Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

The Toxics Release Inventory, a database of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has released the list of the 10 largest mercury polluters in the country. Texas was the number one polluter (11,127 pounds of mercury pollution), followed by Ohio (4,218), Pennsylvania (3,964), Missouri (3,835), Indiana (3,175), Alabama (3,002), West Virginia (2,495), North Dakota (2,363), Kentucky (2,287), and Michigan (2,253).

The EPA has been working to limit emissions from power plants and other facilities, and this list of data shows which states suffer the most from mercury emissions. In Michigan, the Detroit Edison Monroe Power Plant is the largest source of airborne mercury, releasing 660 pounds into the atmosphere. In Ohio, the largest source of mercury pollution is coal-fueled power plants, which are responsible for two-thirds of all emissions. Earlier this year, the Obama administration pushed for limits on mercury emissions that would require power plants to capture 90% of the mercury in the coal they burn. Despite attempts by members of Congress to delay implementation of tighter EPA regulations, it looks as though the new regulations remain on course.

Mercury emissions are responsible for a variety of health problems, including birth defects. It has been known to damage the human nervous system, and can cause speech delays and lower IQs in children. Although fish consumption is thought to be the biggest source of mercury, people can also be exposed simply by breathing the air or drinking contaminated water. Birth defects attributed to mercury exposure include brain damage, hearing impairment, and even a disease known as Minamata. Minamata disease can result in numbness in the hands and feet, hearing and speech problems, and in its worst form, lead to insanity and death.

If your child was born with a birth defect that you believe was due to mercury exposure in the womb, you might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the offending power plant. First, you would need to identify which power plant or plants is the source. It is not uncommon for people to be affected by emissions that come from other states as the result of cross winds. If the offenders reside in another state, it might be more difficult to track the offender down and prove that it was responsible -- unless there was documented evidence showing the harmful effects of interstate pollution.

However, if you are able to identify the source of the mercury emissions, you would argue that the plant had a general duty to act responsibly and follow regulations. The plant breached that duty by failing to follow regulations, the breach resulted in your injury -- exposure to the mercury toxins -- and the damage was your child's birth defect (and possibly your own health problems). Again, if the power plant is in another state, you might have trouble proving that the plant had a duty to you, because you might not be a foreseeable plaintiff. The power plant would only have a duty to those it could foreseeably harm. Yet if you were able to show that cross winds carrying mercury emissions into your state are a common phenomenon, you might be able to establish that you are a foreseeable plaintiff.

Continue reading "EPA Releases a List of the Top Ten Mercury Pollution States" »

The United States Senate recently defeated a resolution by a Republican Senator that would have blocked new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations from being implemented. The final vote was 56 to 41, with six Republicans joining the Democrats to vote against the resolution.

As this blog has discussed previously, the EPA issued new standards for power plants in 28 states. These standards require power plants to reduce smoke stack pollution crossing state lines. They are set to take effect in 2012 and EPA officials expect that they will prevent 34,000 premature deaths. However, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed the "Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation" (TRAIN) Act in September, which would delay implementation of new EPA clean air rules, including the pollution across state lines rule. It was expected that any attempt by Senate Republicans to pass a similar bill would fail, due to the fact that Democrats control the Senate by a 53-47 margin. However, many did not expect Senate Republicans to have a hand in the bill's defeat.

Republicans like Senator Lamar Alexander, whose state, Tennessee, has experienced pollution from Kentucky smoke stacks as a result of cross winds, said that he did not want the Great Smoky Mountains to become the "Great Smoggy Mountains." Likewise, Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and other Republicans from the Northeast voted against the resolution because of pollution blown into their states from the Midwestern states.

With the Senate resolution failing, it appears that the EPA standards are still on schedule to go into effect in 2012. Even if the Senate Resolution had passed, President Obama vowed to veto any bill that delayed the regulations.

The new EPA rules are expected to reduce emissions that cause soot, smog, and acid rain. It is unclear whether there is a link between sulfur dioxide -- which would be regulated under the new standard -- and birth defects in humans. It has been traced to weight reduction in babies born to other animals, as well as to other health problems in humans.

