​Did you suffer from ParaGard IUD removal complications? Did the birth control device leave you with injuries and complications? If yes, contact ParaGard lawyer Timothy L. Miles about a ParaGard IUD Removal Side Effects Lawsuit against the device manufacturers. 
 
You are not the only woman who suffered complications as a result removing the ParaGard (IUD). To get compensated for the damage caused by removal of your ParaGard IUD, you should contact us about a ParaGard IUD lawsuit. Contact us today for a free case evaluation.  We take all cases on a contingency basis, so there is no charge and we are only paid only if we win your case.

If you suffered ParaGard removal side effects, contact Paraguard IUD Removal Lawyer Timothy L. Miles today

ParaGard is a birth control IUD device that uses a T-shaped plastic and copper device instead of hormones to prevent pregnancy.  Patients require medical assistance to implant ParaGard IUD in their uterus. Once implanted successfully, it can avoid pregnancy for over 10 years. 
​
In 1984, ParaGard IUD was approved to be used as a birth control device by U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  CooperSurgical (Cooper), the manufacturer of ParaGard, claims that the ParaGard is effective and safe to use for up to 30 years. 

​ParaGard is only effective inside the uterus for a period of time. After a specific time, the copper wiring will wear out, and the IUD will not fill in as well as it did. ParaGard can work for as long as a decade and stay effective.
 
The manufacturers' surveys guarantee that it has an effective rate more noteworthy than 100%. Be that as it may, no one has asked whether it works. Individuals are scrutinizing the item's well-being since the manufacturer might have neglected to represent what happens to the device when it is in the body for a long time.
 
Women may likewise need to have the device removed when they need to get pregnant. ParaGard ought to have no enduring impacts when it is taken out (accepting that pieces of it have not harmed the conceptive organs). They simply should be able to remove the contraception before attempting to get pregnant.

​ParaGard IUD has been 99% effective with fewer adverse effects over the years as compared to other birth control therapeutic devices. According to a report, 90% of women were satisfied with the effectiveness of the ParaGard IUD. 
 
But still, some women claim they have suffered ParaGard removal side effects and filed lawsuits against the manufacturer. Women claim that they suffered ParaGard IUD removal complications   and the device fractured inside them, which led to more complications and painful injuries. 
Here are some ParaGard IUD Lawsuit claims by the plaintiffs:

• ParaGard IUD design and manufacturing have defaults and malfunctions.
• The label on ParaGard IUD does not warn the patient and medical assistance provider about the risks of breakage or complicated side effects.
• The manufacturers are careless about the safety of women.

​Cooper claims that ParaGard removal is nonsurgical and done by the doctor during routine office visits in only a few minutes. The arms of the IUD should overlay up during removal, as per the instructions given in the prescribing information.
 
However, women who filed a ParaGard IUD lawsuit claim that the IUD fractured during removal. It left pieces of the IUD in their uterus. A few women had surgeries to remove the IUD and treat injuries.
 
Here are some of the ParaGard IUD Removal complications and injuries claimed in the lawsuits:

• IUD migration
• IUD pieces missing or lodged in organs
• Perforation of the uterus or cervix
• Inflammations and allergic reactions to IUD pieces left in the body
• Infection
• Broken IUD pieces cannot be removed
• Infertility
• Need for surgery such as hysterectomy, laparoscopy, or laparotomy
• Pain

 
Aside from this, ParaGard IUD has some other side effects that keep going for the initial few months of implantation. Notwithstanding, a few extreme secondary effects are durable and require clinical consideration. Here are some adverse side effects:

• Dislodgment
• Vaginal discharge
• Perforated uterine wall
• Pelvic inflammatory disease
• Heavier and longer periods
• Pain during sex
• Allergic reactions
• Menstrual cramps
• Spotting between periods

More than 1,900 ParaGard claims from various law firms are documented by impacted women against Cooper Careful and Teva, with around 200 new ParaGard IUD claims recorded since May 2020. Most cases contend that the organization realized the perils related to the device. In any case, they proceeded to produce and sell the IUD.

