The panel on Friday assigned the litigation over the presence of benzene in some Johnson & Johnson sunscreen products, and J&J’s recall of those products, to U.S. 3015 - IN RE: Johnson & Johnson Sunscreen Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation of Morgan, Lewis & Bockiusįor movant Thomas Starner: Sandra Duggan of Levin Sedran & Berman The consumer class actions generally seek actual damages for negligence, product liability, failure to warn, and breach of warranties actual and statutory damages for unfair business practices and consumer-law violations actual and punitive damages for fraud and injunctive relief, including medical monitoring.įor Philips et al.: John Lavelle Jr. In its recall notice, Philips said it is “treating this matter with the highest possible seriousness, and are working to address this issue as efficiently and thoroughly as possible.” Meanwhile, Philips has not offered “loaners,” and Medicare and most insurers will not pay for a new unit – estimated at $500 to $1,000 retail – unless the prior one was at least five years old. Food and Drug Administration deemed it a Class I recall based on the potential for “serious injury or death,” and approved Philips’ plan to repair existing units by replacing the foam with a more stable alternative.ĭue to the lack of ready replacement kits, though, the recall will last until September 2022. The company estimated that 3 million to 4 million machines are in use, with about half in the United States. Philips said it had determined that the polyester-based polyurethane foam in 11 models manufactured before April 2021 could degrade under certain circumstances, releasing toxic fumes and small particles that might be inhaled through the devices. ![]() The company had introduced its “second generation” models less than two weeks before the April announcement. 8 allege personal injuries, and all of the actions “raise similar factual questions regarding the recalled devices and the conduct of the recall,” the JPML’s transfer order says.Īmsterdam-based Koninkelijke (Royal) Philips voluntarily recalled the devices in June, two months after it publicly warned of “possible risks to users related to the sound abatement foam” in a long list of “first-generation” sleep-apnea and respiration aids. About 30 of the 114 cases filed as of Oct. ![]() The panel noted that the recalled devices were “primarily manufactured by Philips RS North America LLC (formerly Philips Respironics)” in the Pittsburgh area, and that the Pittsburgh-based court was acceptable to both Philips and the plaintiff who had asked for the cases to be consolidated, Thomas Starner.Īt the urging of the parties, the panel also agreed that the MDL should include personal-injury claims. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti in Pittsburgh to handle consumer class-action claims over the risks posed by the sound-abatement foam used in several models of Philips’ CPAP, Bi-Level PAP and mechanical ventilators 3014 - In Re: Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi−Level PAP, and Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability Litigation 30 conference, along with Geico’s motion for MDL treatment of five class actions stemming from a weeks-long data security breach the company revealed in April. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered both motions at its Sept. (Reuters) - A federal judicial panel on Friday granted motions to consolidate pretrial proceedings for more than 110 federal lawsuits against CPAP-maker Philips, and for at least 16 actions over Johnson & Johnson’s Neutrogena- and Aveeno-brand aerosol sunscreens.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |