Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

Students at Brigham Young University (BYU) recently published research that could lead to the prevention of certain birth defects and how certain types of cancer were treated. Guided by one of their professors, the students' research was aimed at birth defects caused by Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Andersen Tawil Syndrome, which include cleft palates, small or missing teeth, and misshaped fingers and toes. The students discovered that both syndromes impacted a potassium channel by blocking instructions that, in essence, told cells where they should be located. By blocking the instructions, these syndromes prevent instructions for patterning and an organism from emerging. This, in turn, may result in birth defects.

The students also determined that these instructions could lead to cancer under different circumstances. Once a baby is born, the cell pattern instructions should ideally be turned off so that the cells remain in place. In cancer cells, however, the signals turn back on, allowing cells to invade other tissues and grow into tumors. The BYU students hope to be able to develop a way to block the signaling pathway that leads to cells metastasizing, preventing cancer cells from spreading through the body.

This research is exciting both for the possibilities it holds for cancer and for birth defects. Someday, perhaps sophisticated tests could be developed that would allow expectant couples to find out whether their developing fetus has impacted potassium channels or other cases of blocked instructions that could lead to birth defects. Perhaps treatments could be developed that would make cell instructions normal again, before birth defects had the chance to set in.

Such possibilities are years, if not decades, away. In the meantime, if your child has a birth defect, you and your family live with it now, every day. While some birth defects are minor, others require extensive treatments and come with large medical bills. With Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Andersen Tawil Syndrome, the culprits are personal habits and genetics respectively, but many birth defects are caused by outside sources. These sources can consist of a wide range of threats, from toxic herbicides to products you use in your household, from certain medications that you have been prescribed to mercury emissions from a power plant. If you believe that one of these sources is responsible for your child's birth defect, you might consider filing a lawsuit.

Generally, such lawsuits fall into two categories: toxic tort and product liability. In both cases, you would argue that the source had a duty, that duty was breached, the breach caused your injury, and there was damage. The "duty" is to anyone who could be foreseeably impacted by the source's actions. So if the source is a power plant, the duty might be the surrounding community; if the source is a household cleaner, the duty might be to the consumers who purchase and use the product. The breach usually consists of unreasonable behavior.

The major difference between a product liability lawsuit and a toxic tort case is that under product liability, a manufacturer can be found strictly liable even if the manufacturer's behavior was not negligent. The manufacturer just needs to have created an unreasonably dangerous product. By contrast, a toxic tort breach involves some sort of negligence. In both cases, you can seek a money award that can help you with your child's lifelong care.

Continue reading "Brigham Young Students Find a Potential Cause For Birth Defects and Cancer" »

In the past, this blog has discussed the heavy connection between pesticides and herbicides, including Atrazine, and birth defects. This past year, Syngenta, one of the largest pesticide manufacturers in the world, and a manufacturer of Atrazine, reached a settlement agreement in the amount of $105 million for a class action lawsuit launched eight years ago. As part of the agreement, the funds will be distributed to more than 30 districts in the Midwest of the United States for purpose of cleaning up water contaminated by Atrazine.

Once Atrazine has been sprayed on crops, it then leaks into the ground water, causing countless people to be vulnerable to drinking water that contains higher-than-acceptable levels -- more than three parts per billion -- of the herbicide. Atrazine contamination has been linked to a higher risk of birth defects such as spina bifida, Down syndrome, gastrointestinal abnormalities, and respiratory problems. The risk of these birth defects is considered to be highest months after Atrazine has been sprayed, usually in the spring. In animals, researchers have observed severe responses such as myocardial muscle degeneration, liver toxicity, and developmental ossification defects. In adult humans, scientists have observed an elevated risk of miscarriages, breast cancer, and prostate cancer.

While organizations dedicated to eliminating Atrazine are pleased that the settlement will lead to cleaner drinking water, they caution that the underlying risk is still there because Syngenta is still allowed to sell the harmful product. That means that other situations may continue to crop up, leading to more lawsuits and more settlements. Furthermore, in addition to exposure through drinking water, people are also exposed to food tainted with Atrazine.

