The Injury Lawyer Directory Blog

A 65-year-old man from Washington who has been a faithful McDonald's patron for decades is now suing the restaurant chain for injuries he received after eating a portion of one of their hamburgers. The man's injuries were so severe, he couldn't eat for days after the incident.

According to the personal injury lawsuit, the man went to a local McDonald's to order some food. The first burger he received was cold and squashed. When the man requested a newer, fresher burger, a restaurant employee made a face at him and gave him another.

The man could tell the employee was upset, and when he bit into the burger, he could feel a tingling, burning sensation. He threw away the rest of the burger. When the man awoke the next morning, the inside of his mouth was covered in chemical burns and blisters. After going to the hospital, the man returned to McDonald's and spoke to another employee.

The second employee said that the earlier employee put bleach and other chemicals on the man's burger before serving it to him. When the man complained to the McDonald's corporation, they expressed no remorse and offered no apology.

A defective product can come in any number of different forms. In this case, the man was injured by a dangerous product when he attempted to consume a tainted burger. Since McDonald's didn't offer any apology or compensation, the man is going to try and recover compensation for his injuries through a product liability lawsuit.

If you have been injured after consuming or using any sort of defective product, you may be able to recover compensation for your injuries.

If you have a defective product claim in the Phoenix, Arizona area, please contact the Phoenix product liability lawyers at Snyder & Wenner, P.C. today to schedule an initial consultation.

The United States Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is recalling certain products from Mucci's Food Products Inc. due to safety hazards. The food company released unsafe pasta and meat products in California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio.

You may be able to recover damages if you live in any of these areas and have gotten seriously sick or injured after consuming Mucci's Food Products such as:

• Prosciutto
  
• Porcini and Veal Baci
  
• Sausage Baci
  
• Beef Ravioli
  
• Veal Ravioli
  
• Sausage Ravioli
  
• Chicken Cannelloni
  
• Parmesan Bread
  

The product recall covers items that have the establishment number 19177 or P-19177 inside the USDA inspection mark. Hazardous and unsafe foods can make you incredibly sick, causing you to miss work and pay medical bills. An experienced product liability attorney in your area can help you recover damages to help you pay for your losses.

If you have a product liability claim in the West Plam Beach, Florida area, please contact the Law Offices of Craig Goldenfarb, P.A. today to schedule a consultation.

The district attorneys of nine California counties have asked the court to bar 74 vitamin manufacturers from selling their supplements until proper warnings are placed on the products. Currently, there is no warning that these products contain lead, a highly carcinogenic substance.

Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. filed the original complaint, which argues that the vitamin manufacturers have not provided the warnings required by the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. The Attorney General is also asking the courts to impose a $2,500 a day penalty for each company that continues to violate the policy.

California law mandates that businesses provide a "clear and reasonable warning" when exposing consumers to substances that are known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. Lead, which is found in these vitamin supplements, has been proven to potentially damage the nervous system, especially in young children.

State officials discovered these violations last July when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released reports indicating that many multivitamin and mineral products contained excessive quantities of lead.

Manufacturers have an obligation to properly warn consumers about any hazardous or toxic substances in their product that may potentially cause harm. When they fail to do so, they are guilty of product liability and may be held accountable for their actions.

If you have a product liability claim in the Phoenix, Arizona area, please contact the Law Offices of Snyder & Wenner, P.C. today to schedule a consultation.

Brittany Donovan, a 13-year-old girl from Pennsylvania, is suing Idant Laboratories, the sperm bank that provided her mother with the donation that led to her being born. Donovan was born with a genetic condition called X syndrome, which has left her with mental disabilities. Donovan claims that Idant Laboratories provided her mother with defective sperm, leading to her health issues.

Pennsylvania law will not allow Donovan to bring her lawsuit. They have a blood shield law, which prevents sellers of human bodily material from being held responsible for negligence in product liability lawsuits. Since New York does not have a similar law, Donovan is pursuing her case there.

Genetics tests have verified that Donovan received genetic defects from the sperm provided by her biological father. In order for her to win her case, she needs to prove that the sperm her mother received was unsafe and caused injury to her.

This is the first time a sperm bank has ever been sued for product liability. Many other sperm banks are concerned that if she wins her case, it will lead to many other similar lawsuits in the future.

It is important to consult an experienced product liability lawyer if you or a loved one has been injured from a defective product. You may be entitled to receive compensation for your injuries.

