Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

The first center in Europe devoted to studying birth defects has just opened at University College London. Funded by a 6.5 million pound donation from the Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity, the Newlife Birth Defects Research Centre will be devoted to figuring out how birth defects arise and finding new ways to treat them.

Birth defects affect roughly 2% of pregnancies across Europe. In the United Kingdom, that amounts to one out of every 45 live births. Several of these birth defects are severe and require medical intervention within the first few weeks -- if not hours -- of the child's life. The Centre's website notes that those born with birth defects are 15 times more likely to die within their first year, and that those who manage to survive past that point face a lifetime of continued medical intervention.

The Centre is expected to house three different teams of specialists in state-of-the-art laboratories. Centre specialists hope to determine the causes of birth defects such as spina bifida, heart defects, and cleft palate. The teams would research, among other things: (1) the genetic origins of birth defects, (2) how the brain and spinal cord grow, (3) new pathways to stimulate the growth and repair of heart issues, (4) ways to improve diagnosis of epilepsy and brain tumors sooner, and (5) ways to introduce stem cells into the eye to regenerate cells for those born blind.

The creation of the Newlife Birth Defects Research Centre should not only be of benefit to Europeans, but also to families all over the world. Being able to prevent birth defects would not only save families heartache and worry, but also the enormous medical bills that come with them, especially in the United States. Until that becomes a reality, frequently the only means of recourse families have is to sue for relief if the birth defect has an outside cause.

In many cases, the cause of birth defects is genetic or may be due to the parents' lifestyle habits. However, other times, birth defects may be traceable to environmental toxins or prescriptions drugs. For instance, there is evidence that mercury, in particular, can cause birth defects. Mercury emissions are frequently tied to coal mining and coal burning facilities, such as power plants. Not only can mercury be inhaled, but it can also pollute the water, which includes contaminating fish that is later consumed. Another potential cause of birth defects is a toxin known as bisphenol A (BPA), which until recently was widely used in plastic bottles and is still in the lining of certain cans of food.

Continue reading "New Center For Studying Birth Defects the First to Open in Europe" »

The city of San Luis Obispo, California is facing millions in fines from state and federal agencies due to investigations alleging that city officials were illegally dumping toxic waste. City officials are accused of ignoring state and federal regulations and of not complying with permit requirements.

Currently, two investigations of the dumping are underway, with one being conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and one by the state Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board. San Luis Obispo stands accused of failing to properly dispose of chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste that came from a construction site. City officials and local developers allegedly paid trucking companies to haul the waste, referred to as "grit," away from the site. The grit was then reportedly dumped onto a private resident's 72-acre ranch with his permission. One problem allegedly ignored by all involved was that the grit -- refuse that is not broken down during sewage treatment -- was filled with nitrates and other harmful chemicals, including asbestos. In reportedly failing to dispose of the waste properly, the city may have caused local waterways to become polluted. Some of the dumping has allegedly occurred in areas containing floodplains and wetlands that help replenish the Los Osos aquifer.

San Luis Obispo officials plead innocence, but the city stands to be fined as much as $7 million for their actions. Investigators have been critical in their reports, claiming the city had the opportunity to hire people who were not "bad actors," but failed to do so.

Nitrates in groundwater have been linked to birth defects, particularly neural tube defects. Even if nitrates are not present, other toxins from hazardous waste sites could produce birth defects, as evidence from Kettleman City suggests. If your child has a birth defect that you believe was due to dangerous toxins from a hazardous waste site, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit -- not just against the company that runs the site itself, but also against those responsible for disposing of waste on the site. You would claim that both parties acted negligently. The parties had a duty to "foreseeable plaintiffs" -- or anyone in the community who could be foreseeably affected by their actions -- to act responsibly according to state and federal regulations. The parties breached that duty by failing to take reasonable measures to follow these regulations. The breach caused you injury through exposure to the toxins while pregnant. The resulting damage was your child's birth defect.

Often these lawsuits are class-action lawsuits, meaning that multiple individuals -- at least 40 -- are filing one combined suit. This may occur when there are dozens of people affected by the offense in similar ways. For instance, if an entire town were affected by polluted drinking water in similar ways, the town's residents could form a class-action lawsuit. Usually the suit is for damages, or a money award, but sometimes the claimants may seek an injunction to prevent further dumpings in the hazardous waste site.