Until stronger measures are taken to clean up the a herbicide or prevent its use, one of the most effective means of holding its manufacturer accountable is a toxic tort lawsuit or a product liability lawsuit. If your child has a birth defect that you believe was due to your exposure to Atrazine, or another harmful pesticide or herbicide, you could file a product liability lawsuit, claiming the manufacturer had a duty to customers and local residents of agricultural communities -- anyone foreseeably affected by the spraying -- to create as safe a product as was reasonably possible. Instead, the manufacturer breached this duty by designing an unreasonably unsafe product. You would argue that you or your family were injured through exposure to this product while pregnant, and the resulting damage was your child's birth defect.

Likewise, you could also file a toxic tort lawsuit against agricultural companies that spray the product. Your argument would be similar to the argument you would make in a product liability suit, except that here, you would be arguing that the company or companies acted negligently. You would argue that each company had a duty of reasonable care to the communities likely to be most affected by the spraying. The company or companies failed to act reasonably, resulting in a breach. You were exposed, and the damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Manufacturer of Atrazine Reaches a Settlement Agreement in Eight-Year-Old Lawsuit" »

Birth defects are a part of everyday life for many. We probably all know at least one person with a birth defect, and many of us have one ourselves. Too often, however, popular culture likes to pretend that birth defects don't exist, preferring to shower television, film, and print media with images of "perfect" people who make even people without birth defects feel inadequate.

Until recently, one could have argued that Here Comes Honey Boo Boo fell into that category. Honey Boo Boo is a spinoff of another The Learning Channel (TLC) show, Toddlers & Tiaras. The show follows June Shannon and her daughters in McIntyre, Georgia as Shannon tries to enter her seven-year-old daughter, Alana "Honey Boo Boo" Thompson, in numerous beauty pageants. The oldest of Shannon's three other daughters, 17-year old Anna Shannon, gave birth to a baby girl in June. Baby Kaitlyn was born with an extra thumb on her right hand, and the family is -- surprisingly -- resistant to having it removed.

The Shannons claim that having an extra thumb "makes Kaitlyn more special" to them. Their attitude has drawn some sharp criticisms from those who think that the baby's extra thumb should be removed to prevent later abuse from her peers. It remains to be seen whether the extra thumb would pose a problem with basic finger movement, or whether Alana Shannon's daughter would eventually adapt. Regardless, it is rare for any television family to be so accepting of birth defects, and it serves an important purpose of making society in general more accepting. While it is true that birth defects are a part of many people's lives, our tendency is to hide the things about us that make us stand out.

At the same time, even when people accept birth defects, they still might have to contend with health problems that could accompany them. Oftentimes, these health problems can be severe, costing thousands of dollars each year for families that don't have comprehensive health insurance -- or any insurance at all. If that is the case, one option that a family might have is to sue the entity believed to be responsible for the birth defect. If the family is successful, they could receive a monetary award from a jury that could cover the costs.

While genetics and lifestyle can often dictate whether a baby is born with a birth defect, environmental toxins or prescription drugs can also be culprits. If you believe that your child's birth defect could be the result of your exposure to one of these sources while pregnant, you might consider filing either a toxic tort lawsuit or a product liability lawsuit. If the source is a product, you would file a product liability suit, whereas if the source is chemicals released by a power plant or a mountaintop removal mine, you would file a toxic tort lawsuit. In both cases, your greatest challenge would be proving causation -- that there is strong evidence of a link between the source and your child's birth defect. Often, this depends upon where the source is located -- in your home or several miles away? -- and when the exposure to toxins or prescription drugs occurred. If it was several years before the birth of your child, you will have a tougher case.

Continue reading "Family in Popular Reality Show Learns to Adapt to Baby Born With a Birth Defect" »

For those who suffer from depression, bipolar disorder, or other imbalances of the brain, one doctor proposes using acupuncture as an alternative to antidepressant medication. Pregnant women who choose this approach may have the added benefit of reducing the risk of their children being born with birth defects.

Dr. Patrick Massey argues that recent research has found that while antidepressants can help those with severe depression, they have less obvious benefits for those with milder depression. In clinical tests, antidepressants were no more effective for people with milder depression than sugar pills functioning as placebos. Dr. Massey thinks that this is due to many factors contributing to depression besides brain chemistry.

Dr. Massey points to a recent study in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, which looked at a compilation of studies that examined the effectiveness of acupuncture at relieving moderate depression for people across a broad age span. The study ultimately found that acupuncture was at least as effective as antidepressants, and when coupled with antidepressants, might reduce some of the side effects. Dr. Massey cautions that the weight of medical research on the subject is not conclusive, but notes that at the very least, it shows that acupuncture is an effective therapy for those with depression. In addition, exercise and meditation have also been shown to be effective alternatives.

