Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

This blog has already discussed studies that provide evidence of a link between bisphenol A (BPA) and birth defects. BPA is a low-level estrogen used to soften plastic that was, until fairly recently, ubiquitous in plastic bottles. It can still be found in the lining of aluminum cans. Now a new study adds to the evidence against BPA, claiming that the toxin may negatively affect women's reproductive health and cause birth defects and miscarriages.

The study, conducted by the University of California at Davis and Washington State University, found that rhesus monkeys, when exposed to BPA levels that are similar to that of humans, suffered from reproductive abnormalities, which increased their risk of giving birth to babies with Down syndrome or other birth defects, or of having a miscarriage. Previous studies involving worms and rats showed similar problems, but these results were especially significant because rhesus monkeys are much more like humans.

When pregnant monkeys received either a single dose of BPA per day, or small doses given on a continuous basis, the result was changes in the cells of eggs that would become the developing fetus. The egg cells were unable to divide properly, which meant that the egg cells had the wrong number of chromosomes. This would ultimately lead to birth defects or miscarriage. Monkeys exposed to continuous low levels of BPA developed fewer eggs overall, which meant that their reproductive life spans were likely to be shorter. What concerned scientists especially was that the changes were felt over several generations: a mother might be exposed to the BPA and still give birth to a seemingly normal child, but then that daughter would be unable to ovulate normal eggs.

These results are unmistakably grim, but it should be noted that none of the studies involving BPA have actually involved humans. Nonetheless, given that the results have been consistent across species, it is likely that similar damaging effects could be found in humans. That is a problem when BPA exposure is "nearly ubiquitous" among Americans, with 92.6 percent of people over the age of six years old having detectable levels of BPA in their urine.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe may be the result of prolonged BPA exposure, could you successfully sue for relief? That depends on your circumstances. Since BPA has been so ubiquitous for so many years, it may be very difficult to pinpoint the specific source of BPA responsible. Even if you were able to locate the exact source, you would then need to provide evidence that this source, and not one of many other sources, was the cause of your child's birth defect. That will likely be a difficult challenge, though not necessarily impossible.

Continue reading "New Study Provides More Evidence of BPA's Link to Birth Defects" »

Whether you develop health problems, or your child is born with a birth defect, may depend on the city you live in. A new look at the problem of "brown fields" shows that wealthier cities get their brown fields cleaned up much faster than poorer cities. Brown fields are areas where the soil and groundwater are polluted by chemicals, often due to an industry that is no longer present. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 450,000 to one million brown fields exist throughout the country.

An investigation by six nonprofit newsrooms found that while the EPA has issued $1.5 billion grants and loans for the clean up of these brown fields over a 19-year period, wealthier areas where developers are more tempted to build have seen a greater benefit. For instance, in Massachusetts, $19 million has gone to mill towns in the suburbs where developers are planning new construction, as opposed to urban areas.

The reason is due to the lack of oversight of the funds distribution. The EPA clean up program merely doles out the funds, but has not established any standards or conducted any follow up. Instead, the EPA has turned to the states to provide oversight. States with tight budgets have turned to developers, who in turn hire consultants to verify whether properties have been cleaned up. The places where the developers are focused get more attention, and poorer communities have fewer means to compete with the wealthier communities. Thus, a solidly middle-class town like Coralville, Iowa receives $1.9 million in grants -- the most of any city in that state -- while towns like Oak Creek, Wisconsin are stuck with 300-acre contaminated sites.

Another reason that so many brown fields continue to linger is because the EPA grants, limited to just $200,000 apiece, do not have a meaningful impact on the contamination unless the $200,000 arrives at a particular point in the clean up process.

It is unfortunate to think that where you live can have such bearing on your health, but that appears to be the case. Communities throughout the country face a problem due to brown fields -- such as a Michigan condominium complex, where investors found that contamination had merely been covered over, not removed. Many people have no idea what is in the soil around their homes and feel powerless to get rid of contamination.

