier complained of a chemicals smell. After the discovery, EPA officials advised them to avoid drinking water from the local wells.

Right now, there is not much information as to whether groundwater polluted by fracking chemicals causes health problems or birth defects. Over time, the correlation might become stronger, or there might not be any at all. However, given that many of the fracking chemicals are the same found in household cleaners, and household cleaners have been faulted for causing health problems and birth defects, it is not a stretch to claim that your health problem or your child's birth defect was due to fracking chemicals in the groundwater.

If you believe that drinking water containing fracking chemicals while pregnant resulted in your child's birth defect, you might want to consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender. You would charge the offender (likely an oil and gas company) with negligence, claiming that it had a duty to operate safely according to environmental regulations, breached that duty by allowing harmful chemicals to pollute the drinking water, the breach caused you injury (through drinking the water while your child was in utero), and the resulting damage was your child's birth defect. Part of whether you are successful depends upon whether the oil or gas well where fracking is used is located nearby. If the well is close, making the argument that you were someone who could be foreseeably harmed by fracking should not be too difficult. You might also establish that you were someone who could be foreseeably harmed if groundwater polluted by fracking flowed to the well that you always use for drinking water. On the other hand, if the fracking site is far away and it is difficult to tell whether the groundwater you use is the same as the flow near the fracking site, you might have more of a challenge.

Continue reading "EPA Finds That Hydraulic Fracturing is Responsible for Groundwater Contamination" »

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new rule for mercury will be finalized in the middle of December. If implemented, the rule could potentially go a long way toward curbing emissions that cause general health problems, childhood development problems, and birth defects. However, the industries affected may be fighting hard to ensure that the rule, even if enacted, is substantially changed.

This blog has documented the attempts to stall or stop the rule in the Senate and House of Representatives. These attempts failed, and the rule should finally take effect. The new EPA rule was deemed necessary after it was determined that mercury, released by coal-burning power plants, is a neurotoxin that causes development problems and a variety of birth defects. EPA officials believe that by limiting the amount of mercury in the air, between 6,800 and 17,000 premature deaths would be avoided each year. This could also mean fewer sick days and health care costs, resulting in yearly savings between $48 million and $140 million.

The American Lung Association has already released advertisements in various states, with a message asking the EPA to protect the public health. One of the states is Pennsylvania, the third-largest polluter in the country with 30 power plants. A combination of the new rule and greater public awareness of dirty air's health risks could ultimately have a positive impact.

If you have a child with a birth defect that you believe may be due to mercury exposure during your pregnancy, would the new rule be helpful to you? It certainly would from this point forward, as the amount of harmful toxins released would be much less, reducing your likelihood of becoming seriously ill. On the other hand, if you decided to file a toxic tort lawsuit over your child's birth defect, and used the rule as evidence of the power plant's negligence, you could be out of luck. At the time you were exposed to mercury from the plant, the rule was not in effect, so claiming that the power plant's activity violated the rule means nothing. However, you could always refer to the rule if your argument is that the power plant continues to pollute and cause damage to your health.

The new rule might have an effect in determining how much in damages (a monetary award) the jury awards you. Even if the jury determines that the power plant was negligent even without the rule in effect, you might get more damages for the time period after the rule was implemented than for the time period before it. The jury would have a much easier time measuring and weighing the power plant's conduct if it is against a specific regulation.

Continue reading "New EPA Rule Reducing Mercury Emissions Set to Be Finalized Mid-December" »

Researchers in a recent study on breast cancer state that in order to know how much environmental toxins play a role, it is necessary to study a woman's exposure throughout her entire life -- even her exposure in the womb.

In a $1 million Institute of Medicine report, researchers studied women who developed cancer and found that any evidence of environmental toxins being the culprit was inconclusive at best. That does not mean recent chemical exposure is not a cause, just that there is little medical evidence to go by. This is because scientists are unable to conduct studies with women because women would need to be exposed to harmful toxins and then followed for decades. Scientists must therefore resort to studying animals or following large population trends. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently has little power to test cosmetics or dietary supplements for their toxin levels.

The study did have some helpful discoveries, though. For instance, it found that a woman who has two or three abdominal CT scans are exposed to the same amount of radiation as survivors of Hiroshima. The study also pointed out that for three chemicals (benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and ethylene oxide) found in some workplace settings, gasoline fumes, car exhaust, and tobacco smoke, there is a stronger correlation with breast cancer.

Still, many advocacy groups were critical of the study for not doing more to encourage policy changes that could protect women from known harmful carcinogens. Karuna Jaggar of the group Breast Cancer Action says that even without knowing the exact cause, there is already enough evidence that changes in our system are needed. The President's Cancer Panel has already found that environmental toxins pose "a serious threat."

While avoiding the toxins that cause breast cancer may not be possible, could a woman with breast cancer file a toxic tort lawsuit if she was exposed to chemicals long ago? Even in the womb? It is difficult to say. If there is a clear connection between the woman's ailment and exposure at a specific time in her life, then it might be possible to file a successful lawsuit against the polluter. However, if the woman is not exactly certain which chemicals caused her to develop cancer, or when, she will not be able to build a strong case. For a toxic tort lawsuit to be successful, you must provide evidence establishing that toxins from specific offenders caused you to develop breast cancer.

Continue reading "Cancer Study Researchers Suggest That Toxin Exposure in Utero Could Be a Cause of Breast Cancer" »

Families from several different states are getting together to sue the Zoloft manufacturer, Pfizer for failing to warn about the harmful effects of the prescription antidepressant. Because of Pfizer's failure to warn, eight couples used Zoloft throughout their pregnancies, resulting in their children being born with birth defects.

Their children's birth defects range from heart defects to neural tube defects to craniosynostosis. The families are spread across the United States, from Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Florida, Wisconsin, Texas, and New York. They believe that Pfizer knew that Zoloft could cause birth defects, but chose not to make the news public. Their charges against Pfizer include products liability, breach of warranty, negligence, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Zoloft is not the only prescription antidepressant charged with causing birth defects. If your child has a birth defect that you believe may be due to your taking Zoloft -- or any prescription antidepressant -- you have the option of filing a products liability lawsuit and/or a medical malpractice lawsuit. You would file the products liability suit against the manufacturer, arguing that the manufacturer was strictly liable for creating an unsafe product. To prove that the manufacturer was strictly liable, you would argue that the manufacturer had a duty to make as safe an antidepressant pill as reasonably possible. The manufacturer breached its duty by designing a pill that was unsafe, despite there being options for creating a safer pill that was just as effective and not much more expensive. Or else, like the manufacturer of Zoloft, the manufacturer failed to provide an adequate warning of the dangers. The breach led to your injury (exposure the ill effects of the drug) and the damage you suffered was your child's birth defect.

If enough women are in a similar situation (prescribed the same antidepressant while pregnant, and now mothers of children with birth defects), you could form a class action lawsuit. To be certified as a class, you don't need to have all taken the antidepressant the same year, or your children all have the same birth defect. You don't even have to live in the same area. You just need to have enough strong similarities (took the same prescribed antidepressant in the first trimester and gave birth to a child with a birth defect) to be able to make the case that you were all harmed by the drug manufacturer.

If you choose to file a medical malpractice suit, you would do so against your physician. You would argue that your physician was negligent in that he or she had a duty to inform you of possible ill effects of the prescription drug (the your physician knew about or reasonably should have known about) yet chose not to. As a result of this breach, you were injured (exposed to the harmful effects, as was your child in utero), and your damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Families Across the United States to Sue Maker of Zoloft for Not Warning About Birth Defects" »

A pediatrician in Richmond, Virginia has an idea of how to prevent and treat autism: change children's diet.

Declaring autism an epidemic, Dr. Mary Megson claims that children who have it are "canaries in a coal mine, telling us we need to clean up our environment." While the cause of autism remains widely unknown -- whether genetic or environment-based, whether it is due to a birth defect that manifests later or a condition that a child born normal later develops -- Dr. Megson believes that environmental toxins play an important role, both in the general environment around us and in the food we eat. Children with autism, she states, don't have the ability to shed toxins as easily as children without autism.