Continue reading "California City Faces Millions in Fines For Allegedly Failing to Comply With Regulations For Hazardous Waste Dumping" »

Recently, this blog discussed efforts by Illinois environmental groups to get a power company to clean up groundwater pollution caused by coal ash ponds. Now, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released new data showing that up to 197 sites in 37 different states have violated federal drinking water standards as a result of coal ash contamination from nearby power plants.

With 430 power plants burning coal throughout the year, more than 140 million tons of coal ash is produced across the United States per year. Coal ash has been known to contain many harmful toxins, including mercury, arsenic, and lead -- all of which have been linked to birth defects. Power plants "impound" coal ash in ponds to cool them off, and often pollute nearby rivers by using them as a source for cooling towers. An article discussing the EPA's findings notes that there are 2,000 coal ash "dump" sites across the country. The EPA rates at least 45 ponds to be so hazardous that if one overflowed, it could lead to human deaths.

Even without a death toll, pollution from coal ash can wreak untold devastation on human health. In one part of Nevada, for instance, due to leakage from coal ash ponds, there have been 136 drinking water violations in just the past two years. Two of every three children living nearby suffers from asthma. Meanwhile, samples of water from primary drinking sources in North Carolina found that levels of arsenic were 25 times greater than the EPA requirements. This was due to the closeness of two Duke Energy coal ash ponds to Mountain Island Lake.

While back in 1978, the EPA proposed regulating coal ash as hazardous waste, which would require companies to comply with stronger restrictions, nothing came of it. Today, the EPA faces funding cuts and regulations are getting looser, not stricter. So far, despite the most recent findings, there has been no talk of change.

However, environmental groups have decided to not wait for federal or state governments to act, and have gone ahead and sued power plants in both Illinois and North Carolina. It is highly likely that other plants in other states will be targeted as well.

Continue reading "New EPA Data Shows Coal Ash Sites Have Violated Drinking Water Standards in 37 States" »

To add fuel to the fire about whether antidepressants are appropriate for pregnant woman to take, a new study has alarming information: certain antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), increase the risk of a brain bleed. SSRIs are commonly prescribed, and include familiar brands such as Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa, and Paxil.

After past studies offered conflicting evidence of whether SSRI users had a higher risk of brain bleeding and stroke, researchers from Western University in Canada decided to put the findings from 16 past studies together. The studies involved over 500,000 people who were SSRI users. What the researchers found was that SSRI users were 40 to 50% more likely to suffer from a brain bleed. While that number might sound alarming, it is actually an "extremely low" risk, representing one incidence of brain bleed for every 10,000 people who took SSRIs over the course of a year.

Researchers also cautioned that evidence did not show that SSRIs were directly responsible for brain bleeds. The cause might be the users' lifestyles, such as if they had a tendency to smoke or drink. At the same time, studies show that the danger of a brain bleed is greatest within the first six months of SSRI use, possibly because SSRIs make it harder for blood platelets to come together and clot. A person's platelet function may drop significantly during the first few weeks of SSRI use.

While the likelihood of brain bleeds may be small, it is still a concern, especially if the SSRI user is pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant. As this blog has noted, there is already concern about the other potentially harmful effects of SSRIs and other antidepressants. Studies have shown that use of certain antidepressants during the first trimester of pregnancy can increase the risk of birth defects. At the same time, as noted recently, leaving depression untreated could also cause problems for the child developmentally, such as delayed speech.

What these studies underscore is how important it is for you to have a thorough discussion with your physician before agreeing to take antidepressants. Physicians have what is known as a "duty to inform," meaning that they are expected to inform patients of all possible risks associated with a specific course of treatment, so that the patient can then make an informed decision about whether or not to move forward. If you were prescribed a certain antidepressant, then later had a child with a birth defect, you could sue your physician for medical malpractice if he or she never informed you of the risks. Much would depend upon when you were first prescribed the medication and at what point you took it during your pregnancy.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Certain Antidepressants Increase the Risk of a Brain Bleed" »

In the past, this blog has discussed the grave situation in Fallujah, Iraq, where toxins from American weapons have allegedly led to a huge increase in birth defects among Iraqi babies. A recent study, published in the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, confirms the extent of the damage.

In 2004, during the Iraq War, the United States launched two assaults on Fallujah. During these assaults, American forces used highly toxic depleted uranium munitions. Researchers found "compelling evidence" that the depleted uranium -- thought to be a carcinogen -- along with mercury and lead from various weapons, were responsible for the sharp rise in birth defects.

Researchers examined information on babies born in Fallujah between 2007 and 2010. Of those, more than 50% suffered from birth defects that ranged from congenital heart defects to brain damage to deformed limbs. This compares to a figure of 10% before the two assaults, and fewer than 2% in 2000. Meanwhile, nearly half (45%) of the Fallujah women surveyed suffered at least one miscarriage during the two-year period after the assaults, compared to 10% before the assaults.

Researchers noted that lead and mercury from American weapons, in particular, may have had a significant effect. Lead could be absorbed into a woman's bones and later passed to her child, causing birth defects of the brain and nervous system. Mercury poisoning can also be passed from a mother to her child, and can result in damage to the child's brain and kidneys. The researchers noted similar rates of birth defects and miscarriages in Basra, an Iraqi city that was bombed by the British.

If, as it appears, the birth defects were caused by American weapons, one hopes that the U.S. government will step forward to provide relief for the suffering families. Meanwhile, though American families have been fortunate not to experience similar tragic circumstances, Americans have not been spared the harmful effects of mercury and lead. Many families live in areas where coal-burning power plants or mountaintop removal mines are prevalent. Both are considered to be significant sources of mercury and other toxic metals.

If your child has a birth defect and you believe it was due to the local power plant or mountaintop mine, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the ones responsible. You would claim that the operators of the plant or mine failed to reasonably follow applicable health and safety rules, which resulted in you being exposed to harmful toxins while pregnant, and the result was your child's birth defect. Several factors would determine whether your lawsuit was successful: how close the power plant or mine was to your home, when the exposure occurred, whether there could be any other major causes of the birth defect, and whether the birth defect was similar to the birth defects of others who lived near power plants or mountaintop mines. If you are able to establish that the plant or mine was the primary cause, you will win your case, which means that a jury will likely award you damages for pain and suffering and medical bills.

Continue reading "New Study Finds Extremely High Levels of Birth Defects in Iraqi City Following the Iraq War" »

A new study from the University of Colorado has found that teenagers are abusing prescription pain medication at a much higher rate than previous generations -- as much as 40% more. Why is this such a problem? Because among other things, if a teenage girl were to become pregnant, she would be more likely to have a child with a birth defect.

While certain prescription drugs, such as Oxycontin, are classified as Pregnancy Category B by the Food and Drug Administration -- which means that they are not considered to pose a risk of birth defects -- the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has found that taking Oxycontin, Vicodin, Tylenol-3, or other opioid pain relievers either early in pregnancy or just before pregnancy increases the risk of babies being born with congenital heart defects. Specifically, opioid pain killers were found to double the risk of hypoplastic left heart syndrome, one of the most significant heart defects.

Researchers from the University of Colorado examined data from the National Survery on Drug Use and Health taken between the years 1985 and 2009. They found that teenagers' use of prescription drugs was "higher than any generation ever measured." This was true regardless of gender or ethnicity. Researchers believe that the vast increase may be due to a variety of factors. Pain medicine prescriptions in general are on the rise, from 40 million in 1991 to 180 million in 2007. With more drugs available, that makes it easier for today's youth to get their hands on prescription medications. They might conclude that if their parents use the drugs, they must be safe. Instead, prescription drug abuse has led to an increase in accidental deaths.

Without significant education, these trends are likely to persist, with the disturbing side effect that they will lead to an increase of babies born with birth defects. Yet until prescription pain killer use is curtailed in general, teens will still be able to use and abuse them fairly easily.

If you took prescription pain medication and your child was born with a birth defect, could you file a lawsuit in order to get monetary relief? It depends upon the circumstances. If, as described above, you were using medication that was not prescribed to you, then the answer is likely no. Normally a patient might be able to file a medical malpractice suit against his or her physician based upon the physician's duty to inform the patient of all risks associated with taking a certain medication. However, if you were never prescribed the medication, you could not sue the physician for failing to warn you that taking opioid drugs increased your baby's chance of being born with a birth defect. On the other hand, if the one who was prescribed the medication gave it to you without explaining the risks, you might be able to sue that person for negligence.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That More Teens Are Abusing Prescription Drugs, Which Could Mean More Babies Born With Birth Defects" »

In the past, this blog has discussed evidence showing a correlation between a pregnant woman's antidepressant use and birth defects. Now, a new study has found that far from negatively impacting a baby's development, the use of antidepressants can make a positive impact on a baby's language skills. The key is that the positive impact occurs after the child has been born.

