bradley-site

Trajector Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Deceptive and Abusive Practices Toward Nation’s Disabled Veterans

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 16:50:28 GMT

Trajector Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Deceptive and Abusive Practices Toward Nation’s Disabled Veterans

Los Angeles, CA – April 15, 2026 - Bradley Grombacher filed a nationwide class action lawsuit in Federal court alleging Trajector, Inc. and Trajector Medical, LLC engaged in a widespread scheme to unlawfully charge disabled veterans for assistance with Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability claims.

According to the complaint, federal law strictly regulates who may assist veterans with preparing, presenting, or prosecuting VA disability claims. Only VA-accredited attorneys, agents, or representatives may provide such services for compensation, and no fees may be charged for assistance with an initial claim. The class action lawsuit alleges that the defendants ignored these requirements entirely, operating without accreditation while charging veterans thousands of dollars, often between $4,500 and $20,000, for services that were either prohibited or required to be free.

“Our nation owes its freedom to those brave enough to serve, and Trajector took advantage of these people, violated the law, and continues to prey upon new victims daily,” said attorney Kiley Grombacher of Bradley Grombacher.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants’ business model relied on deceptive marketing and misleading contracts that obscured the true nature of their services and fees. Veterans were led to believe they were receiving legitimate assistance designed to maximize their disability ratings. In reality, the plaintiffs claim the Trajector performed tasks that constitute regulated “representation,” including gathering medical records, completing forms, and advising on claim strategy, and all without legal authority.

A central component of the alleged scheme involved the use of an automated system known as “CallBot,” which accessed VA systems using veterans’ personal information to monitor changes in their disability benefits. Once a benefit increase was detected, the Trajector issued invoices calculated as a multiple, often five times, of the veteran’s monthly benefit, regardless of whether the company contributed to the outcome.

The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants employed aggressive and abusive collection tactics, including repeated phone calls, threats of legal action, and persistent demands for payment, even when the charges were disputed. These practices, the complaint asserts, caused significant financial harm and emotional distress, particularly given the vulnerability of disabled veterans.

The case is Gilbert Quijada, Jr. v. Trajector, Inc., USDC Central District of California – Western Division, Case No. 2:26-cv-03792.

Bradley/Grombacher Partner Kiley Grombacher Named to Daily Journal’s 2026 List of Leading Commercial Litigators

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 16:23:31 GMT

Bradley/Grombacher Partner Kiley Grombacher Named to Daily Journal’s 2026 List of Leading Commercial Litigators

Westlake Village, California – The Daily Journal named Bradley/Grombacher partner Kiley Grombacher to its 2026 list of Leading Commercial Litigators, recognizing her leadership in high-stakes class actions and mass tort litigation and her work holding corporations accountable in complex consumer, workplace, and product safety cases.

Grombacher has built her practice around representing individuals harmed by corporate misconduct, with a focus on nationwide class actions, multidistrict litigation, and cases involving toxic exposure, defective products, and workplace rights. She regularly takes on well-funded defendants in cases that turn on scientific evidence, internal corporate records, and regulatory history.

“I’ve always been driven by the simple goal to hold powerful institutions accountable and give people a meaningful path to justice,” Grombacher said. “This recognition reflects the work our team puts in every day to take on complex cases that can create real change.”

Among her most notable matters, Grombacher served as lead counsel in nationwide litigation involving Neutrogena aerosol sunscreen products found to contain benzene, a known carcinogen. The case resulted in a class settlement that provided compensation and product vouchers to consumers while drawing national attention to product safety and labeling practices.

She also holds a leadership role in ongoing multidistrict litigation challenging the marketing of over-the-counter medications containing phenylephrine. Plaintiffs allege manufacturers promoted the ingredient as an effective nasal decongestant despite longstanding evidence that it is ineffective when taken orally.

In addition to consumer cases, Grombacher represents workers in high-impact litigation involving environmental and workplace exposure. She currently advocates for individuals who allege they suffered harm after exposure to hazardous substances, including lead and asbestos, at the Goodfellow Federal Complex in St. Louis.

The Daily Journal’s annual list highlights attorneys who lead complex commercial litigation matters across the country, often involving cutting-edge legal theories, extensive evidentiary records, and significant public impact.

Grombacher said her work reflects broader shifts across the legal landscape. “We’re seeing increased scrutiny of product safety, corporate transparency, and workplace conditions,” she said. “Litigation plays a critical role in setting standards that protect both consumers and employees.”

Grombacher practices out of Bradley/Grombacher’s Westlake Village office and has spent nearly two decades litigating complex cases nationwide.

About Bradley/Grombacher

Bradley/Grombacher is a plaintiff-side law firm focused on complex litigation, including class actions, mass torts, consumer protection, and employment matters. The firm represents individuals and groups in high-impact cases against corporations and institutions across the country.

California Telehealth Company Facing Class Action Over Alleged Physician Misclassification and Unpaid Wages

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:28:43 GMT

California Telehealth Company Facing Class Action Over Alleged Physician Misclassification and Unpaid Wages

Westlake Village, California – A new class and collective action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Mochi Medical CA, P.C., Mochi Medical, P.A., and Mochi Health Corp., alleging widespread wage-and-hour violations stemming from the alleged misclassification of healthcare providers as independent contractors.

The complaint asserts that the defendants operate a telehealth platform for weight management services and a related professional medical group that provides prescription services based on referrals from that platform. According to the lawsuit, the companies uniformly classified physicians and other healthcare professionals as independent contractors despite exercising significant control over their work.

The named plaintiff, Dr. Frank Cioppettini, worked remotely as a licensed physician for the defendants from approximately December 10, 2024, to February 14, 2025. The complaint alleges that during this time, he and similarly situated providers were subject to company-directed policies, scheduling requirements, supervision, and performance evaluation, factors that, under California’s “ABC test,” may indicate employee status rather than independent contractor status.

The lawsuit contends that by misclassifying healthcare providers, the defendants failed to provide key protections guaranteed to employees under California law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). These alleged violations include failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay all wages owed, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay final wages upon termination, and failure to reimburse necessary business expenses.

Specifically, the complaint alleges violations of California Labor Code sections 510 and 1198 for unpaid overtime; failure to pay minimum and all wages; wage statement violations; waiting time penalties; failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair business practices.

According to the complaint, the defendants maintained uniform scheduling and timekeeping practices across states, and the alleged policies were administered from California. The proposed class includes healthcare professionals classified as contractors whose employment relationships were governed by California law within four years prior to the filing of the action. The lawsuit further alleges that hundreds of providers may have been affected.

“This action challenges a uniform scheme to misclassify healthcare providers as independent contractors, despite Defendants’ pervasive control over their work and integration of their services into Defendants’ core business. As a result of this misclassification, employees were unlawfully denied overtime, minimum wages, expense reimbursement, accurate wage statements, and timely final pay,” said attorney Marcus Bradley.

The case is styled Frank Cioppettini v. Mochi Medical CA, P.C ., et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-01260, USDC Northern District of California.

How to Spot False Advertising in 2025 and What You Can Do About It

Mon, 03 Nov 2025 17:51:09 GMT

Key Takeaways: TL;DR

False advertising is illegal : misleading ads that hide fees, exaggerate health benefits, or promote fake sales violate consumer protection laws.
Red flags in 2025 include: “too good to be true” offers, buried fine print, misleading imagery, “free” with strings attached, and evasive answers from companies.
Types of misleading advertising range from bait-and-switch tactics to greenwashing, fake discounts, unproven medical claims, and failure to disclose critical information.
The cost of falling victim can include wasted money, health risks, lost time, and emotional stress.
What you can do: gather evidence, report the deception to the FTC, contact the business directly, or seek legal help through consumer protection attorneys.
You have rights. With the right support, you can hold corporations accountable and pursue compensation for deceptive advertising.

False advertising is, unfortunately, much more than just an annoyance. More importantly, it’s a violation of your rights as a consumer. Every year, businesses spend billions trying to get your attention, and while most marketing is legal, some cross the line into deception.

From fake advertising claims about “miracle” health products to misleading advertising around “limited-time” sales, these tactics cost consumers money, time, and trust. If you’ve ever wondered, “What is false advertising? How can you avoid deceptive advertising, and what can you do about false advertising? This guide is for you. At Bradley/Grombacher LLP, we help consumers nationwide hold companies accountable when they cross the line.

Here’s what you need to know to protect yourself from false or misleading advertising in 2025.

What Is False Advertising?

False advertising happens when a business uses misleading, deceptive, or outright false claims to promote a product or service. While exaggeration (often called “puffery”) like “the best coffee in town” is usually legal, lying about measurable facts is not.

Examples include:

Claiming a product has health benefits without proof
Advertising a sale that doesn’t actually exist
Showing one product in an ad but delivering something cheaper or lower-quality
Omitting critical information, like harmful side effects

Under California law, and federal protections enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) , these practices are illegal. Victims may be entitled to compensation through lawsuits or class actions.

How Can You Avoid Deceptive Advertising?

Spotting misleading advertising isn’t always easy, and many companies have gotten better at disguising false claims. But with a critical eye and some awareness, you can separate genuine offers from fake advertising .

Here are the red flags to watch for in 2025:

1. “Too Good to Be True” Deals

If an ad promises something that seems impossible, like a luxury product at a fraction of the normal price, it’s worth questioning. These deals often mask hidden fees , limited quantities, or bait-and-switch tactics.

For example, a “$1 trial” may lock you into an expensive monthly subscription that’s hard to cancel. Always read the full terms before entering payment information.

2. Fine Print & Footnotes

Deceptive advertising frequently hides critical details in fine print. A bold headline might say “0% interest” , while a small disclaimer reveals that the rate only applies for three months before jumping to 29%.

Don’t just skim ads. Scroll down, read the footnotes, and look for conditions that change the meaning of the main claim.

3. Misleading Imagery

Images can be just as deceptive as words. Food ads might show oversized portions, glowing colors, or fresh ingredients that don’t match reality. Clothing retailers sometimes use lighting tricks or digitally altered photos to make items look higher quality.

If reviews or customer photos online don’t align with the advertising, that’s a strong indicator of false advertising .

4. “Free” That Isn’t Really Free

The word “free” is one of the most abused terms in marketing. Companies may offer a free trial, but require credit card information upfront and automatically charge you when the trial ends. Others may offer “free shipping” but inflate product costs to make up the difference.

If something is labeled free, check what strings are attached: shipping, restocking fees, or automatic renewals are common traps.

5. Unanswered Questions

Transparency matters. If a business dodges questions, avoids specifics, or directs you in circles instead of providing clear answers, that’s a warning sign. Legitimate companies will explain pricing, policies, and product details directly.

If you can’t get a straight answer, there’s a good chance the ad itself is misleading advertising .

Types of Misleading Advertising You Might Encounter

False advertising doesn’t always look the same. Some tactics are subtle, while others are more obvious once you know what to look for. Here are some of the most common forms of misleading advertising :

Bait-and-Switch

A classic trick: the company promotes an attractive deal to draw you in, only for that product to be “out of stock” or available in extremely limited quantities. Salespeople then push you toward a pricier alternative.

This happens frequently with electronics, cars, and travel packages. If the advertised item is never realistically available, it’s false advertising.

Greenwashing

As eco-conscious shopping grows, so does deceptive marketing around it. Labels like “eco-friendly,” “sustainable,” or “biodegradable” are sometimes used without any scientific backing.

For example, a product may technically degrade, but only under industrial conditions, not in your backyard compost. True sustainability claims should come with third-party certifications or clear evidence.

Unsubstantiated Health Claims

From supplements to skincare, products are often sold with promises that sound more like miracles than facts. Words like “clinically proven” or “doctor-recommended” are sometimes used without credible research to back them up.

Relying on these claims can be dangerous, especially when companies suggest a product can replace proper medical treatment.

Fake Sales

You’ve probably seen “50% OFF” signs only to realize the item was never sold at the so-called original price. Inflating prices to make discounts look bigger than they really are is a common form of false advertising in retail.

Real deals should have a verifiable pricing history. If a retailer always seems to have everything “on sale,” you’re likely not saving as much as you think.

Failure to Disclose

Sometimes the problem isn’t what’s said, but what’s left out. A car ad that highlights fuel efficiency but skips over costly maintenance requirements, or a service plan that promotes low monthly payments while hiding large cancellation fees. These are both examples of deceptive advertising by omission.

A fair ad gives you the whole picture, not just the appealing parts.

The Cost of Falling Victim to False Advertising

Apart from being frustrating, being misled by deceptive ads can cause real harm:

Financial losses : Spending money on something that doesn’t work as promised.
Health risks : Dangerous products are advertised as safe or beneficial.
Lost time : Chasing refunds or dealing with defective goods.
Emotional distress : Feeling tricked or powerless.
Business harm : Companies can also suffer when suppliers or partners misrepresent products.

What Can You Do About False Advertising?

If you suspect you’ve been a victim of misleading advertising, you have options.

Gather Evidence : Keep receipts, screenshots, or product packaging.
Report It : File a complaint with the FTC or your state consumer protection agency.
Contact the Company : Sometimes, businesses will resolve disputes when confronted directly.
Seek Legal Help : If the losses are significant or if the deception is widespread, an attorney can help you file a lawsuit or join a class action.

Why Legal Help After Catastrophic Injury Matters for Consumers Too

Just as victims of catastrophic injuries need strong advocates, so do consumers harmed by false advertising. Both situations involve navigating complex systems, standing up against powerful corporations, and fighting for justice.

Bradley/Grombacher LLP has a proven track record of helping people in these cases, whether you’re dealing with misleading advertising or other consumer protection violations.

How Bradley/Grombacher Can Help You

Our attorneys specialize in false advertising and consumer protection cases . Here’s why clients trust us:

No upfront costs : You don’t pay unless we win.
Experienced advocacy : We’ve successfully handled numerous false advertising lawsuits.
Bilingual support : We assist clients in English and Spanish.
Nationwide service : While we’re based in California, we handle cases across the U.S.

Whether you’ve been misled by fake advertising , harmful health claims, or deceptive product descriptions, we can help you pursue compensation and accountability.

Know Your Rights in 2025

False advertising isn’t going away. In fact, it’s only getting more sophisticated, especially online and on social media. But knowing how to spot misleading advertising gives you power as a consumer.

And when companies cross the line, the law is on your side. With the right legal help, you can recover financial losses, hold corporations accountable, and help prevent others from being misled.

Take Action Today

If you’ve asked yourself, “What can you do about false advertising?” the answer is clear: don’t face it alone .

Bradley/Grombacher LLP is here to guide you every step of the way. Contact us online or call (866) 881-0403 today for a free consultation.

You don’t have to accept being misled. Together, we can demand honesty and accountability.

How to Recover Financially After Catastrophic Injury

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 14:52:03 GMT

Experiencing a catastrophic injury can turn your world upside down. These injuries (often resulting from serious accidents, workplace incidents, or other traumatic events) can lead to long-term or permanent physical, emotional, and financial challenges.

While physical and emotional healing are crucial, learning how to recover financially after injury is equally important for rebuilding stability and planning for the future. This often involves careful planning, understanding your resources, and seeking professional support.

This guide offers practical steps, resources, and strategies to help you regain control and navigate the financial challenges ahead.

Immediate Financial Steps After a Catastrophic Injury

The days and weeks following a catastrophic injury can be overwhelming. It’s essential to address immediate financial concerns to prevent further stress:

Assess Your Financial Situation: List your current expenses, including medical bills, daily living costs, and any outstanding debts. Knowing where you stand helps prioritize urgent payments.
Access Emergency Financial Resources: Contact your health insurance provider to understand coverage, file claims quickly, and inquire about emergency assistance programs. Government programs and charitable organizations may provide temporary support for disabled individuals or those with catastrophic injuries.
Notify Key Parties Early: Inform your employer, creditors, and insurance companies about your injury. Early communication can prevent late fees, paused accounts, and lost benefits.
Document Everything: Keep detailed records of medical treatment, bills, and communications with insurers. Documentation is critical for future claims or legal action.

Understanding Insurance and Legal Options

Insurance can be complicated, and navigating multiple policies can feel like a full-time job. Health insurance, disability coverage, workers’ compensation, life insurance, and car insurance all have different rules, limits, and deadlines. Fully understanding these policies is key to ensuring you get the benefits you’re entitled to.

Legal help can make a significant difference in catastrophic injury financial recovery. A skilled attorney can help you pursue compensation if your injury was caused by someone else’s negligence, negotiate claims with insurance companies, and guide you through workers’ compensation processes.

Legal expertise is especially valuable for ensuring you access the full spectrum of disability benefits, and it protects you from common pitfalls that can reduce or delay payments.

Building a Long-Term Financial Plan

Recovering financially after a catastrophic injury means covering today’s bills while also building a roadmap for tomorrow. Without careful planning, ongoing medical expenses, reduced income, and long-term care costs can quickly overwhelm even the most disciplined budget.

Step 1: Create a Comprehensive Budget

Think of your budget as a map of your financial recovery journey. Include:

Rehabilitation and therapy costs
Adaptive equipment or mobility devices
Home modifications for accessibility
Daily living expenses (groceries, utilities, transportation)
Emergency medical fund

Step 2: Manage Debt Strategically

Debt can compound stress after an injury. Strategies include:

Negotiating payment plans or deferments with creditors
Exploring debt consolidation for manageable payments
Prioritizing high-interest loans to reduce long-term financial burden

Step 3: Plan for Long-Term Care

Some injuries require ongoing support. Consider:

In-home care or professional caregivers
Long-term physical therapy
Specialized equipment and mobility aids

Accessing Financial Assistance Programs

Step 1: Create a Comprehensive Budget

Think of your budget as a map of your financial recovery journey. Include:

Rehabilitation and therapy costs
Adaptive equipment or mobility devices
Home modifications for accessibility
Daily living expenses (groceries, utilities, transportation)
Emergency medical fund

Step 2: Manage Debt Strategically

Debt can compound stress after an injury. Strategies include:

Negotiating payment plans or deferments with creditors
Exploring debt consolidation for manageable payments
Prioritizing high-interest loans to reduce long-term financial burden

Step 3: Plan for Long-Term Care

Some injuries require ongoing support. Consider:

In-home care or professional caregivers
Long-term physical therapy
Specialized equipment and mobility aids

Accessing Financial Assistance Programs

With medical bills, lost income, and ongoing care costs, relying on a single resource is rarely enough. To create a strong financial safety net, most individuals need to tap into a combination of insurance, legal assistance, and community or government programs.

Below is a snapshot of key government programs designed to provide financial support during your recovery:

Nonprofits & Charities: Organizations may offer grants, emergency funding, or guidance for navigating government programs. Hospitals and rehabilitation centers often maintain resource lists—don’t hesitate to ask your social worker or case manager for referrals.

Tip: Keeping a “resource tracker” spreadsheet of program contacts, application deadlines, and documentation requirements can simplify the process and reduce stress.

Returning to Work and Exploring Vocational Options

Returning to work after a catastrophic injury is rarely a straight path. Recovery timelines, physical limitations, and emotional challenges all influence how and when you can re-enter the workforce.

The key is flexibility: combining realistic goals with adaptive strategies allows you to regain financial independence without compromising your health.

Workplace Adjustments

Many employers are legally required to provide accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and understanding your options can make a huge difference:

Part-time or Remote Work: Gradually returning to work with reduced hours or telecommuting can help you balance rehabilitation with job responsibilities.
Adaptive Equipment & Assistive Technologies: Ergonomic desks, speech-to-text software, or mobility devices can create a safer, more manageable work environment.
Modified Responsibilities: Tasks can be shifted or adjusted to match your current capabilities, ensuring productivity while preventing injury relapse.

Vocational Rehabilitation Programs

Vocational rehabilitation (VR) programs are designed to bridge the gap between recovery and sustainable employment.

They provide:

Skills Development: Retraining or certification programs to adapt to new career paths.
Career Exploration: Guidance on job roles that match your abilities and long-term goals.
Workplace Integration: Support in transitioning back into a professional setting with adaptive strategies.

VR programs often work in conjunction with disability insurance or workers’ compensation to ensure a smooth, financially secure return to work.

Addressing the Emotional Cost of Financial Stress

Financial stress can take a heavy toll on emotional and mental well-being. Struggling with medical bills, mounting debt, or sudden income loss often triggers feelings of anxiety, depression, irritability, and overwhelm.

Left unaddressed, these emotional burdens can interfere with daily functioning, strain relationships, and even slow physical recovery from injury or illness.

Strategies to Cope

1. Professional Support

Therapy or counseling can provide effective tools to manage anxiety, stress, and financial worries. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), for instance, can help reframe negative thoughts about money, reduce catastrophic thinking, and improve coping skills.

Financial therapists combine mental health strategies with money management guidance, helping clients navigate the emotional side of financial stress.

2. Peer Support

Connecting with others facing similar financial challenges can be incredibly validating. Support groups—online or in-person—allow individuals to share experiences, exchange practical tips, and feel less isolated.

Hearing how peers cope can normalize feelings of worry or guilt and inspire strategies that have worked for others.

3. Financial Simplification

Breaking finances into manageable steps can reduce overwhelm and restore a sense of control.

Start by:

Prioritizing obligations: Identify essential bills and focus on covering these first.
Automating payments: Reduce the mental load by setting up auto-pay for recurring expenses.
Visual tracking: Charts, graphs, or checklists can make progress tangible, boosting motivation and reducing anxiety.

4. Mindfulness and Stress Reduction Techniques

Mindfulness practices, meditation, deep breathing, or journaling can calm the nervous system and reduce financial anxiety. Even 5–10 minutes a day of mindful reflection or structured breathing exercises can improve emotional resilience.

5. Practical Financial Planning

Working with a financial counselor or planner can provide structure and clarity. They can help create realistic budgets, negotiate payment plans, or identify community resources for medical bills and debt relief.

Knowing there is a concrete plan in place can alleviate the “paralysis” that financial stress often causes.

6. Self-Care and Boundaries

Protecting emotional energy is essential. Set boundaries around financial discussions that trigger stress, and engage in activities that provide relaxation, joy, or a sense of accomplishment.

Physical exercise, creative hobbies, or simply stepping away from screens can help maintain emotional balance.

How Bradley Grombacher LLP Can Help

Navigating the financial aftermath of a catastrophic injury is complex, but you don’t have to do it alone.

Bradley Grombacher LLP specializes in helping individuals secure compensation, manage insurance claims, and access the financial support needed for long-term recovery.

Our team guides clients through:

Filing claims with the help of a personal injury attorney
U n derstanding and maximizing disability benefits and insurance claims
Accessing financial assistance for disabled individuals
Building a comprehensive strategy for catastrophic injury financial recovery

We work with clients to protect their financial future, allowing them to focus on healing and adjusting to new circumstances.

For detailed information on how we can help, visit our catastrophic injuries page .

Taking Control of Your Financial Recovery

Financial recovery after a catastrophic injury is a process, making early action critical. Starting your financial plan as soon as possible, seeking professional guidance, and exploring all available resources can make the path forward less overwhelming and more sustainable.

If you or a loved one has suffered a catastrophic injury, contact Bradley Grombacher LLP today for professional guidance. Learn how we can help with legal help after catastrophic injury, insurance claims, and financial planning to ensure a secure and manageable recovery.

Bradley/Grombacher LLP Attorneys Honored in LA Times Consumer Attorneys of Southern California 2025 List

Mon, 18 Aug 2025 13:47:26 GMT

LOS ANGELES - Bradley/Grombacher LLP is proud to announce that founding partners Mark Bradley and Kiley Grombacher have been recognized by the LA Times as Consumer Attorneys of Southern California. This recognition demonstrates Mark and Kiley’s dedication to fighting for consumers' rights.

“Being recognized as a Consumer Attorney of Southern California is incredibly meaningful to me and Mark,” said Partner Kiley Grombacher. “Our clients trust us with some of the most difficult moments of their lives, and it’s an honor to stand up for them. This award is also a tribute to the hard work and heart our entire team brings to every case.”

With a focus on class actions, employment rights, consumer fraud, and serious personal injury, Mark and Kiley have successfully led litigation efforts that have recovered millions of dollars for individuals harmed by corporate negligence. Their work not only delivers justice for their clients but also drives meaningful changes across industries.

“We’re proud of our long track record of helping protect consumer rights, and grateful the LA Times chose to recognize us for our work,” added partner Mark Bradley.

The LA Times Consumer Attorneys of Southern California recognition is awarded to a select group of attorneys who have demonstrated exceptional skill, integrity, and leadership in the field of consumer law. Mark and Kiley’s inclusion on this respected list spotlights their experience representing individuals and groups whose voices might otherwise go unheard.

About Bradley/Grombacher

When you find yourself in need of taking legal action against another party in a dispute, turn to the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher for help. Our lawyers have more than 50 years of combined experience that can be put to work to help you get the fair and just compensation you deserve in a dispute involving employment law, consumer law, and personal injury law.

Kiley Grombacher Recognized in Daily Journal’s 2025 Top Women Lawyers List

kileygrombacher@gmail.com (Grombacher) — Wed, 28 May 2025 20:16:06 GMT

Bradley/Grombacher’s Kiley Grombacher Recognized in Daily Journal’s 2025 Top Women Lawyers List

Westlake Village, Calif., May 21, 2025 — Bradley/Grombacher is proud to announce that partner Kiley Grombacher has been named in Daily Journal’s 2025 Top Women Lawyers edition, which honors female attorneys across California who are making a significant impact through litigation, leadership and community advocacy.

Kiley has built her career around representing employees, consumers and patients in complex civil litigation. Her practice spans wage and hour class actions, employment discrimination and harassment claims, and mass torts involving defective pharmaceuticals and medical devices. She is known for her strategic litigation style and client-first approach.

Throughout her career, she has remained focused on representing people who often face an uphill battle against powerful companies. Her work routinely involves large-scale cases that demand both legal precision and an ability to connect personally with those affected. Whether she’s taking on unsafe drug manufacturers or advocating for fair labor practices, Kiley’s dedication to accountability and justice is evident in every case she handles.

Kiley is also a leader in the broader legal community. She frequently collaborates with national co-counsel, speaks at legal education events and mentors young attorneys entering the field. Herefforts have contributed not just to favorable legal outcomes but also to raising awareness of the structural and legal challenges faced by everyday workers and consumers.

“I’m honored to be included among this year’s Top Women Lawyers,” said Kiley. “The clients who trust us with their cases (and the team I work with every day) are the reason I do this work. This recognition is a reflection of what we’ve built at Bradley/Grombacher and the values we bring to each case.”

Kiley’s inclusion on the Daily Journal’s 2025 list highlights the impact of her advocacy and the continued growth of Bradley/Grombacher as a firm focused on fighting for those who need it most.

At Bradley/Grombacher, we remain committed to holding companies accountable, protecting workers and consumers and ensuring that justice is accessible to everyone, not just the powerful. We’re proud to celebrate this achievement and look forward to continuing our work alongside clients who inspire us daily.

About Bradley/Grombacher

When you find yourself in need of taking legal action against another party in a dispute, turn to the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher for help. Our lawyers have more than 50 years of combined experience that can be put to work to help you get the fair and just compensation you deserve in a dispute involving employment law, consumer law, and personal injury law.

10 Costly Mistakes to Avoid When Filing a Wildfire Insurance Claim

kileygrombacher@gmail.com (Grombacher) — Thu, 16 Jan 2025 20:42:31 GMT

The smoke has cleared, the embers have cooled, but the challenges of rebuilding after a wildfire are just beginning. One of the most important steps in your recovery is filing a claim with your homeowner's insurance company. This process can be complex and fraught with potential pitfalls. Making the wrong move could significantly impact the compensation you receive, delaying your recovery or even jeopardizing your claim altogether.

Here are 10 crucial mistakes to avoid when filing a wildfire insurance claim:

Delaying the Filing of Your Claim: Time is of the essence. Most insurance policies have deadlines for reporting losses. Delaying your claim can raise red flags with your insurer and potentially jeopardize your coverage. Contact your insurance company as soon as reasonably possible after the fire to initiate the claims process.
Failing to Document Everything: Thorough documentation is your most powerful weapon in the claims process.
Photograph and Videotape: Take extensive photos and videos of all damage to your property, both inside and out, before any cleanup or repairs begin. Capture wide shots and close-ups, documenting the full extent of the destruction.
Create a Detailed Inventory: Compile a comprehensive list of all damaged, destroyed, or lost personal belongings. Include descriptions, quantities, estimated values, and any available receipts, purchase records, or appraisals.
Keep All Receipts: Save every receipt related to expenses incurred due to the fire, including temporary housing, meals, clothing, transportation, and any other out-of-pocket costs.
Throwing Away Damaged Items Before the Adjuster's Inspection: Resist the urge to discard damaged items before the insurance adjuster has had a chance to inspect them. These items serve as crucial evidence to support your claim. If you must dispose of anything for safety or health reasons, take detailed photographs and videos first, and notify your adjuster.
Not Understanding Your Policy: Your homeowners insurance policy is a complex legal document. Failing to thoroughly understand its terms, coverage limits, exclusions, and your responsibilities as a policyholder can lead to costly mistakes. If anything is unclear, seek clarification from your agent or an attorney. Pay particular attention to:
Dwelling Coverage Limits: The maximum amount your insurer will pay to repair or rebuild your home.
Personal Property Coverage: The limits for replacing your belongings.
Loss of Use/Additional Living Expenses (ALE): The extent of coverage for temporary housing and other living expenses.
Deductibles: The amount you must pay out-of-pocket before your coverage kicks in.
Exclusions: Any specific types of damage or losses that are not covered.
Accepting the First Offer Without Question: The first settlement offer from your insurance company is often a lowball offer, especially after a major event like a wildfire. They are hoping you'll accept it out of desperation or lack of knowledge. Don't be afraid to negotiate or seek a second opinion from an independent contractor or a lawyer.
Downplaying Your Losses or Damages: Be honest and thorough when describing your losses to the insurance adjuster. Don't minimize the damage or omit items from your inventory. It's better to overestimate initially than to leave something out and have to fight for it later.
Making Permanent Repairs Before Authorization: Avoid making any permanent repairs to your property before obtaining authorization from your insurance company. They may deny coverage for repairs made without their approval. Emergency repairs to prevent further damage are usually acceptable, but document them thoroughly and notify your insurer as soon as possible.
Not Keeping Records of Communication: Document every interaction with your insurance company, including phone calls, emails, and in-person meetings. Note the date, time, name of the representative, and a summary of the conversation. This creates a valuable paper trail that can help protect your rights if a dispute arises.
Failing to Seek Professional Help: The insurance claims process can be overwhelming, especially after a traumatic event like a wildfire. An experienced wildfire insurance lawyer can provide invaluable assistance by:
Evaluating your policy and explaining your rights.
Gathering and organizing evidence to support your claim.
Negotiating with the insurance company on your behalf.
Filing a lawsuit if necessary to challenge a denial or bad faith practices.
Ignoring Deadlines: Insurance claims are subject to various deadlines, including the time to file a claim, submit documentation, and file a lawsuit if necessary. Missing a deadline can have serious consequences, potentially barring you from recovering the compensation you deserve.

Bradley/Grombacher LLP: Your Advocates for a Fair Recovery

At Bradley/Grombacher LLP, we understand the devastation that wildfires inflict on California homeowners. We're committed to helping victims of events like the Palisades Fire secure the full and fair compensation they need to rebuild their lives. With over 50 years of combined experience in employment law, personal injury, and consumer protection , we're well-equipped to handle complex wildfire claims and fight for your rights.

Don't let the insurance company take advantage of you during this vulnerable time.

If you're facing challenges with your wildfire insurance claim, contact us today for a free, confidential consultation. Call us at (866) 881-0403 or fill out our online contact form. We're here to help you every step of the way.

Your Legal Rights After a Wildfire: What You Need to Know

kileygrombacher@gmail.com (Grombacher) — Thu, 16 Jan 2025 20:22:56 GMT

A wildfire can turn your life upside down in an instant. In the aftermath of such a devastating event, it's easy to feel overwhelmed and unsure of where to turn. Knowing your legal rights is a crucial first step toward recovery and rebuilding. While the specifics of each situation may differ, there are some fundamental legal principles that apply to wildfire victims in California.

1. Your Right to Compensation for Property Damage

If your home or property was damaged or destroyed in a wildfire, you may be entitled to compensation from several potential sources:

Your Homeowners Insurance: Your insurance policy is a contract, and your insurance company has a legal obligation to honor its terms. This can include coverage for:
Dwelling: The cost to repair or rebuild your home.
Other Structures: Damage to detached garages, sheds, fences, etc.
Personal Property: Loss or damage to your belongings, such as furniture, clothing, electronics, and appliances.
Loss of Use/Additional Living Expenses (ALE): Costs associated with temporary housing, meals, and other essential expenses if you are displaced from your home.

Potentially Liable Third Parties:
Utility Companies: In California, utility companies can be held strictly liable under the principle of "inverse condemnation" if their equipment is a substantial cause of a wildfire (as is being investigated with SCE in the Palisades Fire ).
Government Entities: If a government entity's negligence contributed to the fire's spread (such as the alleged LADWP hydrant failures during the Palisades Fire ), they may also be held liable.
Negligent Individuals or Businesses: If the fire was started by a private individual's or business's negligence (e.g., arson, improperly maintained equipment), they could be held responsible for the resulting damages.

2. Your Right to a Fair Insurance Claims Process

Insurance companies have a legal duty to act in good faith when handling your claim. This means they must:

Investigate Promptly: Conduct a thorough and timely investigation of your claim.
Communicate Honestly: Keep you informed about the status of your claim and respond to your inquiries in a timely manner.
Pay Fairly: Offer a settlement that accurately reflects your covered losses and is consistent with the terms of your policy.
Insurance Bad Faith: If your insurer unreasonably denies your claim, delays payment, offers an unfairly low settlement, or otherwise acts in bad faith, you may have grounds for a separate legal action against them.

3. Your Right to Compensation for Personal Injuries

Wildfires can cause a range of physical injuries, including:

Smoke Inhalation: Respiratory problems, lung damage, and other health complications.
Burns: Severe burns requiring extensive medical treatment and potentially causing long-term disability.
Other Injuries: Injuries sustained during evacuation or as a result of the fire's spread.

If you or a loved one suffered a personal injury due to someone else's negligence in connection with a wildfire, you may be entitled to compensation for:

Medical Expenses: Past and future medical bills related to your injuries.
Lost Wages: Income lost due to your inability to work.
Pain and Suffering: Compensation for physical pain, emotional distress, and mental anguish.
Loss of Consortium: Compensation to your spouse for the loss of companionship and support.

4. Your Right to Compensation for Lost Income or Business Interruption

If a wildfire forced you to miss work or resulted in the closure of your business, you may have legal recourse:

Lost Wages: If your employer wrongfully terminated you, failed to pay you, or denied you reasonable accommodations after a wildfire, you may be able to recover lost wages under California employment law.
Business Interruption Insurance: If you have business interruption coverage as part of your commercial insurance policy, you may be able to recover lost profits and other expenses incurred due to the wildfire's impact on your business.

5. Your Right to Legal Representation

Navigating the legal complexities after a wildfire can be daunting. An experienced attorney can be your advocate and guide, helping you to:

Understand Your Rights: Provide clear explanations of your legal options and the applicable laws.
Gather Evidence: Collect and preserve the necessary evidence to support your claims.
Negotiate with Insurance Companies: Engage in strategic negotiations to secure a fair settlement.
File Lawsuits: Take legal action against responsible parties, whether it be insurance companies, utility companies, government entities, or negligent individuals.
Represent You in Court: Provide skilled representation in court if litigation becomes necessary.

Bradley/Grombacher LLP: Dedicated to Helping Wildfire Victims

At Bradley/Grombacher LLP, we understand the impact wildfires have on individuals, families, and communities. With over 50 years of combined experience in personal injury, employment law, and consumer law , we have the knowledge and skills to effectively advocate for your rights and secure the compensation you deserve.

We're committed to:

Holding negligent parties accountable.
Maximizing your financial recovery.
Providing compassionate and personalized legal representation.

Take the First Step: Contact Us for a Free Consultation

If you've been affected by a California wildfire, including the recent Palisades Fire, don't hesitate to contact Bradley/Grombacher LLP for a free, confidential consultation . We'll listen to your story, answer your questions, and provide an honest assessment of your legal options.

Call us at (866) 881-0403 or fill out our online contact form.

Let us help you navigate the path toward recovery and justice.

The Impact of Recent PAGA Compromises

kileygrombacher@gmail.com (Grombacher) — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 17:59:49 GMT

The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) , a pivotal piece of California labor law, has recently undergone significant reforms that have sparked a mixed response among legal professionals.

These changes, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in June 2024, aim to address long-standing concerns from both employers and employees regarding the 20-year-old legislation.

However, the compromises have left the legal community divided, with opinions varying widely on the potential outcomes of these adjustments.

Understanding PAGA: A Brief Overview

First enacted in 2004, PAGA was designed to empower employees to file civil lawsuits for labor code violations when the state attorney general declined to pursue such cases. This law was particularly important in a fast-growing labor market, where the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency often struggled to keep up with the volume of complaints.

Under PAGA, employees could act as private attorneys general, bringing forward claims on behalf of themselves and others. Successful cases typically resulted in penalties split between the state and the affected employees.

The Recent Reforms: What Has Changed?

The recent legislative changes to PAGA introduce several key modifications intended to balance the scales between employee rights and employer protections.

These reforms include:

Penalty Structure Adjustments: The new law imposes a lower cap on penalties for employers who proactively cure violations after receiving notice. Conversely, it raises penalties for employers found to have acted maliciously or fraudulently.

Increased Employee Payouts: Employees now receive 35% of the penalties awarded, up from 25%.

Expanded Cure Provisions: Employers now have broader opportunities to remedy violations before a lawsuit proceeds, with courts given more discretion to allow these remedies.

Stricter Plaintiff Criteria: The reforms require plaintiffs to have personally experienced the alleged violation, limit the scope of who can join a PAGA action, and give judges more control over case management.

These changes have been met with mixed reactions from the legal community due to the reforms' complexities and potential unintended consequences.

Marcus Bradley’s Perspective: A Pandora’s Box of Litigation

“This is not a win for plaintiffs or employees.”

Marcus Bradley, co-founder of the Westlake Village-based firm Bradley Grombacher LLP , has expressed significant concerns regarding the recent PAGA reforms.

In a recent interview, Bradley described the changes as opening a "Pandora’s box" of potential new legal challenges. He anticipates that the reforms will lead to a surge in litigation focused on whether employers have genuinely cured violations and adequately compensated their employees.

"What it’s going to do is spark a lot of litigation over whether [employers] have fully cured violations and made their employees whole," said Bradley.

For attorneys like Bradley, who have long represented plaintiffs in wage-and-hour class actions , these changes may introduce new complexities that could deter employees from pursuing valid claims and reduce the willingness of attorneys to take on such cases.

The Employer’s Defense: A Welcome Relief

On the other side of the debate, defense attorneys representing employers have largely welcomed the PAGA reforms.

Kevin Sullivan, a member of Epstein Becker & Green P.C. in Century City, views the changes as a positive step toward reducing frivolous lawsuits and providing clearer guidelines for resolving legitimate claims.

"Any sort of curtailment on what has been going on for nearly 20 years with PAGA is a step in the right direction," Sullivan remarked. He believes that the new cure provisions and stricter criteria for plaintiffs will lead to more precise and substantiated claims, allowing employers to address genuine issues more effectively.

Supporting this perspective, Jennifer Barrera, president and chief executive of CalChamber, described the reforms as "monumental."

In a statement, she highlighted the significance of Governor Newsom's approval of the bills, noting that the new policies reflect a successful conclusion to extensive negotiations between the business community, labor, and legislative leaders.

“Governor Newsom’s signature on these two bills represents a successful conclusion to months of hard work and compromise among all parties. The business community, labor, and legislative leadership worked together to establish meaningful change that will curtail rampant PAGA lawsuit abuse while offering better outcomes for employees who have been wronged. The new policies coming out of the reform measures signed today will create more fairness in the process for small businesses and, importantly, incentivize them to understand and comply with labor laws that impact their workforce to the benefit of all.”

Do The Broader Implications Require a Shift in Legal Strategies?

As the legal landscape around PAGA evolves, both plaintiff and defense attorneys will likely adjust their strategies in response to the new rules. For plaintiff’s attorneys, the increased scrutiny and potential for prolonged litigation may lead to more selective case intake, focusing on more substantial, clearer-cut claims.

Meanwhile, defense attorneys may engage in more extensive investigations and negotiations early in the process, aiming to resolve issues before they escalate to costly trials.

Sullivan notes that the reforms could encourage earlier dispute resolution, potentially reducing the overall burden on the court system and allowing for quicker remedies for affected employees.

However, Bradley counters that the reforms might ultimately increase legal costs for employers, as defense attorneys may raise their fees in response to the more intricate legal landscape.

“There’s a reason why defense attorneys are running around hiring attorneys… While the penalties will be lower, the employers will be paying their attorneys more,” claims Bradley.

A Compromise With Uncertain Outcomes

The recent PAGA reforms represent a significant shift in California’s approach to labor law enforcement.

While the changes were designed to strike a balance between protecting employee rights and reducing employers' burdens, the true impact of these reforms will only become apparent as new cases are filed and litigated under the updated regulations.

The debate over PAGA's future is far from settled, and legal professionals on both sides will watch closely as the first cases under the new rules unfold. For now, the compromise represents a new chapter in the ongoing saga of California’s labor law, which will undoubtedly continue to evolve in the years to come.

Read Zane Hill's original article, PAGA Compromise Gets Divided Response , for more insights and opinions on the recent PAGA reforms.

The top 100 women in law

Wed, 21 Jun 2023 11:17:23 GMT

Bradley/Grombacher LLP

Kiley L. Grombacher cofounded Bradley/Grombacher LLP in 2017 with law partner Marcus J. Bradley to focus on personal injury claims, employment law cases and consumer class actions.

“We'd worked together at a previous firm, but what was missing was a platform for consumer cases and other more complex matters,” she said.

Grombacher grew up on rock ‘n’ roll tour busses with her father, Myron Grombacher, the drummer for Pat Benatar’s band. Last year, the group was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame at a ceremony in Los Angeles.

“Pat Benatar is a really strong woman, and I think that translated to me,” Grombacher said. She added that the music was a perfect backdrop for a plaintiff-side lawyer. “You know, rock ‘n’ roll, stick it to the man, never afraid to speak my mind.”

She won a scholarship to Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law. “Then I landed at a class action firm and I knew I'd found my spot.”

Grombacher served as lead counsel in a class action that ended in a claims-made settlement over consumer products containing undisclosed benzene, a carcinogen. Those who purchased the lotion products Neutrogena, Ultra Sheer, Dry-Touch Water Resistant Sunscreen Lotion and others by Johnson & Jonson are eligible to receive vouchers worth $10.58.

Grombacher said the defendant has paid more than $10 million to date, plus $2.6 million in fees and costs. In re Johnson & Johnson Aerosol Sunscreen Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation, 0:21-md-3015 (S.D. Fla., filed May 26, 2021).

In an ongoing class action, iPhone users allege that Facebook and Instagram parent Meta Platforms, Inc. records their activity through their devices even when they have opted out of tracking. That is a violation of the Invasion of Privacy Act and the Wiretap Act, the complaint alleges. Larch-Miller v. Meta Platforms Inc., 3:22-cv-05426 (N.D. Cal, filed Sept. 22,2022).

“Theres a motion to dismiss pending, but we like our chances,” Grombacher said.

Her cases have become more centered on women and children since she gave birth to a daughter, Grombacher said, because she realized that women and children continue to be disproportionally impacted in her practice areas.

In one current class action, the allegation is that Amazon.com Services LLC fails to comply with state and federally-mandated accommodations for female employees who have returned from maternity leave but must pump breast milk to bottle feed their babies. Torres et al. v. Amazon.com Services LLC, 5:22-cv-01326 (C.D. Cal, filed July 28, 2022).

“We had to lose our lead plaintiff due to some problems she had, but we're refiling with a new plaintiff Grombacher said. “The problem remains, and we don't give up.”

- John Roemer

Abercrombie Clothing Lawsuit Leads to $25 Million Dollar Settlement

Tue, 16 May 2023 21:38:18 GMT

An Abercrombie clothing lawsuit has led to a $25 million settlement over allegations that employees were required to purchase the clothing they were selling in the store.

Abercrombie Clothing Lawsuit Says Minimum Wage Requirements Weren’t Met

According to the complaint in the Abercrombie clothing lawsuit , the high-end clothing retailer forced employees to purchase the brand’s clothing to wear at work, but employees were never reimbursed for the cost of clothes. The employees alleged that this reduced their overall pay to below minimum wage in violation of wage and hour laws.

Companies often request that employees purchase clothing from the retail store directly in order to distinguish themselves from customers and to advertise the clothing directly. While many use this practice legally, most will provide some form of reimbursement or benefit so as to ensure it does not unreasonably interfere with the wages of the employees.

Employees who are required, out of their own pocket, to purchase clothing items without any reimbursement or support from the store may find that their earnings from working are significantly reduced because of this practice. Ultimately, those employees may pursue a lawsuit holding the company accountable for this behavior if it pushes their wages to below state or federally required minimums.

The Abercrombie clothing lawsuit was initially filed in 2013 but the settlement was achieved at the end of January in Ohio Federal Court. The plaintiffs said that Abercrombie made company-wide phone calls and used other practices that made it clear employees were required to purchase Abercrombie items at their own expense to continue to work for the retailer. One example included an allegation that an employee was fired from the company after failing to purchase the required clothing and then rehired after he obtained that clothing.

The Abercrombie clothing lawsuit led to a settlement including a $16.7 million fund to pay out claims to collective members in the class and additional payments for attorney’s fees, costs, and administrative costs. More than 176,000 proposed class members may be entitled to recovery of part of the settlement from the Abercrombie clothing lawsuit. This includes all nonexempt employees working in Florida, California, Massachusetts, and New York.

The class periods for recovery from the settlement in the Abercrombie clothing lawsuit vary from one state to another but may include workers who were at the company in 2009 through the conclusion of the settlement.

If you believe you have grounds for a wage and hour violation claim, you need to consult with the experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher. Fill out the form on this page to learn more about your options.

The Abercrombie clothing lawsuit is Bojorques et. al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Case No. 2:16-CV-00551-MHW-EPD filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Join Us For The 2022 Class Action Litigation Conference!

Wed, 14 Sep 2022 20:33:39 GMT

There were several notable developments affecting class actions over the past year including the very recent Viking River Cruises Decision. The Ninth Circuit again narrowly interpreted “public injunctive relief” under the McGill rule and issued significant decisions on class action settlement approvals. The Ninth Circuit also recently issued a significant en banc opinion regarding class certification issues in Olean Wholesale Grocery v. Bumble Bee Foods, — F.4th —, 2022 WL 1053459 (9th Cir. Apr. 8, 2022) (en banc), including the evidentiary burden for a plaintiff seeking class certification, the assessment of expert testimony at the class certification stage, and the interplay between Rule 23 and injury and Article III standing. The program will feature an update of Pending Cases in the 9th Circuit with some SCOTUS discussion, and several important technical issues required for bringing and defending class actions.

The program is co-chaired by Megan O'Neill of DTO Law and Gillian L. Wade, of Milstein, Jackson, Fairchild, & Wade.

Topics will include:

Hot Topics in Class Actions in 2022
Notable Recent & Pending Cases in the 9th Circuit and SCOTUS
Data Breach and Privacy Litigation
Class Certification/Developments Including the en banc Decision in the Olean v. Bumblebee Case
Damages and Issues Related to Admissibility and Conjoint Analyses
Class Representative Depositions and Discovery
Getting Class Action Settlement Approval in California

Faculty

Megan O’Neill, DTO Law
Gillian L. Wade, Milstein, Jackson, Fairchild, & Wade
Julian Poon, Gibson Dunn
Andre M. Mura, GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
Justin Goodwin, DTO Law
Glenn Danas, Clarkson Law Firm
Erin Meyer, Keker, Van Nest & Peters
Nancy Nguyen Sims, Baker McKenzie
Graham LippSmith, LippSmith, LLP
Simona Agnolucci, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
John A. Yanchunis, Morgan & Morgan
Kiley Grombacher, Bradley/Grombacher
Krysta Kauble Pachman, Susman Godfrey
Timothy Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP
Jillian London, Gibson Dunn

Conference Location

Sheraton Universal Hotel

333 Universal Hollywood Dr, Universal City, CA 91608

Visit here for details and to register!

The event will follow Los Angeles recommended Health & Safety protocols.

This will be a live conference and will not be recorded or broadcast.

This program is approved for 5.5 hrs of CA MCLE general credit hours.