Continue reading "Report Finds That Wealthier Communities Get More EPA Money to Clean Up Toxic Brown Fields Than Poorer Communities" »

Thanks to the constant presence of environmental toxins, including pesticides and herbicides, there is always a concern that the very food we eat will be tainted. That concern has proved to be valid in the case of rice grown in certain parts of the United States. A recent article has pointed out that, due to the existence of inorganic arsenic in the soil, there are lingering traces of arsenic in the rice that we eat.

According to the article, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been aware of the presence of arsenic in the soil for 45 years. It is left over from lead arsenic insecticides that were eventually banned in the 1980s. Recently, the FDA has stated that it is researching and collecting data on the amount of arsenic still in the soil, and expects to have conclusive findings sometime this year. The FDA will then determine whether to issue further recommendations.

The highest levels of arsenic appear to be in Southern soil. This may be due to a combination of factors: Southern farmers used the lead-based arsenic insecticides before they were banned; chickens were given arsenic-laced feed, and the resulting fertilizer fed the rice crop; or water with arsenic flooded certain areas. Traces of arsenic are higher in brown rice than white rice, due to the fact that arsenic is mostly absorbed in the outer hull, which is stripped away with refined white rice, but not brown rice.

Arsenic has been linked to skin and lung cancer, heart disease, and birth defects. While arsenic does not build up, and can leave the body within 48 hours of consumption, if consumption of arsenic is too high, cancer and heart disease can result.

This blog has discussed in the past how lingering traces of herbicides such as atrazine and glyphosate, also known as Roundup, have been linked to birth defects. It is not surprising that other chemical sprays pose harm as well. If your child has a birth defect that you believe may be due to pesticides in your food, or in the surrounding air and water, you could file a lawsuit against those responsible. If you believe that the cause is pesticides in the air, your best option would likely be to file a toxic tort lawsuit. If you believe that the cause is the food you consumed while pregnant, your best option would be to file a product liability suit. Depending upon the circumstances, you could also file a lawsuit containing both charges.

In both cases, you would argue that the offender -- the manufacturer or the company that sprayed the toxin -- had a duty to anyone foreseeably affected by the toxin. That duty was then breached. In the case of the toxic tort lawsuit, you would argue that the breach was due to negligence, that the offender failed to behave reasonably. In the case of product liability, you would argue that the breach was due to the product being unreasonably dangerous -- whether the actions leading to the product were negligent do not necessarily matter. In both cases, you would argue that the breach caused your injury -- exposure to the toxins while pregnant -- and that the damage was your child's birth defect. In both cases, you would likely seek a monetary award for medical bills, pain and suffering, loss of future income, and more.

Continue reading "FDA to Study Amount of Arsenic in Soil Where Rice Is Grown" »

Recently, this blog mentioned that Grunenthal, the German manufacturer of Thalidomide, apologized to victims who suffered birth defects from the drug for the first time in 50 years. Thalidomide was prescribed in the 1950s and early 1960s to mothers during the first trimester of pregnancy. Intended to combat morning sickness, the drug was pulled from the market after research showed that babies born to mothers who took it had severe birth defects. Those children now claim that Grunenthal knew about the birth defects as early as 1955, but chose to take no action. Thalidomide was never approved for sale in the United States, but many charge that physicians were able to obtain samples anyway, which they then prescribed to American women who were pregnant.

A new study from John Hopkins University found that while Thalidomide might cause severe birth defects, the drug may be a benefit in other areas -- including treating multiple myeloma, Crohn's disease, leprosy, and a deadly lung cancer known as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is a type of disease that affects people over the age of 40, where over time, the lungs become stiff and scarred. The only known cure is a lung transplant. Otherwise, those with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis live on average just three to five years longer.

John Hopkins conducted a small trial consisting of 20 patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The patients were given either Thalidomide or a placebo for three months and told to report information about their symptoms. Of those who were given Thalidomide, 63% described a decrease in the debilitating cough that is frequently a feature of the disease. The Thalidomide did not cure the disease, but it did reduce the symptoms and enable those with the disease to lead a more productive life.