While the studies on acupuncture as an alternative are promising, those with depression should do their research before making the choice to go with acupuncture over antidepressants. That includes working with their physician to get an accurate assessment of their mental health so that they can make an informed choice. However, if you are pregnant with moderate depression, and you opt to use acupuncture instead of antidepressants, you might have the benefit of lowering your child's risk of being born with a birth defect. That is because certain antidepressants have been linked to causing a variety of birth defects, especially if women take them during the first trimester. Antidepressants like Depakote have been classified as Pregnancy Category D drugs - evidence of harm to human fetuses - by the Food and Drug Administration as a result.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe could be due to your taking antidepressants while pregnant, you might consider filing a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer and/or a medical malpractice suit against the physician who prescribed you the medication. For the product liability lawsuit, you would make the argument that the manufacturer had a duty to consumers to create as safe a drug as possible, and the manufacturer breached that duty by designing a drug that was unreasonably dangerous. The breach caused your injury (through exposure to the antidepressant's harmful effects) and the damage was your child's birth defect. For the medical malpractice lawsuit, you would argue that your physician had a duty to inform you, the patient, of all of the potential harms of your course of treatment. Your physician breached this duty by failing to inform you of all of the harmful side effects of your antidepressants, even though he or she knew that you were pregnant. As a result, you would argue that you were injured through exposure, and the damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Doctor Points to Studies Suggesting That Acupuncture As Effective at Treating Moderate Depression As Antidepressants" »

The Natural Resources Defense Council has put out its latest list of the top 10 most polluted states in the United States. This list could have significant implications for those who are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, due to the link between environmental toxins and birth defects.

Ohio is the number one polluted state in the nation, followed by Pennsylvania, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Indiana, Michigan, West Virginia, Georgia, and North Carolina. One thing that all ten states have in common is an abundance of coal- and oil-fired power plants. Overall, the 6,700 power plants across the United States account for 44% of all air pollution, and — when combined with heavy industries — 80% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Ohio's electricity generation sector released 36.4 million pounds of toxins in 2010, which accounted for 62% of the state's pollution and 12% of the total toxic pollution in the United States. Ohio is also second-ranked in terms of mercury air pollution, and is the home state of the Gen. J. M. Gavin coal plant, the ninth-biggest polluter in the country.

The rest of the states do not present a much better picture. Even the lowest on the list, North Carolina, has an electric sector that was responsible for emitting over 14.6 million pounds of toxins in 2010, accounting for nearly half of the state's pollution and 5% of the country's pollution. The mercury toxins from this sector accounts for half of North Carolina's mercury air pollution.

Air pollution has been linked to a variety of health problems, as well as premature birth and birth defects. While mercury is not the only toxin to produce harmful effects, it produces some of the most significant harmful effects, including premature death, heart attacks, and cancer. Birth defects that result from mercury exposure can include cleft lip and palate, spina bifida, and heart defects. While the new mercury rules from the Environmental Protection Agency are designed to cut mercury air pollution by 79% by 2015, several industries have fought them, and the D.C. Circuit Court even threw out the cross-state air pollution rule.

Continue reading "Top Ten Most Polluted States Pose a Threat of Greater Birth Defects" »

This blog has previously discussed lawsuits filed against Grunenthal, the German manufacturer of Thalidomide, which was a morning sickness pill linked to severe birth defects. Thalidomide was prescribed in the 1950s to many pregnant women in the United States and throughout the world during their first trimester. While Thalidomide was never approved for use in the U.S., many believe that physicians were still given the drug to prescribe. The drug was taken off of the market in 1961 after evidence of severe birth defects was revealed. However, those who filed the lawsuits -- primarily those who were born with severe birth defects -- have claimed that Thalidomide knew about the birth defects as early as 1955, yet chose to keep them a secret.

For a long time, Grunenthal has strongly denied that it knew about the birth defects sooner, even refusing to be part of a settlement with an Australian whose mother had taken Thalidomide. However, recently, Grunenthal might have changed its tune. The company issued a rare apology to those whose mothers took Thalidomide during the 1950s and early 1960s. Grunenthal's chief executive apologized for not "reaching out" all these years and said it was due to "the shock that your fate has caused in us."