Bridgeport is a State Bar of CA provider of MCLE (Provider 11872) This program offers 5.5 hrs of MCLE. Bridgeport will assist attorneys from outside CA obtain CLE in accordance with the rules of their state.

Attorney Marcus Bradley to Speak at PAGA After the Viking River Decision Webinar

Wed, 22 Jun 2022 20:36:18 GMT

Marcus Bradley is a founder and partner at Bradley/Grombacher, LLP, and focuses much of his practice on complex consumer litigation, class actions, mass torts, product liability, personal injury, and more. On September 16, 2022, Attorney Grombacher will share his experience during a conference on Class Action Litigation.

This program will focus on the key aspects of the Viking River decision, implications for California practitioners currently handling PAGA cases, as well as what to plan for in the future, including potential reactions by the California legislature.

How to Register for the Webinar

The webinar will take place on July15, 2022, from 9:00 a.m to 11:15 a.m. PST. To attend, you will need to register online.

Attorney Kiley Grombacher to Speak at Bridgeport Continuing Education's 2022 Class Action Litigation Conference

Tue, 21 Jun 2022 20:39:27 GMT

Attorney Kiley Grombacher is a founder and partner at Bradley/Grombacher, LLP, and focuses much of her practice in complex litigation including consumer and employment class actions, product liability, and pharmaceutical mass torts. On September 16, 2022, Attorney Grombacher will share her experience during a conference on Class Action Litigation.

The program will feature an update of Pending Cases in the 9th Circuit with some SCOTUS discussion and several important technical issues required for bringing and defending class actions.

How to Register for the Conference

The conference will take place on September 16, 2022, from 9:00 a.m to 4:15 p.m. PST. To attend, you will need to register online.

HarrisMartin's MDL Conference: Recalled Infant Formula and Gardasil

Thu, 12 May 2022 20:55:41 GMT

About the Recall

The Harris Martin's MDL Conference is focusing on recalled infant formula and Gardasil.

Kiley Grombacher is a founder and partner at Bradley/Grombacher, LLP, and she focuses much of her practice on toxic baby formula recalls and defective product litigation. On May 25, 2022, Attorney Grombacher will share her skill and experience during a conference on Recalled Infant Formula and Gardasil

How to Schedule a Free Consultation with Attorney Grombacher

We offer free consultations to all prospective clients, and Attorney Grombacher would be honored to advise you of your rights and legal options in a class-action lawsuit or any of our other practice areas.

You can contact Attorney Grombacher by calling Bradley/Grombacher LLP at (888) 418-7094 or sending us a message online .

2022 Labor & Employment Law Annual Retreat

Thu, 12 May 2022 20:41:29 GMT

About the Event

The retreat is designed for attorneys and provides 6 credit hours of continuing legal education (CLE). During the event, Attorney Grombacher will be a featured speaker presenting on PAGA: What's Next After Viking River Cruises?

How to Join

Join the LACBA Labor and Employment Law Section for its Annual Retreat at the premier FOUR SEASONS WESTLAKE VILLAGE in Westlake Village, California, on May 20-22, 2022. In addition to earning 6.25 hours CLE credit, you will have plenty of opportunity to mix and mingle with other labor and employment law practitioners and members of the judiciary in social and other informal activities.

More information on how to register here!

Attorney Kiley Grombacher to Speak at HarrisMartin’s Webinar on Neutrogena Sunscreen Litigation

Mon, 23 Aug 2021 21:02:01 GMT

Kiley Grombacher is a founder and partner at Bradley/Grombacher, LLP, and she focuses much of her practice on pharmaceutical mass torts and defective product litigation. On August 27, 2021, Attorney Grombacher will share her skill and experience during a conference on Neutrogena sunscreen litigation.

About the Event

The webinar is designed for attorneys and provides 1.5 credit hours of continuing legal education (CLE). During the event, “ HarrisMartin’s Webinar Series: Neutrogena Sunscreen Litigation ,” Attorney Grombacher will lead a session on consumer class action claims , focusing on how they apply to sunscreen lawsuits and other cases.

Other legal professionals will also lead sessions dedicated to sunscreen litigation, questions and answers, and expert opinions on benzene and cancer .

About Neutrogena Sunscreen Litigation

Recently, Neutrogena recalled multiple brands of aerosol sunscreen for benzene contamination. Benzene is a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) that can be inhaled or absorbed through the skin. As a result, the everyday use of certain aerosol sunscreens could increase one’s risk of cancer, specifically leukemia, and other blood disorders.

Plaintiffs in Neutrogena sunscreen litigation may include people who frequently used the company’s products and suffered cancer diagnoses as a result. Because many plaintiffs may have suffered as a result of Neutrogena’s negligence , a class-action lawsuit or mass tort may be appropriate.

(A class-action lawsuit is a claim against 1 or more defendants brought forward by 2 or more plaintiffs with very similar complaints.)

How to Join the Webinar

The webinar will take place on Friday, August 27, 2021, from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. EDT via Adobe Connect. To attend, you will need to register on HarrisMartin’s website .

For any questions about the event, please call Harris Martin toll-free at (610) 647-5500.

How to Schedule a Free Consultation with Attorney Grombacher

You can contact Attorney Grombacher by calling Bradley/Grombacher LLP at (888) 418-7094 or sending us a message online .

Parents Report Concussions, Other Cheerleading Injuries

Tue, 17 Nov 2020 13:34:41 GMT

As cheerleaders jump and tumble with smiles and yells, more parents are becoming concerned with catastrophic injuries associated with the sport.

Cheerleading injuries include concussions and injuries to the upper extremities. The National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research at the University of North Carolina reports that cheerleading accounted for 65 percent of all catastrophic personal injuries suffered by female athletes.

Often starting quite young, the risk of cheerleading injuries increases as athletes increase the level of difficulty and skill required. Suffering catastrophic injuries like concussions at a young age can affect cheerleaders’ performance at school and overall life. One parent told AZ Big Media that she decided to pull her child out of cheerleading after eight years after noticing concentration problems and drowsiness.

“She was talking funny. She didn’t make sense. She was so out of it. She just wanted to sleep,” the parent told AZ Big Media. “She walked out, she was … Oh God. Her eyes were like … It was like you were looking right through her. It was like she couldn’t even see you.”

Besides concussions, other cheerleading injuries include damage to bones and ligaments. Cheerleaders suffer fractures as well as sprains and strains from tumbling maneuvers. Safety precautions need to be taken by coaches and organizers to ensure cheerleaders are protected from injuries. Mats need to be placed on wooden floors.

Additionally, cheerleaders who suffer injuries need to be checked thoroughly to ensure they haven’t sustained a more serious injury. While football players are subject to an extensive concussion protocol, cheerleaders who suffer head injuries are sometimes cursorily checked for bleeding and sent back to cheer for the rest of the night.

AZ Big Media talked to one cheerleader who suffered a broken nose after being hit by another cheerleader who had been tossed in the air. She said that a trainer stopped the bleeding and she cheered for the rest of the night; unfortunately, the trainer missed that she had broken her nose and it wasn’t until weeks later that her parents realized the problem. At that point, the cheerleader had to undergo surgery to repair her nose.

Parents cite the lack of experienced cheer coaches as part of the problem leading to cheerleading injuries. There is no requirement for training or experience, say parents, and schools don’t realize how dangerous of a sport it can be.

Cheerleading and Catastrophic Injury

A cheerleading injury can lead to a permanent and life-altering medical condition for some of these young athletes. It is important to ensure that fully trained cheer coaches and safe spaces are provided; however, injuries can still occur in the best situations.

Young women suffering from a cheerleading injury need to be encouraged to speak up and let their coach and parents know if something isn’t right after a fall. Coaches and trainers should also thoroughly check injured athletes for more serious conditions.

If you or a loved one has sustained a cheerleading injury that you believe could have been avoided or was exacerbated by unexperienced coaches or unsafe cheer spaces, consider contacting an experienced attorney at Bradley/Grombacher.

Bradley/Grombacher attorneys can help you recover additional medical bills and hold the coach and/or school responsible for putting these young athletes in danger.

Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

Zoosk Faces a Class Action Over Massive Data Breach

Sun, 18 Oct 2020 21:04:18 GMT

Zoosk and its parent company have been hit with a class-action lawsuit after a May 2020 data breach by a group that calls itself the "ShinyHunters" compromised 30 million users. The group allegedly tried to sell about "200 million stolen records from at least 13 companies.” According to the plaintiffs, Zoosk failed to safeguard users' sensitive data and maintain necessary measures to detect the hack.

To learn more, visit these articles:

What Expenses Should Be Reimbursed to You as a Food Delivery Driver?

Mon, 28 Sep 2020 21:07:05 GMT

The coronavirus pandemic has severely hampered the restaurant industry in America, but many eateries have adapted by embracing takeout and delivery services to keep their kitchens going.

That, in turn, has expanded opportunities for food delivery drivers. Restaurants that never offered home delivery before are offering it now through their own drivers or in connection with one of the national delivery service networks such as DoorDash, Grubhub and Uber Eats.

Even before the pandemic hit though, the food delivery business was expanding thanks to the rise of these national delivery services and the gig economy they are built on.

The result of this expansion has been more food delivery job opportunities in both traditional employment and the gig economy style, each offering different compensation and benefits.

How Much Do Food Delivery Drivers Make?

According to Glassdoor.com , an online job board and employment website, the U.S. national average salary for a pizza delivery driver – the most common of the traditional food delivery driver jobs – is $27,113, with hourly rates varying from $5 per hour to $15, depending on location.

Much like a server in a restaurant, a food delivery driver often depends on tips and gratuities to augment their low base pay.

Food delivery drivers working with food delivery app services including DoorDash, Uber Eats, Grubhub and Postmates, among others, earn their pay through a much more nuanced formula that takes into account things like the time of day and day of the week they are delivering and how busy the app is at the time. The busier the app, the more the drivers are usually paid, according to the industry website RideShareGuy . Location is also a big factor, with drivers in urban areas earning more on average.

A 2018 study published by USA Today , based on job listings and reported wages on Glassdoor and on online job board Indeed, found that Grubhub drivers typically make $11-$12 per hour. A driver working a full 40-hour work week for a year would stand to earn around $24,000 a year.

The average expected salary for a driver for Uber Eats was about the same, slightly higher in urban areas, the USA Today report said. Drivers for DoorDash reported salaries on Glassdoor and Indeed of between $10 and $17.75 per hour, coming out to $20,800 to $36,900 for full-time work for a year. Postmates drivers reported earning between $11 per hour and $19.97 on the job boards, which would put their annual pay at $22,880 to $41,500.

How Can a Food Delivery Driver Get Reimbursed for Expenses?

Food delivery drivers who work as employees can get reimbursed for expenses, such as fuel and wear and tear on their car, if they use their own vehicle to make the deliveries – but not always. Additionally, the rate of reimbursement is often less than the cost of the driver’s actual expense.

Most restaurants that offer their delivery drivers reimbursement for expenses do so at the IRS standard mileage reimbursement rate, which for 2020 is 57.5 cents per mile. According to an article by Medium.com , that rate doesn’t actually cover the real cost to the driver. A 2018 survey conducted by Coworker.org found that 77% of respondents identified “damage or wear-and-tear to their vehicles as one of the main problems they have faced on the job.”

“Drivers say that the damage working in food delivery inflicts on their vehicles cuts significantly into their paychecks,” the article said.

Survey participants said companies aren’t doing enough to offset the cost to drivers for using their personal vehicles. One delivery driver reported clocking 80-120 miles per shift. “You run your vehicle into the ground. Wear and tear on tires, oil changes, and any other damage to your work vehicle are completely on you as an individual with no assistance from the company,” the article said.

Unlike an employee, a food delivery driver working as an independent contractor in the gig economy for services including DoorDash and Uber Eats does not get reimbursed by those companies for their expenses. That’s because they are considered to be self-employed and responsible for their own expenses. The only potential avenue for compensation is through claiming the costs as business expenses when filing their tax returns.

Do Labor Laws Give Delivery Drivers Any Protection?

State and federal labor laws afford protections to delivery drivers who work for companies as their employees – requiring they be paid minimum wages and overtime for hours in excess of the standard workweek hours, that they be offered subsidized health insurance if the company is large enough, and other basic benefits.

Independent contractors have little protection under existing laws. Businesses operating in the gig economy say they are able to operate, in part, because of the lack of regulation over their relationships with the independent contractors working with them.

Legislators in some states have grown concerned that those businesses are taking advantage of vulnerable workers by misclassifying them as contractors when they should be treated as employees. That concern has led, in at least one state, to new laws demanding that certain requirements are met before classifying a worker as an independent contractor.

California lawmakers passed the controversial Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) last year with the intention of protecting people working in the gig economy by forcing companies to reclassify those workers as full-fledged employees. Advocates for the change said it was important to limit a company’s ability to shortchange workers by reaping the benefits of their labor without having to compensate them the same way they do traditional employees.

Opponents have argued the added cost of fully employing the freelance workers would create a burden heavy enough to hurt many businesses and, in turn, the economy.

Although the law went into effect in January, it has been tied up in civil litigation in California’s courts.

Under the terms of California AB5, a worker must be considered an employee, not an independent contractor, unless the business hiring the worker can demonstrate three things :

That the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
That the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.
That the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

What Is California’s Prop 22?

Residents of California will have the power to make some changes to AB5 by voting on Proposition 22 this November, a measure that would exempt food delivery services and rideshare companies from regulation under the controversial law.

If enough voters approve Prop 22, DoorDash, Grubhub, and similar services will be free to continue as before, working with the drivers and independent contractors and not having to fully hire them and provide them mandatory benefits.

The companies themselves are lobbying heavily for Prop 22 and say that, if it fails along with the court battles they’ve waged against AB5, they would be forced to shut down operations in California.

Can Food Delivery Drivers Sue for Being Misclassified as Gig Workers?

Where there are laws, there are penalties for violating those laws.

Business that violate AB5 in California are subject to penalty if the violations can be proven. The law calls for fines of $5,000 to $25,000 per violation and companies found guilty “can be forced to cover payroll taxes, overtime pay and other costs retroactively if workers had been properly classified as employees,” according to a report by the Orange County Register.

Workers who believe they have been misclassified as independent contractors in violation of California AB5 can also file class action lawsuits or individual legal action against their employers. In July, for example, the J.B. Hunt trucking company agreed to settle a class action lawsuit filed against it by 312 independent contract drivers for $6.5 million. The drivers, who filed suit in U.S. Federal District Court for the Central District of California in 2019, will receive about $20,000 each to drop the court case, the trucking industry website Freightwaves reported .

Wells Fargo Employees Get Reimbursement Lawsuit Certified

Sat, 26 Sep 2020 03:24:20 GMT

Wells Fargo employees won their motion to certify a class action lawsuit alleging the company refused to reimburse them for work expenses and also denied them contractually required commissions on schedule.

The newly certified class includes over 2,000 Wells Fargo home mortgage consultants and private mortgage bankers. The plaintiffs decided to file the reimbursement lawsuit after being denied work-related expenses. They also say that Wells Fargo consistently failed to meet compensation deadlines required under their contracts with the employees.

The judge certified the Wells Fargo reimbursement class action lawsuit based on commission contracts with individuals.

“I don’t even think it’s a close call, frankly,” said the judge when he granted the worker’s motion on September 8. “The payment commission class relies on written documents as to when the commission was earned. The plaintiff says by common practice it was paid the following month. For the failure to reimburse claims, it’s whether the expenses were reasonable and used in the discharge of employee duties. We have job descriptions. You can look at what they have to do and decide whether or not in order to do the job it is necessary to do these things.”

The reimbursement lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo consistently paid its home mortgage consultants and private mortgage bankers two weeks later than it agreed to in its contracts. The workers were told it was because the bank had to verify the commissions.

The plaintiff also alleged that Wells Fargo refused to reimburse employees for required work-related expenses, including marketing tools required by the bank.

Wells Fargo argued that the contracts for the various workers are not uniform, so it would be difficult to put together a class of employees. Additionally, use of the marketing tools is not consistent, said the bank, saying some employees don’t use the systems, while others find them helpful.

Wells Fargo has been hit with a slew of wage and hour lawsuits over its policies and practices recently, including the opening of fake accounts by employees who felt that they would lose their jobs. The bank’s CEO has also recently resigned in the face of the various controversies and legal actions.

The Wells Fargo Reimbursement Class Action Lawsuit is Nguyen v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Case No. 3:15-cv-05239, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Employee Reimbursement

Under California wage and hour law , employees are entitled to reimbursement of their work expenses. Employers sometimes try to make employees pay operating costs, but workers should be aware that they have the right to ask for their money back if the employer requires them to pay for something out-of-pocket.

Additionally, employers cannot make their workers waive their right to reimbursement though an employment contract or otherwise. Under law, those agreements are void. Employers also need to provide reimbursement regardless of whether an employee asks under the California law.

Still, it can be intimidating for an employee to ask their employer for reimbursement or remind them of their obligation to pay. Workers who have not been reimbursed may want to consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to help them protect their rights.

The employment attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher of years of experience helping employees fight for their rights. Fill out the form on this page for a FREE case evaluation.

Consumer Files Trader Joe’s False Advertising Lawsuit Over Vitamin E Oil

Fri, 15 Mar 2019 21:09:07 GMT

A consumer, Jessica Cesta, has filed a Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit over the marketing surrounding the company’s Vitamin E Oil product.

Class Action Complaint Filed in Trader Joe’s False Advertising Lawsuit

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising law, and the California Unfair Competition Law, Business, and Professions Code.

The allegations in the Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit state that the defendants market their Vitamin E oil inappropriately because the primary ingredient in the product is actually soybean oil. The product also includes coconut oil and vitamin E oil, but consumers pay a premium price for the liquid because it’s presented as largely vitamin E oil and not a blend.

The Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit goes on to explain that soybean oil is problematic because of it can be an allergen and that it is a lower-quality and less healthy oil in comparison with vitamin E. The plaintiff says she purchased this product at a Trader Joe’s store in Los Angeles in 2015.

The Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit alleges that the sellers have gone out of their way to promote the vitamin E aspect of the product, using the largest font on the label to advertise this particular element. The lawsuit alleges that Trader Joe’s marketing leads the consumer to believe that the product is made only of or substantially of vitamin E oil.

The Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit accuses the company of using customer knowledge about the benefits of vitamin E oil to misleadingly promote the product. Consumers base purchasing decisions on the labels and marketing materials attached to a product, alleges the plaintiff.

The plaintiff in this Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit also says that the labels are intentionally deceptive and misleading to encourage consumers to pay a premium for the product, which she alleges costs around $7.00.

The Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit states that all people who purchased the product from Jan. 5, 2014 through the present may be included in the class or a class of all people who purchased it not in California.

False advertising laws serve two purposes — to set the standards for companies to follow when it comes to marketing their products, and to allow customers and the government recourse when a company appears to be in violation of advertising laws.

The plaintiff in the Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit says that not only did she and other consumers pay a higher price for the product because they believed it to be mostly vitamin E oil, but that they have been financially harmed by the company’s behavior.

In many cases of false advertising lawsuits, the company in question may have violated numerous state laws. The company could be held accountable for financial damages for consumers and may also have to update their labeling to more accurately reflect what is inside the product.

If you or someone you know believes you have grounds for a false advertising lawsuit, walk through the basics of your claim with the help of an experienced lawyer at Bradley/Grombacher- fill out the form on this page to learn more.

The Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit is Jessica Cesta v. Trader Joe’s Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00895, filed in the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Five Guys Class Action Challenges Employee Pay Practices

Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:11:27 GMT

The popular burger chain Five Guys was hit with a class action alleging the company unlawfully discriminates based on gender leading to unequal pay.

Lead plaintiff, Jody Finefrock, alleges in her lawsuit that Five Guys’ employee pay practices are illegal. She says that as a female employee she was discriminated against and fired when she reported the discrimination.

“Ms. Finefrock was one of the most objectively successful Five Guys’ restaurant General Managers in her region. Ms. Finefrock began working at a corporate-owned Five Guys restaurant in July 2012 as a Crew Member,” states the Five Guys class action lawsuit.

“Over the course of the next several years, Ms. Finefrock diligently and methodically overcame obstacles to be promoted to Shift Leader, Assistant General Manager, and finally General Manager. Ms. Finefrock held the position of General Manager until her retaliatory termination in September 2015. Despite being a model employee as a Crew Member, Shift Leader, Assistant General Manager, and General Manager, Ms. Finefrock was consistently and systematically paid less than her male peers for the same work in each position.”

According to the Five Guys class action, Five Guys’ employment practices violate the Civil Rights Act. The plaintiff says that she and other employees were subject to the same illegal employment practices.

“Five Guys’ District Managers and Area Managers are overwhelmingly male,” says the Five Guys class action. “As a result, Five Guys’ top executive leadership has executed a top down wage policy, which consistently, systematically, and willfully discriminates on the basis of sex/gender by paying its female employees less than their male colleagues, in the same positions, for the same work.”

The plaintiff says that she and other female workers at Five Guys were paid less than their male counterparts as a part of a deliberate and willful discriminatory payment practice by the company.

“The wage disparity between female and male employees, at all levels of management within Five Guys’ corporate-owned restaurants, is based solely on gender,” alleges the lawsuit.

The plaintiff says that she noticed the discrepancy between her pay and her male coworkers’ pay when she rejoined the restaurant. Previously, she had risen through the ranks to become a shift leader, but she was demoted to crew member and paid less.

She alleges that male crew members hired received a higher rate of pay as well. Further, when she was promoted to shift manager, she was paid only $8 per hour, while male shift managers received $9.50 per hour.

The plaintiff claims that when she was again promoted to assistant general manager, she discovered she was making $5,000 less in salary than a male assistant manager she was training. Then again, when she was promoted to general manager, she found she was making $2,000 less than a male general manager.

The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff and several other female Five Guys employees confronted management about the pay gaps; however, this resulted in the plaintiff being put on a performance improvement plan in retaliation and ultimately terminated.

The plaintiff claims that Five Guys should pay damages to her and other female employees for gender discrimination as well as back pay.

The Five Guys Gender Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit is Finerock v. Five Guys Operations LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-02214-SHR, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

If you suspect you are being paid unfairly, contact the attorneys at Bradley/Gromacher to help evaluate your claim.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

PA Dentist Accused of $1.5M Medicaid Fraud Scheme

Fri, 06 Apr 2018 21:24:53 GMT

A dentist from Langhorne, Penn. has been accused of perpetrating a $1.5 million scheme to defraud the federal government as well as deception and tampering public records.

Federal prosecutors allege that Dr. Ilya Babiner enriched himself and his company, General Dentistry Number One by committing Medicaid fraud from 2014 until May 2016 when the records were subpoenaed. Prosecutors hit the dentist with multiple felony charges that allege false billings for dental work never conducted were submitted to the federal government.

The dentist used an alphabetical system to organize his Medicaid fraud scheme, say prosecutors. Over a span of two years, claims for repeated dental services and crown restorations that were never performed were submitted to the Medicaid program. Prosecutors say that a high percentage of claims were submitted based on patient last names. For example, in August 2015, Dr. Babiner submitted 120 claims – 107 of those claims were for patients with a last name that started with “G.”

The Fraud Abuse Detection System helped clue investigators in to the Medicaid fraud scheme. Investigators say that a statewide investigating grand jury also helped bring criminal charges against the dentist.

The dentist and his company have waived their right to a preliminary hearing and have been ordered to stand trial on the charges.

“Medicaid fraud is a serious crime that harms taxpayers,” Attorney General Josh Shapiro announced in a statement regarding the criminal prosecution of the dentist. “When people commit Medicaid fraud, they’re stealing tax dollars from people who are in real need of these services. These charges are part of a renewed focus by my office on this kind of criminal activity. Our Medicaid Fraud Control Section is focused every day on detecting and prosecuting these kinds of cases.”

Medicaid Fraud

Some think defrauding the federal government is a victimless crime, but that isn’t true. Medicaid fraud drains much-needed funds from federal programs for the poor, needy, as well as from vulnerable children and the elderly. Ultimately, these schemes cost US taxpayers. In addition to false billing for medical services not performed, Medicaid fraud includes overbilling, and illegal kickbacks.

Federal efforts to combat Medicare and Medicaid fraud have been increased recently, putting them on par with other federal investigation efforts into terrorism. It often takes an employee of the healthcare company to report the illegal activity to federal prosecutors. These employees, known as whistleblowers, often provide critical information to investigators that allow them to initiate prosecution.

Whistleblowers are entitled to protection from retaliation for reporting fraud against the federal government under the False Claims Act. The FCA also entitles whistleblowers an award if the litigation is successful or the parties reach a settlement. Verdicts and settlement agreements can run into the millions for Medicare and Medicaid fraud. Under the FCA, whistleblowers can receive fifteen to 30 percent of that amount.

If you are a healthcare worker concerned about Medicaid fraud at your place of employment, contact the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher for help.

When to Consider a Wage Theft Lawsuit

Thu, 05 Apr 2018 21:26:35 GMT

While workers in the United States are protected by employment laws, many still lose out on wages, including overtime pay or unpaid time. In instances of wage theft, some workers are taking legal action to hold their employers accountable.

Federal and state agencies say that more employers than ever are violating wage and hour laws; however, more employees are using wage theft lawsuits to successfully hold their employers responsible for this illegal behavior.

A wage theft lawsuit seeks to recover illegally withheld pay. The Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to meet a variety of standards when it comes to paying their employees. There are also state laws that can provide additional protection to employees. Common examples of wage theft include:

Failure to pay overtime
Forcing employees to turn over all or part of their tips
Requiring employees to underreport their hours
Requiring employees to work through their mandated breaks
Failure to pay employment-related expenses
Failure to pay minimum wage

Wage theft is not always cut and dry, however. In certain cases, employers were found to be miscategorizing workers as exempt from overtime pay or as independent contractors to cheat them out of pay. Additionally, employers can make tip-sharing policies and other instances of wage theft and other violations of workers’ rights sound like terms a worker must agree to for continued employment. Low-income workers are especially vulnerable to wage theft.

Wage Theft Lawsuit

The first step for an employee concerned about wage theft is to file a complaint with the US Department of Labor. After providing you and your employer’s information as well as details about how and when you were paid, the Wage and Hour Division will begin investigating the complaint. If the agency finds your employer has been committing wage theft, an administrative process begins. As a result, your employer may choose to pay back the illegally withheld wages or fight the process. The Wage and Hour Division may then choose to file a wage theft lawsuit against your employer.

It can be nerve-wracking to consider legal action to hold your employer accountable for wage theft; however, the Fair Labor Standards Act protects employees from retaliation for fighting for their rights using a wage theft lawsuit.

While the FLSA provides protection, navigating wage and hour laws can be complicated and an experienced employment law attorney can help with your wage theft lawsuit. An attorney can thoroughly evaluate any claims you may have against your employer in addition to wage theft. They will review your employment contract, consider whether you have a claim for discrimination, and provide representation for you in court or in any settlement negotiations. Additionally, it is likely that your employer will retain an attorney for representation and employment attorney on your side can help protect your rights.

If you have experienced wage theft, contact the experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher to help evaluate your claim.

Home Depot Wage Lawsuit Filed by Employees

Sun, 18 Mar 2018 21:13:28 GMT

A new Home Depot wage lawsuit say the hardware giant failed to pay employees for overtime and let them take breaks.

Home Depot Wage Lawsuit Alleges Unpaid Overtime and Owed Meal Breaks

Beginning in the middle of 2016, the plaintiff in this Home Depot wage lawsuit said that he was employed as a sales consultant for the company. He carried out this position until late 2017.

Some of his job duties included traveling to customers’ homes for free consultations and estimates, where he would price and pitch home remodel designs. He also says he spent significant time assisting customers, attending meetings with supervisors and training employees as argued in his Home Depot wage lawsuit. He says that the defendant misclassified him as an outside salesperson, despite the clear rules and regulations outlined in federal and state wage and hour law.

He believes that his duties were primarily nonexempt tasks, prompting him to file a Home Depot wage lawsuit. California Labor Code is referenced heavily throughout the Home Depot wage lawsuit, arguing that wage orders are in place for nonexempt employees to receive one and a half times their hourly pay for all hours worked in excess of eight per day and for any work completed beyond 40 in a given workweek.

Employees are entitled to excess pay for working longer than 12 hours in any work day. According to the Home Depot wage lawsuit, the plaintiff regularly worked longer than eight hours by day or more than 40 hours a week without receiving overtime compensation.

When an employee believes that they have been denied overtime due to the employer’s misclassification or illegal policies, this may prompt a lawsuit directly against the company.

An increasing number of lawsuits allege that employers, either intentionally or unintentionally, misclassify workers and allege that those employees are not entitled to overtime due to their job duties.

The Home Depot wage lawsuit alleges that the improvement store continues to violate California labor time rules by depriving the plaintiff of his owed compensation. Misclassification of employees could lead to someone being barred from getting the necessary benefits promised to them under state law.

Improper Meal Breaks Alleged in Home Depot Lawsuit

Furthermore, the Home Depot wage lawsuit alleges that the employer is also responsible for violations of the meal break’s law as outlined under California Labor Code. He claims that he worked in excess of five hours and sometimes for ten hours a day without being provided any half-hour meal periods to be relieved of his duties as required under the law.

If you believe that you may have grounds for a wage an hour lawsuit due to unpaid overtime compensation, misclassification, or missed meal breaks, you may have grounds to bring forward a lawsuit and to consult with the experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher about your next steps- complete the form on this page to learn more.

The Home Depot wage lawsuit is Case No. 3:18-CV-00116, filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of California.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Talcum Powder Users May File a Baby Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuit

Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:15:21 GMT

A baby powder ovarian cancer lawsuit may be filed by those who continuously used talcum powder products and ultimately received a cancer diagnosis linked to that use.

Victims Coming Forward to File a Baby Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuit

Unfortunately, many of the victims who could have been entitled to file a baby powder ovarian cancer lawsuit may not know about it over the course of their life if they suffered fatal injuries tied to cancer.

One woman in South Carolina alleges that using talcum powder near her genitals on a daily basis caused the need for a hysterectomy and ultimately she developed ovarian cancer. Her baby powder ovarian cancer lawsuit says that the manufacturers of these talcum powder products, including Johnson & Johnson, are responsible for failing to warn the public about the significant risks of daily usage.

The plaintiffs who have already filed ovarian cancer baby powder lawsuits, allege that the manufacturers knew about the risks, but continued to promote their products as safe and effective for daily use.

Many of the women who have come forward to initiate a lawsuit allege that they have used the product for years at a time or even decades. The product is extremely popular for feminine hygiene purposes. The above-mentioned plaintiff argues in her baby powder ovarian cancer lawsuit that she used the product from 1963 to 2016 after seeing advertisements for comfort and freshness.

The plaintiff received a diagnosis of ovarian cancer in January of 2016. She has had to go through full surgical staging and abdominal hysterectomy, as well as other medical treatments, directly tied to the diagnosis of cancer.

According to the baby powder ovarian cancer lawsuit, mounting medical and scientific evidence shows an initial connections between talcum powder use and ovarian cancer. However, there are no warnings currently on the Johnson & Johnson product labels that would tell a consumer about the risks or to enable them to make an informed decision about their future. Several thousand similar legal claims have come forward by those who say they have been harmed.

A baby powder ovarian cancer lawsuit may be filed by anyone who has suffered significant damages and developed a cancer diagnosis which they believed to be tied to the talcum powder. Furthermore, the surviving family members of someone who has been killed in an incident like this may trigger an ovarian cancer baby powder lawsuit.

Many of these cases have already gone before the state court juries and have led to multi-million-dollar damage awards due to the alleged failure of the manufacturer to warn the consumers about the risks.

These cases have been centralized and consolidated into multi district litigation to reduce the duplication of discovery into common issues. According to recent statements from Johnson & Johnson, they did not intend to offer talcum powder settlements for women who have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer despite these lawsuits. Anyone who has been injured by daily usage of this product should at least investigate their ability to file a legal claim.

The experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher are currently investigating claims of the development of cancer after daily usage of baby powder for feminine hygiene purposes. If this applies to you, fill out the form on this page to learn more.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Coffee Lawsuit Says Prop 65 Requires Cancer Warning

Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:17:43 GMT

A nonprofit alleges in a new lawsuit that cafes and coffee shops need to warn consumers about potentially dangerous cancer-causing chemicals found in coffee.

According to the lawsuit, under Prop 65, cancer warnings need to be included in California cafes selling coffee because of a dangerous chemical the nonprofit says is produced during the coffee bean roasting process. The plaintiff, The Council for Education and Research on Toxics, lodged the Prop 65 complaint against 7-Eleven, Starbucks Corp., Wal-Mart, and Costco, and approximately 70 other companies.

According to the lawsuit, acrylamide has been listed under Prop 65 as a possible carcinogen. Acrylamide is found in roasted coffee beans, as well as other baked, toasted, roasted and fried food products.

The Council alleges that consumers should be provided a cancer warning about the potentially dangerous chemical included in their morning beverage. The California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, commonly known as Prop 65, requires companies who use chemicals that have been identified as causing cancer or harmful to reproductive health or known to cause birth defects are required to warn consumers and/or remove or reduce the amount of the chemical from their products.

Acrylmide, according to a report in Shape.com , is “a substance formed in all baked, toasted, roasted and fried foods by a reaction between sugars (naturally occurring or added) and the amino acid asparagine.” The chemical, which forms a crystal, is also credited with making cooked foods take on their golden-brown color and crunchy texture.

Although acrylamide is found in numerous food products, the plaintiffs contend that consumers should be provided a cancer warning and given a choice about whether to risk ingesting the chemical. The plaintiffs say that they would prefer companies reduce the amount of acrylamide, but unfortunately, the chemical is very hard to remove because it is produced as a byproduct of food and drink preparation. Those who are concerned can turn to alternative cooking methods at home, such as grilling or steaming to reduce acrylamide content.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs also point out that Prop 65 cancer warnings have been posted in a variety of places, including on parking garages, and coffee shops and other companies who use chemical should be treated no differently.

The plaintiffs are also seeking fines to be levied against the companies for failure to post cancer warnings about the coffee they provide.

The Prop 65 lawsuit has been extensively litigated. Several defendants have settled the claims, most recently, 7-Eleven who agreed to pay $900,000 in penalties and $355,000 in costs. The company also agreed to post cancer warnings at its California locations. Previously, a BP PLC subsidiary agreed to settle the claims by paying $675,000.

If you are concerned about hazardous chemicals contained in products you use, consider contacting an experienced Prop 65 attorney. The attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher are currently investigating Prop 65 claims – contact today .

The Prop 65 Coffee Lawsuit is Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corporation, et al., Case No. BC435759 in the Superior Court of the State of California For the County of Los Angeles, Central Civil West.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Learn About Burn Injury Lawsuits and Settlements

Mon, 12 Mar 2018 21:22:55 GMT

A burn injury lawsuit may be filed by someone who has suffered a devastating burn injury at the hands of someone else. Another person’s reckless or negligent behavior can occur in a variety of different ways that ultimately prompt a burn injury lawsuit.

Burn Injury Lawsuit Settlements Will Vary Based on Severity of Damage

As with any type of personal injury legal claim, it can be challenging to make an accurate prediction as to what a burn injury lawsuit settlement will pay.

The injured victim will have many different possible types of compensation, including lost wages, pain and suffering, past and future medical expenses, and other damages directly tied to the accident. There are many different considerations that go into calculating a settlement in a burn injury lawsuit. For many injured victims, an appropriate burn injury lawsuit settlement will help them to avoid the ongoing expenses and uncertainty of litigation.

Some of the factors that may influence the likelihood of a burn injury settlement or the outcome of a trial have to do with where and how the burn injury occurs. The degree of the defendant’s liability can significantly impact what a jury may be willing to award in a burn injury lawsuit. The more severe the burn injury or the more egregious the apparent negligence, the more likely a jury may be to give full compensation to the injured victim.

Compensation for burn injuries often involves payment for physical pain and medical conditions developed as a result of the burn injury in addition to compensation for emotional pain and suffering and scars and disfigurement. A liable defendant has to compensate a plaintiff for the physical pain that the burn caused and may continue to cause in addition to any emotional pain that the disfigured burn victim has sustained and may suffer in the future. The impact of a burn injury can influence a victim’s life for many years.

Even when appropriate medical treatment is administered to the victim as soon as possible after the burn injury has been sustained, the disfigurement and scarring may carry emotional weight for the victim for many years as well. The victim may be uncomfortable appearing in public and will have to cope with the emotional aftermath of this devastating injury. The physical reminder of this injury will be present every time they look at the affected body part.

Personal injury law recognizes that burn injury victims will have to cope with so many different impacts of their injury and should be compensated when those injuries are someone else’s fault. Burn injuries may arise as a result of a vehicle accident, faulty electrical wiring, defective products, exploding and malfunctioning machinery, exposure to chemicals and many other factors may contribute to the severity of a burn injury.

If you have recently suffered catastrophic personal injury and you need to file a burn injury lawsuit, you need the assistance of the experienced attorneys at Bradley Grombacher. Fill out the form on this page to learn more.

401(K) Lawsuit Alleges HR Rep Violated Duties

Mon, 12 Mar 2018 21:19:21 GMT

A recent 401(k) lawsuit that made its way to the United States Supreme Court alleged the Vice President for Human Resources at a major company violated their fiduciary duty in managing employee retirement plans. The case demonstrates the responsibility HR representatives have in managing the 401(k) plans at their companies.

ERISA Violations Lead to 401(K) Lawsuit

HR management of ERISA covered retirement plans may seem like a secondary role given the vast majority of responsibilities assigned to human resources managers; however, HR staff omitting what appears to be minor details could lead to a 401(k) lawsuit.

Personal liability and significant legal consequences may apply to a human resources manager named in a 401(k) lawsuit. One recent Supreme Court case illustrates that even those high-ranking resources officials may find themselves in the midst of a fiduciary breach 401(k) lawsuit. In that particular case, Tibble v. Edison International, participants in a retirement plan alleged that multiple parties breached fiduciary duties and caused harm to the plan participants. The plaintiffs allege that their 401(k) plans were mishandled, leading to more than $7 million in unnecessary costs. They pursued a class action 401(k) lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The initial 401(k) lawsuit alleged plan administrators purchased retail shares in 1999 rather than institutional shares. The institutional shares would have led to lower fees. The 401(k) lawsuit also alleged that money from the retail shares was used to offset plan management costs that were ultimately charged by the plan record keepers.

The District Court in that 401(k) lawsuit concluded that three of the funds invested after 2001 should have been bought as institutional shares. However, the District Court also founds that some of the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations under ERISA. Ultimately the plaintiffs appealed and the issues regarding the time limit were heard in U.S. Supreme Court.

The District Court was determined to have made an error in reviewing the statute of limitations, according to the Supreme Court ruling, because the court failed to properly evaluate the fiduciary duty responsibilities that would have been associated. The claim was then sent back to District Court that eventually determined those plan administrators as well as the human resources vice president was liable. Losses, in addition to attorney fees, and entitlement were awarded to the plaintiffs in that 401(k) lawsuit.

The past several years have included an increasing number of ERISA or 401(k) lawsuits alleging breach of fiduciary duties and neglect on the part of plan administrators. When plan participants are harmed by behavior as a result of plan administrators, including human resources directors according to the Supreme Court ruling, those individuals could be held responsible in a lawsuit.

If you are concerned about the administration of your 401(k), the experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher may be able to help and potentially start a 401(k) lawsuit- fill out the form on this page to learn more.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Niagara Bottling Lawsuit Alleges Water Falsely Advertised as ‘Spring’

Sun, 11 Mar 2018 21:20:54 GMT

A Niagara Bottling lawsuit has been filed alleging that the manufacturer is falsely advertising the makeup of the water.

Niagara Bottling Lawsuit Filed Based on Label

The Niagara Bottling lawsuit seeks monetary damages under Pennsylvania law against Niagara Bottling LLC. The Niagara Bottling lawsuit says that the use of the word ‘spring water’ on the exterior of the packaging for their products references naturally occurring water that is sourced from a natural spring.

In order to be properly classified as spring water the liquids must satisfy numerous industry and regulatory criteria, alleges the complaint, including that the water is collected from a spring.

This requires substantial resources and time in order to develop, maintain and identify natural spring water sites. For this reason, spring water typically sells at a higher price than other forms of bottled water. The Niagara Bottling lawsuit says that the manufacturers of their water are wrongly and falsely advertising that the bottles contain spring water.

Current government regulations referenced in the Niagara Bottling lawsuit say that in order to be classified as spring water, the water inside a product has to be drawn out from a formation underground from which water already naturally flows to the surface of the ground.

As a result of technical and geological requirements, significant resources and time are required to develop, identify and work with natural spring water sites. Further, the process is a localized one due to the high transportation costs associated with moving water across vast differences.

All of these reasons contribute to the premium price of the water, says the complaint. The Niagara Bottling lawsuit alleges that the site from which the defendants are pulling water for their product is not categorized as spring water. The Niagara Bottling lawsuit says that the defendants take raw water from the defendants’ land and then market this as spring water, despite the fact that the water from the plaintiff is not classified as spring water.

Regulations affecting bottled water across the United States require that bottled water sold for the purpose of human consumption has to identify the bottler as well as the source. A false advertising lawsuit may be filed if the information on the exterior of a package is not accurate.

When false advertising leads consumers to pay a premium for a product based on false or inaccurate information about what’s inside or how the product is made and sourced, lawsuits from consumers who feel they have been harmed may follow.

If you believe you have grounds for a consumer false advertising lawsuit, you need to talk to the experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today. Fill out the form on this page to learn more about your rights and how to proceed.

The Niagara Bottling lawsuit is Case No. 2:17-CV-00054-WB filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Double Amputee Awarded $109M After Failed Surgery Leads to Flesh Eating Bacteria Infection

Sun, 04 Mar 2018 21:27:53 GMT

A jury awarded a Florida woman $109 million after her doctor failed to properly perform a basic surgery resulting in the amputation of her arms and legs.

The former Defense worker was left a double amputee , according to the lawsuit, from complications after surgery to remove an ovarian cyst. The woman was scheduled for a tour of duty in Iraq in 2012 and picked the doctor because he could perform the surgery before she was to deploy. However, according to the lawsuit, the doctor botched the surgery and the plaintiff was infected with flesh-eating bacteria.

“During the November 2010 procedure, Glazerman completely transected all the way through the small bowel of Carter with the instruments provided by [Tampa General Hospital], causing flesh-eating bacteria to pour into her abdomen,” alleged the plaintiff in her 2012 lawsuit.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff suffered severe medical complications soon after the surgery. The plaintiff had chosen a less invasive method, laparoscopy, that was supposed to allow her to be discharged the same day as the surgery; however, that same day she began to experience drainage at the incision site. The hospital attempted to fix the hole in her bowel caused by the botched surgery but unfortunately failed.

The patient also argues that she notified the hospital that she was allergic to morphine, but given the drug anyway. Additionally, her mother who was present after the surgery had alerted nursing staff to her daughter’s deteriorating condition after the surgery, but was only reassured by nurses. The complaint alleges that valuable time that could have been spent fighting the bacteria was lost.

“Organs and muscles had to be removed due to the presence of the flesh eating bacteria, necrotizing fasciitis,” alleged the complaint

The plaintiff’s arms and legs developed the infection and ultimately had to be removed. The plaintiff is now a double amputee.

The plaintiff underwent three trials and two hung juries before she was awarded the hundred-million-dollar verdict. The final jury found that the University of South Florida was at fault for the botched operation and the resulting amputation of the plaintiff’s arms and legs that leave her a double amputee for the rest of her life.

Catastrophic Personal Injury

A double amputation or any other catastrophic personal injury can be devastating. If the injury is caused by the actions or negligence of another person or entity, like a hospital, additional medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages can be recovered. To recover damages, the injured person and/or their family members may need to file a personal injury lawsuit. A personal injury lawsuit can help hold the hospital and doctor accountable and also help the injured party and their family receive compensation to help deal with current and future care and lost income.

If you or a loved one suffered a catastrophic personal injury as a result of a botched surgery or another medical mistake, contact Bradley/Grombacher . Their experienced attorneys can evaluate your case.

The Double Amputee Lawsuit is Case No. 12¬ca¬009942, in the Circuit Court for the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Claim of Invokana Kidney Damage Leads to Lawsuit

Thu, 01 Mar 2018 21:29:11 GMT

A patient alleging Invokana kidney damage has come forward to file the latest in a series of lawsuits against the drug’s manufacturer. Many patients have allegedly experienced Invokana kidney damage and argue that they were never fully warned about the risks of taking this medication prior to receiving a prescription.

Invokana Kidney Damage Chief Among Patient Adverse Event Reports

Many doctors and patients who have become aware of Invokana kidney damage argue that the company is responsible for failing to disclose the serious risks to the medical community at large.

Any type of serious kidney issue may be difficult for a patient to identify, meaning that it could develop into more severe situations before it is diagnosed. Any patient who suffered these injuries likely also suffered additional pain and medical treatments. If not caught early, kidney problems can be life-threatening.

Information provided by manufacturers about the dangers of a drug is necessary for physicians and their patients to make decisions about using a particular medication.

According to the Invokana kidney damage lawsuit, the medication has been designed, marketed and sold for years despite the fact that the manufacturers were aware of the high risk of severe side effects for diabetic patients. As explained in studies and patient reports in the Invokana kidney damage lawsuit, Invokana significantly increased the risk of stroke, severe kidney failure, diabetic ketoacidosis and heart attack for those patients who had diabetes.

The Invokana kidney damage lawsuit says that the manufacturers were aware of these risks, but failed to disclose them to the public and put patients at risk as a result. The manufacturers are also accused of aggressively marketing this medication despite its serious side effects.

The new drug application was submitted for Invokana by the manufacturers in May of 2012, and it was approved in March 2013 for the treatment of Type-2 Diabetes. However, the Invokana kidney damage lawsuit says that defendants were aware of the possibility for Invokana to cause kidney failure, but failed to properly disclose those risks. A safety communication was issued by the FDA in 2015 due to the number of adverse event reports linking Invokana with diabetic ketoacidosis. Additionally, some of the patients who have been harmed by Invokana kidney damage have come forward to initiate lawsuits.

The plaintiff in this Invokana kidney damage lawsuit began taking the medication in April of 2015 to treat diabetes but suffered diabetic ketoacidosis in January of 2016 leading to hospitalization and other invasive medical treatments. If you or someone you know believes you have grounds for an Invokana kidney damage lawsuit, you need to consult with the experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today about your rights. Fill out the form on this page to learn more.

The Invokana kidney damage lawsuit is Case No. 3:18-CV-00827-BRM-LHG filed in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Prop 65 Claims Alleged in New Marijuana Dispensary Lawsuits

Wed, 28 Feb 2018 21:30:25 GMT

Marijuana dispensary lawsuits are the latest wave of Proposition 65 actions. Proposition 65 is a California law that requires producers of goods to affix a label if their product contains dangerous chemicals known to the state of California to cause reproductive or cancer-related harm.

Marijuana Dispensary Lawsuits Filed Due to Prop 65 Violations

Any person who believes that a company selling marijuana is in violation of Prop 65 is eligible to send a notice prior to filing marijuana dispensary lawsuits . Prop 65 outlines the rules under which a consumer or government entity discovering a violation may pursue a response.

A new plaintiff has begun a series of marijuana dispensary lawsuits, alleging that the businesses failed to properly comply with the law and never warned consumers about the dangers of exposure to marijuana smoke.

Any product with dangerous chemicals inside that is sold to consumers in California must include an appropriate notice. When the company fails to do this, consumers can take action. Fines may also apply for non-compliance with Prop 65.

Across December of 2017, more than six California dispensaries were ultimately sued by a plaintiff in Alameda County Superior Court marijuana dispensary lawsuits. All of these marijuana dispensary lawsuits allege that violations of Proposition 65.

This isn’t the first set of legal cases designed to encourage compliance across dispensaries doing business in California.

Another plaintiff initiated marijuana dispensary lawsuits in October of 2017 that involved more than 1,000 separate dispensaries. He issued nearly 700 notices of violations in the Spring against other dispensaries.

If the businesses who received a Prop 65 notice do not comply, marijuana dispensary lawsuits may be initiated against them. Additionally, violations of Propositions 65 in California may lead to civil penalties of as high as $2,500 for each violation, reasonable attorney’s fees accrued by the plaintiff’s council and the pursuit of the matter.

Marijuana dispensaries, retailers of marijuana edibles and paraphernalia, and manufacturers of the same have certain responsibilities under Proposition 65 and must proceed with appropriate compliance measures under the law. Marijuana dispensary lawsuits are expected to continue in the coming months as more plaintiffs come forward and attempt to hold companies accountable for violations of Proposition 65.

