protection Archives - Carey Danis & Lowe

Carey Danis & Lowe Represents Plaintiffs in Home Depot Data Breach Lawsuits

By | Consumer protection, Uncategorized

homedepotCarey Danis & Lowe is representing plaintiffs in a Home Depot data breach lawsuit in an East St. Louis federal court. The class action lawsuit involves a group of plaintiffs who claim that their personal information was stolen due to Home Depot’s faulty data security system.

Home Depot officially confirmed that a data breach had occurred on September 9, 2014.

Plaintiffs who have been negatively impacted by the Home Depot data breach argue that the company failed to meet data security standards, a failure that is the most likely cause for the devastating leak of personal information.

Have You Been Financially Harmed by the Home Depot Data Breach?

The consumer protection and class action attorneys at Carey Danis & Lowe want to know if you have been financially harmed by the Home Depot data breach.

Have your credit rating and financial well being been compromised?

If so, Carey Danis & Lowe encourages you to seek justice for Home Depot’s poor handling of your personal information. During a free initial case evaluation, one of our consumer protection attorneys can walk you through your legal options and compensation eligibility.

Share your story with Carey Danis & Lowe today by calling us at 800.721.2519, or by completing a confidential case evaluation request.


Bayer Loses Yaz Patent in Federal Court of Appeals: Generic Yaz Versions Begin (Stealing) Marketshare

By | Pharmaceutical litigation, Uncategorized, Yaz/Yasmin

yaz_lawsuit_yasmin_lawsuit_ocella_lawsuit_settlements_litigation_mdl_lawsuit_settlement_amounts_gallbladder_removal_disease_surgeryBayer was recently dealt a setback in a Federal Court of Appeals in Washington. Their patent on Yaz, a contraceptive pill, was deemed to no longer be worthy of patent protection. Bayer’s patent on Yaz expires in June 2014.

As a result of this ruling, Actavis Inc. and Novartis AG can sell generic versions of the birth control pill. Though the ruling now gives other pharmaceutical companies the ability to legally compete against Bayer in the drospirenone contraceptive pill market, generic and inexpensive versions of Yaz-like drugs are driving Bayer’s profits significantly lower. In fact, Bayer stated that Yaz sales fell by 6.9 percent in the fourth quarter alone, according to Bloomberg Businessweek.

The Bayer Yaz patent decision was decided in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. The case is Bayer Healthcare Pharma v. Sandoz Inc. Bayer is currently seeking an appeal.

Though the drop in Yaz sales may be related to increasing competition from generic versions of drospirenone, Yaz has also been put in the negative spotlight for the contraceptive drug’s association with health risks, specifically blood clots, stroke, deep vein thrombosis, and in some cases, these severe Yaz side effects have proven to be fatal. According to a Bloomberg article, Bayer spent $1.57 billion in 2012 towards legal costs in Yaz and Yasmin lawsuits.

Yaz lawyers at Carey Danis & Lowe recognize that the loss of Bayer’s patent will introduce generic, inexpensive versions of drospirenone onto the market. With the firm link between Yaz and blood clots, these generic versions of Yaz have the potential to injure more women.

Carey Danis & Lowe is concerned about this drug’s ability to harm, and with this concern, our defective drug lawyers are closely working alongside our clients to bring them justice, compensation, and relief for injuries, suffering, and pain.


If you or someone you love has been injured by Yaz or Yasmin, contact a Carey Danis & Lowe Yaz and Yasmin lawyer. Our Yaz lawyers and Yasmin lawyers are currently offering a free legal evaluation about Yaz and Yasmin cases, and will provide assistance in filing a Yaz lawsuit or a Yasmin lawsuit.

Carey Danis & Lowe can be contacted by phone by calling 800.721.2519 or by submitting a legal claim form.

FDA Releases New Pradaxa Warning about Pradaxa Stroke, Heart Attack, and Blood Clots

By | Pharmaceutical litigation, Pradaxa, Uncategorized

FDA Releases New Pradaxa Warning about Pradaxa Stroke, Heart Attack, and Blood ClotsOn December 19, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a safety announcement regarding the anticoagulant medicine known as Pradaxa. Pradaxa, known generically as dabigatran etexilate mesylate, is manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a German pharmaceutical company.

