Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

Recently, there were two stories, seemingly unrelated, of physicians on either side of the country being investigated or indicted for their actions. In one case, a doctor specializing in pain had his office raided in a drug abuse probe. In the other case, 44 physicians and other health care workers in Macomb County, Michigan were indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly committing fraud. Despite the fact these cases have no direct connection, they are connected by a common theme: prescription of painkillers such as Vicodin or OxyContin despite no evidence of injury or pain. Both types of painkiller have been known to increase the risk of birth defects.

In the first case, the physician, John Dimowo, is a pain doctor who was previously at the center of a criminal probe into prescription overdose deaths. According from an affidavit attached to the search warrant, he wrote as many as 37 prescriptions for Vicodin per day. Dimowo, who is board-certified in pain management, argues that it is often difficult to tell when someone is truly in pain and when someone is faking, because everyone's experience with pain is different.

Meanwhile, in Michigan, 44 people were arrested and subject to a 13-count indictment having to do with selling prescription drugs. The federal government alleges that those charged were part of a scheme to bill insurers and the government for unnecessary prescriptions, and that they accepted bribes and kickbacks for writing prescriptions for painkillers like Vicodin or OxyContin that were later sold on the street.

This is a serious situation nationwide that is either growing, or has at least gained wider attention from state and federal law enforcement. Besides being extremely addictive and increasing the risk of death, OxyContin and Vicodin use may also increase the risk of birth defects. A pregnant woman who takes OxyContin has an increased chance of giving birth to a baby with heart defects, including atrial septal defects, hypoplastic left heart syndrome, and pulmonary valve stenosis. Meanwhile, a woman who takes Vicodin has an increased risk of having a baby born with spina bifida, cleft lip or palate, congenital heart defects, genital defects, and more.

If your child was born with any of the above defects and you believe that it was due to your taking OxyContin or Vicodin, you may file a medical malpractice lawsuit against your physician. However, your success depends upon the circumstances. If you knowingly bought your painkillers from a "pill mill," then a jury might believe that you were equally responsible for your child's birth defect, because patients usually go to pill mills so they do not have to prove an injury. Most states have "comparative negligence" laws where the injured party can be found partially at fault for the injury. Some states even have laws that forbid the injured party from collecting an award if that party was at least 50% at fault. On the other hand, if you went to your usual physician seeking relief from pain, and he prescribed OxyContin or Vicodin without informing you of the risks, you might be successful in getting a jury to determine that he committed medical malpractice.

Continue reading "Across the Nation, Law Enforcement Is Cracking Down on Physicians Who Illegally Prescribe Painkillers" »

In an effort to determine whether residents of Garfield, New Jersey have been exposed to contamination, researchers from New York University are requesting their toenail clippings. The contamination is believed to have begun 30 years ago, when a tank at the EC Electroplating plant leaked thousands of pounds of hexavalent chromium. Hexavalent chromium has the distinction of being the same toxin that made California families ill in the film and real-life account of Erin Brockovich.

At the time of the spill, the plant was surrounded by apartments and housing. While the state began clean up efforts after the spill, it stopped two years later, and in 1993, chromium was found in one nearby firehouse and later in homes. In 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated the contaminated area a Superfund site, an "honor" given to only the most toxic uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Residents were warned to avoid their basements to prevent chromium exposure. While the EPA demolished the building and removed the chromium, it found that the building had tanks underneath with holes, which may have led to yet more chromium leaks into the groundwater.

Overall, the size of the chromium leak is believed to be three-quarters of a mile wide and an eighth-mile long. The chromium has traveled from the site into the City of Passaic. Now NYU researchers want to test whether the plume has spread to Garfield. They hope to test as many as 250 people, between the ages of 18 and 65, who have lived in the city for two years. Due to their slow growth, toenail clippings will help researchers determine how much chromium has built up in the body over the past two years.

So far, while some residents seem convinced that the cancer rate has risen, authorities have not found the rate substantially different from before. That said, chromium can cause respiratory problems, kidney and liver problems, lung cancer, and death. While exposure to minute levels of chromium is not considered to be harmful, some studies have shown that high levels of chromium exposure can result in a higher rate of babies born with birth defects.

