He is being represented in his lawsuit by the national law firm of Parker Waichman LLP. The firm represents a growing number of Actos-related bladder cancer victims and its founding partner, Jerrold S. Parker, was named to serve on the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in a federal Multidistrict Litigation filed against the makers of the drug. This latest lawsuit was combined with those other lawsuits in Re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 6:11-md-2299). 

This lawsuit and the MDL are filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The lawsuits claim that Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly & Co. knowingly hid evidence that showed taking this particular diabetes drug – especially at high doses or for a prolonged period of time – could lead to bladder cancer.

The complaint joins other and a growing number of similar lawsuits all making similar claims. MDL are approved by a federal judicial panel and combine lawsuits which make like claims. The process streamlines the pre-trial process and decides on matters of admission of evidence, approved witnesses, and other matters that could be used as grounds for appeal after a decision has been reached. The MDL process aims to eliminate the basis for any appeals.

In the Actos MDL, Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. f/k/a Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America. Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited and Eli Lilly and Company have been named as Defendants.

The North Carolina man says he was prescribed Actos in 2002 and after taking the drug for a short while, he developed bladder cancer. He believes that Takeda was aware of the risk of bladder cancer associated with the drug but failed to inform the public of this risk in favor of higher sales for more than a decade.

Revenues generated from Actos sales have boosted since the previous top-selling diabetes drug, Avandia, was essentially removed from the market by the Food and Drug Administration due to its link to several life-threatening side effects like heart attack and stroke. 

Actos was formally approved by the FDA in July 1999 but it was not until last year that the agency first informed the public of this dangerous side effect risk. The FDA formally added a Black Box warning to Actos safety information that notes taking the drug for more than a year can increase the risk of suffering bladder cancer, a life-threatening disease.

A recent study showed that taking Actos over another type 2 diabetes medication could increase a person’s risk of developing bladder cancer by 22 percent.

The woman says her TVT transvaginal mesh manufactured by Ethicon Inc, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson was defective and caused her to suffer serious and permanent injuries when it was designed to treat her bout of pelvic organ prolapse. Transvaginal mesh devices were approved largely through the Food and Drug Administration's dubious 510(k) fast-track approval system to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. 

Millions of women are afflicted with these serious and life-altering conditions and transvaginal mesh was hailed as a new and advanced treatment and quickly implanted in tens of thousands of women across the country. More than 30 companies manufacture some form of transvaginal mesh, allegedly a slightly adapted form of other surgical mesh devices that have been used for years in other types of surgeries.

After having the TVT transvaginal mesh implanted in a November 2008 procedure, the Empire State woman soon began suffering complications that have been echoed by thousands more women who've been fitted with these largely defective devices. She has endured numerous revision surgeries attempting to repair or remove the mesh device but the effects caused by the defective mesh and from the subsequent surgeries are likely to be life-lasting. The woman has decided to file a lawsuit against the manufacturers for failing to do due diligence in researching the safety of their device and for the injuries she suffered as a result.

The woman is being represented by the national law firm of Parker Waichman LLP, a leader in representing victims of defective medical devices. The firm represents several other women who've been injured by this and other similar transvaginal mesh devices. The lawsuit representing the New York woman was consolidated with others as part of a federal Multidistrict Litigation in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. 

The latest complaint alleges that " the mesh poses a dangerous and unreasonable risk to women because, among other things, the material used for the mesh is not inert and reacts with the tissues of the body. The suit further alleges that the Defendants knew about these risks but chose to sell the devices without warning the Plaintiff or the public."

Last year, the Food and Drug Administration ruled that injuries caused by a defective transvaginal mesh product were "not rare" and they put women at serious risk of short-term complications and permanent injuries. Transvaginal mesh devices have been linked to serious complications like erosion through the vaginal wall, severe pain, increased risk of infections, bleeding, pain during intercourse, organ perforation, and urinary problems.

Prior to issuing that statement on the risk of injuries associated with transvaginal mesh devices, the FDA previously ordered more than 30 manufacturers of these products to conduct full post-market safety reviews that will likely determine their future viability on the market. Since that order, several companies have stopped selling some transvaginal mesh devices they once manufactured.

The national law firm of Parker Waichman LLP has filed the lawsuit recently in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and aims to represent any Florida residents that own this gun manufactured by the iconic company. The lawsuit claims that a defective trigger device on the Remington Model 700 rifle can cause the gun to fire unexpectedly, especially when the trigger is not pulled. 

There have been scores of reports in recent years of Remington rifles firing unexpectedly, leading to several deaths and other serious injuries when the errant shots hit a nearby person or the gun handler. The Model 700, like several other Remington rifles, features the Walker Fire Control trigger mechanism, a patented device that's designed to give gun handlers a better feel when they eventually do press the trigger, resulting in a smoother shot.

According to a statement from the firm announcing the lawsuit, "Unlike other firearm manufacturers, Remington’s patented Walker Fire Control utilizes an internal component known as a trigger “connector;” the connector supports another internal component called the sear. When the trigger is pulled, the trigger body pushes the connector forward, allowing the sear to fall and the rifle to fire. When the trigger is pulled and the rifle fires, a gap is created between the trigger body and the trigger connector." Further, the Parker Waichman lawsuit claims that "field debris, manufacturing scrap, burrs from the manufacturing process, lubrication and moisture can build up in the gap created during a trigger pull," causing the Walker device to fail and put the gun owner and others at risk of serious injuries. 

The firm also believes that Remington has known since at least 1979 that the Walker Fire Control device is defective and that 1 percent of all its 5 million guns manufactured since it began using the Walker device back in 1948 are known to "trick" and fire unexpectedly. Essentially, the 1 percent are all guns that feature the Walker mechanism, which is all Model 700 rifles. This means any Remington Model 700 rifle could fire unexpectedly. 

Parker Waichman also notes in its complaint against the rifle makers that the company has previously dealt with problems associated with an older model of gun that also featured the Walker Fire Control. In 1978, Remington offered one family who lost a loved one due to an unexpected fire of a Model 600 rifle. When the news media was alerted to this settlement, the company was eventually forced to recall the Model 600. 

The problems with that gun, the firm states in its lawsuit, mirror those of the Model 700.

According to a statement from the national law firm of Parker Waichman LLP, Maxfield & Oberton Holdings, LLC, the company that manufactured Buckyballs, is in liquidation and has ceased to exist under Delaware law. The company made this announcement on Dec. 27 of last year amid controversy that it manufactured a dangerous product that put children's lives at risk.

Maxfield & Oberton has continually denied that its products are dangerous despite a growing number of injury reports linked to its Buckyballs products. These desktop novelties feature numerous rare earth magnets. These magnets are incredibly powerful, especially considering their size. Buckyballs is one of several products to use them for this purpose and they are generally marketed to an older audience but that hasn't prevented children from accessing them.

If these magnets are dislodged from their form, they pose serious injury hazards if they're swallowed. Children could put these magnets in their mouths for a variety of reasons, some trying to emulate having a tongue piercing, even. If just two, or more magnets are swallowed, they can cause serious internal injuries and perhaps death. These magnets can fuse on either side of a delicate organ like the colon and cause a perforation that requires emergency surgery to remove them.

Swallowing these magnets could also result in blood poisoning if the magnets are not removed in a timely fashion or even an intestinal blockage. 

In ceasing business, Maxfield & Oberton have also established a Liquidating trust has been set up to potentially pay for certain claims against the company. Those who believe they have a claim against the Buckyballs makers are advised to fill out a Proof of Claim form, according to the Parker Waichman press release.

In July 2012, the Consumer Product Safety Commission ordered the makers of Buckyballs and another product using numerous rare earth magnets, Zen Magnets, to stop production and marketing of their products to stem the wave of injury reports linked to them. The regulator said they wanted the companies to stop their businesses altogether. 

