If you borrowed money for college using the Higher One loan service, you may be entitled to participate in a class action lawsuit settlement in the coming months.
College students and others whose loans were processed by Higher One Holdings, Inc., can make a claim to receive part of a $15 million settlement fund. You can make a claim online at this link. The attorneys at Jones Ward PLC, along with several other law firms, reached the settlement agreement with Higher One and its business partners after filing multiple class action lawsuits in Kentucky and other states. The lawsuits claimed that Higher One’s fees were unfair and deceptive, that it didn’t have enough ATM machines on college campuses, and that it forced students to use its services against their wishes.
Email notices detail settlement program
The amount of the Higher One settlement payments depends on how long the account holder used the company’s services, and during which years. Email notices will be sent to class members first as part of an effort to control costs. If a potential recipient’s email address is no longer valid, he or she will receive a notice in the mail. The deadline to respond is Jan. 23, 2015. You can read the entire settlement agreement at this link. Higher One customers, including thousands at the University of Louisville and dozens of other colleges, typically had an agreement with the company called a OneAccount. Here are the criteria for participating in the settlement:
“All persons who opened a OneAccount between July 1, 2006 through
August 2, 2012 and who incurred a OneAccount Fee during that
More details on Higher One program
If you have questions about the Higher One settlement, the best source of information is the settlement Web site, which also has a Question and Answer page. If you have a question about a consumer protection or financial issue, call Attorney Alex C. Davis at 502-882-6000 or send an email to email@example.com.
Stryker hip implant lawyers at Jones Ward PLC have been receiving calls in recent weeks from concerned patients with the recalled Rejuvenate and ABG II device implanted in their bodies. The source of their anxiety: a series of advertisements on television and the Internet that claim there is a deadline in July 2014 to file a lawsuit against the company.
How to Calculate the Statute of Limitations
This is simply not true. Most likely, the ads are part of an effort to scare patients into filing a lawsuit quickly without weighing important considerations such as the level of experience that the law firm has in dealing with complex product liability cases. Any experienced hip implant lawyer will tell you that when a recall is announced for a medical device, that date is an important milestone for litigation. However, in most cases it has nothing to do with the Statute of Limitations for an injured person. That’s because the Statute of Limitations does not begin until the patient is actually injured. The injury in a recalled Stryker hip case is usually the date of revision surgery, when the recalled Rejuvenate or ABGII stem is removed by a surgeon due to fretting, corrosion, elevated levels of cobalt or chromium, or all of the above. The Statute of Limitations sets a deadline beyond which a patient may not make a claim against the manufacturer. It is different in every state.
Why the Ads are Wrong
The date of the recall does create a deadline in and of itself. Here’s why: when a company announced a hip recall, such as the DePuy ASR, the Zimmer Durom, or the Stryker Rejuvenate, the notice typically tells patients to have their device checked by a surgeon. Sometimes it must be removed immediately. Other times, it will last for a year, two years, or longer. Plaintiffs are still filing lawsuits even today over the DePuy ASR device, even though it was recalled in August 2010. The Rejuvenate was recalled in July 2012. But if the device never fails, there is no injury. In most states, the Statute of Limitations does not begin to run until the patient gains knowledge of, or “discovers,” the actual injury. Keep in mind that the rules vary from state to state, and the so-called discovery rule is not applied uniformly.
If you are injured by a defective metal-on-metal hip implant, don’t believe everything you see on television. For a free consultation, contact Attorney Alex C. Davis at 502-882-6000 or send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org
Heating pads sold under the Sunbeam and Kaz brand names are under scrutiny again due to consumers suffering burn injuries.
The lawyers at Jones Ward PLC are currently reviewing injury cases involving heating pads, which in some cases may not adequately warn about the dangers of burn injuries if the pads are used a certain way. Kaz USA, Inc. and Kaz, Inc., both part of a larger company called Helen of Troy, Ltd., recently settled a class action lawsuit in California for claims of false advertising and personal injury. The settlement was valued at up to $2.7 million, but it covered California residents only.
Heating Pad Warnings
Heating pads come in a variety of sizes and brand names, and the packaging may vary. Some companies have updated their warnings in recent years. If you are a heating pad user, make sure the box carries a warning about the dangers of falling asleep on the pad, lying on the pad, using it for a specific amount of time, and other potential hazards.
