Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

In previous posts, this blog has discussed the practice of "mountaintop removal mining" and its harm to your health. Mountaintop removal mining, or "mountaintop mining," involves a company stripping the top layer from a mountain so that it can reach the materials underneath, such as coal. The top layer gets disposed of in nearby mountain streams, unleashing harmful elements into the air and water, including mercury. Mercury in particular has been linked to health problems and birth defects.

Studies have found that residents of local communities near Appalachian mountaintop mines experienced higher rates of birth defects than residents elsewhere. Since these health effects became known, residents have increasingly expressed their opposition to the practice. Even so, the Obama administration is poised to bring back the streamlined process for obtaining a permit for strip mining. The administration had put a stop to it in 2009 after growing concerns about mountaintop removal.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began reissuing "general" permits, including one known as "Nationwide Permit 21" for surface coal mining. Under the Clean Water Act, general permits are meant to authorize "minor activities that are usually not controversial" and that would have only "minimal cumulative adverse effects" on the surrounding environment. One possible reason for the Obama administration's turnaround is that the permit has been revised to prevent valley fills -- where the excess soil is dumped into a nearby valley -- from being authorized by a streamlined permit. However, the Corps of Engineers may implement a policy waiving the amount of stream that can be buried under mountaintop soil if the Corp of Engineers concludes that the proposal before them would have little impact. Environmentalists warn that if they do so, there would be "insufficient protection" for stream loss.

Twice, a Chief District Court Judge, Joseph R. Goodwin, has issued rulings preventing the Corp of Engineers from issuing streamlined permits. It remains to be seen how the judge will respond to this latest version. Meanwhile, the Obama administration's willingness to bend the standards could make it tougher for anyone affected by mountaintop mining to file a successful lawsuit against the offender. If your child has a birth defect that you believe was caused by exposure to mercury from mountaintop mining while you were pregnant, you would want to obtain relief. To do so, you would need to show that the mining company was acting negligent by dumping soil laden with toxins into the mountain stream. That might be more difficult to argue if the company could show that it obtained a general permit for its actions and complied with all of the requirements. However, you would at least have several studies on your side that mountaintop removal mining is linked to a higher rate of birth defects. You could use it to make the case that the company's actions contributed directly to your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Obama Administration Allows Streamlined Permits for Mountaintop Mining, Despite Evidence of Birth Defects" »

Back in October, this blog discussed how the weight loss drug Qnexa, manufactured by Vivus, posed an increased risk of birth defects for pregnant women. Qnexa contains topiramate and phentermine, with topiramate being an ingredient in antiepileptic seizure medication. Antiepileptic drugs have been linked to a higher rate of birth defects -- such as cleft palate -- if taken in the first trimester of pregnancy. In October, Vivus had resubmitted an application to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) after making a modification: use of Qnexa would be limited to those over 55 years of age.

The FDA staff recently turned to an advisory panel to weigh in on whether the benefits of Qnexa outweigh any harmful health effects, such as heart problems or birth defects. Trials revealed that while people who took Qnexa lost more weight than those on a placebo, they also had more health problems, such as memory loss, that could worsen with time. The FDA had previously rejected Vivus's application in 2010 out of concern over rapid heart beat and an increase in birth defects. The FDA advisory panel, the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee, voted by an overwhelming 20 to 2 margin to recommend approval for the drug.

Although the advisory panel expressed the same concerns that led to the first application's rejection, the panel noted that Qnexa's two main ingredients were already circulating out in the market and could be prescribed off label. One panelist commented that they couldn't "doubt the benefit of weight loss." At the same time, the advisory panel cautioned that post-approval studies be conducted to monitor cardiovascular side effects. While the FDA is not required to follow the recommendations of an advisory panel, it usually does. The FDA is expected to issue its final decision on April 17th.