Continue reading "U.S. Senate Defeats an Attempt to Delay Implementation of New EPA Rules for Power Plants" »

Finding out whether your child will be born with a birth defect may now be as simple as taking a blood test, a new study reports. Researchers at the Magee-Women's Research Institute at the University of Pittsburgh found that by taking a pregnant woman's blood sample, they were able to screen for a rare fetal abnormality known as "fetal microdeletion syndrome." Fetal microdeletion syndrome is an irregularity in the chromosomes.

In the past, if a physician suspected that the fetus could have abnormalities, the physician would recommend an amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling, or a similarly invasive procedure. Chorionic villus sampling involves using a catheter or a long needle during the first trimester to extract cellular material found in tiny finger-shaped growths located in the placenta. Amniocentesis, performed during the second trimester, involves using a long needle through the mother's abdominal wall, uterus, and amniotic sac to extract amniotic fluid, which is then used for DNA analysis. Although the risk of injury to the fetus remains small with these procedures, it is still significant. Fetuses can suffer limb damage and the pregnant woman could even miscarry as a result.

Researchers found that when women were given the blood test and experienced the more invasive procedure, both tests showed the same results. The researchers hope that someday, the risk can be avoided altogether. In addition to a blood test for fetal microdeletion syndrom, blood tests are also being developed for Down Syndrome and spina bifida.

The less-invasive test is welcome for any pregnant woman who has concerns about the health of her fetus. If she can learn ahead of time whether the fetus suffers from abnormalities, she could plan accordingly. Sometimes, the end result may be an abortion; other times, it may be gathering resources to prepare for a child who will require more medical care and specialized schooling.

Although we appear to be reaching a point where pre-birth testing is becoming the norm -- so much that those who were given erroneous results have filed wrongful birth lawsuits -- would a woman who could have had a blood test, but was not given one, have cause to sue her physician? The likely answer is no. A blood test for fetal abnormalities is still very new or is still being developed. When a patient succeeds in a medical malpractice suit, it is usually because the physician has made a preventable medical error or failed to warn the patient about problems that the physician knew about (or should have known about). If the physician suspected problems with the fetus and kept them to himself, or did not bother to suggest testing, then there are grounds to find the physician guilty of negligence -- and medical malpractice. On the other hand, if the physician suggested an amniocentesis and your fetus was harmed, you likely would not succeed in a lawsuit claiming that the physician should have given you the option of a blood test, because the physician probably did not have that option available. You might, however, succeed on the grounds that the amniocentesis was not performed competently.

Continue reading "Pregnant Women May Soon Be Able to Take a Simple Blood Test to Determine Whether Baby Will Have Birth Defects" »

Researchers experimenting with mice and fruit flies have identified two genes responsible for congenital heart defects in those born with Down Syndrome. Congenital heart defects are a significant cause of death among people with Down Syndrome.

The researchers used fruit flies as part of their experiments because of their simple and rapidly reproducing biological system that shared many genes with mice and humans. They first used fruit flies to test all possible pairwise genetic interactions between genes that might disrupt the function of the fluid pumping fly heart. Through these experiments, the researchers discovered one pair of genes -- called DSCAM and COL6A2 -- that caused serious defects when overproduced together. Researchers used this discovery in their experiments on mice, determining what would happen to their hearts if the genes were overproduced. This involved breeding two lines of mice -- each with one overproduced gene. The mice were then interbred so that their offspring would carry both overproducing genes. Mice with just one overproducing gene were generally normal, while their offspring had serious heart defects.

Researchers are hopeful that these experiments will pave the way for finding not just the genes that affect people with Downs Syndrome, but also genes for a variety of disorders that could be caused by multiple genes interacting. The genes thought to be responsible for heart defects in people with Down Syndrome are on Chromosome 21, the shortest human chromosome.

One in 700 people are born each year with Down Syndrome, which occurs when a person has three sets of Chromosome 21 instead of two. One cause of this defect is thought to be the mother's age. Mothers over the age of 40 have a much higher risk of having a child with Down Syndrome than mothers younger than 40.

