Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

Even though last June state officials declared that birth defects were on the decline, the problems are far from over in Kettleman City, located in central California. In fact, this coming summer, they are poised to grow larger.

At present, Kettleman City is near the largest hazardous waste landfill west of the Mississippi River. It is also surrounded by large agricultural fields that are routinely sprayed with pesticides, and receives diesel smoke from the nearby highways. The poor air quality has resulted in an increase in asthma and other lung problems, and Kettleman City and surrounding towns have been affected by tainted drinking water. In addition, residents continue to insist that the toxic mixture that affects their town has resulted in an unusually high level of birth defects and miscarriages.

This summer, treated human sewage from more than five million people in Los Angeles County may be delivered to farmland nearby to be composted. "When somebody flushes a toilet in Los Angeles County, it will end up in Kings County," one observer lamented.

Kettleman City became the focal point after residents of Kern County -- the previous recipients of Los Angeles waste -- passed a ban on receiving human waste. The ban was passed several years ago, but has been tied up in court. If the court upholds it, Kettleman City becomes the next logical location. Up to 500,000 tons of waste could be composted each year.

The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts state that they will do everything they can to prevent the waste from further polluting the landscape. For instance, the $120 million project would use a special fabric to trap ozone-making volatile organic compounds on huge composting piles, and ensure that biosolid mixing will be done in a building, not out in the open. Not surprisingly, the residents of Kettleman City are not persuaded.

Continue reading "Kettleman City Poised to Become the New Location for Los Angeles Sewage Disposal" »

An article citing several different reports raises concerns about the healthiness of bottled water compared to water from the tap. The article notes that while tap water must meet certain environmental standards, bottled water is not bound by those standards, and thus contains more chemicals. Certain chemicals in bottled water have been linked to health problems and birth defects.

According to the article, water utilities in the United States spend millions of dollars each year on methods for keeping tap water safe. For instance, 900 water utilities finance the Colorado-based Water Research Foundation for $25 million each year. The Water Research Foundation is the world's largest nonprofit, and its research into drinking water is used by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Health Canada. The EPA also requires tap water testing by certified labs, which are required to give timely reports of violations. These reports must also be given to customers.

By contrast, bottled water is regulated not by the EPA, but by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA cannot require bottled water companies to disclose where the water came from or what chemicals it contains. While both tap and bottled water may contain cancer-causing chemicals, bottled water appears to be significantly worse. The Washington-based Environmental Working Group conducted a two-year study and found that within the 10 biggest brands of bottled water, 38 chemicals were detected, with an average of eight chemicals apiece per bottle. These chemicals included fertilizer, solvents, chlorine, plastic-forming chemicals, and strontium (a radioactive element).

In particular, bisphenol A (BPA), the plastic softener, is a concern. Some studies have found that BPA from plastic bottles can seep into the water. BPA is an endocrine disrupter that can cause damage to a person's DNA. That means that a pregnant woman exposed to BPA is at a higher risk of giving birth to a child with a birth defect.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe is due to harmful chemicals in the bottled water you consume, you might consider filing a product liability suit against the manufacturer. You would argue that the manufacturer had a duty to consumers to make the bottled water as safe as possible, but breached that duty by not conducting tests, or refining the water well enough. As a result, the water was unreasonably dangerous, you were injured through exposure, and your child was born with a birth defect. The key is to provide strong evidence that the chemicals came only from the bottled water, as opposed to another source, and also to connect that dates during which you consumed the water to your child's birth. If you consumed the water five years beforehand, for instance, it might be difficult to make the connection.

Continue reading "Bottled Water May Contain More Harmful Chemicals Than Tap Water" »

Evidence from various studies has linked antidepressants, particularly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), to birth defects. Yet some studies suggest that the harmful effects of antidepressants are overstated -- the recent Swedish study found there was no connection between SSRIs and stillbirths. This debate is part of a larger one over whether antidepressants are necessary at all. Some studies have found that those with mild or moderate depression do not benefit from taking antidepressants. Then there are other studies, like this most recent one, which suggest that taking certain antidepressants, like Prozac, may actually create new brain cells.