Carley Tredway
Carley Tredway got her ParaGard implantation and went to the specialist a decade later to remove the IUD. Sadly, one of the IUD's arms was not removed during expulsion.
The specialist needed a careful expulsion as a hysterectomy to recover the missing arm from Tredway's body.

Georgia Groves
Georgia Groves got a ParaGard implantation. Later that same year, she went to her primary care physician to get the gadget eliminated. The reports showed that the device had unstuck.
The specialist adhered to the directions given by the organization to eliminate the IUD. However, the gadget was just to some degree eliminated, with one arm staying inside her body.
The specialist attempted to recover it through colposcopy. Unfortunately, he was not effective.

​If you or a loved one experienced serious ParaGard removal side effects, contact Paraguard IUD Removal Lawyer Timothy L. Miles today at 855/846-6529, or by submitting the contact form, as you may be entitled to substantial compensation.

Many individuals who suffer from sleep apnea use Phillips CPAP Machines to assist them in breathing properly while they sleep. While they may have hoped for a cure, it is more than likely that the machine made them feel worse, and in some cases even caused cancer. When you put your faith in a company and machine that promises to help you with your medical issues, you are devastated to learn that it is more likely to cause more problems than cure them.
​
If you or a loved one have been diagnosed with cancer from your Phillips sleep apnea machine, please do not hesitate to contact us. For a free case review, contact the Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles now at 855-846-6529 about a Philips CPAP Machine Recall Lawsuit. Read on to answers to three frequently asked questions in the Philips CPAP Lawsuit.

The Recalled Philips CPAP machines were recalled after discovering that many customers were inhaling poisonous foam due to a significant problem within their machines. Inhaling this poisonous foam can lead to serious health issues, including cancer. In addition to cancer, which is obviously terrible and absolutely unacceptable, there are reports of these symptoms:

• Breathing problems
• Vomiting
• Nausea
• Liver and kidney damage
• Sinus infections
• Chest pressure
• Coughing
• Upper airway irritations
• Headaches​

​Yes, a class action lawsuit was launched against Philips, located in Massachusetts, in June 2021. According to the lawsuit, Phillips was aware of the hazardous foam and the serious health problems it was causing for years. Several reports have consumers complaining about the problems for years, but Philips did not issue a public warning until April 2021. Philips did not publicly recall the devices for another two months until June 14th, 2021.
​
Interestingly, Philips did not disclose the recall of their devices until they were about to release a fresh product. Many patients who severely needed these devices had no alternative but to purchase the newer machine, implying that Philips profited even after Philips CPAP recall was made public.

​One of the reasons people filed complaints against Philips was because the equipment they sold to patients was defective and harmful. When the foam dissolves, it is toxic enough to cause cancer. This alone could be enough to justify a lawsuit.

​Plaintiffs also allege a failure to warn claim. While they not only used dangerous materials in their machines, they also failed to let the public know there was an issue. According to some reports, patients have actually been complaining about these machines for many years. In fact, they issued a public warning in April of 2021 that the foam used in these machines was causing health problems. Nevertheless, they choose to do nothing about it until June of that year. Leaving patients to utilize machines they knew could cause health issues and harm. 

​If you think you one of the Recalled Philips CPAP machines, you can check the device registration or call Phillips directly at 877-907-7508. Furthermore, if you believe you or someone you love has been affected negatively by a Phillips CPAP machine, you will need to contact a Philips CPAP lawyer such as Timothy L. Miles, Esq. to find out if you are eligible for a Philips CPAP Lawsuit. Call today for a free case evaluation.

Contact an Abbott Baby Formula Recall Lawyer today about an Abbott Baby Formula Recall Lawsuit

The vast majority of product liability claims, particularly in mass tort cases, are brought because the product suffered from some type of manufacturing or design defect, and in many cases, there has been a voluntary recall or a recall ordered by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). The types of defective product cases typically asserting a design or manufacturing defects include, among others: defective medical devices; automobile defects; dangerous or defective pharmaceutical drugs, and toxic or environmental torts.

