Lawsuit Update Center

Super Poligrip, an adhesive denture cream produced by GSK Consumer Healthcare, has been the subject of multiple lawsuits in the past. These lawsuits were brought by individuals who claimed that prolonged use of the product resulted in adverse health effects, including nerve damage and iron deficiency anemia.  This post will look back no these very successful lawsuits.  To be clear, we are not taking these lawsuits in 2023. But there is a strong interest in how previous successful MDLs have played out so we are providing this information here.  Some of this – most of this – is fresh content but some was pulled for 15 years ago.

Denture Cream Lawsuits

The history of denture cream lawsuits dates back to the late 2000s, when individuals who had used denture creams, including Super Poligrip, for an extended period of time began to experience adverse health effects, including nerve damage and iron-deficiency anemia. This prompted a number of class action lawsuits to be filed against the manufacturers of denture creams, including GSK Consumer Healthcare, the maker of Super Poligrip.

In these lawsuits, plaintiffs claimed that the zinc in the creams caused nerve damage and anemia due to excessive zinc absorption. The lawsuits further alleged that the manufacturers failed to adequately warn consumers about the potential risks associated with long-term use of the creams.

So GSK has faced a number of class action lawsuits elated to the safety and effectiveness of Super Poligrip and other denture creams. In some cases, plaintiffs claimed that the zinc in the creams caused nerve damage, while in others they claimed that the creams caused anemia due to excessive zinc absorption.

In response to these lawsuits, GSK has issued warnings and changes to the labeling of its denture creams, including Super Poligrip, to advise consumers of the potential risks associated with long-term use and to provide information on proper usage. In addition, GSK has agreed to settle certain lawsuits, including class action lawsuits, brought against the company for a lot of money.

Denture Cream Class Action MDL

The history of the denture cream multidistrict litigation (MDL) refers to a legal proceeding that consolidated multiple individual lawsuits related to the safety and effectiveness of denture creams, including Super Poligrip, into a single case for pre-trial proceedings.

MDLs are often used when there are a large number of lawsuits that involve similar factual and legal issues, such as those related to denture creams. The purpose of an MDL is to streamline the litigation process and avoid duplicative discovery and other pre-trial proceedings.

In the denture cream MDL, the lawsuits were consolidated before a single judge in the Southern District of Florida. The proceedings included evidence and expert testimony related to the potential health risks associated with long-term use of denture creams, including Super Poligrip, and the manufacturers’ warnings and labeling practices.

It’s important to note that the MDL proceedings did not result in a final resolution of the individual lawsuits. Rather, the MDL was used to efficiently manage the pre-trial proceedings, with the individual lawsuits being returned to their original venues for trial or settlement.

Warning Change

The manufacturers of Super Poligrip, the zinc-containing denture adhesive that can cause numbness, decrease in strength, tingling, balance problems, and other issues, have updated its product with a new warning.

Now, consumers are warned that the denture adhesive contains zinc and that they should talk with their doctor if they are taking zinc supplements because of the potential for zinc-toxicity. It also warns that excessive amounts of Poligrip can cause serious health effects.

Finally, diagrams are included detailing proper use, and the labeling informs consumers about how long a tube should last. This is a good step forward. The problem with the adhesive up to now has been that many consumers with ill-fitting dentures use prodigious amounts of adhesive, causing extensive neurological injuries. These warnings may go a long way to prevent further problems.

Continue Reading

Thousands of women who developed mesothelioma or ovarian cancer after extended use of talcum powder products have filed a talcum powder lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson alleging that it knew about the dangers of talc and failed to warn them.

Recently, a jury in Oakland, California awarded 35-year-old Christina Prudencio $26.5 million for pain and suffering, plus another $100,000 in punitive damages in her talcum powder lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson.  There has also been a $2 billion verdict that has made it past the appellate process.

In this post, we will take a brief look at the story behind the talcum powder litigation and discuss the details of the case that resulted in this recent verdict.  First, let’s get you updated on the very latest in the baby powder lawsuits.