Because the risk of Down Syndrome is tied to a person's age, rather than something external, you would not succeed in suing a third party for your child's Down Syndrome. However, there are many other birth defects believed to be traced to external causes, such as environmental factors (factories, power plants, pesticides, even mountaintop mining) or prescription drugs (especially antiepileptic medication). Injuries caused by physician error can also result in lifelong disabilities, such as cerebral palsy. If your child has a birth defect that you believe has an external cause, you have the option of filing a lawsuit against the offender. If the cause is toxic pollutants in the air or water, you could file a toxic tort lawsuit. On the other hand, if the cause is prescription drug medication, you could file a products liability lawsuit. If the cause is a preventable accident during your child's birth, you could file a medical malpractice suit. The elements of each suit are nearly the same. For the toxic tort and medical malpractice suits, the issue is whether the offender was negligent. For the products liability suit, the issue is whether, even if the offender was not negligent, the product was unreasonably dangerous.

Continue reading "Researchers Discover Two Genes Responsible for Causing Heart Defects in People With Down Syndrome" »

With every birth, there is the risk of birth defects. However, some birth defects can be prevented through a medical pre-screening, which allows couples to learn their child's risks ahead of time and plan accordingly. For couples not given the option of pre-screening, they are responding in a way that is sure to get their physicians' attention: wrongful birth lawsuits.

Wrongful birth and wrongful life lawsuits have been multiplying for the past 20 years all across the world. The idea behind these suits is that genetic screening has become such an accurate and customary approach, any doctor who fails to perform them, or withholds some of the results, has committed negligence. Couples who file wrongful birth lawsuits usually seek a monetary award to pay for the expenses of raising a child with a disability -- often a severe one.

Not surprisingly, these suits have drawn criticism -- in part because couples involved argue that they were deprived of the option of aborting fetuses with birth defects that were too severe. Critics argue that these suits force the law to place less value on the lives of the disabled, or that the parents are claiming that they wish their child had never been born. Those in favor of wrongful birth suits argue that physicians should be held accountable in court for errors and oversights that are preventable. They state that the parents pay for the physician's mistake while the physician pays no penalty.

In some respects, wrongful birth lawsuits have long existed -- they are simply known as medical malpractice suits. A medical malpractice suit is filed when a physician commits any medical error -- including one involving birth errors -- that is thought to be preventable. A wrongful birth lawsuit differs from many medical malpractice suits in one respect, in that ones involving birth focus on errors in the labor and delivery, not in the pre-birth screening. As genetic screening becomes even more refined and common, wrongful birth suits may become more established. Right now, their success rate is unknown.

If your child has a birth defect, and you believe that your physician should have informed you after the genetic screening, you could file a medical malpractice suit that focuses on wrongful birth. However, you could also file a medical malpractice suit if you believe that the birth defect (such as cerebral palsy) was the result of preventable physician error during the birth. You could also file a suit if you believe that your physician prescribed birth defect-causing medications without informing you of the risks. You could even file a products liability lawsuit against the drug manufacturer if you believe that medication was responsible for your child's birth defect. As with wrongful birth, the parents' goal is generally to seek a monetary award that can help pay the costs of their child's upbringing.

Continue reading "Parents Who Were Never Informed of Birth Defects During Genetic Screening are Turning to Wrongful Birth Lawsuits" »

New evidence reveals that the German pharmaceutical company, Grunenthal GmbH hid the results of studies that would have revealed that Thalidomide caused birth defects. Now 13 people with birth defects who were born between 1957 and 1962 have sued the drug manufacturers and distributors in Pennsylvania.

Thalidomide was once prescribed for morning sickness during pregnant women's first trimester. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit claim that Thalidomide's manufacturer and other businesses conspired to hide information from the public in order to bolster sales and protect against liability. As a result, countless pregnant women who took the drug gave birth to babies with missing or malformed limbs or hearing loss. The plaintiffs seek both compensatory and punitive damages for their deformities. Grunenthal stated in 2008 that it would pay $70.9 million to those injured by the drug.

Grunenthal has since become a part of GlaxoSmithKline, which disavows any responsibility for birth defects caused by the former company. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs will move forward with their lawsuit, with evidence showing that executives at Grenenthal knew about birth defects as early as 1961, and that the evidence existed as early as 1955.