Researchers cautioned that the drug was not without side effects, including dizziness, malaise, and tingling. Furthermore, all of the participants were over the age of 50, which meant that none would ever be having children.

If you have birth defects resulting from Thalidomide -- or, for that matter, from any drug that your mother was prescribed during pregnancy -- it is important to note that just because the drug has beneficial uses in one situation does not mean that you cannot sue over it being unreasonably dangerous in another situation. If a drug has multiple uses, whether to treat cancer or to stop epileptic seizures or to prevent morning sickness, it needs to be safe in all those situations. If it is not safe, you have the option of filing a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer. You would charge that the drug came off the assembly line with an "unreasonably dangerous" design, or had an insufficient warning label. Any defense by the manufacturer that the drug is safe "in other situations" would have no bearing, because what matters is that the drug is safe in your situation.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Drug Linked to Birth Defects Might Help Treat Deadly Lung Cancer" »

This blog has frequently discussed the harms posed by toxins both inside your home and outside. However, it has never been clear which source was more responsible for causing birth defects and other health problems. A recent article by a naturopathic physician claims that, in fact, indoor toxins may be more hazardous.

The naturopathic doctor, Krista Brayko, noted that there are several potential sources of toxins in the home, which is a real problem, given that people typically spend 90% of their time indoors. One common source is cigarette smoke, which many experts believe is responsible for the vast majority of lung cancer cases. Brayko noted that even secondhand smoke can increase the risk of heart attack or stroke, and can also cause lower respiratory infections serious enough to result in hospitalization.

In addition to cigarette smoke, indoor pollution can come from sources that have nothing to do with human health habits. This includes wood-burning stoves, which can emit nitrogen, carbon monoxide, particulates, and hydrocarbons; the structure of the building itself, including the particle board, insulation, and carpeting; stagnant water sources around the building; and the building's ventilation system, which may let in outside sources of pollution, such as car exhaust. The combined sources of toxins may result in the development of "sick building" syndrome, where the inhabitant suffers from symptoms ranging from dry cough and headache to dizziness and nausea. The symptoms typically improve once the person has left the building.

While the article makes a strong case for the dangers posed by indoor pollutants, the seriousness of outdoor pollutants should not be ignored. Indeed, whether indoor or outdoor pollutants are more serious often depends upon where the individual lives. If you lived in a community located near a power plant, for instance, the outside air could be filled with toxins like mercury to a far greater degree than the air in your home. Likewise, the toxins in the outside air could also be more harmful if you live near a major freeway. Emissions from cars have been linked to miscarriages and lower birth weight, just as mercury has been linked to a variety of birth defects.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe was caused by environmental toxins, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender. First, you would need to determine which source or sources caused the problem. Given the wide variety of potential sources highlighted in the article, it could be difficult to narrow them down. You would likely need to conduct tests of your home and of the outside air for toxins, and do research to determine which sources most likely caused your child's birth defect. You might also consider talking to neighbors -- if several people in your area have children with birth defects, that could point to a common outside cause, and lead to the filing of a class action lawsuit.

Continue reading "Article Suggests That Indoor Pollution May Cause More Health Problems, Birth Defects Than Outdoor Pollution" »

At a time when too many birth defects go undetected until it is too late, one pub in Mankato, Minnesota has found a novel way of combating the problem: a pregnancy test dispenser in the women's restroom. The dispenser was installed in Pub 500 by the local organization Healthy Brains for Children, which has the goal of eliminating learning and behavioral problems in children that was caused by alcohol exposure in the womb.

Women who want a pregnancy test can pay three dollars on a credit or debit card. The money does not go to the pub owners, but to the Healthy Brains organization. Pub 500's owners are actively involved in their community and consider this to be another worthy cause. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, alcohol consumption is the leading preventable cause of birth defects and learning disabilities. The Centers found that, based on a study of women between the ages of 18 and 44, one in 13 pregnant women -- or 7.6% -- consumed alcohol. Of that number, 1.4% were binge drinkers. Since women who consume alcohol are often not aware of whether they are pregnant, Pub 500 and the Healthy Brains Organization thought that this would be one way to alert them. That way, women could make choices that could affect their child's well being much sooner than they otherwise would.

