Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

A recent article reports that dozens of the 247 Superfund toxic waste sites in New York and New Jersey may have been disrupted by Hurricane Sandy this past fall. Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims that there is no evidence of disruption, the EPA has only done visual inspections, rather than more in-depth testing of the sites. This could pose a serious health threat to those located not far from the site, including a higher risk of birth defects.

Under the Superfund law of 1980, the EPA had the power to order cleanup of certain hazardous waste sites that posed a threat to human health. In New York and New Jersey, such sites include the Raritan Bay Slag site, which was designated in 2009. The site contains high levels of toxins such as lead, arsenic, copper, and antimony. Another site, Newtown Creek, is filled with PCBs, pesticides, metals, and volatile organic compounds. Newtown Creek has been a Superfund site since 2010. While the EPA did test these two sites, countless others have gone untested, leaving residents concerned. Many worry that the toxins could seep into ground water and are not convinced the EPA has done enough. Even politicians are expressing their concern, with New Jersey's Senator Frank Lautenberg requesting that the EPA perform an additional inspection on Hurricane Sandy's impact on the Superfund sites.

If you live near one of the Superfund sites and months after Hurricane Sandy, have a child with a birth defect, you have the option of filing a lawsuit against the EPA. You would argue that the EPA had a duty to ensure that the toxic waste sites had been contained and that the toxins had not spilled into the ground water. The EPA did not take proper steps, such as testing, to ensure that the toxic waste sites were safe, and did not inform members of the community that there could be dangers. As a result, you were exposed to the toxins while pregnant, and your child was born with a birth defect. Had you known that toxins had escaped the Superfund site, you would have taken measures to protect yourself, which could have prevented the birth defect.

The greatest challenge for such a lawsuit is proving that the toxic waste leakage is connected to the birth defect. If you were close to giving birth when the hurricane occurred, you probably would have difficulty making the case that neglected sites affected by Sandy caused your child's birth defect. However, if you were in the first trimester of your pregnancy, you might have an easier time providing evidence -- especially if other pregnant women nearby also had babies with birth defects.

Continue reading "Residents Near Toxic Waste Sites Fear the Effects of Hurricane Sandy" »

A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine provides information on a new way of diagnosing birth defects that is more accurate and effective than traditional genetic testing. The new technique is known as chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), which samples the entire genome at a high resolution.

CMA's ability to sample the full genome was found to be more effective than another method, karyotyping, which is only able to pinpoint larger genetic imbalances. The study followed 4,406 women and determined that not only did CMA identify all of the same genetic abnormalities identified by karyotyping, but also identified additional abnormalities in women the karyotype found to be normal. CMA found that 1.7% of women considered to be at low risk had genetic abnormalities, and in 6% of cases where an ultrasound had identified fetal abnormalities.

Researchers believe that the new testing technique could be extremely beneficial were it to be made a part of routine prenatal testing. It could help would-be parents make the decision early whether to seek services for children with development disorders, or help them decide whether or not they even want children. Furthermore, by pinpointing smaller genetic abnormalities, CMA could lead to more personalized treatment, due to it being possible to focus on specific genes linked to brain development and more.

If CMA testing became a routine part of prenatal testing for birth defects, it could have a significant impact on birth defect-related lawsuits. Right now, since standard genetic tests miss very small abnormalities, a parent of a child with a birth defect could argue that the cause of the birth defect was not genetic, but rather an outside cause, such as toxic emissions from a power plant or exposure to herbicides from a nearby farm. Since these toxins are very prevalent, many parents could make a persuasive argument. Yet a test that detects more subtle abnormalities could change things. What if the genetic abnormalities were capable of producing the same birth defects as the environmental factor? Which one would be more at fault? Would juries choose to reduce the amount of award a parent could receive because it was possible genetics were partially at fault for the child's birth defect?

Another complication could come from the physician's role. If a physician doesn't inform would-be parents of CMA genetic testing and the parents later have a child with a birth defect, could the parents sue? What if the physician knew of CMA, but it was still of limited enough use that the physician did not think it would be available? In any event, since CMA has just been discovered, it will be a while before these questions are fully answered. In the meantime, those with any evidence that there child's birth defect was caused by an outside source should not hesitate to file a lawsuit if they believe it will help them get relief.