If you have a child with a birth defect and you believe the reason could be due to a leak from a nearby industrial plant, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit. You would argue that the leak was due to the plant's failure to exercise due care, and as a result, you were exposed while pregnant and your child was born with a birth defect. You would have to provide evidence that the birth defect was directly linked to the toxin leak, as opposed to one of the many other sources of birth defects.

Continue reading "NYU Researchers Seek Toenails From New Jersey Residents to Determine Spread of Chromium Leak" »

The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has filed a lawsuit against Progress Energy over its failure to stop toxins from leaking into the French Broad River. Progress is a subsidiary of Duke Energy, located in Charlotte. The leakage allegedly comes from a pair of coal ash pits that Progress uses for its power plant located in Asheville, which drain an estimated 113,000 gallons of water per day. In the lawsuit, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources requested that the state court judge order Progress to stop polluting and to prepare a report discussing the consequences of releasing thallium into the water.

Thallium is bluish-gray metal that is highly toxic. It has not been produced in the United States since 1984, and can only be obtained via imports or existing reserves. Contact with skin is considered dangerous, and thallium has been associated with nerve damage, hair loss, and death. Some data suggests that thallium may also be associated with birth defects, or at least a higher rate of premature, low-weight births.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources claims that not only is thallium being leaked into the water, but also chloride, selenium, boron, manganese, and iron. Many of these substances are also associated with birth defects.

This lawsuit takes place two months after three state nonprofit organizations threatened to sue Progress for violating the federal Clean Water Act. Those suits have yet to be filed, as the organizations have instead chosen to monitor the current case. Meanwhile, Duke Energy claims that it is complying with federal water standards. In 2009, its subsidiary was required to install monitoring wells in the ash pits in response to community complaints about their safety. The pits have existed since 1964 and 1982 respectively, and cover 91 miles. Progress will have 120 days to assess the contamination and how much thallium is involved.

As this recent lawsuit demonstrates, if you have a health problem or your child is born with a birth defect, one option you have is to seek equitable relief from the offender. Unlike "damages," which is the more common relief and involves the party at fault paying money to the injured party, equitable relief requires the offending party to either take action, or refrain from taking action. This is usually done through an injunction. While in these situations, injunctions are typically used to prevent the offending party from continuing to harm, they can also be used to force the party to take a specific action. Here, it appears that the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources is seeking both. On the one hand, it wants the court to compel Progress Energy to stop polluting, and on the other hand, it wants the court to compel Progress Energy to prepare a report on the pollution.

Continue reading "North Carolina Environmental Department Sues Progress Energy to Stop Water Contamination From Coal Ash Ponds" »

In addition to antidepressants, it is becoming more common for physicians to prescribe antipsychotics for patients combating depression. However, new evidence shows that antipsychotic drugs provide few benefits and significant side effects to those who take them.

Since the mid-1990s, prescriptions for antipsychotic medications as "adjunct therapy" have nearly doubled. In a recent study, researchers from Metropolitan State University in St. Paul, Minnesota examined 14 previously conducted randomized clinical trials that used a combination of antidepressants and antipsychotics. The antipsychotics consisted of olanzapine/flueoxetine (brand name Symbyax), quetiapine (brand name Seroquel), aripiprazole (brand name Abilify), and risperidone (brand name Risperdal).

While researchers found that there was a slight benefit in using antipsychotic medication to relieve symptoms that do not respond to antidepressants alone, the patients' overall quality of life did not improve. In fact, patients who took antipsychotics were more likely to experience weight gain, sleepiness, akathisia (a sense of restlessness), and abnormal results on metabolic-related laboratory tests. Instead, the "adjunct therapy" that proved to be most helpful appeared to be cognitive behavioral therapy, which involved communicating with the patient. The combination of antidepressants and cognitive therapy led to not only a decrease in depression, but also a significant improvement in patients' quality of life. Researchers state that if these findings appear in more studies, it may be better for physicians to prescribe cognitive therapy in place of antipsychotics to treat depression.

Not only are antipsychotics associated with weight gain and sleepiness, but also there is some evidence that pregnant women who take them are at a higher risk of giving birth to a baby with birth defects. For example, in 2011, the federal Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about the newer antipsychotic drugs after receiving 69 reports of problems with newborns. Perhaps it is not so surprising, given that some antidepressants, particularly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), are also linked to birth defects.