While alcohol consumption may be the leading cause of preventable birth defects according to the Centers for Disease Control, it is far from the only cause. Birth defects have also been linked to other health habits, such as smoking in the home -- a habit linked to either or both parents -- or to not taking a sufficient amount of folic acid. Birth defects have also been linked to exposure to toxins in the home, such as cleaning chemicals or even toxins in clothes and furniture. If these toxins were not present, the likelihood of birth defects would be lower.

What should you do if your child was born with a birth defect and you lack the means to support him or her? One option would be to file a toxic tort or product liability lawsuit against the one most responsible for causing your child's birth defect. If the birth defect was most likely due to your own personal habits -- smoking or drinking alcohol -- then you would likely not succeed in blaming another offender. While many states have "dram shop" laws, which hold establishments such as Pub 500 liable for damage caused by obviously intoxicated people who drank on the premises, there is nothing to indicate that this liability has been, or ever will be, extended to fetal alcohol syndrome. Instead, your best-case scenario would be evidence that your habits were perfectly sound throughout the pregnancy, but that an external source was responsible for your child's birth defect. You would then argue either that the offender acted negligently, which led you to be exposed to the harmful substance while your child was in utero, or that that the offender created an unreasonably dangerous product to which you were exposed.

Continue reading "Minnesota Pub Provides Pregnancy Tests to Raise Awareness of Alcohol-Related Birth Defects" »

Students at Brigham Young University (BYU) recently published research that could lead to the prevention of certain birth defects and how certain types of cancer were treated. Guided by one of their professors, the students' research was aimed at birth defects caused by Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Andersen Tawil Syndrome, which include cleft palates, small or missing teeth, and misshaped fingers and toes. The students discovered that both syndromes impacted a potassium channel by blocking instructions that, in essence, told cells where they should be located. By blocking the instructions, these syndromes prevent instructions for patterning and an organism from emerging. This, in turn, may result in birth defects.

The students also determined that these instructions could lead to cancer under different circumstances. Once a baby is born, the cell pattern instructions should ideally be turned off so that the cells remain in place. In cancer cells, however, the signals turn back on, allowing cells to invade other tissues and grow into tumors. The BYU students hope to be able to develop a way to block the signaling pathway that leads to cells metastasizing, preventing cancer cells from spreading through the body.

This research is exciting both for the possibilities it holds for cancer and for birth defects. Someday, perhaps sophisticated tests could be developed that would allow expectant couples to find out whether their developing fetus has impacted potassium channels or other cases of blocked instructions that could lead to birth defects. Perhaps treatments could be developed that would make cell instructions normal again, before birth defects had the chance to set in.

Such possibilities are years, if not decades, away. In the meantime, if your child has a birth defect, you and your family live with it now, every day. While some birth defects are minor, others require extensive treatments and come with large medical bills. With Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Andersen Tawil Syndrome, the culprits are personal habits and genetics respectively, but many birth defects are caused by outside sources. These sources can consist of a wide range of threats, from toxic herbicides to products you use in your household, from certain medications that you have been prescribed to mercury emissions from a power plant. If you believe that one of these sources is responsible for your child's birth defect, you might consider filing a lawsuit.

Generally, such lawsuits fall into two categories: toxic tort and product liability. In both cases, you would argue that the source had a duty, that duty was breached, the breach caused your injury, and there was damage. The "duty" is to anyone who could be foreseeably impacted by the source's actions. So if the source is a power plant, the duty might be the surrounding community; if the source is a household cleaner, the duty might be to the consumers who purchase and use the product. The breach usually consists of unreasonable behavior.

The major difference between a product liability lawsuit and a toxic tort case is that under product liability, a manufacturer can be found strictly liable even if the manufacturer's behavior was not negligent. The manufacturer just needs to have created an unreasonably dangerous product. By contrast, a toxic tort breach involves some sort of negligence. In both cases, you can seek a money award that can help you with your child's lifelong care.