The most recent study, published in Neuropsychopharmacology, found that fluoxetine, an SSRI that goes by the brand name Prozac, Sarafem, or Fontex, stimulated the production of new neurons from "Layer 1 Inhibitory Neuron Cells" in the cortex of adult mice. Researchers claim that this suggests fluoxetine has a "neuroprotective response," and in the future may be used to treat or prevent neurodegenerative disease or psychiatric disorders.

At the same time, the possible benefits of antidepressants do not override the possible risks. Should those without severe depression be prescribed antidepressants, especially when those antidepressants come with side effects and may be addictive? The director of the Placebo Studies Program at Harvard Medical School found that the difference between the effects of the antidepressant and the effects of a placebo was "statistically insignificant." Other experts have argued that even though placebos show a positive effect, the positive effects from antidepressants are far more pronounced in patients with moderate to severe depression. Then there is the charge that antidepressants only seem more effective because pharmaceutical companies only publish the positive trials. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 74 studies registered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were reviewed for bias, and the FDA found that positive clinical trials were published 31% more often than trials with poor results.

Regardless, it is a very important concern if you are pregnant and suffer from depression, especially if it is mild to moderate, because it could mean the difference between your child being born healthy and your child being born with a birth defect. If your child has a birth defect that you believe could be due to your being prescribed antidepressants, you might consider filing a medical malpractice and/or a product liability lawsuit. If you knew that there was a possibility that your child could have a birth defect, yet took the antidepressants anyway, you will likely not succeed in a medical malpractice suit, at least. On the other hand, those who had no information about the risks, and could not reasonably obtain the information, have the best chance of success. That is because physician has a duty to inform his or her patient about the risks of treatment so that he or she could make an informed decision.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Antidepressants May Stimulate New Brain Cells" »

Once again, the annual list of the nation's dirtiest power plants is out. Coal-burning power plants are the number one source of carbon monoxide emissions, and are one of the greatest sources of toxic emissions, such as mercury, arsenic, chromium, and acid gasses. Toxic metals, especially mercury, have been linked to birth defects.

The number one source of mercury in the country is the Martin Lake Steam Electric Station & Lignite Mine in Rusk County, Texas. Four other Texas power plants make the list, along with plants from Alabama, Oklahoma, Michigan, Missouri, and North Dakota. While the Environmental Integrity Project states that mercury emissions have declines 40% over the last decade, mercury remains a source of concern. Just a tiny amount of mercury in a 25-acre lake could be enough to make the fish unsafe to eat.

Yet other toxic metals, especially arsenic, can be very dangerous to human health as well. They have been linked to cancer, intestinal problems, and liver and kidney damage. The number one source of arsenic, as well as chromium, lead, and nickel is the JH Campbell factory in Ottawa County, Michigan, run by Consumers Energy. Three power plants from Pennsylvania also made the list, as well as two from Kentucky and one each from Wyoming, Ohio, North Dakota, and Puerto Rico.

While equipment designed to reduce emissions has been installed in various plants over the past decade, the progress has not been uniform, and the dirtiest plants continue to pump out thousands of pounds of toxins. These toxins end up in nearby rivers and streams, making the fish toxic to eat. Yet many of the worst offenders resist making any changes, claiming that it would raise the price of energy or reduce the amount of local jobs.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe is due to emissions from a local power plant, you should consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender. You would argue that the offender had a duty to the surrounding community to operate according to reasonable health and safety laws. The offender breached that duty by refusing to abide by any state or federal pollution laws. As a result, you were exposed to the toxic emissions while pregnant, and your child was born with a birth defect. If the power plant is local and there are others in the community who have given birth to babies with birth defects, then it might be fairly easy to make your case. However, if the power plant is farther away, and it is less obvious that its emissions are polluting your local water supply, you might have a tougher time.

Continue reading "The Annual List of Nation's Dirtiest Power Plants Reveals Which Plants Emit the Most Toxins" »

The month of January is National Birth Defects Prevention Month. Physicians and health organizations will be dedicated to providing information for how expectant mothers can give birth to healthy, normally developed children.