However, another basis for liability, and one asserted in the Abbott Baby Formula Recall Lawsuit, is a claim for failure to warn, also referred to as a marketing or warning defect. A failure to warn claim does not indicate any physical flaws or defects in the product; rather, a plaintiff bringing a failure to warn claim alleges that the manufacturer was negligent in warning consumers about the dangers of using the product.  
​
Earlier we discussed everything you need to know about the Abbott Baby Formula Recall Lawsuit. Below we discuss a failure to warn claim, its elements, and common defenses to a failure to warn claim. If you are a plaintiff in the Abbott Recalled Baby Formula cases, read on to understand what your attorneys will have to prove to win your case and get you the compensation you deserve.

As noted above, the vast majority of products liability cases involve a design or manufacturing defect where a plaintiff is asserting that a physical defect exists. A failure to warn claim, on the other hand, does not claim any physical defect exist with the product. Instead, a failure to warn claim asserts the defendant manufacturer did not supply adequate warnings or instructions on how to use the product safely, and the plaintiff was injured due to the failure to disclose the risk.  
​
For example, in the Abbott Baby Formula Recall Lawsuit, plaintiffs do not assert a physical defect with the powered baby formula. Rather they assert they were injured as a result of the undisclosed risk of consuming baby formula that was environmentally contaminated with Cronobacter sakazakii and Salmonella Newport.  If plaintiffs prevail on their failure to warn claim, they are entitled to recover both economic and non-economic damages, pain and suffering, medical costs, lost wages, and loss of enjoyment of life.

Warning labels may not always be visible on a product. The manufacturer might put a warning on the box or in the instructions. A warning may not be sufficient to protect a manufacturer from liability if the user will not see it. For example, a manufacturer might have to put a warning directly on a product if people who would face the risk will not see it on the box or in the instructions.

Warnings should be expressed in language that the average individual understands, even if the product is complex and technical.  Thus, Plaintiffs in the Recalled Baby Formula cases will argue and attempt to prove that any warning provided was not legally sufficient because it did not disclose the risks of a helpless infant consuming baby formula environmentally contaminated with Cronobacter sakazakii and Salmonella Newport. 

One defense to a failure to warn claim is that the danger was evident. While the law may vary in jurisdictions, one common rule is that an obvious risk does not require a warning.  However, if an ordinary person using common sense would not be able to recognize the risk, the defense would not be available. For example, the manufacturer of toothpaste that caused headaches, could not rely on this defense since an ordinary person would not expect toothpaste to cause headaches.  

​Obviously, this defense will be hard to assert in the Abbott Recalled Baby Formula cases, because the no ordinary person would every expect, nor should they, for their infant to get Cronobacter sakazakii and Salmonella Newport from their baby formula. 

A defendant manufacturer may also argue the plaintiff did not use the product in a reasonably foreseeable way.  If someone uses a product in an unpredictable manner, then manufacturer will not be liable for a failure to warn. For example, if someone buys a bicycle, but instead of ridding it, turns it up on its handlebars and tries to juggle while balancing on the wheels, a manufacturer will not be liable because it did not warn about a risk that it obviously could not have reasonably foreseen.

However, a plaintiff does not have to use a product exactly as it was intended by the manufacturer, and a manufacturer’s lack of warning for a predictable misuse may still be liable if the risk of was not obvious. This obviously will not be at issue in the baby formula recall cases since the product was being used exactly as intended. 

A manufacturer may try to avoid liability by arguing it had no knowledge about the risk it failed to provide warnings about. But, to state a claim for relief, actual knowledge is not required. However, the test is whether the manufacturer reasonably should have known about the risk.  If the answer is yes, then the manufacturer may be held liable.  In other words, a defendant may be liable for a risk it should have known about, even if the defendant possessed no actual knowledge of the risk.

​This too will be a hard argument for defendants to make an Abbott Baby Formula Recall Lawsuit, as it was clear defendant had knowledge from the FDA to clean up the filthy facility causing the contaminated baby formula, but chose not to.

​An Abbott Baby Formula Recall Lawyer will argue the defendant is liable for failure to warn and should be able to prove that any warning provided was not legally sufficient.  Furthermore, the defenses to a failure to warn, misuse of the product and that the danger was evident, do not seem like viable defenses, nor should the defendant be able to escape liability based on lack of knowledge.  