The intention behind the FDA Pradaxa safety announcement is to inform health care providers and the public about the new risks associated with Pradaxa ingestion. In the release, the FDA warns that Pradaxa “should not be used to prevent stroke or blood clots (major thromboembolic events) in patients with mechanical heart valves, also known as mechanical prosthetic heart valves.”

The FDA’s recent safety announcement (comes) as data is being released from a European Pradaxa clinical trial, known as the RE-ALIGN trial. Researchers in the RE-ALIGN trial discovered that when patients using Pradaxa, versus those using warfarin, experienced an increased risk for stroke, heart attack, and blood clot development if these patients had mechanical heart valves.

Individuals with mechanical heart valves prescribed with warfarin did not experience such a significantly increased risk for the development of stroke, heart attack, or blood clot formation. Researchers in this European Pradaxa study also observed that patients experienced significantly more bleeding following valve surgery if using Pradaxa versus those using warfarin.

These findings from the European Pradaxa clinical trial clearly demonstrate the increased risk of serious bleeding and bleeding deaths, along with many other serious problems, associated with the use of Pradaxa.

As a result of these findings, the FDA made an urgent mandate that Boehringer Ingelheim update the medicine’s label to include a warning about the risks of using Pradaxa with a mechanical heart valve.

The FDA has already released a safety warning about Pradaxa in the past, with that FDA Pradaxa warning containing information about the high Pradaxa bleeding risk.

Pradaxa is prescribed to treat individuals suffering from non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Though intended to be a less burdensome miracle drug and a replacement for the antiquated warfarin, the reality of Pradaxa use has been fraught with serious bleeding risks and death.

If you or a loved one has suffered from serious bleeding episodes as a result of Pradaxa use, you and your loved one may be entitled to receive compensation for your emotional, physical, and financial losses. Attorneys at Carey Danis & Lowe understand the importance of consumer protection, and work hard with our clients to uphold justice and consumer rights.

Contact an experienced pharmaceutical product liability attorney today at Carey Danis & Lowe for more information about your Pradaxa case and filing a Pradaxa lawsuit.

Stryker Recalls Rejuvenate and ABG II Modular Hip Replacement Systems

By | Defective Medical Device litigation, Hip/Knee Replacement, Uncategorized

Stryker Recalls Rejuvenate and ABG II Modular Hip Replacement SystemsIn July 2012, Stryker issued a press release with information about a voluntary recall of its Rejuvenate modular-neck stems and its ABG II modular-neck stems, both of which are hip replacement systems manufactured and marketed by Stryker. The medical device manufacturer made the decision to voluntarily recall the Rejuvenate and ABG II hip replacement systems due to reports of fretting and corrosion as well as severe inflammation of adjacent tissues.

In the Stryker recall press release, Stuart Simpson, Stryker’s Vice President and General Manager, Hip Reconstruction, states that, “given the potential risks associated with fretting and corrosion at the modular neck junction, Stryker Orthopaedics decided to take this voluntary action.”

If you or someone you love is currently experiencing pain or swelling in the hip area where a recent surgical procedure was conducted involving either the Rejuvenate Modular hip replacement system or the ABG II Modular hip replacement system, it is highly recommended that you or your loved one see your doctor immediately.

For a free legal consultation regarding a Stryker hip replacement lawsuit, contact an experienced defective medical device lawyer at Carey Danis & Lowe. Our lawyers understand the importance of upholding consumer protection, and in doing so, provide clients with expert legal counsel in Stryker hip replacement lawsuits.

Call a defective medical device lawyer at Carey Danis & Lowe today at 800.721.2519.

Antiepileptic Drug Topamax Causes Congenital Oral Defects

By | Pharmaceutical litigation, Topamax, Uncategorized

Published October 23, 2012 by LawsuitInformation.org

Antiepileptic Drug Topamax Causes Congenital Oral DefectsTopamax (topiramate) is an antiepileptic and antiseizure drug used to treat seizures in patients suffering from epilepsy. Topamax is also used to treat people suffering from migraine headaches. This anticonvulsant medication is manufactured, distributed, and marketed by Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.