If you have a product liability claim in the New York City area, please contact the Law Offices of Trief & Olk today to schedule a consultation.

Mrs. Grissom's Salads has issued a voluntary recall of some of their dips and spreads. The products that are part of the recall include cheese spreads, dips, and pimento cheese spread.

Mrs. Grissom's Salads recalled the products because the Worcestershire sauce used in making them contained anchovies. Anyone with a fish allergy who consumed these products would run the risk of a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction.

The cheese dip products were sold at retail grocery and Dollar Stores throughout Georgia, Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and West Virginia. Kenneth Funger, CEO of Mrs. Grissom's Salads, announced that the company discovered the issue two days ago as part of a routine inspection of their Nashville processing plant.

After the many incidents of salmonella caused by the Peanut Corp. of America's gross disregard for public safety earlier this winter, it is refreshing to see the CEO of a food manufacturing company acting responsible when faced with a decision of whether to place human safety over profits.

If you have any of the defective products that are part of this recall, you can return them to the store where you purchased them for a full refund. If you or a loved one has suffered a serious allergic reaction to any of the defective Mrs. Grissom's Salads cheese spreads, you should contact an experienced product liability lawyer immediately. You may be eligible to receive compensation for your damages.

If you have a product liability claim in the Jacksonville, Florida area, please contact the Law Offices of Hardesty, Tyde, Green, & Ashton, P.A. today to schedule a consultation.

The housing boom occurring between 2004 and 2006 led many builders and contractors to scramble for construction supplies. As a result, many builders began importing drywall from China in order to accommodate the increase in building needs.

It has recently become apparent that the Chinese drywall used in building and remodeling homes across the country is defective. It contains sulfur compounds that emit foul odors when exposed to heat and humidity. Furthermore, the sulfur gases released from the drywall have caused corrosion of many metal products found in these homes.

Many homeowners have found that their jewelry, metal picture frames, and silverware are tarnishing quickly after being cleaned. Others have experienced electrical problems with televisions, computers, and electrical wiring. Evaporator coils in air conditioners have also been affected, requiring many units to have these coils replaced.

The Florida Department of Health has tested the defective drywall and determined that it does not pose an immediate health threat. However, many homeowners are concerned that this problem will reduce their property values in an already depreciated housing market, making it virtually impossible to sell their homes.

The defective Chinese drywall has been used in 41 states, although the vast majority of complications associated with this defective product have occurred in the southeast, where many homes were either rebuilt or remodeled in recent years after several devastating hurricane seasons. Furthermore, the hot and humid climate in this region makes homes containing Chinese drywall more prone to emit sulfuric gases.

If you have experienced problems in your home as a result of defective Chinese drywall, you should consult an experienced defective construction attorney immediately to ensure that your rights are defended. Your contractor will most likely be responsible for replacing the defective material in your home.

If you have a defective Chinese drywall claim in the West Palm Beach, Florida area, please contact the Law Offices of Craig Goldenfarb, P.A. today to schedule a consultation.

Nearly 35 million Americans use denture cream in association with wearing dentures. A recent report by researchers at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center has linked denture cream to neurological problems caused by zinc poisoning. Unfortunately, since the major denture cream manufacturers such as Poligrip and Fixodent do not warn consumers of this risk, many Americans have unknowingly suffered serious side effects from zinc poisoning.

Symptoms of zinc poisoning include:

• Unexplained weakness
  
• Numbness
  
• Tingling in hands and feet
  
• Poor balance
  
• Lack of coordination
  
• Unexplained pain
  
• Weakness in the hands, arms, or legs
  
• Burning sensation
  
• Feeling of wearing gloves or socks when the skin is bear
  

If you use denture cream and have been experiencing any of these symptoms, it is crucial that you get a blood test immediately to determine if you are suffering from zinc poisoning. Severe levels of zinc poisoning can cause neuropathy, a serious nerve condition. If not diagnosed early and treated properly, zinc poisoning can lead to permanent injuries.

Denture cream manufacturers have an obligation to warn consumers about the potential dangers of their products. When they fail to do so, they may be responsible for compensating you for any damages suffered by their dangerous product. If you have suffered zinc poisoning from taking denture cream, it is important to consult an experienced product liability lawyer immediately.

If you have a zinc poisoning claim in the West Palm Beach, Florida area, please contact the Law Offices of Craig Goldenfarb, P.A. today to schedule a consultation.