On February 27, 2012 Abbott Laboratories, Inc. “(Abbott”) announced it was recalling powder formulas, including Similac, Alimentum and EleCare manufactured in Sturgis, Michigan, one of the company’s manufacturing facilities. The recall does not include any metabolic deficiency nutrition formulas. Products made at this facility can be found across the U.S. and were likely exported to other countries as well. Canadian health officials have also issued a recall warning.
​
​Abbott is recalling these products after four consumer complaints related to Cronobacter sakazakii or Salmonella Newport in infants who had consumed powder infant formula manufactured in this facility.  The Company said its investigation is ongoing. If your baby was hospitalized after using Recalled Baby Formula purchased after August 2021, contact Baby Formula Recall Lawyer Timothy L. Miles ​ today. Read on for answers to three frequently asked questions about a Baby Formula Recall Lawsuit. 

Contact Baby Formula Recall Lawyer Timothy L. Miles about a Baby Formula Recall Lawsuit today 

​The defective baby formula products contain bacteria that, if ingested, can cause a serious, life-threatening infection in young children. Any family that has Abbott products in their home should dispose of them and find a safer alternative for their children, one that does not jeopardize their health and wellbeing. Although there are only four cases of infections, it is best to avoid the products entirely to ensure your child's safety.

​Cronobacter sakazakii is a bacteria commonly found in dry environments, like baby formula, and can cause stomach issues as well as urinary tract infections in people of all ages. However, when it’s ingested by a child two months or younger, it can result in more serious infections, like sepsis and meningitis. If your child exhibits any of the following symptoms after consuming a dry food product, you should seek medical treatment to ensure their safety:

• Fever
• Unusual patterns of crying
• Abnormally low energy
• Difficulty or refusal to eat

On the other hand, Salmonella Newport causes symptoms of foodborne illness, such as diarrhea, intestinal pressure, and vomiting. This type of bacteria is significantly more dangerous to children under three months of age, and an infant who’s infected with Salmonella Newport will exhibit the same symptoms as Cronobacter sakazakii.

​If you notice that your child is exhibiting any of the symptoms mentioned above after potentially consuming Recalled Baby Formula, it is best to bring them to a trusted medical professional for a second opinion. The signs of a Cronobacter sakazakii or Salmonella Newport infection are very vague, and the behavior your child is showing could just be a coincidence rather than a severe diagnosis. However, you do not want to leave that up to chance, and by seeking medical attention sooner rather than later, you can protect your child from the consequences of an infection that has gone too far.

​If your baby was hospitalized after using Recalled Baby Formula purchased after August 2021, contact Baby Formula Recall Lawyer Timothy L. Miles about a Baby Formula Recall Lawsuit today and see what a Baby Formula Recall Lawyer can do for you.

Contact us today and see what a Boppy Pillow Lawyer can do for you.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued the Boppy Pillow Recall for over 3 million baby lounger products after the manufacturer, The Boppy Company, received reports of infants suffocating while using their products. According to parents, the infants were placed in the product in a safe position, but the child fell asleep and rolled into a position that restricted their breathing. Baby loungers are infamous for their danger to sleeping children, and the Boppy Company’s products are no different, as the soft and plush nature provides the opposite of a safe sleeping environment.
 
This is not the first instance of a child losing their life to a Boppy Company Product; the first death was reported in 2015. Since that time, the company has made little to no change in the design of its product, which has resulted in more devastated parents having to deal with the loss of their children.  Although the company claims that its product was never marketed as a sleeping device for infants, it’s very apparent that something needs to change to keep children across the country safe from harm. 

If you or someone you know have lost their child due to a Bobby Company product or any other baby lounger, contact Boppy Pillow Lawyer Timothy L. Miles today for more information on how to fight back. Continue on for answers to two frequently asked questions about a Boppy Pillow Recall Lawsuit.
Which Products Are Being Recalled?