The lawyers at Jones Ward PLC are committed to making consumer products safer for all Americans. If you have been injured by a defective heating pad made by Sunbeam or Kaz or another company, contact Attorney Alex Davis at 502-882-6000 or send an email to email@example.com.
Jones Ward in the press moving to consolidate 9 cases, more to follow
The news recently reported that Jones Ward PLC, which currently represents dozens of victims of Bayer’s Mirena IUD who developed pseudotumor cerebri (PTC), has sought consolidation of these cases in a multi-district litigation (MDL). With 9 cases already filed on behalf of women who have developed this debilitating disease, also known as idiopathic intracranial hypertension or benign intracranial hypertension, Jones Ward is leading the legal community in standing up for the rights of Mirena users nationwide.
Where are these cases filed?
So far, Jones Ward has filed cases in Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia. However, the MDL consolidation of these cases will mean that they are transferred to a single United States District Court. Consolidation is great for plaintiffs, who are able to share the costs of litigation with others. In addition, consolidation is great for the courts because it minimizes duplicative processes. Jones Ward and our clients believe that consolidation of these cases will also streamline discover and allow for consistent rulings across cases that share common legal and factual issues.
What is pseudotumor cerebri?
Pseudotumor cerebri is a neurological condition characterized by too much cerebral spinal fluid (CSF). When CSF pressures become elevated, it causes severe headaches, debilitating nausea, and swollen optic nerves. If left untreated, PTC can cause blindness. When optic nerves swell, they can eventually die– so that a person’s blind spot becomes progressively bigger. The final result has been described as permanent “tunnel vision”.
PTC is a diagnosis of exclusion. The literal meaning of “pseudotumor cerebri” is a false tumor of the head. When a woman presents to her healthcare provider with headache, nausea, and ringing of the ears, it is often diagnosed after a visual exam shows swollen optic nerves. From there, her provider usually will order an MRI to ensure that she does not have a brain tumor. Finally, her doctor must perform a spinal tap to rule out meningitis. Spinal taps are extremely painful and come with a host of other potential complications.
The condition is chronic, meaning that once it develops a woman must be treated and monitored for the rest of her life. Most women end up taking a drug called Diamox, a diuretic. If the medication does not sufficiently reduce CSF pressure, then they may have to undergo therapeutic spinal taps to remove the fluid. Finally, some women require more invasive surgical interventions, such as shunts to siphon off the excess CSF or optic nerve sheath fenestration, where a surgeon cuts tiny holes into the optic nerve.
How is Mirena linked to PTC?
Mirena is a plastic IUD infused with a birth control hormone called levonorgestrel. Levonorgestrel has been linked to pseudotumor cerebri for years. The correlation between levonorgestrel implants and PTC was first discovered with Norplant. Norplant was a plastic stick that could be inserted into the arm to release hormones for years. Despite the known connection between levonorgestrel releasing implants and PTC, there is no warning about the risk on Mirena’s label. As a result, women and their doctors had no notice that Mirena could increase the risk that a woman develop PTC.
Jones Ward PLC is the leading firm to handle Mirena pseudotumor cases. Our attorneys are committed to fighting for just compensation for women who have been hurt by their Mirena IUD. If you or your loved one developed PTC while on Mirena, we would be happy to speak with you about your rights. Please contact attorney Lauren Horner at firstname.lastname@example.org, or call her at (502) 882-6000 for more information.
Dangerous drugs and medical devices including testosterone therapy and metal hips will be on the agenda at this week’s meeting of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, or JPML.
The panel of seven federal judges will meet at 9:30 Thursday morning in Chicago to hear arguments about dozens of mass tort cases, including MDL 2545, In Re: Androgel Products Liability Litigation. Androgel is among several brands of testosterone therapy medication, or Low T, which can lead to increased risks of cardiac problems for men. Lawyers for injured plaintiffs are suing the makers of Low T pills for failing to adequately warn about the dangers of heart attack, stroke, pulmonary embolism and other injuries.
GM Ignition Switch Litigation
Another matter on the JPML agenda is MDL 2543, In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation. Earlier this month the attorneys at Jones Ward PLC filed three class action cases over the GM/Chevy recall of defective ignition parts. The cases were filed in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana on behalf of residents who owned or leased certain recalled vehicles.