The companies initially complied but returned to action during the most recent holiday season before Maxfield & Oberton, the most successful of businesses dealing in these products, shut its operations entirely last month. The company said it stopped selling Buckyballs and Buckycubes on Dec. 19.

According to a press release from the national law firm of Parker Waichman LLP and the Law Offices of Jim Bartolomei, a class-action lawsuit has been filed against Twin America LLC, formed between Coach USA and City Sights LLC. It claims the companies aimed to dominate the popular bus tours market in New York City. The lawsuit was filed on Dec. 17 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. 

The lawsuit claims these companies conspired to work together and consume most of the so-called "hop-on, hop-off" bus tours in the city. By doing this, they were able to inflate the prices for these tours and practically guarantee they'd get every rider as theirs. Twin America LLC, Coach USA Inc., International Bus Services Inc., City Sights LLC, and City Sights Twin LLC have all been named as Defendants in the lawsuit.

The statement from the firms indicates that "hop-on, hop-off" bus tours are a $100 million-a-year industry in New York city, alone. They're a standard for a first-time visitor to New York City. These buses travel to and from the major tourist attractions in the city, from the Empire State Building to Times Square. Passengers are transported on open-top double-decker buses around the metropolis and at each stop are free to get off the bus and get on another. 

Prior to 2008, Coach USA and City Sights were in direct competition with each other, with Coach taking a majority of the riders on these tours. It was at that point when Coach USA allegedly "tired of the competition" and the companies met, negotiated, and eventually formed Twin America LLC. When they did this, the company was essentially going to be responsible for taking 99 percent of all "hop-on, hop-off" tourists around the city. Prices for these rides were able to rise 10 percent, too, as no other competition really existed. 

Coach and City Sights share managerial duties over the monopoly but profits are split 60 percent for Coach and the remainder for City Sights. 

The lawsuit also claims that these compenies "failed to obtain approval from the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) before operating Twin America in March 2009. STB approval is needed when there is a transaction involving a change in control of an interstate motor carrier," according to the Parker Waichman release. And when they companies eventually did seek this approval in 2011 - after being chided by New York's Attorney General's office - it was rejected because it was determined that this company had this market cornered unfairly.

The claim has been filed on behalf of two Tennessee tourists and seeks to include anyone who purchased a "hop-on, hop-off" ticket from Twin America since the company was formed.

The man has become the latest to file a lawsuit against the makers of this dangerous metal-on-metal hip implant, Biomet Inc. and Biomet Orthopedics LLC, seeking damages for personal pain and suffering as well as for the unexpected medical costs. The Michigan man is being represented by the national law firm of Parker Waichman LLP, which represents several other victims of Biomet M2a Magnum™ hip implant defects. The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 26 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The Michigan man was implanted with the Biomet hip implant in March 2009 but it only lasted a few years before he was forced to under revision surgery to remove the device after enduring bouts of severe and persistent pain. The man also claims in his lawsuit that the Biomet hip implant was like other metal-on-metal hip implants and was putting him at risk of suffering metallosis caused by the metal components of the implant rubbing against each other and dispersing small metallic particles throughout this body. 

In the lawsuit, "he received the Biomet M2a Magnum on his left hip in March 2009. Even though the Defendants knew of over 100 adverse event reports related to the device, they refused to inform the Plaintiff or the public," the firm notes in a release announcing the filing of the claim."

Further, "The revision surgery itself has a significant risk of injury because these procedures are more complex than initial implantation because there is less bone to work with and a higher chance of future complications," the complaint argues.

The Michigan man claims he would have never agreed to have the Biomet M2a Magnum™ implanted in a total hip replacement surgery had he been made aware of the dangers of this specific implant and the risks it posed of serious and permanent injuries.

As a class of medical devices, metal-on-metal hip implants have come under increased federal and clinical scrutiny as thousands of recipients of these devices have taken similar actions as the Michigan man in the Parker Waichman lawsuit. The scrutiny mostly started when another maker of a metal-on-metal hip implant recalled its device and the public was finally made aware of the risk of metallosis and that many of the devices suffered from a faulty design that caused widespread complications.