Researchers from the University of British Columbia, Harvard University, and the Child and Family Research Institute have found that when mothers are treated for depression within the first few months of the child's birth with serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SRIs, the child's ability to understand language speeds up greatly. By contrast, if the mother's depression is left untreated, the child's ability to understand language is delayed. Notably, the researchers stated that whether a newborn picks up language quickly depends not just on the post-birth atmosphere, but also on pre-birth conditions in the womb. That suggests that it is important for mothers to be treated for depression while still pregnant.

The reason for this connection, the researchers explained, was that a mother taking antidepressants seemed to prolong the "window of time" a newborn had for picking up the nuances of language. Once that window is shut, a newborn can no longer distinguish certain sounds of his or her native language. To reach these results, the researchers examined three groups of mothers and children at three different intervals -- when the babies were not yet born and, at 36 weeks in the uterus, when the babies were six months, and when the babies were 10 months old. In the second and third phase, they studied the babies' heart rates and eye movements while the babies watched videos that consisted of their native language and a foreign language.

Researchers did not indicate why the difference existed. It may be that newborns simply took cues from their mothers and responded to their more depressed state. In any event, it highlights the complicated situation for a pregnant woman with depression. Past studies have found that pregnant women who take certain antidepressants during the first trimester of pregnancy are more likely to give birth to babies with birth defects. Yet this study suggests that not treating depression at all could have a harmful effect on the baby later on. It is a delicate balance, and one that a woman should discuss thoroughly with her physician.

If your child has a birth defect and you believe it is due to your being prescribed certain prescription medications while pregnant, you could file a lawsuit against your physician for medical malpractice. You would argue that your physician had a duty to inform you of the possible harmful effects of your course of treatment, so that you could make an informed decision about whether or not to take it. Your physician breached that duty by not giving you information about birth defects. You were injured through exposure to the medication, and the resulting damage was your child's birth defect. If your child does not have a birth defect, but suffers from the effects of delayed speech, you could sue your physician for medical malpractice for not prescribing you antidepressants that could prevent the problem. Ideally, neither situation will ever come to pass, and your physician will always keep you fully informed of possible outcomes of treatment.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Mothers Who Take Certain Antidepressants May Help Their Newborns With Acquiring Speech" »

Recently, several environmental groups in Illinois requested that the state Pollution Control Board order Midwest Generation, which runs four coal-burning power plants, to clean up ground water pollution caused by coal ash ponds. Coal ash is typically dumped into ponds in order to keep it from blowing away. However, the groups claim that now the ground water is contaminated with pollutants such as arsenic, selenium, and boron that exceed federal- and state-mandated levels.

Coal ash consists of waste material left over after the coal has been burned. It contains several environmental toxins, including mercury, arsenic, lead, and a dozen other heavy metals. Once coal ash gets into the air and drinking water, it has the potential to cause a number of health problems, ranging from cancer to neurological problems. Other problems include kidney disorders, heart damage, and lung disease. Coal ash can also cause people to have problems with reproduction, and increase the risk of babies being born with birth defects.

The Illinois environmental groups seek to not only stop the open dumping of coal ash, but also to clean up the ground water. Midwest Generation began monitoring the ground water around its coal ash ponds in 2010, and tests of the wells did show elevated levels of certain toxins. However, there is no evidence that the coal ash ponds have affected private wells around several Illinois towns. Nonetheless, environmental groups still view the coal ash ponds with concern, and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has issued violation notices.

If the Illinois groups don't succeed in getting the order for Midwest Generation to clean up the ground water, they might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the power plant company. They would argue that the company had a duty to operate reasonably according to applicable health and safety laws. Instead, they would argue that the company breached this duty, as shown by the violation notices received. As a result of the breach, they argument would be that members of the community were injured through exposure to contaminated groundwater from the coal ash ponds. The resulting damage would be that many people developed cancer, heart disease, or had babies with birth defects.

The environmental groups could seek a money award, or "damages," but that tends to be more a remedy sought by individuals (or individuals as part of a class action) who need the money for medical bills, pain and suffering, or to cover lost future income. More likely, environmental groups would seek equitable relief in the form of an injunction. The injunction could either be preventative in nature -- stopping Midwest Generation from dumping coal ash into ponds -- or require the company to take a specific action, such as cleaning up surrounding contaminated water. If the Illinois Pollution Control Board fails to issue an order to Midwest Generation, the environmental groups could also sue the Board to get them to take action.