Continue reading "New Study Provides Information On a More Accurate Test for Diagnosing Birth Defects" »

A recent press release by a drug research firm has found that the "epilepsy market" is set to increase by nearly $1 billion by 2016. That may be good news for manufacturers of antiepileptic drugs, but may be bad news in terms of birth defects risk. Some studies have suggested that pregnant women who take certain antiepileptic drugs, especially during the first trimester, are at a greater risk of having babies with birth defects.

The press release announces that the market will increase from $2.9 million in 2011 to $3.7 million in 2016, thanks to the expanding number of "third generation" antiepileptic drugs, including lacosamide (brand name Vimpat), perampanel (brand name Fycompa), eslicarbazepine acetate (brand name Zebinix/Stedesa), and ezogabine/retigabine (brand name Potiga/Trobalt). However, "second generation" antiepileptic drugs such as evetiracetam (brand name Keppra/E Keppra) and lamotrigine (brand names Lamictal or Lamictal XR) will remain dominant on the market through 2021.

The press release notes that an "unmet need" remains with regard to seizures in 20 to 30% of epilepsy patients that are inadequately controlled by current medication. New research will be performed to determine how best to serve these patients' needs.

Currently, the evidence linking newer antiepileptic drugs to a higher risk of birth defects is mixed. One Danish study in 2011, for instance, found that there was no connection between the drugs and a higher risk of birth defects, but noted that the "number of individual exposures are too small" to make a conclusive finding. However, other studies have found that there is a higher risk of birth defects when taking certain antiepileptic medications, particularly valproate (brand name Depakote). It remains to be seen whether further research will find that more second and third generation drugs pose a risk.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe is due to your having taken antiepileptic medication while pregnant, you have the option of filing a lawsuit against both the manufacturer and your physician. You would file a medical malpractice suit against your physician if you had reason to believe that he or she was aware of the dangers -- or should have been aware -- and never informed you. A physician has a duty to inform his or her patients of all of the risks associated with treatment, so that the patient can make an informed decision about whether or not to go forward. In a medical malpractice suit, you would argue that the physician breached his duty to inform you of the birth defects risk, that this breach resulted in your injury (through exposure), and the damage that resulted was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Epilepsy Drug "Market" to Increase to $3.7 Billion By 2016" »

While it might not seem to make a difference at this time of year, a new study has found that a pregnant woman's exposure to high summer heat can result in her child being born with a rare birth defect. A study from the New York State Department of Health found that exposure to a mere five-degree increase in temperature at a certain point in the pregnancy could result in the baby being born with congenital cataracts.

Normally congenital cataracts happens three times in every 10,000 births. The cataracts can result in blurry vision, which can later result in permanent blindness because the baby's brain is unable to develop the neural pathways necessary for sight. Only removing the cataracts can protect the baby's sight.

Researchers from the New York State Department of Health looked at birth certificates, birth defects data, and weather pattern data during the summer months between 1992 and 2006. This included information on 6,422 babies with birth defects and 59,328 babies without birth defects who were gestating during this time. What they found correlated with other findings that an increase in body temperature, such as from a fever, could cause birth defects, such as congenital blindness, neural tube defects, and abdominal defects. The findings concerned researchers, given the reality of global warming and its affect on temperature in the near future.

Birth defects such as congenital blindness can be difficult for an individual and his or her family to deal with. Apart from adapting to the condition, an individual must also have medical services, probably for the rest of his or her life. If your son or daughter has a birth defect of this type, you might be able to file a successful lawsuit in order to get relief. Of course if the cause of the birth defect were simply temperature, then your suit would not be successful because there would be no "offender," and therefore no one to sue. Nor would you be able to sue if the cause of the birth defect were genetics or your personal habits.

However, you could file a lawsuit if you had reason to believe that your child's neurological problems were caused by a source such as a power plant or a coal mine. Power plants have been linked to some very harmful emissions, such as mercury, in the air and water. Mercury and similar toxic metals have been linked to health problems and birth defects in newborns. If you believe that your child's birth defect was the result of your being exposed to such mercury emissions while pregnant, you can file a toxic tort lawsuit against the power plant. You would need to provide strong evidence that links the power plant emissions to the birth defect, while also ruling out other possible causes. If you are successful, a jury may award you a monetary amount that could help you care for your child for the long term.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That High Summer Temperatures Could Increase the Risk of Babies Being Born With Congenital Cataracts" »

A new study has provided evidence that what pregnant women are exposed to at work could harm their unborn children. The study shows that pregnant women exposed to solvents in the workplace have a much higher risk of bearing a child with a cleft palate than pregnant women who are not exposed.

