Court Cases

Silicone lawsuit   April 28th, 2014

My understanding of the lawsuit for Silicone Material Claimants is that anyone with silicone implants placed between 1976 and 1991 from Bioplasty, Baxter, Bristol, Cox-Uphoff, or Mentor would qualify.  I don't know for sure if Dow Corning made all of them.  Best to check with an attorney for details.
Name of Group Litigation Order: The Trilucent Breast Implant Litigation
Date of Order: 01/07/03   Court: Nottingham county Court
Lead Solicitors: Freethcartwright, 
Defining Issues: Claims by the Claimants who had their trilucent breast implants removed prior to 6th June 2000 and who claim damages pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act 1987.


United Kingdom Lawsuits
In May 2006, the Company was sued in the Nottingham County Court by 28 plaintiffs under the "The Consumer Protection Act" of the United Kingdom. The plaintiffs alleged that the envelope surrounding their implants, obtained by their respective surgeons from PIP France, SA, were not resistant enough and could cause pain and inflammation when they leak.
In December 2006, the Company was sued in the London High Court by Ms Allison Allvey under the “The Consumer Protection Act” of the United Kingdom. The plaintiff alleged that the envelope surrounding her implants, obtained by her surgeon from PIP France, SA, was not resistant enough.
On July 31, 2008, the Company was notified that certain court orders from the Higher Court of Justice: London and the Nottingham County Court, respectively, in the matters of Allison Allvey v. PIP and Martignetti & Others v. PIP, required PIP to pay an aggregate of $2.3 million in damages to the plaintiffs and attorneys.
On May 19, 2008, the Plaintiffs obtained a court order before the Superior Court of Toulon to enforce the payment upon PIP, including seizing the assets of PIP, if necessary. This was served to the Company on July 31, 2008. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this court order on September 2, 2008. A mediator will be appointed by the court and the Company will have approximately four months, or until December 2008 to either negotiate a settlement with the plaintiffs and attorneys or to pay. The Company does not have the financial resources to pay the plaintiffs and attorneys by December 2008 and will seek to negotiate an extension of the payment terms and/or a reduction of the obligations payable to the plaintiffs and attorneys.
Read more 

1996  Currently pending in this court are a number of silicone breast implant cases brought by or on behalf of the plaintiffs against various breast implant manufacturers.1 Plaintiffs seek damages for injuries they claim to have suffered as a result of implantation with silicone gel breast implants.
Among other things, the plaintiffs assert that silicone from the implants has migrated and degraded in their bodies and has caused a systemic syndrome or illness, which they generally refer to as "atypical connective tissue disease" (ACTD). In essence, plaintiffs claim a "unique constellation of symptoms" consisting of hundreds of symptoms commonly experienced by the general population.2

MAY 13, 2004  This case is different from most other breast implant cases, because Plaintiff is not alleging that Cagle's cancer was caused by silicone. Cagle was one of a relatively small number of women whose implants were coated with a polyurethane foam laintiff alleges that PUF breaks down in vivo into 2, 4-toluene diamine ("TDA") (also called 2, 4-diaminotoluene), which he claims is carcinogenic. Defendants either manufactured or are successors in interest to companies that manufactured "Meme" polyurethane foam ("PUF") coated breast implants. After the FDA requested data from the manufacturers about the chemical composition of PUF and safety testing data on that foam, the manufacturers suspended shipments of polyurethane-covered breast implants in May 1991. Alleges that her implants manufactured by The Cooper Companies, Inc., Surgitek/Medical Engineering Corp. (a subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb Co.), and Foamex, L.P. ("Defendants") caused or accelerated her breast cancer. He alleges that Defendants are either the manufacturers or the successors in interest to the manufacturers of the devices implanted in Mrs. Cagle. His First Cause of Action is for "Strict Products Liability." The others are as follows: (2) "Failure to Warn"; (3) Breach of Implied Warranty; (4) Breach of Express Warranty; (5) Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation; (6) Negligence; (7) Loss of Consortium; (9) Wrongful Death; and (10) Pain and Suffering.1




 DAUBERT v. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC
Petitioners Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller are minor children born with serious birth defects. They and their parents sued respondent in California state court, alleging that the birth defects had been caused by the mothers' ingestion of Bendectin, a prescription antinausea drug marketed by respondent. Respondent removed the suits to federal court on diversity grounds



Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)