Continue reading "Brigham Young Students Find a Potential Cause For Birth Defects and Cancer" »

In the past, this blog has discussed the heavy connection between pesticides and herbicides, including Atrazine, and birth defects. This past year, Syngenta, one of the largest pesticide manufacturers in the world, and a manufacturer of Atrazine, reached a settlement agreement in the amount of $105 million for a class action lawsuit launched eight years ago. As part of the agreement, the funds will be distributed to more than 30 districts in the Midwest of the United States for purpose of cleaning up water contaminated by Atrazine.

Once Atrazine has been sprayed on crops, it then leaks into the ground water, causing countless people to be vulnerable to drinking water that contains higher-than-acceptable levels -- more than three parts per billion -- of the herbicide. Atrazine contamination has been linked to a higher risk of birth defects such as spina bifida, Down syndrome, gastrointestinal abnormalities, and respiratory problems. The risk of these birth defects is considered to be highest months after Atrazine has been sprayed, usually in the spring. In animals, researchers have observed severe responses such as myocardial muscle degeneration, liver toxicity, and developmental ossification defects. In adult humans, scientists have observed an elevated risk of miscarriages, breast cancer, and prostate cancer.

While organizations dedicated to eliminating Atrazine are pleased that the settlement will lead to cleaner drinking water, they caution that the underlying risk is still there because Syngenta is still allowed to sell the harmful product. That means that other situations may continue to crop up, leading to more lawsuits and more settlements. Furthermore, in addition to exposure through drinking water, people are also exposed to food tainted with Atrazine.

Until stronger measures are taken to clean up the a herbicide or prevent its use, one of the most effective means of holding its manufacturer accountable is a toxic tort lawsuit or a product liability lawsuit. If your child has a birth defect that you believe was due to your exposure to Atrazine, or another harmful pesticide or herbicide, you could file a product liability lawsuit, claiming the manufacturer had a duty to customers and local residents of agricultural communities -- anyone foreseeably affected by the spraying -- to create as safe a product as was reasonably possible. Instead, the manufacturer breached this duty by designing an unreasonably unsafe product. You would argue that you or your family were injured through exposure to this product while pregnant, and the resulting damage was your child's birth defect.

Likewise, you could also file a toxic tort lawsuit against agricultural companies that spray the product. Your argument would be similar to the argument you would make in a product liability suit, except that here, you would be arguing that the company or companies acted negligently. You would argue that each company had a duty of reasonable care to the communities likely to be most affected by the spraying. The company or companies failed to act reasonably, resulting in a breach. You were exposed, and the damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Manufacturer of Atrazine Reaches a Settlement Agreement in Eight-Year-Old Lawsuit" »

Birth defects are a part of everyday life for many. We probably all know at least one person with a birth defect, and many of us have one ourselves. Too often, however, popular culture likes to pretend that birth defects don't exist, preferring to shower television, film, and print media with images of "perfect" people who make even people without birth defects feel inadequate.

Until recently, one could have argued that Here Comes Honey Boo Boo fell into that category. Honey Boo Boo is a spinoff of another The Learning Channel (TLC) show, Toddlers & Tiaras. The show follows June Shannon and her daughters in McIntyre, Georgia as Shannon tries to enter her seven-year-old daughter, Alana "Honey Boo Boo" Thompson, in numerous beauty pageants. The oldest of Shannon's three other daughters, 17-year old Anna Shannon, gave birth to a baby girl in June. Baby Kaitlyn was born with an extra thumb on her right hand, and the family is -- surprisingly -- resistant to having it removed.

The Shannons claim that having an extra thumb "makes Kaitlyn more special" to them. Their attitude has drawn some sharp criticisms from those who think that the baby's extra thumb should be removed to prevent later abuse from her peers. It remains to be seen whether the extra thumb would pose a problem with basic finger movement, or whether Alana Shannon's daughter would eventually adapt. Regardless, it is rare for any television family to be so accepting of birth defects, and it serves an important purpose of making society in general more accepting. While it is true that birth defects are a part of many people's lives, our tendency is to hide the things about us that make us stand out.