If you are pregnant and have depression, it is important that you and your physician discuss a course of treatment that would be as safe as possible. Your physician has a legal duty to discuss the potential dangers of taking any type of medication, so that you can make an informed decision about whether to move forward with, or decline, that form of treatment. If your physician fails to do so -- for instance, if he or she prescribes you antipsychotics without telling you the potential danger to your fetus -- he or she has breached that duty. If you then have a child with a birth defect, you would have the option of suing your physician for medical malpractice. You would argue that had your physician fully informed you of the risks, you never would have taken that medication. By taking it, you exposed yourself and your fetus to the harmful effects, and as a result, your child was born with a birth defect. As always, the strength of your case lies in your being able to show that the medication, and not another cause, was responsible.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Antipsychotics Have Significant Side Effects and Little Benefit" »

Recently, three environmental groups filed lawsuits against three coal mining companies, claiming that the runoff from their mountaintop removal mines was polluting nearby waterways. Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, and the Sierra Club filed the suits in West Virginia federal court against Alex Energy, Inc, Fola Coal Company, LLC, and Consol of Kentucky, claiming that the mines contaminated the water with sulfate, selenium, and other harmful chemicals.

This blog has frequently discussed the health hazards posed by mountaintop removal mining. The process involves stripping off the top layer of a mountain in order to get to its coal or mineral reserves. Toxic elements within the top layer are then exposed to the air or seep into nearby waterways, where they are ingested or inhaled by members of the community. Toxins associated with mountaintop removal mining, such as mercury and selenium, have been linked to a variety of health problems and birth defects. Selenium, in particular, has been known to damage kidneys, the liver, the circulatory system, and the central nervous system of those with high exposure.

The lawsuits proceed under two separate, but similar, theories. In the suits against Alex Energy and Fola Coal Company, the environmental groups allege that the companies violated West Virginia's "narrative" water quality standards, which establish the criteria for water quality, as opposed to the "numeric" water quality standards, which limit the concentration of specific water toxins. This legal theory was used successfully on a previous occasion, which resulted in a settlement requiring Fola Coal Company to clean up a different waterway. In the third lawsuit, Consol of Kentucky was accused of unleashing "unlawful quantities" of selenium into nearby waterways, in violation of the federal Clean Water Act.

The West Virginia Sierra Club argued that the environmental groups had to file lawsuits because neither the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) nor the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was taking meaningful action to stop the pollution. The WVDEP was simply trying to change the criteria for "impaired" so that fewer waterways would qualify, while the EPA's approach to water pollution amounted to "cross your fingers and hope." Meanwhile, in the West Virginia legislature is a bill that would allow the state agency to raise the level of selenium that is considered acceptable, as long as the change was approved by the EPA.

In addition to suing companies that pollute waterways, the environmental groups have threatened to bring action against the federal regulators if they do not get tough on state regulators. In the current lawsuit, the environmental groups hope to obtain a court ruling requiring the companies to follow pollution regulations, or pay $37,500 each day in civil penalties for every violation.

Continue reading "Environmental Groups Sue West Virginia Companies Over Pollution From Mountaintop Removal Mining" »

This past week, the Obama administration signaled that it was considering a revision to its greenhouse gas guidelines, one that would delay their implementation. The guidelines are aimed at ensuring that emissions from new power plants are strictly regulated. Any rewrite might allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set a separate standard for coal-fired power plants, which release twice as much pollution as natural-gas power plants. However, if the rewrites delay implementation, the Obama administration is certain to anger environmentalists who pushed for the new regulations.

Power plants, especially coal-burning power plants, are one of the worst contributors to air pollution in the United States. Not only are they a major source of greenhouse gases, but they are also a source of toxins such as mercury, which gets released into the air and water of nearby communities. Members of these communities might then suffer from health problems, or be at a higher risk of having babies with birth defects. While greenhouse gases themselves have not been tied to birth defects, past studies have found that polar ice cap melt releases mercury and other toxins into the air, when they would have otherwise remained trapped in the ice.

Under the current guidelines, new power plants would be required to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity produced. Environmentalists are concerned that if the less-controversial standards for new power plants are not finalized by the April 13 deadline, the standards for existing power plants -- which account for 40% of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions -- will be in jeopardy. Much depends upon the size of the delay. Once any regulations are implemented, the EPA expects to face lawsuits from the industry. Regardless of whether the regulations are delayed, President Obama has signaled that from now on, he will require federal agencies to consider the greenhouse gas effect of projects before approving them.

