<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="pixel-app" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Yourlawyer.com (Bowflex Defects News)</title>
	<link>http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/bowflex_defects</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:12:16 -0800</pubDate>

	<generator>pixel-app</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	
	<item>
		<title>Bowflex Ultimate 2 Home Gyms Recalled Following Injury Reports</title>
		<link>http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/13221</link>		
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/13221</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[More than 68,000 Bowflex Ultimate 2 Home Gyms manufactured by Nautilus Inc. were recalled by the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC).&nbsp; The recall was issued after 3 customers complained to Nautilus that they were injured after fasteners on the Bowflex Ultimate 2 Home Gyms came loose.The Bowflex Ultimate 2 Home Gyms were manufactured in China.&nbsp; The home gyms were sold by fitness retailers and direct to consumers for about $2,300....]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More than 68,000 Bowflex Ultimate 2 Home Gyms manufactured by Nautilus Inc. were recalled by the <a href="http://www.cpsc.gov/">Consumer Products Safety Commission</a> (CPSC).&nbsp; The recall was issued after 3 customers complained to Nautilus that they were injured after fasteners on the Bowflex Ultimate 2 Home Gyms came loose.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/bowflex_defects">Bowflex</a> Ultimate 2 Home Gyms were manufactured in China.&nbsp; The home gyms were sold by fitness retailers and direct to consumers for about $2,300. The exercise device is equipped with pulleys, tension rods, and other equipment to permit the user to select from among a variety of exercise routines. &quot;Bowflex&quot; and &quot;Bowflex Ultimate 2&quot; are on the front of the &ldquo;Lat Tower&rdquo; and sides of main upright frame structure. Fasteners on the machine can loosen, allowing sections of the equipment to separate and possibly hit someone.&nbsp; Three consumers have complained of bruised arms and soreness as a result of the box holding the gym&rsquo;s resistance rods separating from the frame.</p><p>This is not the first time Nautilus has issued a large scale recall for one of its Bowflex home gyms.&nbsp;&nbsp; In 2004, hundreds of thousands of Bowflex home gyms were recalled because the machine's backboard bench could unexpectedly collapse when being used in the incline position.&nbsp; There were also problems with the &quot;Lat Tower,&quot; which attaches to the back of the bench and has a metal bar that the user pulled down to strengthen the upper body. At the time, Nautilus said that the frame of the tower can weaken over time, twist forward and fall -- hitting the user in the back, head or shoulder. Of the reports received, 59 people suffered injuries when the backboard collapsed. Another 14 were injured by the &quot;Lat Tower.&quot; </p><p>In April 2005, Nautilus paid a $950,000 civil penalty to the CPSC for failing to inform the agency in a timely manner about injuries and safety defects on some Bowflex exercise machines.&nbsp; The CPSC alleged that between December 1998 and July 2002, Nautilus knew of 25 injuries to consumers caused by the backboard defect.&nbsp; Between April 2002 and April 2004, the CPSC alleges that Nautilus knew of 32 incidents were people where injured due to the &ldquo;Lat Tower&rdquo; defects.&nbsp; Nautilus failed to report these problems to the CPSC within the appropriate time frame.&nbsp; Federal law requires that companies report possible safety issues to the CPSC within 24 hours of learning of them.<br /><br /></p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>	
	
	<item>
		<title>Nautilus Agrees To Pay $950,000 Civil Penalty</title>
		<link>http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9618</link>		
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9618</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nautilus Inc. has agreed to pay a $950,000 civil penalty to the Consumer Product Safety Commission for failing to give timely reports on injuries and safety defects on some Bowflex exercise machines.Nautilus waited years in some cases to notify the commission about issues with some machines. There have been 85 injuries, including lacerations and chipped teeth, because of problems with the backboard bench, seat pin and incline-support bracket on...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Nautilus Inc. has agreed to pay a $950,000 civil penalty to the Consumer Product Safety Commission for failing to give timely reports on injuries and safety defects on some Bowflex exercise machines.<br /><br />Nautilus waited years in some cases to notify the commission about issues with some machines. There have been 85 injuries, including lacerations and chipped teeth, because of problems with the backboard bench, seat pin and incline-support bracket on various Bowflex models, commission spokesman Scott Wolfson said.<br /><br />Under federal law, manufacturers, distributors and retailers must inform the commission immediately about potential safety hazards with their products. Nautilus, based in Vancouver, Wash., recalled about 800,000 Bowflex Power Pro and Ultimate fitness machines in January and November 2004. The Power Pro has been discontinued.<br /><br />Nautilus, which also makes Schwinn and StairMaster fitness equipment, also didn't report a June 2000 design change to the Power Pro, the commission said. Companies must report product design changes related to a safety defect, Wolfson said.<br /><br />]]></content:encoded>
	</item>	
	