Last week, the New Jersey Appellate Court overturned a verdict against Hoffman-LaRoche, the makers of Accutane, and remanded the case for a new trial. This ruling comes directly on the heels of the Supreme Court's decision in Wyeth v. Levine, which dealt a major blow to pharmaceutical companies hoping to avoid product liability claims by using the controversial preemption defense. In many ways, the New Jersey Appellate Division's ruling has given pharmaceutical companies a major jolt in their time of need.

The court overturned a New Jersey jury's verdict in McCarrell v. Hoffman-LaRoche that awarded Andrew McCarrell $119,000 in medical expenses and $2.5 million in compensatory damages in a product liability lawsuit over injuries he sustained from taking Accutane. After using Accutane to treat his acne, McCarrell developed inflammatory bowel disease, causing him to have his colon surgically removed.

The appellate court ruled that the judge in the trial court made a mistake in allowing expert testimony for the plaintiff detailing the number of incidents where Accutane has led to harmful side effects in consumers, while omitting Hoffman-LaRoche's rebuttal testimony indicating the relatively small percentage of Accutane patients who actually suffer harmful side effects. This ruling will most likely benefit other pharmaceutical companies who have experienced similar restrictions in expert testimony.

The appellate court also ruled that the trial court must examine Hoffman-LaRoche's preemption defense based on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Wyeth v. Levine. The trial court must decide whether Hoffman-LaRoche can clearly prove that the FDA would not have approved an alteration to the Accutane label.

Ultimately, this isn't a clear-cut victory for pharmaceutical companies. This case will go to trial again in the state of New Jersey, and Hoffman-LaRoche may still find themselves facing a hefty settlement payment at the conclusion of the second trial. However, this appellate victory will clearly help pharmaceutical companies in future defective drug claims.

When prescription drugs cause you to develop a serious illness or injury from their consumption, pharmaceutical companies must be held accountable. You may be eligible to receive compensation for your damages. Given the complex nature of the laws governing these claims, it is important to hire an experienced pharmaceutical liability attorney who is up-to-date on the rapid developments regarding these lawsuits.

If you have a defective drug claim in the Denver, Colorado area, please contact the Law Offices of Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh, & Jardine, P.C. today to schedule a consultation.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on two cases that have serious implications for defective drug and defective medical device lawsuits in our country. Interestingly, the two decisions were rather contradictory -- one expanded the rights of victims while the other limited their ability to receive compensation for their injuries.

In Riegel v. Medtronic, the Supreme Court ruled that federal approval of medical devices preempts state laws governing litigation of these products. In other words, if you have been injured by a defective medical device that was federally approved for use with your medical condition, you will not be able to collect damages because the device had been previously approved for use.

In Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the victim, stating that defective drugs that have received FDA approval will not be given preemption benefits. In other words, even if a drug has been approved for use, the pharmaceutical company can still be held liable for damages suffered if the drug is defective.

Clearly, the Supreme Court is making a distinction between the laws governing drugs and medical devices. But why have they done so, and is this distinction appropriate?

There is a legal basis for this distinction. The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 contain a preemption clause, which led to the Supreme Court ruling in favor of medical device manufacturers. However, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which governs the regulation of pharmaceutical products, does not contain a similar clause, resulting in the ruling in favor of injured consumers.

In the wake of these two decisions by the Supreme Court, Congress has revisited this question. They have recently introduced the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009, which would eliminate the preemption laws that provide protection for medical device manufacturers against lawsuits when their products are defective. If this law passes, drugs and medical devices will be regulated by the same principles.

Congress should be applauded for proposing legislation that will expand the rights of victims injured by defective medical devices. It seems absurd that manufacturers are not held responsible when their devices fail to function properly. Making manufacturers accountable for the safety of their products would undoubtedly raise quality control standards and help provide victims of defective devices with the compensation they need to cover medical expenses and lost wages incurred as a result of their injuries.

Given the complex and intricate laws governing these products, it is essential that you consult an attorney who specializes in product liability law if you suffer an injury from a defective drug or medical device. The success of your claim will likely hinge on your attorney's ability to navigate through these complicated laws.

If you have a defective drug or defective medical device claim in the Jacksonville, Florida area, please contact the Law Offices of Hardesty, Tyde, Green, & Ashton, P.A. today to schedule a consultation.