Those who had been adversely affected by Thalidomide refuse to be placated. Freddie Astbury, who was born without arms or legs, claims that not only should Grunenthal apologize, but that it should also offer compensation to those with birth defects. Another person affected by Thalidomide pointed out that while Grunenthal settled one lawsuit in Germany in the 1970s, the fund that was set up was too small to help those expected to live, on average, into their 80s.

While Thalidomide is no longer sold on the market, other potentially dangerous drugs are still sold and prescribed in the U.S. every day. The antidepressant Depakote, for instance, has been linked to a variety of birth defects. If your child was born with a birth defect that you believe was due to prescription medication that you were prescribed while pregnant, you have the option of filing both a medical malpractice lawsuit and a product liability lawsuit. In both cases, your main objective will likely be to receive a money award that will help pay for your child's care for the rest of his or her life. It is therefore important that you provide an accurate assessment of your child's physical and mental limitations for the jury. Calculating someone's care for a lifetime can be difficult, since it means projecting costs decades into the future. Oftentimes, medical malpractice and product liability lawsuits settle before they reach the point of a jury verdict. If you decide to settle, you still need to have those calculations ready to ensure that you are getting an amount that will serve your child's needs.

Continue reading "German Manufacturer of Pregnancy Drug Linked to Birth Defects Issues First Apology in Fifty Years" »

A new study has found that children's school supplies contain toxins known for causing health problems and birth defects. Of the supplies that were lab tested, 80% had elevated levels of phthalates, including products from some of the most popular brands, like Disney. The products, purchased in New York during a back-to-school time period, included vinyl lunchboxes, backpacks, 3-ring binders, and raincoats. The amount of phthalates found was seven times greater than the acceptable limit.

Phthalates are frequently used to soften plastic. They are also hormone disrupters that are hazardous even at low levels. Besides birth defects, pthalates have been linked to early puberty, infertility, asthma, obesity, diabetes, and cancer. Phthalates are capable of migrating from their original source. That means that due to phthalates' widespread use, they have been found in the air and dust in both home and school environments, and have even been found in breast milk. Children are the age group most widely exposed.

For the study, researchers examined 20 products total for evidence of six phthalates and four heavy metals. All products came from well-known stores, including Kmart and Payless. The product testing occurred at Paradigm Environmental Services in Rochester, New York. Researchers there found that of the products containing phthalates, 75% contained enough that the supplies would be banned if they were toys. More than half of the supplies tested (55%) contained multiple phthalates. Nowhere on the product label were phthalates listed. In addition to phthalates, 40% of school supplies contained heavy metals.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has expressed concern about phthalates' effect on children. The EPA has already determined that there is an association between phthalate exposure and human health. Furthermore, the EPA found that phthalate exposure during fetal development has resulted in certain male animal fetuses developing birth defects. Yet it is unclear what the long-term effects of phthalate exposure will yield. If your child uses school supplies filled with phthalates that can migrate to other surfaces, potentially everyone could get exposed to high levels of phthalates.

Yet if you were pregnant during this exposure, and later had another child with a birth defect, could you successfully sue the supplies' manufacturers? Possibly not. The only way you would be successful is if you established a strong correlation between your exposure to the supplies and your child's birth defect. Yet it is not clear how much exposure needs to take place, or when, in order for the effects to be felt. You would also need to establish that it was the school supplies -- and not one of countless other sources of phthalates to which you were exposed over the years -- that were the problem. If you are able to establish such a correlation, then you would have some strong evidence to back up your case. However, the unfortunate truth is that these days, phthalates are everywhere and could come from just about every product we use.

Continue reading "Study Finds That Toxins in Certain School Supplies Are at Dangerously High Levels" »

Back in July, this blog discussed research findings that showed pregnant women who received a vaccine for the H1N1 virus -- also known as "swine flu" -- were not more likely to have babies with birth defects than those who did not receive the vaccine. Now a new study has come out that finds pregnant women who receive regular seasonal flu vaccines are not at a greater risk of having babies with birth defects.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, examined 9,000 pregnant women who received a flu shot, and found that just 2% reported having a baby with a birth defect, such as a heart defect or a cleft lip or palate. The rate was the same as the one for pregnant women who did not have a flu shot.