• The Boppy Company has three different baby lounger products:
• Boppy Original Newborn Lounger
• Boppy Preferred Newborn Lounger
• Pottery Barn Kids Newborn Lounge

All three of these products are being recalled from store shelves, as they pose a significant risk to any child that falls asleep during use. The Boppy Company knew of the danger after the first death occurred in 2015, but after 6 years, they made no change and caused 7 additional deaths.

According to the CPSC recall, the pillows on the affected products could be overstuffed and force an infant’s head into a position where breathing is difficult. The combination of the overstuffed cushion and the unsafe sleep environment of the product creates a very dangerous situation for any infant who falls asleep in the lounger. The Boppy Company claims that there are specific instructions to supervise a child who is using the product, but considering infants fall asleep sporadically and sometimes quickly, the product could have been designed in a safer way that does not pose such a risk.

The Boppy Company has three different baby lounger products:

• Boppy Original Newborn Lounger
• Boppy Preferred Newborn Lounger
• Pottery Barn Kids Newborn Lounge

All three of these products are being recalled from store shelves, as they pose a significant risk to any child that falls asleep during use. The Boppy Company knew of the danger after the first death occurred in 2015, but after 6 years, they made no change and caused 7 additional deaths.
​
According to the CPSC recall, the pillows on the affected products could be overstuffed and force an infant’s head into a position where breathing is difficult. The combination of the overstuffed cushion and the unsafe sleep environment of the product creates a very dangerous situation for any infant who falls asleep in the lounger. The Boppy Company claims that there are specific instructions to supervise a child who is using the product, but considering infants fall asleep sporadically and sometimes quickly, the product could have been designed in a safer way that does not pose such a risk.

​Product liability laws exist to protect consumers from the unfortunate consequences of a defective product. Any manufacturer that fails to adhere to the proper safety guidelines before selling their product is liable for the damage, and by teaming up with an experienced Boppy Pillow Lawyer who can advocate on your behalf.
 
Although the compensation from a lawsuit cannot change the past, it can help you recover from your situation and avoid financial strain.

​No product should ever endanger the life of its user, especially when that product is designed for infant children. The Boppy Company had more than enough time to make their product safer, and their failure to do so is an unacceptable offense.  If a Boppy Company baby lounger has harmed your child, a Boppy Pillow Lawyer will fight on your behalf to hold the manufacturers accountable.  Contact us today and see what a Boppy Pillow Lawyer can do for you.

On February 27, 2012 Abbott Laboratories, Inc. “(Abbott”) announced it was recalling powdered formulas, including Similac, Alimentum and EleCare manufactured in Sturgis, Michigan, one of the company’s manufacturing facilities. The recall does not include any metabolic deficiency nutrition formulas. Products made at this facility can be found across the U.S. and were likely exported to other countries as well. Canadian health officials have also issued a recall warning.

​Abbott is recalling these products after four consumer complaints related to Cronobacter sakazakii or Salmonella Newport in infants who had consumed powder infant formula manufactured in this facility.  The Company said its Powered Formula Recall investigation is ongoing. If you have questions, or would like to know more about the Powered Baby Formula Recall Lawsuit, read on and contact Powered Formula Recall Lawyer ​Timothy L. Miles for free today.

Call Powered Formula Recall Lawyer Timothy L. Miles about a Powered Formula Recall Lawsuit today 

The same day, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) announced it is investigating consumer complaints of Cronobacter sakazakii and Salmonella Newport infections. The FDA stated that in all of the cases are reported, each consumed powdered infant formula produced from Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan facility. The FDA further stated it was is alerting consumers to avoid purchasing or using certain powdered baby formula products produced at this facility.

The FDA is addvides consumers not to use Similac, Alimentum, or EleCare powdered infant formulas if:

• the first two digits of the code are 22 through 37; and
• the code on the container contains K8, SH or Z2; and
• the expiration date is 4-1-2022 (APR 2022) or later.

​The FDA stated it was investigating complaints of four infant illnesses from three states. All four cases related to these complaints were hospitalized and Cronobacter may have contributed to a death in one case. The FDA stated it has initiated an onsite inspection at the facility and its findings to date include several positive Cronobacter sakazakii results from environmental samples taken and adverse inspectional observations by the FDA investigators. A review of the firm’s internal records also indicate environmental contamination with Cronobacter sakazakii and the firm’s destruction of product due to the presence of Cronobacter.