Even though Qnexa is being limited to women over 55 years old, topiramate is featured in many antiepileptic drugs taken by younger women. If you took antiepileptic medication while pregnant, and your child was born with a birth defect, you could sue the manufacturer and/or your physician for relief. You would sue the manufacturer under product liability theory. You would argue that the drug manufacturer had a duty to create as safe a drug as possible, but breached that duty by creating an unreasonably dangerous drug. This drug could have been made safer without a change in price or effectiveness. It may also have lacked a warning label that adequately spelled out the dangers. The manufacturer's breach caused your injury -- exposure to the harmful effects while pregnant -- and your damage was your child's birth defect.

You could also sue your physician under medical malpractice theory. To be successful, you would need to prove that the physician knew, or should have known, about the dangers of taking antiepileptic medication during the first trimester, and that the physician failed to warn you before prescribing the drug. All physicians have a duty to warn patients about potential problems with treatment so patients can make informed decisions.

Continue reading "FDA Advisory Panel Approves of Qnexa for Weight Loss Usage Despite Evidence That It Causes Birth Defects and Other Health Problems" »

One of the things many car buyers look forward to most when they purchase a new vehicle is that "new car smell." Yet as it turns out, that smell could lead to higher levels of cancer and birth defects.

A new study has found that the new car smell is due to a high concentration of toxic chemicals, including brominated flame retardants, chromium, and lead. As many as 275 chemicals were found in car interiors, including several that were linked to birth defects, cancer, liver problems, and cognitive damage. Researchers arrived at these results after testing the interiors of over 200 cars from the 2011 to 2012 model year. Using a portable X-ray Fluorescence analyzer -- which picks up traces of toxins such as lead, arsenic, and mercury -- researchers tested the seats, arm rests, door trim, steering wheels, door trim, and knobs used to shift gears.

The car rated the safest was the 2012 Honda Civic, which did not have any bromine-based flame retardants and had low levels of heavy metals. The Civic was followed by the 2011 Toyota Prius, the 2011 Honda CR-Z, the 2011 Nissan Cube, the 2012 Acura RDX, the 2012 Acura ZDX, the 2012 Audi S5, the 2011 Smart Coupe, the 2011 Toyota Venza, and the 2011 Smart Passion. Meanwhile, the least healthy cars were the 2011 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport and the 2011 Chrysler 200 SC. The Outlander Sport had traces of both bromine and antimony-based flame retardants, as well as chromium-treated leather and lead in the seats.

Researchers warn that chemical concentrations grow more potent as the temperature rises -- meaning that the toxins present in a car could be even more dangerous on hot days. Nonetheless, they claim that car interiors appear to be growing safer, with VW, Mitsubishi, and Ford among the most-improved manufacturers.

An increasing number of studies have shown that birth defects can be caused by exposure to some of the most common consumer items. In addition to car interiors, household cleaners and even simple clothing (which may contain flame retardants) have also been linked to birth defects. If your child has a birth defect that you believe was due to exposure to chemicals in car seats or household items while in utero, you may want to consider filing a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer. You would argue that the auto manufacturer had a duty to produce as safe a car as possible. The manufacturer breached that duty by producing a car with an interior that was unreasonably dangerous -- even though the manufacturer could have produced a safer car interior for roughly the same price. As a result of the breach, you would claim that you were injured (exposed to the interior's toxins while pregnant), and your damage was your child's birth defect. Your greatest challenge would be proving causation, that this specific product was the cause, as opposed to household cleaners or pesticides in the air.

Continue reading "Study Finds That "New Car Smell" May Lead to Higher Risk of Cancer, Birth Defects" »

Recently, researchers unveiled a new DNA-based blood test for determining birth defects. The test, which can be offered as early as 10 weeks into the pregnancy, can identify when a fetus has Down syndrome, as well as two chromosome abnormalities: trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome) and trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome).