Consumers need to be able to make informed decisions about their purchases and often do so using the labels affixed to products that do contain dangerous materials. Proposition 65 includes a list that is updated on at least an annual basis to include new chemicals and toxins that may cause reproductive or cancer-related harm to consumers.

Any business that has ten or more employees must provide reasonable and clear warnings to California consumers before intentionally or knowingly harming them to any of the agents on the list that currently includes more than 900 chemicals.

If you believe you have grounds to initiate a marijuana dispensary lawsuit, you should consult with the experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today- you can fill out the form on this page to get more information.

Fees Lowered After Retirement Plan Lawsuits

Tue, 27 Feb 2018 21:31:44 GMT

In the face of allegations of ERISA violations for allegedly high fee plans, major universities and other employers are looking to cut 401(k) and other retirement plan fees.

According to a recent report in Investment News, nearly half of all plan sponsors have cut retirement plan fees, while over eighty percent have conducted a review of their fee structure. A spate of retirement plan lawsuits brought employers and plan administrators to task for allegedly high fees and other ERISA violations.

The retirement plan lawsuits began in 2006, when two major companies, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, were hit. Legal action over high fees ramped up in 2015, as plaintiffs began winning major awards and agreeing to substantial settlements.

In 2016, the US Department of Labor helped spur on retirement plan lawsuits by issuing a rule regarding fiduciary duty. The rule clarified and brought awareness to the obligations of plan sponsors under ERISA.

Excessive recordkeeping fees have also been an issue in retirement plan lawsuits, and, reports Investment News, these fees have been cut by nearly a third since 2012.

Retirement Plan Lawsuits

In addition to 401(k) plan sponsors, universities and other organizations offering 403(b) plans have been hit with retirement plan lawsuits. Eight major universities were hit with lawsuits alleging excessive fees in 2016, including Duke, Emory, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, New York and Yale Universities, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The retirement plan lawsuits allege that employees were offered too many investment options at an unreasonable cost, leading to huge losses for the employees and fat fees for plan administrators. The plaintiffs alleged the universities and other employers failed to provide low-cost options and retained expensive, underperforming investments in their offerings to employees.

University employees, as well as more common 401(k) plan participants, have billions in these retirement plans. Under ERISA, plan administrators have an obligation to manage those funds in the best interests of the employees – they must set and adhere to a code of conduct.

Other ERISA protections include:

Providing sufficient information to plan participants about their retirement plan;
Minimum standards for vesting, funding, and benefit accrual;
Providing plan participants notice of their right to hold plan administrators accountable; and
Providing plan participants notice of their right to file a retirement plan lawsuit;

If plan administrators violate their duty, for example, if they charge excessive fees, offer high cost or high-risk investments, or fail to keep adequate records, plan participants can hold them accountable. Generally, plan participants must start with an appeals process; however, plan participants also have the right to file a retirement plan lawsuit if they suspect their plan administrators are violating ERISA.

ERISA is a complex set of regulations. If you are concerned about excessive fees or another ERISA violation when it comes to your retirement or pension plan, contact an experienced ERISA attorney . The attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher are currently investigating ERISA complaints.

Banana Boat False Advertising Lawsuit Filed as Class Action

Mon, 26 Feb 2018 21:32:54 GMT

This is a subtitle for your new post

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Ovarian Cancer Claim Based on Talcum Powder Use

Sun, 25 Feb 2018 21:34:08 GMT

A new lawsuit alleges that a plaintiff developed ovarian cancer from using talcum powder and was never warned about the possible connection and risk.

Ovarian Cancer Lawsuit Includes Claims From Estate

This ovarian cancer lawsuit was filed on behalf of a plaintiff who received a diagnosis and ultimately passed away due to the disease.

Johnson & Johnson, the makers of the most popular talcum products on the market, are accused of not warning the public about the risks of ovarian cancer development that may occur when a female uses the products on or near their genitals.

The ovarian cancer lawsuit alleges that the woman who received the diagnosis developed ovarian cancer because of her prolonged exposure to dangerous particles in the talcum powder products made and sold by Johnson & Johnson.

The lawsuit argues that the makers knew about the possible risks but did not tell consumers about how continued exposure near the genitals might lead, over time, to a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. The lawsuit says that a suitable substitute exists — cornstarch. Despite that fact, the company has continued to make and sell talcum powder products, alleges the lawsuit.

The marketing materials for talcum powder products include symbols for purity and freshness, points out the complaint. Johnson & Johnson does not include appropriate information about the dangers of long-term usage, however.

Many of the legal claims surrounding talcum powder and ovarian cancer are based on research studies that found a connection between the two. Many of the women filing lawsuits and estate representatives handling their cases after they pass away allege that the women used these products for many years, sometimes decades, before developing ovarian cancer.

Studies Identify Ovarian Cancer Risk May Be Related to Talcum Powder Usage

The first study looking into the link between ovarian cancer and talcum powder was completed in 1982. At that time, the researcher involved in the project suggested that the manufacturer put a warning label on the talc products. Since then, the lawsuit says, more than 22 additional studies have been completed that suggest a possible link between long-term talc powder usage and the development of ovarian cancer.

The most recent study was completed in 2010 and looked at more than 66,000 women. That research study found that women who applied talcum powder in the genital area had a 21% higher risk of endometrial cancer.

More ovarian cancer claims have been lodged in recent years from women who used the product consistently over the long term. In some of these ovarian cancer cases, the plaintiff ultimately passed away from the disease.

The defendants are accused of hiding information about the dangers of the product and continuing to market those items aggressively as a daily solution for freshness. Ovarian cancer lawsuits allege that is was their daily usage of Johnson & Johnson talc products without knowledge of the risks that may have caused them to develop cancer.

If you or a loved one developed ovarian cancer after baby powder or talc use, consult with the lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher by filling out the form on this page .

The ovarian cancer lawsuit is Case No. 5:18-cv-00154, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District Court for the Central District of California.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Tricare Fraud Case Leads to $5.5M Settlement With Fla. Ambulance Company

Thu, 22 Feb 2018 21:35:44 GMT

A Florida ambulance company has settled a case of alleged Tricare fraud and Medicare fraud that has led to more than $5.5 million. The case was originally started by a whistleblower.

False Claims Act Case Based on Medicare and Tricare Fraud Allegations

The False Claims Act allegations were lodged against AmeriCare arguing that it defrauded government health care programs, such as Tricare, by using unnecessary transportation services with an ambulance. Tricare fraud and other forms of government fraud are targeted aggressively by authorities.

Whistleblowers, as in this case, often share vital information about possible fraud. Under the False Claims Act, the government can decide whether or not they want to intervene.

Federal prosecutors alleged that Tricare fraud had occurred between January of 2008 and December of 2016 in which thousands of fraudulent reimbursement claims were submitted to the Medicare and Tricare programs. The Tricare fraud False Claims Act lawsuit alleged that non-emergency ambulance transports were not actually required for the patients.

AmeriCare must enter into an integrity program directly with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General and will have to pay $5.5 million to resolve these allegations. Federal agency audits and information from AmeriCare employees who came forward as whistleblowers were used to build the case of alleged Tricare fraud and Medicare fraud.

Damaging testimony that came from management over the course of the investigation, according to the United States Department of Justice, was also a critical factor in determining fault and responsibility.

The evidence that the government had previously obtained in addition to the Tricare fraud allegations made by the whistleblower indicated that AmeriCare had engaged in a scheme involving thousands of false documents and reports. This was used as evidence of systemic fraud costing millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

A whistleblower case was originally filed regarding the Tricare fraud in 2013 by a former employee.

Direct evidence, in conjunction with whistleblower insight, may become the basis of the legal claim against charged parties. The involvement of a whistleblower under the False Claims Act comes with protections for the employee from retaliation in addition to a possible portion of the recovery.

Government Intervenes in Tricare Fraud Case to Pursue Charges and Recovery

In early 2017, the federal government and Florida informed the court that they would not be intervening in the case. However, they changed their mind later that year and opted to intervene that summer. As a result of his participation in Tricare fraud case, the whistleblower will receive more than $1 million of the settlement proceeds.

This type of award is typical in False Claims Act cases in which the whistleblower’s testimony or information is critical for building a case over Tricare or any type of fraud against the government.

If you believe you have grounds to file a whistleblower case based on Tricare fraud or other government fraud, you need to consult with experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today by filling out the form on this page .

The Tricare fraud lawsuit is U.S., et al. ex rel. Sharp v. AmeriCare Ambulance, Case No. 8:13-cv-1171 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Walking Dead Stuntman

Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:43:00 GMT

The mom of a stuntman who was fatally injured on the filming set of The Walking Dead has started a wrongful death lawsuit. The wrongful death lawsuit was filed after the stuntman was killed on July 12, 2017, after falling on the set of the show.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Blames Poor Set Standards for Accident

The wrongful death lawsuit was filed against AMC and other associated parties. The plaintiff alleges that unreasonably low budgets led to safety precautions that did not meet standards, leading to the fall and death of her son.

“My goal is to do everything I can to protect other stunt performers and to ensure their safety on the set in the future,” said the stuntman’s mother who filed the lawsuit. “The industry is not doing enough to maintain basic safety guidelines for these performers. Worst of all, they’re scared to speak up.”

The wrongful death lawsuit was filed in Gwinnett County state court on Jan. 23 and argued that the unsafe and cheap production used to generate The Walking Dead led to a fall that ultimately killed her son on the set. The wrongful death lawsuit alleges that the stunt coordinator and the director are also responsible for the episode in which the fall occurred. Another actor shooting a scene with the deceased also fell at the time of that accident.

Some of the most common incidents leading to injuries are those involving workers falling from heights. As with construction sites, a TV or movie set is a dangerous place for trip and fall and slip and fall accidents, both of which can lead to catastrophic injuries or death.

The mother who filed the wrongful death lawsuit says that in addition to holding the production company and other relevant parties accountable for the death of her son, she also wishes to raise awareness about safety standards that are used on production sets to ensure that stunt performers are protected now and into the future. According to her statements in the wrongful death lawsuit, the industry has not done enough to make sure that basic safety guidelines are met for performers and others working.

A head injury occurred after a high fall accident when the stuntman dropped more than 20 feet from a balcony and onto a concrete floor. The accident happened during a rehearsal of the stunt.

He was barely breathing and was hardly conscious at the time that he was transported to Atlanta Medical Center. He was declared legally dead later that evening. The stuntman was only 33 years old at the time.

The Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration previously issued a citation to Stalwart Films for failing to provide adequate protection from fall hazards directly in conjunction with this accident. Additionally, a fine of more than $12,000 was assessed against the company which is the highest allowed for a one-time serious violation.

According to research, it is believed that the stuntman who suffered fatal injuries in this accident was first to die on a U.S. set since 2000.

If you or someone you know has been hurt by a catastrophic injury or if you have lost a loved one because of such an accident, you may be entitled to compensation.

Consulting with the experienced attorneys at Bradley Grombacher is strongly recommended- fill out the form on this page to get started.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Counselor Sentenced in $175K Medicaid Fraud Scheme

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 21:44:55 GMT

A $175,609.50 plot to defraud the Missouri Medicaid program got a counselor a years-long sentence for submitting false claims to the government.

According to the Missouri Attorney General, Corrine Dale, a licensed professional counselor falsely billed the state’s Medicaid program for thousands of hours of services she did not provide.

The Medicaid fraud scheme included providing over 24 hours of counseling over 101 separate days. Dale was also accused of falsely billing for behavioral health services for preverbal infants. Additionally, from 2014 to 2015, the counselor allegedly stole the identities of Medicaid participants and falsely billed them.

According to prosecutors, Dale made over $175,000 from the Medicaid fraud scheme by submitting over 3,500 false claims to the Missouri health care program meant to assist those who cannot afford medical services.

Although the judge suspended her prison term and put the counselor on a five-year term of supervised probation, Dale was sentenced to many years in prison for the Medicaid fraud scheme; seven years for each count of Medicaid fraud; fifteen years for each count of identity theft; and another seven years for the charge of receiving stolen property. She will also be required to pay back the $175,609.50 she received for the fraudulent billings in addition to being on probation.

“My office will not tolerate Medicaid fraud in Missouri,” stated the Missouri Attorney General, according to a KMIZ report. “On my watch, those who steal Missouri taxpayer dollars will be prosecuted. I am grateful for the hard work of the Medicaid Fraud Unit to find and return this taxpayer money to the State.”

Medicaid Fraud Schemes

Medicaid fraud schemes and other illegal activities take desperately needed funds from state programs meant for the poor and elderly. In addition, Medicare fraud schemes cost US taxpayers. Medicaid fraud includes submitting false bills, overbilling, as well as kickback schemes.

State and federal agencies have increased efforts to fight Medicare and Medicaid fraud, but these investigations are costly and take extensive time and effort on the part of the agencies. Whistleblowers working for healthcare organizations engaging in Medicaid fraud schemes are a huge help and sometimes the only way that these illegal activities can be stopped. The federal False Claims Act, as well as some state laws, can protect employees who reporting fraud against the government.

Additionally, whistleblowers can receive awards under the False Claims Act. If the legal action against the person or entity perpetrating the Medicaid fraud scheme is successful or there is a settlement, the whistleblower who came forward can receive a substantial portion of the award. Verdicts and settlement agreements can be hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars for Medicare and Medicaid fraud. Under the False Claim Act, whistleblowers can receive fifteen to 30 percent of that amount.

If you work in the healthcare industry and are concerned about a Medicaid fraud scheme, contact the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher for help.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

New Prop 65 Warning Required for Furfuryl Alcohol

Thu, 15 Feb 2018 21:46:53 GMT

A new Prop 65 warning is now required for furfuryl alcohol. This requirement was initially mandated to begin on September 30th, 2017. Manufacturers of certain products with high levels of this material must display this information on the label.

Prop 65 Warning Label Mandated for High Levels of Furfuryl Alcohol in Products

The Prop 65 warning is drawn from California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. This law prohibits companies from using chemicals in their products that are known to lead to reproductive toxicity or cancer without providing reasonable and clear warnings affixed to those products. Furfuryl alcohol was originally added to the Prop 65 list in 2016 because it is believed to be a carcinogen.

Furfuryl alcohol is a compound that is often found in coffee, baked goods, alcoholic beverages like wine and beer, and milk as well as other thermally processed food items. Furfuryl alcohol emerges when sugar reacts with amino acids and this causes those thermally processed foods to have a golden-brown color and clear taste.

Consumers exposed to high levels of this compound may face an increased risk of cancer development. A Prop 65 warning gives consumers a choice about the products they use and consume with the underlying goal to help consumers avoid exposure to dangerous chemicals. The Prop 65 warning list is updated every single year to include new chemicals that are potential reproductive toxins or cancer-causing toxins.

If a product is determined to have high amounts of this compound inside after review by a toxicology expert, this would require a Prop 65 warning to be affixed to the label of any product containing furfuryl alcohol. Numerous organizations fought back against the inclusion of furfuryl alcohol on the Prop 65 list.

Those companies that fail to provide a clear and reasonable warning could be the recipients of a 60-day notice or be facing legal action as a result of their failure to comply.

The inclusion of furfuryl alcohol in a consumer product, however, does not always require a Prop 65 warning, however. If there is no high-risk level for exposure to consumers, also known as No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL), a Prop 65 warning is not required. However, a toxicologist must be retained on behalf of the company making the product to make this evaluation.

For any product that causes a high level of exposure to furfuryl alcohol beyond the NSRL, a Prop 65 warning is required by those manufacturers.

Toxicologists identifying whether or not a Prop 65 warning is required will use risk assessment principles and guidance documents developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to determine the daily exposure level that could identify a risk of cancer.

The NSRL is usually based on the level of exposure that would cause no more than 1 in 100,000 instances of cancer development over a lifetime of exposure.

Consumers play an important role in holding companies accountable when they identify violations of Prop 65 and notify those companies about non-compliance.

If you or someone you know believes you have grounds to pursue legal action based on a lack of Prop 65 warning, you need to consult with the experienced lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher today- fill out the form located on this page to learn more.

University of Chicago Retirement Plan Lawsuit Continues

Wed, 14 Feb 2018 21:49:42 GMT

An ERISA claim in the form of a University of Chicago retirement plan lawsuit is still moving forward. The University of Chicago retirement plan lawsuit alleges that the way the educational institution runs their two retirement plans results in excessive fees borne by plan participants.

University of Chicago Retirement Plan Lawsuit Includes Claims of Excessive Fees

Overall, the University of Chicago retirement plan lawsuit includes a $2.1 billion plan that covers approximately 13,000 former and current university employees. The individual who came forward to initiate the University of Chicago retirement plan lawsuit says that a $2.1 billion plan included excessive administrative and recordkeeping fees for plan participants in violation of ERISA.

The school had previously convinced a judge to dismiss all the claims in the University of Chicago retirement plan lawsuit by alleging that none of the workers involved in the legal claim specifically got benefits through the bigger plan.

This left only the smaller $980 million plan and the legal claims associated with it. The plaintiffs then added a new party to the University of Chicago retirement plan lawsuit that allowed challenges on both plans to continue forward.

Currently, more than one dozen prominent colleges throughout the United States have been hit with class action lawsuits alleging violations of ERISA.

Increasingly, employees mindful of their retirement plans are looking into unnecessary or unreasonable fees and concerns about possible mismanagement by fiduciaries.

The federal ERISA law is a complex set of regulations designed to govern the maintenance of these plans to ensure those plan participants are not forced into plans or investments that do not represent their best interests.

In addition to outlining how fiduciary duties must act in the best interests of the beneficiaries, this federal law also enables employees with legal claims under ERISA as in the case of the University of Chicago retirement plan lawsuit.

Challenges to these retirement plans are often brought forward by workers who identify that various violations have occurred. This means that the plan members are the ones responsible for paying the price for illegal actions. Other challenges to retirement are currently affecting schools such as Princeton, Cornell, Columbia, Duke, New York University and Johns Hopkins.

As alleged in the University of Chicago retirement plan lawsuit and similar class action claims against other universities, the institutions allegedly provided poorly performing investment options and very expensive plans associated with excessive administrative fees to the record keepers working on the plan.

Any concerns about mismanagement of a plan or excessive fees might prompt the plan participant to initially raise these concerns directly to the plan managers. If that is unsuccessful in resolving the issues the employee may be well within their rights to take legal action with a lawsuit.

If you or someone you know believes you have grounds for an ERISA claim, you need to consult with an experienced attorney as soon as possible. Schedule a consultation today to learn more with the lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher by filling out the form on this page.

The University of Chicago Retirement Plan Lawsuit is Daugherty v. Univ. of Chi. , N.D. Ill., No. 1:17-cv-03736 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Wage and Hour Lawsuit Filed Against Christian Faith Publishing

Wed, 14 Feb 2018 21:48:16 GMT

A plaintiff has filed a wage and hour lawsuit against Christian Faith Publishing alleging they violated the Fair Labor Standard Act and other laws by misclassifying workers and failing to pay overtime.

Wage and Hour Lawsuit Alleges Money Due

The plaintiff is a resident of Tennessee and worked for Christian Faith Publishing from February 2017 through December 11, 2017. She alleges in her wage and hour lawsuit that she was a covered employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

That plaintiff worked with the defendant remotely out of her home, making use of her computer and her telephone. The wage and hour lawsuit argues that Christian Faith Publishing based in Pennsylvania was an employer of the plaintiff under the interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act; however, the company never compensated her and others for their overtime work as required under the law.

The wage and hour lawsuit says that employees who worked on behalf of the company from their home selling publishing services were never appropriately compensated for overtime for the hours they worked in excess of 40 each week.

According to the lawsuit, the primary job duties of the plaintiff and other workers were to contact lists of potential customers and to persuade them to purchase publishing, calling prospective customers, discussing an author’s book, persuading customers to submit their writing for review, informing prospective customers whether or not their writing was accepted and selling publishing services to those customers to those who were accepted.

The wage and hour lawsuit says that the employer had the sole ability to negotiate and set the price for publishing services and accept or reject the work of potential customers, as well. The company also dictated how the literary agents working for the company performed their work, such as what they are permitted to say, what platforms they can use to communicate with potential customers, and how often they contact potential customers.

The wage and hour lawsuit argues that these workers were misclassified as non-employees and therefore, denied the benefits and right of employment such as overtime wages. The workers in this situation were paid a flat rate for every sale they made and the plaintiff says that she and others were regularly asked to work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The wage and hour legal claim seeks corrective action in the form of liquidated damages, unpaid overtime compensation, interest and attorney’s fees and costs.

Any company that engages in violation of state or federal labor laws may be named as liable in a wage and hour lawsuit, with an affected employee entitled to past due damages and expenses. Common allegations in a wage and hour lawsuit include claims of unpaid overtime and misclassification.

If you believe you have grounds to file a wage and hour lawsuit, you need the assistance of attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher. Fill out the form on this page to learn more.

The Christian Faith Publishing Wage and Hour Lawsuit is O’Brien v. Christian Faith Publishing, Case No. 3:18-cv-00024, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville division.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

False Advertising Lawsuit Filed Against Apple & Eve Over Sugar and Preservative Claims

Tue, 13 Feb 2018 21:54:21 GMT

An Apple & Eve lawsuit says the company is not accurately marketing their juice products. The promises that the juices are natural and not made with sugars, according to the lawsuit, is inaccurate and is harming consumers.

Apple & Eve Lawsuit Alleges False and Misleading Advertising

Two plaintiffs have come forward to file an Apple & Eve lawsuit due to alleged false advertising. They filed this consumer protection lawsuit on behalf of all plaintiffs who were misled by the marketing materials that claim Adam & Eve products made by the company have no sugar or no preservatives.

The Apple & Eve lawsuit alleges that the company uses the term “no preservatives have been added”. However, the preservative citric and ascorbic acid have been found in the products, according to the plaintiffs. The Apple & Eve lawsuit alleges that false advertising leads customers into thinking they are purchasing a healthier option. The lawsuit alleges that customers paying a premium based on the false advertising, but the products fail to live up to their marketing claims.

The Apple & Eve lawsuit also argues that the products claim there is no sugar added; however, this is misleading, according to the plaintiffs, because consumers think they are receiving a low-calorie product based on this advertising, when the juice products actually have a high calorie count.

The Apple & Eve lawsuit explains that consumers now have an increased interest in nutritious beverages and concerns over excessive sugar. This leads many consumers to be willing to pay a premium for products that are advertised as containing no sugar or preservatives.

The Apple & Eve lawsuits says that the defendants are responsible for misleading consumers by falsely advertising that their products do not contain sugar or preservatives.

The affected items in the Apple & Eve lawsuit include their apple juice, cranberry juice, cranberry-raspberry and berry-berry juice. The Apple & Eve lawsuit says that the defendants are responsible for violating consumer protection laws at the state level across the United States.

False advertising laws require that marketing materials meet certain standards. This allows consumers to make informed decisions about their purchases. When a company is accused of violating these laws and consumers can show damages as a result, a lawsuit may be filed.

As the Apple & Eve lawsuit argues, consumers have a right to make decisions based on accurate marketing materials and statements on the exterior of the packaging for a product.

Consumers are increasingly coming forward with allegations of misleading information to file lawsuits against those companies and hold them responsible for deceptive and misleading advertising. If you believe you have grounds to pursue such a claim, you need to consult with the experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher as soon as possible- fill out the form on this page to learn more about your options.

The Apple & Eve lawsuit is Qurioz & Fernandez v. Apple & Eve LLC. Case No. 2:18-CV-00401 filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

How to Start a Spinal Cord Injury Lawsuit

Tue, 13 Feb 2018 21:52:16 GMT

Those suffering from spinal cord injuries can experience pain, medical expenses, and changes in their quality of life. If a spinal cord injury occurs because of another person’s actions, it may be time to consider legal action.

A spinal cord injury lawsuit can help victims recover for their pain and suffering and other expenses they have and will experience because of their injury. The National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center reports that spinal cord injuries are commonly caused by:

Falls
Shootings, fights or other violent acts,
Medical procedures
Sports activities; and
Car accidents

The spinal cord is the important bundle of nerves contained in the spinal column that allow us to tell our body what to do. The nerves carry messages from the brain to the body, so any damage can carry serious consequences for a person’s motor skills. Paraplegia and quadriplegia are both extreme examples of spinal cord injuries.

Those who experience spinal cord injuries can suffer major health problems, including breathing problems, incontinence, sexual function, paralysis, and pain, for the rest of their life. They may also be unable to work and continue the same lifestyle that they enjoyed before the injury. Additional and continuing medical expenses are also common for those that suffer spinal cord injuries. Further, the injured person’s loved ones may have to take on their support and care and they may be unable to do things together that they previously enjoyed.

When a spinal cord injury is the result of a preventable act or action, the injured person and/or their family can consider legal action to hold the party at fault responsible for the damage they caused. Spinal cord injury lawsuits include:

Negligence, when a person is injured because of the action or even inaction of another. Car accidents are often caused by the negligence of others.
Defective products, when a person is injured because of the dangerous condition of a product they used. Product designers, manufacturers, and distributors can be held responsible for spinal cord injuries caused by defects in the products they produce and sell.
Medical malpractice, when a patient is injured by a doctor who is not exercising the appropriate standard of care.

Spinal cord injury lawsuits can be complex and include both legal and medical components. Those who are hit with spinal cord injury lawsuits respond by saying that the injured party contributed to the accident or situation that caused their injury. Defendants also argue that the injured party accepted the risk of spinal cord injuries. For example, if a person was engaged in a dangerous activity, like contact sports, the defendant may argue that they knew there was the potential for a spinal cord injury.

An experienced attorney can help obtain compensation in a spinal cord injury lawsuit. Generally, compensation in a lawsuit includes a monetary award for all of the losses and damages caused by the accident and injury. In a spinal cord injury lawsuit, compensation can include money for medical care, assistive devices, like wheelchairs, and for future care.

If you or a loved one experienced a spinal cord injury, contact the experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher.

Heartburn Drug Lawsuits on Rise Due to Dangerous PPI Medications

Tue, 13 Feb 2018 05:44:01 GMT

The number of heartburn drug lawsuits filed by injured patients is increasing recently due to more people coming forward with concerns about the side effects of these PPI medications.

Heartburn Drug Lawsuits Now Allow Direct Filing

A judge responsible for presiding over consolidated heartburn drug lawsuits has approved procedures that will allow a new case to be directly filed into overarching multidistrict litigation (MDL). This procedure will now be allowed because the number of heartburn drug lawsuits filed over Prevacid, Prilosec, and Nexium are becoming hard to manage.

Hundreds of heartburn drug lawsuits have already been moved to the MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Currently, those heartburn drug lawsuits are in the discovery and pretrial phases.

The rise of heartburn drug lawsuits has been spurred, in part, due to the number of medical studies released over the past few years pinpointing dangerous side effects. These studies show that in research, users may face higher risks of severe injuries like kidney failure, chronic kidney disease, and acute kidney injury.

The heartburn drug lawsuits already filed by consumers say that pharmaceutical companies have been responsible for misleading and false information regarding side effects. Consumers say that neither they nor their doctors were ever told about the risks of these PPI drugs, a task that should have fallen to the drug manufacturers.

Since so many people use these PPI medications, it’s expected that the number of heartburn drug lawsuits will continue to reach into the thousands in coming years. This is why the judge ultimately decided that those cases could be fast-tracked with the new direct filing approval.

This process will avoid delays often experienced by those filing defective drug lawsuits when the case has to be transferred from district courts across the country. Furthermore, all the heartburn drug lawsuits will benefit from standardized claims about the side effects and issues raised by patients.

The FDA first required new warnings about kidney damage back in December of 2014. The primary issue reported by medical studies and patients was acute interstitial nephritis, involving the sudden inflammation of the kidneys. If this problem is not caught early, it can develop into more serious issues.

More studies have drawn a connection between kidney problems and Nexium. These studies argue that consumers may face a higher risk of chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, or the need for dialysis treatment with severe kidney problems.

A recent study in the JAMA Internal Medicine Journal identified that heartburn medications were tied to a higher risk of chronic kidney disease. The study found that people using PPI drugs may be at a 50% higher risk of chronic kidney disease when compared with those not using drugs like Nexium. A 2016 study supported these results.

If you or someone you know has been seriously injured because of a kidney problem tied to a PPI and you want to investigate heartburn drug lawsuits, contact the lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher today to learn more about your rights- fill out the form here to learn more.

Whistleblower Blows Cover on Texas Mayor’s Multi-Million Medicare Fraud Scam

Tue, 13 Feb 2018 05:41:55 GMT

A Texas mayor who is also a physician was recently indicted by federal prosecutors for a Medicare fraud scam affecting home health care and hospice services within the state.

Medicare Fraud Scam Reaches $150 Million

Altogether, the Medicare fraud scam involved $150 million in fraudulent attempted payments. Federal prosecutors brought an 11-count indictment against the mayor of Rio Bravo, Texas over the fraud. The mayor, who is also a physician, was accused of accepting kickbacks in the Medicare fraud scam to refer out patients for services for which the patients did not qualify.

During the time of the alleged Medicare fraud scam, one person owned as well as operated a company known as Harlingen. That company was a group of various entities offering health care and hospice services.

The mayor was the medical director of one of those groups. As one of the medical directors involved, the mayor is accused of receiving kickbacks for referrals of patients and personal certifications attesting that patients were eligible for services.

Multiple People Named as Key Players in Medicare Fraud Scam

Other medical directors were also accused in this Medicare fraud scam and face criminal charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to commit health care fraud.

Two of those other individuals also face charges of obstructing justice for providing fictitious and false records to a federal grand jury and asking that others involved in the case do the same.

The Medicare fraud scam whistleblower came forward with information that patients were kept on hospice services for years in order to bill the federal health care program of millions of dollars.

According to the Medicare fraud scam whistleblower, the money obtained from the scam was used to buy luxury cars, jewelry, clothing, season tickets to San Antonio sports games, and real estate.

Prosecutors charged the primary physician in the Medicare fraud scam of lying to FBI agents in an interview. The physician denied accepting kickbacks from a confidential source in exchange for referrals for patients.

Whistleblowers often come forward with inside information about people who are perpetrating fraud against the federal government. Those that blow the whistle on government fraud can receive protections under the False Claims Act from retaliation and other discriminatory behavior carried out by their employer.

Whistleblowers are encouraged to come forward and share information about government fraud in order to help save taxpayer money and to ferret out fraudulent and illegal behavior.

Medicare fraud has become an increasing focus for federal regulators and whistleblower actions in recent years as the number of health care providers accused of participating in health care fraud has increased significantly.

Various cases have included allegations of Medicare fraud scams of millions of dollars and whistleblowers will continue to play a key role in raising awareness and curbing abuse.

If you think you have information about a Medicare fraud scam or similar situation, you might be a whistleblower. Schedule time to talk to the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today to learn more about your rights- fill out the form located on this page to get more information.

New Prop 65 Violation Notice Affecting Zoom Bait Fishing Gear

Mon, 12 Feb 2018 05:47:16 GMT

A new Prop 65 violation notice has been submitted affecting the product known as Zoom Bait. The 60-day notice has been sent to manufacturers and retailers that have allegedly been putting this product on shelves without telling consumers about the potential risks.

Prop 65 Violation Notice Affects Bait Products

A citizen of California came forward to initiate the Prop 65 violation notice. The chemical in question is diisononyl phthalate. This is also referred to as DINP. The routes of exposure that prompted the consumer to file this Prop 65 violation notice include ingestion and dermal absorption.

The bait products named in the Prop 65 notice may be used by consumers who are fishing. Their direct contact with the products or possible ingestion of the materials could lead to the development of cancer over time.

This chemical is listed on California’s statewide list of chemicals that are known to cause cancer. Any toxic chemical that is included on the Prop 65 notice list must be mentioned in a warning on the product’s label itself to give consumers a choice about the products that they use. Occupational, as well as consumer exposures, are listed in this Prop 65 violation notice.

It is unknown as of yet whether or not anyone who has used these products has developed cancer as a result of exposure, but the Prop 65 violation notice procedure may help to make consumers aware of the risks and to encourage compliance by the manufacturers.

Products Affected Date Back to 2015

According to the Prop 65 violation notice affecting DINP, the sale of these products in California dates back to at least the beginning of July 2015 and continued at least through June 7, 2017. The Prop 65 violation notices that California citizens, as well as children, through acquiring, buying, or utilizing these products are exposed to the listed chemicals which can increase their risk of cancer.

The products in question include a smoking shad sold at Dick’s Sporting Goods, Walmart.com and Walmart stores , the other bait products sold in Disco Green and Green Orange, and fishing lures including the bait company Super Fluke Disco Green and bait company, Super Salt Plus; the Zoom Bait Company, Swim and Super Fluke Junior, Smoking Shad, and the Zoom Bait Company Super Salt Plus Six-Inch Lizard Black Chart.

Companies are responsible for notifying consumers about products that may contain dangerous chemicals known to the State of California to cause reproductive harm or cancer. Individual consumers or agencies may come forward when they identify a possible violation of California law.

Initiating a Prop 65 violation notice gives the company a chance to correct this issue. If the company fails to respond in an appropriate manner, the consumer may move forward with other legal action.

Every year, more chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity are added to Prop 65, giving consumers a chance to be more aware of the risks within products.

If you or someone you know believes that you may have grounds to initiate a Prop 65 violation notice, you need to schedule a consultation with the experienced lawyers for consumer class action lawsuits at Bradley/Grombacher today. Fill out the form on this page to learn more.

New ERISA Retirement Plan Lawsuit Filed Against Sears

Fri, 09 Feb 2018 05:51:17 GMT

Sears is currently facing an ERISA retirement plan lawsuit over the fact that it kept company stock, even as the retailer’s value began to tank. The plaintiffs allege that Sears could have taken action to preserve their employees’ retirement accounts once they realized that their own stock was an inappropriate retirement plan investment.

Retirement Plan Erisa Lawsuit Says Fiduciaries Acted Improperly

One participant in the holding savings plan has initiated a class action ERISA retirement plan lawsuit , arguing that Sears kept holding stock in the company when it was not feasible to continue doing so.

According to the complaint, Sears Holdings Corporation has failed to turn a profit since 2011. Since 2010, no profitable quarter has been recorded for the company either. The legal complaint also alleges that Sears is facing certain bankruptcy.

As a result, the plaintiff is proposing initiating an ERISA retirement plan lawsuit because of the net attributable loss to shareholders after Sears stock was retained in retirement investment accounts. The complaint argues that the retirement plan management company should have moved away from Sears stock when it was clear the company was in trouble; however, the stock was held and employees face certain loss in their retirement accounts, according to the plaintiff.

ERISA is a comprehensive set of rules and regulations designed to handle the management of retirement plans, disability insurance and other similar plans. The complaint alleges that the fiduciaries of the plan made a mistake in investing in the Sears company stock due to the excessive risk associated with doing so.

The ERISA retirement plan lawsuit argues that even in the event that the plan required that Sears stock be given as an option that the plan’s fiduciaries were required under the law to override this once it was clear that investment in the stock was not prudent or advisable for the plan.

Poor Financial Outlook for Sears Should Have Prompted Changes, Says Lawsuit

The ERISA retirement plan lawsuit argues that Sears was in extremely poor financial condition, which should have prompted the managers of the plan to recognize their fiduciary duty to act on the best interests of the plan participants.

The publicly available data clearly indicated that Sears was in bad financial condition and had limited opportunities for improvement, alleges the plaintiff, making it an improper retirement plan choice for all of the plan participants.

The complaint argues that under ERISA, the defendants were obliged and empowered to take out Sears stock from the available retirement investment options and that the failure to do so violates ERISA. The ERISA retirement plan lawsuit says that the defendants violated ERISA by failing to serve the interests of the plan participants long after action should have been taken.

Eventually, Sears stock was pulled out of the retirement planning options. Plan managers froze support of the fund at the end of 2016, however, the legal complaint argues that this was too late to help the plan participants.

The lawsuit alleges that the price collapse of more than 80% of Sears stock during the class period devastated the assets inside the plan and had a detrimental effect on all of the plan participants. The plaintiff argues that exposing plan to participants to this risk is a violation of the ERISA fiduciary duties. The plaintiff also alleges that the plan managers should have taken particular actions based on publicly known details, including investigating whether or not Sears stock was a solid retirement investment to begin with.

Do you believe you have grounds for a retirement plan ERISA lawsuit? Contact the lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher today by filling out the form on this page .

The Sears ERISA Lawsuit is Abraham v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Case No. 2:18-cv-00004-MAK in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Wage and Hour Violations Alleged Against Cooking Light

Fri, 09 Feb 2018 05:48:53 GMT

A plaintiff has lodged wage and hour violations against employer Cooking Light in a recent lawsuit over their tip sharing policy. The wage and hour violations lawsuit argues that the company violated their employee’s rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime to employees as well as failing to pay the minimum wage.

Wage and Hour Violations Broke Laws According to Plaintiff

Cooking Light is the company doing business as The Garden Grill in Brooklyn, New York. The wage and hour violations suit says that the plaintiff was employed in several roles while working for the defendant. She first worked as a dishwasher, food server, and cleaner at the grill between November 2013 and November 2015.

She later worked as a delivery person between September 2017 and December 2017. The wage and hour violations complaint says that the majority of income earned by the plaintiff while working in these roles was generated from tips.

At the conclusion of each day, the plaintiff, in addition to other food servers, had to pay out fees from their tips to the defendant. The wage and hour violations suit says that the determination of the amount of tips given to each food server was at the whole discretion of the defendants.

The plaintiff also argues that it was hard to track what was earned and when, because the defendants did not maintain, establish, or preserve daily logs about the tips earned by shift or by employee. With tips coming in cash and credit card form, the servers were not entirely sure of their earnings, according to the suit.

Furthermore, the wage and hour violations lawsuit says that the defendant did not keep any records about the types of employees, wait staff, delivery driver, dish washers, or cooks, who would receive tips at the conclusion of each day or the share of tips that would be distributed to each worker based on their role.

The wage and hour violations lawsuit also alleges that that no breakdown of tips and wages was provided on the wage statements given to the plaintiff or other employees.

According to the plaintiff, the employers were aware that this behavior was in violation of state and federal employment laws. Both federal and state regulations prohibit the reduction of minimum wage through the application of tip allowance. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants misappropriated parts of the tips due to the plaintiffs under these laws.

The lawsuit also says that the defendants failed to notify her and others about the tip credits and the portion of her wages from tips in direct violation of the law.

The plaintiff also alleges that she worked in excess of 50 hours per week for the defendant, Further, she says she was not given the right overtime pay for the hours she put in. She says she was never properly compensated at time and a half for those hours worked above 40 in a week.

If you or someone you know believes you have a legal claim based on wage and hour violations, you need to consult with the lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher- fill out the form on this page to get more information.

The wage and hour violations suit is Gitlitz v. Cooking Light Inc, Case No. 1:18-cv-00101-JBW-SJB, filed in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Catastrophic Injury Lawsuit Filed Against Starbucks Over Extra Hot Tea Burns

Thu, 08 Feb 2018 05:56:06 GMT

A new catastrophic injury lawsuit has been filed based on a plaintiff’s allegation that very hot Starbucks tea disfigured a woman and killed her dog. The lawsuit argues that the Colorado woman was improperly served a cup of extremely hot tea at a drive-thru window.

Catastrophic Injury Suit Blames Starbucks for Severe Burns

When the tea spilled, it severely burned her and killed her dog who was also present in the car. The catastrophic injury lawsuit is pursuing more than $75,000 in damages from the massive coffee chain, according to the complaint that was recently filed in a U.S. District Court in Colorado.

The catastrophic injury suit dates back to an incident that happened in September of 2015 when the plaintiff ordered a venti-sized hot tea at a Denver Starbucks drive-thru.

The complaint says that the plaintiff did not request that her drink be extra hot. According to the catastrophic injury suit, the lid was not secured on the cup of scalding hot tea, it was not double cupped, and it did not contain a hot cup sleeve. These are precautionary procedures designed to help a consumer in the event that a drink is extremely hot.

The catastrophic injury lawsuit argues that the tea’s temperature was unreasonably hot. The plaintiff took the cup of tea into her hands and the hot temperature burned her hands and spilled out of the cup and onto the plaintiff’s body.

The tea was so hot that it caused the plaintiff’s clothing to melt, according to the catastrophic injury suit and caused severe burns to the plaintiff on her legs, stomach, and lap. Her dog jumped onto her lap when the plaintiff began screaming and yelling and the dog later died from injuries allegedly caused by the hot tea. The plaintiff was taken to a hospital and was treated for severe burns.

She had to undergo skin graft surgery for second-degree burns on her thighs and abdomen. According to the catastrophic injury suit, she has suffered a loss of feeling, emotional distress, and permanent scarring. The catastrophic injury suit argues that the store had previously received complaints about beverages being served too hot.

While all hot beverages are served with some level of risk, restaurants, coffee shops, and similar locations should take measures to minimize a consumer’s chances of being seriously hurt. Otherwise, such an accident could lead to a catastrophic injury lawsuit.

The lawsuit argues that the defendants knew about the severe risks or should have known that providing hot tea without a hot cup sleeve, securing the lid to the cup, or failing to double cup the drink itself could put consumers at risks.

If you or someone you know believes you may have grounds to pursue a catastrophic injury lawsuit against someone as a result of burn injuries, you need to schedule a consultation with the attorneys ta Bradley/Grombacher today. Fill out the form on this page to learn more.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Horizon Milk Hit With False Advertising Lawsuit

Thu, 08 Feb 2018 05:53:59 GMT

A false advertising class action lawsuit has been lodged by a plaintiff against the White Wave Foods company and Danone North America LLC.

False Advertising Lawsuit Says Milk Is Not Organic

The false advertising lawsuit alleges that the defendants deceptively advertised Horizon Organic milk products including numerous different version such as the reduced fat milk, the fat-free milk with DHA Omega 3, the organic low-fat chocolate milk, and the organic low-fat vanilla milk box.

The false advertising lawsuit says that the defendants used promotional materials on their labeling that claimed Horizon Organic milk is certified organic. This promise is made clear on every milk package and throughout marketing materials. Consumers are often willing to pay more for organic foods and beverages due to increased awareness about the health benefits of doing so, alleges the class action lawsuit.

The false advertising lawsuit, however, alleges that Horizon Organic milk is not organic because a non-organic additive is used in all of its products. The plaintiff in the false advertising lawsuit began purchasing Horizon Organic milk in January of 2015 through January 2016.

The false advertising lawsuit complaint states that she purchased multiple varieties of the products on a weekly basis from a number of major retailers, including Whole Foods and Safeway. The plaintiff says that she was willing to pay a premium for Horizon Organic milk products because she reasonably believed that these were organic milk products.

In order for milk products to be marketed as organic, the cow herd cannot be treated with antibiotics or hormones and the milk must also be used from cows whose food was grown with no pesticides, genetically modified seeds, or fertilizers, alleges the class action. The false advertising lawsuit points out that the Horizon Organic milk manufacturers add DHA made from an algae-based on a corn syrup diet. The corn syrup given to the algae is derived from corn that has been genetically modified and is not organic, alleges the class action.

A false advertising lawsuit can be filed against companies who mislead consumers about their product or who fail to provide accurate information about their product.

Given the rise of the number of products with the words “organic” and “all natural” on the label, more consumers than ever are looking into the ingredients of the items they purchase to clarify the accuracy of marketing materials.

A company who is involved in false advertising may be required to edit their labels or to deal with the consequences of legal claims brought forward by those consumers who believe they have been wronged due to deceptive marketing materials. They may also be required to reimburse consumers for the extra money they may have paid based on the false advertising claims.

The attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher are currently investigating claims of false advertising. If you are concerned about a product you purchased, consult with the lawyers today by filling out the form on this page .

The false advertising lawsuit is Brown et al v. Danone North America LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-07325 filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco division.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Recalled Zimmer Biomet Shoulder Problems Continue for Patients

Wed, 07 Feb 2018 06:00:38 GMT

Recalled Zimmer Shoulder Biomet problems are on the rise as more patients come forward with allegations that the manufacturers are responsible for this defective product.

Zimmer Biomet Shoulder Recall Affects Many Patients

The Zimmer Biomet Shoulder recall occurred in early 2017. Those who have received the dangerous and defective implant may continue to experience a high risk of catastrophic injuries such as fractures.

The Zimmer Biomet Shoulder implants have been used in shoulder replacement surgery since 2008. Due to the fact that they were extremely popular for shoulder implant surgery, thousands of people across the country may be at risk of suffering permanent loss of shoulder function, infections, fracture or even death.

The Food and Drug Administration initiated the Zimmer Biomet Shoulder implant recall after identifying that more than 3,600 of those models had higher than anticipated fracture rates.

Many of these patients began to experience sudden and unexplained pain after going through surgery that was intended to reduce their pain and give them greater mobility.

Because of the fracture problems associated with so many patients who used this system, the FDA issued a Class 1 recall of the device. A Class 1 recall is only issued for devices that have an enhanced risk of critical injury and in some cases, death.

The initial urgent medical device recall notice regarding the Zimmer Biomet shoulder implant was sent at the end of 2016, requesting that the medical community make staff aware of the shoulder replacement issues.

That was also the time at which it was requested that the company identify and quarantine the recalled implants. The products affected by the Zimmer Biomet shoulder implant recall were made between October of 2008 and September of 2015. However, they could have been used in shoulder implants all the way through 2016.

Those patients who have received a Zimmer Biomet shoulder implant may be at risk for infection and other severe side effects that could lead to medical problems and additional expenses.

Many patients have come forward with concerns about their Zimmer Biomet shoulder implant after suffering unexpected pain following shoulder replacement surgery. Some of these patients have had to go through additional procedures and other medical complications as a result of the fracture or failure rate.

The recalled product specifically is the Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder system humeral tray model 115340.

More lawsuits have been filed in the last several years for shoulder implant failure and a broad array of other types of medical devices that have left patients with severe or disabling injuries. These patients argue that neither they nor their doctors were told about the risks prior to the implantation procedure, and these patients want to hold the manufacturers accountable for defective or dangerous devices on the market.

Those patients who suddenly experience pain and other problems should seek medical advice and report their concerns directly to an attorney as soon as possible.

The lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher are currently investigating claims of pain and failure due to the Zimmer Biomet shoulder implant. Fill out the form on this page to learn more about your rights.

Aerospace Co Settles Whistleblower Lawsuit Claims of $90 Million Fraud

Wed, 07 Feb 2018 05:58:42 GMT

A whistleblower lawsuit was triggered by a man who alleged that a company developed by Boeing and Lockheed Martin was responsible for $90 million in fraudulent claims was recently settled.

The whistleblower lawsuit was filed by an insider who alleged that the two companies forced the U.S. government to pay $90 million fraudulently by overcharging for employee hours worked.

The lawsuit was filed against United Launch Services and United Launch Alliance. The whistleblower was previously employed by ULA. ULA was originally launched as a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin in an effort to win more contracts for rocket launching. The company’s primary purpose is to launch security satellites into space.

The whistleblower lawsuit was filed under the False Claims Act, which allows whistleblowers protection from retaliation as well as a potential recovery if the suit is successful. After the plaintiff brought forward his concerns of overpayment, the government argued that ULA had overbilled for labor costs on numerous occasions.

The whistleblower suit ended in a settlement, in which ULA agreed to pay more than $430,000. The whistleblower will receive over $82,000 as a part of that settlement. The company did not acknowledge wrongdoing as part of that settlement.

The False Claims Act also allows the government to seal cases until government agencies have completed an investigation. When the settlement agreement was achieved, the lawsuit was unsealed.

Within this whistleblower lawsuit, the plaintiff pursued damages of three times the true amount of fraud carried out by the companies. He also argued for double his lost wages after he was terminated from ULA.

Whistleblowers maintain protections when they come forward with a reasonable belief that fraud has occurred. When this fraud is reported to the authorities or to a supervisor at the company, that employer is prohibited from taking retaliatory action against the employee.

This was not the first time that claims were lodged against ULA. In December of 2016, the company settled a claim for $100,000 over allegations that a contractor paid workers kickbacks to win contract bids. According to that whistleblower suit, the government unnecessarily paid out higher costs to a subcontractor between 2011 and 2015.

The employee who initiated the whistleblower lawsuit was responsible for the company’s treasury. He was responsible for the oversight of more than $1 million in budget. According to court documents, he was transferred in 2009 to the company’s estimation group, the purpose of which was to submit cost proposals for private projects and government jobs.

As an employee working with that group, the plaintiff’s responsibility was to ensuring that all bids matched up with federal pricing laws. Contract pricing, according to the whistleblower lawsuit, is mostly based on estimated costs. With little to no competition, the opportunity for fraud was higher, according to the lawsuit.

The whistleblower said the government ended up paying for millions of dollars worth of work that was never completed in addition to inflated labor hours.