Sprue-like enteropathy is an intestinal condition involving chronic diarrhea, nausea, stomach severe stomach discomfort, and rapid weight loss.

Sprue-like enteropathy is a condition that affects the small intestine and can lead to malnutrition, chronic diarrhea, and weight loss. It has been associated with the use of certain drugs, such as the blood pressure medication olmesartan.

Sprue-Like Enteropathy

Clinical studies have conclusively shown that baby formula made from cow’s milk, such as Similac and Enfamil, is dangerous to premature infants because they significantly increase the risk of a dangerous infection called necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). Over the last year, a growing number of product liability lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturers of Similac and Enfamil by parents of premature babies who developed NEC. These NEC formula lawsuits allege that the formula makers knew their products were dangerous to preemies and deliberately failed to warn about the risk of NEC.

In this post, we will look at the current status of the infant formula NEC lawsuits against the manufacturers of Enfamil and Similac. We will look at where these NEC formula lawsuits are being filed, how many are currently pending, who the major players are on both sides (plaintiff and defendant), and other details.

UPDATES:

A new study has revealed that Neptazane, a popular prescription drug used for the treatment of glaucoma, can cause some users to develop a serious and extremely painful skin condition called Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. This could potentially lead to some product liability lawsuits by individuals who used Neptazane and developed SJS.

What is Neptazane?

Neptazane (methazolamide) is a prescription drug that is often used to treat specific types of glaucoma and other ophthalmologic abnormalities. Glaucoma is a condition of the eyes that causes visual loss in one or both eyes by damaging the optic nerve. Fluid buildup behind the eye is the most common cause of this condition.

Several studies have found an association between cow’s milk-based infant formulas and necrotizing enterocolitis. As a result, plaintiffs have filed NEC infant formula lawsuits against Mead Johnson and Abbott Laboratories, the manufacturers of Enfamil and Similac, respectively. They allege that these formulas cause necrotizing enterocolitis.

This is what you need to know about infant formulas, necrotizing enterocolitis, the studies on the relationship between the two, and the recently filed baby formula lawsuits.

Infant formula types

This week the MDL Judge in the Paragard IUD lawsuits will consider a motion to dismiss filed by the manufacturers of the defective birth control device. The Paragard MDL has grown to include over 500 individual cases by plaintiffs alleging that their Paragard IUD fractured during removal resulting in severe pain and sometimes emergency surgery to remove the broken pieces inside their uterus.

About the Paragard Lawsuits

The Paragard is an intrauterine device (IUD) used for birth control. It is a small plastic device shaped like a Y with a copper coil around the center. The device is inserted at the base of the uterus where is provides continuous protection against pregnancy for up to 10 years. The Paragard was designed to be easily removed at the doctor’s office.

Hundreds of farmers and agriculture workers have filed paraquat lawsuits alleging that their exposure to paraquat caused them to develop Parkinson’s disease. Back in June, a new Paraquat MDL was created and it already has around 200 pending cases. Last week, the MDL judge ordered all incoming plaintiffs to complete a Plaintiff’s Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ).

In this post, we will take a close look at the PAQ because it is essentially an outline of the key issues that will shape the paraquat litigation moving forward. It also gives prospective plaintiffs an idea of what type of facts they will need to support their case.

About the Paraquat Lawsuits

Our DreamStation CPAP recall lawyers are currently seeking new cases from individuals who used one of the recalled DreamStation devices and suffered health consequences related to the inhalation of chemicals from the device.

If you used a Philips DreamStation, DreamStation Go, or another recalled CPAP machine for 6 months or longer and have suffered cancer or other negative health consequences, you may be entitled to compensation.

What led to this recall and DreamStation lawsuits? A few weeks ago, Philips Respironics announced it was recalling all of its popular DreamStation sleep apnea machines because they may cause users to unknowingly inhale toxic, potentially carcinogenic chemicals