Dr. Megson claims that treatment of autism begins with food. She studied the nutrients that a child needs and began prescribing foods that she felt would complete their diet. Most of the necessary nutrients can be found in breast milk, organic foods, or cod liver oil.

Not everyone thinks that Dr. Megson's approach is the right one. Dr. Susan Pillsbury David argues that behavioral therapy is key to reversing some of the tendencies of autism, and that there is no evidence that environment is responsible.

While Dr. Pillsbury David is technically correct, it is not impossible that environment could be a factor, given stories about children's behavior being affected by BPA and other anecdotal evidence. If you have a child with autism that you believe may have been the result of exposure to harmful levels of environmental toxins, you may want to consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit. You would first need to determine the source of the toxins with some certainty. That could be difficult, as many sources can contribute to environmental toxins, from pesticides to household cleaners. A lawsuit that cannot identify the offender will be dismissed by the judge. You would then need to establish a clear connection between the offender's actions and your child's autism. That could also be a challenge, since the evidence of autism's causes tends to be highly inconclusive.

If you felt that you had sufficient evidence to make your case, you would argue that the offender had a duty to the local community to operate as safely as possible. The offender breached this duty by disposing of environmental toxins in an unsafe manner. This breach caused you injury through exposure (and your child as well, in utero), and you suffered damage in the form of your child's autism. Those who file a toxic tort lawsuit usually seek damages -- a money award for medical bills, pain and suffering, and the like -- but some might choose to file an injunction to stop the offender from performing the harmful act until the offender makes necessary changes.

Continue reading "Richmond, Virginia Pediatrician Aims to Combat Autism Through Diet" »

An experienced attorney can be the difference between justice and having a dangerous problem swept under the rug. In the case of Kettleman City, California, one local attorney is trying to ensure that the people who live there get answers for why their children are born with a higher rate of birth defects than normal.

This blog spoke of the problems faced by those who live in Kettleman City, which is located near one of California's three toxic waste dumps. The rate of babies born with cleft lip is usually one in every 1,000 births, but in Kettleman City -- a town with just 1,500 residents -- five babies born in the past two years have had cleft lips. In addition, babies have been born with brain and heart defects. The surrounding environment contains many harmful pollutants, such as water from local wells containing traces of benzene and arsenic.

While one group of residents decided to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revoke the toxic waste site's permit, Attorney Gordon Stemple of Fresno is trying to make an explicit link between the toxic waste and birth defects in order to get his clients monetary relief from the polluters -- relief can be invested in the cost of moving his clients to a new (safer) location. Some are skeptical of Stemple's efforts, given that the EPA, the California Department of Public Health, and California's Environmental Protection Agency found no cause. However, unlike those agencies, Stemple was able to take blood and tissue samples from residents and have them analyzed. Stemple has speculated that the cause of contamination might not be the toxic waste site, but oil drums buried by companies' earlier search for oil. In any event, as a result of Stemple's efforts, many people have successfully moved from Kettleman City -- though many are still hoping to have the pollution sources stopped.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe may be due to a nearby toxic waste site, or another source of contamination, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender. First, you would need to find evidence that strongly linked the contaminant (like toxic waste) to a specific offender. Then you would argue that the offender owed you and other members of the community a duty to follow reasonable safety standards. The offender breached this duty by disposing of waste in an unsafe manner -- in a way that could foreseeably harm the local community. The breach caused you injury (through exposure to chemicals) and your damage was your child's birth defect. Like many Kettleman City residents, you might want to pursue a monetary award for medical bills, pain and suffering, and other ills -- money that could help you move away from the contaminated site. However, you might instead pursue equitable relief in the form of an injunction, to make the offender stop the harmful activity.

Continue reading "Fresno Attorney Seeks to Help Kettleman City Residents Relocate to a Less Toxic Environment" »