If you or someone you know believes you have grounds for a whistleblower lawsuit, you need to set aside time to talk with the experienced lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher- fill out the form on this page to learn more about your options.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Prop. 65 Updates Include California Lumber

Tue, 06 Feb 2018 06:08:49 GMT

Companies who sell lumber in California will need to consider including and/or updating warnings about dangerous chemicals in their products.

By August of 2018, Prop. 65 updates will require lumber that contains chemicals known to cause cancer, reproductive problems, or birth defects to include a warning label that meets more rigorous standards. The Prop. 65 update requires warning labels to include the name or names of the chemical included in the product. Previously, Prop. 65 warnings could be more generic.

Additionally, the Prop. 65 update will require clearer indications that the product not only contains listed chemicals but also that consumers will be exposed to the chemical or chemicals.

A small triangular yellow warning symbol will also need to be included along with the Prop. 65 warning website, www.P65Warnings.ca.gov .

Wood dust was included in the list of Prop. 65 chemicals known to cause cancer, reproductive harm, and/or birth defects in 1986 when the law was enacted. When enacted, Prop. 65, also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, did not require companies to specify the chemicals included in their product that could cause consumers harm.

The Prop. 65 update changed these standards to help consumers make more informed decisions about the products they purchase and use.

Prop 65 Warnings

Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, commonly known as Prop 65, a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, reproductive, or developmental problems is published by the State. There are more than 800 chemicals listed under Prop 65 currently.

Warnings must be provided to California consumers about products that contain chemicals listed under Prop. 65. These Prop. 65 updates to the warning requirements will be implemented in August of 2018. California Governor Brown stated that the new warning requirements will provide a more scientific basis for the labeling and 70% of Californians agree according to a recent poll by UC Davis.

Prop. 65 warnings must be provided to consumers before they are exposed to the chemical. Under the Prop. 65 updates, warnings will need to provide the name of the listed chemical. Companies who use listed chemicals in their products can also lower the amount of chemical used in the product to acceptable levels to come into compliance with the law. Companies who fail to do so or who fail to properly warn consumers can be hit with a Prop 65 warning letter from the State Attorney General or a concerned citizen.

Prop. 65 is a complex law to navigate. After being warned about Prop. 65 chemicals, companies have a window of time to resolve the issue or face additional litigation. Additionally, the State Attorney General must be notified of any Prop. 65 warning letters.

The attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher are currently investigating Prop 65 claims. If you are concerned about chemicals in the products you use, contact them today .

Disability Benefits Plan ERISA Suit Filed

Mon, 05 Feb 2018 06:12:24 GMT

A former employee of Aria Health has initiated an ERISA suit after being denied disability benefits for an eye condition. At the time of the application for disability benefits, the plaintiff received a diagnosis of wet age-related macular degeneration of the right eye.

ERISA Suit Filed for Disability Benefits

When the plaintiff received her diagnosis of the eye condition in 2014, she expected to be covered by her long-term disability benefits. When she was diagnosed with the condition, she began to receive short-term disability benefits from February through July of that year. When her longer term benefits were denied, however, she filed an ERISA suit .

At the conclusion of her short term disability benefits package, the insurance company initiated long term benefits from August of 2014 through November of 2016. On November 1 ^st , 2016, the plaintiff received a letter notifying her that her long term disability benefits claim was denied.

The ERISA lawsuit states that the plaintiff was legitimately unable to work due to a disability diagnosis and should not have had the disability benefits terminated. The insurance company stated that there was a lack of evidence to support the employee’s functional impairment.

The employee alleges that she was no longer able to work as a result of her condition and Aria improperly denied her claim. Furthermore, the employee says that the severity of her condition prevented her from holding any gainful employment and therefore should have been covered by the long term disability benefits plan.

Upon being notified that her benefits would not be provided to her, the employee filed an appeal immediately. In October of 2017, the employee was informed that the company chose to uphold their decision to deny the benefits.

Ultimately, the employee had to file an ERISA suit in order to recover the support she needed under the plan provided by the employer. The ERISA suit says that despite clear medical evidence from the employee’s doctor that her macular degeneration made her unable to work, the insurance company denied her application for disability benefits.

The original decision from the doctor came in 2014, and, according to the lawsuit, the doctor also provided additional details to support the diagnosis in 2016. The employee’s doctor determined that the plaintiff should not go back to work because of blurred vision, vision distortion with computers, decreased depth perception, and blurred vision in the right eye.

The ERISA suit alleges that in the denial of these owed benefits that the defendants are in violation of federal laws. ERISA regulates retirement and pension plans across the U.S., allowing those who believe plan administrators or managers are in violation to initiate legal action.

As argued in this ERISA suit and others, the improper denial of long term disability benefits may be raised as grounds for recovery through the courts. If you or someone you know believes that you have grounds to initiate an ERISA suit due to violations, you need to schedule a consultation with the lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher today- fill out the form on this page .

The ERISA suit is Abraham v. Unum Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00004-MAK, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Google Gets Temporary Relief From Wage and Hour Claims

Mon, 05 Feb 2018 06:11:02 GMT

Wage and hour claims based on alleged sex bias at Google were recently dismissed, but plaintiffs will be given a second chance over claims that women were being less for the same work and being offered fewer promotion chances at the tech giant.

Judge in California Says New Complaint Must Be Filed With Google Wage and Hour Claims

A state judge in California has dismissed class action claims. According to the judge, the wage and hour claims lawsuit alleged that it represented all women in California who worked for Google; however, the plaintiffs could not represent such a class.

The plaintiffs were given the chance to file a new complaint within a 30-day period. The plaintiffs will need to narrow their wage and hour claims to only those women who allegedly suffered pay discrimination at the hands of Google.

Three women came together to initiate the wage and hour claims lawsuit against Google in September. The plaintiffs say that they will file a new complaint for those women who experienced pay discrimination.

While this is the first wage and hour claims suit against Google based on pay discrimination, it’s not the first against a tech company. The Department of Labor already initiated a suit against Oracle America based on allegations that the company paid white men more than minorities or women holding similar jobs.

Twitter and Microsoft are also facing lawsuits drawn from allegations of sex bias. One Qualcomm lawsuit of wage and hour claims was settled last year for more than $19 million.

The three women who came forward to start the sex bias wage and hour claims lawsuit against Google are a former manager, a communications specialist, and a previous software engineer for the company.

Those women allege that they are not the only ones who have suffered pay discrimination at the company. They allege that state labor laws were violated because women were paid less and provided fewer promotion opportunities.

In response to the wage and hour claims, Google says that their employment decisions are based entirely by promotion and hiring committees, the members of which are carefully vetted to remove bias.

The judge who currently reviewed the materials submitted by the plaintiffs said that the paperwork was too vague, and that in order to proceed, they must show that specific groups of women were negatively affected by sex bias practices.

The judge also said that two of the female plaintiffs had not provided enough material to support their allegation that they were involved in substantially similar work as men who received higher pay.

The U.S. Department of Labor has already opened an investigation into Google’s practices to determine whether or not gender bias affects pay.

If you or someone you know has been negatively impacted by illegal wage and hour practices, you need to consult with the experienced lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher- fill out the form on this page to learn more.

The wage and hour claims lawsuit is Ellis v. Google, Case No. CGC-17-561299, filed in the California Superior Court in San Francisco County.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Diestel Turkey Ranch Tries to Dodge False Advertising Claims

Fri, 02 Feb 2018 06:15:27 GMT

Consumers who lodged a false advertising claims lawsuit are waiting to hear whether or not a judge will grant the defendant’s request to throw the suit out. The lawsuit alleged that a large turkey producer, Diestel, was not truthful about how the birds on their farms are raised. False advertising claims like this one may prompt the company to update their marketing materials. The costs associated with a false advertising claims lawsuit can be quite high and many are settled outside of court.

An animal rights group in the Bay Area known as Direct Action Everywhere filed the lawsuit in early 2016 along with a consumer who believes that the marketing tactics by the company are proof of false advertising claims that deceived consumers.

False Advertising Claims Suit Pinpoints Animal Rights

The specific phrases named in the false advertising claims lawsuit include “range grown”, “thoughtfully raised”, and “slow grown.” The animal rights group alleges their a 2015 video captured by them reveals abusive practices towards the turkeys.

A sample testing of the turkeys, as alleged in a 2017 amended complaint, says that the turkeys tested positive for antibiotics and other drugs like ketamine. The company fought back against that complaint by saying that the USDA regulates those matters and had already approved the labels under question.

The lawsuit asks for punitive and monetary damages in addition to the discontinuation of labels that say things like “thoughtfully raised” in any of the marketing materials for the company. The company believes that since the animal rights organization doesn’t support meat production or consumption of any type that the turkey ranch is being unfairly targeted by the false advertising claims. The company denies abuse of the turkeys and any false advertising claims that they are using marketing statements not in line with the truth.

The turkey ranch was originally established in 1949 and provides turkeys throughout California, including at many Whole Foods locations. The company says that their track record in producing high-quality turkeys raised under good conditions speaks for itself. Their website also says that they have consistently received a 5+ rating from the Global Animal Partnership, an organization that carries out audits over the course of the year.

The company, in their response to the false advertising claims, says that they only send turkeys to the Sonora farm for processing after slaughter. The false advertising claims lawsuit, however, says that the company is not being truthful about the conditions under which the birds are raised. The lawsuit says the birds are raised in “deplorable conditions.”

A previous settlement with the company involved their on-site commercial use pens on the Sonora ranch location because the turkey ranch was accused of spilling poultry manure into a nearby creek. That creek connected to the Phoenix Lake Reservoir. The company responded to the statements in that report leading to the settlement by saying that the statements were taken out of context.

The company’s website also contains marketing that states the turkeys are never given growth stimulants, antibiotics, or hormones.

If you or someone you know believes you have grounds for a false advertising claims lawsuit, you need to speak with the lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher- fill out the form on this page to learn more.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

ERISA Quadriplegic Woman Injured in Catastrophic Accident on Mission to Recover

Fri, 02 Feb 2018 06:14:02 GMT

Three years after a catastrophic accident that left her a quadriplegic , a former member of the Air Force is now finally able to feed herself. The road to recovery is long and she says she will still in need or more therapy for a long time.

Catastrophic Accident Halts Business and Life Plans for Air Force Member

The injured woman was in India studying to become a yoga instructor when she was thrown from a vehicle in a catastrophic accident in November of 2014. She became a quadriplegic as a result of that incident and has spent years recovering.

Her spinal cord was severed in the catastrophic accident. She and her spouse had to use their retirement funds in full to return to the U.S. The cost for the materials to outfit their home in addition to her medication has already topped $2 million. Since she was an Air Force veteran, the VA has covered approximately 90% of those costs, but she and her family face life long medical expenses in her road to recovery. Her parents have become her full time caregivers.

Recently, donors banded together to raised $25,000 to send her to an intensive therapy program specifically for spinal cord injuries. State of the art equipment and machines are used with the goal of restoring patient body function as much as possible.

The victim of the catastrophic accident has completed one phase of that program but will have to go back for round two at a cost of an additional $25,000. Until she’s able to go back, doctors recommended she continue the therapy at home. A strict diet and daily stretching is designed to take her therapy as far as possible.

The woman says she knows there is a long road ahead, but her goal is to someday walk again.

The High Cost of Catastrophic Injuries

Unfortunately, for many victims of catastrophic accidents like this one, life will never be the same. Getting through one day, much less pursuing business dreams of owning a yoga studio or traveling, may be out of reach entirely without intensive therapy an medical care.

If a catastrophic accident causes injuries like a traumatic brain injury or spinal cord damage, extensive medical treatment may be necessary. The medical bills and other expenses can pile up, putting additional stress on family members already trying to do their best in a difficult situation.

If there’s not enough health insurance to cover the costs of a serious accident that leads to spinal cord paralysis, the victim and their family might face a dire financial situation or even bankruptcy. If the injury was caused by the fault or negligence of another, turning to legal action might be the only way for victims to get the help they need after a catastrophic accident to get the compensation needed to pay for lost wages, medical expenses, and other damage costs.

If you or someone you know has suffered life-changing injuries in a serious accident, you need to set aside a time to talk to the experienced lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher– fill out the form on this page to learn more about your legal rights and next steps.

Biomet Hip Implant Lawsuit Filed

Thu, 01 Feb 2018 06:19:29 GMT

A Biomet hip implant lawsuit has recently been filed by a patient who received the implant and allegedly suffered severe injuries. The number of hip implant injury lawsuits has been on the rise in recent years following claims from patients about severe side effects and dangers that they say they were never warned about.

Biomet Hip Implant Lawsuit Argues Manufacturers Are Responsible

The Biomet hip implant lawsuit comes about as a result of claims from injured patients who say the defendants knew about the risks of the product but failed to warn the public and the medical community.

According to the Biomet hip implant lawsuit, the defendants were aware of the problems for five years with the M2A-Magnum Hip Replacement System. Those claims say that the manufacturers of the product knew that their device would fail years before it was supposed to but instead of warning patients left them paying the price in the form of severe injuries.

The lawsuit goes on to argue that the device makers knew that the socket and ball bearings that are a primary component of the Biomet hip implant would break down and cause metal debris to travel throughout the patient’s body over a long period of time. Surrounding tissue and bone can be negatively affected by these issues.

The Biomet hip implant lawsuit says that the manufacturers have forced the patients to unnecessarily endure pain and suffering. Further, many of those who received the hip implant had to undergo painful revision surgery, facing additional medical risks and expenses.

Some of the symptoms reported by those who came forward to file the Biomet hip implant lawsuit include lack of mobility, inflammation, pain and suffering, death to bone and surrounding tissue, and surgery required to replace those devices. Revision surgery carries the risk of infection and other complications.

Many of the patients who are participating in the lawsuit against the implant manufacturers allege that the makers knew about the problems but went to great lengths to falsely minimize those dangers.

This led to many patients, according to adverse event reports and lawsuits, having to report back to their doctors about sudden unexplained pain. When revision surgery was presented as an option, the patients were then forced to consider the pros and cons of going that route.

The costs of dealing with these unexpected side effects can be a lot to bear, according to the lawsuit, both from the perspective of the medical costs and missed time at work in addition to the psychological toll.

If you or your loved one suffered complications from a Biomet hip implant, contact an attorney today . The attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher are currently investigating Biomet hip implant lawsuits.

The Biomet hip implant injury lawsuit is Endecott v. Biomet Orthopedics et al, Case. No. 3:17-cv-00-664-RLM-MGG, filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Indiana.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

$4.3M Award in Medicare Fraud Lawsuit Upheld

Thu, 01 Feb 2018 06:18:15 GMT

The sentences for two former employees of a home healthcare company, along with a $4.3 million verdict, were upheld by a higher court over allegations of Medicare fraud.

Medicare Fraud Lawsuit Outcome Upheld

Two employees of Medicall Physicians Group Ltd., Rick Brown and Mary Talaga, had been sentenced to 87 and 45 months in prison for their part in a scheme to defraud the federal government by overbilling Medicare. The owner of the healthcare company pled guilty in the Medicare fraud lawsuit , but the two employees maintained their innocence. They were found guilty, but appealed arguing the district court had incorrectly calculated their sentences.

The Seventh Circuit disagreed with the employees, upholding their years-long sentences, along with the $4.3 million verdict in the Medicare fraud lawsuit.

“With respect to Mr. Brown, the district court properly calculated the guidelines range, recognized its ability to depart from the Guidelines, considered all of the … factors, and imposed a sentence that was thirty-four months below the guidelines range — a sentence that the court characterized as ‘a significant downward variance,’” noted the panel in their opinion over the matter. “The court noted that four factors prevented it from departing further: the duration of the scheme, the amount of the fraud, the need for general deterrence, and Mr. Brown’s failure to accept responsibility.”

The opinion acknowledged Brown’s argument that the length of his sentence would not act to deter others from committing Medicare fraud; however, they pointed out the district court’s determination otherwise that Medicare fraud is prevalent in the home healthcare industry.

“The district court was entitled to conclude that, given that health-care fraud is widespread and that therefore there is a lower likelihood of getting caught, a serious penalty was necessary to ensure deterrence,” noted the opinion. “At sentencing, the Government specifically brought to the district court’s attention that ‘the Medicare program has imposed a moratorium on additional companies joining the program to provide home healthcare services because it is — the fraud in the area is so prevalent.’”

The other employee, Mary Talaga, asserted that she do not have enough knowledge of the scheme to support her 45 month sentence; however, evidence in the Medicare fraud lawsuit showed that she had years of experience in the industry and should have known what was happening.

“Ms. Talaga was an experienced Medicare biller when she arrived at Medicall,” pointed out the opinion in the Medicare fraud lawsuit. “There was testimony that she performed her work quickly, that she knew how to re-code rejected claims so that they would be paid, and that she trained other staff. The district court reasonably concluded that, based on Ms. Talaga’s training and experience, she would have recognized … that these claims were fraudulent.”

Medicare and Medicaid fraud deprives these important health care programs for the most vulnerable and costs American taxpayers money. If you work in healthcare and are concerned about Medicare or Medicaid fraud, contact the experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher.

The Medicare Fraud Lawsuits are U.S. v. Rick E. Brown and U.S. v. Mary C. Talaga, Case No. 15-3117 and 15-3261, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Manufacturers of Air Fresheners Receive Prop 65 Violation Notice

Wed, 31 Jan 2018 06:21:11 GMT

A new Prop 65 violation notice has been handed out to manufacturers of air freshener products. Prop 65 is an official California law that regulates how manufacturers must share information about the inclusion of toxic or dangerous chemicals inside consumer products.

A Prop 65 violation notice might include one or more chemicals inside a product about which consumers may not realize the dangers. Multiple chemicals inside one product, however, can also be included on one violation notice.

Prop 65 Violation Notice Affects Those Companies Selling Impacted Air Freshener

Makers of products that contain chemicals listed on the Prop 65 notification have to affix a clear and reasonable warning to the label of the product to notify consumers about the potential risks of using it and being exposed to those chemicals.

A consumer or other individual who identifies that there are chemicals about which there is no reasonable warning attached could initiate a Prop 65 violation notice. If the companies named in the letter do not have a response that acknowledges the dangers of the product in question in a timely fashion, the consumer or organization providing the initial notice may file a lawsuit.

Multiple Chemicals Named in Recent Air Freshener Prop 65 Notice

A Prop 65 violation letter of 60 days of notice of intent to sue was sent due to an alleged violation of California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Prop 65. The included violators on the notice are those who sell air fresheners in their stores in California without providing a reasonable and clear warning that those products, when used by consumers, expose consumers and all individuals in the area to dangerous chemicals.

According to the Prop 65 violation notice, the air freshener products contain acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and pentachlorophenol. Those chemicals are known to cause cancer and are listed on Prop 65 as a result. Furthermore, there are chemicals known to cause reproductive toxicity, including EGEE, EGEEA, ethylene glycol monomethyl ether and ethylene oxide included in the air fresheners.

The Prop 65 violation notice accuses the manufacturers and sellers of the air freshener products for making them from at least July 2005 until the present day. The Prop. 65 violation notice was sent to several major retail stores, including Walgreens, Albertsons, Home Depot, Target, Costco, Lowe’s, and Walmart.

Any individual can bring forward a private action if he or she believes that a violator is making chemicals without providing a reasonable warning. In recent years, consumers and other organizations raising awareness about Prop 65 have helped to address manufacturer violations of the law that could have exposed consumers to risks without proper knowledge.

Manufacturers may either rethink the makeup of the product or affix a proper warning to the exterior of the product to alert consumers about the chemicals inside that may be listed on Prop 65.

If you or someone you know believes that you have grounds to initiate a Prop 65 violation notice for any reason, you should consult with an experienced attorney at Bradley/Grombacher- you can learn more about filing a lawsuit against a company you believe to be in violation by filling out the form on this page .

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Allianz Will Pay $12M to Settle Erisa Class Action Lawsuit

Tue, 30 Jan 2018 08:57:01 GMT

Allianz Asset Management has agreed to pay $12 million to settle a 2015 lawsuit that alleged the company violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

According to the lawsuit, Allianz violated the law protecting workers’ retirement funds by engaging in self-dealing. The plaintiffs said that Allianz used 401(k) assets for their own financial benefit.

Now, Allianz will pay $12 million into a benefit fund for plan participants as part of the ERISA settlement . The $12 million will be allocated to members based on their account balances during the time of the alleged ERISA violations.

The ERISA settlement also requires the asset management company to make administrative changes and an independent monitor be appointed to review investment lineups on a yearly basis.

“During the course of the litigation,” notes the ERISA settlement motion.” “The settling parties engaged in substantial discovery. This included production of over 160,000 pages of documents by defendants; production of additional documents by the class representatives; production of documents by non-parties; seven depositions of defense fact witnesses; depositions of each of the named plaintiffs; and one third-party fact witness deposition. In addition, the settling parties also exchanged reports from their respective experts, including three reports from plaintiffs’ experts (Ian Ayres, Ph.D., Steve Pomerantz, Ph.D., and Marcia Wagner, Esq.) and four reports from defendants’ experts (Randolph Bucklin, Ph.D., Russell Wermers, Ph.D., Raymond Kanner, and Kristen Willard, Ph.D.). All seven experts were deposed by counsel for the settling parties.”

Plan participants hit Allianz with a lawsuit alleging ERISA violations after discovering that the total plan cost for their 401(k) was 0.77 percent.

The lawsuit alleged the cost was “outrageously high for a defined contribution plan with over $500 million in assets.”

The ERISA lawsuit accused Allianz and other plan administrators of “[treating] the plan as an opportunity to promote the Allianz Family’s mutual fund business and maximize profits at the expense of the Plan and its participants.”

According to the lawsuit, Allianz violated ERISA by costing plan participants millions of dollars in excess fees every year. Fees were 75 percent higher than the average retirement plan in the same class, alleged the plaintiffs, costing plan participants $2.5 million in excess fees in a single year, 2013.

ERISA Protections

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) provides protection for certain types of retirement and pension plans as well as for disability insurance, life insurance and health plans. Under the law, companies that administer these plans need to meet certain requirements, called fiduciary duties. These duties include providing plan participants sufficient information about the plan, setting standards for participation, vesting and accrual, oversight and accountability, and meeting standards of conduct.

ERISA also provides plan participants the right to file a lawsuit against plan administrators if they breach their fiduciary duties.

The Allianz ERISA Lawsuit is Urakhchin, et al. v. Allianz Asset Management of America, L.P., et al ., Case No. 8:15-cv-01614-JLS-JCG, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

If you are concerned about the management of your retirement or pension plan, contact an experienced ERISA attorney at Bradley/Grombacher today.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Delivery Driver Files Lawsuit Over Unpaid Breaks, Overtime, FLSA Violations

Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:22:47 GMT

A New York man alleges that JD Beverage Corp. violated wage and hour laws by failing to allow for meal breaks, pay overtime, or keep accurate records and provide itemized wage statements to workers.

Plaintiff Christian P. alleges in his wage and hour lawsuit that while working as a delivery driver, the company continually committed FLSA violations , including:

Failure to pay overtime compensation
Failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked
Failure to provide proper meal periods
Failure to maintain employment records

The plaintiff says that he started working as a delivery driver for JD Beverage in 2007. JD Beverage is a wholesale distributor of Arizona Beverages USA. He says that he received no training and for 10 years he delivered AriZona products on Long Island.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff was paid a flat rate – $150 a day for delivering less than 350 cases of beverages and $200 a day for delivering more. He says that he worked between 12 and 16 hours a day, five days a week.

That changed in 2010, notes the lawsuit. From 2010 until 2013, the plaintiff says he worked 68 hours a week and was paid $875 each week. Then, between 2013 and 2017, the plaintiff says that he consistently worked no less than 56 hours a week for $700 a week.

The plaintiff alleges that during this time he was entitled to overtime pay for work in excess of 40 hours a week, but JD beverage committed FLSA violations by paying only the flat rate without accounting for the time and a half he was owed for working more than 40 hours each week.

JD Beverage committed further FLSA violations by failing to keep employment records. The plaintiff says that he was paid solely in cash and JD Beverage reported his income as only $250 per week. Additionally, alleges the plaintiff, the company refused to pay him for work he did after he notified them of his resignation in December 2017.

In addition to the FLSA violations, the plaintiff alleges that JD Beverage violated New York State employment laws. The plaintiff says that he is entitled to back pay on behalf of himself and other JD Beverage delivery drivers.

FLSA Violations

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act and various state laws entitle workers to certain rights, such as overtime pay, rest and meal breaks, and the right to a minimum wage. The law also requires employers to keep accurate employment records. However, employers try to skirt these employment laws sometimes.

Employers may misreport or underreport the hours worked by non-exempt employees by requiring them to clock-in or out early or skip breaks, but still record them. Employers may also instruct employees to continue working beyond 40 hours a week, but not pay them for their time.

The JD Beverage FLSA Violations Lawsuit is Christian P. v. J.D. Beverage Corp., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00118-DRH-GRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

It can be difficult for an employee to stand up to an employer violating the FLSA or state employment laws. Bradley/Grombacher attorneys are investigating wage and hour claims. Contact them today if you are concerned about your rights.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Nature’s Way Faces Coconut Oil False Advertising Lawsuit

Mon, 29 Jan 2018 09:09:29 GMT

Nature’s Way was hit with a class action lawsuit alleging its coconut oil is falsely marketed as “healthy.”

Lead plaintiff, Sherry Hunter, alleged in her class action lawsuit that Nature’s Way engaged in coconut oil false advertising when it told consumers its product was “inherently healthy.”

The plaintiff says that while coconut oil is 100 percent fat, 93 percent of it being saturated fat, Nature’s Way says its Extra Virgin Coconut Oil is “ideal for exercise and weight loss programs.”

Hunter says that the coconut oil is falsely advertised as a healthy alternative to butter, margarine, and other cooking oils.

“These claims, taken individually and in context of the label as a whole, misleadingly imply, by affirmative representations and material omissions, that Nature’s Way Extra Virgin Coconut Oil is healthy, when it is not,” alleges the class action lawsuit.

The false advertising lawsuit alleges that Hunter and other consumers were duped into buying Nature’s Way Extra Virgin Coconut Oil because they thought it would be healthier for them based on the labeling of the product.

The plaintiff seeks to represent herself and others in the lawsuit against Nature’s Way. She is seeking damages, as well as an injunction stopping the company from falsely advertising its coconut oil.

Nature’s Way attempted to trim the class action, saying the plaintiff had not adequately shown that there should be an injunction against them. The food manufacturer argued that the plaintiff had not established that she was waiting for them to fix their coconut oil false advertising claims to start buying the product again; however, a federal court judge said that the plaintiff could amend her complaint.

“At this stage in the proceedings, the court cannot conclude that plaintiff is precluded from alleging facts showing that she faces an imminent or actual threat of future harm that is sufficient for her to have standing to bring claims for injunctive relief,” the judge said.

False Advertising Laws

State and federal laws prohibit companies from falsely advertising their products to trick people into buying them for more than they are worth. False advertising not only harms consumers, but also honest competing companies who do not falsely advertise.

False advertising takes on several forms:

Deceptive advertising
Misleading claims
Unsubstantiated claims
Bait and switch

The Nature’s Way Coconut Oil false advertising lawsuit claims that the food producer made deceptive and misleading claims about their product – that coconut oil is “healthy” and other claims about promoting weight loss, that the plaintiff alleges are not true.

In addition to getting money back, consumers duped by false advertising for coconut oil or another product can claim unjust enrichment and ask the court to order the company to stop their misleading marketing campaign.

The Nature’s Way Coconut Oil False Advertising Lawsuit is Sherry Hunter v. Nature’s Way Products LLC, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00532, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

If you are concerned that you have been tricked by false advertising, contact the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher .

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Nurse Gets $8M for Brain Injury From Car Accident With Drunk Driver

Mon, 29 Jan 2018 09:04:36 GMT

An environmental services company agreed to pay $8 million to settle the claims of a nurse who alleged she was hit by a drunk employee of the company.

The plaintiff, Linda G., alleged that she suffered a traumatic brain injury in the 2014 car accident and will no longer be able to work as a nurse. The lawsuit says that an employee of Clean Harbors Environmental, Cary D., got drunk after consuming a bottle of alcohol in a hotel room while on a work trip and then got in a company pickup to go to a restaurant.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff was rear-ended in her Lexus by the pickup and pushed into another car while stopping at an intersection. The pickup traveled another 250 feet after the crash.

While the plaintiff suffered “a mild traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and soft tissue injuries to her back and neck,” according to a statement from the plaintiff’s attorney, the employee’s blood level was found to be nearly twice the legal limit.

“Our client sustained a closed-head injury, traumatic brain injury, and resulting symptoms from the brain injury,” a statement from the plaintiff’s attorney read. “She has lost her ability to earn a living and has trouble doing normal daily activities we all take for granted.”

According to the lawsuit, Clean Harbor had been contracted to work in the area. Its employees were staying at an extended-stay hotel and the hotel clerk had been instructed to provide keys to the company pickup upon request.

“Clean Harbors completely failed to do that with respect to the (F-250 pickup), opting instead to give the keys to a hotel clerk who did not even work for Clean Harbors,” alleged the lawsuit.

The employee agreed to a plea deal regarding criminal charges related to the drunk driving accident.

Further, according to the lawsuit, Clean Harbor employees had been killed in an unrelated drunk driving accident in 2013.

The plaintiff alleged in her lawsuit that she suffered catastrophic personal injuries, including the brain injury and back and neck injuries, as well as emotional trauma and lost earnings. The lawsuit went to trial, but before the jury began deliberating, the parties settled the case for $8 million.

Catastrophic Personal Injuries

Catastrophic personal injuries can be devastating. People who suffer these injuries may need a lifetime of medical care. They may also suffer lost earnings and even a shorter life expectancy. In addition to brain injuries, catastrophic personal injuries include broken bones, amputations, disfigurement, burns, and spinal cord injuries.

It may be possible to file a lawsuit for catastrophic personal injuries that occur because of the recklessness or negligence of another person or party. Those injured and their loved ones can claim damages in a personal injury lawsuit that can help they pay for medical care and other expenses. They can also claim damages for future expenses, including lost earnings.

If you or a loved one suffered a brain injury or other catastrophic personal injury at the hands of another, contact the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher to evaluate your claim.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Indiana Doctors Accused of Medicaid Fraud Scheme, Overbilling for Urine Samples

Fri, 26 Jan 2018 09:18:41 GMT

Authorities have come forward to allege a Medicaid fraud scheme involving more than $1.1 million in urine samples in Indiana. The two doctors are accused of defrauding the Indiana Medicaid program because they were over prescribing pain-killing medications that led to far too many patient deaths and overdoses.

Medicaid Fraud Scheme Involves Unnecessary Collection of Urine Samples

The physicians immediately surrendered their licenses in the Medicaid fraud scheme. They also stopped practicing medicine and prescribing drugs in 2013 after a state criminal investigation identified their fraudulent opioid prescription scheme.

The Medicaid fraud scheme involved more than 6,400 fraudulent claims to Medicaid involving totals of more than $1.1 million in illegal charges in Indiana. The physicians operated clinics in Kokomo and Burlington and defrauded Medicaid in the health care fraud scheme by exaggerating the number of urine samples collected and analyzed at the facility.

The claim was filed against the companies in the U.S. District Court in Northern District of Indiana, accusing the doctors of developing a comprehensive scheme to get as much money as possible from the state Medicaid program for billings that never should have existed in the first place.

Medicaid False Claims Often Shared by Whistleblowers

The government refers to these kinds of actions as false claims, and if discovered, these cases may lead to civil and criminal penalties. While the government has investigation teams to ferret out Medicaid fraud, many cases are brought to the government’s attention by a whistleblower, likely an employee in the company who became aware of the fraud.

In certain cases, whistleblowers will receive a portion of any recovered funds in a Medicaid fraud claim.

The false claims were submitted from 2011 to 2013, according to authorities. Each allegation involved billings of $171.21 for each patient. Medicaid rules, however, allowed the physicians to only bill $20.93 for each patient. The pair allegedly concealed the health care fraud scheme by claiming that they obtained at least nine urine samples from every patient, even though they only truly collected one.

State laws and federal laws allow authorities and any individual who becomes aware of Medicaid fraud schemes to recover as much as three times the amount of fraudulent and false medical claims. This is in addition to the civil penalties in any case which can rack up between $5,500 to $11,000 for every individual false claim. The maximum that could be charged to the doctors in this health care fraud scheme is over $70 million.

The 2013 criminal investigation handled by the state led to felony drug dealing convictions for one of the physicians due to the opioid prescription practices in the facility. The other person named in that case was ultimately found unable to stand trial due to memory loss and declining cognitive functions.

Any whistleblower who becomes aware of Medicaid fraud schemes and other indications of illegal activity may come forward and share it with the authorities without fear of retaliation. In certain situations, whistleblowers may also be entitled to recover damages if the case is ultimately successful. If you believe you have grounds for a whistleblower case, you should consult with the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher. Fill out the form on this page to learn more.

Nexium Lawsuit Says PPI Side Effects Ignored by Drug Maker

Fri, 26 Jan 2018 09:15:12 GMT

A lawsuit alleges that drug maker AstraZeneca failed to appropriately warn the public about the side effects of its popular heartburn medication Nexium.

PPI side effects include renal failure and kidney disease, says a Louisiana man in a lawsuit alleging he suffered renal failure after taking Nexium; however, AstraZeneca disregarded these side effects on the labeling of the drug, alleges the lawsuit.

“In omitting, concealing, and inadequately providing critical safety information regarding the use of Nexium in order to induce its purchase and use, Defendants engaged in and continue to engage in conduct likely to mislead consumers,” alleges the lawsuit.

AstraZeneca has garnered billions from the sale of Nexium, alleges the lawsuit. “More than 15 million Americans used prescription PPIs in 2013, costing more than $10 billion,” says the plaintiff. “However, it has been estimated that between 25% and 70% of these prescriptions have no appropriate indication.”

According to the Nexium lawsuit, the plaintiff began taking the drug in 2012 and continued to take it until 2015. He says at that point he suffered renal failure, a condition affecting the kidneys and a known PPI side effect. Other PPI side effects are acute interstitial nephritis, acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal failure.

However, alleges the lawsuit, these known PPI side effects are not included on the warning label of Nexium, so doctors and patients are not aware of the risks.

“During the period in which Nexium has been sold in the United States, hundreds of reports of injury have been submitted to the FDA in association with ingestion of Nexium and other PPIs,” alleges the Nexium lawsuit.

“Defendants have had notice of serious adverse health outcomes through case reports, clinical studies and post-market surveillance. Specifically, Defendants had received numerous case reports of kidney injuries in patients that had ingested Nexium by as early as 2004. These reports of numerous kidney injuries put Defendants on notice as to the excessive risks of kidney injuries related to use of Nexium. However, Defendants took no action to inform Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s physicians of this known risk. Instead, Defendants continued to represent that Nexium did not pose any risks of kidney injury.”

The lack of warnings about PPI side effects on Nexium labels dupes the public into thinking the heartburn drug is safe. The lack of warnings also leads to continued use of the drug, the Nexium lawsuit states.

“Recent studies have shown the long-term use of PPIs was independently associated with a 20% to 50% higher risk of incident chronic kidney disease,” alleges the plaintiff.

Recent studies show that there are high risks associated with Nexium and other PPI drugs in general as well.

“A study from 2015 shows that acute kidney injuries increased 250% in elderly patients that were newly prescribed PPIs. The acute kidney injuries occurred with 120 days of the patients staring the PPIs,” points out the lawsuit.

Further, alleges the Nexium lawsuit, there are many safe alternative treatments for heartburn – some available over-the-counter.

The Nexium Lawsuit it James M. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-17903, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

If you or a loved one suffered from PPI side effects, contact the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher to evaluate your claim.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Walmart Gets Prop 65 Warning Letter Over Halloween Costumes

Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:26:10 GMT

Walmart and costume manufacturer, Be Wicked Inc., have been warned about dangerous chemicals in costumes, accessories and the cases containing them, according to a notice letter.

According to the Prop 65 warning letter, the Be Wicked vinyl costumes and costume accessory storage cases contain toxic chemicals that can cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive harm and are listed under the California consumer protection law. The letter warns that Walmart and Be Wicked need to either notify their consumers about the chemicals in their vinyl costume products or reduce levels of the chemicals.

The chemicals included in the vinyl costumes listed under California’s Proposition 65 are di(2-ethylhexl)phthalate (DEHP) and di(isononyl)phthalate (DINP), notes the warning letter. They have been sold since at least 2015 and can cause harm by ingestion, dermal exposure, or inhalation.

“California citizens, through the act of buying, acquiring or utilizing the products, are exposed to the listed chemical,” states the vinyl costume warning letter.

The warning letter also notes that the vinyl costumes sold by Walmart that may contain the dangerous chemicals include Be Wicked Wigs and Costumes in all colors and sizes, as well as the storage cases they are sold in.

According to the vinyl costume warning letter, Walmart and Be Wicked need to recall the product already sold or make efforts to recontact those who have already purchased the products and warn them about the potential for health hazards.

Additionally, the Be Wicked vinyl costume products, including their storage cases, need to either be reformulated or warnings need to be provided to consumers about the lead content. The companies must also pay a civil fine over the vinyl costumes, says the warning letter.

A California citizen sent the warning letter “to promote awareness of exposures to toxic chemicals in products sold in California and, if possible, to improve human health by reducing hazardous substances contained in such items.”

The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act

Proposition 65, also known as The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, was enacted in 1986. Chemicals known to cause cancer, reproductive or developmental problems are identified and published by the State of California each year. More than 800 chemicals are listed under The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act.

The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act also requires that companies using chemicals listed under the law as hazardous to human health must warn consumers about the potential for exposure. These companies can also try to reduce the chemical or chemicals to acceptable levels.

Concerned Californians can send Prop 65 warning letters to companies about toxic chemicals in their products. Companies have a window of time to resolve the issue or they could face additional litigation, under the law. Californians who wish to send a Prop 65 warning letter must also properly notify the state government.

If you are concerned about exposure to toxic chemicals listed under Prop 65, the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher are currently investigating Prop 65 claims and can evaluate your claim.

ERISA Self-Dealing Lawsuit Settled With Allianz

Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:39:48 GMT

An ERISA self-dealing lawsuit has recently been settled with Allianz. More than $12 million in monetary contributions were alleged in this ERISA self-dealing lawsuit. In addition to monetary contributions needing to be paid back into the account, administrative charges and the appointment of an independent monitor to serve on behalf of the investment line up was included in the settlement.

ERISA Self-Dealing Lawsuit Claims Breach of Fiduciary Duty

The settlement motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. This claim of an ERISA self-dealing fiduciary breach dates back to 2015. Any managers of a plan must act in the best interests of the parties on the plan, but those bringing forth the lawsuit argue Allianz plan managers instead acted for their own best interests.

Two participants in the retirement plan for Allianz initially started the ERISA self-dealing lawsuit, arguing that the asset management partners and Allianz misused 401(k) plan assets for their own financial purposes. The legal claim has become the first example of an ERISA self-dealing lawsuit , which has become increasingly common with claims of fiduciary breach.

Models Used to Estimate Losses Found Millions

Within the legal claim, there were several different models used to identify the potential losses for the plan participants. The plaintiffs said they were damaged by both fiduciary duty and excessive feeds.

Two of the models to determine losses used comparable Vanguard index funds and the other two used popular funds within big 401(k) plans. Within three of those final models, the losses were between $39.5 million and $47 million. The final model estimated losses upwards of $65 million.

Under the terms of the settlement, Allianz will now have to pay more than $12 million into a common fund for the purpose of class members. Multiple depositions and the production of more than 150,000 pages of documents by defendants had already occurred by the time the ERISA self-dealing lawsuit came to a close. In June 2015, the court originally granted the plaintiffs motion for class certification, certifying a sub class seeking injunctive relief as well as one class seeking monetary relief.

Initially, Allianz moved for summary judgment in August of 2017, but the parties reached a settlement agreement in October ending the litigation.

Excessive fees were alleged in the ERISA self-dealing lawsuit affecting the overall benefits of the plan initially intended for the retirement benefit of plan participants. Allianz is now also responsible for hiring an independent investment consultant to review the investment policy statement and the investment plan line up on an annual basis for a minimum of three years.

If you or someone you know believes you have grounds for an ERISA self-dealing lawsuit, you need to schedule a time to consult with an experienced attorney. Contact the lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher to learn more. Fill out the form on this page to get further information.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Wage and Hour Lawsuit Filed Against Disney Store

Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:29:36 GMT

A plaintiff has come forward to file a wage and hour lawsuit against Disney Store USA, arguing that she deserves damages for unpaid overtime as well as minimum wages. The wage and hour lawsuit also alleges that the company engaged in retaliation when she came forward with concerns.

Wage and Hour Lawsuit Claims Unpaid Overtime

The wage and hour lawsuit argues that employees who worked more than 40 hours in a given workweek were not compensated the legal rate of one and a half times their regular pay, as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The wage and hour lawsuit also argues that the Disney Store is responsible for violating state minimum wage laws.

According to the wage and hour lawsuit, the plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, between 40 and 46 hours, but wasn’t compensated the one and a half times her regular rate while she was employed. She served as an Assistant Manager, performing similar duties to other Assistant Managers working for the Disney Company.

The wage and hour lawsuit also alleges that the plaintiff was responsible for working through her breaks.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff worked for Disney between January of 2015 and March of 2017.

The plaintiff is looking for overtime wages accumulated from the date of hire in addition to unpaid minimum wages. The wage and hour lawsuit says that Disney violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and state employment laws by failing to pay overtime wages and minimum wage.

Claims of Long Overdue Pay in Wage and Hour Lawsuit Against Disney

In September of 2016, the plaintiff raised her concerns to the company about not being paid minimum or overtime wages at the time in which she worked. The plaintiff alleges that after that point she faced retaliation – her supervisors began to harass her, allowed her to be harassed by co-workers and micromanaged her work.

Ultimately, she alleges she was discharged. She alleges that the discharge of her employment was also in retaliation for her raising concerns about wage and hour violations. The wage and hour lawsuit is looking for full compensation for the damages she sustained as a result of not being paid properly for her work under minimum wage and overtime wage legal protections.

Any employee who suspects they have been misclassified or otherwise denied legitimate overtime pay should talk with an attorney and determine eligibility for a wage and hour lawsuit. The attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher have a track record of investigating these claims seriously. If you are concerned about your rights as an employee, fill out the form on this page to learn more.

The Disney Wage and Hour Lawsuit is Wolz v. Disney, Case No. 1:17-cv-24697-RNS, filed in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida Miami Division.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

False Advertising Claims Lodged Against Prevagen Makers

Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:48:18 GMT

This is a subtitle for your new post

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Prilosec Proton Pump Inhibitor Lawsuit Filed by CA Woman

Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:44:07 GMT

Economic damages and personal injuries are made in a new Prilosec proton pump inhibitor lawsuit. According to the Prilosec proton pump inhibitor lawsuit, the defendants, or the makers of the Prilosec medication are responsible for wrongful and negligent conduct in connection with the manufacture, design, packaging, testing, distribution, and sale of the PPI drug.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Lawsuit Blames Manufacturer for Injuries

A California resident came forward to file a Prilosec proton pump inhibitor lawsuit after suffering serious injuries while taking the medication that she alleges they believed to be safe for consumer use.

Prilosec, among other proton pump inhibitors, is prescribed to many different people who are suffering from a broad range of medical conditions. When many of the affected consumers began using the medication as directed, however, they began to suffer a number of different side effects and injuries. When dangerous drugs are alleged on behalf of consumers, this could lead to a catastrophic personal injury lawsuit.

The Prilosec proton pump inhibitor lawsuit states that the Procter & Gamble company, serving on behalf of AstraZeneca LP, submitted an FDA new drug application in January of 2000 for the delayed-release tablets of Prilosec in the dosage of 50mg.

In October 2003, that medication became available over-the-counter for patient and consumer use. Proton pump inhibitors including Prilosec are some of the most commonly prescribed medications across the country. In 2013 more than $10 billion was spent on PPI medications as more than 15 million people in the United States use these prescription medications.

Common Uses for Proton Pump Inhibitors

PPIs are frequently prescribed for conditions such as acid reflux, stomach ulcers, dyspepsia, acid peptic disease, and GERD. The medications work by prohibiting the secretion of stomach acid production and minimizing hydrochloric acid in the stomach.

According to the Prilosec proton pump inhibitor lawsuit, however, use of the drug comes with serious dangers. Numerous case reports of severe kidney injuries have been filed in this and other Prilosec proton pump inhibitor lawsuits. Some of the most common problems brought forward by patients include kidney and renal failure, chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, and acute interstitial nephritis.

According to this Prilosec proton pump inhibitor lawsuit, the plaintiff in the case and other consumers were never fully warned about the severe risk of kidney injuries until it was too late and they had already developed a problem.

The connection between serious kidney issues and use of proton pump inhibitor medications was initially raised in 1992. If you or someone you know has already been negatively affected by the use of a proton pump inhibitor medication, you need to consult with an experienced attorney immediately to discuss your rights. Set up a time to talk to the experienced lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher as soon as possible - fill out the form on this page to learn more.

The Prilosec proton pump inhibitor lawsuit is Talavera v. Astrazeneca, Case no. 2:17-cd-13681-CCC-MF, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark division.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Medicare Kickback Scheme Gets Woman Four Year Sentence

Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:00:33 GMT

A $2 million scheme to defraud the federal government got a Louisiana woman 51 months in prison for orchestrating kickbacks for placements of mentally ill patients.

Federal prosecutors alleged Kim Ricard and her partner, Milton Diaz, conspired to defraud the government using a Medicare kickback scheme where Ricard and Diaz would pay home healthcare agencies to take patients causing $2 million in fraudulent billings. Ricard made $330,000 from the Medicare kickback scheme, accused prosecutors.

Ricard is accused of transferring mentally ill patients to the highest bidding home healthcare agencies. Because of her position, alleged prosecutors, she could move patients wherever she wanted and did so, regardless of the needs of the patient. Prosecutors say that the Medicare kickback scheme involved nursing homes in four states.

“As time went on, defendant Kim Ricard demanded to be paid more money and to be paid more frequently … The evidence will show that when defendant Kim Ricard wasn’t paid what she demanded, she would simply transfer the patients to the highest bidder without regard for patient care,” argued federal prosecutors in court.

Ricard’s defense lawyer argued that she did not know the scheme was wrong. “[Federal prosecutors] can’t prove that my client knew that she did anything wrong in accepting money to refer patients or bring patients to Progressive,” stated the attorney in her opening argument.

Federal prosecutors alleged, however, that Ricard’s personal relationship with the director of a psychiatric care department at a hospital allowed her to control patient care.

Ricard was convicted of one count of conspiracy to pay and receive kickbacks, three counts of receiving kickbacks, three counts of identity theft, and one count of making false statements to federal agents.

Her partner will be sentenced in April of this year. Federal prosecutors allege that he caused nearly $2 million in fraudulent Medicare billings to the federal government as a part of the illegal referrals related to the Medicare kickback scheme.

Medicare Kickbacks and Fraud

Illegal Medicare kickbacks and other fraud steal much needed money from federal programs for the poor and elderly and ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers. In addition to illegal kickbacks for referrals, Medicare fraud includes submitting false bills and overbilling.

The federal government has ramped-up efforts to combat Medicare and Medicaid fraud, but often it is a courageous whistleblower working for a healthcare organization that initiates prosecution of these illegal activities. Whistleblowers are protected from retaliation and may be entitled to an award under the federal False Claims Act for reporting fraud against the government.

Awards under the False Claims Act for successful litigation or settlement can be substantial – verdicts and settlement agreements can run into the millions for Medicare and Medicaid fraud and whistleblowers can receive 15 to 30 percent of that amount.

The Medicare Kickback Scheme Lawsuit is U.S. v. Diaz, et al., Case No. 2:15-cr-00232, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

If you are concerned about kickbacks or other illegal activity at your place of employment, contact the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher to help evaluate your claim.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Personal Injury Lawsuit Ends in $760K for Injured Skydiver

Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:51:07 GMT

An Oklahoma accident prompted a skydiver to file a personal injury lawsuit. The skydiver alleged that when the parachute malfunctioned, the she was sent uncontrollably towards the ground at an extremely fast pace. She was unable to slow down in a safe manner and sustained critical personal injuries as a result.

The 3,500-foot fall prompted the injured skydiver to file a personal injury lawsuit. The accident occurred in Chickasha in Oklahoma in 2014 when the skydiver landed in an unsafe manner – a problem she and her family argued was the result of negligent operation practices of the skydiving company.

Personal Injury Lawsuit Ends in Favor of Injured Skydiver

A federal judge in Oklahoma City has concluded the personal injury lawsuit , awarding and $760,000 in damages. The now closed skydiving business was named as responsible for paying the judgement in full. In the personal injury lawsuit, the judge awarded $10,000 for future medical expenses.