Our judicial system may be charged with the duty of defending the rights of ordinary citizens who have been injured by the negligent actions of large corporations, but unfortunately, it does not always act in accordance with this duty.

In 2008, the United States Supreme Court delivered a grossly irresponsible ruling that effectively robbed victims of defective medical devices of their ability to hold negligent device makers accountable for their actions. The ruling prevents victims from filing product liability lawsuits against device manufacturers if the defective device was approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

As a result of this misguided ruling, federal and state courts across the country have been dismissing valid claims against medical device manufacturers whose defective products have led to the serious injury or death of many innocent victims seeking essential medical treatment. Instead of protecting injured victims, the Supreme Court has chosen to make it easier for large corporations to flood the market with sub-standard products that endanger the lives of millions of Americans.

One of the companies standing to benefit from this ruling is Medtronic, a medical device manufacturer whose defective Sprint Fidelis defibrillator lead has led to the injury or death of many Americans. More than 235,000 Sprint Fidelis leads were installed in patients between 2004 and 2007, when Medtronic finally recalled their defective device. Many patients were receiving needless jolts of electricity to their heart, while others failed to receive a jolt when necessary. However, since this product was approved by the FDA, the Supreme Court ruling prevents victims and their families from receiving compensation for their injuries.

What is even more alarming is that the Supreme Court is currently hearing a similar case involving defective drugs. If they rule in favor of drug manufacturers, then millions of Americans suffering injuries from taking dangerous or defective drugs will lose their right to sue pharmaceutical companies for compensation.

The FDA is not perfect. Many of the drugs and medical devices they approve for use in this country have not been adequately tested, and as a result, many of these products turn out to be dangerous or defective. Furthermore, it is impossible to conclusively determine all of the side effects of many of the drugs approved for use, since the FDA lacks the time needed to conduct long-term studies on these drugs before approval. By robbing victims of their right to sue for damages, the Supreme Court has removed all accountability and essentially given these companies an ability to push sub-standard products onto the market when they will help boost profits.

Congress is currently trying to pass legislation that will nullify the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in an attempt to restore accountability and provide victims with the rights they deserve. Hopefully, this legislation will pass sooner than later.

It is important to consult an experienced product liability attorney if you have been injured by a defective medical device. If this new legislation passes before your case comes to trial, you will most likely be able to receive the proper compensation you deserve.

If you have a defective product claim in the Washington, D.C. area, please contact the Law Offices of Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata, & Siegel P.C. today to schedule a consultation.

There is growing evidence that many of the diet pills and weight loss supplements available for sale as over-the-counter products may be harmful to your health. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has already initiated an investigation into many of these products. Currently, they have identified 69 tainted products, and it is likely that hundreds of others will be added to the list in upcoming weeks.

One of the most high profile weight loss supplements on this list is called StarCaps, a product which Kathie Lee Gifford has endorsed on the "Today Show" and can be purchased without a prescription at stores such as GNC and the Vitamin Shoppe.

StarCaps is marketed as a natural dietary supplement. However, the FDA has discovered that these pills contain bumetanide, a pharmaceutical drug that can have harmful effects on your health. Recently, there has been a voluntary product recall issued for StarCaps based on the findings of the FDA investigation.

StarCaps is not the only diet supplement to contain hidden and potentially harmful drugs that are not listed in the ingredients. Unfortunately, many of these potentially harmful products are still on the market.

It is important to contact an experienced product liability lawyer if you have developed a serious condition as a result of taking one of these tainted weight loss products. You may be eligible to receive compensation for your damages.

If you have a product liability claim in the Chicago, Illinois area, please contact the Law Offices of Barry G. Doyle, P.C. today to schedule a consultation.

Invacare Corporation of Ohio, a manufacturer of motorized wheelchairs and hospital beds, has been sued for $8.5 million in a wrongful death and product liability lawsuit.

Karlene Willemsen, a 60-year-old resident of Portland, Oregon, died last year in a fire at her home. The lawsuit alleges that the fire was caused by product defects in Willemsen's wheelchair. Invacare Corporation is the main defendant in the lawsuit, but the family is also seeking compensation from companies that manufacture component parts of the wheelchair as well as companies that sell the product.

The lawsuit claims that Willemsen's wheelchair caught on fire and burned her. She suffered from multiple sclerosis, which inhibited her ability to move. Medical records indicate that she was still alive and fully aware during the fire. She suffered severe burns, physical injuries, and psychological trauma before her death.