	<item>
		<title>Bowflex Defects Injury Lawyers</title>
		<link>http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/bowflex_defects</link>		
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/bowflex_defects</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bowflex Defects
Bowflex Ultimate 2 Home Gym Recall October 2007 In October 2007, Nautilus Inc. recalled another 68,000 Bowflex Ultimate 2 Home Gyms.&nbsp;&nbsp; Fasteners on the machine could loosen, allowing sections of the equipment to separate and possibly hit someone.&nbsp; Prior to the recall, three consumers had complained of bruised arms and soreness as a result of the box holding the gym&rsquo;s resistance rods separating from the...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h3>Bowflex Defects</h3>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Bowflex Ultimate 2 Home Gym Recall </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">October 2007 </span><br />In October 2007, Nautilus Inc. recalled another 68,000 Bowflex Ultimate 2 Home Gyms.&nbsp;&nbsp; Fasteners on the machine could loosen, allowing sections of the equipment to separate and possibly hit someone.&nbsp; Prior to the recall, three consumers had complained of bruised arms and soreness as a result of the box holding the gym&rsquo;s resistance rods separating from the frame.<br /><br />The recalled Bowflex Ultimate 2 Home Gyms were manufactured in China.&nbsp; The home gyms were sold by fitness retailers and direct to consumers for about $2,300. The exercise device was equipped with pulleys, tension rods, and other equipment to permit the user to select from among a variety of exercise routines. &quot;Bowflex&quot; and &quot;Bowflex Ultimate 2&quot; are on the front of the &ldquo;Lat Tower&rdquo; and sides of the main upright frame structure. Customers who purchased a recalled Bowflex Ultimate Home Gym were instructed to contact Nautilus Inc. for a repair kit, too little too late if you were already injured..<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br />Bowflex Defects Go Unreported</span><br />Between 1995 and December 2003, Nautilus made and sold approximately 420,000 Bowflex Power Pro fitness machines with a &ldquo;Lat Tower&rdquo; and a backboard bench. The CPSC (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission) alleges that between December 1998 and July 2002, Nautilus knew of 27 incidents and 25 injuries to consumers when the backboard bench broke apart and collapsed unexpectedly during use.<br /><br />The company allegedly knew, but did not report to CPSC, that consumers suffered back, disc and neck injuries and falls resulting in chipped teeth. In addition, CPSC alleges that the company failed to report a June 2000 design change, intended to reinforce the bench by adding a steel plate. In January 2004, after the company had finally reported in full, CPSC and Nautilus announced the recall of Power Pro machines.<br /><br />Between August 2002 and April 2004, Nautilus received 32 reports of consumers suffering injuries when the seat pin on the Bowflex Power Pro (with a &ldquo;Lat Tower&rdquo;) and Ultimate fitness machines unexpectedly broke or became disengaged during use. Nautilus, it is alleged, failed to tell CPSC that users unexpectedly fell back on the adjustable seat and suffered injuries.<br /><br style="font-weight: bold;" /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2004 Bowflex Ultimate and Power Pro Recall</span><br />The injuries included a blood clot, a laceration requiring stitches, pulled ligaments and back, disc and neck injuries. In November 2004, after the company had finally reported in full, CPSC and Nautilus announced a new recall of Power Pro and Ultimate fitness machines.<br /><br />The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that Nautilus Inc., of Vancouver, Wash., has agreed to pay a $950,000 civil penalty. The penalty, which has been provisionally accepted by the Commission, settles allegations that the company failed to give CPSC timely reports on serious injuries and safety defects with nearly 800,000 Bowflex fitness machines.<br /><br />If you or a loved one has been injured due to a defective bowflex machine, please fill out the form at the right for a free case evaluation by a qualified product liability attorney.]]></content:encoded>
	</item>	
		
	</channel>
</rss>