Researchers from Brittany, France conducted a controlled study from 2002 to 2006 that involved pregnant women in their second trimester. None of these women knew whether their babies would be born with birth defects. It later turned out that of the more than 600 pregnancies, 78 would have birth defects and 580 would not. During the study, the women were asked about their occupations, as well as how much contact they had with 11 different types of solvents at work or home. They were also required to provide a urine sample.

What the researchers found was that 29% of the women reported being routinely exposed to solvents at work. The women most regularly exposed to solvents were in occupations like nursing, cleaners, hairdressers, and chemists or biologists. Women routinely exposed to solvents were four times more likely to have a baby with a birth defect. When occupation was considered, that number jumped to 12 times more likely. Women with detectable levels of ethoxy ethoxyacetic acid in their urine were 11 times more likely to have a baby with a birth defect than women without detectable levels.

While the study involves a small sample, and researchers acknowledge that further investigation is needed, it does at least provide some evidence of the connection between birth defects and the mother's exposure to toxins. Studies like these can be cited in a lawsuit against chemical companies or a former employer. So if your child has a cleft palate and you believe it was due to the solvents you were exposed to in the workplace, you could file a lawsuit against both your employer and the chemical company.

Against the employer, you could file a negligence suit, claiming that your employer had a duty to employees to provide as safe a workplace as reasonably possible. Your employer breached that duty by failing to provide proper safety equipment, or give an adequate warning about the solvents' dangers, or follow existing regulations designed for workplace safety. As a result, you were injured through repeated exposure to the solvents, and the damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Pregnant Women Exposed to Solvents at Work Have a Higher Risk of Having Children With Birth Defects" »

Few people would connect workplace bullying with birth defects. Yet a new study has found that people who are the victims of workplace bullying are more likely to be prescribed antidepressants and tranquilizers. Other studies have linked certain antidepressants -- especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) -- to birth defects.

While most people think of bullying as something that happens on the school level, it is not uncommon in the adult world. The new study focused on men and women in Finland, where 10% to 14% claimed to have been bullied at work. Of those who reported bullying, they were 50% (women) to 200% (men) more likely to have been prescribed an antidepressant or tranquilizer.

The Finnish study asked more than 6,600 employees in Helsinki about their workplace experiences between 2000 and 2002. Of the total, 5% reported being bullied at present, with 18% of that amount being women and 12% being men. In addition, 10% of employees reported seeing workplace bullying. Of those who merely witnessed bullying, women were 53% more likely, and men 200% more likely, to use antidepressants or tranquilizers.

It is not unlikely that workplace bullying is more frequent in the United States, where people spend more hours at work and are under much greater pressure to succeed. Therefore, if the Finnish study is in any way representative of trends across the globe, it is quite possible that antidepressant use among working adults is much higher in the U.S. than in Finland. That is a concern, because as mentioned above, pregnant women who take certain antidepressants like SSRIs, are more likely to give birth to babies with heart defects, spina bifida, cleft palate, and other birth defects. The risk seems especially great if the mother takes antidepressants during the first trimester.

If you take antidepressants as a result of workplace bullying, and your child was born with a birth defect, you could file a lawsuit not only against the drug manufacturer and your physician, but also the coworkers or employer responsible for harassing you. First, you could file a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer, claiming that it should be strictly liable for manufacturing a drug that was unreasonably dangerous and did not have an adequate warning label. Second, you could file a medical malpractice lawsuit against your physician, arguing that he or she had a duty to inform you of the dangers of the drug so that you could make a fully informed decision whether to take it. Your physician failed to inform you of the dangers, so you were injured through exposure, and your child born with a birth defect as a result.

Continue reading "Adults Bullied at Work More Likely to Take Antidepressants, Which Could Lead to More Birth Defects" »

As this blog has discussed time and again, environmental factors can have a great impact on both human health and whether a child is born with a birth defect. A woman who is pregnant may be exposed to innumerable toxins over the course of her pregnancy, depending upon where she lives and her occupation. For instance, a pregnant woman living in a state where coal mining is prevalent might have to worry about exposure to mercury and other toxins unearthed by mountaintop removal mining. A pregnant woman living near agricultural land might have to worry about pesticides in the air and water. And women everywhere might have to worry about toxins in their cleaning products or toxins in the food they consume.