Mass Tort Cases Heading toward Consolidation
The above two cases and dozens of others are being submitted to the JPML for possible consolidation under a proceeding known as Multidistrict Litigation, or MDL for short. Congress created this tool with 28 U.S.C. §1407, which allows a panel of judges to centralize certain cases before a single federal judge to promote efficiency, conserve resources, and prevent inconsistent pre-trial rulings in cases that share similar facts. Unlike a class action, plaintiffs in an MDL retain their right to an individual jury trial, and their cases may be remanded back to their home jurisdiction once discovery and other pre-trial matters are finished. After a case is consolidated, a plaintiff has the right to challenge a motion to transfer their case to the MDL. Part of Thursday’s meeting at the Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse is devoted to several cases where the plaintiff was injured by a defective metal-on-metal hip implant made by DePuy Orthopaedics, but their lawyer does not want to join the MDL for the defective device. Jones Ward represents numerous plaintiffs in cases over the DePuy Pinnacle and DePuy ASR, as well as the Zimmer Durom, Biomet M2a, Stryker Rejuvenate, Smith & Nephew BHR, and other metal-on-metal hip implants.
Free consult for your mass tort case
If you or a loved one have been injured by a dangerous drug or medical device, call Attorney Alex Davis at 502-882-6000 for a free consultation, or send an email to email@example.com.
The Recall Lawyers at Jones Ward PLC filed three new class action cases this week regarding the GM/Chevy recall regarding the ignition defects. These class actions, filed in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana, are on behalf of residents of each of those states and potentially nationally who owned or leased any of the recalled Chevy models.
What Models Were Recalled
Beginning earlier this year, Chevy recalled these makes and model years because of defects:
* 2005-2007 Chevrolet Cobalt
* 2005-2007 Pontiac G5
* 2003-2007 Saturn Ion
* 2006-2007 Chevrolet HHR
* 2006-2007 Pontiac Solstice
* 2007 Saturn Sky
* 2008 – 2010 Pontiac Solstice
* 2008-2010 Saturn Sky
* 2008-2010 Chevrolet Cobalt
* 2008-2011 Chevrolet HHR
What Happens Next?
Because the Chevy recall will result in hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits, the attorneys working on these cases will likely join together in front of one Judge in a Multi-District Litigation. The recall lawyers at Jones Ward are on the leadership in and have worked on dozens of Multi-District Litigation proceedings (called MDL for short). While it is unclear where these Chevy recall lawsuits will end up, the recall attorneys at Jones Ward will be a part of the team holding Chevy and GM accountable.
What Damages Are There in Chevy Defect Lawsuits
Chevy recall class action lawsuits will be trying to get owners of Chevy cars with defects compensation for their loss in economic value. Even if the cars are repaired, the class action attorneys at Jones Ward believe experts will be able to show that each car has a los in economic value. That is, the re-sale value damages or trade-in value will be lower and cause damages to owners of recalled Chevy cars.
What If I Was Injured In a Chevy With a Defect?
Unfortunately, some people were injured or even killed when their recalled Chevy car experienced an ignition defect that caused the driver to lose control. The recall attorneys at Jones Ward are also investigating cases involving deaths or serious injuries in recalled Chevy cars. More information about that can be found here: Jones Ward Chevy Recall Lawsuits.
Contacting an Attorney
If you or someone in your family owns a recalled Chevy, GM, Saturn or other recalled car, contact the attorneys at Jones Ward at 1-888-595-2922 or through our Contact Page.
A woman in Illinois recently won $14 million in her lawsuit against Bayer, the maker of Yasmin birth control pills.
We just blogged about this case, and how you can find out whether you might have a case over at joneward.com. Check it out!
If you or someone you love was diagnosed with a clotting injury like a stroke while on Yaz, Yasmin or Ocella, The Recall Lawyers would be happy to discuss your rights.
The Recall Lawyers are Reviewing Risperdal Cases Now
Risperdal, a drug approved for treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and management of behavioral problems in kids with autism, has come under fire for off-label use as an anti-depressant.
Recently, the Attorney General of Arkansas won a $1.2 billion judgment against the makers of Risperdal. However, this judgment was recently overturned.
Nevertheless, lawsuits brought by individuals who have been harmed by Risperdal– in particular, young men and teenage boys who developed breasts– are increasing.