Again, while greenhouse gases are not directly linked to birth defects, they are part of the overall emissions released by power plants, which include toxins that are linked to birth defects. If your baby has a birth defect that you believe is due to repeated exposure to power plant emissions, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit. You would argue that the power plant had a duty to the surrounding community to operate as safely as possible, but breached that duty by allowing unhealthy amounts of toxins into the air. As a result, you were exposed to the toxins before, during, and likely after your pregnancy, and your child was born with a birth defect. As always, the biggest challenge is providing sufficient evidence that the power plant was the cause. Your case could be relatively simple if you live within a mile of the power plant, but less so if you live several miles away.

Continue reading "Obama Administration Signals That It May Delay Implementing Greenhouse Gas Rules For New Power Plants" »

Another new study has findings revealing a link between antidepressant usage and a heightened risk of problems with normal birth. This study, an analysis of 23 different studies, found that pregnant women who took antidepressants were more likely to give birth to babies prematurely and/or with low birth weight. However, researchers emphasize that the risk remains very low compared to the risk of untreated depression.

The antidepressant usage studied included usage of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), tricyclic antidepressants, and monoamine oxidase inhibitors. The results found that babies who had been exposed to these antidepressants in the womb had a shorter gestational period (around three days), a lower Apgar score (which is used to assess the health of newborns), and were more likely to be delivered before their term. Researchers noted that this differential was found only in babies born to depressed women who took antidepressants.

That said, researchers noted that the study only focused on the difference between babies born to mothers who took antidepressants and those whose mothers did not, as opposed to babies born to depressed mothers who took medication versus those who did not. Researchers thought that a more revealing study would be one that measured just the effects of depression -- specifically the effects on babies born to mothers who took antidepressants versus those who took nothing, or used other forms of "treatment" such as smoking. They also noted that although there was a difference, it was still slight, which meant that even babies born prematurely to those who took antidepressants were still within a normal range of time. Researchers did not want women to take what could be a greater risk -- leaving their depression untreated -- because they feared it would lead to premature birth or cause their child to be born with a birth defect.

The researchers are wise to note that women should be cautious in determining whether to stop a treatment because they want to be pregnant. Regardless, women and their physicians should have a frank discussion about any possible risks associated with taking or not taking medications. In fact, physicians have a legal duty to inform a patient of the risks of treatment, so that the patient can make an educated decision whether or not to undergo that treatment. If the physician fails to inform you of the risks of antidepressants, and your child is born with a birth defect, you could sue him or her for medical malpractice. You would argue that your physician breached his or her duty to you, the patient. As a result, you were exposed to antidepressants without realizing the potential harm. Your child was then born with a birth defect.

Continue reading "New Study Finds Slightly Higher Risk of Premature Birth For Pregnant Women Who Take Antidepressants" »

This blog has frequently discussed the potential dangers posed by toxins in household cleaning products. Repeated exposure to these products heightens the risk of developing health problems, and a pregnant woman's exposure to these products can heighten the risk that the child will be born with a birth defect. For those who are fearful of these outcomes, some writers have advice for how to avoid cleaning your home with harmful toxins.

One writer suggests that you avoid them altogether by mixing your own cleaning products. She claims that not only do these cleansers work just as well as commercial products, but they can even be more effective. Common ingredients in these products include baking soda (which provides "grit" for scrubbing), borax (which disinfects and deodorizes), distilled white vinegar (good for disinfecting and breaking up dirt), hydrogen peroxide (disinfects and bleaches), lemons or lemon juice (cuts grease), olive oil (picks up dirt), vegetable-based soap (all-purpose cleaner), washing soda (stain remover and general cleaner). These ingredients can be used to make products ranging from an all-purpose cleaner to dishwashing soap to laundry soap.

If you don't have the time to make your own cleaning products, another writer has a list of products that are considered safe to use. Among them are microfiber towers, which can be used to trap dirt and clean more deeply than regular towels without the aid of chemicals. Another one is Simple Green, a non-toxic cleaner that works on any type of dirt anywhere. (Note, however, that other sources have found that Simple Green contains 2-Butoxyethanol, which is widely considered to be a hazardous substance.) Finally, some manufacturers of conventional cleaning products also carry a line of eco-friendly products, such as Clorox's Green Works.