​“As this is a product used as the sole source of nutrition for many of our nation’s newborns and infants, the FDA is deeply concerned about these reports of bacterial infections,” said Frank Yiannas, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Food Policy and Response. “We want to reassure the public that we’re working diligently with our partners to investigate complaints related to these products, which we recognize include infant formula produced at this facility, while we work to resolve this safety concern as quickly as possible.”

​In addition to the above, on February 28, 2012 Abbott additionally stated it was recalling one lot of Similac PM 60/40 (Lot # 27032K80 (can) / Lot # 27032K800 (case)) manufactured in Sturgis, Michigan.
 
To find out if your baby formula is subject to the recall, look on the bottom of the container for a product code that includes eight numbers or letters.
Then go to this website – www.similac.com/recall – where you can type in the code to see if your baby formula is on the list.  If you have further questions, or need additional assistance, please contact Powered Formula Recall Lawyer today for free to see if you are eligible for a ​Powered Formula Recall Lawsuit.

​The defective baby formula products contain bacteria that, if ingested, can cause a serious, life-threatening infection in young children. Any family that has Abbott products in their home should dispose of them and find a safer alternative for their children, one that doesn’t jeopardize their health and wellbeing. Although there are only four cases of infections, its best to avoid the products entirely to ensure your child's safety. If your child consumed recalled baby formula and became ill, contact us about a ​Powered Baby Formula Recall Lawsuit.

​Cronobacter sakazakii is a bacteria commonly found in dry environments, like baby formula, and can cause stomach issues as well as urinary tract infections in people of all ages. However, when it’s ingested by a child two months or younger, it can result in more serious infections, like sepsis and meningitis. If your child exhibits any of the following symptoms after consuming a dry food product, you should seek medical treatment to ensure their safety:

• Fever
• Unusual patterns of crying
• Abnormally low energy
• Difficulty or refusal to eat

On the other hand, Salmonella Newport causes symptoms of foodborne illness, such as diarrhea, intestinal pressure, and vomiting. This type of bacteria is significantly more dangerous to children under three months of age, and an infant who is infected with Salmonella Newport will exhibit the same symptoms as Cronobacter sakazakii.

If your baby was hospitalized after using Recalled Powered Formula purchased after August 2021, call a Powered Formula Recall Lawyer about a Powered Formula Recall Lawsuit today and see what an Powered Formula Recall Lawyer can do for you.
​
​Contact Powered Formula Recall Lawyer, Timothy L. Miles, today for a free case evaluation to see if you are eligible for the Powered Baby Formula Recall Lawsuit.

What if the instead of protecting you, the airbags in your car actually made your car potentially more dangerous? That is exactly what the Defective Takata Airbags are doing.
​
The Takata airbags installed in many early to mid-2000s vehicles from Honda, Toyota, Ford, Mazda, and others are potentially deadly. When these airbags deploy during an accident, they can shoot deadly metal shrapnel at the driver and passengers. This explosive malfunction has already occurred thousands of times, leading to massive recalls for years, and has caused permanent scarring, vision loss, and multiple deaths among vehicle occupants around the world.
​
Regulators and investigators believe that this malfunction is caused by3 the chemical propellant ammonium nitrate, which becomes unstable over time, and is prone to violently exploding upon airbag deployment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") has called the Takata Airbag Recall, the “the largest and most complex safety recall in U.S. history."  However, if you were injured by one of the Defective Takata Airbags​, there are ways for Takata airbag victims and future claimants to recover compensation for their Takata airbag injuries.

Despite the recent bankruptcy of Takata’s US based subsidiary, TK Holdings, Inc., there are three potential avenues for Takata airbag victims and future claimants to recover compensation for their Takata airbag injuries. Some victims may only be able to recover compensation through one avenue, while others may be able to claim compensation from all three.  The avenues for compensation for Takata airbag victims and future claimants are:
​

• ​​Takata Bankruptcy Trust: This trust was created as part of TK Holdings, Inc. bankruptcy plan for the benefit of personal injury claimants. The trust is for those previously injured by a Takata airbag and for future victims. The fund’s estimated value is $90 million to $137 million “Nation, although that amount may increase, but will not decrease. The trust should begin accepting claims in approximately mid-2018.