It is estimated that one in every 33 babies born in the United States -- which translates into roughly one baby every 4.5 minutes -- is born with a birth defect. A child born with a birth defect not only faces a much more difficult life, but the child's family is also greatly impacted. Depending upon the type of birth defect, the child might require a lifetime of expensive medical treatment, and otherwise be severely limited in many ways.

While some birth defects are due to genetic factors, many can be traced to the parents' lifestyle and diet. Those involved with National Birth Defects Prevention Month state that just a few changes can greatly increase a child's likelihood of being born healthy. For pregnant women, these changes include making regular visits to the doctor, taking 400 milligrams of folic acid per day, avoiding smoking, and eating a healthy diet. The importance of folic acid, in particular, is frequently overlooked, yet a lack of folic acid can lead to severe birth defects. National Birth Defects Prevention Month will work to get information out to the public about the importance of all of these factors.

At the same time, the fact cannot be overlooked that birth defects are sometimes beyond the parent's control. A birth defect may be the result of undiagnosed genetic factors, or it may be the result of environmental factors. For example, high levels of mercury in the air and water have been linked to a wide variety of birth defects. Mercury often emanates from coal-burning power plants, or the practice of mountaintop removal mining. Birth defects have also been traced to exposure to powerful herbicides such as Roundup, which end up in our food.

If you believe that your child's birth defect is the result of environmental factors, you might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender. You would argue that the offender had a duty to behave as reasonably possible toward the surrounding community, which meant following necessary health and safety laws to the extent possible. The offender breached its duty by ignoring these health and safety laws. As a result of the breach, you were injured by the toxins, and the result was your child's birth defect. If you believe that exposure to certain food products caused the birth defect, you might consider filing a product liability lawsuit against the product's manufacturer. You might argue that the manufacturer should have included a warning label about toxins in the food, but instead, there was no warning of any dangers. As a result, you were injured through exposure, and your child was born with a birth defect.

Continue reading "National Birth Defects Prevention Month Aims to Spread Information About Lifestyle Changes That Can Help Avoid Birth Defects" »

While some recent studies have shown a connection between birth defects and antidepressants - particularly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) - one new study has muddied the waters. A study out of the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden has found that there is no evidence that antidepressant use is linked to a higher rate of stillborns or newborn deaths.

The Swedish study examined more than 1.6 million births in five Nordic countries between 1996 and 2007, including those born to 30,000 women who had a prescription for an SSRI. Researchers found that the 1.79% of women who took an SSRI experienced higher rates of stillbirth - 4.62, as opposed to 3.69, per 1,000 - and postneonatal death -- 1.3, compared 0.96, per 1,000 -- than those who did not. However, researchers do not believe that the antidepressants were responsible for the uptick - rather, the underlying depression was the cause. The study notes that between 7 and 19% of women suffer from depression during pregnancy.

The study's results were not universally accepted. One expert in the United States noted that the results were based upon drugs dispensed in a prescription, rather than drugs ingested, and that the statistics were often quite different. Even if the Swedish study's results are found elsewhere, there remains evidence that SSRIs are associated with an increase in birth defects, neonatal withdrawal syndrome, and persistent pulmonary hypertension in newborns. The risk of birth defects is thought to be greatest when SSRIs are taken during the first trimester of pregnancy.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe was due to your taking an SSRI while pregnant, you have the option of filing a product liability suit against the drug manufacturer, as well as a medical malpractice suit against the physician who prescribed you the medication. In a product liability suit, you would argue that the manufacturer had a duty to consumers to create a drug that was as safe as reasonably possible while still being effective. The manufacturer breached that duty by designing a drug that was unreasonably dangerous, and without providing a proper warning label. As a result, you were injured through exposure to the SSRI while pregnant, and the damage was your child's birth defect.

You could also file a medical malpractice lawsuit against your physician, arguing that he or she had a duty to inform you of the dangers of the SSRI so that you could make a fully informed decision about whether to take it. Your physician failed to inform you, and as a result, you were injured through exposure to the medication, and your child was born with a birth defect.

Continue reading "New Swedish Study Finds That SSRIs Are Not Linked to a Higher Risk of Stillborns, Baby Deaths" »

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" »