It is often a challenge to prove causation for birth defects when the cause was several decades ago. However, many have successfully been able to do so, showing specific types of birth defects in babies born to mothers prescribed a specific type of medication. While Thalidomide was prescribed decades ago, there are several drugs on the market today thought to be responsible for causing birth defects, especially when pregnant women take them during the first trimester. If your baby was born with a birth defect that you believe was caused by prescription medication, you could file a products liability suit against the manufacturer or a medical malpractice suit against your physician. First, you would need evidence that that particular medication caused the birth defect. This could come from other examples of babies with birth defects born to women in your situation. If enough people are in a similar situation, you might be able to form a class action lawsuit.

Once you have the evidence, you would argue that the manufacturer had a duty to produce as safe a medication as possible, breached that duty by producing a drug that was unsafe, that breach led to your injury, and your child's birth defect was the resulting damage. You could argue that the drug had an ineffective warning label that did not inform users of the dangers, or that it was possible to design a safer drug without changing its effectiveness or substantially increasing the costs. As with this lawsuit, you could seek compensatory and punitive damages for if you prevail.

Continue reading "People Born With Birth Defects Caused by Thalidomide File Suit Against Its German Manufacturer" »

This blog has posted previously on the topic of toxic seafood as it related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A recent study from an environmental watchdog group has found that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to underestimate the risk that pregnant women and children face from carcinogens that collect in seafood as a result of oil spills.

The study claims that because of assessment methods that are out of date, the FDA's standard for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) is off by 10,000 times. The FDA's assessment is based on estimates of how much seafood typical Gulf resident may consume over five years. A typical adult is presumed to weigh 176 pounds, while oil contaminates are assumed to disappear after five years. Researchers assert that the FDA's methods fail to consider the greater vulnerability of a developing fetus or child, fail to use more appropriate consumption rates, fail to include all relevant health end points, and fail to incorporate estimates of exposure duration and acceptable risk.

Researchers also claim that the methods for assessing risk should be updated so that they better reflect current risk assessment methods. Otherwise, pregnant women and children will continue to be at risk. The FDA disagrees with researchers' assessments, insisting that they have a comprehensive program for sampling seafood and that the seafood in the Gulf of Mexico is perfectly safe.

Even so, this new study and previous studies raise doubts. If you live near the Gulf of Mexico and your child has a birth defect, it is possible that toxins in seafood could be the cause. If you wanted relief to pay for medical bills and other expenses resulting from the birth defect, you might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit against those responsible for contaminating the seafood. To be successful in a toxic tort lawsuit, you would need more than just a general "feeling" that an oil company, for example, was responsible. You would need actual evidence that that specific company caused an oil spill that contaminated the seafood you ate. You would also need evidence linking the contaminated seafood to your child's birth defect. It should be easier to find this evidence if you are a Gulf state resident than it would be if you lived farther away. Someone who lived in another part of the United States, and ate seafood that originated in the Gulf, might have a more difficult time proving a causal connection -- especially if that person did not eat seafood regularly. If you believe that contaminated seafood is responsible, however, and have the evidence to back it up, you could argue that the oil company had a duty to behave responsibly, breached that duty through carelessness, the breach led to your "injury" (your exposure to harmful contaminants), and the damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "New Study Suggests That the FDA is Underestimating the Risks of Contaminated Seafood to Pregnant Women and Children" »

A new study published in the online British Medical Journal has found that pregnant women with hypertension, as opposed to women with high blood pressure taking medication, were more likely to give birth to babies with birth defects. Previously there was a concern that women who took angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors during their first trimester had a greater risk. Instead, the study found that the medication was safe to take during the first trimester. It was the underlying hypertension that increased the risk of birth defects.

Researchers reached this conclusion after studying data of 466,000 mothers and children living in northern California between 1995 and 2008. They found that it did not matter which medication the women were prescribed: whether they were prescribed ACE inhibitors or a different blood pressure medication, or no medication at all, their risk remained the same. Researchers were encouraged to find that no link existed between the medication and birth defects, but cautioned that too little remains understood about the full health effects of hypertension to form a strong conclusion.