This is not the first time that the Ohio-based Invacare Corp. has faced lawsuits over their products. In 2002, the company settled a defective product lawsuit for over $7 million. The case involved another one of their wheelchairs that caught fire and burned an elderly quadriplegic woman. Invacare has also been sued three other times over fatal wheelchair fires. In 2000, the company recalled 200,000 wheelchairs to fix defects in their charging systems.

When companies fail to take the proper steps to ensure that their products are safe for consumers, they may be held liable for injuries caused due to the product defects. It is important to consult with an experienced defective product lawyer if you have been injured due to a product defect. These negligent companies must be held accountable for their actions.

If you have a product liability or wrongful death claim in the Columbus, Ohio area, please contact the Law Offices of Robert W. Kerpsack Co., L.P.A. today to schedule a consultation.

A computer shop employee was killed at work last week after his cell phone exploded and severed an artery in his neck. The man had just put a new battery in his phone. The accident occurred shortly after the new battery had finished charging.

The phone was in the man's breast pocket at the time of the incident. A coworker who witnessed the accident said that she heard a loud noise. When she looked over, the man was lying on the ground covered in blood.

It is uncertain what type of phone and battery caused the explosion. Police are also looking into the possibility that the phone and battery were counterfeit.

Each day, we use hundreds of products and trust that the manufacturers have taken the proper precautionary measures to ensure our safety. When a defective product fails on us, the consequences can often be severe, leading to serious injury or in extreme cases, wrongful death. It is important to consult an experienced product liability attorney if you have been injured by a defective product. You may be eligible to receive compensation for your damages.

If you have a defective product claim in the Washington, D.C. area, please contact the Law Offices of Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata, & Siegel P.C. today to schedule a consultation.

The 4^th District Court of Appeals has upheld an $82.6 million award given to a woman whose back was crushed when her Ford Explorer flipped in 2002. $55 million is for punitive damages. Ford plans to appeal this latest ruling. Ford Motor Co. attorney, Theodore Boutrous Jr. states that the company does not believe punitive damages should be awarded, or should be significantly reduced. Punitive damages are given to punish defendants, and hopefully deter others who might behave similarly.

The Accident

Benetta Buell-Wilson's accident happened while she was driving a 1997 Ford Explorer and swerved to avoid something in the road. A passenger side wheel lifted off the road, which caused the SUV to fishtail and then flip. It rolled four and a half times, landed on its roof, which crumpled and crushed Buell-Wilson's back midway up her spine.

Buell-Wilson filed a suit alleging the Ford Explorer has a design flaw. Its high center of gravity and low wheelbase, which Buell-Wilson and her lawyer says makes the SUV prone to tipping, as well as its weak roof are at the center of the lawsuit. Buell-Wilson and her lawyer also claim that Ford knew of the design flaw but did nothing to fix it. In 2004, a San Diego court awarded Buell-Wilson and her husband $369 million, of which $246 million was for punitive damages. This was the first time a verdict was rendered in a Ford Explorer rollover case. Ford had won at least 12 times before in similar cases.

A judge lowered the amount to $150 million, $75 million punitive, two months after Buell-Wilson was awarded the $369 million verdict. The judge in the case further stated that there was evidence to support the jury's findings that Ford knew about the design defects, but did nothing to correct them. This amount was then cut to $82.6 million in 2006 because the punitive damages were found by the court to be excessive and violated a stated law's ban on lawsuits that are filed due to "passion or prejudice."

Verdict Rendered in Anger?

Is $369 million an excessive amount to award to someone for injuries suffered when their SUV flips? This might fall into the realm of defective products, and defective products should be recalled so that they can be fixed. However, the Ford Explorer is an extremely popular vehicle, and trying to pull all those SUVs off the roads would have been very expensive for the company. This was a problem with the design, and not simply a matter of replacing a wire or two in the engine. Therefore, Ford decided it was in their best interest to keep these SUVs on the road and hope for the best. Ford isn't the only company who makes SUVs, and many of these companies are finding that design flaws are causing many of their SUVs to rollover.

When large companies like Ford fight cases like this, whittling down $369 million to $82.6 million, they seem to show just where their compassion lies. If Buell-Wilson's accident was an isolated case, then maybe the lawsuit wouldn't have gotten very far. But there are other cases where the Explorer flipped and injured other people. This just happens to be the one where a jury decided Ford needed to pay. And they can probably afford it, too.