 

• Participant Original Equipment Manufacturer (“POEM”) Fund: So far, only those individuals who have been injured by a Takata airbag within a Honda or Acura vehicle are eligible for compensation from this fund (as Honda vehicles caused more injuries and deaths than any of the other car manufacturers combined). However, on October 10, 2019 Nissan North America, Inc., Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., and all of their subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively “Nissan”) elected to opt-in to the Channeling Injunction process for PSAN PI/WD Claims and become a POEM. This approval for Nissan’s opt-in as a POEM is ongoing. Through this fund, those previously injured by a defective Takata airbag and those victims who will suffer injuries from a Takata airbag may receive compensation.

 
These airbags were installed in a wide range of vehicles, including models manufactured by:

• Acura
• BMW
• Chrysler
• Dodge
• Ford
• Honda
• Infiniti
• Lexus
• Mazda
• Mitsubishi
• Nissan
• Pontiac
• Saab
• Subaru
• Toyota

​If you suffered serious injuries from a Defective Takata Airbag call Timothy L. Miles, Esq., a Takata Recall Lawyer, today about a Takata Airbag Recall Lawsuit and see what a Takata Recall Lawyer can do for you.

On February 27, 2012 Abbott Laboratories, Inc. “(Abbott”) announced it was recalling powder infant formulas, including Similac, Alimentum and EleCare manufactured in Sturgis, Michigan, one of the company’s manufacturing facilities. The recall does not include any metabolic deficiency nutrition formulas. Products made at this facility can be found across the U.S. and were likely exported to other countries as well. Canadian health officials have also issued a recall warning.
​Abbott is recalling these products after four consumer complaints related to Cronobacter sakazakii or Salmonella Newport in infants who had consumed powder infant formula manufactured in this facility.  The Company said its investigation is ongoing.

Contact Infant Formula Recall Lawyer Timothy L. Miles about an Infant Formula Recall Lawsuit today 

The same day, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) announced it is investigating consumer complaints of Cronobacter sakazakii and Salmonella Newport infections. The FDA stated that in all of the cases are reported, each consumed powdered infant formula produced from Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan facility. The FDA further stated it was is alerting consumers to avoid purchasing or using certain powdered infant formula products produced at this facility.
​
The FDA is addvides consumers not to use Similac, Alimentum, or EleCare powdered infant formulas if:

• the first two digits of the code are 22 through 37; and
• the code on the container contains K8, SH or Z2; and
• the expiration date is 4-1-2022 (APR 2022) or later.

​The FDA stated it was investigating complaints of four infant illnesses from three states. All four cases related to these complaints were hospitalized and Cronobacter may have contributed to a death in one case. The FDA stated it has initiated an onsite inspection at the facility and its findings to date include several positive Cronobacter sakazakii results from environmental samples taken and adverse inspectional observations by the FDA investigators. A review of the firm’s internal records also indicate environmental contamination with Cronobacter sakazakii and the firm’s destruction of product due to the presence of Cronobacter.
​
“As this is a product used as the sole source of nutrition for many of our nation’s newborns and infants, the FDA is deeply concerned about these reports of bacterial infections,” said Frank Yiannas, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Food Policy and Response. “We want to reassure the public that we’re working diligently with our partners to investigate complaints related to these products, which we recognize include infant formula produced at this facility, while we work to resolve this safety concern as quickly as possible.”

​In addition to the above, on February 28, 2012 Abbott additionally stated it was recalling one lot of Similac PM 60/40 (Lot # 27032K80 (can) / Lot # 27032K800 (case)) manufactured in Sturgis, Michigan.
To find out if your infant formula is subject to the infant formula recall, look on the bottom of the container for a product code that includes eight numbers or letters.
Then go to this website – www.similac.com/recall – where you can type in the code to see if your baby formula is on the infant formula ​recall list.