California Injury Attorney Blog

When we first began writing about problems with transvaginal surgical mesh, it was difficult to find much about it on a Google or Bing search. We were one of the first law firms in the country to represent victims injured by surgical mesh and we continue to remain closely involved in this issue and litigating cases on behalf of our clients.

The Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee will be holding hearings that will be open to the public on the use of surgical mesh in women. The meeting will be held on September 8 and 9, 2011, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. in Maryland.

At these hearings, the committee plans to discuss the use of transvaginal surgical mesh and ultimately will make recommendations as to whether it is safe or effective to use this for pelvic organ prolapse repairs in women. We will be attending the hearings.

The purpose of these hearings is to secure the opinions of experts on both the risks and benefits, if any, in the use of mesh for POP and related surgeries. We are all now aware of the many reported and well-documented adverse events that have been submitted to the FDA. Such conditions and problems as vaginal erosion, pelvic pain and other serious effects will undoubtedly be reviewed.

After having approved the use of this device on a fast track. the FDA is now taking a closer look at whether it now must rectify its original haste to allow mesh use for these surgeries and may well reclassify the device to what is called a Class III (premarket approval) which would require more scrutiny, improving the labeling to ensure there is sufficient information and warnings about the use of mesh for female surgeries involving POP and other conditions, such as stress urinary incontinence, as well as closer study of adverse events and reporting.

We will report on the hearings and the resulting action, if any, by the FDA.

Hersh & Hersh has been at the forefront of litigation involving women's health for four decades. We have been involved in landmark and historic litigation involving medical procedures, defective devices and dangerous drugs involving women. If you have been injured by a procedure involving surgical mesh for POP or incontinence, please contact our law firm. We will consult with you free of charge to evaluate your situation.

Please do not suffer in silence. Contact our law firm to speak with a lawyer who will consult with you in complete confidentially. Even if your doctor recommended that you have the surgery with the use of transvaginal mesh, you may well be entitled to damages for any injuries or pain you are now experiencing as a result.

A while back we posted on a topic involving the protection of a potential class action suit by a court after the defendant offered to settle the case with an individual named plaintiff. As national class action lawyers, we follow the development of the law in this area very closely.

We recently settled a wage and hour class action litigation involving a major company. This class action involved the company's failure to properly categorize their employees to avoid providing overtime pay, proper breaks, termination pay and other wages that were due to the employees. Often companies will attempt to avoid wage and hour laws by categorizing those working as employees, as independent contractors instead.

Two recent cases are of interest in this area. In one case, the California First District Court of Appeal tossed out an action brought by a former law clerk that had worked at a private law firm while attending law school. He claimed he was entitled to overtime pay because he was not licensed to practice law at the time that he worked for the firm. He did perform many important tasks, including interviewing witnesses and writing pleadings.

He filed a lawsuit against the firm after he voluntarily left, saying that while he worked there, the firm classified him as a professional employee which exempted the firm from paying overtime to him. He took the position that the classification was improper and that he was not a professional employee. The court of appeal determined that in fact his work did fall under the professional employee exemption in the California Labor Code and that overtime pay was not required. One critical determining factor in the case was the court's view that, while the plaintiff was not a licensed lawyer, he was exercising a certain degree of discretion and judgment.

In another recent case involving Motorola Bluetooth headsets, a federal court of appeals did not approve a settlement agreement due to the amount of attorneys fees in the settlement. Often class action cases take hundreds, even thousands of hours on the part of many attorneys to investigate and prosecute. The lawyers' time is compensated only when the case either settles or goes to trial and a fee award is provided to the lawyers who may have worked years in preparing the case. Courts review these settlements and sometimes do not approve them. In this case, the court believed the attorney's fees were disproportionate to the award to the plaintiffs.

At Hersh & Hersh, we have played a significant role in litigating and settling major class actions. If you have been injured by a defective product or drug or if you are not receiving the benefits and pay you deserve as an employee, please contact our law firm. We will evaluate the situation for you and determine whether you have a case.

Many employees have come to us with concerns about whether they are being paid as required by law. We have helped many of them receive their rightful pay. Please contact our law firm to talk directly with one of our attorneys if you have any questions or concerns about how you are being paid.

A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is good news for victims of wage and hour violations. As California wage and hour lawyers, we want to keep our readers informed of the law in this area.