Trisomy 18 causes 70% of affected fetuses in the first trimester to be spontaneously lost during pregnancies. Of those that manage to survive to term, half die within a week and only 5% survive their first year. Those who do survive to term suffer from ailments like kidney malformations and structural heart defects. Without a prenatal diagnosis, it is estimated that roughly 1,330 infants with trisomy 18 would be born in the United States each year. Trisomy 13 is not as common as trisomy 18, but is no less serious. Those born with trisomy 13 suffer from several structural defects, including extra digits, abnormal genitalia, deformed feet, and cleft palates. Without the benefit of a prenatal diagnosis, 600 infants with trisomy 13 would probably be born in the U.S. each year. Both trisomy 13 and 18, along with Down syndrome, become more common as maternal age increases. Prior to the latest test, prenatal screening tests for trisomy 18 and trisomy 13 depended upon both biochemical and ultrasound markers.

Researchers from across the United States developed the test and analyzed its results. In 2008, they enrolled 4,500 women at 27 prenatal diagnostic centers throughout the world. Researchers found that the test was able to identify all (59 out of 59) of the trisomy 18 cases, as well as and 91.7% (11 of 12) of the trisomy 13 cases. These results, coupled with an extremely low false positive rate (sometimes as low as 0.1%), suggest that the new test could be highly effective in locating birth defects and allowing couples to plan a course of action.

Both trisomy 13 and 18 are considered to be genetic events. Whether outside factors played a role in the spontaneous formation of the disorders is unknown. However, several birth defects have been linked to external causes, such as pesticides, toxic chemicals stored nearby, polluting practices by a power plant or manufacturer, common household products such as cleaners or light bulbs, and even to prescription drugs.

If you believe that your child's birth defect is linked to one of these outside sources, you could file a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender, or a product liability lawsuit. In both cases, the steps are largely the same. You would argue that the offender had a duty to you and/or the community at large. The offender breached that duty; as a result of the breach, you were injured, and the damage you suffered was your child's birth defect. The only difference is that in a toxic tort lawsuit, you would argue that the breach occurred because the offender was negligent. In a product liability lawsuit, you would argue that even if the offender were not negligent, it still created an unreasonably dangerous product or failed to properly warn of its dangers.

Continue reading "Researchers Develop a New Prenatal Blood Test to Help Pinpoint Certain Birth Defects" »

A study by the University of Rochester Medical Center found that babies with birth defects faced no greater harm when delivered on nights and weekends than babies born during a weekday.

Currently, when a baby is known to have certain defects, the hospital staff might arrange to induce labor so that the baby is born during a weekday. This is done in case the baby requires more testing or surgical intervention. The concern is that reduced staff during nights and weekends could mean that the baby was less likely to receive necessary care in a timely manner. However, researchers in this study found that there was no change in the amount of time the baby stayed at the hospital, the rate at which the baby was admitted to neonatal intensive care units, and the receipt of necessary medications.

Researchers looked at information on 220 infants with common, non-lethal birth defects between 2000 and 2010. These defects included holes in the heart and in the gastrointestinal system. Researchers then looked at data divided between weekday births (Monday through Friday, 7 am to 6 pm) and night/weekend (6 pm to 7 am Monday through Friday, or all day Saturday and Sunday). All of the infants in the study were delivered at the University of Rochester Medical Center, due to its specialized neonatal intensive care unit. While babies born on nights and weekends had to wait longer for corrective surgery, it did not affect the overall amount of time they spent in the hospital.

If your child has a birth defect and you believe that it was worsened due to delivery at night or on a weekend, could you sue successfully for medical malpractice? To be successful, medical malpractice suits must prove that the physician made a medical error that was preventable, and that the physician knew, or should have known that they could have prevented it. Hospitals might be sued as well under the theory of respondeat superior, which means that the employer is liable if the negligent party was acting in the "scope" of employment.

If your physician used reasonable care in the delivery, and if a lighter staff during off hours was the industry norm -- and if the hospital did not have a record of poor performance because of it -- you might have trouble linking the time of delivery to your child's result.

If, however, the physician was overly tired and made mistakes due to the lighter staff, or if the hospital had a record of medical errors overall on nighttimes and weekends, you might be more successful. Having strong evidence in a lawsuit is always of vital importance, especially in this situation, where the case's success may hinge upon medical records.