Many people are genetically predisposed to having high blood pressure. However, there may be other factors involved, such as age, lifestyle choices, diet, workplace tension, and even environmental pollution. If you have high blood pressure and believe that it caused your child's birth defect, can you sue? You can always try to file a lawsuit, but the greater challenge is winning. Anyone who tries to sue without being able to identify the defendant, and without having evidence to back up the claims, is bound to see their case dismissed by the judge at an early stage of the litigation.

If you believe that your high blood pressure (which led to your child's birth defect) was caused by an outside factor, you need to be able to distinguish which one it was. If environmental pollution was the main cause, which was the source of the pollution? Pesticides, a factory, a power plant, or a nearby toxic waste center? Or was the source something that is more difficult to pin down, such as air pollution caused by car exhaust from a nearby highway. Along with identifying the source, you also need to determine whom to hold accountable. If the pollution was from a specific offender, it is simple enough to sue that offender. On the other hand, if the source was more diffuse, you may have more success suing the one responsible for upholding environmental regulations.

Keep in mind that even if you are able to pinpoint a specific offender, you might have a difficult time proving a causal link between the offender's activities and your child's birth defect. That's because your child's birth defect could also be caused by many different sources, with environmental pollution being just one of them.

Continue reading "Hypertension in Pregnant Mothers Linked to a Greater Likelihood for Birth Defects" »

A recent study in Pediatrics found that girls who were exposed to the chemical bisphenol-A while in utero could have behavioral problems by the time they are three years old. Bisphenol-A is found in certain plastic drink bottles and food can linings.

Researchers measured the amounts of bisphenol-A (BPA) in 244 mothers from the Cincinnati area. They tested the mothers' urine twice during pregnancy and at childbirth. Later, the women were asked to evaluate their children's behavior through a behavioral questionnaire. While each of the women were typical of Americans as a whole, in that they had measurable amounts of BPA in their system, women with high levels of BPA in their urine were more likely to have girls with greater behavioral problems. For each 10-fold increase in a mother's BPA level, the daughter scored at least six points lower on the behavioral questionnaire. These problems were still within a normal range of behavior, but were worse compared to other girls. Boys, by contrast, seemed unaffected by BPA levels. One reason may be because BPA is believed to mimic the effects of estrogen.

The researchers state that it shows even small shifts can have a dramatic impact on people. Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expressed concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain in fetuses, babies, and young children. The FDA will continue to observe the effects of BPA exposure and support any effort to limit exposure in food and drink containers.

If your daughter suffers from behavioral problems and you believe that it may be due to BPA exposure during your pregnancy, could you sue? While you could sue, the important question is whether you could win. That is very difficult to answer because even though there is evidence linking BPA to certain manufactured bottles and cans, it is not yet conventional wisdom. Many other sources, including other pollutants, have been linked to intelligence and behavioral problems in children. Furthermore, you would need to be able to point out which containers from which manufacturers had the highest levels of BPA. You would need a clear memory of drink bottles and containers that you used while pregnant. If BPA is widespread among different products, finding the culprit that affected you may not be so easy. If, however, you think that several manufacturers are responsible, you could sue them jointly and severally in a products liability suit. Jointly and severally means that if they are found guilty, any one of them could be held responsible for paying you a monetary award. You would argue that the products had a manufacturing defect, a design defect, or an improper warning label that failed to warn you of the products' dangers. That defect led to your injury and your child's behavioral problems. Proving your case may be a challenge, but if you believe that the evidence is on your side, don't hesitate to hire an attorney and proceed.

Continue reading "Researchers Find That Mothers With High Levels of BPA in Their System More Likely to Have Daughters With Behavioral Problems" »

The pharmaceutical company Vivus resubmitted an application for its new obesity drug, Qnexa, with a limitation that it not be used by any woman under the age of 55 years old. The reason is fear that women of childbearing age could use the drug and end up having children with birth defects. Vivus was able to get approval of an early reapplication after making a deal with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Qnexa is made up of topiramate and phentermine. While phentermine is used for a limited period of time to speed weight loss, topiramate is the generic name for drugs such as Topamax or Topiragen, which are used to treat and prevent epileptic seizures. Antiepileptic drugs have been linked to certain birth defects, particularly when taken during the first trimester of pregnancy. Even phentermine can cause health problems if intermixed with certain anti-depressants such as Paxil (paroxetine) and Zoloft (sertraline), or monoamine oxidase inhibitors. The FDA originally expressed concerns about Qnexa's use of topiramate and rejected the previous application on October 28, 2010.