It is good to have options, although as the Simple Green example shows, each option should be thoroughly researched before you commit it to use. Yet even if you do switch to greener products, that doesn't mean the previous products did not leave an impression on your health and that of your child. If your child has a birth defect and you believe it was due to your exposure to household cleaning products, you have the option of filing a product liability suit against the manufacturer. You would argue that the manufacturer should be held strictly liable for creating an unreasonably dangerous product when safer alternatives are readily available at no greater cost. In making your case that the cleaning products are to blame, you would need to show, among other things, that you were using the products before and during your pregnancy. Obviously your case gets complicated if, at some point during your pregnancy, you switched to the supposedly non-toxic products.

Continue reading "Writers Offer Tips For How to Avoid Health Hazards in Cleaning Products" »

A recent French study found that there is a higher risk of neurological birth defects for babies born to women who took efavirenz. Efavirenz-based medication is used to treat those infected with HIV.

The study looked at 13,124 babies born at Hospital Louis-Mourier in Colombes, France between 1994 and 2010. Researchers found that there was a "significant" link between exposure to efavirenz (also known as Sustiva) during the first trimester of pregnancy and neurological defects. In fact, the risk was three times higher. Birth defects observed included a cerebral cyst, hydrocephaly (abnormal accumulation of fluid in the brain), pachygyria (a malformation of the cerebral hemisphere that causes developmental delays and seizures), and an agenesis of the corpus callosum (a complete or partial absence of the corpus callosum, which allows for communication between the left and right hemisphere of the brain).

Results from other HIV-related drugs were not any more promising. Pregnant women who took zidovudine (more commonly known as AZT) were 2.5 times more likely to have babies with congenital heart defects, and the overall birth defect risk increased 1.2 fold. Babies who had been exposed to didanosine or lamivudine during the first trimester were 1.93 times and 1.96 times more likely to have birth defects of the head and neck.

While these findings were cause for serious concerns, experts in the field did not think it would change current practice. One noted that efavirenz-related birth defects were overall very rare, and if a woman on efavirenz wanted to get pregnant, the physician would switch her to a different form of treatment -- presumably after discussing it with the patient first.

Thanks to modern medication, women with HIV can get pregnant and have healthy children when the condition might have posed a serious risk even 20 years ago. However, as with any health condition, you need to take necessary precautions, especially concerning prescription medication. It is absolutely essential that your physician go over the possible risks involved with taking medication during pregnancy. If he or she does not, and you have a child born with one of the above birth defects, you have the option of suing your physician for medical malpractice. You would argue that your physician had a duty to inform you, the patient, yet breached that duty by withholding necessary information. Had you known that information, you might have sought a different medication or tried to wean yourself off of medication altogether, if possible. Instead, you were exposed to a drug like efavirenz during your first trimester, and as a result, your child was born with a birth defect. Should you file a suit, you would most likely seek "damages" or a monetary award, for pain and suffering, medical bills, loss of future income, and more.

Continue reading "New French Study Finds That Women Who Take Certain HIV Drugs Are More Likely to Have Children With Birth Defects" »

In a case with unknown legal implications, a surrogate for a Connecticut couple refused to abort a fetus with serious birth defects despite the parents' wishes. In 2011, the unnamed Connecticut couple, seeking a fourth child, signed a contract with Crystal Kelley, where the latter agreed to be the surrogate. A clause in the contract stated that Kelley agreed to abort the fetus if it developed a severe abnormality. Yet when the couple sought an abortion, Kelley fled to Michigan, where the surrogacy contract would not be honored and she would be considered the legal guardian.

This type of situation remains rare, but has the potential to become more common as more couples turn to surrogacy. During the last notorious case, in Canada, a surrogate refused to abort a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome. The surrogate and couple ended up agreeing that if the surrogate carried to term, she would be legally responsible for the child. Many legal experts believe that had the case gone to court, the couple would still have been required to provide for the child as its biological parents.