While punitive damages seem to be the place where Ford is really fighting, in order to avoid the appearance of being "punished," they also say that the award should be "significantly reduced," and not eliminated completely. That seems to show that they are tacitly admitting that the Ford Explorer's design may have been a partial cause for Buell-Wilson's injuries.

If you, or a loved one, have suffered injuries due to a defective product, please contact an experienced injury lawyer to discuss your options.

Amgen, Inc. has announced that their anemia drugs Aranesp and Epogen, as well as Johnson & Johnson's Procrit, have had their black box warnings expanded by the FDA. The warning approved by the FDA in November, 2007, state that using these anemia drugs may increase the risks of death and tumor growth in patients who have been taking them. While earlier warnings were placed on the labels alerting of similar risks with some types of cancer, the new warning includes risks to those who have early stages of breast or cervical cancer.

Anemia is a blood disorder which occurs when red blood cell count is lower than average, or when red blood cells don't have enough hemoglobin. High doses were used to counter the effects of anemia, which in turn raised the danger of using these drugs. Amgen's products treat anemia in those who are going through chemotherapy, as well as patients with kidney failure. The problems occurred when doctors treated patients with higher levels of the drugs, which increased the risks of developing tumors.

The drugs in question were first examined last March by the FDA, who updated the drugs' labels twice last year. After the FDA warning in March, Amgen's share prices fell 27 percent; sales of Aranesp, Epogen, and Procrit also fell ten percent. Later that year, Amgen released new data on the risks in early stage breast cancer and cervical cancer patients.

The expanded warning may have some impact on Medicare because anemia drugs account for its largest drug expenditure.

If you, or a loved one, have been taking Aranesp, Epogen, or Procrit, and have been injured by its use, please contact an experienced injury lawyer in your area to find out your legal options.

How the mighty fall. Dr. Robert Jarvik was recently fired as the pitchman for Lipitor by Pfizer. The advertising practice Pfizer used for its cholesterol lowering drug, Lipitor, has been called into question by a Congressional committee investigating the ads' credibility. The problem is that the ads are deceptive.

Dr. Jarvik helped to pioneer the artificial heart, and was then used by Pfizer to pitch Lipitor. The drug company offered Jarvik a contract, worth $1.35 million over a two year period, if he used his face and name to hype the pros of using Lipitor. However, the ad doesn't tell the audience that Jarvik only started using Lipitor a month after being offered the contract. The ad also shows Jarvik rowing across a mountain lake. But a stunt double was used in place of Jarvik. On top of all of this, while Jarvik has a medical degree, he did not go through training as a resident, and is not licensed to prescribe drugs - or practice medicine. Jarvik is a researcher, as well as an inventor. Since January 2006, Pfizer has spent $258 million on advertising Lipitor, and most of this went to the campaign starring Jarvik without telling consumers who he really is.

The Consumer Issue

Though Congress, and probably some people, might take issue with these technicalities, what the New York Times brings to light is the issue of how consumers view drug ads. While people should look at all advertising with a critical eye, and not necessarily believe everything they see and hear, drug ads are especially brought into focus here. How many times have you seen a drug advertisement on television that shows someone, a look of contentment on their face, walking through a field while a voice over mentions the name of the drug and then gives you a list of the side effects? How often have you wondered what the drug was even for? While listing the side effects is a good thing, showing a minimalist idea of what the drug is doesn't help. It's enough to make one yearn for the days when you knew exactly what medication, like Alka-Seltzer (plop, plop, fizz, fizz), was for and what it would do to you when you took it.

While the Lipitor ad starring Dr. Jarvik lets the average consumer know what the drug is, the fact that Jarvik is not "a doctor" and is taking Lipitor because he got over a million dollars for it, raises questions that Congress wanted answers for. And, while the idea that Congress is taking deceptive practices to task is interesting in itself, what it comes down to is that Pfizer was lying to consumers. As an answer to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Pfizer simply shut down the Lipitor/Jarvik ad campaign. Such is life. Next time maybe they'll use Shaq. Or even Lou Reed.

If you feel you've been deceived, led astray, or lied to about the way a product or drug is supposed to work, or you've been injured by its use, please contact an injury lawyer with experience in product liability or pharmaceutical injury.