At the same time, even when people accept birth defects, they still might have to contend with health problems that could accompany them. Oftentimes, these health problems can be severe, costing thousands of dollars each year for families that don't have comprehensive health insurance -- or any insurance at all. If that is the case, one option that a family might have is to sue the entity believed to be responsible for the birth defect. If the family is successful, they could receive a monetary award from a jury that could cover the costs.

While genetics and lifestyle can often dictate whether a baby is born with a birth defect, environmental toxins or prescription drugs can also be culprits. If you believe that your child's birth defect could be the result of your exposure to one of these sources while pregnant, you might consider filing either a toxic tort lawsuit or a product liability lawsuit. If the source is a product, you would file a product liability suit, whereas if the source is chemicals released by a power plant or a mountaintop removal mine, you would file a toxic tort lawsuit. In both cases, your greatest challenge would be proving causation -- that there is strong evidence of a link between the source and your child's birth defect. Often, this depends upon where the source is located -- in your home or several miles away? -- and when the exposure to toxins or prescription drugs occurred. If it was several years before the birth of your child, you will have a tougher case.

Continue reading "Family in Popular Reality Show Learns to Adapt to Baby Born With a Birth Defect" »

For those who suffer from depression, bipolar disorder, or other imbalances of the brain, one doctor proposes using acupuncture as an alternative to antidepressant medication. Pregnant women who choose this approach may have the added benefit of reducing the risk of their children being born with birth defects.

Dr. Patrick Massey argues that recent research has found that while antidepressants can help those with severe depression, they have less obvious benefits for those with milder depression. In clinical tests, antidepressants were no more effective for people with milder depression than sugar pills functioning as placebos. Dr. Massey thinks that this is due to many factors contributing to depression besides brain chemistry.

Dr. Massey points to a recent study in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, which looked at a compilation of studies that examined the effectiveness of acupuncture at relieving moderate depression for people across a broad age span. The study ultimately found that acupuncture was at least as effective as antidepressants, and when coupled with antidepressants, might reduce some of the side effects. Dr. Massey cautions that the weight of medical research on the subject is not conclusive, but notes that at the very least, it shows that acupuncture is an effective therapy for those with depression. In addition, exercise and meditation have also been shown to be effective alternatives.

While the studies on acupuncture as an alternative are promising, those with depression should do their research before making the choice to go with acupuncture over antidepressants. That includes working with their physician to get an accurate assessment of their mental health so that they can make an informed choice. However, if you are pregnant with moderate depression, and you opt to use acupuncture instead of antidepressants, you might have the benefit of lowering your child's risk of being born with a birth defect. That is because certain antidepressants have been linked to causing a variety of birth defects, especially if women take them during the first trimester. Antidepressants like Depakote have been classified as Pregnancy Category D drugs - evidence of harm to human fetuses - by the Food and Drug Administration as a result.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe could be due to your taking antidepressants while pregnant, you might consider filing a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer and/or a medical malpractice suit against the physician who prescribed you the medication. For the product liability lawsuit, you would make the argument that the manufacturer had a duty to consumers to create as safe a drug as possible, and the manufacturer breached that duty by designing a drug that was unreasonably dangerous. The breach caused your injury (through exposure to the antidepressant's harmful effects) and the damage was your child's birth defect. For the medical malpractice lawsuit, you would argue that your physician had a duty to inform you, the patient, of all of the potential harms of your course of treatment. Your physician breached this duty by failing to inform you of all of the harmful side effects of your antidepressants, even though he or she knew that you were pregnant. As a result, you would argue that you were injured through exposure, and the damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Doctor Points to Studies Suggesting That Acupuncture As Effective at Treating Moderate Depression As Antidepressants" »

The Natural Resources Defense Council has put out its latest list of the top 10 most polluted states in the United States. This list could have significant implications for those who are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, due to the link between environmental toxins and birth defects.