Continue reading "Illinois Environmental Groups Seek Order for Power Plant Company to Clean Up Pollution from Coal Ash Ponds" »

A new study out of Denmark has found that pregnant mothers who eat organic are not less likely to have babies born with at least one type of birth defect. The study found that organic foods did not decrease the likelihood that baby boys could be born with a condition known as "hypospadias," or a birth defect of the penis, where the opening of the urethra is on the underside instead of on the tip. Hypospadias affects roughly one in 200 male newborns.

Hypospadias is believed to be a genetic condition, although past research has found that the risk is greater if the mother is over 35 years of age or is obese. The Denmark study aimed to see whether food intake could also play a role, since organic foods have less pesticide residue -- and therefore fewer endocrine-disrupting chemicals -- than regular foods. Researchers conducted their study by interviewing 306 mothers whose sons were born with hypospadias, and 306 mothers whose sons had no birth defect. The women were asked about their eating habits, including how often they ate certain foods and how often they chose organic alternatives. What the researchers found was that women who ate organic foods were no less likely to have sons with hypospadias than women who did not. The only exception was among those who stated that they ate both butter and cheese at least once a day, while rarely eating anything organic. They were two times more likely to have a baby with hypospadias than women who ate organic while rarely eating butter and cheese. Researchers stated that this suggested that there could be pesticide contaminants in certain dairy foods.

The study's findings should be viewed with some caution, given the small sample size and the emphasis on interviews that recall past actions, which can be unreliable. However, even if the study's findings are accurate, there is still evidence out there that certain foods are linked to a higher risk of birth defects or cancer. Many foods are still sold in containers that contain bisphenol A, or BPA, an endocrine disrupter. Those who eat the food absorb the BPA into their systems. If your child has a birth defect that you believe was due to exposure to foods laced with endocrine-disrupting chemicals, you might want to file a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer. You would argue that the manufacturer had a duty to consumers to produce a safe product, but the manufacturer breached that duty by creating a product that was unreasonably dangerous. As a result, you were injured by exposure to the product, and the resulting damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Pregnant Mothers Who Eat Organic Are Not Less Likely to Have Sons With Hypospadias" »

Recently the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a plan in which women who had received organ transplants would be informed that certain transplant drugs could cause miscarriages and birth defects. The plan would be focused on drugs that contained mycophenolate as an active incredient, which includes CellCept and Myfortic. CellCept prevents the body's rejection of liver, kidney, and heart transplants, while Myfortic prevents rejection of kidney transplants. Both drugs are typically used in combination with other medications.

The new plan would be comprehensive, including the establishment of a pregnancy registry, a program that would give health care providers proper training, and a medical guide that would inform patients of the heightened risk of both birth defects and miscarriages. Although the medications have labels warning of these risks, the FDA did not consider them sufficient, pointing out that 20% of babies exposed to mycophenolate in the womb developed a birth defect that was structural in nature. The FDA hopes that the plan will lead to fewer unplanned pregnancies among women who have had organ transplants, since they would now understand the risks involved. The training given to health care providers would include information about available birth control options, types of pregnancy testing, and the risk of a first trimester miscarriage or a birth defect. The pregnancy registry is optional, and any woman may opt out if she wishes to do so.

It is commendable that the FDA is taking such steps, since living with a transplanted organ is enough of a challenge without the added burden of caring for a child with a birth defect. Medication to prevent rejection must be taken for the rest of the person's life. While the lifespan of those with transplanted organs can vary from person to person, a transplanted kidney, for instance, typically only lasts nine years. These medications are no doubt expensive, and coupled with the medications and therapies a child with a birth defect so often needs, expenses can become crippling. If you are in this position, what can you do to find relief? One option would be to file a product liability suit against the drug's manufacturer, as well as a medical malpractice suit against your physician.

In the product liability suit, you would argue that the drug was designed to be unreasonably dangerous and had an inadequate warning label. After all, why would 20% of women on this medication get pregnant if the warning label were sufficient to inform them of the dangers? In a product liability suit, you do not need to prove that the manufacturer was negligent -- although many choose to make this claim -- in order to find it strictly liable, just that the product was unreasonably dangerous. For a medical malpractice suit, you would argue that your physician failed to inform you of the risks of taking the medication, including a heightened risk of miscarriages and birth defects.

Continue reading "FDA Approves of Plan to Inform Women Who Have Received Organ Transplants of the Higher Risk of Giving Birth to Babies With Birth Defects" »

To add fuel to the debate over whether babies conceived via in vitro fertilization (IVF) have a higher risk of birth defects, a new study has found that birth defects for babies conceived through assisted-reproduction techniques (ART) have gone down over the past decade. ART encompasses all types of artificial methods for achieving pregnancy, including IVF, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, intrauterine insemination, and cryopreservation.