In this case, the relationship between the would-be parents and the surrogate became contentious after an ultrasound revealed in the fifth month that the baby would be born with a brain cyst, cleft palate, and heart defect. Doctors determined that the baby would have just a 25% chance of having a normal life. Since the couple already had three children with varying health issues, they thought that the fourth would face too many challenges. Yet Kelley refused to have an abortion, even after the couple offered her $10,000 to follow through with the hospital appointment. Kelley refused to do it for less than $15,000, claiming that it went against her religious beliefs.

Finally, the couple hired a lawyer, who informed Kelley that by refusing to abort, she was breaking the surrogacy contract and would need to repay the fees that she had earned. Although the couple eventually decided that they would allow the fetus to be carried to term and then place the baby in foster care, Kelley still left the state when she was 24 weeks pregnant, past the point where she could abort legally. During the legal battle, it was also revealed that the Connecticut couple had used a donor egg, so that only the father was the biological parent.

When Kelley at last gave birth, the baby's birth defects were even worse than expected -- in addition to the cleft palate, brain cyst, and heart defect, the baby's brain had failed to properly divide into distinct spheres, her internal organs were in the wrong place, her head was abnormally small, and she had two spleens. Kelley eventually found a family willing to adopt her, and the biological father agreed to give up his paternity rights in exchange for the couple maintaining contact with the adoptive family. The baby herself must be fed through a tube each day and has been given a 50% chance of being able to walk.

Continue reading "Surrogate Mother Defies Would-Be Parents' Wishes and Flees the State to Avoid Abortion" »

In South Carolina, a state legislator recently introduced a bill that would require state-licensed birthing facilities to perform screenings of newborns soon after their birth in order to safeguard against undetected birth defects.

Lexington County Senator Katrina Shealy introduced the bill in honor of one of her grandchildren, who was born with a congenital heart defect. His heart defect had gone undiagnosed prior to his birth, and he was about to leave the hospital when the nurse noted that his heartbeat seemed irregular. The baby was tested further and his heart defect was revealed. It was treated, and now eight years later, the boy is healthy. However, Senator Shealy and the March of Dimes point out that it could have easily gone a different way. Many families who bring home infants with undetected heart ailments discover that they are turning blue and must rush them back to the hospital. The situation could lead to other potentially life-threatening complications, or life-long disabilities, due to a low oxygen levels in the blood.

Whereas the heart screening proposed by Senator Shealy would only last five minutes and cost between $5 and $10. Under the Emerson Rose Act, every infant would receive a screening two days after birth, which would be a painless process involving a sensor being placed on the baby's finger or foot to test oxygen levels. Senator Shealy hopes that by passing a law requiring screening of all newborns, other children will have the chance at a normal life like her grandson.

Should this bill become law in South Carolina, as many expect, any hospital that failed to perform the screening could likely be sued for breaching a statutory duty. However, what would happen if a child were born with a birth defect in a state that didn't have a law requiring screening? Could you still successfully sue the hospital for failing to screen the newborn for a birth defect? It would probably depend on whether you could convince a jury that the screening fell within the hospital's duty of care. On the one hand, it would make sense for the hospital to be expected to perform tests to ensure that the baby can breathe properly and is otherwise normal prior to discharge. On the other hand, a hospital or physician might argue that so many signs of poor health are subtle, and it would take numerous tests to completely rule out problems. At what point is it enough?

Hospitals and physicians have been sued when something went wrong during the delivery, causing the baby to be seriously injured. They have also been sued when they failed to inform parents of their child's birth defect when they had the available information. However, should they be accountable if the birth is normal and the child appears to be reasonably healthy? It may well depend upon whether the injured party can make the argument that screening for the birth defect is not "unusual," but well within the normal procedures of a hospital to ensure that the baby is healthy before discharge.

Continue reading "South Carolina Legislator Introduces State Bill That Would Screen All Newborns For Heart Defects" »

There has been a lot of media focus on what expectant parents -- especially expectant mothers -- can do to prevent their children from being born with a birth defect. Mothers have been advised to take certain levels of folic acid, to avoid certain prescription medications, and to not smoke or drink or work in occupations that could possibly affect the fetus inside them. One mother finally had enough of all of the criticism and struck back.

After reading a New York Times article, "Too Many Pills in Pregnancy," Louise Kinross wrote her own opinion piece, noting that many mothers of children with birth defects or developmental delays probably did exactly what their physicians and health manuals instructed them to do. She noted that according to the March of Dimes, up to 70% of birth defects have no known cause; therefore, in most cases, how can a mother know whether her health habits were the cause?