Though Topamax has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the drug’s label has recently been updated to reflect the significant health risk the antiepileptic drug poses to proper fetal development. The FDA released a warning in March 2011 about the inarguable link between the use of Topamax by pregnant women and the heightened risk of the development of congenital oral defects in their newborn babies. At the time of this warning, the FDA also re-categorized Topamax as a Pregnancy Category D drug, signifying the severe health risks it poses to unborn babies.

Birth defects caused by the use of Topamax in pregnant women include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • oral defects
  • cleft lip
  • cleft palate

In studies conducted to determine the safety of Topamax, data was collected demonstrating a severe threat to an unborn child’s health as a result of exposure to Topamax in the womb. Furthermore, there have been numerous reports of Topamax heightening the occurrence of congenital oral defects, such as cleft lip and cleft palate.

Though terminating use of Topamax during pregnancy will allow for proper fetal development, it has been understood that sudden termination of Topamax use can lead to an increased amount of seizures. It is important to consult with a physician if deciding to take Topamax while pregnant, as there is concrete evidence of Topamax caused birth defects.

Also, the use of Topamax after pregnancy must be given consideration if the mother decides to breast feed. It is known that Topamax is present in breast milk, and can compromise the health of a newborn child. If considering the use of Topamax while breast feeding, consult a physician.

If your newborn baby has suffered from the development of a Topamax-linked birth defect, contact a pharmaceutical product liability lawyer at Carey Danis & Lowe. Submit a claims form, and one of our experienced Topamax lawyers will provide you with a free legal consultation regarding your Topamax claim.

It is clear that the pharmaceutical giant, Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., neglected to inform healthcare providers and consumers about the serious negative health effects of Topamax use in pregnant women and its link to life-altering birth defects. In the battle to uphold consumer protection, our pharmaceutical product liability lawyers provide expert legal counsel to help you win the compensation you and your family so deserve.

Discover Card & Capital One Pay Settlements for Telemarketing Fraud

By | Class Action, Consumer protection, Uncategorized, Unfair Deceptive Trades

Published October 16, 2012 by LawsuitInformation.org

Discover Card & Capital One Pay Settlements for Telemarketing FraudLate last month, a settlement was reached in a lawsuit between Discover Card and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the FDIC. Discover Card had been charged by federal regulators and consumers of fraudulent business practices.

In the federal regulators’ investigation, they discovered that the credit card company’s telemarketers would use ambiguous and vague language when introducing credit card customers to Discover Card’s various programs. Often, these telephone marketing strategies would employ the technique of speaking quickly so as to become unintelligible.

Often, fast speech was used when discussing the fees and terms and conditions of Discover Card programs. In addition to deliberately unintelligible speech, telemarketers gave a false impression to customers of these Discover Card products and programs being free and delivering certain benefits, which ultimately, was understood to be far from the truth.

These Discover Card programs included payment protection, credit score monitoring, identity theft protection, and the like. In their investigation, it became clear to federal regulators that, without the approval of their customers, Discover’s telemarketers were often adding these programs and various other fees attached to them onto their customers’ credit card statements.

As a result of employing such deceptive marketing strategies, Discover Card will pay a fine to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the FDIC in the amount of $14 million. Approximately 3.5 million Discover Card customers will receive recompense in the amount of $200 million for the losses incurred via enrollment in these fraudulent credit programs. It is estimated that about 2 million customers will receive compensation for all fees charged by Discover over the period of December 7, 2007 through August 31, 2011.

Moreover, Discover Card has agreed that it will reform its telemarketing strategy. Also, the credit card company has agreed to hire a nonpartisan auditor whose responsibility it will be to insure that Discover Card does not engage in fraudulent and misleading marketing tactics.

Back in July of this year, Capital One settled a similar lawsuit regarding claims filed against the credit card company and their deceptive telemarketing strategy. The Capital One settlement amounted to $150 million to compensate two million of their customers. In addition to the consumer recompense, Capital One paid the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau a fine of $25 million. Furthermore, the credit card company agreed to pay another fine in the amount of $35 million due to the Office of the Comptroller of Currency.

If you feel that you have been the victim of such unfair and deceptive trade practices, contact a consumer protection lawyer at Carey Danis & Lowe.