Continue reading "Study Finds That Babies With Birth Defects Who Are Delivered During Hospital Off Hours Do Not Suffer More Than Babies Born on Weekdays" »

A Louisiana family joins the growing number of families that have filed lawsuits against Zoloft for causing birth defects. Zoloft is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) manufactured by Pfizer and designed to treat major depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, and social anxiety disorders. Terry and Nelda Rolling of Louisiana claim that Pfizer failed to provide an adequate warning of Zoloft's risks, and also of concealing, suppressing, and failing to disclose dangers.

The Rollings' child was born with a congenital heart defect. They claim that Pfizer had information as early as 1996 that Zoloft could increase the risk of birth defects if prescribed to a pregnant woman, but failed to provide a proper warning to would-be consumers or physicians. The information only grew between 2002 and 2006 that Zoloft use could harm fetal development. The Rollings claim that if nothing else, Pfizer knew or should have known the risks by 2007, when the New England Journal of Medicine published a study on Zoloft use during pregnancy. The 2007 study showed that Zoloft doubled the risk of septal heart defects.

Zoloft is just one of several SSRIs linked to a higher risk of birth defects. Prozac, Paxil, and Celexa, among others, were also considered to be responsible. Pregnant women who took Zoloft received a warning in 2006 from the Food and Drug Administration that if they continued to take it after 20 weeks, they were six times more likely to give birth to a child with persistent pulmonary hypertension. Since the New England Journal of Medicine's study was published, other studies have confirmed its findings, such as a study out of Sweden, linking SSRIs to persistent pulmonary hypertension.

If you took SSRIs and have a child with a birth defect, how could you file suit against the pharmaceutical company? You could do what the Rollings did and file it under your state's Products Liability Act, if there is one. The Rollings accused Pfizer of violating the warranty of redhibition. All products come with what are called "warranties," or assurances. The warranty of redhibition is specific to Louisiana: it gives consumers the ability to file suit against the manufacturer of a defective product. However, there are other warranties, such as an express warranty, where the merchant makes a stated guarantee about the product, and implied warranties. Implied warranties include the warranty of merchantability, which states that the product must reasonably conform to the buyer's expectations. Breach of warranty tends to used in contract claims rather than a tort claim, but many who file product liability lawsuits include breach of warranty.

Otherwise, you would file a lawsuit against the SSRI manufacturer under strict liability theory. You would claim that the manufacturer had a duty to produce as safe a product as possible, but the manufacturer breached that duty by creating a product that was not only unreasonably dangerous, but also failed to provide a proper warning. As a result of the breach, you were injured (took SSRIs while pregnant), and the damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Louisiana Family Becomes the Latest to Sue Zoloft Over Birth Defects" »

Not long ago, this blog discussed findings that showed people with childhood cancer were not substantially more likely to have babies with birth defects. Now a more recent study has found that women who undergo chemotherapy treatment while pregnant -- at least after the initial 12 weeks -- may not be at a greater risk of having a child with birth defects.

While it is known that chemotherapy during the first 12 weeks of gestation increases the chance of birth defects, researchers from the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Belgium sought to determine whether it had an effect in the later months. They looked at the medical records and tested children whose mothers had undergone three or four rounds of chemotherapy while pregnant. The children were tested several times: once at birth, once at 18 months, and then once every few years until the child turned 18 years old. What researchers found was that the children had no higher risk of general health problems -- including heart, hearing or nervous system disorders -- than children whose mothers had not undergone chemotherapy.

Researchers questioned the idea that pregnant women undergoing chemotherapy should have early induced births. They emphasized that it was important for the baby to remain within the mother as long as possible. Many developmental problems suffered by babies whose mothers underwent chemotherapy may have been due to a too-early birth. That said, researchers cautioned that the findings did not mean chemotherapy was completely safe. The baby would need to be monitored with extra ultrasounds to ensure that it was developing properly.

All expectant mothers hope that their births are trouble-free and that their children develop normally. Cancer and chemotherapy are things no pregnant woman wants to face. Having a child with birth defects would only magnify the painful experience. If you were pregnant while having chemotherapy and your child were born with a birth defect, what would you do? Is it the sort of situation where you could sue someone for relief?

Perhaps if it were a situation where your doctor failed to inform you about all of the consequences of treatment before you agreed to undergo chemotherapy. Physicians have a duty to inform patients about the potential dangers of treatment so that patients know the risks before deciding whether or not to undergo treatment. If your physician knew or had reason to know that chemotherapy (during the first trimester, at least) could result in birth defects, but failed to warn you, then your physician would be guilty of negligence. You could sue your physician for medical malpractice, arguing that had you been fully informed, you might have sought other treatment options, if any were available.

Continue reading "Research Shows That Pregnant Women Who Undergo Chemotherapy in the Second Trimester Are Not More Likely to Have Babies With Birth Defects" »

Leaf blowers have become an ever-more-constant presence over the years -- not just in suburban neighborhoods, but also in urban spaces. Their noise is unmistakable, as is the cloud of dust that follows in their wake. But can leaf blower use lead to long-term health problems, as well as birth defects?

Yes, critics say. The pollution from leaf blowers -- both noise and air pollution -- can lead to very real health problems. The noise of these machines, which frequently exceeds the 60 decibel limit prescribed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), can cause health problems like stress, hypertension, interrupted sleep, hearing loss, and depressed immune system.

Air pollution caused by leaf blowing can be even more damaging. Some brands of leaf blowers warn: "The engine exhaust from this product contains chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm." The EPA Air Quality Resources Board in California found that one leaf blower engine produces the same amount of pollution as 80 cars each driven 12,500 each year. In addition to exhaust, leaf blowers also stir up molds and chemicals that would have otherwise settled into the earth. A person walking through a leaf blower cloud may breath in traces of pesticides, mold, animal fecal matter, and dust particles. Dust particles may contain elements linked to birth defects, including mercury, arsenic, and nickel.

While more than 400 cities across the United States have banned leaf blowers, in too many other communities, the health hazard is not taken seriously. Leaf blowers are permitted to operate up to 14 hours each day, with no restrictions on how the blowers are used that would preserve the health of residents.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe may be linked to leaf blower use, you have options. You could sue the company that uses them, the manufacturer that produces them, and/or even the entity charged with preserving public health. For the company or companies operating the blowers, you could claim that they were negligent in that they had a duty to operate as safely as possible, but breached that duty by allowing toxic clouds of dust to be blown into the air within 50 feet of residents' homes. You were injured by the breach -- exposed to the toxins while pregnant -- and you suffered damage in the form of your child's birth defect. You might have trouble establishing that the companies had a duty to prevent toxic pollutants if no restrictions were placed on the type of blower or where a blower could operate. The company might argue that it is simply the nature of blowing that dust gets everywhere.

Continue reading "Leaf Blower Exhaust and Dust Clouds Cause Health Problems, Birth Defects" »

British researchers claim that women with diabetes face quadruple the risk of having a child with birth defects compared to women without diabetes. The study focused on more than 400,000 pregnant women in northeastern England.

Of the 401,149 women who became pregnant between 1996 and 2008, 1,677 of them had diabetes. Researchers found that the risk of babies being born with spina bifida or congenital heart disease increased from 19 in every 1,000 births to 72 in every 1,000 births when the mother had diabetes. The reason is believed to be due to sugar levels in the blood at the point of conception -- women with lower blood sugar levels (an HbA1c levelbelow 6.1%) are more likely to have a healthy child. Regardless of whether a diabetic is Type 1 (which is treated with daily insulin injections) or Type 2 (which generally develops in adulthood and is often associated with diet), a diabetic has greater trouble controlling the amount of sugar in the blood. The first four to six weeks of gestation are often critical, and sugar levels can impact it. Researchers note, however, that if women with diabetes seek medical care ahead of time, they might be able to bring their sugar amount down to an acceptable level before getting pregnant.