This order was originally part of a ruling in response to a federal lawsuit claiming tobacco companies deceived the public for decades and hid information that showed smoking cigarettes and using tobacco was harmful to a person's health. The tobacco companies opposed the order but in 2006 their appeal of this particular part of the decision against them. This decision was separate from the record $206 billion lawsuit against the same tobacco companies which paid damages to victims of tobacco addiction and for other public information programs.

The campaign must include specific notices on the dangers of smoking and will be included in just about any place where a tobacco company reaches consumers. Messages will be placed on product Web sites. Information will be included with products sold at retail stores, like in packs of cigarettes, that highlight the potential risks of smoking or using tobacco. The companies must also create print ads and inserts to be included in publications as well as television and radio ads with similar messages. 

Specifically, the Big Tobacco companies must state some of the following in their ads and other notices, according to a CNNMoney.com report: 

- "Smoking kills, on average, 1,200 Americans. Every day."

- "More people die every year from smoking than from murder, AIDS, suicide, drugs, car crashes, and alcohol, combined."

- "Secondhand smoke kills over 3,000 Americans each year."

A spokesperson for Philip Morris, makers of some of the most popular brands of cigarettes, told CNN they were reviewing the contents of the federal decision handed down this week announcing the rules for these required campaigns. A judge has already rejected a claim that Big Tobacco's First Amendment rights were being suppressed because they were being forced to use the canned statements in their materials.

The multi-billion dollar lawsuit settlement also announced at the time this lawsuit was being filed has required tobacco companies to create other public notice campaigns that call attention specifically to the dangers of smoking, many of the very same effects tobacco companies denied for decades existed, including claims that smoking cigarettes or using other forms of tobacco led to various forms of cancer, breathing problems, or that it was addictive. 

According to an announcent from the firm last week, the Plaintiff in Parker Waichman's latest filing to be added to the  In Re: Ethicon Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2327), a woman from Colorado was implanted with the TVT transvaginal mesh device during a November 2010 procedure to treat developing conditions stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved the use of transvaginal mesh devices in the treatment of these two painful conditions affecting millions of women annually. The agency did so through its maligned 510(k) "fast-track" approval system that grants access to the market based on a new medical device's similarities to previously-approved devices. 

Based on the number of adverse events linked to transvaginal mesh devices, especially in the last year, that decision may have been unwise by the FDA. Thousands of women across the country have been affected by defective transvaginal mesh devices like Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon's TVT device.

Transvaginal mesh devices have been linked to a wide array of complications, many of which are painful and frustrating, especially as surgical attempts to correct these problems often fail and only lead to more complications. Among the side effects of transvaginal mesh devices are erosion through the vagina, pain, infection, bleeding, pain during intercourse, organ perforation, and other urinary problems.

The Plaintiff in the latest Parker Waichman lawsuit believes complications arose with the TVT device soon after it was implanted. 

Many women who've been implanted with this or other devices have found life to be more difficult once complications arise. Some women even have reported that they've been unable to sit, stand, or sleep in one position too long due to the pain the compromised mesh devices posed.

Realizing that it may have erred, the FDA in July 2011 ordered makers of transvaginal mesh devices to begin conducting post-market safety tests to determine their efficacy in treating these conditions. Since that announcement, some companies have ordered a recall on some models of mesh devices. Johnson & Johnson announced that it would stop selling several models of transvaginal mesh devices, including Prolift, Prolift + M, TVT Secur, and Prosima.

According to a WNYC.org report, eight of the ten people on LIPA's board of directors has political affiliations with state leaders in Albany, N.Y., and have no experience in managing or even the basic functions of a power company. Just one board member, the report indicates, has any experience in energy. 

LIPA is currently facing increasing public scrutiny and impending legal trouble as businesses and individuals begin to learn that the power company was negligent in its preparations and response to Superstorm Sandy. Tens of thousands of its customers lost electricity during the storm and those outages persisted as the company failed to enact a plan in dealing with the widespread catastrophe.