Yet although knowing about environmental toxins is the only way to curb their effects, too few physicians bother to warn women about them. A recent study found the most American obstetricians and gynecologists do not warn their patients to avoid chemicals found in food or in household products. The survey of 2,600 physicians conducted by the University of California at San Francisco found that only 19% of physicians mentioned pesticides, 12% mentioned air pollution, and 11% mentioned the volatile organic compounds emitted by gasoline, paints, and solvents. Around 44% mentioned mercury as a separate issue. That compares to 86% who discussed workplace hazards, 68% who warned about second-hand smoke, and virtually all physicians who discussed lifestyle habits such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and diet.

That is a problem for countless women and their future offspring. Every woman has a certain amount of toxins in her body -- including bisphenol A, flame retardants, and phthalates -- that pose a serious health and developmental risk to the fetus. A woman who is pregnant or may become pregnant deserves to know the risks, and how to avoid increasing the risks, if possible. Exposure to toxins such as mercury have been linked to lower IQs and slower cognitive development.

Physicians who did not inform their female patients of environmental toxins gave reasons that ranged from their wanting to focus on more "immediate" problems to their lack of confidence in discussing environmental concerns. Yet it was discovered that the physicians of more affluent women were more likely to discuss environmental toxins because the women were more likely to ask.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe was due to your exposure to environmental toxins, you may be able to sue your physician for medical malpractice if he/she withheld information that could have changed the outcome. You would argue that a reasonable physician would have provided important information about chemicals in food or the air so that you could have avoided them. Your physician's failure to do so amounted to improper treatment. As a result, you were injured because you continued to be exposed to the toxins, and your child was born with a birth defect.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Physicians Rarely Inform Pregnant Women of Environmental Toxin Dangers" »

Over the years, Pfizer, the manufacturer of Zoloft, has been the target of many lawsuits. That is because Zoloft, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), has been linked to birth defects after pregnant women took the medication during their first trimester. The birth defects attributed to Zoloft use include abdominal and cranial birth defects, persistent pulmonary hypertension, and congenital heart defects, specifically atrial and ventricular septal defects.

The family of a seven-year-old-girl in Springfield, Illinois became the latest to file a suit against Pfizer over Zoloft. The suit claims that the girl was born in 2005 with an abnormally narrow large intestine and rectum after her mother took Zoloft that was prescribed to her during pregnancy. The suit further claims that Pfizer marketed Zoloft to treat pregnant women with depression, even though Pfizer allegedly knew, or should have known, as early as 1991 that Zoloft was unreasonably dangerous both for the women and for their fetuses. By allegedly failing to properly warn the public, physicians, and the Food and Drug Administration, the suit claims that Pfizer was liable for negligence.

The suit argues that the girl's mother only took Zoloft during her pregnancy in 2004 because she was informed that it was safe. Her daughter's condition has required numerous procedures and will require constant medical treatment throughout her life. In all likelihood, the suit will be combined with 200 other cases in an existing class-action lawsuit. Meanwhile, Pfizer -- not surprisingly -- denies that Zoloft causes birth defects, claiming that extensive scientific research backs the finding that it is safe. Pfizer spokesmen claim that despite the large number of people taking Zoloft, the number of people suing is quite small.

That may change as more information about Zoloft's link to birth defects surfaces. If your child has a heart defect, a cranial defect, or some other congenital birth defect and you believe that it could be due to your taking Zoloft or some other SSRI, you could file a product liability suit against Pfizer or any other manufacturer.

When you file a lawsuit relating to a product, you can seek to find the manufacturer both negligent and strictly liable. Under negligence theory, you would argue that Pfizer did not use reasonable care when marketing the product, and therefore did not provide customers and physicians with enough information. As a result, you took Zoloft while pregnant without knowing the consequences, and the damage was your child's birth defect. Strict liability has nearly the same elements as negligence, except that you can find the manufacturer liable even when it has not acted negligently. Strict liability applies to the product itself -- you would argue that even if the manufacturer were not negligent, the product was still unreasonably dangerous by design. As a result, you were injured through exposure to the product, and the result was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Family of Seven-Year-Old With a Birth Defect the Latest to Sue Manufacturer of Zoloft" »

In the past, this blog has discussed evidence linking pollution caused by traffic to various health problems and birth defects. Now a new study adds evidence that a child exposed to high levels of auto traffic toxins in utero, and/or during the first few months of life, is three times more likely to be diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder than children who are not exposed.