Lawsuits over failed metal-on-metal hip implants made by Biomet Inc. will reach a jury trial in 2015 in front of U.S. District Judge Robert Miller.
The number of Biomet lawsuits in front of Judge Miller now stands at approximately 800, a two-fold increase from earlier this year. Miller, who is based in South Bend, presides over a consolidated federal legal proceeding called Multi District Litigation 2391, In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation. The cases involve the Biomet M2a Magnum, and other metal-on-metal hip devices made by Biomet. The litigation is similar to cases involving other metal hips such as the DePuy ASR, DePuy Pinnacle, Zimmer Durom, Smith & Nephew BHR, and Stryker Rejuvenate.
Under the orders signed by Judge Miller this week, lawyers for the defendants and plaintiffs each will nominate five cases out of the 800 lawsuits to be considered for jury trials. These cases are called “bellwethers” because resolving them in front of a jury will give both sides a sense of how a jury might react to the larger pool of cases. Here is what Judge Miller wrote about the bellwether process:
“I assume that when we get to the point of selecting cases for bellwether trials, we will focus on cases that either are representative of all the cases (not one of the stronger ones for one side) or involve a feature (such as a patient’s age or medical history) that will allow evaluation of a significant subset of the docket. To help things remain that way, I will select any replacement cases for bellwether trial purposes.”
You can download a copy of Judge Miller’s scheduling order by clicking here. The order calls for dozens of depositions to take place between now and May 2014, including key engineers and scientists from Biomet who designed the company’s metal-on-metal hip implants. The bellwether plaintiffs will be selected in late July, and rulings on evidence and other matters will be made in late 2014 and early 2015. The first of the five trials is expected to start in June 2015.
If you or a loved one have been injured by a defective metal-on-metal hip made by Biomet or another company, contact Attorney Alex Davis for a free case evaluation, or send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
For the Second Time, FDA Labels the Latest Hospira GemStar Portable Infusion System Recall as Class I
On Monday, FDA regulators once again issued their highest-risk Class I status on a recall of Hospira’s GemStar portable infusion systems. Class I recalls are the most serious type of recall and involve situations in which there is a reasonable probability that use of these products will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.
A portable infusion system is used to pump medicines intravenously on an automatic basis. The GemStar systems are designed for infusion of epidurals, I.V. fluids, medications, blood and other therapeutic liquids. Hopira’s GemStar models can run on AC power, from a docking station, or simply with AA batteries if patients are able to walk around with the unit.
The affected GemStar systems may fail to dispense medications, display numerous warnings, fail to detect occlusions, or show other unusual behaviors due to a defect in the pressure sensors. The recall covers six models manufactured after Jan. 1, 2009. The recall also covers any of those models that have had their pressure monitor replaced during that time.
Hospira recommends that all healthcare providers perform certain tests to determine whether the systems need to be removed from use. Potential risks associated with the recall include:
- If errors are observed, the infusion is stopped, resulting in delay/interruption in therapy.
- A full or partial occlusion may prevent fluid from reaching the patient, resulting in delay/interruption of therapy.
- An undetected distal occlusion may cause excessive pressure and fluid build-up within the distal line undetected by the pressure sensor. When the distal occlusion is resolved, the build-up fluid will be administered into the patient possibly causing a maximal over-infusion of <1.0 mL.
- The severity in the delay/interruption in therapy is dependent upon the underlying condition of the patient and the treatment being prescribed. A delay/interruption in therapy has a worst case potential to result in significant injury or death.
- Depending on the drug and the dosage delivered, over-infusion has the worst-case potential to result in significant injury or death.
This is not the 1st time that the GemStar systems have gotten the FDA’s Class I label. The recent action is tied to a recall from March of this year. The FDA also issued a Class I recall in April for concerns that battery leakage may cause the devices to shut off without warning.
At that time, Hospira advised healthcare professionals to use an alternate pump in cases where any delay or under-infusion could result in injury or death. It further recommended checking the pump’s battery compartment for signs of corrosion. Finally, Hospira advised that batteries more than 3 years old should be replaced.
If you have been injured by a defective Hospira GemStar Infusion Pump, the attorneys at JONES WARD PLC would be happy to discuss your rights with you. Please contact attorney R. Lauren Horner at email@example.com for more information.