Ohio is the number one polluted state in the nation, followed by Pennsylvania, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Indiana, Michigan, West Virginia, Georgia, and North Carolina. One thing that all ten states have in common is an abundance of coal- and oil-fired power plants. Overall, the 6,700 power plants across the United States account for 44% of all air pollution, and — when combined with heavy industries — 80% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Ohio's electricity generation sector released 36.4 million pounds of toxins in 2010, which accounted for 62% of the state's pollution and 12% of the total toxic pollution in the United States. Ohio is also second-ranked in terms of mercury air pollution, and is the home state of the Gen. J. M. Gavin coal plant, the ninth-biggest polluter in the country.

The rest of the states do not present a much better picture. Even the lowest on the list, North Carolina, has an electric sector that was responsible for emitting over 14.6 million pounds of toxins in 2010, accounting for nearly half of the state's pollution and 5% of the country's pollution. The mercury toxins from this sector accounts for half of North Carolina's mercury air pollution.

Air pollution has been linked to a variety of health problems, as well as premature birth and birth defects. While mercury is not the only toxin to produce harmful effects, it produces some of the most significant harmful effects, including premature death, heart attacks, and cancer. Birth defects that result from mercury exposure can include cleft lip and palate, spina bifida, and heart defects. While the new mercury rules from the Environmental Protection Agency are designed to cut mercury air pollution by 79% by 2015, several industries have fought them, and the D.C. Circuit Court even threw out the cross-state air pollution rule.

Continue reading "Top Ten Most Polluted States Pose a Threat of Greater Birth Defects" »

This blog has previously discussed lawsuits filed against Grunenthal, the German manufacturer of Thalidomide, which was a morning sickness pill linked to severe birth defects. Thalidomide was prescribed in the 1950s to many pregnant women in the United States and throughout the world during their first trimester. While Thalidomide was never approved for use in the U.S., many believe that physicians were still given the drug to prescribe. The drug was taken off of the market in 1961 after evidence of severe birth defects was revealed. However, those who filed the lawsuits -- primarily those who were born with severe birth defects -- have claimed that Thalidomide knew about the birth defects as early as 1955, yet chose to keep them a secret.

For a long time, Grunenthal has strongly denied that it knew about the birth defects sooner, even refusing to be part of a settlement with an Australian whose mother had taken Thalidomide. However, recently, Grunenthal might have changed its tune. The company issued a rare apology to those whose mothers took Thalidomide during the 1950s and early 1960s. Grunenthal's chief executive apologized for not "reaching out" all these years and said it was due to "the shock that your fate has caused in us."

Those who had been adversely affected by Thalidomide refuse to be placated. Freddie Astbury, who was born without arms or legs, claims that not only should Grunenthal apologize, but that it should also offer compensation to those with birth defects. Another person affected by Thalidomide pointed out that while Grunenthal settled one lawsuit in Germany in the 1970s, the fund that was set up was too small to help those expected to live, on average, into their 80s.

While Thalidomide is no longer sold on the market, other potentially dangerous drugs are still sold and prescribed in the U.S. every day. The antidepressant Depakote, for instance, has been linked to a variety of birth defects. If your child was born with a birth defect that you believe was due to prescription medication that you were prescribed while pregnant, you have the option of filing both a medical malpractice lawsuit and a product liability lawsuit. In both cases, your main objective will likely be to receive a money award that will help pay for your child's care for the rest of his or her life. It is therefore important that you provide an accurate assessment of your child's physical and mental limitations for the jury. Calculating someone's care for a lifetime can be difficult, since it means projecting costs decades into the future. Oftentimes, medical malpractice and product liability lawsuits settle before they reach the point of a jury verdict. If you decide to settle, you still need to have those calculations ready to ensure that you are getting an amount that will serve your child's needs.

Continue reading "German Manufacturer of Pregnancy Drug Linked to Birth Defects Issues First Apology in Fifty Years" »