The study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, followed 500 children for several years from the time they were born. The researchers involved took details about the regional air quality and determined what it would have been during the mothers' pregnancy and the children's first year. They found definite evidence of a link between exposure to traffic-related air pollution at high levels and autism. The link is even stronger when the exposure to such pollution occurs late in the woman's pregnancy. Nitrogen dioxide, a pollutant found near freeways, was the biggest culprit, while other toxins were not as strongly linked to autism.

The link between traffic-related pollution and birth defects remained strong even when different socioeconomic factors were taken into account. Researchers note that while their findings do not prove that traffic-related pollution causes autism, they suggest that the air pollution could impact children's brains in ways that could lead them to develop autism. Diesel exhaust particles, for instance, have been shown to interfere with healthy brain development. Likewise, traffic-related pollutants have been shown to inflammation throughout the body.

Diagnoses of autism have increased 78% within the past six years. If your child has autism and you believe that it could be due to your having been exposed to high levels of toxins from freeway traffic while pregnant, you might consider filing a lawsuit against the offender. The only problem is identifying the offender -- countless cars travel the roadways each day, and it would be impossible to identify and sue all of the drivers. Therefore, those who want relief might sue the entities entrusted with enforcing health and safety regulations. For instance, a parent might sue a city or state regulatory agency charged with enforcing air quality levels. The parent might either sue that agency for a monetary award, claiming that the agency's negligence led to the child's autism, or the parent might sue for equitable relief.

Unlike monetary relief, which is determined by a jury, equitable relief is determined by a judge. Usually when people seek equitable relief in this context, they seek an injunction that would force the agency to take action -- such as requiring the agency to take steps to enforce known safety rules. A parent cannot choose monetary and equitable relief for the same cause of action -- it can only be one or the other. If you were to choose equitable relief, it might not change what happened with your child, but it might prevent it from happening to those born in the future.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Children Born to Mothers Exposed to High Levels of Traffic Pollution Are More Likely to Develop Autism" »

One source of toxins that has caught the attention of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is large-scale laundries. Large-scale laundering facilities are responsible for cleaning linens for hospitals, prisons, hotels, and other entities. However, the toxic fumes released during the cleaning process might be making laundry workers and the general public ill.

The problem may not be the cleaning process itself, but rather what is cleaned. The biggest offenders may be shop towels from industrial plants sent to the laundries already covered in oil, paint, solvents, and other chemicals. Once the towels are washed and dried, the toxins that were on them enter the atmosphere. They exit the laundry facilities through vents and exhaust valves, becoming a major source of smog.

In addition to the dangers posed by inhaling the vapors, having so many different toxins together can be dangerous in different ways -- such as causing fires or explosions when chemicals mix together. Until now, regulators have had difficulty cracking down because they did not know whom to hold responsible, with each industrial plant using different chemicals. The EPA, however, has stated that it is the laundry facilities that should be held responsible for what they clean.

Last year, the EPA set its sights on two New England laundry facilities where residents had complained about poor air quality: one in Massachusetts and one in New Hampshire. The EPA got the New Hampshire facility to pay a civil penalty of $65,000, install better filters to prevent so much toxic escape through the vents, and undertake a $220,000 initiative to improve air quality in that part of the state. Up to 35 other facilities have been probed, with some of them facing similar penalties.

Large-scale laundry facilities are not usually the first example that comes to mind when people think of toxic offenders, so it is good that the EPA has chosen to keep an eye on them. Toxins in the air and water have been linked to a variety of health problems, as well as birth defects. However, if the EPA or another regulator has not taken steps to regulate the facilities, you could file a toxic tort lawsuit against the facility if you believe that your health problem, or your child's birth defect, could be the result of its toxins. You would argue that the laundry facility had a duty to the surrounding community to operate reasonably according to health and safety regulations. The facility breached its duty by permitting harmful amounts of toxins to escape into the air when it could have taken reasonable efforts to prevent the emissions. As a result of the breach, you were injured through exposure to the toxins while pregnant. The resulting damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "EPA Starts Regulating Industrial Laundries With the Goal of Preventing Toxic Emissions" »

Reseachers have discovered more about how human cytomegalovirus (HCMV), a virus transmitted through contact with human bodily fluids, has managed to become one of the leading causes of birth defects in the United States. In a new study, researchers learned that the virus acts to prevent a cell's normal ability to repair itself. This has led to a situation where, of the 40,000 babies born each year infected with the virus, 4,000 have birth defects ranging from hearing loss to cerebral palsy to microcephaly, where the head is too small.