Now Qnexa will be for those over 55 who register as obese on the BMI scale, or those who are overweight with a BMI of 27. It is unknown whether older woman could suffer health problems as a result of taking the drug, though so far clinical studies have shown that it does not contribute to heart disease or elevate the heart rate.

Even though women of childbearing age won't have access to Qnexa, many antiepileptic drugs with topiramate still exist and are frequently prescribed by physicians. Earlier this year, the FDA reclassified topiramate as Pregnancy Category D because of the drug's potential to cause birth defects such as cleft lip or palette. If you take a medication with topiramate and have a baby with birth defects, you may be able to sue your physician and/or the manufacturer to obtain relief. If you took topiramate during your first trimester, not knowing that it could lead to birth defects, you could sue your physician for medical malpractice. You could argue that your physician had a duty to be reasonably informed of new medical information and to warn you, the patient, of potential dangers. Your physician failed to warn you, and thus breached this duty. This breach led to your injury, and the damage was your child's birth defect. You would need to provide solid evidence that topiramate, not another source such as genetics, was the cause of the birth defect. Given that multiple studies have implicated antiepileptic drugs, that should not be too difficult.

If you want to file a products liability lawsuit against the manufacturer, you would argue that the manufacturer had a duty to create as safe a drug as possible, breached that duty by creating a drug with a design defect that made it unreasonably dangerous, that breach caused your injury, and the damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Obesity Drug Manufacturer Plans to Make Drug Available Only to Women Over 55 Years Old" »

This blog has previously discussed mountaintop mining and the real likelihood that it could lead to birth defects. With mountaintop mining, the top of the mountain is stripped for coal mining, causing toxins such as mercury to leak into the air and waterways. Mountaintop mining is primarily conducted in Appalachian states, including West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Since studies of the link between mountaintop mining and birth defects became public, opposition to the practice has grown. Most recently in West Virginia, a citizens group challenged an Alpha Natural Resources mining permit. The group cited studies about birth defects as the reason for their concern.

Attorneys for Ohio Valley Environmental Group and other groups requested that District Court Judge Robert Chambers block the permit for the Reylas Surface Mine. The attorneys claimed that the Army Corps of Engineers never considered the mine's impact on water quality, did not seek public opinion on aspects of the permit, and failed to consider scientific evidence of the bad health effects caused by mountaintop removal. Although the Environmental Protection Agency disapproved of the permit, it did not prevent its approval.

While the new mine is expected to create up to 100 jobs, it would also bury more than two miles of streams beneath a valley fill and runoff control structures. Attorneys filed with the court three recent studies co-authored by a public health researcher from West Virginia University School of Medicine. These studies found both higher rates of cancer and birth defects for those living near mountaintop mining operations.

If you have concerns about mountaintop mining causing birth defects, one option you have is to file for an injunction, as did the attorneys here. An injunction can either force the offending party to perform an act or (more commonly) force the offender to stop whatever action is causing the harm. If mountaintop mining is being planned for your area, you could seek a temporary injunction to prevent the permit from being enforced until a greater review could be done to determine the impact. If there already is mountaintop mining in your area and you believe it is responsible for your child's birth defect, you could file a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender. You would argue that the offender owed a duty of care to members of the community to operate as safely as possible according to the reasonable standards of the industry. The offender breached that duty by permitting harmful levels of pollutants to enter the air and water -- when it was possible to accomplish the same goals without polluting. The breach caused you injury, and the resulting damage was your child's birth defect. Under these circumstances, you would likely receive damages (a money amount) for medical bills, general pain and suffering, and more.

Continue reading "Citizens Groups in West Virginia Try to Block Permit for Mine That Could Lead to More Birth Defects" »

Just as there seemed to be reason to doubt the benefits of folic acid in a woman's diet, a new study has come out showing that women who take folic acid while pregnant are more likely to have toddlers with better vocabularies.