The negligence lawsuit accused the Pegasus Air Sports owner of failing to properly train the skydiver for the jump before it happened.

According to the personal injury lawsuit filed on behalf of the injured young woman, the parachute that was used in the dive was in poor condition as well as being over 30 years old. Furthermore, parachutes can vary based on their size and the previous experience of the skydiver. The personal injury lawsuit argued that the parachute was not appropriate for the plaintiff’s skill level.

More than $400,000 in future physical pain and suffering costs and $350,000 in mental pain and suffering was awarded to the plaintiff at the conclusion the personal injury lawsuit against the skydiving company.

The judge accepted the allegations that the training was inadequate and that the parachute given to her was too fast and too small for a person of her relative inexperience and young age at the time. The owner of the skydiving business named in the lawsuit claimed that he had been a skydiving instructor for more than three decades and only a few dozen of his jumpers had been injured. He said that many of those jumpers did not follow his instructions.

The company closed after two decades in business, according to the owner, so he could retire. At a hearing last month in the personal injury lawsuit, the owner of that skydiving company did not appear in court.

The young woman who was injured in the skydiving accident was a teenager at the time and traveled with her father from Texas to Oklahoma to participate in the skydiving experience since it was one of the few places that minors are permitted to skydive. The rule previously allowed 16 and 17-year-old to jump with parental consent, but the U.S. Parachuting Association has raised the minimum age.

If you or someone you know has been hurt in an accident, you need to act as soon as possible to file an injury claim.

Contact an experienced lawyer at Bradley/Grombacher if you’ve been hurt in an accident caused by another person’s negligence - fill out the form on this page to learn more.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Propoxur Named in Prop 65 Violation Over Flea Collars

Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:08:28 GMT

A toxic item at pet stores was recently named in a Propoxur Prop 65 violation notice. Unfortunately, flea and other similar medications and tools designed for use with pets can have significant risk of exposure to humans. That is why the Propoxur Prop 65 notice outlines the product known as Albertson’s Flea and Tick Collar.

Flea Collars Contain Dangerous Substance According to Prop 65 Violation Notice

Flea collars for kittens, cats, puppies, and dogs often contain toxic chemicals designed to interrupt the life cycle of the fleas. However, the highest risk ingredients present problems for humans, including development of cancer.

The EPA has named Propoxur as a likely carcinogen and it is also included on Proposition 65, the comprehensive list of dangerous chemicals that could lead to injuries for humans. The Propoxur Prop 65 notice might expose any human in the vicinity who inhales it, ingests it, or comes in other physical contact with it, at risk of developing cancer.

The Propoxur Prop 65 violation notice has recently put the makers of flea collars on alert with regard to their alleged violation of California laws. Exposure can occur via dermal contact with animals wearing flea collars that contain Propoxur in addition to any hand-to-mouth contact that follows after dermal contact.

History of Prop 65

Prop 65 is a California specific law that enables consumers and other entities to come forward with allegations of violations if they believe that manufacturers of products have not put a clear and reasonable warning about products that are reproductive toxicants or known to cause cancer. Labels must contain relevant information so that consumers can make informed decisions about whether or not to purchase a particular product.

Warning labels telling consumers about the risks of using them can be found on numerous different products, including padlocks, dishes, pesticides, and electrical wires. As consumers have taken a more active role in reporting their own concerns about Prop 65 violations, more and more companies have found themselves in receipt of a Prop 65 notice.

Given the severe risks that Propoxur carries for consumers, any consumer who identifies that Propoxur is inside a flea and tick collar or other pet medication should come forward. Consumers, safety advocates, and government agencies have all been involved in the discovery of products containing chemicals that are included in Prop 65. If the maker of that product omitted a reasonable and clear warning, a violation or other legal action can lead to compliance.

If you think you know of a company currently in violation of Prop 65, as a consumer, you should know that you have rights. You can schedule a consultation with the lawyers at Bradley/Grombache r to learn more about how to move forward after you discover a dangerous chemical on a product without the required warning.

Tech. Company Settles Erisa Lawsuit for $14M

Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:16:05 GMT

Fujitsu Technology has agreed to pay $14 million to exit a lawsuit claiming the company violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Fujitsu was hit with the ERISA lawsuit in June of 2016. The plaintiff alleged that the 401(k) plan executives selected included high fee investments as well as high cost record keeping fees – all violations of their fiduciary duties under ERISA.

The ERISA lawsuit alleges that the executives “failed to utilize the least expensive share classes for many mutual funds with the plan.” Additionally, the record-keeping fees were “far in excess of what a prudent fiduciary would pay for those same services,” according to the complaint.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company will pay $14 million.

Regarding the ERISA lawsuit settlement, a Fujitsu spokesperson stated: “The reporting we have seen so far has been based almost entirely on rote repetition of allegations in the amended complaint. Those allegations are denied in the answers filed by the defendants, to which we refer anyone interested in the real posture of this case at the time of settlement.”

“We are confident that, if this case had proceeded further, we would have prevailed against many or all of the claims against us,” the statement continued. “However, the history of cases of this nature is that they are complex and expensive to litigate, and that the resolution of them can take as long as a decade. Therefore, we came to conclude that this settlement at this time is in the best interests of everyone.”

The Fujitsu 401(k) at issue in this ERISA lawsuit, the Group Defined Contribution and 401(k) Plan, had assets of $1.35 billion in 2016.

ERISA Lawsuits

Under ERISA, workers who participate in certain pension and retirement plans, as well as insurance and disability plans, are entitled to certain protections. Those who administer ERISA covered plans must also meet certain standards regarding those plans.

ERISA requirements include:

Providing plan participants with information about the plan features and funding
Establishing minimum standards for participation, vesting, funding, and benefit accrual
Establishing codes of conduct for plan fiduciaries
Establishing methods to hold plan fiduciaries accountable
Providing plan participants the right to sue
Guaranteeing the payment of certain benefits if the plan is terminated

ERISA plan participants have the right to hold plan administrators accountable for failure to meet ERISA standards; however, the process can be complex. All plans are required to have a written procedure for processing claims and appealing the denial of a claim. A reason for the denial is required as well.

If the written procedure for claims processing is insufficient, a plan participant can file an ERISA lawsuit against the plan administrators for a judicial review of the denial.

Retirement plan administrators can also be held accountable if they incorrectly claim an exemption from ERISA. Certain organizations, such as churches, are exempt from the law; however, religiously-based health care systems have paid out million dollar settlements for incorrectly classifying itself as exempt from ERISA and underfunding their retirement plans.

If you are concerned about your benefits, contact the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher to help evaluate your claim.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Low-Income Workers Vulnerable to Wage Theft

Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:13:04 GMT

Low-income workers are the most likely to have their rights under employment laws violated, according to the Economic Policy Institute and federal agencies.

Wage theft refers to employer practices that require employees to work without pay or reduce their pay below the federally mandated minimum wage. Examples include requiring employees to work after they have been clocked out, or failing to pay overtime. The Economic Policy Institute reports that over $8 billion in wages are lost to wage theft each year.

Lower income workers in construction, warehousing, the restaurant industry have been identified as particularly vulnerable and affected by wage theft. Advocates report that those industries have high turnover and workers can be subject to intimidation by their employers – both factors that make reporting wage theft difficult.

Advocates also report that wage theft varies across states. Some states, like California, aggressively prosecute complaints. In 2015 and 2016, California recovered $117 million in wage theft settlements and litigation for workers. Connecticut and New York also report high rates return. Indiana ranks lowest, only receiving $.19 per worker for its wage theft investigation efforts.

While the severity of wage theft may vary between states, advocates say that the resources each state provides to protect workers’ rights is the most important factor. In states that do not provide many resources to investigate wage theft, workers are hesitant to report because they are fearful of retaliation, say advocates.

Wage theft class action lawsuits play an important role in stopping employers from violating employment laws and returning stolen wages to workers, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Although the states investigate and prosecute wage theft, class action lawsuits account for the lion’s share of recovery for workers.

Wage theft settlements have increased over the past few years as well, according to EPI. For example, two settlements in class action lawsuits alleging FedEx misclassified workers paid out $466 million. In total, wage and hour class action lawsuits netted $1.2 billion for workers in 2015 and 2016.

The federal Department of Labor also holds employers accountable for wage theft. The agency recovered $513 million in settlements over allegations of wage theft and violation of federal law, including the Fair Labor Standards Act in 2015 and 2016.

Wage Theft

Employees are entitled to fair wages and work environments under state and federal law. Unfortunately, as demonstrated by the EPI and government reports, many employers choose to skirt these laws in the name of the bottom line.

In addition to failure to pay minimum wage, wage theft includes taking unfair deductions from employees’ paychecks, failing to pay overtime, misclassifying employees as exempt or as independent contractors, or requiring employees to continue working without pay.

Workers are protected from retaliation for making wage theft claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. However, it can still be intimidating for an employee to make a complaint about unfair payment processes.

If you suspect wage theft, contact the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher to evaluate your claim today.

Amputees Benefit From Mirrors, Study Finds

Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:10:36 GMT

Full length mirrors may help amputees come to terms with the loss of their limb, say those who have gone through the experience and a research study.

A researcher at Texas Woman’s University has been studying the effect of mirrors on amputees’ well-being and recovery. Amputees say that the first look they get of themselves after they lose a limb can be traumatic, but, if done thoughtfully, can also be therapeutic.

“Right now, [patients] are being wheeled into elevators with mirrors and seeing themselves for the first time in a lobby on the way to the physical therapist,” the researcher told Allure . “Really, all healthcare professionals should be thinking about this.”

However, says the researcher, mirrors can be used to reintroduce amputee and other injured patients to their changed body. If amputees are properly prepared and can view themselves in private, the experience can be helpful.

The researcher looked at how amputees said they felt the first time they saw themselves in a mirror and also how they thought the experience should have happened. Some told her that they first saw their changed bodies in front of entire therapy departments. Many expressed a desire to first see their changed body in private, but, says the researcher, that desire is not often on the radar of health professionals.

“I remember having such a rush of emotions, thinking ‘This is not something you want to do in public,'” one amputee told Allure about her experience of first seeing herself in a mirror after her amputation in front of many other people.

The healing process from an amputation can be long and complex. The researcher says that her goal is to educate healthcare professionals about introducing a mirror into the healing process in an understanding way that will benefit the patient.

“It’s like a dress,” one amputee told Allure. “You don’t really know what it is going to look like until you get to that dressing room.”

Amputations: Catastrophic Personal Injuries

Losing a limb in an accident is a life-changing event. As the researcher interviewed by Allure noted, the healing process is complex and involves both physical and mental components. Amputees require extensive medical treatment, rehabilitation, and often long-term care.

Unfortunately, for some amputees injured by the fault of another, their experience can include a financial and legal component as well.

Amputees are often unable to return to their previous employment or may lose wages while they are unable to work. Medical expenses add up,

especially if long-term care is required. Further, an amputation can shorten a person’s life expectancy and affect their ability to enjoy life.

Amputations also affect a person’s family. Family members may need to care for the amputee. Additionally, they may lose the ability to engage in the same activities together.

It is important to contact an experienced personal injury attorney to help protect your legal rights if you are injured in an accident so you can focus on healing.

Contact the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today.

Coppertone SPF Falsely Advertised, Says Lawsuit

Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:06:49 GMT

Coppertone Sport High Performance is falsely advertised as having greater SPF protection than it actually provides causing consumers to overpay, says a new class action.

The plaintiff says that the SPF is falsely advertised at level 30, when tests show that the protection it provides to those having fun in the sun is much less. The plaintiff alleges that Coppertone manufacturers Bayer and Merck deliberately mislabel the product to squeeze more money out of consumers.

“Plaintiff and putative class members have been, and continue to be, injured by defendants’ pattern and practice of placing into the stream of commerce sunscreen products containing a false SPF number, and largely inflated UV protection numbers, which defendants manufactured, distributed, and sold,” alleges the Coppertone SPF false advertising lawsuit.

Both the lotion and spray versions of Coppertone Sport High Performance SPF are falsely advertised, according to the class action lawsuit.

The plaintiff says that the makers of the sunblock are trying to capitalize on recommendations that sunseekers use a protection of SPF 30 or higher. SPF 30 blocks 97 percent of the sun’s harmful rays, according to the complaint; however, independent testing of Coppertone High Performance SPF found that it only provides a maximum SPF of 14.8.

In addition to unfairly charging more for the product, the SPF false advertising also presents a health risk to consumers, according to the class action.

“With a true SPF of only 13.9 and 14.8, the sunscreens do not even meet the minimum SPF value of 15 prescribed by their own labels, thereby subjecting users — according to those labels — to an ‘increase[d] … risk of skin cancer and early skin aging,’ not to mention sunburns,” alleges the complaint.

The makers of Coppertone Sport High Performance tested the product before selling it, alleges the plaintiff, so they must have known that their labels were falsely advertising the SPF protection.

The plaintiff is seeking damages on behalf of himself and others in the state of New Jersey who purchased Coppertone Sport High Performance SPF 30 in either lotion or spray form since Nov. 2, 2011. In addition to monetary damages, the plaintiff wants an injunction stopping Bayer and Merck from falsely advertising the SPF of the sunblock.

False Advertising

Companies who engage in deceptive advertising, and make misleading and unsubstantiated claims about their products often dupe consumers into paying more for their product than it is actually worth. Consumer protection laws protect buyers from false advertising, but sometimes it is hard to detect.

Consumers can band together to hold a company responsible for false advertising using a class action lawsuit. Those who initiate a class action lawsuit for can seek damages on behalf of themselves as well as other consumers who were duped by the false advertising.

The Coppertone Sport SPF False Advertising Lawsuit is Roseman v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-13308, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

If you are concerned you have been tricked by false advertising, contact the experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher to help evaluate your claim.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

More Suffer Broken Bones in Winter

Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:18:34 GMT

Emergency rooms are reporting an increase in broken bones and fractures as temperatures plunge well below freezing, bringing ice and snow to many parts of the country.

Why People Suffer Broken Bones More Often in Winter

An increase in dangerous, icy conditions across the nation as areas receive yet another frigid blast leads more people to suffer broken bones in winter . Falls are common in parking lots or at homes.

Additionally, some populations are at increased risk of injury from a winter fall., such as:

The elderly
Those with impaired vision
Those with balance problems

During the winter holiday season, shoppers who find themselves in dark, icy parking lots are at risk of falling and breaking a bone. Additionally, those putting up or taking down holiday decorations in winter weather face a risk of injury . Hospitals report that there are nearly one million admissions for winter falls that result in injuries.

The Risks of Broken Bones in the Winter

Broken bones in winter are particularly dangerous because of the bone chilling temperatures reaching well below zero in many locations. Exposure to the elements is a real risk if a person is unable to move after a fall.

The elderly are particularly vulnerable to strains, sprains, and fractures because of falls in icy conditions. Emergency rooms in locations with a large population of elderly residents say that they are at their breaking point. Many are struggling to find resources to deal with winter related injuries.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that the leading cause of injury in the elderly are falls. Sadly, an older person dies from injuries related to a fall every 19 minutes and falls led to over 27,000 deaths in 2014.

Falls leading to broken bones in winter takes a financial toll as well. The CDC predicts that by 2020, the cost of treating injuries related to falls will reach $67.7 billion.

Avoiding Broken Bones in Winter

You can take steps to avoid falls and protect your loved ones and others from broken bones in winter.

Wear appropriate shoes for the weather
Avoid icy sidewalks and other surfaces
Keep your hands free while walking and, if necessary, use a walking stick, cane, or walker.
When dealing with decorations or home repairs, be mindful on ladders in icy conditions
Avoid excessive alcohol consumption

Any vision, strength, or balance problems should be checked out by a doctor. If you experience strength or balance problems, it may be a good idea to consider physical therapy or another program depending on your doctor’s advice. Some healthcare facilities offer fall prevention classes to help older adults.

To protect your loved ones and others from broken bones in winter, be sure to shovel your driveway and sidewalk as necessary and keep your home and property free of hazards. Offer to help the elderly or others with bulky packages or other objects if you can do so safely.

If you or a loved one suffered broken bones in winter because of a fall or some other incident and you are concerned about the physical and financial burdens you face, contact an attorney at Bradley/Grombacher to evaluate any legal claims you may have.

Prosthetics Company in North Carolina Accused of Medicaid Fraud

Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:15:02 GMT

A prosthetics provider based in North Carolina allegedly fraudulently billed Medicaid for more than $12 million in unnecessary medical equipment costs and other charges that should never have been sent to the federal government for reimbursement, according to federal prosecutors.

Medicaid Fraud Includes Multiple Claims of Illegal Activity

The provider allegedly billed Medicaid for durable medical equipment that was never purchased or given to patients. Furthermore, the claims from state and federal governments against the prosthetics company allege that these overpayments were due to claims for support products that were never needed. Furthermore, many of these devices were never even given to the patients.

A court-appointed receiver took over for the company temporarily while there was a legal battle over who rightfully owned the company. The court-appointed receiver identified the alleged Medicaid fraud and reported it to the government after working for the company for a short period of time.

More than $9 million in Medicaid payments is alleged in the Medicaid fraud lawsuit including unnecessary purchases of bone growth stimulators, powered air flotation beds, foot, ankle and knee orthotics, power wheelchair accessories, and calf stimulating devices.

As in this and other Medicaid fraud cases, the insight from a whistleblower was the first way the government identified the scheme. Whistleblowers are often employees working for a company who become aware of inside information related to fraud and illegal activity.

Most Common Types of Medicaid Fraud

There are many different types of federal Medicaid fraud, including billing for services never rendered, billing the government for services not needed or for patients who did not exist, or billing more than one for the same product or service.

The receiver statements included in the Medicaid fraud lawsuit were allegedly false and fictitious. Furthermore, Medicaid paid $900 for breast prosthetics and mastectomy bras for a patient who did not have cancer and other device claims totaling $26,000 for that same patient were never given to the patient or needed at all.

Another example was a power wheelchair. The Medicaid fraud scheme illustrated comprehensive strategies to obtain government funds for items that were never needed or used. According to the Medicaid fraud lawsuit, the products were provided for more than a year before the business even opened and for patients who had been dead for longer than a year.

Although the government did not reimburse all of these claims, some of them were approved according to the Medicaid fraud lawsuit.

If you believe you have grounds to come forward with a whistleblower claim because you have become aware of illegal or fraudulent activity, consult with an experienced attorney. The attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher are currently investigating whistleblower allegations of Medicaid fraud- fill out the form on this page to learn more about your rights.

The Medicaid fraud case is United States of America et al v. A Perfect Fit for You Inc. et al., Case No. 4:17-CV-00174 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Prop 65 Violation Notices Affecting Artificially Flavored Wafers

Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:22:39 GMT

New Proposition 65 violation notices have been sent to the makers of vanilla and strawberry wafers that are allegedly artificially flavored. Any products that are made with particular chemicals and compounds as listed in Prop 65 need to be labeled as such within the State of California.

Prop 65 Violation Notice for Acrylamide in Wafers

The wafers named in the Prop 65 violation notices are sold at Walmart and are made in a vanilla and strawberry flavor. These allegedly contain acrylamide, which was listed on the Prop 65 list of dangerous chemicals in January 1990. Furthermore, it was listed as known to cause reproductive toxicity or developmental toxicity in February of 2011.

The product sales as named affecting the wafers on the Prop 65 violation notices have been occurring since May of 2017. Proposition 65 is a rule in California that provides that makers of products with dangerous chemicals include reasonable and clear warnings about exposures to those chemicals caused by ordinary product use.

The notice says that the manufacturers and distributors of these products have not been appropriately warning consumers about the risks of acrylamide. Acrylamide can be a neurotoxin via inhalation or by oral exposure. The toxic effects can include hallucinations, drowsiness, ataxia and distal numbness. Acrylamide is often added to foods during the frying, roasting or baking process.

Any high-temperature cooking process might result in acrylamide. Additionally, it forms from sugars and an amino acid naturally located in food; however, it does not come from the environment or from food packaging. The national toxicology programs report on carcinogens classifies acrylamide as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen, although further research is being completed.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also regulates the levels of acrylamide in drinking water to minimize the potential exposure to neurotoxic and cancer effects.

Acrylamide, in addition to many other dangerous items as listed within Prop 65, can cause serious medical issues for consumers who come into contact with them. Evaluated on an annual basis, Prop 65 includes known toxicants.

When a product is made with any substance listed on the Prop 65 list, a clear/reasonable warning must be affixed to the item to notify consumers. It is against the law for manufacturers to produce goods containing these toxicants without warning consumers.

Continued violations may lead to notices, fines, and other legal consequences. Consumers play a critical role in raising awareness about alleged Prop 65 violations when they become aware of dangerous chemicals inside food or other consumer goods.

Consumers and others who become aware of a product containing dangerous materials listed on Prop 65 may choose to take action to pursue a violation notice. These actions may stop the distribution of dangerous products that could expose California consumers to medical risks. If the company refuses to take action and comply, these actions may also turn into penalties and fines for the violating company.

If you or someone you know believes that a company is making and selling products in violation of Proposition 65, you need to consult with an experienced attorney immediately.

The lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher are available to help you investigate your claim. Fill out the form on this page to learn more.

ERISA Lawsuits Filed Over University Pension Plans

Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:29:53 GMT

A number of top universities have been hit with lawsuits alleging their 403(b) pension plans fail to meet ERISA standards.

Duke, Johns Hopkins University, and nearly a dozen other institutions are facing litigation over their 403(b) plans. 403(b) plans are common university pension plans offered to employees for retirement purposes. University pension plan members at these institutions allege that the administrators are charging excessive fees and failing to provide lower-priced shares in recent lawsuits.

The plaintiffs say the administrators of the university pension plans breached their fiduciary duties to plan members. The universities are also accused of failing to update plans and follow best practices.

“Many contracts still contain archaic provisions that assign all contractual rights to participants, even in ERISA plans where the fiduciary is supposed to control actions on behalf of participants and beneficiaries,” one expert told Pensions & Investments in an article over the slew of ERISA lawsuits hitting top rated universities. “It is these limitations that need to be solved prior to being able to look at finding cost efficiencies.”

The lawsuits allege that the university pension plans failed to follow IRS guidance to become more efficient by consolidating record keeping and making choices easier for plan participants.

“Multiple record keepers do make administration very difficult, creating compliance vulnerability,” noted the expert interviewed by Pensions & Investments. “A significant vulnerability is with plan sponsors that tend to keep adding new investment options and rarely — if ever — eliminate anything.”

The complexity of the 403(b) offerings is a problem for university pension plan participants as well, say the lawsuits. Duke University, according to the ERISA lawsuit, has more than 400 investment options. Other institutions offer 177 to 440 investment options, say the lawsuits.

The lawsuits also allege that the university pension plans charge excessive fees and use expensive and confusing annuities.

PROTECTION UNDER ERISA

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) was enacted to protect peoples’ retirement income. The law mandates regulatory standards for disability insurance, life insurance, and health plans as well. ERISA-protected benefits including 403(b) university pension plans must meet ERISA regulatory standards, including, minimum standards for participation, vesting, funding and benefit accrual. Plan participants must also be provided information about their benefits.

Additionally, the plan fiduciaries or those who administer ERISA pension plans are subject to a number of rules that protect plan participants.

A code of conduct for fiduciaries must be provided and enforced. Additionally, the plan administrators must act in the best interested of the pension plan participants.

Plan participants must also be provided the right to hold fiduciaries accountable and can file a lawsuit against fiduciaries if they violate ERISA rules.

If you are concerned about the protection of your retirement income, contact the experienced ERISA attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Orthopedic Surgeon Group Releases Warnings About Child Trampoline Injuries

Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:39:15 GMT

The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has recently released a warning regarding the risk of child trampoline injuries. The orthopedic surgeons have banded together to raise awareness of the dangers associated with trampoline use.

Child Trampoline Injuries Come at Great Cost to Families

Child trampoline use leads to thousands of catastrophic injuries every single year. The July 19th warning issued by the orthopedic surgeons indicates that safety equipment and netting, which are popularly advertised as one way to cut down on devastating injuries, are not supported claims as far as research.

Although some child trampoline injuries can be avoided with safety gear and supervision, experts now recommend that the only way to avoid them altogether is to use strict rules when children play on or near a trampoline.

Child trampoline injuries can be critical, especially if medical help is not sought immediately. Broken bones, paralysis, and damage to the spinal cord as well as the brain can all affect a child not just in the short-term but well into the future.

The group further recommends that children under the age of six should not be allowed to use trampolines at all and that critical safety steps such as limiting trampoline use to only one user at a time can minimize risk.

More than 100,000 adults, as well as children, are treated at emergency rooms every year for sprains, fractures and severe injuries. Child trampoline injuries, however, can be more devastating because of the developmental status of the child. While trampolines are used more frequently over the summer months, injuries can occur at any time.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that more than 295,000 people were treated for trampoline injuries in 2015 alone. Trampoline injuries for children may require immediate medical attention to minimize the severity of the injuries. The range of child trampoline injuries can go from mild sprains to severe breaks and fractures. Lack of coordination is one of the most common reasons that child trampoline injuries can be so severe.

Common Trampoline Injuries Affecting Children

The most frequently reported and evaluated trampoline injuries are fractures and sprained ankles due to falls on the frames, springs or the trampoline mat. When more than one person is jumping on the trampoline at one time, the risk for injuries increases. In addition, any attempted stunts such falls off of the trampoline or flips could lead to a child striking a hard surface or the ground. The vast majority of child trampoline injuries, according to CPSC research, occur when more than one person is jumping on the trampoline at the same time.

More than 90% of the injuries sustained by people using trampolines are those affecting children between the ages of 5 and 14. Trampoline injuries have risen significantly over the past several years.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has previously warned that trampolines are not shown to be any safer with nets, pads or other protection.

If you or someone you know has suffered a catastrophic injury because of use of a trampoline, the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher are available to help evaluate your claim .

False Discount Lawsuit Against Ann Taylor Ends With $6M Settlement

Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:36:31 GMT

A New York federal judge has provided preliminary approval of a more than $6 million settlement regarding the Ann Taylor Company. According to the false discount class action lawsuit, the clothing retailer misled consumers with discounts that were marked down from prices that never existed at either the outlet or the factory stores.

Latest False Discount Lawsuit Settled With Ann Taylor

Under the terms of the false discount class action settlement, Ann Taylor will set aside 425,000 vouchers for the class that total more than $5.1 million and $500,000 for administrative costs in addition to a cash award for class members who were affected by alleged false advertising scheme. The marketing and labeling practices of the company must also be changed as a result of the false discount class action settlement.

This is not the first false discount class action lawsuit. Many consumers argue that outlet stores and other retail locations lead them to believe they are receiving a steep discount, although the alleged percentage off does not ever reflect the accurate pricing of the material, according to the class action lawsuits.

Consumers allege that tags inside a store offering false discounts might suggest that the items are 50% of more off, leading the consumer to take quick action to purchase. This false discount, however, is misleading if the original price of the items was never 50% or even higher than the presently-advertised price.

Affected consumers said they were duped into believing they were getting a great deal when the discounted prices didn’t reflect the percentages advertised.

Who Is Included in the Class Action?

Anyone who purchased these discounted clothing items between May 2012 and May 2016 may be eligible to recover a portion of the settlement. The false discount class action lawsuit was originally filed by two consumers who alleged that the clothes sold at the stores are misrepresented as marked down even though the full price advertised by Ann Taylor never applied to the items.

The consumers participating in the false discount class action lawsuit say that they would never have purchased the items or paid as much for them if they didn’t believe they were receiving the discount that was advertised.

The false discount class action lawsuit alleges that Anne Taylor violated the Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and California’s False Advertising Law.

Similar lawsuits for false discounting have recently affected Burlington Coat Factory, Amazon, Burberry, and the Gap. JC Penny paid more than $50 million in a recent settlement over false discounts. Another major clothing retailer, Michael Kors, also paid $4.9 million to settle similar claims.

If you believe that you have have been tricked by false discounting, you should consult with the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher to evaluate your claim. Fill out the form on this page to learn more .

The false discount class action lawsuit is Morrow et al. v. Ascena Retail Group Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-CV-03340 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Father and Son Get Prison for Medicare Fraud

Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:43:40 GMT

A New Jersey case has ended with a father and son getting time behind bars for more than $890,000 worth of allegedly illegal Medicaid billings. Unqualified people were providing physical therapy at the medical practice leading to the conviction and sentencing of both the father and son to time in prison for Medicare fraud.

Medicare Fraud Includes False Medical Claims

The father received a 30 month prison sentence and the son received 12. Furthermore, the judge ordered them to pay $890,000 in restitution costs. The pair will also have three years of supervised release requirements after their time is served.

The defendants were accused of conspiracy to commit Medicare fraud with their medical practice, Atlantic Spine & Joint Institute. Both individuals pled guilty in June to those charges and had agreed to settle nearly $2 million in addition to interest payments to the federal government assorted with civil claims. A billing manager at the practice came forward and alleged that fraudulent bills were provided to Medicare and argued that the scheme being carried out by the father and son were in violation of the False Claims Act.

What to Know About Government Protection for Whistleblowers

The employee in this case is a whistleblower and whistleblowers are highly encouraged to come forward with information about illegal actions for fraud. In return, they receive protection from the federal government in the event that their employer tries to retaliate against them and when filing allegations under the False Claims Act. Whistleblowers may also be entitled to a portion of the ultimate recovery.

The whistleblower in the above-mentioned case will receive approximately $338,000 for the settlement in addition to her legal fees.

A whistleblower who suspects that they have grounds to pursue a claim or assist the government with an investigation may help to curb fraudulent activities now and in the future.

The government, in their efforts to encourage whistleblowers to come forward, provides rewards as well as protections so long as the person in question has a reasonable belief that fraud has occurred. In recent years, the federal government’s attempted crackdown on Medicare and Medicaid fraud has made these cases more prevalent.

A doctor following Medicare regulations can bill an agency for physical therapy that is given to a Medicare recipient if the therapy was supervised by a licensed physical therapist, a graduate of a physical therapist program, or if the doctor administered the therapy directly. This means that the doctor must be present and available in the office in the event that questions arise; if not, then billing as if a medical professional administered the treatment is Medicare fraud.

If you or someone you know believes you have allegations of healthcare fraud, you need to consult with a whistleblower attorney immediately- the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher are currently investigating claims. Fill out the form on this page to learn more about your options.

The Medicare fraud whistleblower cases are USA v. Robert Claude McGrath and USA v. Robert Christopher McGrath, Case No. 1:17-CR-00215 and 1:17-CR-00216 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

BPA Regulations Under Prop 65 Expire in 2018

Tue, 09 Jan 2018 13:49:19 GMT

The temporary regulations that gave companies a break for Bisphenol A, or BPA, under Prop 65 warning requirements expired Dec. 30, 2017.

BPA was listed as known to cause reproductive toxicity under California’s Proposition 65 in May 2015. Food and beverage manufacturers often used BPA in linings of containers and starting in May 2016, companies that used BPA were required to warn consumers about the chemical in their product.

Use of BPA was so ubiquitous, however, that when the warning requirement came into effect, a state agency issued a regulation allowing trade associations to provide general warnings about categories of products containing the chemical at cash registers to remain compliant with Prop 65.

The current warning indicates “WARNING: Many food and beverage cans have linings containing bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical known to the State of California to cause harm to the female reproductive system. Jar lids and bottle caps may also contain BPA. You can be exposed to BPA when you consume foods or beverages packaged in these containers. For more information go to: https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/chemicals/bisphenol-bpa .”

Companies were provided additional time to allow them to find food and beverage containers that do not contain BPA under the interim Prop 65 regulation for the chemical. Alternatively, starting in 2018, companies must provide a justification for why use of BPA in their products is “clear and reasonable” if they continue to use BPA.

In 2018, companies that opt to warn consumers about the BPA content of their product will need to include a warning either on the label or on the shelf or near the product indicating “WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.”

The rules will become even tighter for companies starting in August 2018, when those who want to use BPA in their packaging will be required to have additional information on their labeling or on product shelves.

Companies who do not turn to BPA-free packaging or find some way to explain why use of the chemical is necessary under Prop 65 could face enforcement actions by consumers concerned about exposure.

Under Prop 65, consumers who successfully bring a lawsuit against companies that include harmful chemicals in their products without warning consumers can be awarded up to 25 percent of the penalties issued, along with attorney’s fees.

Prop 65 and BPA

The State of California has warned consumers about Bisphenol-A (BPA) for several years. Recent studies have shown that even small amounts of the chemical can affect the genetic makeup of offspring. BPA is listed as known to cause reproductive toxicity.

Prop 65 requires companies to warn consumers when chemicals in their products are known to be dangerous. Additionally, California law mandates that the state keep a list of chemicals hazardous to human health, including those known to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm.

If a concerned individual or interest group identifies a product that contains a Prop 65 listed chemical and the company has not provided consumers adequate warning, they can hold companies accountable under the law.

Companies need to be provided notice and an opportunity to either provide warning or reduce or eliminate the use of the chemical. Under Prop 65, notice must be sent to the California State Attorney General.

Filing a claim under Prop 65 is complex. The experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher can help.

Worker Overtime Lawsuit Ends in Major Settlement With Oilfield Engineers

Mon, 08 Jan 2018 13:54:29 GMT

Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations Inc. agreed to settle their federal collective action suit in North Dakota. The workers’ overtime suit alleged that the company illegally denied overtime to a hundred field engineers completing their training.

Overtime Lawsuit Affects Engineers in North Dakota

Anyone approved to receive overtime payments must be paid time and a half for the hours they worked beyond 40 in a given workweek. The federal laws surrounding overtime do exempt certain workers from being covered by this protection. In this overtime lawsuit , the workers were classified as exempt from overtime protections, a claim they argue is illegal.

Workers who are misclassified and unfairly denied their pay for hours above 40 may be able to file an overtime lawsuit against their employer.

In 2015 the workers’ overtime suit was initiated by one plaintiff who argued that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act in addition to North Dakota state law.

The employees, according to the worker overtime lawsuit, were misclassified as exempt from overtime because exempt tasks were only a small portion of their workday. Misclassification issues are becoming an increasingly common claim in wage and hour lawsuits because of the types of tasks completed by the workers on a day-to-day basis.

Baker Hughes, however, responded by arguing that the workers were not eligible for overtime protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Many of the engineers made around $100,000 and the company argued overtime exemptions for white-collar workers or highly compensated workers applied to the engineers.

The worker overtime lawsuit alleged, however, that the primary job duty of these field engineers was nonexempt work such as operating and rigging well site equipment and troubleshooting issues with that equipment. Further, argued the lawsuit, the determination and actual job duties for the engineers could have eliminated their inclusion under the highly compensated exemption of the FLSA.

In 2016 a partial approval of the request to conditionally certify the collective was achieved with a federal magistrate judge. The attorneys recently negotiated a settlement in the worker overtime lawsuit to allow the litigation to end. The collective and company did not stipulate how much would be paid to the 122-member collective in the settlement agreement.

If you believe that you have grounds to pursue a worker overtime case because you were misclassified, you may have grounds to pursue a claim with the help of an attorney.

Workers are afforded overtime protections under federal as well as state laws and misclassification or lack of awareness about the issues is not a proper defense for a company that fails to pay appropriate overtime. Those employees who work more than 40 hours in a given workweek may be entitled to overtime pay.

Contact the lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher if you believe that you were misclassified and never received owed overtime benefits.

The worker overtime lawsuit case is Jonathan G. Williams et al v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations Inc., Case No. 1:15-CV-00049 in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

ERISA Lawsuit Settled for $29.5 Million

Mon, 08 Jan 2018 13:52:43 GMT

Ascension Health recently agreed to a nearly $30 million deal to settle ERISA claims in their putative class suits. According to the ERISA lawsuit, participants as well as beneficiaries of a pension plan were wronged.

ERISA Lawsuit Argues Underfunding

The participants asked an Illinois federal judge to give preliminary approval to their proposed class action settlement. Ascension, based in Missouri was the sponsor of the plan when they acquired healthcare subsidiaries for the Wheaton Franciscan Service Health Care Plan in March of 2016.

Decisions not in line with what would have represented the best interests of the beneficiaries may be a violation of federal law could prompt legal action in the form of an ERISA lawsuit.

ERISA requires that a complex set of rules be followed by anyone managing a retirement or pension plan. The agreements that stipulate how much the plan is to be funded must be followed or beneficiaries can take action in the form of a lawsuit.

More Than $29 Million Due in ERISA Lawsuit Settlement

The ERISA lawsuit settlement requires that the $29.5 million payment be given to benefits of the proposed settlement class in the event that trust assets associated with the plan are insufficient to pay out those benefits.

The ERISA lawsuit was initially filed in April 2016 and a putative class complaint was later lodged in June of that year. In January, those cases were consolidated.

The plaintiffs argued that ERISA protections were not afforded to them. According to the managers, the plan was classified as an ERISA exempt church plan. ERISA church plans are those plans established for an association of churches or employees of a church.

The complaints, however, allege that the defendants underfunded the plan by more than $134.5 million and inaccurately mandated that participants finish at least five years of service before accruing their vested interests in the benefits.

The ERISA lawsuit says that the plan managers violated the federal law by diminishing accrued benefits through numerous amendments and failing to provide members with mandated reports and statements.

Statements must be provided to plan members in a timely fashion, and those statements must accurately reflect the values in the accounts.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in June saying that pension plans do not have to be established by churches in order to meet eligibility as a church plan previously exempted from ERISA in a similar case.

Specific regulations govern what is classified as underfunding. If a plan manager discovers that the plan is underfunded, this is to be reported to beneficiaries. If this is not done, daily penalties may apply.

If you believe that a plan manager or other fiduciary violated your rights under ERISA, you have grounds to pursue a lawsuit with the help of an experienced attorney. Contact the lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher today by filling out the form on this page for more information .

The ERISA lawsuit is Wheaton Franciscan ERISA Litigation, Case No. 1:16-CV-04232 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

New Prop 65 Notice Names Food to Live Organic Goji Berries

Fri, 05 Jan 2018 14:15:45 GMT

A new Prop 65 notice has been generated in California affecting Food to Live Organic Goji Berries. A consumer in California has allegedly identified violations of California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also referred to as Proposition 65.

Allegations Related to Lead Claims With Food to Live Organic Goji Berries

The current Prop 65 claim argues that Food to Live Organic Goji Berries contain lead. The word organic and other marketing and labeling might lead consumers to believe they are purchasing a healthy and safe product, but when testing reveals that dangerous chemicals inside may cause injuries, the manufacturer may be held responsible.

According to the Prop 65 claim, the violator did not provide appropriate notices to California consumers about Food to Live Organic Goji Berries and the chemicals therein which may pose danger of serious injury to consumers using them. Proposition 65 includes a comprehensive list of chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth injuries, or reproductive harm. Since this list is updated at least once per year, manufacturers must be aware of any new additions and ensure that their labeling is prepared for such an issue. Failing to notify consumers about Prop 65 chemicals contained within their products may prompt notices, legal action, or even fines.

Manufacturers of any products that contain these chemicals are responsible for posting Prop 65 warnings directly on the product to enable consumers to make an informed decision. According to the lawsuit, Jet.com, Walmart.com USA, Walmart stores, and Amzaon.com are among the alleged violators for selling Food to Live Organic Goji Berries without a warning. Lead was listed as a chemical known to cause female and male reproductive toxicity and developmental toxicity as of 1987.

Prop 65 Warning Requirements

The Prop 65 list was also updated in 1992 because lead and lead compounds were known to cause cancer. According to the Food to Live Organic Goji Berries violation notice, violations have been occurring since November 9, 2016 due to lead within this product. According to the paperwork filed with the Proposition 65 violation notice, the primary method of exposure for California consumers to these chemicals is through ingestion.

Eating foods that contain dangerous chemicals may increase the risk or cancer, birth injuries, or reproductive problems. Prop 65 therefore stipulates what chemicals fall under this category and what someone who finds evidence should do after discovering the presence of a compound or chemical on the list. Any consumer in this position could benefit from reviewing the requirements of Prop 65 and determining rights and responsibilities from that point.

Proposition 65 mandates that a reasonable and clear warning be provided regarding exposure of identified chemicals and this warning should appear on the product label.

Proposition 65 enables consumers to take action in the event that they believe that a manufacturer is involved in distributing a product that contains chemicals listed on Proposition 65. If you or someone you know has become aware of this information, consulting with the Prop 65 attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher can help you to figure out your legal rights and next steps.

Fill out this form TODAY for a free review of your Prop 65 claim.

Amputations Caused by Workplace Accidents

Fri, 05 Jan 2018 14:12:14 GMT

According to a report from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the workplace, while making safety gains, still poses a risk to employees.

In 2015, according to the report, there were 30 severe injuries caused by workplace accidents each day, 2,644 amputations were reported, along with 7,636 hospitalizations. While the workplace is safer, there are still injuries each day.

Industries with the highest rates of workplace accidents are:

Manufacturing
Construction
Transportation
Warehousing
Oil and gas extraction

Of the over 2,000 amputations, more than 50 percent occurred in manufacturing. Eleven percent of workplace accidents involving amputations occurred in “other” industries, ranging from accommodation and food services, agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting, to professional, scientific, arts, entertainment, recreation, real estate, and management.

Ten percent of workplace amputations reportedly occurred in construction, with the rest split between oil and gas, transportation and warehousing, administrative, retail, and wholesale.

OSHA collects data about workplace accidents from 26 states. OSHA implemented new regulations in 2015 requiring workplace accidents to be reported within 24 hours.

“Too often, we would investigate a fatal injury only to find a history of serious injuries at the same workplace. Each of those injuries was a wake-up call for safety that went unheeded,” said OSHA in a statement.

However, the agency said it suspects over 50 percent of workplace injuries in the states where it collects data are not reported. Part of the problem may be that small businesses do not know about the reporting requirements or system. But some companies still try to avoid reporting workplace accidents to hide unsafe conditions.

According to more recent data, the largest meat producer in the nation, Tyson Foods, reported an average of two worker amputations in the first nine months of 2015. OSHA released federal reports on the meat processing giant that note the machines involved in the workplace accidents.

“Skinners. Band saws. Wing saws. Hide grippers. The names of these tools tell just part of the story of why these amputations occurred,” notes Celeste Monforton, a George Washington University occupational health professor who obtained the OSHA report. “Their names, however, provide more than an inkling about the physical demands of these jobs.”

There are estimates that within the meat processing industry, the rates of reporting workplace accidents are even lower with 70 percent of all accidents going unreported to OSHA.

Although most companies are responsive to the agency, some extreme cases exist, says the agency. According to OSHA, in one instance, a business owner parked forklifts in front of a building to stop OSHA investigators. However, most businesses comply without an OSHA site visit.

OSHA has also implemented additional fines for unreported workplace accidents that cause amputations or injuries – up to $7,000 per violation.

According to an OSHA statement, “we know that each case reported to us under this new requirement involved a human being who went to work one day and suffered an unexpected trauma. Some, along with their co-workers and families, were changed forever.”

If you or a loved one suffered from an amputation because of a workplace accident, contact the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher .

$5.2M Jury Award for Whistleblower Nurse

Thu, 04 Jan 2018 14:24:36 GMT

A nurse who says she was fired for refusing to double dose nursing home residents with behavioral problems was awarded a $5.2 million verdict by an Illinois jury.

The whistleblower nurse also alleged that she was ordered to falsify or omit reports of suspicious injuries to residents, according to the lawsuit.

The nurse worked for a large nursing home company, Heritage Health, that runs over 50 facilities in the area. She worked for the facility for about a year and a half as a licensed practical nurse before she was let go. She currently works full-time at another nursing home.

According to the whistleblower nurse’s attorney, “Ms. Wesemann refused to follow the director of nursing’s orders to ‘drop a pill’ or double-dose agitated residents with anti-anxiety medications, and refused to delete or omit records of suspicious injuries on residents,” leading to her termination.

After an eight-day trial, the jury awarded the whistleblower nurse $5 million in punitive damages along with wages and benefits and emotional distress. According to court records, it took the jury about two hours to deliberate before coming to a decision.

The whistleblower nurse’s attorney stated the jury determined the award after hearing “extensive evidence that Heritage Enterprises management employees failed to report, and indeed hid instances of abuse and neglect, and encouraged their employees to do the same.”

Heritage Health employs more than 4,000 people at its various facilities.

“We, at Heritage Enterprises Inc., are deeply disappointed in the verdict delivered in the case of Wesemann v. Heritage Manor-Dwight LLC. We have disputed and continue to dispute and deny the assertions of the plaintiff in this matter,” said an attorney for Heritage in a statement.

“We fully intend to exercise all available legal remedies to contest this result,” he continued. “Until the legal process concludes, we will have no further comment.”

Becoming a Whistleblower

While federal, state and local officials investigate entities for violations of the law, including nursing home abuse, medical and business fraud, and other violations, employees of these companies are often the key to stopping illegal acts.

The federal False Claims Act and certain state laws protect employees who “blow the whistle” on their employers’ illegal activities. Whistleblower nurses and other employees are protected from retaliation by their employer under the act and, if they are fired for reporting, they can lodge a wrongful termination lawsuit against their employer.

Additionally, the False Claims Act provides a monetary award to whistleblowers if their lawsuit is successful or if the parties reach a settlement. Under the law, whistleblower awards can be between 15 and 30 percent of the verdict or settlement. These awards may be substantial because verdicts and settlements can run into the millions of dollars in whistleblower lawsuits.

If you’re concerned about your employer’s business practices, contact Bradley/Grombacher today . The attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher are currently investigating whistleblower claims.

Nexium Proton Pump Inhibitor Lawsuit Claims Severe Patient Injuries

Thu, 04 Jan 2018 14:20:44 GMT

A Nexium proton pump inhibitor lawsuit was filed due to economic damages and personal injuries sustained by a married couple and they have alleged that the manufacturing company is responsible for wrongful and negligent conduct associated with packaging, testing, development, design, manufacture, distribution and sales.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Lawsuit Lodged Against Commonly Prescribed Drug

Manufacturer AstraZeneca has been named in the Nexium proton pump inhibitor lawsuit for allegedly failing to warn consumers and physicians about the risks associated with using these drugs.

Proton pump inhibitors are some of the most frequently prescribed medications in the country. Many people acquire these drugs on a regular basis, and those who have suffered injuries claim the company hasn’t done enough to warn about the risks.

More than $15 million Americans used these prescription PPIs in 2013 with costs of more than $10 billion for those patients. PPIs are frequently indicated for treating conditions such as acid peptic disease, GERD, stomach ulcers and peptic ulcers. Nexium is a proton pump inhibitor that secretes stomach acid and reduces hydrochloric acid in the patient’s stomach.

The drug then binds with the proton pump that inhibits the gastric parietal cells to secrete gastric acid. Nexium is the most popularly sold drug from AstraZeneca and in the world market, the third most popular drug overall.

However, new patients in a Nexium proton pump inhibitor lawsuit allege severe injuries after taking the medication about which they were never properly warned. Many of the injury reports from patients state that the user develops severe or even life-threatening kidney problems after using the drug.

According to the Nexium proton pump inhibitor lawsuit, hundreds of injury reports have been submitted directly to the FDA regarding the ingestion of Nexium and other PPIs. Adverse health outcomes have been included in clinical studies, post-market surveillance and case reports.

Some of the most commonly reported injuries are those affecting the kidney, including chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury and renal or kidney failure. Those patients who took the medication and began to suffer serious side effects reported it to their doctors and then faced excessive risks of kidney injuries about which they were never warned. The Nexium proton pump inhibitor lawsuit even states that the defendants continue to represent that Nexium posed no risk of serious kidney injuries.

Any kidney injury is serious if it’s not caught quickly. Many people who suffer kidney pain tied to drugs require immediate medical care to avoid fatal injuries. Those who have suffered have filed Nexium lawsuits to hold the manufacturer accountable.

The risk of acute interstitial nephritis, one serious form of serious kidney injury, was originally raised in 1992 and another study raised those issues five years later. Hundreds of adverse event reports filed directly with the FDA closed in on these issues as well.

If you believe you or someone you know has been seriously injured as a result of proton pump inhibitors, you may have grounds to pursue an injury claim with the help of an experienced Bradley/Grombacher attorney.

The Nexium proton pump inhibitor lawsuit is Thomas v. AstraZeneca, case 2:17-cv-13038-CCC-MF, filed in the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey Newark division.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Amazon, Walmart Hit With Prop 65 Warning Letter Over Goji Berries

Wed, 03 Jan 2018 14:26:45 GMT

Food To Live Organic Goji Berries contain more lead than allowed under California’s Prop 65 law that protects its residents from harmful chemicals in products, according to the Pacific Justice Center.