Furthermore, researchers claim that getting a flu shot may actually help prevent stillbirth. That is because pregnant women are among the groups most vulnerable to becoming seriously ill from the flu, and to developing complications such as pneumonia. Such a condition can cause stress to the fetus and lead to an early delivery. Just .3% of women suffered a stillbirth after getting vaccinated, versus .6% of women who did not get a flu vaccine.

Despite the possible benefits of flu shots, many pregnant women continue to avoid them, especially during the first trimester. Yet when researchers examined the rate of birth defects in babies born to women who got flu shots in the first trimester, researchers found no increase of risk. While researchers cannot say with complete certainty that flu shots lead to less frequent incidents of miscarriage, the findings at least demonstrate that they do not pose an increased danger.

It is encouraging to hear that there is one less potential source of birth defects, and that by making a decision to protect their health, women aren't putting their future children in any danger. However, if your child has a birth defect and you believe that the cause was your flu shot, you still have the option to sue. The challenge would be proving causation, that the flu shot actually did cause your child's birth defect. To make a strong case for causation, you would need to provide credible evidence that flu shots actually did result in birth defects. Credible evidence would include peer-reviewed studies or witness testimony from experts in the field. Obviously studies such as this one would complicate your case. You would also have the complication of having to show that the flu shot, and not one of many other sources of birth defects, such as toxins, was the cause. If you presented a successful case, a jury could award you money in the form of both general and special damages.

Continue reading "New Study Finds Pregnant Women Who Receive Standard Flu Shots Are Not More Likely to Have Babies With Birth Defects" »

Researchers from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute have found a "switch" that alters a gene that is essential for normal heart development. This "switch could explain why birth defects may vary for children born with DiGeorge syndrome.

DiGeorge syndrome is found in roughly one in 4,000 babies. Those born with DiGeorge syndrome typically have a DNA mutation on chromosome 22, but their defects may vary greatly. Birth defects can range from mild to severe, and include everything from congenital heart disease and cleft lip and palate, to learning disabilities and mild differences in facial features. Researchers noted that even identical twins with the same gene sequence could have markedly different results. They theorized that the reason for the difference could be due to environmental factors influencing the genetic material known as chromatin. Chromatin consists of DNA and other proteins combined in the cell nucleus. Researchers found that chemical marks sitting on the chromatin modified it to instruct when to switch genes "on" or "off."

A protein known as MOZ is responsible for operating the modifying "switch," and offers an explanation for the variety of defects observed in an animal model of DiGeorge syndrome. Researchers were able to demonstrate that MOZ regulates a significant gene known as Tbx1, in the 22q11, which is responsible for development of the heart and aortic arch. The amount of MOZ activity might determine the severity of defects found in children with DiGeorge syndrome. Sometimes the effects of MOZ levels in fetuses can be worsened by outside factors, such as the mother's diet. Reduced MOZ activity, along with excessive retinoic acid (a type of vitamin A), was shown to substantially increase the frequency and severity of DiGeorge syndrome.

It is not clear whether, apart from the mother's diet, there are any other external situations that contribute to DiGeorge syndrome. While there is some evidence that certain environmental toxins may cause mutations in the DNA, there is nothing conclusive to suggest that they are responsible for causing MOZ to "switch" genes on or off. However, there is more evidence that environmental toxins can cause other health problems. For instance, both BPA and phthalates are known endocrine disrupters still found in a wide variety of products. Exposure to these toxins may lead to cancer and other health problems in developing or fully grown humans, or cause birth defects in developing fetuses. If your child has a birth defect that you believe may be due to your exposure to BPA or phthalates while pregnant, you could file a toxic tort or product liability lawsuit. The challenge would be proving that one source is responsible, since the toxins are so widespread, and it is unclear how much exposure is needed -- over how many months or years -- to result in birth defects.

Continue reading "Researchers Locate the Gene "Switch" That Accounts for Variations in Birth Defects for Those With DiGeorge Syndrome" »

As part of the United States' efforts to continually improve relations with Vietnam, the government has announced a major cleanup effort of the chemical Agent Orange, which American war planes spread liberally throughout the Vietnam War. In addition to causing serious health problems, Agent Orange -- otherwise known as Dioxin -- has been linked to birth defects.

Over the course of a decade, the U.S. sprayed millions of gallons of Agent Orange over the jungles of Vietnam in order to destroy enemy cover. The new cleanup project is expected to cost an estimated $43 million and targets a 47-acre contaminated site. In order to eliminate the chemical from the site, workers are expected to dig more than 6.5 feet and then heat the soil at 635 degrees Fahrenheit in special containers. The Agent Orange would then break down into components that would pose no threat, such as oxygen and carbon dioxide. It is not clear whether the U.S. will use this treatment for other Agent Orange "hotspots" in Vietnam.