The study was conducted in Norway, where researchers focused on 40,000 women a few months into their pregnancies. Researchers gave each woman a survey that included questions such as the type of supplements they were taking over 12 weeks -- four before conception and eight weeks after. The researchers then checked back with the women when their children were around three years of age. They asked each woman how many words they could string together to form a sentence. Toddlers who could only say one word at a time were thought to have severe language delay. They represented just one in 200 toddlers. Of the toddlers included in the study, just four in 1,000 had severe language delays when their mothers took folic acid supplements, compared with nine in 1,000 born to mothers who took no supplements. Even after taking other factors into account, researchers agreed that folic acid may have played a role in reducing the number of children with delays. Folic acid has been shown to affect the growth of neurons necessary for mental development.

Whether to take folic acid (or eat foods fortified with folic acid, or "folate") is a personal decision for every woman thinking of getting pregnant. If a woman makes the choice to not take folic acid, knowing that the result could be a greater likelihood her child could be born with a birth defect, she could not successfully sue someone else over her decision. However, even women who take the recommended amount of folic acid might have a baby with birth defects. Birth defects or developmental delays could be caused by environmental pollution, common household products, or medical error. If you believe that your child's birth defect was caused by medical error during the birth, you should consider filing a medical malpractice suit against the physician responsible.

You would argue that the physician had a duty to you as a patient to use reasonable care according to the standards of the profession. The physician breached that duty by committing medical errors that were preventable. The breach led to an injury such as your child being deprived of oxygen in the birth canal, and the result is your child's birth defect. If multiple people were responsible for the injury, you could try suing them jointly and severally for malpractice. Jointly and severally means that if you prevail, any one of the responsible parties could be forced to pay the amount awarded by the jury, regardless of who was most at fault.

Continue reading "Researchers in Norway Find That Toddlers Whose Mothers Took Folic Acid Have Better Speaking Skills " »

It has long been conventional wisdom that women with a diet rich in folic acid will have healthy babies. Folic acid is believed to significantly reduce the likelihood of neural tube birth defects such as spina bifida, where the embryonic neural tube fails to close properly. Yet a new study in the journal Human Molecular Genetics challenges this assumption.

Researchers from Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the University of Colorado School of Medicine conducted a study using mice with certain genetic defects. What they found is that mice with these genetic mutations not only did not have a positive response to folic acid, but actually had adverse reactions.

The researchers determined that there were 800 to 1,000 genes involved in proper neural tube closure and focused the study on five that are required for proper development. Two of these key genes, called Grhl2 and Shroom3, affect the closure of the tube and the shape of neural cells. Mice with mutations in these genes were far more likely to have offspring with neural tube disorders. Researchers fed these mice either a controlled diet or a diet high in folic acid and then bred them. While they expected mice with mutated genes to not respond positively to the folic acid, they were surprised that some actually reacted negatively. Mice with mutations in L3P and Grhl2 reacted by producing more offspring with neural tube defects. Those with mutations in L3P and Shroom3 experienced greater embryonic losses, meaning that embryos died and were reabsorbed before the neural tube was formed. The researchers concluded that these events are significant because it showed that a lower incidence of birth defects among humans might be because some embryos with a genetic defect didn't survive, not just because folic acid helped close the neural tube. Researchers hastened to add that folic acid was still beneficial as a whole; but it was worth studying folic acid-resistant genes to find out why they are resistant.

Whether or not you take folic acid is a personal choice. If you choose to not take folic acid before and during your pregnancy, and as a result have a child with a neural tube defect, you would not succeed in a lawsuit against someone else. But what if your child's birth defect had nothing to do with whether you took folic acid? Neural tube defects have been traced to environmental pollution, such as toxins released by mountaintop mining. If you believe that environmental toxins caused your child's birth defect, you could file a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender -- provided you found evidence that this particular power plant, factory, or toxic waste dump was the cause.

If folic acid intake was the issue, you might succeed in filing a medical malpractice suit against your physician if it turned out that your physician knew of the risks and did not inform you, and you had no way of learning the information otherwise. As with a toxic tort, you would argue that your physician was negligent, that the negligence caused your injury, and the resulting damage was your child's neural tube defect.