The study out of Western Australia examined data on over 207,000 births, including babies who were conceived through two IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection, two of the most common techniques. Of the total amount, 1,328 were conceived by IVF and 633 were conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection between 1994 and 2002. Researchers found that in general, 8% of babies had birth defects such as cleft lip, heart defects, and defects in the abdominal wall and genitals, compared with 5% of babies who were conceived without artificial methods. However, when the researchers compared data from 1994 through 1998 to the data from 1998 through 2002, they found a decline in the percentage of birth defects -- from 11% to 7.5%.

Researchers are not certain of the reasons behind this change. Some speculate that as ART is used more widely over time, different methods are used that could have a notable impact. For instance, laboratories could be using different medication to stimulate the ovaries, or require smaller doses over a shorter period of time. Regardless, researchers believe that what this demonstrates is that, despite the overall higher risk of birth defects, ART is becoming safer all the time, and most babies conceived through ART will be born healthy.

It is encouraging news that rates of birth defects from ART have decreased gradually. After the time and expense involved with IVF and other types of ART, having a child with a birth defect would be a serious blow, both emotionally and financially. If your child was born with a birth defect that you believe was due to IVF, are there ways that you could get relief? You always have the option of filing a medical malpractice suit against the ones who administered the technique. This would involve arguing that the person or persons did not use reasonable care, and as a result, you were injured. That might be a challenge to prove, since records might not indicate whether the methods used for your ART deviated in any way from an ART that led to a normal pregnancy and birth. If you believe the problem was not the way the ART was administered, but the medication you received as part of the treatment, you might also consider filing a product liability suit against the drug manufacturer. There, you would argue that the manufacturer created an unreasonably dangerous drug that caused you injury, with the result being your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Risk of Birth Defects Has Declined For Babies Conceived Through Assisted-Reproduction Techniques" »

This blog has previously discussed conflicting studies that state cell phone radiation can lead to changes in our DNA, cancer, and even birth defects. While the evidence is still disputed, for those who can't be parted from their cell phones, a new study offers some encouraging news on a different front: the level of toxins in cell phones is decreasing.

The environmental group Ecology Center and iFixit tested 36 different cell phones that were released over the past five years, including the iPhone, Motorola, Samsung, the Palm, and the Blackberry. Each phone was completely disassembled and its various parts -- such as screens, circuit boards, and cases -- were tested for mercury, lead, chlorine, cadmium, and bromine. Researchers noted that throughout a cell phone's life cycle, from production to disposal, a cell phone can emit toxins into the environment. According to one 2004 study, three-quarters of all cell phones seep enough lead to qualify as toxic waste.

While each phone was found to have at least one harmful toxin, the amount was still lower than before. Overall, the Motorola Citrus was found to have the lowest amount of toxins, while the Motorola Droid X had the highest amount at "Medium." The new iPhone 5 came in fifth on the list of cell phones, while its rival, the Samsung Galaxy, came in ninth. Researchers ranked Samsung as the best manufacturer overall for cell phones: four of its five cell phones received good ratings.

The toxins listed above have been linked to birth defects and other health problems, especially mercury and lead. Pregnant women exposed to mercury can give birth to babies with brain damage, nervous system damage, and hearing and vision problems. Exposure to lead can result in babies being born with anything from shrunken genitals to low birth weight to neurological problems. If your child has one or more of these birth defects and you believe that it is due to your exposure to cell phone toxins, you have the option of filing a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer.

In a product liability lawsuit, you would argue that the manufacturer had a duty to consumers to create a reasonably safe cell phone. Instead, the manufacturer breached that duty by creating a cell phone that was dangerous by design, and that may have had an inadequate warning label. As a result, you were injured through exposure to the toxins inside, and the damage was your child's birth defect. In order to have a strong case, you would need to establish a strong link between the toxic exposure and the birth defect. You would need to establish that these toxins, and not toxins from another source, were the cause of the birth defect. If you live in an area with significant amounts of lead or mercury in the air and water, you might have a difficult time making this case. When making such an argument, you should always consider the date that the exposure occurred and look at your state's statute of limitations -- the time limit by which you can file, which is based on the type of claim you have. If you are beyond the statute of limitations period, you may be barred from filing a claim.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Cell Phone Toxins Are Lower Than They Once Were" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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