The Prop 65 warning letter states that Amazon , Walmart, Jet.com, and Lexunder need to either notify their consumers about lead in Food To Live Goji Berries products or reduce levels of the chemical.

Lead is listed under California’s Proposition 65 as a chemical that is hazardous to human health, reproduction or presents a risk of birth defects, notes the warning letter. It has been listed under the law since Feb. 27, 1987.

“Ongoing violations have occurred every day since at least December 14, 2016, as well as every day since the products were introduced into the California marketplace, and will continue every day until clear and reasonable warnings are provided to product purchasers and users or until these known toxic chemicals are either removed from or reduced to allowable levels in the products,” states the goji berry warning letter.

The goji berry warning letter also notes that in addition to being identified as harmful to male and female reproductive toxicity, and known to cause developmental toxicity in 1987, in 1992, lead was identified as causing cancer by the State of California.

“The consumer exposures that are the subject of this notice result from the purchase, acquisition, and recommended use of these products,” states the goji berry warning letter. “Consequently, the primary route of exposure to these chemicals has been and continues to be through ingestion.”

According to the goji berry warning letter, the companies named need to recall the product already sold. Additionally, the Food To Live Organic Goji Berries products need to either be reformulated or warnings need to be provided to consumers about the lead content. The companies must also pay a civil fine, states the letter.

Prop 65 Warnings

The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, commonly known as Prop 65, was enacted in 1986. Under the law, a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, reproductive or developmental problems is published by the State. Currently, there are more than 800 chemicals listed under Prop 65.

Under the law, warnings must be provided to California consumers about products that contain chemicals listed by the State as hazardous to human health.

These warnings must be provided to consumers before they are exposed to the chemical; alternatively, the Prop 65 chemical in the products can be lowered to acceptable levels under the law.

Companies who are hit with a Prop 65 warning letter over chemicals in their product have a window of time to resolve the issue or they could face additional litigation.

The attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher are currently investigating Prop 65 claims and would be happy to help you if you are concerned about products you use.

Mattress Firm Hit With Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit

Tue, 02 Jan 2018 14:30:55 GMT

A class action lawsuit alleging Mattress Firm Inc. failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Massachusetts employment law was filed in federal court.

Lead plaintiffs allege that although Mattress Firm generally requires its inside sales employees to work more than 40 hours a week, the company does not pay them time and a half as required under federal and state law.

Instead, alleges the overtime lawsuit , sales employees are paid occasional commissions and misclassified as exempt from overtime pay.

According to the overtime lawsuit, Mattress Firm employs inside sales associates for each of its over 3,500 locations. It describes the employees as “hourly” and only pays an hourly wage, but when it comes to overtime pay, the company refuses.

The lawsuit says that Mattress Firm “intentionally and willfully misclassified the inside sales employees as exempt and consistently misreported wages earned based on hourly work as commissions.”

Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA), non-exempt hourly employees are generally required to be paid at 1.5 times their hourly rate any time they work over 40 hours a week.

Mattress Firm has a policy, alleges the overtime lawsuit, of not paying its inside sales employees for their overtime.

“Indeed, a majority (more than 50%) of the employees’ total compensation are the payments they receive based on a pre-determined hourly rate,” alleges the overtime lawsuit. “Mattress Firm had and/or has a company-wide policy of not paying the plaintiffs, or any other similarly situated inside sales employees, an hourly rate equal to one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for all the hours that they worked in excess of 40.”

Further, alleges the overtime lawsuit, the Mattress Firm violated Massachusetts law which requires employees who work Sunday to be paid time and a half as well.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide Class of inside store employees at the Mattress Firm, along with a subclass of Massachusetts employees.

Right to Overtime Pay

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act and various state laws protect hourly non-exempt employees from being overworked by requiring employers to pay them at 1.5 their hourly pay for working over 40 hours a week. However, employers try to skirt these employment laws sometimes.

In one instance, employers may “misclassify” an employee as exempt. Exempt status is generally reserved for salaried employees with a managerial role. Employees, like sales associates, retail workers, warehouse workers and others with routine tasks are usually not considered exempt.

In another instance, employers may misreport or underreport the hours worked by non-exempt employees by requiring them to clock in or out early or skip breaks, but still record them.

The Mattress Firm Overtime Lawsuit is Perez-Tejada, et al. v. Mattress Firm Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-12448, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

If you suspect you are not being paid properly for overtime work, contact Bradley/Grombacher . Our experienced attorneys are currently investigating wage and hour claims. Call today.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

ERISA Lawsuit Filed by Beneficiaries Continues Forward

Tue, 02 Jan 2018 14:28:50 GMT

A federal judge in Pennsylvania has issued what’s being considered a mixed ruling in an ERISA lawsuit. Beneficiaries alleged that the manager of retirement funds was not acting in their best interest, a basic tenet of ERISA.

ERISA is a federal law with many complex regulations affecting businesses that provide benefits such as pensions or disability insurance. In order to ensure the management of these benefits is handled in a standard fashion, the law requires compliance and allows injured beneficiaries to file a breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit.

ERISA Lawsuit Names Prudential for Breach of Fiduciary Duty

The ERISA lawsuit accuses Prudential Insurance Company of violating the federal law and the federal judge’s recent ruling granted the beneficiaries a win on their claim of breach of fiduciary duty. However, the alleged ERISA violation is being left up to a jury and all state law claims are being thrown out.

According to the life insurance beneficiaries in the ERISA lawsuit, Prudential breached their duty by paying out claims using retained asset accounts.

This enabled Prudential to use the funds inside those accounts for investment, which the judge determined was a breach of fiduciary duty. Since managers of such an account have a responsibility to act only in the best interests of the beneficiaries, any actions consider their own profit gains could be illegal.

What Is the Fiduciary Duty Responsibility?

The fiduciary duty responsibility under ERISA and similar laws and regulations is to act solely in the interest of the beneficiaries.

The judge stated that Prudential ignored their obligations under the plan documents and instead chose to focus on making a profit for themselves and therefore had their own best interests in mind, not those of the beneficiaries.

The request for summary judgment in the ERISA lawsuit brought by Prudential, however, was granted by the judge because he stated that the deferral claims preempted the state law claims originally brought forward by the plaintiffs.

The ERISA lawsuit in question was originally proposed as a class action in 2012 and the plaintiffs lost a bid for past certification in 2016 and decided to move forward as individuals. The plaintiffs involved in the ERISA lawsuit are those who are beneficiaries of life insurance plans provided to Conway Inc. and JP Morgan Bank employees.

These life insurance plans were administered by Prudential and subject to ERISA. Prudential paid by giving beneficiaries access to retain assets accounts rather than the one lump sum provision that was outlined in the plans.

The judge in the ERISA lawsuit determined that the use of a retained asset account was incompatible with the requirements of the plan as it stood.
If you or someone you know has already been affected by a breach of fiduciary duty and other violations of ERISA, you need to consult with the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today. Fill out the form on this page to learn more about how to file a lawsuit.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

New Shipping Injury Lawsuit Filed Over Damaged Legos and Broken Bones

Mon, 01 Jan 2018 15:51:28 GMT

A lawsuit over faulty shipment proceeds regarding an autism charity has emerged as a result of damaged Legos and broken bones. The shipping injury lawsuit was filed after a volunteer was seriously hurt.

A federal judge has now granted an autism charity as well as an injured volunteer, the opportunity to reevaluate their case against a shipping company, a container company, and a freight broker.

Shipping Injury Lawsuit Filed by Harmed Volunteer

The shipping injury lawsuit alleges injuries including two strokes and broken bones in addition to the damage that happened because a shipment of Legos was packaged poorly.

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania judge allowed a recent motion in the Lego injury lawsuit to file an amended complaint against the defendant shipper. The shipping injury lawsuit was filed against multiple parties after serious injuries were sustained by those unpacking the materials.

Defendants in the shipping injury lawsuit include a freight broker based in Delaware and a Wisconsin manufacturer of plastic storage products.

Unfortunately, the shipping industry is well-known for injuries on the job. However, visitors and volunteers at non-profits may also be put in harm’s way when a shipment is not packed or loaded correctly.

Any type of product can become dangerous or even lethal depending on the specifics of the packing errors. If a person or entity can ultimately be held liable for those mistakes, it could prompt a shipping injury lawsuit.

According to the shipping injury lawsuit claim, the defendants improperly loaded the Legos that the charity had requested, using pallets of the wrong size and dangerous stacking them one on top of the other.

This loading allegedly damaged the Legos and caused a pallet to crack during the unloading process. A volunteer was unable to get out of the way, a fact he blames on the packer, according to the shipping injury lawsuit.

The volunteer working for the charity was critically injured and came forward to file a Lego injury lawsuit after that experience. The double stacked pallet had thousands of pounds of Legos bouncing on the edge of a trailer, according to the lawsuit.

Injuries Alleged by Hurt Volunteer

When the allegedly poorly packed Lego shipment collapsed and fell on top of the volunteer, he dislocated a kneecap, lost a tooth, and suffered two strokes due to being crushed. Furthermore, the charity alleges that they lost money because of the damage done to the Legos rendering them unusable.

The defendant companies were sued in the Lego injury lawsuit for breach of contract as well as negligence. According to statements from the judge in this case, the cargo was loaded improperly, damaged during the unloading process, and damaged in transit.

If you or someone you know has been injured in an accident associated with loading or other similar issues, you may have grounds to pursue a lawsuit with the help of the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher. Fill out the form on this page to learn more.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Utz Claim Settled in “All Natural” Class Action Lawsuit

Mon, 01 Jan 2018 15:48:23 GMT

Utz Quality Food has settled and will pay more than $1 million for a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that the snack foods produced by the company are improperly labeled as coming from “all natural” ingredients.

Misleading marketing and confusing language on foods have become the target of many investigations and lawsuits in recent years. As consumers look for more healthy and organic options in the marketplace, the words used by marketers are becoming increasingly important.

All Natural Class Action Lawsuit Alleges False Advertising by Utz

When a consumer discovers that the marketing materials on a product are not accurate, he or she can file a class action lawsuit.

The Utz all natural class action lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts Federal Court. The suit was originally started in 2014. The settlement agreement has been amended after a recent hearing.

False advertising can be raised by any consumer who believes a company is not being forthcoming with truthful information about how a product is made or what’s inside it. The case in question is an all natural class action lawsuit because consumers discovered that synthetic ingredients were used in addition to “all natural”ones.

The plaintiffs allege false advertising on the part of the manufacturer of the snack foods and the settlement resolution calls for class certification, but does not require Utz to accept liability.

The trio of plaintiffs allege in the Utz all natural class action lawsuit that the company prominently advertises a broad range of snack foods as all natural, including their honey wheat pretzel sticks, restaurant-style tortillas and regular potato chips.

The products named in the Utz all natural class action lawsuit actually contained corn oil, yellow corn, vinegar, white corn, cottonseed oil, modified corn starch, maltodextrin, corn syrup, modified food starch, and soy lecithin.

The plaintiffs allege that these are all generated from man-made genetically modified crops, according to the Utz false advertising lawsuit claims; however, the class action lawsuit alleged that the products’ labeling might mislead a consumer to purchase or pay a premium for products they believe not to be made of synthetic or artificial ingredients.

The lawsuit goes on to state that the manufacturers include numerous artificial and synthetic ingredients such as potassium chloride, dextrose, malic acid, and citric acid in the Utz products they label as natural.

Utz claims that the disputed products are natural, however, the plaintiffs went on to argue that consumers would perceive all natural foods as healthier, more wholesome and better and pinpoints the company as being responsible for trying to mislead consumers into making a purchase decision based on the misleading and false information.

The Utz all natural class action lawsuit is DiFrancesco et al v. Utz Quality Foods Inc., Case No. 1:4-CV-14744 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

If you believe you have grounds to pursue a false advertising lawsuit, you need to consult with the experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today- fill out the form on this page to determine if you qualify.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Youth Counseling Center Accused of Scheme to Defraud Medicaid

Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:13:07 GMT

A couple who co-own a youth counseling center in Chicago has been accused of Medicaid fraud involving overstating services and seeking payment for non-reimbursable activities.

According to a former employee who blew the whistle on the couple’s scheme to defraud Medicaid , the Laynie Foundation allegedly submitted false claims to the government and engaged in other fraudulent activities. The complaint claims that over the course of four years the couple used their foundation to submit $8.2 million in claims for mental health services and received $6.3 million in payments from the government.

“The time of each mental health service that Laynie Foundation represented (to the government) in its claims for payment had little, if any, bearing to the actual time spent on the service,” states the whistleblower lawsuit.

The Laynie Foundation provides youth and adult mental health and behavioral services. Its mission is “restoring mental balance through holistic approaches to emotional and behavioral health modalities,” according to the foundation’s website.

The whistleblower alleges that as a part of the couple’s scheme to defraud Medicaid, employees were told to falsely inflate services billed to the government. According to the complaint, the couple running the foundation warned employees not to question the practice and to “not mess with [the couple’s] money.”

The Whistleblower lawsuit alleges that the couple, as chief operating officer and chief executive officer, had little oversight over their actions. According to the lawsuit, the lack of oversight along with the Medicare fraud scheme allowed the couple to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary from the foundation. Further, the lawsuit states that Illinois state law requires that services provided by the foundation be certified by a licensed medical health professional – a requirement the couple flouted.

The whistleblower employee filed a civil action against the couple in 2014 under the False Claims Act and the federal government has indicated it will intervene in the case.

Healthcare Fraud and Whistleblowers

When a medical facility overbills the government for healthcare services or otherwise violates the rules for obtaining payment from Medicare or Medicaid, the facility is committing healthcare fraud. Schemes to defraud Medicaid and other government programs can be complex and difficult for enforcement agencies to identify. In fact, it can take years for government agencies to build Medicaid fraud cases.

Employees are often the ones who notice that their employer is conducting a scam to defraud Medicaid. Under the whistleblower provisions of the federal False Claims Act, concerned employees can bring legal action against their employer to stop the fraud. These courageous employees protect the limited public resources dedicated to these important public healthcare programs. Additionally, whistleblowers are entitled to protection under the law as well as an award if the case is successful.

If you are concerned that your employer is defrauding Medicaid, contact an experienced healthcare fraud attorney to help understand your rights as a whistleblower. An attorney can also help you determine if you need to file a whistleblower lawsuit to stop the scheme to defraud Medicaid and protect the public.

Fill out the form on this page now for a free and confidential case evaluation.

CEVA Logistics Settles Delivery Driver Wage and Hour Lawsuit

Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:11:20 GMT

A $1.75 million settlement agreement was approved by a federal judge to satisfy claims that CEVA Logistics U.S. Inc. violated California wage and hour laws.

The delivery driver wage and hour lawsuit alleged that CEVA failed to pay drivers for the hours they worked as well as overtime pay. Additionally, the plaintiff alleges the company refused to reimburse drivers for business expenses.

The wage and hour class action lawsuit was filed in August of 2016. In the lawsuit, a CEVA delivery driver alleged that CEVA had misclassified drivers as independent contractors under California law. CEVA delivery drivers deliver and install appliances. The plaintiff accused them of failing to provide itemized wage statements in addition to cheating them out of wages.

Under the terms of the settlement, CEVA will pay each delivery drivers in the class $15,855 in back wages and business expenses. Additionally, the attorney for the delivery drivers will receive fees and expenses and the plaintiff will receive a $7,500 incentive payment.

The US District Court Judge Marilyn L. Huff noted, “This settlement is outstanding when compared with other wage and hour settlements approved in recent years by federal courts sitting in California. This settlement is a good result for the class and eliminates the risks, expenses, and delay associated with continued litigation.”

Judge Huff also noted that approximately 65 individuals make up the proposed class, including individuals who made deliveries for CEVA and were classified as an independent contractor from Aug. 2012 and Feb. 2017.

Similar employee misclassification settlements have been reached in recent years, including a $9 million settlement paid by Postmates, Inc. to settle a similar delivery driver wage and hour lawsuit. Additionally, other misclassified workers have received a $27 million settlement paid by Lyft, a $7.75 million settlement by Uber, and a 4.6 million settlement by Instacart. Current wage and hour lawsuits have focused on employee misclassification as more online based businesses try to utilize independent contractors.

The Delivery Driver Wage and Hour Lawsuit is Cifuentes v. CEVA Logistics U.S. Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01957, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Independent Contractor Rights

Many companies are starting to classify workers as “independent contractors.” Independent contractors do not have the same rights and benefits as workers classified as “employees” under state and federal law, but the classification can provide additional flexibility for the company and the worker. However, some companies are misclassifying workers as independent contractors when they actually qualify as “employees” under the law.

Under federal law, employees are entitled to additional pay if they are required to work over 40 hours a week; however, independent contractors are not subject to the same rules and some business and organizations fail to appropriately compensate their workers.

It can be intimidating for an independent contractor to take on a company that provides work but is wrongfully withholding wages or benefits. Employment law is complex and varies between states and a legal professional can help workers navigate the legal system.

If you believe you were misclassified as an independent contractor, or that you suffered another employment rights violation, the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher want to hear from you. Fill out the form on this page for a free case evaluation.

New Urban Outfitters Wage and Hour Lawsuit Filed

Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:08:39 GMT

The popular retail store chain known as Urban Outfitters is the target of a new lawsuit. The Urban Outfitters wage and hour lawsuit argues that the company did not manage the payment of the plaintiff properly.

The specific wage and hour issue involved in this particular lawsuit has to do with payment of overtime. The Urban Outfitters wage and hour lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff was not paid for all of the hours worked or any of the overtime work completed beyond 40 hours within a work week. The plaintiff, an Arizona resident, served as a department manager for Urban Outfitters from May 2013 through August of that same year at their Phoenix location.

Lack of Overtime Pay Cited in Urban Outfitters Wage and Hour Lawsuit

According to the Urban Outfitters wage and hour lawsuit, the plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per work week, but did not receive the wages from the defendant for all of her hours work as well as any overtime compensation that was required under federal law. One such example included more than 40 hours of work completed during the 3rd week of June of the year.

The plaintiff alleges in her complaint that she was scheduled to work for approximately 40 hours per week, but worked an average of 55 to 60 hours per week, in which the plaintiff clocked in for five or more shifts. Urban Outfitters misclassified the plaintiff as an exempt worker in a managerial role, argues the Urban Outfitters wage an hour lawsuit; however, the plaintiff’s job required no capital investment and did not involve any managerial responsibilities or the exercise of independent discretion and judgement.

The primary job duties of the employee in question involved manual work such as building displays, cleaning the store, unloading freight and folding clothes, says the plaintiff. The job duties did not include, according to the Urban Outfitters wage and hour lawsuit paperwork, firing, hiring, exercising meaningful discretion and independent judgement, supervising or disciplinary action.

The lawsuit argues that the Urban Outfitters misclassified the plaintiff as well as all other individuals serving in the same position to avoid paying them for overtime work as required under provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The lawsuit claims that the defendant should have been aware or was aware that Fair Labor Standards Act requires exempt employees to hold managerial roles and meet other criteria – criteria that did not apply to the plaintiff and other employees in the same position.

Overtime premium is due for those employees who worked beyond 40 hours in a particular work week. Furthermore, the Urban Outfitters is accused of failing to maintain sufficient and accurate time records for the plaintiff, which only allowed the plaintiff to report a maximum of 40 hours of work within a week.

Do you think you’ve been subjected to illegal practices related to wage and hour claims? If so, you need to consult with an experienced lawyer at Bradley/Grombacher today.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Life Insurance Lawsuit Filed by Widow Alleges ERISA Violations

Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:06:57 GMT

A life insurance lawsuit was recently filed alleging that the spouse of a man who passed away did not receive the appropriate benefits entitled to her. Her husband was an employee of a company that provided Sun Life coverage, a life insurance policy, to its workers as a benefit. The policy enabled workers to name beneficiaries who would be entitled to the proceeds of the life insurance policy upon the death of the covered employee.

Life Insurance Lawsuit Filed Over Coverage Contentions

The decedent with coverage in this life insurance lawsuit was employed in his position from July 2010 to January 2017 when he unexpectedly passed away. In addition to other benefits provided by his employer, the life insurance policy selected by the deceased included $130,000 involuntary accidental death and dismemberment coverage and life insurance coverage. The policy was active as of October 1, 2016. The employee in question made payroll deduction payments to cover the premium of the life insurance policy.

When the worker passed away in January, his wife filed the paperwork to recover the proceeds. In response to the wife’s submittal, Sun Life asserted that her late husband’s the life insurance policy only offered $20,000 in coverage. The lawsuit also alleges that company claimed to have received premium payments from the deceased for only $20,000 worth of coverage.

According to the life insurance lawsuit, the insurance company claimed that an email had been sent to the employee’s human resources manager explaining that the worker would need to show evidence of good health in order to increase his benefits to $130,000 in coverage. The human resources manager indicated he would take care of it, but as of the date the lawsuit was filed, no records were presented that the plaintiff ever received the email.

That human resources manager confirmed in February of 2017 that the employee had indeed elected the additional coverage and paid for it through a payroll deduction. According to the lawsuit, the weekly payroll deduction for $20,000 in coverage was $1.32 and the actual premium payments made by the now-deceased were $7.32. The complaint argues that due to the amount of the weekly deduction taken from the employee’s paycheck, the employee and his wife would have had no reason to suspect they had any less than $130,000 in coverage.

The lawsuit argues that the life insurance company violated ERISA protections because they never notified the employee that he needed to provide evidence of good health. Furthermore, Sun Life continued to deduct the payroll amount for the higher premium. ERISA is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which lays out the rules for administering investments and private pension plans. The purpose of the law is to protect retirement funds for Americans, but the law also establishes standards for life insurance, health, disability, and retirement plans.

Did your life insurance company violate ERISA? See if you have a case to file a life insurance lawsuit by filling out the form on this page for a free case evaluation.

Paralyzed Man Receives Settlement From USC Bus Crash

Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:05:15 GMT

A man was recently awarded a settlement after a collision with a USC shuttle bus left him paralyzed. According to the lawsuit, the man became a paraplegic after an accident occurred with a USC shuttle bus near Union Station.

His lawsuit against the University ended in a settlement prior to going through full stages of litigation. The details of the settlement have remained confidential; however, a press release from the University admitted negligence and that the negligence led to the injuries for the plaintiff, who became paralyzed .

The accident occurred in April of 2015, shortly after 10 pm. At the time, the plaintiff was riding his motorcycle, travelling east and the shuttle bus driver was going in the opposite direction on the same street. When that USC shuttle bus turned left in front of the plaintiff, it caused the accident that left the motorcycle rider paralyzed.

Paralyzed Man Suffered Life-Changing Injuries in Accident

The motorcyclist said that he tried to take action to avoid the accident, but had minimal opportunity to completely avoid crashing into a shuttle bus. His lawsuit alleged that the shuttle bus driver failed to take appropriate care in making a safe left turn.

The USC lawyers argued that the motorcyclist sped up as he neared to the intersection and alleged that he was travelling up to 15 miles per hour over the speed limit when the accident occurred.

According to the lawsuit, shortly before the plaintiff became paralyzed in the accident, he had completed his respiratory therapy degree and had passed two out of the three exams required to become a registered respiratory therapist. This lawsuit alleged that his ability to earn a living was significantly affected by the accident.

The plaintiff says that he now must rely on his mother for practically everything on a day-to-day basis to assist with the management of his care and injuries.

Catastrophic Personal Injury

If you or someone you know has recently become paralyzed in an accident due to another driver’s negligence or reckless behavior, you may be entitled to recover compensation to assist you in putting the pieces of your life back together. Being paralyzed is one of the most significant and catastrophic impacts of being involved in an accident and it can shape your life significantly for many years going forward, requiring extensive medical care and support from family members and friends to help you get through day to day life. It can also impact your quality of life significantly and may make it impossible for you to ever return to work.

The impact of becoming a paralyzed man or woman because of another person’s negligence is serious and overwhelming for the victim and his/her family members. Accident victims may be entitled to recover compensation in a settlement or award by filing a timely claim.

If you have been paralyzed in an accident, consult with the experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Pampers Hit With Class Action Over ‘Natural Clean’ Wipes

Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:03:31 GMT

A New York woman alleges in a class action lawsuit that Pampers falsely advertises some of its diaper wipes as all natural when they contain unnatural ingredients.

The lead plaintiff, Tyoka B., alleges in her Pampers ‘Natural Clean’ class action lawsuit, that the wipes contain ingredients not found in nature like Disodium EDTA, Sorbitan Caprylate, Xanthan Gum. The plaintiff further alleges the wipes at issue contain phenoxyethanol, a chemical that “can depress the central nervous system and may cause vomiting and diarrhea, which can lead to dehydration in infants.”

Pampers ‘Natural Clean’ Class Action Lawsuit

The plaintiff says she purchased Pampers ‘Natural Clean’ baby wipes multiple times between late 2014 and early 2017. Tyoka asserts that she paid extra because the wipes were marketed as natural and she thought that meant the wipes did not contain any unnatural ingredients. Tyoka alleges that she was deceived and asserts that she would not have purchased the wipes if she has known they contained unnatural chemicals.

According to the Food and Drug Administration and the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Wipes Safety, “phenoxyethanol should be ‘avoid[ed] … in cosmetic Wipes intended for the nappy area” for “infants under the age of three years’ due to concerns of reproductive and developmental toxicity.”

The Pampers ‘Natural Clean’ class action lawsuit also notes that the Federal Trade Commission filed complaints against two other companies for advertising products as “natural” when they contained phenoxyethanol. Because of the FTC’s action, the companies stopped marketing the products as natural.

The class action lawsuit asserts, that the “Defendant charges a premium for its ‘natural clean’ Wipes, which are sold on store shelves alongside non-natural standard wipe offerings. The only reason consumers purchase the Wipes over the non-natural alternatives is on account of Defendant’s representation that the Wipes are ‘natural.’”

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of New Yorkers who purchased Papers ‘Natural Clean’ wipes. She says Pampers’ false advertising violates New York business laws and advertising laws. The Pampers ‘Natural Clean’ class action lawsuit alleges that a company deceived consumers about the chemicals included in their product, so they could charge more for a product. The plaintiff is seeking a declaration from the court that Pampers violated states laws along with an award of compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages.

Consumer False Advertising

Under false advertising laws, companies must tell the truth when they market a product and can be held responsible for lying to consumers about their products. Consumers in false advertising lawsuits generally assert that they would not have purchased or would not have paid as much for a product but for a company’s false advertising.

Consumers who have been deceived by a company’s false advertising may be able to file a false advertising lawsuit. An experienced attorney may be able to help consumers recover money they lost purchasing that product.

Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation to see if you have a claim.

Target Infant Formula Subject of Prop 65 Litigation

Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:01:56 GMT

A law firm representing an organization that monitors water quality has notified mega-retailer Target that its in violation of a California law requiring companies to provide consumers with a “clear and reasonable warning” for products containing chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, including infant formula.

In its October letter to Target’s president and CEO, as well as the California Attorney’s Office and district and city attorneys across the state, lawyers for the Community Science Institute state that a Target infant formula — Up & Up Toddler Beginnings Infant Formula with Iron Milk Based Powder — contains lead. Up & Up is Target’s private label brand and the letter contends that the product is subject to the terms of California’s Proposition 65 or the “right-to-know statute.”

Prop 65 requires all products containing any one of more than 800 naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity to be labeled with a “clear and reasonable warning to California consumers about the possibility of exposure to carcinogenic compounds.”

California enacted the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act in 1986, though it continues to be more commonly referred to by its original name, Proposition 65, or Prop 65.

According to its website, the mission of the Ithaca, New York-based Community Science Institute, a project of the non-profit Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs, is to “unite consumers and industrial neighbors to reform government and industry practices for a toxic free future.”

Lawyers for the Community Science Institute accuse the company of “knowingly and intentionally” exposing California consumers to lead without providing a Proposition 65 warning on Target infant formula.

“The Violators have manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold the listed products, which have exposed and continue to expose numerous individuals within California to the identified chemical, lead,” the letter alleges.

The law firm informed Target of its intent to file a citizen enforcement action 60 days after the retailer is notified of the alleged violation unless Target agrees to three conditions:

Reformulate the infant formula;
Pay an appropriate civil penalty; and
“[P]rovide clear and reasonable” Prop 65-compliant warnings to all Californians who purchased the Target infant formula in the last three years.

California legislators enacted Prop 65 to help Californians make informed decisions when purchasing products containing chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s website contains a comprehensive list of the 800+ chemicals requiring warning labels but the onus is on businesses to decide whether to include a warning label.

Manufacturers, however, are not required to provide the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment with any information about the products, leaving it up to businesses to make the call based on their knowledge of what chemicals are in the products they sell.

Prop 65 has opened a litigation floodgate. The San Jose Mercury-News reported that in 2015, businesses paid more than $26 million to settle Prop 65 lawsuits.

Bradley Grombacher is currently investigating companies who have violated Prop 65 by including hazardous chemicals in their products.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

$40 Million Lawsuit Filed Over Child’s Death, Injuries at Unsafe Bus Stop

Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:59:53 GMT

A $40 million lawsuit has been filed against Battle Ground School District, Clark County Public Works, and school bus contractors after children were injured and killed at an alleged unsafe bus stop.

According to the lawsuit, the location of the unsafe bus stop does not protect children from motorists on the 50-mph road. The unsafe bus stop lawsuit alleges that one child was injured while standing at the designated area for students when he was hit by a driver who “negligently veered off the roadway and struck” the child. Another child was killed when she walked across the road to talk to friends and was hit by a motorist driving a minivan.

According to the complaint, the unsafe bus stop lawsuit is seeking $20 million in damages for each child. The lawsuit states, “This case arises out of the horrifying death of one student and permanent disfigurement and loss-of-limb of another.”

The unsafe bus stop is at an intersection that is “known by the community to be dangerous,” according to the complaint. The speed on the road is 50-mph; however, motorists are often observed going well over that speed. Additionally, the stop is located on a hill that reduces visibility for drivers and pedestrians.

According to the lawsuit, the school district and school bus contractors, Petermann Northwest LLC and Cascade Student Transportation, knew or should have known that the bus stop was unsafe. The lawsuit alleges that the bus stop did not meet industry standards, noting that it has no lights, or a stop sign, and school bus contractors are charged with finding safe school bus routes and stops.

The complaint states, “The condition of the roadway, the proximity of the bus stop to the roadway, and the proximity of the students to each other as they waited on separate sides of the street created a dangerous condition where students could be foreseeably harmed by fast-moving and difficult-to-see traffic,” alleges the unsafe bus stop lawsuit.

Furthermore, the lawsuit notes that the location of the bus stop does not follow the National Congress of School Transportation’s best practices which urge school districts and bus contractors to periodically review the safety of bus stops. Bus stops “should be established only after thorough investigation has revealed the location to be the most desirable in the area, clear of hazards or dangerous situations.”

The unsafe bus stop is also located too close to the road, alleges the complaint. Children at the bus stop in Battle Ground only stand 10 feet away. The National Congress of School Transportation Policy dictates that children be reminded to stand at least 12 feet away from the bus stop.

Additionally, the unsafe bus stop lawsuit alleges that the county is responsible for the unsafe state of the intersection where the bus stop was placed. “As a result of the county’s negligence, numerous vehicle collisions (and many near-miss events) occurred at the intersection in question prior to the injuries to the plaintiffs in this action.”

If you or a family member have been injured as the result of another party’s negligence, you may have a legal claim. Contact the personal injury attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today for a free case evaluation.

Albertson’s Reaches $1.6M Settlement Over Meal Break Law Violations

Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:58:13 GMT

A class action lawsuit brought by a group of pharmacists working for Albertson’s may receive a $1.6 million settlement. In the class action lawsuit, the pharmacists alleged that their employer violated California meal break laws and, after repeated instances of this behavior, the employees filed a class action lawsuit.

Albertson’s, a grocery store chain now under the management of Safeway Inc., was accused of failing to give their pharmacists off-duty meal breaks. A string of wage and hour claims were filed last December prior to the class certification, many of them argued violations of California meal break laws .

The initial allegations in the meal break violation lawsuit stipulated that the company denied overtime pay, rest breaks, and meal breaks. Allegedly, the company consistently required pharmacists to work more than eight hours per day or over 40 hours each week. Any non-exempt pharmacist who worked for Albertson’s in California between March 22, 2013, and the preliminary approval date may be affected by the decision.

California Rest Break and Meal Break Laws

For non-exempted workers in California, state regulations pertaining to meal breaks offer broader protections than federal regulations. If a non-exempt employee works longer than five hours in a workday they are entitled to a 30-minute meal break and a 10-minute break for every four hours worked.

If a court determines that an employer violated California rest or meal break laws, the employer is responsible for paying its employees an extra hour of pay for every day during which a violation occurred. This is in addition to a separate hour of pay for every rest break violation.

California labor laws also require that a rest break be uninterrupted, and the rest break must be paid time. A shift of at least 3.5 hours within one day warrants one rest break, a 6-hour shift entitles the worker to a second rest break, and a ten-hour shift entitles a worker to a third rest break. Labor laws also require that an employee is given a 30-minute meal break prior to the end of the employee’s fifth hour working. A second meal break may be required if the employee works more than 10 hours in a day. The meal break laws state that the rest break and meal break should be separate from one another.

It’s important to realize that not every industry is subject to these rules. Exceptions exist for manufacturing, baking industries, group homes, motion picture industries, healthcare, and construction.

Employees who believe their employer has violated meal break laws may wish to consult with an experienced labor law attorney. Labor law claims are subject to a statute of limitations which limits the amount of time an employee has to file a claim. A legal professional can help employees navigate the complex legal system.

Obtain a free case evaluation of your potential labor law violation lawsuit by filling out the form on this page .

Anesthesiologist Sues Mass. General Hospital in False Claims Act Lawsuit

Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:56:06 GMT

A Boston anesthesiologist recently argued before a district court judge that her False Claims Act lawsuit has sufficient merit to move forward. The lawsuit accuses Boston’s renowned Massachusetts General Hospital of Medicare and Medicaid fraud.

The plaintiff, Dr. Lisa Wollman, alleges that Mass. General, her former employer, engaged in the practice of double-booking surgeries and having residents and fellows perform the procedures without a supervising doctor. According to the lawsuit, this practice is a material violation of Medicare and Medicaid regulations.

Allegations in the False Claims Act Lawsuit

According to the False Claims Act lawsuit filed by Dr. Wollman, the hospital’s “policy” provided financial incentives for its doctors to perform more surgeries yet never disclosed to patients that their doctor would be going back and forth between operating rooms.

Legal news service Law 360 reported that lawyers representing Mass. General asked a federal judge to dismiss Wollman’s False Claims Act case on the grounds that federal regulations dictating when a surgeon must be present in the operating room are vague.

According to Mass. General’s motion to dismiss, Medicare and Medicaid permit surgeons to “decide what parts of surgeries are critical or key and therefore what they need to be in the room for and what they do not need to be present for.”

Medicare and Medicaid regulations allow fellows and residents to perform some parts of surgery without a supervising doctor in the room, but federal healthcare rules require a licensed surgeon be present for all “key and critical parts,” Law 360 writes.

Mass. General’s motion to dismiss also states, that the False Claims Act lawsuit should be dismissed because Wollman did not name a specific surgery, did not provide proof of improper billing, did not name an instance of overlapping surgeries, and did not detail any particular surgery during which a licensed surgeon was missing during “key or critical” portions.

Wollman counters these claims by arguing that “the fraud occurred in MGH operating rooms sealed off from regular traffic” and not the insurance claims processing department. She also maintains that, as a physician, she does not have access to all patients’ insurance information and claims, but said its “highly implausible” that “none of the thousands of patients involved in these surgeries were covered” by the federal health plan.

Wollman states that while she doesn’t have written documentation, she personally witnessed entire surgeries performed without a licensed surgeon ever present. The False Claims Act lawsuit also alleges that:

Patients were endangered by at least five surgeons who regularly performed simultaneous surgeries,
The doctors committed fraud against the government by billing for surgeries for which they were absent during “critical portions” or didn’t attend at all, “leaving the work to unsupervised trainees.”
Between 2010 and 2015, Mass General orthopedic surgeons repeatedly kept patients anesthetized longer than medically necessary or safe so they could juggle two to three operations at the same time, according to the newspaper.

According to Dr. Wollman, not only were Medicare and Medicaid billed for the additional anesthesia the alleged practice “constitutes unnecessary, excessive and dangerous prescribing.”

The False Claims Act suit states that “this often meant an unwitting patient was left fully anesthetized — unconscious, paralyzed, intubated, dependent on a ventilator to breathe — for longer than medically necessary, often in the care of trainees, without the backup of a properly qualified surgeon, despite legal requirements.’’

The False Claims Act lawsuit referenced above is filed in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts and is US et al v. Massachusetts General Hospital Inc. et al, case number 1:15-cv-11890.

Do you have knowledge that your employer violated the False Claims Act by committing Medicare fraud, Medicaid fraud, or other type of insurance billing fraud? See if you have a case by filling out the form on this page for a FREE and confidential case evaluation.

McDonald's False Advertising Lawsuit Takes Aim at Claims of “100% Chicken Breast Sandwiches

Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:48:47 GMT

A new McDonald’s false advertising lawsuit has been filed on behalf of consumers who argue that the marketing materials for the fast food giant are not accurate and may mislead consumers to make a decision about a chicken breast sandwich that is not truly as natural as claimed. Several of the products involved include their chicken breast fillet salads, their chicken breast fillet sandwiches and the chicken breast fillet wraps.

McDonald's False Advertising Lawsuit Claims Chicken Products Not as Marketed

The marketing campaign, according to the McDonald’s false advertising lawsuit, is false, misleading, and deceptive because the chicken breast fillet that is purported to be 100% chicken breast includes rib meat in addition to actual chicken breast. According to the McDonald’s false advertising lawsuit, the plaintiffs, in addition to class members, paid a premium for the products over and above any comparable products that did not allege to include only 100% chicken breast fillet.

The McDonald’s false advertising lawsuit claims that the McDonald’s is responsible for continuing in systemic practices of disseminating misleading and false information via the internet, point of purchase advertisements, national print advertisement and television commercials.

In recent years, legal claims like this one have been filed not only to hold a company accountable for alleged false advertising but also to warn other consumers and to increase the standards for advertising in numerous different industries. Claims have been filed against companies like Kevita Kombucha and Horizon Milk for falsely claiming certain properties in their products. False advertising and labeling laws are in place to help consumers make educated decisions regarding their purchasing power so that no one is duped into buying something not billed as sold.

Is the McDonald’s Fillet Made of 100% Chicken?

Allegedly, the McDonald’s false advertising lawsuit was filed after a discovery that the 100% chicken breast fillet is not an accurate claim because other inferior products such as the McChicken sandwich sold at McDonald’s are of a similar make up as the products they claim to be 100% chicken breast. Determining whether or not the labelling of such a product is misleading has to do with whether or not it would be deceptive or misleading to a reasonable person. McDonald’s false advertising lawsuit may require the maker of the products to update their advertising materials, if the plaintiff and class members are successful.

What Consumers Should Know About False Advertising Lawsuits

Marketing and labeling materials are used to help consumers arrive at an effective decision about what they are willing to pay for a particular product. Further, using marketing material that is misleading is prohibited under the law. Consumers who think they have been duped by a mismarketing scheme can file a false advertising lawsuit to hold the company accountable. Successful plaintiffs can be reimbursed for money they spent on the falsely advertised products and can also get a court order requiring the company to change their advertising so others are not tricked.

If you or someone you know has been duped by McDonald’s or another company’s false advertising contact an experienced lawyer for consumer class action lawsuits at Bradley/Grombacher. They can help you recover and stop the deceptive marketing.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Injured Bicyclist Files California Lawsuit After Serious Accident

Sat, 18 Nov 2017 13:46:45 GMT

Public roads left in bad condition can be a dangerous place for bicyclists to ride. A new California personal injury case involves the payment of $7.5 million to settle a lawsuit from an injured bicyclist.

William Y., the injured bicyclist, became a quadriplegic after he was involved in a serious crash while riding on Los Angeles public roads. After his accident, William filed a personal injury lawsuit for damages against the City of Los Angeles.

Injured Bicyclist Sues the City of La for Sever Harm

The Los Angeles City Council recently voted to approve the payout and end the legal dispute brought by William. William initiated the personal injury lawsuit against the city over three years ago. According to William, his front tire hit a strip of pavement that was raised off the ground by 4 inches due to a tree root.

According to the bicycle injury lawsuit , William was thrown from his bicycle and landed directly on the pavement. Despite the fact that he was wearing a helmet, the severe impact of the crash caused him to suffer critical injuries. According to the injured bicyclist lawsuit, the City of Los Angeles had received numerous complaints regarding the dangerous condition of that particular road but never took action to fix it.

Although the Bureau of Street Services in Los Angeles had previously inspected the road, they determined that the condition of the street was a non-emergency. The City had investigated the roadway prior to the accident for the purpose of utility maintenance. Unfortunately, none of the inspectors reported that the bike lane had a dangerous lift in the pavement.

According to the injured bicyclist lawsuit, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation did not comply with the government road surface standards when the bike lane was initially installed. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation is accused of simply painting white lines and arrow markers on the surface along with traffic signs without repairing or examining the road surface.

Any road condition that causes serious injuries for motorists, pedestrians, or cyclists could form the basis of an injury suit. According to the lawsuit, it’s the city’s responsibility to be aware of dangerous conditions and to warn residents about those conditions or fix the issues entirely. Many people in the city have used the complaints system to notify city officials about unreasonable risks, but when left unchecked, certain conditions can cause accidents or injuries.

Every year the City of Los Angeles faces dozens of lawsuits associated with bicycle crashes on its roads. In 2017 a minimum of 17 lawsuits have already been filed. Just last month, the city settled another seven-figure lawsuit involving an injured bicyclist.

Cyclists who have been hurt in an accident may have grounds to pursue a personal injury claim with the help of an experienced legal professional. You can obtain a free case evaluation with a California personal injury attorney by filling out the form on this page .

The Scotts Company, Amazon Hit With Malathion Prop 65 Warning Letter

Sat, 18 Nov 2017 13:43:57 GMT

The Healthy Living Foundation (HLF) has notified Amazon and The Scotts Company that they are potentially in violation of Prop 65.

The Scotts Company and Amazon both sell Ortho Max Malathion Insect Spray Concentrate. Malathion is listed under California’s Proposition 65 as a chemical that is hazardous to human health, reproduction, or presents a risk of birth defects. State law requires companies to adequately warn consumers and others who may be exposed to Prop 65 chemicals.

Ortho Max Malathion

Malathion was added to the Prop 65 list of dangerous chemicals in May of 2016. The HLF notification to The Scotts Company and Amazon asserts that workers who handle the spray and consumers who purchase the product must be provided a “clear and reasonable” warning before they are exposed to the chemical malathion.

The warning notice alleges that The Scotts Company and Amazon have failed to provide a “clear and reasonable” warning about malathion’s presence in the products they sell. According to the HLF Prop 65 notice, if the companies reduced the level of malathion in the products to allowable levels a warning would not be required, but at this point in time neither company has taken this step.

HLF also indicates in its letter that it will file a Prop 65 lawsuit against the companies if they do not 1) provide adequate warnings to consumers or 2) reduce the amount of the chemical in the Ortho Max Malathion Insect Spray Concentrate.

“HLF is interested in a prompt resolution of this matter with an enforceable written agreement by the Noticed Parties to (1) eliminate or reduce malathion to an allowable level in, or provide appropriate warning on the labels of, the specified product; and (2) pay an appropriate civil penalty. Such resolution will prevent further unwarned consumer exposures and expensive and time-consuming litigation.”

Proposition 65

California voters approved Proposition 65 in 1986. Under the law, the state publishes a list of chemicals known to cause health problems. The list is updated by various committees who continually evaluate chemicals for their effect on human health. There are currently more than 800 chemicals listed under Prop 65 as dangerous to human health.

Prop 65 requires that companies warn consumers about the chemicals in their products before the consumer is exposed to the chemical or the company can choose to remove or reduce the presence of the chemical to a level that is not hazardous to human health. If a company fails to do so, they can be held accountable by consumers.

Consumers and other groups who are concerned about a company’s failure to comply with Prop 65 requirements can file a Prop 65 lawsuit; however, litigants must follow complex procedures, including;

Providing notice to the Attorney General, including copies of the notification and supporting documentation;
Providing notice to companies of the intent to enter litigation if they fail to rectify the problem; and
Notifying the Attorney General of any settlement.

An experienced attorney can help consumers and other groups navigate the complex Prop 65 law and help hold companies responsible for the chemicals they use. Fill out the form for a FREE case evaluation.

$75M Settlement Awarded in JP Morgan ERISA Lawsuit

Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:42:26 GMT

Financial firm JP Morgan has agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims that the company violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Several cases that were ultimately consolidated into one JP Morgan ERISA lawsuit alleged that company breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA when it caused its stable value funds to invest in the Intermediate Bond Fund and Intermediate Public Bond fund. The plaintiffs alleged these actions were imprudent and placed stockholder retirement funds at risk.

According to the JP Morgan ERISA lawsuit , the financial firm further violated its fiduciary duties to its clients by engaging in prohibited transactions. The plaintiffs claimed that JP Morgan brokers knew the transactions were prohibited, but executed them anyway, further placing client retirement funds at risk.

The JP Morgan ERISA lawsuit alleges that their protected retirement funds were put at risk when the financial firm used them to invest in highly leveraged assets, including, among other thing, mortgage-related assets. Ultimately, the risky transactions lost participants’ retirement funds.

“After extensive arm’s length negotiations,” say court documents regarding the proposed settlement, the parties agreed to settle the dispute in August of 2015.

“The Settling Plaintiffs and Class Counsel consider it desirable and in the Class Members’ best interests that the claims in the Class Action be settled on the terms set forth below, and they have concluded that such terms are fair, reasonable, and adequate and that this Settlement will result in significant benefits to the Class,” states the settlement agreement in the JP Morgan ERISA lawsuit.

JP Morgan does not admit any liability under the settlement agreement, but will pay former plan participants $75 million. The class action would have represented participants in over 300 of JP Morgan retirement plans that were affected by the risky investments.

Those who participated in ERISA plans, as well as beneficiaries of those plans, who were invested in any JP Morgan Stable Value Fund that invested in the Intermediate Bond Fund or Intermediate Public Bond Fund between Jan. 1, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2010 will be entitled to a portion of the settlement agreement. There were also three subclasses.

Class members will be mailed notice of the JP Morgan ERISA settlement. Class members who are still active accounts with JP Morgan will receive an allocation into their account. Class members without an active account will receive a check.

According to the settlement notice, allocations to individual class members will be based upon their 401(k) records.

ERISA and Fiduciary Duty

Retirement plans are protected under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) as well as for disability insurance, life insurance and health plans. Under ERISA , companies are required to meet the following standards;

Participants must be provided information about their plan.
Minimum standards for participation, vesting, funding, and benefit accrual must be set.
Plan fiduciaries must meet principles of conduct.
Plan fiduciaries must be overseen and held accountable.
Participants have the right to file a lawsuit against fiduciaries if they breach their duty.

If you suspect that your retirement account is being mismanaged, contact an experienced ERISA attorney at Bradley/Grombacher today.

Healthcare Pension Plan Case Settled

Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:40:27 GMT

A settlement agreement has been achieved between St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center and the participants of their defined benefits plan. The plan participants have challenged the status as a church plan and this has been preliminary approved by a Newark U.S. District Court judge.

Pension Plan Settlement Agreement Benefits Workers

The agreement requires that St. Joseph has to contribute $42.5 million in benefits across the next two months. In the event that the funding is insufficient to pay the benefits owed to plan participants over the course of the next 7 years as part of their pension plan , all accrued benefits must be guaranteed by St. Joseph’s. If the plan is terminated or amended, or eventually merged with another pension plan, those benefits remain protected.

Amendments to the plan also require that it be closed no later than December 31st, 2018. The settlement terms of this pension plan agreement are similar to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act that require notices, plan descriptions, administrative procedures, and benefit statements. The plaintiffs who filed the case also shared that the settlement summary filed in the docket explained the potential for a future ruling on the church plan exemption under ERISA as a result of Congress, the IRS, a court or even the Roman Catholic Church.

Ultimately, the litigation landscape could be affected by changes in this pension plan categorization. The settlement was proposed prior to a June 5th Supreme Court ruling that any health care system retirement plan sponsor affiliated with the church is covered by the ERISA exemptions for church plans. St. Joseph’s denied the validity of any claims brought forward by the plaintiffs in this pension plan claim but agreed to settle in order to avoid further costs and risks associated with litigation.

According to the summary document filed with the pension plan settlement agreement, St. Joseph has already completed their financial requirement by inputting $45 million in cash to the plan. A final hearing is scheduled to approve the settlement in full on March 6, 2018.