Limited exposure to Agent Orange has proven to be extremely harmful to one's health. The chemical has been linked to serious illnesses such as soft-tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and multiple myeloma, as well as Parkinson's disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and several health disorders. Agent Orange can also change living genetic structures, resulting in birth defects such as cleft palate, club foot, and neural tube defects. While an estimated 150,000 million Vietnamese people have been born with severe birth defects, the chemical has also impacted Americans' health. As many as three million American servicemen were exposed, as well as numerous civilians, which means that many Americans born with birth defects might be able to trace them back to Agent Orange.

If you were born with a birth defect, or your child was born with a birth defect, that you believe was caused by Agent Orange exposure, you might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the manufacturer. The greatest challenge would be proving causation -- that Agent Orange, as opposed to numerous other sources, was the cause of your birth defect. If you were born near an Agent Orange hotspot, making your case would not be so difficult. However, the further removed from Vietnam -- and from the Vietnam time period -- your birth, the more difficult your case becomes. You might need to provide case studies showing that your birth defect was the same as those of other people whose parents served in Vietnam.

You would also need to investigate whether there was a statute of limitations barring you from being able to file a lawsuit. A statute of limitations -- or a time limit -- may run either from the time of the injury or from the time you were first aware of the injury, depending upon the type of injury. No statute of limitations appears to exist for veterans who suffer from the ill effects of Agent Orange, and it is likely that no statute of limitations applies to their offspring, provided the parent can prove causation.

Continue reading "United States Embarks On $43 Million Effort to Clean Up Contamination from Agent Orange" »

In a new study, researchers determined that antiepileptics were the drugs most commonly prescribed to those newly diagnosed with bipolar disorder, as one of three lines of therapy. While their findings are promising in that they show how antiepileptics bring relief to bipolar patients, they are also cause for concern. Other studies have shown that certain antiepileptics increase the risk of birth defects if taken by a woman while pregnant, especially during the first trimester.

Researchers from the healthcare advisory firm Decision Resources examined the claims of more than 95,000 diagnosed, drug-treated bipolar disorder patients. They found that antiepileptics such as lamotrigine (also known by its brand name Lamictal) are popular first-line options for treating bipolar symptoms, and can be more tolerable than lithium, while valproic acid (also known by its brand name Depakote) can be effective for treating patients who experience acute manic episodes.

Physicians have also prescribed "atypical antipsychotics," or second-generation antipsychotic tranquilizing drugs, to treat bipolar disorder. The most common atypical antipsychotics prescribed were quetiapine (also known by its brand name Seroquel) and aripiprazole (also known by its brand name Abilify).

Both Abilify and Seroquel have been classified by the Food and Drug Administration as Pregnancy Category C, which means that studies conducted on animals have found evidence of harm to the fetus, but no controlled studies have yet been conducted on humans. Therefore, the benefit of the drug might outweigh the risk. However, Depakote has been classified as Pregnancy Category D, which means that there has been positive evidence of human fetal risk based on adverse reaction data from studies or investigations. A Category D drug could still have benefits in spite of the risks. This blog has discussed possible links between Depakote and birth defects.

If you were prescribed Depakote or one of the atypical antipsychotics while pregnant, and your child was born with a birth defect, you could file a lawsuit. You could file both a medical malpractice suit against your physician and a product liability suit against the manufacturer. For the medical malpractice suit, you would claim that your physician had a duty to inform you, the patient, of the possible problems associated with your course of treatment so that you could make an informed decision as to whether or not to proceed. By not informing you, your physician breached this duty. Because of the breach, you were injured through exposure to the harmful effects of the medication, and the result was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Study Finds That Antiepileptic Drugs Are Frequently Prescribed to Treat Bipolar Disorder" »

In a move that could prevent birth defects, cancer, and other health problems, Johnson & Johnson has announced that it will remove all traces of harsh chemicals from its adult articles and cosmetic products within 3.5 years.