In Type 1 diabetes, a person's immune system, which when functioning properly fights harmful viruses and bacteria, destroys the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas by mistake. Why this happens is still unknown, but it may be linked to heredity or certain viruses. Type 2 diabetes, as stated above, usually sets in later in life and is often linked to weight and diet. Because the cause of diabetes appears linked to genetics or lifestyle, it would be difficult to prove that your diabetes was associated with, for instance, environmental pollution or prescription medication. Therefore, if you are an American with diabetes and your child has a birth defect, you would likely not be successful if you filed a toxic tort suit against a power plant, claiming that it caused your diabetes and thus your child's birth defect. The connection just isn't there.

However, you don't need to prove a link between environmental pollution and diabetes to make the case that environmental pollution caused your child's birth defect. Many studies have provided strong evidence that specific pollution sources -- such as power plants, toxic waste sites, certain manufacturing plants, and coal mines -- are connected to a rise in the number and type of birth defects. If you live in an area with one of these sources of pollution, you could potentially make the case that it caused your child's birth defect. You could then sue the source for negligence, stating that because the offender did not take reasonable care and follow applicable regulations, it released harmful amounts of pollution. You absorbed this pollution while pregnant and it led to your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Study Finds That Pregnant Women With Diabetes Are Four Times More Likely to Have Babies With Birth Defects" »

Research has found that while pregnant women with HIV could avoid passing the virus to their children by taking antiretroviral drugs, doing so could increase the possibility that the children would be born with birth defects.

There are a number of available antiretroviral drugs, including lamivudine; efavirenz; nelfinavir; and the combination of abacavir, sulfate, lamivudine and zidovudine. Women who take the antiretroviral drugs find that they can reduce the likelihood of passing the HIV virus to their kids from between 15% to 25% to less than 1%. However, these drugs have also been linked to a greater risk of certain types of birth defects, like cleft lip and cleft palate. Researchers studied five years of information compiled by the Food and Drug Administration with the goal of finding an association between birth defects and antiretroviral drugs. What they discovered was that seven antiretroviral drugs were associated with 26 incidents of cleft lip and palate.

Researchers hastened to point out that while some pregnant mothers who took antiretroviral drugs had children with birth defects, there was no clear causal connection. Nonetheless, they cautioned that antiretroviral drugs are still being examined and, for now, are not considered safe during pregnancy.

Birth defects can be due to numerous causes -- genetics, diet and lifestyle, or external causes such as a prescription drug, whether antiretroviral or antidepressants. If you believe that your child's birth defect was caused by the medicine you were prescribed, you could do two things: file a lawsuit against the manufacturer and/or file a suit against your physician for prescribing the drug and failing to warn you of the dangers.

For the suit against the manufacturer, you would argue that the manufacturer was strictly liable because: the manufacturer had a duty to produce as safe a drug as possible; the manufacturer breached that duty by creating an unreasonably dangerous drug; the breach led to your injury (exposure to the harmful effects of the drug while pregnant); and the result was your child's birth defect.

If you choose to sue your physician for medical malpractice, you could argue that your doctor had a duty to inform you of any possible dangers from taking the prescription drug, but -- although your doctor knew or should have known the dangers -- failed to warn you. As a result, you were injured and the result was your child's birth defect. Studies have shown that women who take certain drugs during the first trimester of pregnancy especially increase their risk of having a child with birth defects. If enough women are in your situation -- that is, if they took the same medication while pregnant, and their babies have birth defects -- you might consider filing a class-action lawsuit.

Continue reading "Researchers Find That Pregnant Women Who Take HIV Medication Are More Likely to Have Babies With Birth Defects" »

On Thursday, a committee of Virginia Senators produced a tied 7-7 vote on a bill to ban most abortions after 20 weeks -- essentially killing the bill. One mother's testimony about her fetus's severe defects was credited with changing at least one Senator's mind.

The Virginia bill followed one requiring women to have an ultrasound before having an abortion. It proposed to ban abortion after 20 weeks of gestation on the basis that a fetus would be able to feel pain, a contention that is highly debated. Before holding a vote on the bill, the Senate committee held hearings that included testimony from both antiabortion and pro-choice forces, as well as testimony from a woman who had had an abortion after 20 weeks. Tara Schleifer learned at 17 weeks gestation that her child would be born with a combination of Downs Syndrome, severe heart defects, and a bowel problem that would have necessitated tube feeding. She spent the next few weeks researching the issue, including the quality of life her child would have had if she allowed the pregnancy to progress. She learned that her child would live no more than a year, while spending most of the time hooked to machines or having major procedures.