The plan participants initially filed this pension plan lawsuit in May of 2013 arguing that the pension fund for St. Joseph’s failed to meet church plan definition since it was never controlled or established by a church and was initially established as an ERISA plan. ERISA requirements can be extremely complicated, but they lay a critical foundation about the manner in which companies must manage certain aspects of pension and investment plans. The rules are in place to protect workers and to enforce standards across the board, but aggrieved employees who believe the company is not following the law may pursue legal action to recover funds or change practices, as was the case in this situation.

If you or someone you know believes you may have a legal claim as a result of mismanagement of a pension plan, contact the experienced attorneys at Bradley Grombacher today- you have rights under ERISA that could be protected with the help of a lawyer.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Doctor Gets 3 Years Prison for $100M Medicare Fraud Scheme

Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:38:49 GMT

A federal judge hit a New Jersey doctor with three years jail time for taking part in a scheme to defraud Medicare and private insurers for more than $100 million.

Ahmed E.S., who also practiced medicine in Staten Island, New York, was accused of taking part in a Medicare fraud plot that included bribery. Ahmed pled guilty to allegations that he referred blood samples to Biodiagnostic Lab Services, Inc. in exchange for money from lab employees.

Biodiagnostic has since gone out of business after pleading guilty to violating the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Federal Travel Act, as well as to money laundering charges. According to court documents, lab employees offered cash to doctors in exchange for fraudulent referrals for blood and other biological material. Ahmed, say attorneys for the government, generated a great deal of business for the lab of at least $650,000.

In addition to Medicare fraud , the doctor admitted to charges under the Anti-Kickback Statue, Federal Travel Act, and honest services wire fraud statute. After serving his sentence, Ahmed will spend an additional three years under supervised release and pay a $7,500 fine.

According to court documents, the scheme involved sending blood samples to a Biodiagnostics along with a fraudulent Medicare or private insurance referral. The lab would then provide a kickback to the referring doctor.

Over 50 people have been prosecuted for the Medicare fraud, said the government who stated that the scheme includes “the largest number of medical professionals ever prosecuted in a bribery case.”

Biodiagnostics was ordered to turn over all its assets. So far, say representatives for the government, $13 million of the $100 million lost in the Medicare fraud scheme has been recovered.

Medicare Fraud

Medicare fraud harms both taxpayers and Medicare recipients. It increases the cost of care for recipients and makes it even more difficult for the government to administer important public health programs targeted at the elderly, children, and low-income individuals.

Medicare fraud includes making false representations to the government that result in overpayment by the government for services not rendered.

The government tries to monitor health care providers to ensure Medicare fraud isn’t happening, but investigations can take many years and require resources. Sometimes, employees who have evidence that their employer is committing Medicare fraud are the best situated to stop the activity and bring the fraudsters to justice.

Employees should know that they are entitled to protection under the False Claims Act if they have evidence that their employer is guilty of Medicare fraud. In addition to protecting the employee from retaliation, the statute provides 15 and 30 percent of any damages or settlement awards as a result of a successful lawsuit to the employee.

Employees who suspect their employer is a part of a Medicare fraud scam should contact the experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher. They can help you navigate the False Claims Act and protect your legal rights.

Luxury California Resort Hit With Wage and Hour Lawsuit

Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:36:18 GMT

California resort Terranea in Rancho Palos Verdas is being accused in a wage and hour lawsuit of forcing workers to clock in for inaccurate times and take long shuttle rides from a remote parking lot to the resort at their own expense.

According to the wage and hour lawsuit, the luxurious resort has been violating minimum wage and overtime laws. Workers allege that resort management forces them to shorten breaks as well as clock in and out incorrectly to short their wages.

Terranea resort includes eight restaurants, a spa, and golf course. According to the wage and hour lawsuit , the company cheats its 600 staff members out of wages using a variety of methods. For example, the lawsuit alleges that employees were required to park at off-site lots during the busy season and take shuttles into work, but were not compensated for their extra time. On top of having to arrive 30 minutes early for the shuttle, employees had to schedule an additional 15 minutes to put on their uniform – all that time went unpaid, say the plaintiffs.

The workers say the resort forces them to take the shuttles and that workers will be written up if a security guard discovers that they parked on the streets surrounding the workplace. On top of long commutes from the LA area, workers say that getting to work takes a significant amount of time under these parking policies.

“I live in mid-City Los Angeles,” said a Terranea employee in a statement reported by the LA Weekly “It’s frustrating that, on top of the long commute, we have to come in early to take the company’s shuttles from the offsite lots and are not paid for this time.”

According to the lawsuit, the defendants have also “instructed Plaintiffs and their co-workers to fabricate their time records to make it appear as if they took a meal period they did not actually take.”

Terranea insists that it follows wage and hour laws, but this is not the first lawsuit to hit the resort. In 2011, the company agreed to settle a wage and hour lawsuit that alleged Terranea failed to pay overtime wages and violated minimum wage laws for $1.1 million.

Wage and Hour Lawsuits

Employees have a right to be paid for their time under federal and state law, including overtime and minimum wage laws.

Federal and state laws have been put in place to protect workers’ rights to fair wages and pay. However, it can be hard for employees to assert their rights for fear of retribution like cutting hours or losing their jobs. An experienced wage and hour attorney can help employees protect their legal right to compensation. A legal professional can help potential plaintiffs determine if filing a lawsuit is right for them. Successful plaintiffs may receive monetary awards to help compensate for unpaid overtime and wages.

If you think you have a wage and hour claim, the employment attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher may be able to help. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

Multilingual Prop. 65 Warning Potentially Required for Certain Products

Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:33:00 GMT

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued an amendment that may require companies to include multilingual Prop. 65 warning labels in languages other to English.

The multilingual Prop. 65 warning labels will need to be used on products with labeling in includes multiple languages additional to English. According to the OEHHA amendment, when “a sign or warning label used to provide consumer information about a product is provided in a language other than English,” a Prop. 65 warning label in the other language will be required as well.

Under Prop. 65, companies that sell products in California are required to warn consumers about chemicals in their products that could cause harm to human health or reproduction. This amendment would address concerns that those who do not speak English would be appropriately warned about dangerous chemicals in the products they use.

Multilingual Prop. 65 Warning Concerns

The California Chamber of Commerce and business interest groups worry that the multilingual Prop. 65 warning label requirements would be triggered if any information about the product is provided in a language other than English – even without the manufacturers’ knowledge.

“If a retailer adds a multilingual sign in its store related to the product, or posts something on its internet retail site, even without the manufacturer’s knowledge, the manufacturer would be subject to litigation because its warning was only provided in English,” noted the California Chamber of Commerce in comments to OEHHA amendments.

The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute hypothesizes that the amendment would require a European company to provide multilingual Prop. 65 warning labels in 27 different labels if a product was shipped to California due to existing EU regulations regarding warnings. The Institute thinks the additional Prop. 65 warnings would be “unnecessarily burdensome.”

The rule is set to go into effect in August of 2018.

Proposition 65 Requirements

Under Prop. 65, manufacturers must include a warning label on products that contain chemicals that are known to cause harm to human health, reproductive harm, and/or birth defects. The warning must currently meet the following requirements;

It must clearly indicate the hazardous chemical;
The warning must be provided before purchase;
The language must be “clear and reasonable” in the warning; and
The warning must be “clear and conspicuous.”

Starting in August of next year, manufacturers will also have to consider consumers who speak languages other than English.

Legal Help for Consumers Exposed to Prop 65 Chemicals

Those who are concerned that they have been unknowingly exposed to a proposition 65 chemical because they could not read the warning label can consider litigation to ensure proper warning is provided. With the help of an experienced attorney, consumers who are successful in their Prop. 65 multilingual warning lawsuit can be awarded 25 percent of the fines collected against the company. Prop. 65 requirements are complex, however, and contain numerous exemptions. An experienced attorney can help consumers exposed to hazardous chemicals under Prop. 65.

Contact the Prop 65 attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today.

Kevita Kombucha False Advertising Lawsuit Says Probiotics Aren’t Live

Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:30:28 GMT

A false advertising lawsuit has been filed against KeVita Inc. and its parent company, PepsiCo, over claims that their kombucha beverages contain live probiotics, even though the drinks are reportedly pasteurized.

The KeVita Kombucha lawsuit alleges that the pasteurization process kills the very probiotics the company promotes as a key health benefit, misleading consumers into believing they are purchasing a live, fermented kombucha.

The case highlights growing concerns over the marketing of probiotic and fermented beverages and raises important questions about transparency, labeling, and consumer trust.

The KeVita Kombucha Lawsuit: What’s at Stake?

The KeVita Kombucha false advertising lawsuit was filed by California resident Emma Brenner, who claims that she and her family bought several bottles of KeVita kombucha under the impression it contained live probiotic cultures.

According to the complaint, the company misled consumers by continuing to market the drink as probiotic-rich—even after it began pasteurizing its products in 2011.

Pasteurization involves heating the beverage to kill potentially harmful bacteria, but it also destroys the live probiotic cultures that kombucha is known for. The lawsuit argues that selling pasteurized kombucha with probiotic claims is misleading and deceptive.

Brenner alleges that KeVita and PepsiCo placed their drinks in refrigerated sections next to unpasteurized kombucha brands, further reinforcing the impression that the product contains live cultures. She also calls out the use of terms like “handcrafted,” which may imply small-batch authenticity that no longer reflects KeVita’s current production process.

The lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased KeVita kombucha after October 4, 2013. The plaintiff is asking for compensation, a stop to the alleged misleading marketing, and the return of profits gained through these claims.

False Advertising and Its Impact on Consumers

False advertising doesn’t just hurt consumers financially, but it also erodes trust. When health-conscious buyers choose products like kombucha, they often do so for specific wellness benefits. Marketing a product as containing live probiotics when it no longer does so misleads consumers into spending money on something that may not deliver the promised health results.

The KeVita Kombucha lawsuit also puts broader concerns in the beverage industry under the microscope. Legal definitions for kombucha remain vague, especially when it comes to probiotic content and processing methods. While agencies like the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) regulate the alcohol levels in kombucha, there is little regulation around pasteurization or probiotic standards.

Industry insiders have expressed concern about how brands market pasteurized or artificially enhanced beverages under the kombucha label. Jeff Weaber, founder of Aqua ViTea, commented on the lawsuit, saying that misleading products undermine legitimate brewers and confuse consumers.

These lawsuits signal that consumers are paying closer attention—and that companies will be held accountable if their labels or marketing are deceptive.

Want to learn more? Read about our experience with false advertising lawsuits and how we help protect consumer rights.

What Does The KeVita Kombucha Lawsuit Mean for You?

If you purchased KeVita kombucha thinking it contained live probiotics, you may be eligible to join the class action lawsuit. Class actions allow groups of consumers with similar claims to come together and hold companies accountable on a larger scale.

In this case, anyone in the U.S. who bought KeVita kombucha after October 4, 2013, could potentially qualify as a class member. You may be entitled to compensation for your purchase or other remedies, depending on the outcome of the case.

Participating in a class action doesn't require you to file an individual lawsuit. Once a class is certified, eligible consumers are notified and can decide whether to remain part of the class or opt out.

How Bradley Grombacher LLP Can Help

Bradley Grombacher LLP has extensive experience in handling false advertising, consumer protection, and class action lawsuits. We work to ensure that companies are transparent in their marketing and that consumers get what they’re promised.

In the KeVita Kombucha lawsuit, our legal team is fighting to protect consumers who were misled by claims of live probiotics in a pasteurized product. We aim to stop deceptive practices and recover financial damages for those affected.

If you've purchased KeVita kombucha and feel you were misled, we encourage you to get in touch. Our team can evaluate your case and determine if you may qualify to join this or another class action.

Explore our Class Action Lawsuits and Consumer Protection practice areas for more details.

Consumer Transparency Matters

The KeVita Kombucha lawsuit is just one example of how we’re always fighting to uphold honesty in marketing and protect the rights of consumers who rely on product labels to make informed decisions. As awareness around health claims grows, so does the importance of holding companies accountable for their misleading information.

If you believe you’ve been misled by KeVita Kombucha or any other product, contact Bradley Grombacher LLP today to explore your legal options.

Join the class action lawsuit and fight back against false advertising.

Providence Health Employees Win ERISA Lawsuit Settlement

Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:25:33 GMT

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging Providence Health & Services violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by misapplying an exemption meant for churches.

Providence Health & Services agreed to pay $352 million to settle the ERISA lawsuit. According to the lead plaintiffs in the class action, 73,000 employee retirement plans were at risk because Providence Health & Services claimed it was exempt from ERISA requirements and failed to properly protect their retirement plans.

The Providence Health & Services ERISA lawsuit was filed in November of 2014. The lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit included two nurses who argued the Washington-based healthcare provider was jeopardizing their and other employees’ retirement plans and violating their rights. In their motion for settlement, the plaintiffs asserted that “Class counsel believed that the settlement will provide a substantial benefit to the settlement class and that, when that benefit is weighed against the attendant risks of continuing the prosecution of the action, the settlement represents a reasonable, fair and adequate resolution of the claims of the settlement class.”

According to the ERISA lawsuit, Providence Health & Services tried to extend the and ERISA exemption for churches by claiming that its hospital and medical services were an extension of its religious affiliation. A spokesperson for Providence Health & Services stated, “The core plan is well¬funded, properly administered and has been paying accrued benefits to eligible caregivers for decades. We maintain that the core plan is properly designated a church plan, and Providence reached a settlement as a good financial steward.”

Under the Providence Health & Services ERISA lawsuit settlement, Providence Health & Services will pay $50 million into employee retirement plan funds until it has paid a total of $350 million. Non-vested former plan participants will receive $1.9 million.

ERISA Lawsuits

Several other major health organizations have come under fire in different ERISA lawsuits for making claims like the Providence Health and Services Case. These ERISA lawsuits are currently working their way through the court system. While the Providence Health & Services ERISA lawsuit will not likely provide a final determination on whether religiously affiliated organizations are exempt from retirement protections, legal experts believe that the Supreme Court will hand down a ruling using one of the many pending ERISA lawsuits.

Employees in one lawsuit claim that the medical organizations claiming they were exempt from ERISA protections because of their religious affiliation were shorting retirement plans by $1.2 billion.

In similar ERISA lawsuits, the Seventh and Third Circuit Court of Appeals refused to extend the ERISA exemption for churches to affiliated medical centers and hospitals. These hospitals are now taking their case to the Supreme Court arguing that the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of Labor, and Pensions Benefit Guaranty Corp. all agree that they are not subject to ERISA regulations regarding minimum-funding and fiduciary obligations.

If you are concerned that your pension plan failed to follow ERISA’s requirements, contact Bradley/Grombacher today for a free and confidential review of your claims. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

What Employees Should Know About Whistleblower Retaliation in California

Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:23:42 GMT

There are various laws on the books at both the state and the federal level that protect people against whistleblower retaliation. Whistleblower retaliation in California can occur when an employee or other insider comes to learn of knowledge that could translate as illegal activity or fraud. Due to the government wanting to encourage people who become aware of this type of information to come forward and share it without fear of repercussion, whistleblower retaliation in California and at the federal level is designed to make things as easy as possible for whistleblowers.

New Whistleblower Retaliation Guidelines in California

There is a new framework for whistleblower retaliation in California, that all employees should be aware of in order to protect their rights. The enactment goes into effect on the 1st of January in 2018 and dramatically changes the framework for protecting whistleblowers in California. The new provisions were a part of Senate Bill 306, which was signed into law by the governor at the beginning of October in 2017.

Currently whistleblower retaliation in California is prohibited in the form of an employer taking adverse action against the job applicant or an employee, because they engage in what is known as protected conduct. Protected conduct may include raising complaints about job safety or other activity. The State Labor Code allows for employees who allege that an employer has retaliated against them to file a complaint directly with the Labor Commissioner’s office. This must occur within six months of the retaliatory action.

The Labor Commissioner is then responsible for conducting an investigation into that retaliation. A formal complaint is the only way to trigger such an investigation. If the Labor Commissioner identifies that a violation has indeed occurred, then the employer must be directed to cease and desist, as well as take actions that could remedy the violation. Senate Bill 306 was first introduced in February of this year and will create three major changes in how whistleblower retaliation in California claims are evaluated.

First of all, the Labor Commissioner’s office can now begin an investigation before an employee complaint is filed regarding retaliation. Secondly, the Labor Commissioner has the responsibility and authority to penalize employers or issue citations. Penalties can include paying back lost wages or rehiring workers.

Finally, employees will have a decreased burden of proof in order to obtain injunctive relief to protect their job at the time that a civil retaliation claim is pending. The law allows employees to bring civil actions for retaliation claims to get injunctive relief from the court to maintain their job. Injunctive relief may be ordered by the court if the employee can illustrate reasonable cause if they were adversely affected because they asserted their rights or raised a claim of retaliation.

If you or someone you know has been negatively affected by whistleblower retaliation in California, you need to speak to an attorney to protect your rights. The attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher are here to help.

Trader Joe’s Notified of a Prop 65 Acrylamide Violation

Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:21:45 GMT

A new Proposition 65 notice of violation has been filed alleging that the popular company Trader Joe’s is involved in a violation. The Prop 65 acrylamide violation names the distributor and manufacturer as selling a product that contains a chemical listed as hazardous to human health under the law.

California voters first approved an initiative that ultimately became Prop 65 back in 1986. Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Californians must be notified about their exposure to potentially dangerous chemicals, including those that are known to cause birth defects, cancer, or reproductive harm.

Prop 65 Acrylamide Violation Hits Trader Joe’s

In January of 1990, acrylamide was added to the Prop 65 dangerous chemicals list in California because of its connection to cancer. It was also connected to reproductive and developmental toxicity as of February of 2011. The claimant has initiated a Prop 65 acrylamide violation procedure by arguing that Trader Joe’s has a product on their market shelves being sold to consumers that contains this dangerous chemical.

Trader Joe’s chewy granola bar with maple flavor, oats, millet, quinoa and amaranth is named in the Prop 65 acrylamide violation notice. Proposition 65 requires that makers and distributors provide reasonable and clear warnings with their products that contain a listed chemical. According to the Prop 65 acrylamide violation notice, the manufacturer has been selling this product at least since May of 2017.

What Must Companies Do in Regards to Prop 65?

Chemicals added to the Proposition 65 list in California require that manufacturers review this list on annual basis to provide appropriate warnings. That list has been updated at least once per year since it was enacted and now includes more than 800 chemicals. In order to hold companies accountable for failing to notify consumers about the risks, consumers and consumer protection organizations, as well as the State Attorney General can hold companies accountable for Prop 65 violations.

Currently, Prop 65 is enforced through the California Attorney General’s Office as well as any city attorney or district attorney for an area with more than 750,000 in the population.

Consumers who identify that Proposition 65 violations have occurred must notify the company of their intention to proceed with further legal action if the company does not take steps to rectify the concerns. Many of these consumers get testing done to verify their suspicions and may also work with lawyers to put together the initial information for the 60 day notice to affected companies.

Any supporting documents associated with allegations of Prop 65 violations must be provided to the Attorney General’s Office. The Attorney General must take steps to make this information public knowledge.

Chemicals are added to the Proposition 65 list on an annual basis after they have been identified as causing cancer, reproductive toxicity, and/or birth defects. Proposition 65 has been in place since the 1980s and allows California consumers to hold manufacturers accountable when violations have occurred.

Do you believe that a product contains dangerous chemicals included on Prop 65? If so, your decision to take action could help protect others. Schedule a meeting today with the lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher to talk about your legal options.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Rite Aid Antacid Tablets Listed on New Prop 65 Notice

Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:19:36 GMT

A new 60-day notice has been released regarding the Rite Aid antacid tablets due to claims that they contain chemicals or substances listed in Proposition 65.

Prop 65, or the set of rules in California that require manufacturers and makers to warn consumers about dangerous contents inside materials, includes annual updates for the chemicals listed. A California citizen has issued a notice regarding Rite Aid antacid tablets . Members of the public are allowed to issue such notices under the law when they believe a company is violating Prop 65.

Companies that make any item that includes chemicals known to be dangerous in terms of carcinogens or substances linked to reproductive harm have to inform customers on the labeling so that the consumer is aware of the risk prior to purchase.

That citizen claims to have become aware of violations of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65. Private citizens are able to take action on behalf of the general public when a company produces an item with chemicals included on the Prop 65 list while also failing to notify the public of these issues.

Allegedly, the Rite Aid brand of antacid tablets contain Cadmium, a substance that is known within California to cause reproductive toxicity for men and cancer for both men and women. In 1997, Cadmium was added to the list of chemicals known to cause reproductive issues. Cadmium was previously added to the list in 1987 due to its connection to cancer.

The affected products in the Rite Aid antacid tablets Prop 65 notice include the Ultra Strength, Extra Strength, and Regular Strength in a number of different flavors such as assorted berry, tropical fruit, peppermint, wintergreen, and assorted fruit.

In addition to the Rite Aid brand version of these tablets, TopCare products in 500 and 750mg in both regular and extra strength allegedly violate the statewide requirements. Customers who purchase the product will ingest it orally, a fact which the Rite Aid antacid tablet legal claim argues is of serious concern because of the exposure to Cadmium.

According to the notice, without the proper labeling on the exterior of the product, a consumer might not realize they are in danger of ingesting Cadmium and developing the linked reproductive or carcinogenic effects.

If the violators do not rectify the situation, states the notice, the claimant intends to pursue a private enforcement action. This step is typical in allegations of Prop 65 violations. In many cases of violations, those accused will have an option to fix the situation such that consumers know the risk in the future. If they fail to comply, the concerned consumer or organization can pursue further legal options.

If you or someone you know has recently learned of a Prop 65 violation similar to the Rite Aid antacid tablets, you may be able to pursue a legal claim. Such a claim begins in a consultation with experienced lawyers — schedule a consultation today with a dedicated attorney at Bradley/Grombacher.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Minimum Wage Lawsuit Filed by Domino’s Drivers

Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:17:55 GMT

The popular pizza chain, Domino’s, is currently facing a wage and hour lawsuit due to allegations that they failed to pay appropriate wages. The minimum wage lawsuit argues that the chain’s actions were illegal and caused Domino’s delivery drivers to be underpaid.

According to the plaintiff, drivers can only make minimum wage or above when they are regularly working on the delivery aspect of the job. When they are given other tasks or required to follow company policy in terms of what they give back for each delivery made, they cannot achieve legally required minimum wage.

Claims in Domino’s Minimum Wage Lawsuit Involve How Drivers Are Put to Work

A former delivery driver filed a minimum wage lawsuit against two Illinois franchisees and Domino’s Pizza. The driver’s goal is to create classes of employees and collectives who work at two multi-store Illinois franchises and whose uniforms, untipped in-store work, and car costs kept their pay well under what would be legal levels. Drivers who work for Domino’s have to pay their own insurance, car maintenance, gas costs, and uniforms, alleges the lawsuit. Furthermore, they are only reimbursed approximately $1.00 for every five to seven mile delivery made for the company, even though the actual costs associated with that delivery are much higher, according to the plaintiff in the minimum wage lawsuit.

Ultimately, the plaintiff argues that this translates to a pay that is less than minimum wage. According to the plaintiff who filed the minimum wage lawsuit, the IRS 2017 business mileage reimbursement rate was used to determine that plaintiff had to regularly kick back to the defendants so much per hour, that it decreased her hourly earnings below minimum wage, because the reimbursement rate was a bit smaller for one of the locations and the delivery radius was a bit larger, a higher amount was being kicked back to the defendants every single hour.

According to the minimum wage lawsuit, Domino’s has the responsibility to curtail the patterns, practices and unlawful policies that make delivery drivers earn less than minimum wage.

Since July 2009, the federal minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour. However, minimum wage requirements are higher in Illinois where the lawsuit was filed. Due to the increase in online ordering that has made in-store employees less necessary, Domino’s encourages franchisees to hire drivers who can manage in-store tasks when no deliveries are required. However, according to the minimum wage lawsuit, the plaintiff in that particular case spent up to one third of her time inside the restaurants working in an untipped capacity that pushed her hourly wage lower than the mandated minimum wage. Two separate collectives may be established under the Fair Labor Standards Act if the plaintiff is successful.

If you or someone you know has been affected by illegal practices that violate minimum wage laws, you may be entitled to recover compensation with the help of an experienced lawyer. The attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher are currently investigating claims of wage and hour violations.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Alleged Uber Pay Discrimination Prompts Lawsuit

Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:16:18 GMT

According to a recent lawsuit filed by three women in California, Uber pay discrimination was a critical issue for employees of color. The Uber pay discrimination lawsuit states that the behavior was carried out based on gender and race in terms of how workers were treated in terms of compensation and promotions.

Promotions and More Named in Uber Pay Discrimination Lawsuit

Complaints were filed directly with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency by the three engineers. Two of those engineers have since left the company. In the legal claim, the three engineers claim that people of color and women working for Uber are given smaller bonuses, less opportunities for equity, are promoted at a slower rate than their peers, and are given less equity in the company. The Uber pay discrimination lawsuit details that people of color are defined as Latino, Native American, and black for the purpose of the claim.

This legal action comes just eight months after Uber was required to address their company culture from previous claims of sexism and sexual harassment. One employee published a widely-read account of her experience with both discrimination and harassment while she worked for the popular ride-sharing company

Key to the Uber pay discrimination lawsuit are claims that the stack ranking system works against women and people of color. Managers have to rank their employees, a program that the women who filed the suit claim put them at a disadvantage with their peers. Allegedly, Uber managers assigned women tasks less rigorous or important than their peers in addition to failing to provide clear ways to understanding their responsibility and next steps.

The claims go beyond what happens in terms of passing off assignments, too. The compensation for employees at Uber is based on their previous earnings elsewhere- a method that many advocates argue is one way to exacerbate past issues with wage gaps affecting women and people of color.

The plaintiffs in this Uber pay discrimination lawsuit want damages and wages in addition to changes to performance evaluations and equal employment opportunities with Uber. Companies accused of perpetuating discriminatory practices can be found responsible in court when an employee brings a suit. Both state and federal laws are in place to protect employees from discrimination. Often pay discrimination allegations emerge because of past employee experiences at the company.

Often, issues such as those named in the Uber pay discrimination lawsuit are extremely complex to verify because of the degree to which an employer’s actions may be shielded by what seem like fair employment practices. The plaintiffs are calling attention to claims that the stack ranking system is flawed and puts employees at a disadvantage from which they cannot easily receive appropriate recognition.

If you or someone you know has already been negatively affected by pay discrimination or other illegal employment practices, gathering evidence and consulting with an experienced lawyer is strongly recommended. The attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher are currently investigating legal claims from employees who were subjected to pay discrimination.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Hospice Whistleblower Lawsuit Leads to Massive Settlement

Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:14:37 GMT

A government lawsuit reflecting claims from three separate states has led to the biggest False Claims Act settlement in history. Chemed was accused of Medicare fraud and faced a hospice whistleblower lawsuit as a result. In addition, their subsidiaries, including Vitas Healthcare Corporation and Vitas Hospice Services LLC were all named in the suit.

Millions to Be Recovered in Hospice Whistleblower Lawsuit

The Department of Justice shared that the $75 million settlement was the biggest yet under the False Claims Act for violations from a hospice service provider. As with many settlements, the agreement did not determine liability. However, the biggest for-profit hospice company in the country, Vitas, made the lawsuits and settlement remarkable. A Corporate Integrity Agreement was entered with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for this hospice whistleblower lawsuit .

Medicare and Medicaid fraud claims are often brought forth by whistleblowers, or those company insiders who become aware of taxpayer fraud carried out under the umbrella of healthcare fraud scam.

The allegations in the hospice whistleblower lawsuit state that Chemed was responsible for giving hospice care to patients who did not require it. Typically, hospice care is provided to terminally ill patients near the end of the life to minimize suffering and to provide additional support. The general guideline for the provision of hospice care is that the patient is expected to live six months or less. When selecting hospice, those patients generally discontinue other treatments.

The claims in the hospice whistleblower lawsuit state that Chemed not only billed for services rendered to patients who should have never received it but also asked employees to increase the number of patients getting hospice care even if those patients could benefit from their current treatment and/or didn’t need hospice.

After investigation, the government determined that home care services were also provided even though they were unnecessary. Employees who took great efforts to increase the number of patients on hospice care were rewarded for their actions, even though most of the patients should not have qualified for it to begin with.

In addition to the government’s claim, the hospice whistleblower lawsuit settlement resolved the issues brought forth by shareholders. That portion of the claim was brought forward under the False Claims Act (FCA), which could entitle the plaintiffs to part of the recovery obtained.

Anyone who becomes aware of Medicare fraud within a company can exercise his or her rights to tell the authorities about the situation without fear of retaliation. Certain whistleblower claims, including those brought under the FCA, also allow for a whistleblower to receive a percentage of the overall recovery.

If you become aware of Medicare or Medicaid fraud in an organization you are working for or with and you want to inform someone, it’s important to protect your legal rights to do so. Talking to an attorney can clarify the steps you need to take to protect yourself. The attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher are currently investigating claims of potential healthcare fraud brought forth by whistleblowers.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Medicaid Fraud Violations in Florida Lead to Prison Time

Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:12:57 GMT

A Florida woman was recently accused of Medicaid fraud violations, that, upon investigation, led to more than four years in prison. The owner of a healthcare facility in Orlando was slammed with a 54 month sentence for Medicaid fraud violations due to allegations that she bilked the federal program for more than $200,000 in unlawful payments.

Medicaid Fraud Violations Used Homeless to Bill Government

According to the Medicaid fraud violations allegations, she exploited homeless people in an effort to bill Medicaid illegally. The state attorney general’s office managed the investigation into the fraud scheme. The owner of the facility previously pleaded guilty to first-degree felony charges of Medicaid fraud.

The circuit judge had originally established a sentence of 108 months for the defendant with the agreement that she turn herself in to receive reduced time. Several co-conspirators were also arrested with the owner in 2015 due to claims that they were recruiting homeless individuals in Orlando to pose as patients. Temporary housing and gas cards were used to recruit the homeless and to use the Medicaid IDs for the patients. Psychosocial rehabilitation services were then billed, even though the patients never received those services. When patients listed on the billing were interviewed, many admitted they had never even seen a doctor.

In addition to billing for services that were never provided, untrained staff members, including some who had a criminal past, were also involved in the Medicaid fraud violations. The owner of the facility was charged with two separate counts of Medicaid provider fraud and initially plead not guilty but later altered that plea. A maximum sentence of 30 years could have been given in the case.

Before the sentencing hearing, the owner of the facility forfeited over $170,000 to Florida for the restitution. The owner was also given a credit of 28 days served. The Medicaid Fraud Control Unit managed the investigation. Since 2011, that office has led investigations that garnered more than $750 million in judgments and settlements.

Investigations Into Medicaid Fraud

Medicaid fraud violations are investigated seriously by the state and federal government. Whether it’s a minor violation or a complex scheme, Medicaid fraud can involve civil as well as criminal penalties when identified.

Medicaid fraud schemes may include billing for services that were never performed, using staff members not approved to administer care to Medicaid recipients, or giving devices, treatments, and medications that are not needed to patients. All of these can lead to detrimental outcomes for the patient in addition to defrauding the government and the taxpayers.

If you know of Medicaid fraud violations in a facility in which you work, you may be able to serve as a whistleblower and to alert the government of these schemes. Talking to an attorney is strongly recommended to protect your rights- contact the experienced team at Bradley/Grombacher today to learn more about your next steps and how to protect your interests.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

What to Do After Suffering a Catastrophic Personal Injury?

Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:10:51 GMT

Being involved in any type of accident is something that you always want to avoid and unfortunately, you cannot always predict when you will be involved in a serious accident.

What Is a Catastrophic Personal Injury?

A catastrophic personal injury is one that is likely to affect you for many months or years and can cause you to require advanced medical treatment such as surgery, rehabilitation and physical therapy.

When you know how to handle a catastrophic personal injury and the steps you need to protect your legal interests going forward, you can increase your chances of receiving the compensation you need to enhance your quality of life. Anyone who has suffered a catastrophic personal injury may need personal care, rehabilitation, and medical treatment. In the most serious of these situations such as paralysis, the person could be looking at advanced medical support over the duration of their life.

If you’ve already suffered a catastrophic personal injury, you may be entitled to recover compensation with the help of an experienced attorney. Some of the most common types of compensation afforded to victims of catastrophic personal injury include lost wages, medical expenses, pain and suffering and other losses.

Examples of Catastrophic Personal Injury

A catastrophic personal injury is often defined as one that causes severe damage to the spine, spinal cord or the brain. Lifetime rehabilitation and medical treatment most often apply in these cases and numerous surgeries are often required for someone suffering from a catastrophic personal injury. Some of the most common examples of catastrophic injuries include:

Blindness
Burns
TBIs
Paraplegia or quadriplegia
Spinal cord injuries
Disfigurement

Any type of personal injury accident could cause someone to suffer these serious and life changing medical conditions. It could have been an accident on the job in which your employer is negligent for not requiring you to use the right safety gear, a slip and fall accident when a property manager or owner failed to remove a hazard on the property, or a vehicle accident when someone else was not paying attention or was driving a car under the influence of alcohol.

What to Do After a Serious Accident

Your life may be forever changed by a catastrophic personal injury. You may not even be able to return to work ever again and your life maybe full of medical appointments and coping with pain on a day to day basis. Gathering your evidence, such as the police report from the accident and copies of your medical records, is important for initiating a personal injury claim.

Personal injury law allows victims of a catastrophic personal injury to file a legal claim to recover the funds they need to put this unfortunate incident behind them. While your life may never be the same after a catastrophic personal injury, you can take steps to minimize how much this will influence your future.

Consulting with an experienced attorney is strongly recommended- the lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher help victims of catastrophic personal injuries fight for justice.

New Prop 65 Carbon Monoxide Notice Affects Californians

Thu, 09 Nov 2017 13:09:18 GMT

A new notice from the Ecological Rights Foundation indicates that a number of companies in California are accused of violating Proposition 65. A Prop 65 carbon monoxide notice was recently issued warning consumers within California about known chemicals that could cause reproductive toxicity or cancer occur when consumers use a fire pit or wood burning fire rings.

The Prop 65 carbon monoxide notice explains that consumers who use wood-burning fire rings or fire pits may be exposed to harmful chemicals in the products they use. These products are most frequently used outdoors for cooking, heating, and ambiance in someone’s backyard, a public park, or a beach. The wood combustion that occurs during that process could release carbon monoxide, a chemical that could expose consumers to reproductive toxicity. As explained in the Prop 65 carbon monoxide notice, people standing nearby may inhale this chemical.

The Prop 65 carbon monoxide notice from ERF explains that the organization intends to bring enforcement action against every party within two months after the release of the warning. That Prop 65 carbon monoxide notice outlines the companies who produce goods that are known to contain carbon monoxide chemicals upon the release during wood burning. Consumers should be aware of the risk of reproductive toxicity on inhaling. Products sold in store as well as online are listed on the Prop 65 carbon monoxide notice.

Companies Named in New Prop 65 Carbon Monoxide Notice

A number of different companies producing goods affecting California consumers were named in the report. They include:

Target
Amazon
Walmart
Deeco Consumer Products
Home Depo

Proposition 65 has been in place for decades with the primary goal of making consumers aware of products they may purchase that include known carcinogens or chemicals linked to reproductive toxicity. Every year, the chemicals on the list are reviewed and additions are made. Companies that produce any goods containing those chemicals have to notify consumers about the inclusion of these chemicals so that customers can make an informed decision about buying the product. Companies are responsible for reviewing the list annually to ensure their notices are current regarding consumers.

If a company is in violation of the rules with Proposition 65, they could be held responsible with fines. A consumer or organization who becomes aware of this issue can also raise concerns and this could prompt lawsuits.

According to this most recent Prop 65 carbon monoxide warning notice, the violators are responsible for completing a comprehensive evaluation into whether any other products stocked or sold by them are known to contain the potential for carbon monoxide inhalation upon use. The notice requests that the companies investigate during the previous three years to ensure that appropriate warnings have been provided to California citizens.

If you believe that you have purchased a product that contains chemicals listed on Proposition 65, contacting a law firm can help you figure out next steps and help protect you and other consumers. Scheduling a consultation with the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher is a recommended next step to help you with your concerns.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

New Target False Advertising Lawsuit Makes Claims of Fake Furniture

Wed, 08 Nov 2017 13:07:47 GMT

A plaintiff has initiated a class action lawsuit against Target arguing that imitation leather furniture made and distributed by the company since 2006 was presented as being genuine leather. The Target false advertising lawsuit claims that the mega retailer is responsible for purposely misleading consumers into believing that they were purchasing genuine leather products when, in fact, the furniture was all imitation.

Allegations of Low Quality in Target False Advertising Lawsuit

The Global Bazaar collection is named in the Target false advertising lawsuit. The collection includes furniture made between 2006 and 2008. According to the Target false advertising lawsuit , consumers were misinformed and misled, making detrimental purchases that they would not have made if they had had the knowledge that the material was imitation leather.

The Target false advertising lawsuit says that the low-quality materials used in the actual products imitate genuine leather, including high quality double stitching techniques often used in luxury leather products. Accordingly, the Target false advertising lawsuit says that the retailer is responsible for misleading customers because of this mimicry of leather manufacturing techniques.

According to the plaintiff, after seven years of light use and ownership of a piece of Target furniture, the leather began to flake and peel away. The plaintiff shared in the Target false advertising lawsuit that the furniture sustained very little use during its lifetime and was purchased primarily for aesthetic use. However, the falling apart of the imitation leather has rendered the furniture unusable.

The Target false advertising lawsuit further states that Target was trying to mislead consumers because the purchase price of the ottoman in question was beyond $400, which would be in line with what a consumer would expect to pay for a genuine leather product rather than an imitation knockoff. If the plaintiff is successful in this Target false advertising lawsuit, it could affect customers who purchased similar furniture in any of the 1,816 target stores and distribution centers located throughout the United States during the relevant time period.

Consumers Protected Against False Advertising

Both state and federal laws enforce marketing standards such that consumers are not duped into a misleading purchase. These laws make it illegal for markets to use deceptive claims to encourage purchases. No deceptive, false, or misleading claims can be made about a product’s price, quality, or purpose.

Any published claim that is untruthful or deceptive could fall under the umbrella of a false advertising lawsuit. It is not always necessary to illustrate significant losses on the consumer’s part in order to initiate a legal claim of this type. Some of the most common allegations in these lawsuits include failure to disclose, high-pressure sales tactics, batch and switch advertising, artificially inflating prices, and deceptive form contracts. Any of these or a combination of them could form the basis of a suit.

Do you believe that you’ve already fallen victim to illegal marketing tactics like these? If so, it’s a good idea to schedule a consultation with a dedicated lawyer at Bradley/Grombacher- you may have grounds to pursue a legal claim.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

New Jersey Medicaid Fraud Case Leads to Lengthy Prison Sentence

Wed, 08 Nov 2017 13:06:21 GMT

A man in Cherry Hill, New Jersey is now facing jail time after allegations of Medicaid fraud, including criminal charges, based on claims that he used unqualified healthcare workers to bill the federal government program for services rendered. The man was sentenced to 70 months in prison after a comprehensive investigation and case over Medicaid fraud and embezzlement.

Medicaid Fraud Case Leads to Lengthy Prison Sentence and More

The individual accused of Medicaid fraud lived in Camden and operated a nonprofit designed to help the poorest residents of the area. That director was also accused of taking money directly from the nonprofit when he shouldn’t have. He had already plead guilty to conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and healthcare benefit program embezzlement. In addition to the prison time, he will face three years of supervised release and has to pay back restitution to the tune of $2.5 million.

Although the judge sentenced him to 70 months and other consequences, he could have faced up to ten years in prison. The executive director’s wife also previously plead guilty to embezzling $40,000 from the organization. Sentencing is pending in her case.

The majority of the patients coming to the behavioral clinic were on Medicaid and the executive director was responsible for managing the billings, according to statements in court and the billing paperwork. In New Jersey, there are rules about who can provide mental health services to Medicaid patients. Anyone providing mental health therapy through the program has to be properly licensed or maintain a master’s degree in mental health.

According to the Medicaid fraud lawsuit, multiple unqualified staff members treated Medicaid recipients and then the executive director Medicaid was billed anyways. The director himself also admitted to treating patients getting Medicaid benefits even though he was not properly licensed.

In addition to using unlicensed and untrained staff, the nonprofit allegedly billed Medicaid for therapy that never happened and used group therapy to bill as individual sessions, which is also against the billing rules. If a mother came in to receive a session on her own, both the mother and the child were billed for it as if they were both in attendance. Shorter sessions were also billed as longer and false records were used to pass Medicaid audits.

Medicaid fraud was only a part of the allegations against the nonprofit’s director — he also embezzled money from the company bank account to spend the money on him and his family, including travel, meals, and dental care, according to court documents.

Employees who didn’t show up for work were documented as “paid” with cash and payroll checks out of the nonprofit’s bank account. According to court documents, the money was in fact withdrawn from the company account to gamble at a casino. Allegedly, the amount of the embezzled funds totaled more than $1.5 million.

Medicaid fraud is often brought to the attention of the authorities through a “whistleblower,” or an employee who becomes aware of the fraudulent behavior. In an effort to identify cases of Medicaid and Medicare fraud, the federal government provides protections for whistleblowers who come forward with information on these kinds of cases.

If you think you need protection with regard to potential Medicaid fraud, contact the lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher today.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Dollar Tree Wage and Hour Lawsuit Filed by Employees

Tue, 07 Nov 2017 13:04:39 GMT

A group of Dollar Tree employees have come together to file a wage and hour lawsuit against their employer. The numerous plaintiffs in the Dollar Tree wage and hour lawsuit argue that violations of the Labor Code entitle them to recover damages. California has strict rules about wage and hour tracking for those employees who work on an hourly basis.

What’s Behind California’s Dollar Tree Wage and Hour Lawsuit

When an employer tries to discourage the proper tracking or payment of the right hours, employees may be eligible to pursue a legal claim against the employer. The Dollar Tree wage and hour lawsuit alleges that the employees worked the legal definition of overtime. The California Code of Regulations requires that employees who work beyond a forty-hour week to be paid overtime for the additional hours. Hours worked beyond the forty-hour mark in many industries, including retail stores, must be paid to the employee at a rate of one and half times their typical hourly rate.

The Dollar Tree wage and hour lawsuit claims that the employees were asked not to track their hours for some activities beyond their forty hour workweek. The employees in the Dollar Tree wage and hour lawsuit say they spent more than 50% of their time in a managerial capacity.

The employees who filed suit claim that they were asked to stock shelves, unload trucks, build merchandise displays, run the register as a store clerk, bag groceries, order inventory, clean the store, carry out price changes, set up endcaps, receive vendors, complete bookkeeping, and manage grand openings and work re-sets, among other tasks.

According to the wage and hour lawsuit, Dollar Tree did not maintain records for when these employees started and ended these work periods or the meal breaks afforded to the workers. Since the employer did not capture the relevant information about hours worked per day, the plaintiffs claim that they all worked in excess of forty hours per week doing the tasks mentioned above but were never fairly compensated for the extra time.

The lawsuit claims that the company had a practice of asking people to be improperly classified as exempt employees so that Dollar Tree did not have to pay them overtime for hours worked beyond forty in a workweek. The wage and hour lawsuit argues that these company policies violated state law and caused the plaintiffs to suffer damages, including lost earnings. The Dollar Tree wage and hour lawsuit also alleges that the company did not itemize wages in the right manner in addition to failing to record the hours worked.

Employers in California have a responsibility to ensure that each employee not exempted under the law is appropriately paid for their work time. For those situations in which systemic practices are used to underpay employees legitimately entitled to overtime, lawsuits may be filed by the affected workers to protect their legal rights.

If you believe that you have been subjected to illegal business practices by your employer, you should consult with the experienced wage and hour attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

How California’s Proposition 65 Is Enforced

Mon, 06 Nov 2017 13:02:58 GMT

California’s Proposition 65 includes hundreds of different chemicals that are known to cause reproductive harm, cancer risk or other serious medical conditions. Manufacturers and producers are responsible for notifying California residents of the presence of these chemicals in their products.

Companies that violate this could face serious fines and other problems. This leads many to be concerned about how Proposition 65 is enforced throughout the state of California.

Enforcement of Proposition 65 in California

The primary way that enforcement of California’s Proposition 65 is managed in the state of California is through civil lawsuit. Any district attorney, designated city attorneys and the attorney general can initiate these lawsuits.

Who Can Initiate Claims Under California’s Proposition 65?

Private parties that are acting in the public interest may also be eligible to initiate a lawsuit but only after notifying the appropriate city and district attorney, the attorney general and the business accused of the violation. The notice has to include necessary information for all of the recipients to determine the nature of the violation.

A private party is not eligible to pursue independent enforcement action of Proposition 65 in California; however, one of the government officials provided the notice can initiate their own enforcement action within 60 days of getting that notification.

Businesses identified in violation of Proposition 65 could face civil penalties of up to $2,500 for every day of the violation. Furthermore, a court may order the business to discontinue the violation.

When Can’t a Claim Be Filed Under California’s Proposition 65?

There are certain situations that prohibit private parties from filing an enforcement action. For these particular kinds of exposure, the act enables the business to correct the alleged violation without necessarily facing the fines and other penalties. These include:

Exposure to alcoholic beverages that are consumed on the violator’s premises, to the extent that such consumption is allowed by the law.
Exposure to listed chemicals in Proposition 65 for a beverage or food prepared/sold on the violator’s premises that is intended for consumption on or off the premises.
Exposure to environmental smoke from tobacco due to entry of individuals beyond employees, operated or owned by the alleged violator, when such smoking is allowed on that property.
Exposure to chemicals in engine exhaust.

If a private party alleges that such a violation happened in one of these situations listed above, the private party is responsible for notifying the alleged violator of the special complaints procedures and approve of compliance forms.

An attorney experienced with the complexities of California’s Proposition 65 can help you file a compliance form or begin a private action against a company that is in violation of the law. The lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher are here to investigate your claim and provide you with further information about pursuing legal action when a company violates California’s Proposition 65 — get help today to protect your right to file a claim .

California Insurance Adjusters File Class Action Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit

Mon, 06 Nov 2017 13:00:42 GMT

A group of California insurance adjusters, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, have filed an unpaid overtime lawsuit against their employer, Georgia-based Custard Insurance Adjusters Inc.

The four named plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for all “allegedly exempt employees” who worked for Custard from Oct. 4, 2014, through the trial date for all Fair Labor Standards Act allegations. For current or former Custard employees filing claims under California’s wage and hour laws, the class period is from Oct. 4, 2013, through the trial date.

Custard is a company that specializes in loss adjustment and risk management services. According to the company website, Custard has been in business since 1962 and is the largest privately held adjusting company and multi-line service provider in the continental United States. There are 250 company-owned branches serving more than 4,000 customers.

Insurance Adjuster Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit

The plaintiffs assert that Custard paid its employees substandard wages by denying overtime pay as well as rest and meal breaks, a practice they allege is/was standard operating procedure at all of Custard’s locations.

According to the insurance adjuster unpaid overtime lawsuit , Custard’s actions are also in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act 0f 1938. The labor law, often referred to by its acronym FLSA, establishes a minimum wage (currently $7.25 per hour), overtime pay for working more than 40 hours per week, record-keeping, and child labor standards affecting full-time and part-time workers in both the public and private sectors.

Since it was passed by Congress in 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act has been amended numerous times to do things like increase the minimum wage, expand the law to include state, local, and domestic workers who were not initially covered, mandate employers provide break time and a private area for nursing mothers to express milk, and modify the definition of an exempt employee.

California has its own, more expansive laws to protect workers paid by the hour that includes mandatory overtime pay for a workday that exceeds eight hours and “substantial remedies” for workers denied meal and rest breaks.

The Custard insurance adjuster unpaid overtime lawsuit plaintiffs accuse the company of skirting both federal and California laws and enjoying an “unfair advantage over its competition” at a “disadvantage to its workers.” The plaintiffs are asking to be awarded unpaid wages, which would include compensation for unpaid overtime, unpaid flat-rate tasks, unpaid driver time, unreimbursed mileage, compensation for missed meal breaks and rest periods, as well as damages and any appropriate penalties.

According to the insurance adjuster unpaid overtime lawsuit, Custard has had a consistent policy of permitting, encouraging, and requiring its “allegedly overtime exempt,” salaried, and commission-based insurance adjusters to work in excess of eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per week without paying them overtime as required by FLSA.

The proposed class action lawsuit specifically accuses Custard of failing to:

Provide legally required meal breaks and rest periods;
Compensate the class for drive time and/or mileage;
Compensate the class for time spent “on call” and for flat-rate tasks;
Provide class members with accurate, semi-monthly itemized wage statements reflecting the total number of hours each worked, the applicable deductions and the applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period;
Pay all wages owed upon termination from the company.