While HCMV typically remains dormant in healthy individuals, when a woman is pregnant, her immune system becomes weakened, making it more likely that she will be infected by the virus. At present there is no cure, but researchers hope that through learning more about the way the virus functions, they can develop treatments that would prevent birth defects.

Through this latest study, researchers have determined that when HCMV infects a cell, it creates "centers" inside the cell's nucleus through which it replicates itself. The proteins that repair cellular damage become trapped in these centers and are therefore unable to stop the virus's destruction. To test this theory, they exposed the virus to ultraviolet irradiation, which damaged the DNA of both the cell and the virus. One day later, the researchers found that while the virus had repaired itself, the cell remained damaged. The damaged cells could ultimately lead to the fetus being infected.

For now, researchers still don't know what parts of the virus are responsible for preventing cellular repair, and note that it will require further study. They emphasize that HCMV is entirely preventable and urge people to wash their hands well and to use gloves in unsanitary situations.

It would be very unfortunate to have a baby with a birth defect as a result of such a virus. Birth defects such as mental retardation or cerebral palsy mean a lifetime of medical bills, which can quickly steep a family in debt. If that were your situation, would you have recourse against the source of the virus through litigation, which could lead to a monetary award? You might, though it would likely be difficult. First, you would have to determine that the birth defect was actually the result of the virus. Unfortunately, there are many different potential causes of birth defects, including environmental toxins, genetics, and lifestyle. Even if you did determine that the virus, and nothing else, caused the birth defect, you would have to determine how it was caused. If it was transferred sexually and you had few partners, you might be able to determine the source. However, if it was transferred through contact with someone else's saliva or urine, you could potentially have thousands of sources and no ability to narrow it down. In all likelihood, you would not be able to get monetary relief if you sued the potential source of the virus because you would not be able to meet your burden of proof.

Continue reading "Researchers Are a Step Closer to Determining How the Human Cytomegalovirus Causes Birth Defects" »

In Canada, the Supreme Court has certified a class for a class-action lawsuit against UK company GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of Paxil. While in the United States, there have already been more than one class-action lawsuit against Paxil, this would be the first class-action lawsuit against any antidepressant manufacturer in Canada involving birth defects.

The class-action suit began with the case of one individual, Faith Gibson of British Columbia, whose daughter was born with a hole in her heart in 2005. Gibson was prescribed Paxil by her physician in 2002 and took it throughout the duration of her pregnancy. In 2005, GlaxoSmithKline informed Health Canada, Canadian physicians, and other relevant parties of a study of 3,581 women that found double the risk of birth defects for women exposed to generic Paxil, paroxetine, compared to those who took other antidepressants. Although information about the risks of taking antidepressants during pregnancy was published two weeks after Gibson's daughter's birth, Gibson and other mothers in her position argue that GlaxoSmithKline knew, or should have been aware, of the risks before then. They argue that the company then failed to inform physicians in a timely manner about the risks. Gibson claims that had she known about the potential for birth defects, she would never have taken the antidepressant.

With the class certification, Gibson became what, in the United States, at least, is known as the "class representative." She will represent any person in Canada born to a woman who took Paxil while pregnant, as well as the mothers of those persons.

A class-action lawsuit is often an important way to not only help affected individuals get relief, but also to send a message to the offender that it cannot get away with such behavior. In the United States, a group is usually considered a "class" if it contains more than 40 people, while a group of more than one million has been, in other contexts, considered too large to be a class. The class is composed of "similarly situated" individuals, consisting of those who have claims that are "sufficiently alike" that they can be grouped together. The class must be certified by a court before any class-action lawsuit can proceed. From there, the lawsuit mainly follows the same guidelines as an individual lawsuit. This includes the type of relief given -- just as an individual may receive a monetary award, a successful class typically receives a "common fund," or one giant award out of which the individual claims are paid.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe could be due to your taking Paxil while pregnant, you don't need to join a class-action lawsuit to get relief -- you can simply file an individual lawsuit. It would require you to hire your own lawyer and make your own case, but you might get an outcome more tailored to your specific situation.

Continue reading "Canadian Supreme Court Certifies Class For First Class-Action Lawsuit Against Paxil Involving Birth Defects" »