New York Woman Granted Second Chance to Fight Debt Collector’s Fraudulent Tactics

By | Predatory Lending, Uncategorized, Unfair Deceptive Trades

Published September 11, 2012 on Carey & Danis

New York Woman Granted Second Chance to Fight Debt Collector's Fraudulent TacticsIn the lawsuit, Easterling v. Collecto, Inc., a judge ruled last month that the debt collection company based in Massachusetts known as Collecto , Inc., used deceptive trade practices in an effort to convince the plaintiff, Berlincia Easterling, that her student loans could not be dissolved when filing for bankruptcy. The debt collection company sent Easterling a letter with language stating that her student loan debt was nondischargeable, and thus, must still be paid to Collecto, Inc.

A U.S. Court of Appeals in New York ruled that the methods used by Collecto, Inc. in an effort to collect student loan debt payments from Easterling proved misleading, and as a result, stand in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The federal court stated in the ruling that student loan debt can be discharged if the plaintiff can demonstrate that continuing payments of student loan debt after filing for bankruptcy would significantly impact the debtor’s standard of living, driving it below what is termed a “minimal” standard of living. In response to this ruling, Easterling and her attorney will file a class action lawsuit against Collecto, Inc., as information has surfaced that the debt collection company sent out letters similar to the one Easterling received to approximately 181 individuals.

This federal court decision protects the consumer, in this case the consumer as debtor. Though Easterling has the onus of presenting convincing evidence in her forthcoming class action lawsuit, she has been given the opportunity to fight deceptive trade practices that undermine consumer protection and federal laws, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. If you feel that you or someone you love has been the victim of unfair, deceptive, and misleading trade practices, contact an attorney at Carey Danis & Lowe. Our experienced trial lawyers will provide you with a free legal consultation, and can assist you in determining if you have a case.

Bayer 2012 Profits Impacted by Yaz and Yasmin Lawsuits

By | Pharmaceutical litigation, Uncategorized, Yaz/Yasmin

Published August 23, 2012 on LawsuitInformation.org

It has been reported that Bayer, the German pharmaceutical giant responsible for the development of Yaz and Yasmin, the health threatening birth control pills of ill repute, has created what is essentially a savings account in the amount of 500 million euros for the purpose of future Yaz and Yasmin lawsuits.

In a study conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of Yaz and Yasmin, the FDA uncovered the high risk of blood clot development and a number of other serious cardiovascular conditions women were exposed to developing through the use of Yaz or Yasmin. In light of this discovery, the pharmaceutical company Bayer is clearly preparing for a storm of legal claims regarding Yaz and Yasmin in the future.

In July 2012, in response to the large number of Yaz and Yasmin lawsuits, Bayer accepted a settlement totaling $402.6 million. The German company paid this amount in order to settle approximately a third of the total Yaz and Yasmin lawsuits currently filed against them. There are currently 6,000 claims launched against Bayer in regards to the pharmaceutical company’s failure to inform and warn about the severe adverse side affects of using Yaz and Yasmin.

If you suffered from a blood clot or other adverse cardiovascular health condition, justice is due especially in the case of a large pharmaceutical company disregarding consumer protection, using deceptive marketing strategies, and releasing a defective drug on the market, all to bring in profits. Receive expert legal counsel from Carey Danis & Lowe.

Bank of America Credit Protection Plus Class Action

By | Predatory Lending, Uncategorized, Unfair Deceptive Trades

Bank of America Credit Protection Plus Class ActionCarey Danis & Lowe is currently investigating claims that Bank of America is engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices in connection with the sale and administration of their Credit Protection Plus program, which is a debt suspension / debt cancellation plan offered to its card members for a fee.

In particular, CD&L is investigating claims that Bank of America enrolls card members into their payment protection plan without first determining whether the consumer is qualified to ever receive benefits under the program. The result is that card members are paying fees even though they can never receive benefits.

In addition, the lawyers at CD&L are investigating whether Bank of America is enrolling card members into the Credit Protection Plus program without their consent or authorization and subsequently charging them a recurring monthly fee.

If you were enrolled into a payment protection plan or program without your consent, please contact us today.