Johnson & Johnson's announcement followed a period of sustained criticism from a collective of health and environmental groups. In 2009, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics began pressuring the company to remove toxic chemicals from its products in order to protect both workers and consumers. The coalition would ultimately include more than 175 nonprofit groups representing 1.7 million people. These groups included such organizations as the Environmental Working Group and Physicians for Social Responsibility. Initially, Johnson & Johnson responded by pledging to remove toxins only from its baby products. The company recently stated that it was on track to reformulate these products by 2013. The adult products are on track to be reformulated by 2015.

Johnson & Johnson also created a website to provide consumers with information about what steps the company took to ensure that its products were safe. The information included questions asked to the manufacturers and suppliers about the composition of their ingredients.

The 2015 chemical phase out will include the chemicals 1,4 dioxane and formaldehyde, both of which are potential human carcinogens. Johnson & Johnson will also target other "problem" chemicals, such as triclosan, parabens, and phthalates, as well as fragrance ingredients not listed on labels. At the same time, the company states that it will permit chemicals that release formaldehyde when no safe alternative is available.

Johnson & Johnson's phase out of harmful chemicals is much needed and should, at the very least, be the standard for other manufacturers of similar products. Studies have shown that repeated exposure to harmful chemicals, whether you are working in a salon or just cleaning your home, is linked to health problems and -- if you are pregnant -- to birth defects.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe could be due to your repeated exposure to harmful chemicals while pregnant, you might consider filing product liability lawsuit. You would argue that the manufacturer was strictly liable for designing an unreasonably dangerous product. As a result of your exposure to the product while pregnant, you had a child with a birth defect. When suing for strict liability, you do not need to prove that the manufacturer was negligent -- only that the manufacturer created something unreasonably dangerous or did not provide a sufficient warning label. You might also sue the manufacturer -- and anyone in the chain of distribution -- for negligence, but you do not need to do so in order to have a successful case. Your greatest challenge would be proving causation -- that that specific product or products caused your child's birth defect. In order to make your case, you would likely be required to produce records, studies, and expert testimony.

Continue reading "Johnson & Johnson Agrees to Remove Harmful Toxins From Products By 2015" »

In what could be good news for expectant parents in the United States, a new study out of Europe has found that fewer babies are being born with heart defects. The numbers changed from seven in every 1,000 births in 2004 to six in 1,000 births in 2007, which represents a change of roughly 4% each year. Unfortunately, it is not clear to the team of European Union researchers why this change occurred.

The team reached its conclusions after studying data on the birth defects that was collected in 16 European countries between 1990 and 2007. Of the 47,000 cases of heart defects among the seven million births, the most severe defects did not decrease, while the milder heart defects did. Cases of hypoplastic left heart syndrome, where the left side of the heart fails to fully develop, remained steady at five per 10,000 births. However, less severe problems like "hole in the heart" syndrome experienced a decrease from 50 cases per 10,000 births in 2004 to 40 cases per 10,000 births in 2007. While the reduction is seemingly small, for a country with close to a million births each year, it is still a significant number.

One possible explanation for the improvement is that European women are beginning to incorporate more folic acid into their diet. Previous studies -- such as a recent one in Quebec, Canada -- have shown that countries that add folic acid directly to staple foods experience a decrease in the number of babies born with heart defects. While governments in the United States and Canada require folic acid to be added to foods such as cereals and breads, the European Union does not have such requirements. If the reduction in heart defects can be linked to an increase in folic acid consumption, that would mean U.S. families are already reaping the benefits due to our country's requirements for folic acid fortification.

At the same time, even if the rate of babies born with heart defects has been reduced, it is still too high. For an individual family, it means painful procedures and high medical costs throughout the child's life. While some birth defects can be traced to a lack of folic acid, others can be linked to genetics or environmental factors. Babies born with heart defects have been linked to unhealthy amounts of mercury in the air and water, such as from coal-burning power plants or mountaintop removal mining.

If your child was born with a heart defect, and you believe it was due to your exposure to dangerous toxins like mercury during your pregnancy, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the suspected offender. You would argue that the defendant -- for instance, a power plant -- had a duty to all people who could foreseeably be affected to take reasonable measures to follow health and safety regulations. The offender breached that duty by violating health and safety regulations. You were injured by the breach through exposure to the toxins that resulted, and the damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "European Study Finds That Number of Babies Born With Heart Defects Decreased" »

In the past, this blog has discussed how toxic levels of air pollution can not only adversely affect health, but can also lead to birth defects. It is the responsibility of manufacturers and plant owners to take reasonable steps to ensure that their businesses emit as few harmful toxins as possible. Presently, the owners of a Chevron refinery in Richmond, California have come under scrutiny for failing to take those measures.