Thousands of business owners in the Long Island area, served by LIPA, believe the company's negligence in its resopnse to Sandy, has continued to cost them tremendous losses, losses that are multiplying by the day and threaten to put them out of business entirely. Three high-powered law firms serving the Long Island and New York area, including the national law firm of Parker Waichman LLP, have combined to serve those businesses and individuals affected by LIPA's alleged negligence.

Of the 10 board members currently seated with LIPA, the one with a background in energy companies told WNYC that getting people to serve on the volunteer organization is difficult and compared the preparations and response to Superstorm Sandy a "Herculean task" but the source indicates that LIPA's board has only met once since the storm hit on Oct. 29. 

The watchdog group, Environmental Advocates for New York, told WNYC that the way LIPA is organized and managed does not meet the needs of the public, particularly regarding its growing demand for electricity. 

Even though he is technically responsible for the make-up of the board at LIPA currently, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said that he is organizing a special committee to investigate how organizations like LIPA can be improved to prevent careless responses to natural disasters and other widespread power outages in the future.

For tens of thousands of people and businesses on Long Island, N.Y., and the surrounding area, much of the post-storm devastation and loss likely could have been avoided had Long Island Power Authority taken the proper steps prior to the storm and acted with a plan during and after it. Without electricity for more than two weeks in some parts, businesses have lost multiplying profits and their futures are in jeopardy thanks in no small part to the negligence of LIPA.

Affected businesses have reached out to several local law firms as they attempt to prove their case against LIPA and seek to reclaim what they’ve lost in the storm and its unexpected and largely avoidable aftermath. A trio of Long Island law firms have been contacted recently by several business owners who’ve been most affected by Superstorm Sandy. These establishments have lost inventory, profits, and functionality after the storm and believe that had LIPA been more prepared for widespread power outages, much of this loss could have been avoided.

At first, Kenneth Mollins, a prominent personal injury attorney in the Long Island area filed a class-action lawsuit against LIPA and its contractor, National Grid, claiming negligence on each company's part before, during, and after the storm. The lawsuit sought to include any Long Island power consumer who lost power during the storm. Mollins has since reached out to Parker Waichman LLP, a leading national law firm when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals and businesses following a natural disaster, to aid his cause against LIPA. The well-known Manhattan law firm of Douglas & London has also joined the cause and together have created a high-powered litigation team to prove that LIPA is at least partially responsible for business and personal losses caused by the storm.

These businesses and individuals believe they can prove LIPA knew what had to be done to protect Long Island’s electricity infrastructure but instead chose to do as little as possible prior to the storm. As millions of residents that were targeted by Superstorm Sandy began to take preparations about a week prior to the storm’s arrival, LIPA figuratively sat on its hands, the business owners will contend.

Even before Sandy made landfall, its torrential rains and strong winds combined to create record storm surge that helped batter the coastline initially, knocking out electricity for millions. The storm eventually “morphed” into a Nor’easter, which locals are more accustomed to occurring on an almost annual basis, but not to the scale of this storm, hence earning the name Superstorm Sandy.

Billions of dollars in property damage has already been recorded and that number will likely increase. Close to 40 deaths have been blamed on the storm. Even though it was was not directly in the path of the hurricane, Long Island and Manhattan sustained severe damage from strong winds, heavy rains, and storm surge. Millions took emergency preparations, including thousands of business owners in the Long Island area but many of them believe their electricity provider failed in that effort.

According to a Parker Waichman LLP release announcing the alliance, the next step in the legal process will be for the triumvirate of firms to file a Notice of Claim against LIPA. By doing this, LIPA will be put on notice of the claims against it. LIPA will be given an opportunity to offer settlements on these damages claims and by doing so could avoid future litigation for its negligence in preparing and reacting to Superstorm Sandy.

These businesses fear the worst for their futures. Approximately one in four businesses fail to re-open anywhere a natural disaster strikes in the U.S. On Long Island, that rate could multiply simply because more precaution was not taken prior to Sandy’s arrival.