Continue reading "Study Finds That Mice With Certain Genetic Mutations More Likely to Produce Offspring With Birth Defects After Taking Folic Acid" »

There is already evidence that women who take certain selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) during their first trimester of pregnancy are more likely to have babies with birth defects. Now the FDA has issued a warning to women who take the antidepressant Celexa based on a new study. Not only could Celexa potentially cause birth defects, but women who take the maximum 60 milligrams per day could also experience abnormal changes in the electrical activity of the heart. These changes could result in potentially fatal abnormal heart rhythms. As a result of the study's findings, the FDA has lowered the approved maximum dosage to 40 milligrams per day.

SSRIs are frequently prescribed to treat depression, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, chronic pain, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Their use has been linked to several serious birth defects, including persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), heart defects, and higher rates of autism. The FDA cautions that those on Celexa with congestive heart failure, or a genetic predisposition to low potassium or magnesium, are especially susceptible to health problems and should be careful when taking the medication.

If your child was born with a birth defect that you believe may be traced to your usage of Celexa, you have the option of filing a products liability lawsuit against Forest Laboratories, Inc., the maker of Celexa, and/or a medical malpractice suit against your physician. In both cases, it is important that you have strong evidence linking the birth defect to Celexa. That is because certain birth defects could come from many different sources, including environmental pollutants, genetics, and personal health habits. If you are certain that no other factor is the predominant cause of your child's birth defect, you would likely argue that the manufacturer was strictly liable and your physician negligent.

With the manufacturer, you would argue that whether or not negligence was involved, it was strictly liable because Celexa had a design defect that caused health problems, when it could have been made safer, without losing its effectiveness, for roughly the same cost. The design defect caused you injury, and you suffered damage in the form of your child's birth defect. With your physician, you would argue that he or she had a duty to warn you about the health effects of Celexa, but failed to do so, even though your physician knew or should have known about the risks. As a result, you took the 60 milligram dosage and suffered injury, with damage in the form of your child's birth defect (and your health problems as well). In both cases, the most common form of relief is damages, or a money award, for medical bills, pain and suffering, and more.

Continue reading "FDA Warns Users of Celexa That Maximum Dosage Could Lead to Health Problems " »

A new study published in the journal Environmental Health has found a link between living near heavily trafficked areas and higher rates of premature birth. Researchers in Southern California studied the effects of traffic pollution in Los Angeles and reached the conclusion that pollution from traffic makes a significant difference in whether a baby is born prematurely.

Researchers monitored pregnant women who gave birth between June 2004 and March 2006. Each woman lived within five miles of a location already being evaluated to measure and monitor traffic-generated environmental toxins. The researchers then studied the women's exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and other chemicals throughout all three trimesters of pregnancy. Factors such as weather and traffic patterns were taken into account. What they found was that these women experienced a higher than normal risk of preterm delivery between 6% and 21%. The explanation may be that when pregnant women inhale toxins, they trigger inflammation in the lungs, which in turn may cause other immune system reactions.

By conducting this study, researchers hope to spread information about the problems certain populations groups have with environmental pollution. They believe that community activists and legislators should use the information to come up with strategies to control and reduce air pollution caused by traffic.

Babies born prematurely (before 37 weeks of pregnancy) often suffer from many health problems and may require weeks of hospitalization. The cost of premature birth often places a huge burden on the family and society as a whole. If your baby was born prematurely and you believe that the cause was environmental pollution, you should consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit. In a situation where the pollution is caused by traffic, finding the "offender" isn't always easy. No one car is responsible for the pollution, and it would be impossible to sue all of the drivers on the street or freeway. One option you might have is one that environmental groups used not too long ago: file a lawsuit against an agency charged with monitoring and limiting pollution. Usually groups who use this option are looking for injunctive relief -- that is, to force the agency to do its job if evidence shows that it isn't -- rather than a monetary award. Suing a city, state, or federal agency could be complex and expensive. If you choose this option, you would be better off finding a nonprofit accustomed to representing people in your situation to help. Otherwise, if it turns out that the cause of the pollution is more specific, then you could sue the offender for injunctive relief, to get the offender to stop functioning until it reduces its pollution, or a monetary award.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Pregnant Women Who Live in Areas With Heavy Traffic More Likely to Give Birth Prematurely" »