In a case involving a Nevada employee, the court answered the following question: when a class representative rejects an offer of judgment of the full amount of his or her claim, and that offer precedes the filing of a motion for class certification, is the class action complaint still viable? The court said that it is. The case was decided by the Ninth Circuit, which also includes California, so the law of this case would also apply to California employees.

In the Spring of 2009, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint in his state (Nevada) against his employer for failing to pay overtime and minimum wages to him and those similarly situated. Among the allegations in the complaint were violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), violations of Nevada's labor laws and breach of contract.

The defendant employer removed the case to federal court, which is how the Ninth Circuit ended up ruling on the case. The federal trial court began discovery, but the plaintiff had difficulty getting the information needed from the defendant to try to obtain class certification. A class action is a procedure that is applicable when many people have been injured in the same way. The injured parties can ask the court to allow "class certification" so that all plaintiffs who have been injured can proceed together.

In this case, the plaintiff tried to get information from the defendant to enable him to seek class certification to make it possible for the case to go forward with more injured victims. But the defendant stalled and would not provide the information requested. The plaintiff asked the court to make the defendant provide the information and the court said it would decide this later, but also extended what is called "discovery" so that the parties would have time to learn what they needed to learn from one another.

While all of this was happening, the defendant made an offer to resolve this case by offering judgment against it in favor of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff did not accept the offer, even though it would have compensated him fully for his monetary claim. The defendant employer than asked the court to dismiss the action, saying that the class action was no longer viable since it had made this offer, it was rejected and the plaintiff had not yet asked that the class be certified. The trial court said that the plaintiff did not timely file the request for class action certification and dismissed the case, saying it was "moot."

But the Ninth Circuit ultimately ruled that even though the plaintiff had rejected the offer of judgment and he had not yet moved for class certification, the case could proceed because the class certification motion was still timely. What this means is the plaintiff can still proceed to ask the court to certify the class action.

The lawyers of Hersh & Hersh dedicate their practice to protecting injured consumers and employees. If you have been injured by your employer and are not receiving proper wages, or if you are concerned that you are not receiving overtime pay, please contact our law firm. We provide free consultations to evaluate legal matters such as wage and hour violations.

This morning we posted on the contaminated turkey that, since March 2011, has sickened over 75 individuals and caused the death of one person in what the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had identified as a drug-resistant strain of salmonella related to consuming ground turkey.

The Department of Agriculture has reported today that Cargill Company has now recalled 35 million pounds of the turkey. Prior to the recall, U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service had previously advised consumers to fully cook foods for greater safety. The specific recommendations made in the food safety warning include:

First, be sure to wash hands for at least 20 seconds using warm, soapy water. Also clean kitchen utensils with hot soapy water to avoid contamination.

Second, make sure the raw meats / poultries are kept separately from other foods. Do not mix cutting boards for raw meats with other foods.

Third, make sure to cook raw meat / poultry to proper internal temperatures prior to consuming them. Use a food thermometer that indicates appropriate temperatures for these items.

Fourth, make sure to refrigerate raw meat and poultry within two hours after purchase or within one hour when the outside temperature is 90F degrees or above. And also refrigerate cooked meats no more than two hours after cooking them.

The particular strain of salmonella that has been causing illness and death is identified as Salmonella Heidelberg, which has proven to be difficult to treat due to its resistance to antibiotics. The outbreak has been reported in 26 states, including California, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, Illinois and Pennsylvania. Specific California areas in which the outbreak has been reported include, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Riverside counties.

Prior to the recall, the federal government had not identified the manufacturer of the tainted poultry. All they had revealed was that the turkey had been purchased in four retailers and that two manufacturers were involved. The authorities, which include local, state and federal public health officials, were said to be using the strain's DNA to attempt to determine the contamination's source.

As most consumers know, salmonella impacts children and the elderly more severely and causes such symptoms as fever and diarrhea. Those with compromised immune systems are also vulnerable to salmonella poisoning.

The San Francisco law firm of Hersh & Hersh specializes in injury cases that involve protection of the public. We are committed the safety of all consumer products.

If you have been injured in an accident, by a medical device or drug, or by any product you have purchased, we are here to assist you with your legal evaluation. Please contact our office for a free consultation with one of our experienced trial lawyers who will discuss your situation with you.