Kinross took particular issue with what she saw as physicians' tendency to blame parents, especially mothers, for their choices even as they acknowledged that the choices resulted from receiving erroneous information from their physicians. She cited one example where a mother blamed herself for her son's cerebral palsy, because she did not get to the hospital soon enough. Later, the mother learned that her son's brain damage and cerebral palsy came about due to the hospital's failure to treat him for jaundice. She felt relieved to know that her choices were not responsible, but angry that physicians had made her feel that they were. Kinross notes other cases where not just physicians, but other people in the community, subtly blamed the mother for not getting the right test or for not aborting a fetus with severe birth defects. She notes that her son's birth defect, a rare genetic abnormality, occurred at conception, so her behavior during pregnancy would have been irrelevant.

With so much more information available now about what can cause birth defects, it is easy to feel overwhelmed and guilty, especially if you have a child with a birth defect. Yet as Kinross notes, many birth defects have genetic or unknown origins. Furthermore, while both parents have some control over the outcome based on their lifestyle choices, there are many things that are simply out of their control. These include toxins from the environment, such as mercury from a power plant or pesticides from a nearby golf course. If these toxins have any part in causing your child's birth defect, you have every right to file a toxic tort lawsuit against them.

As for prescription medications, even if you ultimately chose to take them while pregnant, your physician had a responsibility to inform you of the risks that certain medications posed. If your physician has failed to do so, the fault lies with him or her, not with you, and you would be within your right to file a medical malpractice lawsuit.

Continue reading "Mother Strikes Back at Critics Who Blame Pregnant Women For Their Children's Birth Defects" »

A new study has found that toxins found in commonly used sealants pose a threat to the environment. Coal-tar sealants are typically applied to parking lots, asphalt roads, and driveways, and their toxins -- collectively known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) -- can wash into local streams, potentially harming wildlife.

The latest study is just one of several conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey over the years. In 2012, the organization found that newly spread sealant released PAHs into the air at a rate of 30,000 times greater than did unsealed pavement. In 2009, the U.S. Geological Survey performed a study of apartments in Austin, Texas, finding that the PAH levels in household dust were 25 times higher if parking lots nearby were sealed by coal-tar than if they were not sealed.

The most recent U.S. Geological Study was conducted in Milwaukee, Wisconsin between 2009 and 2011. Researchers analyzed sediment from roads, storm sewers, and the stream beds of three streams. They found that more than half of the sediment in storm sewers contained nine PAHs at levels high enough to be harmful to plants and animals. In the streams, 30% of the sediment samples contained "hazardous" concentrations of seven PAHs.

Manufacturers of coal-tar sealant insist that the findings are distorted and the coal-tar sealant is not harmful to humans. One claimed that in 60 years of producing the sealant, not one case of cancer had arisen. The manufacturer did not say whether any other health problems had resulted. Studies have found that PAHs, whether from sealant or other sources, have been linked to birth defects, including neural tube defects and a rare birth defect known as gastroschisis.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe is due to your exposure to PAHs while pregnant, you have the option of filing a product liability lawsuit and/or a toxic tort lawsuit. For a product liability suit, you would need to determine with certainty which manufactured good released the PAHs. PAHs are released from fossil fuels, as well as through tobacco smoke. You would need to determine that a specific product containing coal or oil was the offender, and if so, you would argue that the manufacturer had a duty to consumers (and the wider community) to create as safe a product as was reasonably possible. The manufacturer breached its duty by creating a product that released unreasonably dangerous amounts of PAHs. As a result of the breach, you were exposed to the toxins, and your child was born with a birth defect. If the PAHs were not released by a specific product, but rather by a fuel-burning process, you can file a toxic tort lawsuit against the perceived offender (often a power plant).

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Toxins Released From Pavement Sealant Pose Risks to Plants and Animals" »

A report sponsored by the United Nations recently determined that the rise in cancer and birth defect rates around the world has been at least partially due to our exposure to man-made chemicals in everyday products. U.N. researchers believe that these chemicals could also be linked to a decline in the production of male sperm and female fertility.