Recently, the refinery was the source of a massive fire, which polluted the air and sent hundreds of local residents to the hospital. The toxins emitted from the fire just drew attention to the refinery's spotty health and safety record. Ranking among California's top 10 emitters of toxic chemicals, the refinery has been cited by regulators for violating air regulations 93 times in the past five years. Even more of a concern, the violations have increased nearly every year, from 15 violations in 2007 to 23 in 2010 and 2011.

Richmond's residents are no strangers to emergency situations like the refinery fire. They have experienced shelter-in-place orders -- which involve staying in their homes and keeping doors and windows closed -- before. The latest emergency only served to increase their distrust of the Chevron refinery. What is more, Jason Corburn, a public health professor at the University of California, noted that residents believed that the daily air quality problems caused by the refinery did not show up on Contra Costa County air monitors. A recent attempt by Chevron to expand its facility was blocked in court after community groups protested.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe was due to your breathing toxic air while pregnant, you have the option for suing for relief. You could either seek an injunction -- as it appears the Richmond residents did in order to prevent Chevron's expansion -- or you could sue for damages, or a money award. An injunction is an equitable remedy, which means that it is issued by a judge rather than a jury. Many people seeking an injunction might first seek a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction before the court would consider imposing a permanent injunction. Injunctions often serve to block harmful activity, or at least activity that is potentially harmful. An injunction against a refinery like Chevron's might prevent expansion, or it might prevent Chevron from operating altogether, depending upon the goal of the party seeking injunction.

By contrast, damages awards are issued by a jury. In both cases, you would need to provide a clear link between the source's damaging practices and your child's birth defect. If you seek damages in your lawsuit, a jury might award you both general and special damages. General damages are those that are frequently difficult to calculate, while special damages are for specific items such as medical bills. If the source's behavior is grossly negligent or worse, a jury might also award punitive damages.

Continue reading "Chevron Oil Refinery Fire Sheds Light on History of Health and Safety Violations" »

Recently, this blog discussed the slow advancement of the Safe Chemicals Act, which passed a Senate committee and is now headed for the full Senate floor for a vote. Yet while people await the outcome of this Act, which would be the biggest update of the Toxic Substances Control Act in 36 years, it is easy to forget that actions toward stricter chemical regulation are also happening at the state level. Specifically, California is considering its own Safer Consumer Products Act.

California's efforts began in 2008 with what was known as the Green Chemistry Initiative, where the State Department of Toxic Substances Control invited chemical companies, manufacturers, activists, and any other parties to discuss better ways of thinking about chemicals on a systematic level. The current proposed law would require manufacturers of certain products sold in the state to identify safer alternatives to roughly 3,000 chemicals known to be harmful to both the public health and to the environment. The state's effort has generated the support of several corporations and large-scale health care providers like Kaiser Permanente.

Even so, some have complained about the slow pace of the Safer Consumer Products Act, and about the unfulfilled promises of the Green Chemistry Initiative. While some policy initiatives are moving forward, four of them -- such as accelerating the quest for safer products and conducting more chemical and manufacturing industry education -- have yet to be implemented in any way. Nonetheless, given the friendlier attitudes in California toward chemical regulations, it is likely that the Safer Consumer Products Act will receive a full hearing and be passed in some form. Then millions of Californians will have less to fear from unregulated chemicals causing health problems and birth defects.

Until the Act's passage becomes a reality, those living in California (as well as anywhere else in the U.S. without strong chemical regulations) have the option of filing a lawsuit if they believe that unregulated toxic chemicals caused their health problems or their child's birth defect. Depending upon the source, you could either file a product liability lawsuit or a toxic tort lawsuit. Both are lawsuits in tort, and require nearly the same elements of proof: a duty, a breach of duty, an injury caused by the breach, and damage resulting from the injury. The only difference is that in a product liability lawsuit, the offender could be found liable even if the breach was not due to negligence. Product liability lawsuits are for when the source of the breach is a specific product you have purchased, such as a type of household cleanser. Toxic tort lawsuits are for when an exterior source -- such as a chemical plant -- is the cause of your toxic exposure.

Continue reading "California Is Seeking to Pass Its Own Safer Chemicals Act" »