Schleifer decided that the pain her child would suffer would be far greater than any pain from an abortion, and went ahead with the procedure. She told the Senators that she was grateful to have an extra few weeks to consider the decision -- under the proposed legislation, she would have needed to make a much more hurried decision, increasing the chance that she would have been wrong. As a result of her testimony, Republican Senator Harry Blevins voted to abstain from voting. He stated that he could not make a decision "as difficult as the one that young woman made."

Across the country, countless families find themselves in Tara Schleifer's position. Some might make the same decision she did, while others might decide to let the pregnancy progress to term. And many families are unaware that anything is wrong until after the birth. One thing is certain: if the child's birth defects were not the family's fault -- that is, not caused by family genetics or lifestyle -- families should not have to shoulder the burden of caring for the child alone.

Instead, if you suspect that your child's birth defect was due to a specific external source, such as environmental toxins or prescription medication, you might consider filing a lawsuit against the one responsible. For a suit against the source of environmental toxins (such as a power plant), you would file a toxic tort lawsuit, claiming that the offender acted negligent, and that negligence led to your injury (exposure to harmful levels of toxins while pregnant), which resulted in your child's birth defect. For a suit against a prescription drug manufacturer, you would argue that even if the manufacturer were not negligent, it created an unreasonably dangerous drug that ultimately caused your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Woman's Testimony About Child With Birth Defects Sways Virginia Senators" »

A Nebraska state senator is trying to shed light on the dangers of mercury posed by compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). As CFLs become more common on the market, thanks to their energy efficiency, Senator Tony Fulton claims that not enough is being done to warn Nebraska residents about the potential hazards when these bulbs break, or are disposed of improperly.

Mercury has been linked to health problems in adults and birth defects, including Minamata disease. For their long-lasting quality, CFLs may contain as much as 4 milligrams of mercury. Under state and federal regulations, anything more than 2 milligrams is viewed as hazardous waste. While no mercury is released into the atmosphere while the bulbs are working properly, problems arise when the bulbs wear out. A broken bulb, while not a cause for mass evacuation as so many fear, still requires careful action. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advises that the room should be ventilated and people and pets leave the room for five to 10 minutes. Bulbs that are not broken, but are simply spent, should be recycled, not thrown into the garbage as regular bulbs so often are.

Senator Fulton intends to introduce a bill to Nebraska's legislature requiring the State Department of Environmental Quality to offer information and education about how to properly handle and dispose of CFLs. States such as Maine and Washington have passed laws requiring CFL manufacturers to establish bulb recycling programs.

If your child has a birth defect that you think was caused by mercury in CFLs, could you successfully sue the manufacturer? Perhaps, but there are many factors to consider. First, when did the exposure take place -- during your pregnancy, or before? If before, how long before? Next, the type of exposure is important. If your exposure was brief, you might have a difficult time proving that mercury was the cause of your child's birth defect -- especially since birth defects have so many other potential causes. However, if you can make a credible case, you could sue the manufacturer under strict liability theory. You would claim that the CFL manufacturer owed you and other consumers a duty to create as safe a light bulb as possible; the CFL manufacturer breached that duty both by creating a dangerously defective bulb -- a bulb filled with hazardous amounts of mercury -- and an insufficient warning label that did not inform consumers of the bulbs' danger. The breach caused your injury -- exposure to a broken bulb while pregnant or shortly before. The resulting damage was your child's birth defect.

When considering a lawsuit, you might also consider filing a suit against the regulatory agency charged with informing the public of the dangers of bulbs. If they had a duty to inform, but were not fulfilling it, you could sue for an injunction that would force the agency to inform the public.

Continue reading "Nebraska Senator Introduces Bill Warning About the Health Dangers of Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs" »