While other studies have shown these findings, the new report gives them increased credibility. The latest findings were determined by an international collection of academic experts working with the United Nation's Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organization (WHO). In the report, these experts cited endocrine disrupters, such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA), which are used to soften or harden plastic, as among the most harmful. They noted that both humans and animals alike were being exposed to these chemicals that had been little studied and whose effects were little understood. The chemicals pose "a global threat" in need of a resolution.

Certain countries, such as the United States, Canada, and some European countries, have already banned these chemicals in specific products. In some states, like California, BPA has been declared toxic and a reproductive hazard. However, there are still "hundreds of thousands" of chemicals used around the world, of which only a small amount have been assessed for their effect on human and animal hormonal systems. One reason is because manufacturers frequently do not list all of the chemicals used in their products.

The U.N. experts' findings ought to be of concern to everyone, whether or not you have children. Yet if you do have a child with a birth defect that you believe was due to your exposure to BPA or phthalates while pregnant, what are your options? You would likely not be able to sue the manufacturer or the products you used, because there would be so many, it would be almost impossible to narrow them down. You would need to establish that you used certain products during certain periods of time, and that the chemicals in those products were the cause of your child's birth defects. You could file such a lawsuit, but your chance of success would be small.

Your best option for any kind of relief might be to sue the regulatory agency responsible for enforcing the levels of environmental toxins. You could argue that it breached its duty to the community by failing to penalize manufacturers for their inability to make reasonably safe products. However, one challenge would be determining which agency you target -- some toxins are under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while others are under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Each has different standards and processes for assessing the safety of a toxin.

Continue reading "New U.N. Report Finds That Increase in Cancer, Birth Defects May Be Linked to Rise in BPA, Phthalates" »

A recent report found that the number of drug overdose deaths has risen for the eleventh year in a row. Most of the overdoses involved painkillers such as OxyContin and Vicodin. One reason, experts say, is because these more powerful painkillers are being prescribed for conditions that could be managed by less powerful painkillers, and many physicians are ignorant of just how addictive these painkillers can be.

In 2010, the latest year that information was available, there were 38,329 deaths, with prescription drugs representing 60% of those deaths. Of those drugs, anti-anxiety drugs, like Valium, accounted for 30% of them. However, three out of four deaths could be attributed to OxyContin or Vicodin. The number of overall deaths is 3.6% higher than in 2009.

Experts warn that while OxyContin and Vicodin may be satisfactory for serious illnesses like cancer, they are too powerful for conditions such as a bad migraine or back pain. Even more concerning are the number of physicians across the country who operate "pill mills," where the physician issues prescriptions for medications even with little to no evidence that the patient has a health problem. The physicians who operate pill mills generally do so for profit only, and federal and state authorities are trying to shut them down. However, sometimes the physicians are simply ignorant of a patient's attempt to con them into more medication. The University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora is considering a rule that would prevent emergency room doctors from prescribing pills to those who claim that they lost theirs. Last month, a federal panel recommended that Vicodin be subject to the same restrictions as other narcotics like oxycodone.

Besides being powerfully addictive and increasing the risk of death, OxyContin and Vicodin also increase the risk of birth defects. A pregnant woman who takes OxyContin has an increased chance of giving birth to a baby with heart defects, including atrial septal defects, hypoplastic left heart syndrome, and pulmonary valve stenosis. A woman who takes Vicodin has an increased risk of her baby being born with spina bifida, cleft lip or palate, congenital heart defects, genital defects, and more.

If your child was born with any of the above defects and you believe that it was due to your taking OxyContin or Vicodin, you have the option of filing a medical malpractice lawsuit against your physician. Whether you are successful in your lawsuit depends upon the circumstances. If your prescription came from a "pill mill," then a jury might believe that you were equally responsible for your child's birth defect, because patients usually go to pill mills so they do not have to prove an injury, or so they can obtain more medication than their usual physician would prescribe. Most states have what is known as "comparative negligence" laws, and some states even have laws that forbid the injured party from collecting an award if that party was at least 50% at fault. On the other hand, if you went to your usual physician for migraines or back pain, and he prescribed OxyContin or Vicodin without informing you of the risks, you might be successful in getting a jury verdict that he committed medical malpractice.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Number of Drug Overdose Deaths Has Risen 11 Straight Years, Fueled Largely By Prescription Drug Overdoses" »