Are You Owed Unpaid Overtime Pay?

Employees who believe their wage and hour rights have been violated may be able to bring an employment lawsuit against their employer. A legal professional can assist potential plaintiffs in determine if bringing a lawsuit is right for them.

Fill out the form on this page for a FREE case evaluation by the California employment attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher.

New False Advertising Lawsuits Name Soda Giants

Mon, 06 Nov 2017 12:51:39 GMT

A trio of false advertising lawsuits has put the spotlight on Pepsi-Cola Co., Coca-Cola Co., and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Inc, three prominent manufacturers of diet soda drinks in the U.S. and around the world. According to the claims in the false advertising lawsuits, the marketing and labeling of these popular drinks mislead customers into believing the diet beverages can assist with weight loss.

While three separate class action lawsuits were filed, each of the class actions alleges similar facts. All three false advertising lawsuits allege that customers are being duped. The lawsuits claim that while the products in question have zero calories, by marketing the products as diet drinks marketers encourage customers to purchase the beverages to help with weight management or weight loss when in reality the aspartame inside the products causes customers to hold on to weight or even gain it.

The complaints claim that scientific evidence supports the assertion that consuming aspartame is counterproductive for weight loss.

According to the false advertising lawsuits, aspartame interferes with the human body’s capability to metabolize calories properly, leading to higher risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and metabolic disease. The plaintiffs claim that another side effect of aspartame is weight gain.

Plaintiffs involved in the false advertising lawsuits assert that the companies’ use of terms like “diet” on the labeling and in marketing materials is confusing for consumers in addition to being illegal.

Multiple studies are referenced in the false advertising lawsuits, including a recent Yale research project showing that diet drinks containing aspartame interfere with the body’s natural metabolism.

According to the Coca-Cola lawsuit, the human brain has evolved to correlate sweetness with calories. When the two do not correlate “the brain becomes confused, thinking there are fewer calories to burn.”

“The brain misreads the number of calories present and reduces metabolism, resulting in more calories being stored in the body,” plaintiffs allege.

In addition to the impact on metabolism, the suit cites research that the sweetness, whether or not it comes from natural sources or artificial sweeteners, increases a person’s appetite and therefore makes it more difficult for them to remain on a diet or lose weight.

Damages Requested in Diet Soda False Advertising Lawsuits

The plaintiffs assert that they struggled with obesity over the course of many years and unsuccessfully tried to use diet soda as one method to manage their weight. The lawsuits state that the plaintiffs purchased and consumed these products largely because marketing led them to believe that drinking diet soda would help with weight loss or weight management.

In addition to seeking damages for those people who purchased these diet sodas, the lawsuit requests that the makers of these drinks remove the word “diet” from their labeling to minimize confusion for future consumers.

If you have been the victim of misleading advertising or labeling, you may have grounds to file a false advertising lawsuit with the help of the lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

Man Arrested in Healthcare Fraud Scam

Mon, 06 Nov 2017 12:48:54 GMT

A 54-year-old Texas man has been accused of stealing more than $25 million in a healthcare fraud scam. Allegedly he submitted false claims for medical services to insurance companies and has since been arrested by FBI agents.

This kind of fraud is one of the most commonly identified in healthcare fraud whistleblower cases. Healthcare fraud whistleblower cases are initiated by an employee or another individual who becomes aware of the scam and reports it to government authorities. In this healthcare fraud scam case , an in-home fitness therapy and training company was managed by the accused individual.

Claims Alleged in New Healthcare Fraud Scam Case

Between 2012 and 2017, the Texas man falsely registered as a healthcare provider with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and enrolled a minimum of 19 separate times; committing a healthcare fraud scam each one of those times, according to the criminal complaint lodged by the FBI. He used different variations of his name and different names to bill insurance companies as though he was a medical doctor. He received more than $3.9 million as a result of the health care fraud scam. He could be punished by up to a $250,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison.

The lawyer representing the accused person in the healthcare fraud scam case, argued that the client believed he was operating within the law and did not realize he was perpetrating healthcare fraud. Only licensed doctors and providers are eligible to offer services through Medicaid and Medicare. When someone tries to skirt the system or engage in complex schemes to get payments though any government healthcare program to which they are not entitled, criminal charges may be pursued.

The government has complex regulations that require that a person submit appropriate paperwork and not engage in any type of healthcare fraud, whether it is overbilling, fraudulently representing themselves as a licensed and approved medical provider, or billing for services that were never rendered. Complex healthcare fraud scams are not often easily identified and may be the result of years of government investigation.

Discovery of Healthcare Fraud Scams in the U.S.

Although the government does engage in regular investigative methods to identify instances of healthcare fraud, those employees working in healthcare facilities may have inside awareness about an ongoing scam. The government encourages these employees to come forward and share their concerns about healthcare fraud with a whistleblower claim. Many healthcare fraud scams brought forward in the United States begin with a whistleblower or an individual who works for the individual or provider’s practice that notices the scam taking place and reports it to the authorities.

Awareness of the rights of a whistleblower can be valuable information for an employee who believes that a doctor’s office may be carrying out healthcare fraud. Understanding your legal options is important and can be done by scheduling a consultation with a knowledgeable lawyer at Bradley/Grombacher immediately.

Michigan Physician Named in Medicare Fraud Conspiracy Case

Fri, 03 Nov 2017 12:47:04 GMT

A new Michigan lawsuit outlines a situation in which a physician in Michigan pleaded guilty to $19 million Medicare fraud conspiracy scheme. The U.S. Department of Justice announced recently announced the defendant’s guilty plea for conspiracy to commit health care fraud.

Michigan Medicare Fraud Conspiracy Case Divulged by Physician Whistleblower

Three Detroit-area providers were involved in the Michigan Medicare fraud conspiracy . According to the physician, he conspired with other physicians and medical providers to prescribe medically unnecessary drugs like hydrocodone, oxycodone, and opana to Medicare beneficiaries.

Many of these Medicare beneficiaries were addicted to narcotics. The providers involved in the conspiracy often required patients to undergo unnecessary facet joint injections before they could receive prescriptions for any controlled substance. While patients were forced to undergo unnecessary procedures, increasing their risks of potential medical complications, the conspiracy participants were racking up fees within the Medicare system.

According to claims outlined in the Justice Department’s Medicare fraud conspiracy paperwork, the Michigan doctor referred Medicare patients to various home health agencies, diagnostic providers, and laboratories, even though the referrals were not medically necessary. The Michigan physician also served as a straw owner of various pain clinics to fraudulently and illegally conceal the true owner’s identity. A straw owner is a person who has the legal appearance of owning a business to hide the identity of the true owner.

The Michigan Medicare fraud conspiracy reached roughly $19 million before the federal government became aware of the Medicare fraud scheme. Medicare fraud conspiracies endanger patients and can lead to criminal charges as well as civil penalties.

What Is Medicare Fraud Conspiracy?

Medicare fraud occurs in situations where physicians or medical providers intentionally perform services that are unnecessary, make intentional errors, or overbill for services in order to receive an inappropriate payment from the government.

Medical professionals involved in a Medicare fraud conspiracy may develop an entire elaborate system in which they attempt to defraud the federal government health care program from a great deal of money. Each year Medicare fraud cost the federal government and taxpayers millions of dollars. Medicare fraud has become more prominent in recent years with the increase in the number of baby boomers who are now eligible for Medicare.

Individuals who become aware of Medicare fraud during their employment may become whistleblowers by providing pertinent information about these charges to the federal government or the authorities. In exchange, whistleblowers receive protection from retaliation from those employers. In some cases, a whistleblower may also receive a share of the amount of money recovered from the defendant. Whistleblowers are often employees of an organization who have access to company documents that prove the company is defrauding the government. Medicare fraud cases have been on the rise recently and the Justice Department has endeavored to zealously pursue these cases.

Do you know of a Medicare fraud conspiracy? An experienced attorney can help you navigate a Medicare fraud claim. Fill out the form on this page for a FREE review of your potential whistleblower claim.

Proposition 65 Chemical List in California Continues to Grow

Thu, 02 Nov 2017 12:45:16 GMT

Originally named the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, California’s Prop 65 includes requirements for sellers to disclose details about exposure to certain chemicals found in every day products.

As further studies have been completed connecting chemicals to an increased risk of reproductive harm, birth defects, or cancer, the Proposition 65 chemical list has continued to grow. The state is also responsible for updating these materials at least once per year with new chemical concerns.

What Consumers Should Know About the Proposition 65 Chemical List

The Proposition 65 chemical list in California is managed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Since initially published backed in 1987, more than 900 chemicals have been added to the list. Two new chemicals were added by April 2017, and 16 chemicals were added in 2016.

Chemicals included on the Proposition 65 chemical list pose a serious risk to consumers for developing severe medical conditions. Sellers of products containing these chemicals must provide consumers with a warning of the chemical’s presence in the product. And despite the ever-increasing additions to the list, some safety advocates argue that the bar is set too low for dangerous chemicals, and California residents are at risk.

Consumers’ Right to Hold Companies Responsible Through a Prop 65 Lawsuit

Businesses that fail to comply with these Proposition 65 regulations face civil penalties of a maximum of $2,500 each day for each violation. Additionally, companies could face civil lawsuits from both private citizens and the state due to noncompliance.

Private citizens who bring forth valid Prop 65 complaints are eligible to keep one-quarter of the penalties collected from those businesses in addition to payment of attorney fees and costs. According to 2015 data, businesses paid more than $30 million to settle lawsuits due to Prop 65 claims.

Businesses’ Responsibilities to Adhere to Prop 65 Requirements

Due to serious penalties and the fact that the number of Prop 65 claims have increased in recent years, any supplier selling products in California should be aware of Proposition 65 labeling requirements.

An annual review of newly-added chemicals, in addition to an internal audit of chemicals used in products, could help manufacturers and resellers flag issues before they arise. A company that ignores this step or purposefully tries to skirt the Proposition 65 chemical list requirements exposes itself to major risks in the form of fines and civil lawsuits.

With more than 900 chemicals on the list, consumers are more concerned about Prop 65 than ever before. Since California is such a popular market for products, consumers should be mindful of situations in which they believe a company has violated Prop 65 requirements.

Legal action can be taken against companies in violation of Proposition 65. Retaining the services of an experienced Prop 65 law firm is strongly recommended if you plan to file a legal claim against a company for violating Pop 65 requirements.

Obtain a FREE evaluation of your Prop 65 claims by the Prop 65 attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher filling out the form on this page now .

Man Injured in Crosswalk Recovers $15 Million in Brain Damage Lawsuit

Wed, 01 Nov 2017 12:41:24 GMT

The city of Los Angeles agreed to pay $15 million to settle a lawsuit by a man who was struck by a vehicle while crossing a Hollywood crosswalk. The accident caused the victim, John V., to suffer severe brain damage.

John was gravely injured while crossing Franklin Avenue in Los Angles, California. The attorneys who filed the brain damage lawsuit argued that the city was partially responsible for the accident because it failed to address the hazardous conditions at that intersection.

Many individuals know brain damage can be one of the most complicated medical conditions to be diagnosed immediately after an accident. Unfortunately, pedestrians, cyclists and motorcycle riders may be at a higher risk of developing brain damage after a severe accident due to their lack of protections that are afforded to passengers and drivers inside a vehicle.

Injuries Alleged in Los Angeles Brain Damage Lawsuit

The crash in Los Angeles put the plaintiff in a coma for several months and left him to cope with permanent brain damage. The plaintiff and his mother jointly sued both the city and the driver involved, arguing that traffic laws were not enforced appropriately and that the intersection itself was poorly designed.

Their personal injury attorneys argued that the markings for the crosswalk and warning signs for the intersection were in the wrong locations or were obscured in such a way that increased the chances of a severe pedestrian accident. The plaintiffs argued that the area had such significant accident history, that the city could have reasonably foreseen that an individual crossing that intersection would be struck by a motor vehicle.

When the city is responsible for sidewalks, crosswalks, and other city-managed features, the injuries sustained by a victim due to lack of maintenance or dangerous conditions may serve as the basis for a claim that the city is liable.

Los Angeles City Council approved the personal injury settlement last week and stipulated that the payment will be spread out over the course of three years. John is a military veteran who served in Afghanistan and now requires 24/7 care because of the severe brain damage tied to the accident.

City Settles Other Brain Damage Lawsuits

Unfortunately, this is not the first type of expensive settlement that the city of Los Angeles has faced over accidents resulting in brain damage.

The Council recently approved a $7.5 million settlement to end a bicyclist’s personal injury lawsuit when the cyclist became a quadriplegic after falling from his bicycle because his wheel hit an area of damaged pavement. Another cyclist who suffered severe brain damage after hitting a pothole was recently able to recover $6.5 million in a settlement.

If you or someone you know has recently been involved in an accident, and sustained brain damage or other catastrophic personal injuries, you may be entitled to file a lawsuit with the help of the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher.

Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

LA County Must Face Unpaid Overtime Wages Lawsuit by Home Health Care Workers

Wed, 01 Nov 2017 12:39:37 GMT

A federal judge in California recently denied a motion by the County of Los Angeles to dismiss an unpaid overtime lawsuit involving 169,000 home health care employees. The judge ruled that the County did not qualify for immunity under the 11th Amendment because it is not an arm of the state.

The wage and hour lawsuit alleges that 169,000 employees are owed unpaid overtime wages and are affected by unfair employment practices.

County’s Request Denied in Unpaid Overtime Wages Suit

The County of Los Angeles argued that it protected by the 11th Amendment’s sovereign immunity clause due to the statutory role it plays in facilitating the state’s In-Home Supportive Services Social Welfare Program (“IHHS”). The plaintiffs, however, argue they are owed unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

The plaintiffs, in this case, wanted the unpaid overtime wages lawsuit to include class members who were owed overtime wages after January 1, 2015. The Department of Labor had marked this date to remove an FLSA overtime exemption that previously applied to employees working within IHSS.

Litigation associated with those amended regulations put the enactment of the overtime changes at the federal level on hold, but later a DC Circuit Court ruling confirmed the decision to extend these overtime protections to individuals in the home health care work industry. Following the Circuit Court ruling, the Department of Labor announced the overtime exemption rules for IHHS workers would be enforced beginning November 12, 2015.

The County of Los Angeles argued that it should be categorized as an arm of the state because the “functions performed by the County in administering the IHHS program [were] pursuant to state law” and therefore, the County had no authority to pay IHSS workers overtime without the express consent of the state.

A five-factor test was used to determine whether the entity was an arm of the state. Ultimately the judge determined that while the County performed a central government function it was still given discretion in how it operated its local programs and the 11th amendment did not apply.

The Supreme Court stated in June of 2016 that it would not review any DC circuit court decisions associated with the extension of federal wage an hour protection to the majority of home care workers.

Employee Rights to Unpaid Overtime Wages

Employers of non-exempted workers have a responsibility to comply with state and federal rules when it comes to paying overtime. Companies must pay these employees for all hours in which the employee was under the control of the employer.

Company policies that try to avoid the payment of owed overtime may be at risk of an unpaid overtime lawsuit .

In recent years, many companies have come under fire for not considering all the circumstances in which an employee is engaged in his or her job, including requiring employees wait to clock in or out until advised by a supervisor. Employees affected by such issues may wish to talk to an employment attorney about filing an unpaid overtime wages lawsuit.

You can receive a free evaluation of your potential case from the experienced employment attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher by filling out the form on this page .

Furfuryl Alcohol, a Substance in Coffee, Added to Calif.’s Prop 65 List

Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:37:28 GMT

Beginning Sept. 30, 2017, California is adding furfuryl alcohol to its Proposition 65 list, a state mandate requiring anyone doing business in the Golden State “to notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in the products they purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment.”

Furfuryl alcohol is present in numerous thermally processed foods including coffee, fruit juices, baked goods, wine, brandy, whiskey, milk, cooked meat, and ice cream.

Furfuryl alcohol also turns food brown, something known as the Maillard reaction, which is a chemical reaction between an amino acid and a reducing sugar, usually requiring the addition of heat. The Maillard reaction also creates flavor. Furfuryl alcohol that forms during the Maillard reaction is not required to have a Prop 65 warning “to the extent a company can demonstrate it is present at the ‘lowest level currently feasible,’” lexology.com reports.

California’s Proposition 65 is a “right-to-know statute” enacted in 1986 as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act but commonly referred to by its original name, Proposition 65. It requires a clear and reasonable warning to California consumers about the possibility of exposure to carcinogenic compounds.

The comprehensive list includes some 800 naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals that, according to California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, are known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.

Additives or ingredients in pesticides, common household products, food, drugs, dyes or solvents are regulated under Prop 65. The regulation also applies if the listed chemicals are used in manufacturing and construction, or byproducts of chemical processes, such as motor vehicle exhaust.

Furfuryl Alcohol Naturally Found in Coffee

Coffee beans are known to contain some of the highest levels of furfuryl alcohol, according to a study on the occurrence of the substance in food and beverages, published in the March 2017 journal Molecular Diversity Preservation International.

But the National Coffee Association is balking at the addition of furfuryl alcohol to the Prop 65 list, saying there’s no scientific evidence linking it to cancer in humans.

“All currently published animal cancer research on exposure to (furfuryl alcohol) is focused on inhalation and not ingestion, making it difficult to interpret whether ingestion could pose a risk like inhaling large amounts of FFA,” the association writes. “The animal inhalation data suggests a link between FFA and nasal tumors and possible kidney toxicity.”

Furfuryl alcohol is but one of hundreds of compounds in coffee, it continues, noting that coffee is cited by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Agriculture as part of a healthy lifestyle “– the first time a food or beverage has been cited individually in the U.S. Dietary Guidelines.”

Other compounds found in coffee, according to the National Coffee Association, create “health-promoting and possible cancer-fighting properties” such as a reduced risk of colorectal cancer and type 2 diabetes as well as warding off dementia and killing leukemia cells in the laboratory.

Proposition 65 Lawsuits

Consumers can file Prop 65 lawsuits against companies who fail to comply with Prop 65 regulations. Although lawsuits must comply with very specific procedures an experienced legal professional can help you navigate the legal system. Successful plaintiffs may receive a monetary award.

If you are interested in learning if you have a case to file a Prop 65 lawsuit, fill out the form on this page for a FREE case evaluation by the consumer protection attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher.

Frito-Lay Settles Chip & Dip False Labeling Lawsuit

Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:34:41 GMT

Frito-Lay has removed the language on its labels alleging that their Tostitos, SunChips and Fritos Bean dip products are made with all natural ingredients. This is the result of a false labeling lawsuit filed five years ago. Frito-Lay has agreed to these new labeling restrictions to comply with the terms of the class action settlement and to prevent future suits.

Frito’s bean dip, SunChips, and Tostito’s tortilla chip products previously had the words “all-natural ingredients” on the packaging, leading consumers to believe that they were purchasing and paying a premium for a product different from others on the market, according to the false labeling lawsuit . The class action suit asserted that the main purpose of their legal claim was to remove the words “all natural” from product packaging since the products named in the Frito-Lay class action lawsuit may have been manufactured with genetically modified ingredients.

The company agreed to pay up to $2.1 million in attorneys fees and expenses, up to $5,000 for each of the four named plaintiffs in the false labeling lawsuit, and a maximum of $215,000 to inform consumers about the settlement.

During the case, Frito-Lay admitted that it purchased genetically modified corn, but the Company stated it wasn’t certain any specific product was made completely or mostly with corn from genetically modified seeds. According to the Frito-Lay class action lawsuit, genetically modified corn makes up 90% of the U.S. corn market. The consumers in the false labeling lawsuit alleged that because some of the ingredients contained GMOs, it was misleading for consumers who purchased anything with an “all natural” label.

Frito-Lay has already acted to remove any claims on its labeling that the products are made with “all natural” ingredients. The company also stated that they would not label any products with the words “all natural” if they included any GMO ingredients unless federal regulations allow the ingredients for use in “natural” products. According to Frito-Lay, the lawsuit was a crucial factor in the company’s decision to change their practices and labeling policies. Frito-Lay has also agreed not to market its products as non-GMO unless an independent organization certifies the product.

While the false labeling lawsuit focused Frito-Lay’s use of GMO corn in many of its products, the consumers in the class action lawsuit believe that the case’s outcome will protect consumers against a variety of potentially misleading claims.

The Frito-Lay False Labeling Lawsuit is FritoLay North America Inc. All Natural Litigation, Case No. 1:12md02413, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Who Can File a False Labeling Suit?

Consumers may file a class action lawsuit when labels and other marketing materials are misleading. In recent years, claims of organic or all-natural ingredients have been some of the most common issues raised in false labeling lawsuits.

A false labeling lawsuit is generally strongest when it can be shown the advertising terms used were confusing or inaccurate. If you have been affected by misleading claims from a consumer product company, you may be eligible to file a false labeling lawsuit with the help of an experienced attorney.

Contact the experienced consumer protection attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher by filling out the form on this page for a FREE case evaluation.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

$7 Million Settlement Reached in AnMed False Medicare Claims Lawsuit

Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:32:27 GMT

A South Carolina hospital will settle claims alleged by a whistleblower for $7 million, according to the US Attorney’s Office.

The whistleblower lawsuit alleged that AnMed Health submitted false Medicare claims in several different scenarios leading to higher reimbursement rates from the government. The lawsuit alleged the hospital would submit bills for radiation oncology services when the practitioner was not participating, billed a minor care clinic as Emergency Services, and submitted bills to the Emergency Department for services not performed by a physician.

A former AnMed employee initiated the whistleblower lawsuit under the federal False Claims Act. The whistleblower will receive $1,202,500 for the lawsuit and an additional settlement of $850,136.50 from AnMed for her wrongful termination claims.

AnMed says that a 2013 investigation into their billing practiced revealed that they fell short of federal regulatory standards. In a statement following the investigation, AnMed noted:

“The very complicated and frequently changing rules and regulations governing how we bill Medicare create inherent difficulties in maintaining constant compliance. These regulatory efforts lead to frequent challenges for health care systems and other providers across the nation. We discovered through an investigation started in 2013 that some of our billing practices fell short of our regulatory obligations.”

Under the terms of the false Medicare claims settlement, AnMed will also enter into a five-year corporate integrity agreement to ensure continuing compliance.

“We are glad to report that the billing errors were largely technical and did not compromise the quality of the care delivered at AnMed Health. We also were pleased that neither our review, nor that of the OIG, revealed any intentional misconduct or criminal wrongdoing,” stated the hospital.

AnMed also noted that it removed a vendor who provided billing and coding services and has increased compliance and audit functions to prevent future errors.

“This is another example of how the False Claims Act whistleblower provisions help protect the public’s interest,” said U. S. Attorney John Horn. “It also reflects our ongoing commitment to safeguard our federal health care programs and the vital care that they provide.”

“Our goal in pursuing Medicare fraud is not only to protect taxpayers, but also to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries receive the quality care they deserve,” stated the Civil Chief for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina.

Reporting False Medicare Claims

As noted by government representatives, reporting false Medicare claims is important to protect both taxpayers and ensure Medicare recipients are receiving the quality of care they deserve.

False Medicare claims include fraudulent billing statements that result in overpayment by the government for services not rendered. Employers have an obligation to ensure that their billing practices meet regulatory obligations if they accept federal government funding.

Employees who have evidence that their employer is submitting false Medicare claims should know that they are entitled to protection under the False Claims Act. Employees who go on to file successful lawsuits against their employer for false Medicare claims are also entitled to anywhere between 15 and 30 percent of any damages or settlement awards.

If you have evidence that your employer is submitting false Medicare claims to the government, please consider becoming a whistleblower on behalf taxpayers and Medicare patients. The whistleblower attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher will be happy to guide you through the process. You can obtain a free and confidential review of your claims by filling out the form on this page .

Cannabis & Proposition 65: What Businesses, Consumers Need to Know

Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:29:27 GMT

Cannabis products may require a warning label, says a notice sent to California business owners this summer.

Under California’s Proposition 65 , products with harmful chemicals that may cause cancer or reproductive problems must contain a warning label. This includes various cannabis products.

After being legalized by the state several years ago for medical use and then later recreational use, the booming cannabis industry was recently reminded that it must play by the same rules as other businesses in California and include warning labels for its products when required under state and federal law.

However, sellers of cannabis products may not want to include a Proposition 65 warning on their products.

The legalization and sale of marijuana has often been based on theories that the drug is beneficial to human health or, at a minimum, not harmful when it is inhaled, ingested or otherwise consumed. However, marijuana smoke has been listed as a harmful chemical under Proposition 65 since 2009.

The cannabis industry may want to learn from the past experiences of businesses selling herbs and dietary supplements.

The dietary supplement industry fought implementation of Proposition 65 labeling requirements on their products for years. These industries wanted to advertise their products as healthy, and including a cancer warning would likely damage their marketing. While the law has been relaxed in some ways businesses still must be aware of the hazardous chemical found in their products abide by the labeling requirements.

Cannabis products containing chemicals listed in Proposition 65 must include a warning label that meets the following requirements:

It must clearly indicate that the chemical in the product is known to cause reproductive harm, birth defects, and/or cancer;
The consumer must be provided the warning before they are exposed to the product;
The warning must be “clear and reasonable;” and
The warning must not be hidden in fine print or other languages.

The cannabis industry has options in the how they provide Proposition 65 warnings.

For example, companies can post on shelves or walls in the business, as well as on the product label, or they can use an electronic message for internet advertising. However, since much of the cannabis industry has marketed the product as beneficial for human health, it may be difficult for business owners to come to terms with Proposition 65 requirements and the public may need to step in to ensure the law is enforced.

Proposition 65 Lawsuits

Those who are concerned that they have been unknowingly exposed to a Proposition 65 chemical through use of cannabis or another product sold in California can consider litigation to ensure proper warning is provided for future consumers. Additionally, the government can enforce the law.

Those who successfully initiate a Proposition 65 lawsuit may be entitled to recover 25 percent of the fines enforced against the company that violated the law. Proposition 65 is a complex law and an experienced Prop 65 attorney can help navigate the various requirements and exemptions.

If you or a loved one has been exposed to hazardous chemicals in cannabis products or other California goods without Proposition 65 labeling, an experienced Prop 65 attorney can help you hold companies responsible.

Obtain a free case evaluation with the Prop 65 attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher by filling out the form on this page .

Jury Awards Girl Hit by Car $36.1M in Pedestrian Accident Settlement

Wed, 25 Oct 2017 12:26:49 GMT

A California jury has awarded $36.1 million to a young girl struck by a car on her way to an “unsafe” school bus stop.

The pedestrian accident occurred five years ago in 2012. The 6-year-old girl was crossing a residential street mid-block to catch her school bus when she was hit by a car. After the pedestrian accident, she has suffered a coma, has been in a wheel chair, and has required round-the-clock care.

The family sued the private school bus company, Durham School Services, for failing to provide a safe bus stop for their daughter and other children. According to the pedestrian accident lawsuit , the bus driver failed to notify the school district that the bus stop was notoriously unsafe for children.

The attorney for the girl and her family told the Los Angeles Times that “[the company] is supposed to be the eyes and ears of the school district to monitor all things that are unsafe that occur out at the bus stops. Everyone admitted that bus driver had an absolute duty to report that and get the safety people out there right away.”

During the trial, testimony from other parents on the bus route showed there was a pattern of unsafe stopping and increased risk of pedestrian accidents. Other mothers said they had to walk out in front of the bus to get the driver to stop for the children trying to go to school.

The jury awarded the girl $36.1 million, but also found that the girl’s mother was 20 percent responsible for the pedestrian accident, even though she wasn’t there, because she allowed her daughter to take the dangerous route on other occasions.

After the verdict, the girl’s mother told the Times, “More than anything I don’t want any other little kid to go through what I’ve been going through. We’re trusting the bus companies with our kids, for them to have a better future, and we don’t want nothing to happen to them.”

Catastrophic Personal Injury and Pedestrian Accidents

Individuals, especially children on their way to school, have a right to a safe passage, free from risks of catastrophic personal injuries that can alter their lives forever. Unfortunately, children and others are far too often the victims of pedestrian accidents caused by poorly organized routes that increase the risk of injury.

When another person or organization’s negligence causes an accident leading to catastrophic personal injuries, victims and their loved ones should know that they have a legal right to compensation. It may also take victims coming forward and filing a lawsuit against an organization that has been negligent to get the organization to change its ways and stop others from getting hurt.

If you or a loved one have been injured in a pedestrian accident, you have a legal right to be compensated for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost wages. It can be difficult to navigate the network of insurance, laws and regulations surrounding your legal rights, but an experienced attorney can help.

Obtain a free case evaluation with the pedestrian accident attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher by filling out the form on this page .

P&G Offers $30M Settlement to End Align Probiotic False Advertising Lawsuit

Tue, 24 Oct 2017 04:23:59 GMT

Proctor & Gamble has agreed to pay a $30 million class action settlement to resolve an Align Probiotic false advertising lawsuit.

The long-running class action lawsuit, filed in 2010, accuses the company of falsely advertising their popular probiotic supplement. Ultimately, consumers came together to file an Align Probiotic false advertising lawsuit alleging that the company put misleading and confusing information on the labelling of the popular product.

Consumers use labels to make decisions about products. When consumers make purchases driven by claims on the label and pay a premium for that product because of it, the discovery that the label is false advertising could lead to a lawsuit. False advertising laws in the United States are in place to both discourage false advertising in the first place as well as to hold companies accountable when they engage in these tactics and harm or mislead consumers.

In general, the terms “deceptive advertising” and “false advertising” refer to situations in which a manufacturer uses untrue, confusing, or misleading terms in advertising for the product or on the label. The primary purpose of the laws against this kind of behavior are to promote truth in labeling and to allow consumers to make informed decisions.

Allegations Lodged Against P&G in Align Probiotic False Advertising Lawsuit

According to the label of Align, it was “clinically proven” to encourage digestive health.

More than 7 years of litigation in the Align Probiotic false advertising lawsuit was followed up with months of negotiations through a mediator. The proposed class action settlement from Proctor & Gamble will include up to $15 million in cash refunds to those people who bought Align Probiotic and up to $10 million worth of other benefits.

Proctor & Gamble have additionally agreed in the Align Probiotic settlement not to use the terms “clinically proven” without any reliable, new, and clinical data to support changes in their formula.

Anyone who purchased Align in the United States or its territories between March 1, 2009 and June 6, 2016 will be eligible to participate in the Align Probiotic class action settlement and receive cash refunds of up to $49.26, including $31.76 for two purchases of Align. Purchases made after June 6, 2016 will be entitled to a one-time refund of $17.50.

Class representatives may be entitled to as much as $2500 individually.

The other benefits outlined, if the Align Probiotic false advertising lawsuit settlement is approved, will include research and education grants, product donations to educational institutions or research institutions working to improve digestive health, and intellectual property.

According to plaintiffs, this would benefit the class by enabling those people who need help regularly for their digestive health or those suffering from irritable bowel syndrome.

The Align Probiotic False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Rikos, et al. v. Procter & Gamble Co., Case No. 11-cv-00226, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

If you or someone you know has been affected by false advertising, you may be eligible to pursue a claim with the help of an experienced attorney. Contact the false advertising lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher for a free case evaluation by filling out the form on this page .

Bradley/Grombacher did not represent the plaintiffs in this case.

Prominent Palm Springs Dermatologist Accused of Overbilling Medicare

Mon, 23 Oct 2017 04:22:14 GMT

Federal authorities have charged a prominent Palm Beach dermatologist with healthcare fraud seven months after he paid the U.S. government $5.2 million to settle whistleblower claims that he was “massively” overbilling Medicare.

In court papers filed September 29, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ellen Cohen accuses the dermatologist of defrauding Medicare and TriCare, a federal insurer that serves the military and their families, out of $369,000 from January 2011 through January 2016.

According to the TriCare and Medicare overbilling lawsuit , the insurance companies were informed by the dermatologist that he paid a medical physicist, otherwise known as a radiation specialist, to determine the amount of radiation patients should get during skin cancer treatments. No medical physicist was employed at the healthcare office.

A large majority of the patients who came to that office were diagnosed with squamous cell cancer and ultimately received radiation treatments, falling right into the alleged scheme.

The TriCare and Medicare overbilling lawsuit claims that the files maintained by the dermatologist were also fraudulent and employees were told to respond to all requests for medical records from TriCare or Medicare by creating fraudulent documents known as “make it ready” files. Staff was allegedly instructed to prepare these files immediately when an insurance company reached out for information.

Further, the whistleblower in the Medicare overbilling lawsuit claims that the doctor was also guilty of using a forged signature of a physicist to indicate that such an individual had reviewed and approved the patient files. Such a person was never employed and did not exist. Initials were used to indicate the “physicist” signature.

Whistleblower Key to Government’s Litigation

Federal attorneys filed a TriCare and Medicare overbilling lawsuit against the dermatologist after taking it over a whistleblower lawsuit . The whistleblower was crucial to their case by providing further information about the actual practices engaged in at the healthcare office.

Medicare and Tricare are two prominent federal health insurance programs that have specific regulations and paperwork requirements in place in order for physicians to submit billing details. When individuals or offices attempt to circumvent the rules and overbill Medicare by charging for services never performed, forcing unnecessary tests on patients in order to absorb the insurance money, or engaging in fraudulent practices within the office, the authorities may not know about it until an insider or employee referred to as a whistleblower comes forward.

The dermatology practice in question allegedly went beyond what could have been honest mistakes in overbilling Medicare. The practice is accused of having a non-existent employee sign off on reports ordering services ultimately deemed unnecessary for patients.

The two counts he is facing could lead to a $250,000 fine.

The Palm Beach dermatologist, who operates Allergy Dermatology and Skincare Center in Port St. Lucy and Okeechobee, will be appearing shortly in U.S. District Court to answer those criminal charges of healthcare fraud in addition to obstruction of a criminal healthcare investigation. A maximum 10-year prison sentence applies for healthcare fraud but the obstruction charge also carries a separate 5-year prison term.

Are You Aware of an Overbilling Medicare Scheme?

If you are aware of healthcare fraud, including practices that result in overbilling Medicare or another government-funded insurer, it is strongly recommended that you talk to a whistleblower lawyer. Scheduling a meeting with the whistleblower attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher can help you figure out next steps.

Fill out the form on this page now for a free and confidential case evaluation.

Atkins Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Deceptive Marketing of ‘Net Carbs’

Fri, 20 Oct 2017 04:20:14 GMT

Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. makes deceptive “net carb” claims on its food packaging, according to a class action lawsuit that alleges the company fails to include sugar alcohols in a deceptive marketing scheme.

Lead plaintiff, Joseph Colella, alleges in the Atkins deceptive marketing class action lawsuit that consumers were deceived by Atkins’ claims about the “net carbs” included on labels on its food products. According to the plaintiff, sugar alcohols affect blood sugar levels, but Atkins ignores these in an attempt to deceptively market its products as low sugar.

“Atkins Nutritionals products falsely and inexplicably feature a ‘Net Carbs’ label that excludes an entire category of carbohydrates (carbs): sugar alcohols,” alleges the plaintiff. “Atkins has publicly admitted that its artificial definition of ‘Net Carbs’ is indefensible, yet refuses to fix its labels.”

The plaintiff says that consumers fell for Atkins’ deceptive marketing and purchased Atkins products because of the “net carbs” designation on the packaging. “Atkins made these false, misleading statements to deceive consumers into purchasing its products under the belief that they are extremely low in carbohydrates, when, in fact, they are not,” says the Atkins net carbs class action lawsuit.

The plaintiff says the following products contain misleading statements about Atkins net carbs:

Blueberry Greek Yogurt Bar; Chocolate Peanut Butter Pretzel Bar; Strawberry Almond Bar; Cinnamon Bun Bar; Chocolate Chip Granola Bar; Chocolate Peanut Butter Bar; Cookies n’ Crème Bar; Mudslide Bar; Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough Bar; Triple Chocolate Bar; Caramel Chocolate Peanut Nougat Bar; Caramel Double Chocolate Crunch Bar; Cashew Trail Mix Bar; Coconut Almond Delight Bar; Dark Chocolate Almond Coconut Crunch Bar; Caramel Chocolate Nut Roll; Dark Chocolate Decadence Bar; Chocolate Chip Crisp Bar; Chocolate Hazelnut Bar; Chocolate Oatmeal Fiber Bar; Cranberry Almond Bar; Chocolate Covered Almonds; Chocolate Candies; Chocolate Peanut Candies; Caramel Nut Chew Bar; Chocolate Caramel Mousse Bar; Chocolate Coconut Bar; Nutty Fudge Brownie; Peanut Butter Cups, and Peanut Caramel Cluster Bar.

According to the Atkins net carbs class action lawsuit, Dr. Atkins originally banned the use of artificial sweeteners under the Atkins diet that became popular in the late 1990s; however, says the plaintiff, the prohibition on sweeteners was revised by Atkins once a lucrative product line was developed using the chemical sugar alternatives.

Atkins products contain maltitol, says the plaintiff, a sugar alcohol that Dr. Atkins required diet followers to account for in their “net carbs.” Atkins products, however, are now deceptively marketed as zero net carbs, when maltitol is included in the ingredient list, according to the class action lawsuit.

“Atkins does not disclose the conflict between Dr. Atkins’ espoused method of calculating ‘net carbs’ and the method used by the company,” alleges the Atkins deceptive marketing class action lawsuit.

The Diabetes Teaching Center and the Mayo Clinic have conducted research on the effect of sugar alcohol on blood sugar levels. “[D]on’t be fooled – sugar alcohols are still a form of carbohydrate, and they still affect your blood sugar levels, if not as dramatically,” stated the Diabetes Teaching Center, according to the Atkins deceptive marketing class action lawsuit.

The term “net carb” misleads consumers as well, alleges the class action. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration has warned companies that the term is misleading and should be avoided since 2001.

The plaintiff seeks to represent residents of New York who have purchased Atkins’s products in New York that contained sugar alcohols and were labeled with the allegedly deceptive “net carbs” calculation.

The plaintiff is seeking damages, including punitive damages, and a disgorgement or restitution by Atkins to class members.

The Atkins Net Carbs Deceptive Marketing Class Action Lawsuit is Joseph Colella v. Atkins Nutritionals, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-05867-KAM-SJB, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York.

Did you purchase a product in California that was deceptively labeled or falsely advertised? You may be eligible to join a class action lawsuit and obtain compensation for your losses. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

City Workers Hit San Diego With Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 04:18:17 GMT

The City of San Diego is being sued by 40 current and former employees who allege they have been shorted overtime pay for the past three years. The plaintiffs are seeking class action status for their unpaid overtime lawsuit in order to represent all other similarly situated employees.

Lead plaintiffs allege in their unpaid overtime lawsuit that the City of San Diego has been miscalculating their regular rate of pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The class action lawsuit says that the City failed to include “cash-in-lieu” of payment, used to cover payments for health and welfare benefits, when determining employees’ overtime pay.

“During the relevant period, City did not count or include any of these ‘flex dollars’ as eligible ‘remuneration’ when determining the employee’s premium overtime rate payable for that workweek,” explains the unpaid overtime lawsuit.

“Each Plaintiff and all similarly-situated non-exempt current and former employees have been affected by the City’s conduct in the same manner because City’s policy and practice of excluding all FBP-related compensation from eligible ‘remuneration’ when calculating an employee’s regular and premium overtime rates of pay 15 has been uniformly applied to all Plaintiffs and others similarly situated when they have 16 worked in excess of 40 hours in a 7-day work week during the relevant period,” the unpaid overtime lawsuit continues.

The employees say that the City of San Diego notified them in June that their overtime pay would be changed to include benefits credits after a recent court decision found that failure to include these benefits violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA). However, says the unpaid overtime lawsuit, the City of San Diego has failed to correctly calculate the workers’ rate of pay for over three years and has not offered back pay for that mistake.

“Each Plaintiff and those similarly-situated are entitled to receive the full amount of FLSA-eligible premium rate overtime earned during the relevant period based on a ‘regular rate of pay’ which includes all cash-in-lieu of benefits payments as remuneration,” the plaintiffs allege.

According to the unpaid overtime lawsuit, City of San Diego workers are also entitled to additional damages because the City “voluntarily and deliberately” failed to correctly calculate their rate of pay in violation of the FLSA.

“Each Plaintiff and those similarly situated are also presumptively entitled to liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of the underpaid overtime City owes,” allege the city workers in their lawsuit.

The city employees are seeking back pay with interest along with liquidated damages from the City of San Diego for their alleged unpaid overtime. They are also say that other city workers should be notified of their right to join this unpaid overtime lawsuit without fear of retaliation, along with an injunction against the City for further violations of the FLSA.

The San Diego Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit is Mitchell v. City of San Diego, Case No. 3:17-cv-02014-H-AGS, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California.

Unpaid Overtime Lawsuits

Federal law provides that certain employees are entitled to time-an-a-half for overtime work. Overtime includes any hours worked over 40 in one week; however, some employers try to skirt the law by miscalculating the regular rate of pay of their employees.

If you are worried that you are losing out on your overtime pay, a California employment law attorney can help. You have rights to fair pay under the law and are protected from retaliation by your employer. An attorney can help you protect your rights and try to get the pay you deserve.

Contact the California employment law attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today for a free case evaluation by filling out the form on this page .

Study Finds High Levels of Phthalates in Macaroni & Cheese

Wed, 18 Oct 2017 04:16:43 GMT

A recent study has found that macaroni and cheese products in the United States contain high levels of phthalates, a chemical that has been linked to reproductive problems in men and women and delayed childhood development .

The study, published in July 2017 by the Coalition for Safer Processing & Packaging (CSPP), found phthalates in almost every kind of processed, powdered and natural cheese the researchers tested.

The U.S. bans six types of phthalates from being used in children’s products, but these products do not include food products despite the fact that macaroni and cheese meals are often marketed for children.

The phthalates can be found on the Prop 65 list of chemicals that California companies are required to warn consumers about if they are found in products. Chemicals on the Prop 65 list are naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals that are known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm.

What You Should Know About Phthalates

Phthalates is a term used to describe a family of industrial chemicals that have been tied to potential kidney, lung, liver and reproductive system damage in humans. They are added to many plastics to make them flexible, including common products used by children such as:

Lunchboxes
Binders
Backpacks
Storage cases
Rainwear
Footwear

While some of the highest levels of exposure to phthalates occur in medical devices made of flexible PVC, these chemicals may also be found in consumer products or even food. Many consumers make efforts to avoid using products with minimal phthalates when possible, which is why legislators have passed laws requiring companies to provide warnings about Prop 65 chemicals in their products.

Researchers for the CSPP tested, in total, 30 types of cheese made popular in 40 different products including processed, fresh and powdered cheese.

A minimum of 39 of those 40 products tested positive for phthalates and up to 10 different phthalates were identified.

The levels of phthalates found in powdered cheese, which is used to flavor macaroni and cheese products, came in at four times the level of phthalates found in natural hard cheese blocks and other types of natural cheese. The highest levels tested in these macaroni and cheese products came in at 2,500mg/kg while the average level of phthalates tested at more than 500 mg/kg. For reference, natural cheeses such as cottage cheese and string cheese had an average of 216 mg/kg of phthalates.

Researchers said the study was prompted by a 2014 review which found dairy products were the greatest source of dietary exposure to phthalates for women and children.

Phthalates are linked to reproductive problems, including an increased risk of fibroids, endometriosis and miscarriage for women, and reduced male fertility. They are also linked to lower IQ in children if exposed during pregnancy.

Even in products labelled organic, macaroni and cheese foods tested with high levels of phthalates.

Nine of the 10 products that were tested were created by Kraft, the biggest producer of macaroni and cheese products. Kraft products have more than three quarters of the macaroni and cheese market.

Phthalates have been associated with affecting the health of humans and disrupting hormones, particularly with reproductive problems. Lower IQ in children was also identified with phthalate exposure during pregnancy as well as reduced male fertility.

Phthalates are not added to food intentionally; rather, the study showed that the chemical leeches into food during packaging, preparation and processing, becoming an indirect food additive.

Phthalates and Prop 65

Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings to consumers if their products contain chemicals that can cause birth defects or other reproductive harm and/or cancer.

Consumers who purchased products containing Prop 65 chemicals that did not carry a warning can take legal action against the company.

If you purchased a product that did not contain a Prop 65 warning, or if you believe that you may have medical conditions tied to a company’s use of dangerous chemicals, including those outlined in Prop 65, contact the Prop 65 attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher now. You can receive a FREE case evaluation by filling out the form on this page.

Knott’s Berry Farm Injury Lawsuit Filed by Family of 6-Year-Old Boy

Wed, 18 Oct 2017 04:14:15 GMT

Knott’s Berry Farm in Buena Park, California, has been hit with a personal injury lawsuit accusing the theme park of poorly maintaining its Timber Mountain Log Ride, leading to at least 10 people being injured in similar circumstances.

It is one of at least two Knott’s Berry Farm injury lawsuits to be filed against the theme park recently.

Log Ride Leads to Knott’s Berry Farm Injury Lawsuit

The latest Knott’s Berry Farm injury lawsuit was filed by the family of a 6-year-old boy from Illinois who suffered a fractured eye socket from his face hitting the seat in front of him when the log ride abruptly stopped after the ride’s final drop.

A minimum of 10 other riders have been involved in similar injuries and accidents on the same ride between 2010 and 2014, according to the Knott’s Berry Farm injury lawsuit. A previous case settled for an undisclosed amount after a young girl sustained eye injuries on the same ride.

California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health has investigated at least nine injuries reported on the Timber Mountain Log Ride between 2010 and 2012, including injuries such as lacerations near the eye and chipped teeth.

The Department of Industrial Relations also conducted an investigation of the attraction in 2015 and found that water levels on the ride were not being monitored correctly due to a defective device. Knott’s Berry Farm was ordered to initiate repairs and pay over $5,000 in inspection fees.

Plaintiffs in the Knott’s Berry Farm injury lawsuit accuse the theme park of failing to maintain appropriate water levels on the Timber Mountain Log Ride, which caused “the logs to decelerate in a dangerous manner.”

If there is too much water at the bottom of the ride’s final drop, according to the Knott’s Berry Farm injury lawsuit, the transport system carrying the passengers will stop too quickly, causing injuries. If there is not enough water, the log will skip across the water and slam into the side of the attraction.

The Knott’s Berry Farm injury lawsuit also accuses the amusement park of failing to have a restraint system in place to keep riders from slamming into the seat in front of them and requests that the theme park be responsible for paying earnings lost and medical costs for the injuries sustained.

The Knott’s Berry Farm Log Ride first opened in 1969 and was considered very innovative at the time due to its reliance on water to move the vehicles across the route.

What You Should Know About Theme Park Injuries

On the whole, theme park injuries can become serious medical problems if not treated immediately.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission states that in 2006, nearly 9,000 people sustained injuries at theme parks. Some of the most common injuries sustained by victims in amusement park accidents include stroke, death, back and head injuries, brain aneurysms, broken bones, lacerations, and drowning.

Many of these theme park injuries could be prevented or minimized if the amusement park did everything possible to promote safety or build these rides effectively.

When injuries happen, victims may be eligible to seek compensation for their injuries.

If you or someone you know has been hurt in an accident like this, you may have a legal claim. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

Record $71M Spinal Cord Injury Verdict Awarded to Former Cornell Undergrad

Tue, 17 Oct 2017 04:10:28 GMT

A New York jury returned a record-setting $71 million spinal cord injury verdict for a former Cornell University co-ed gravely injured in a 2012 car crash, the New York Daily News reports.

In August 2012, 23-year-old Neil Sexton fell asleep at the wheel of his 2012 Chevrolet Equinox while driving Brooklyn resident Morgan Wang, 19, to the university. Wang was seated in the back seat of the car.

The accident occurred on State Route 79 in Dryden, N.Y., fewer than 10 miles from Cornell’s Ithaca campus.

Sexton crashed head-on into a 2002 Chrysler minivan driven by Laraine Ericson, 59, of Newfield, N.Y. Ericson’s son and 94-year-old Myra Moran were passengers in Ericson’s vehicle.

Wang was airlifted to Upstate University Hospital in Syracuse while first-responders transported Sexton to Cayuga Medical Center to treat him for cuts on his legs and hips, according to the Syracuse Post-Standard.

Moran died at the scene. Ericson and her son suffered non life-threatening injuries.

Wang fractured her back and suffered spinal cord injuries, losing feeling in her lower legs. She later sued Sexton for causing the crash when he fell asleep at the wheel.

The Daily News reports that she needs leg braces to walk and “doctors have told her she will be unable to walk at all in her later years.”

The spinal cord injury verdict is one of the largest of its kind in the United States, according to Wang’s attorney, Ben Rubinowitz. Jurors reached their decision following a three-week trial in Manhattan Supreme Court.

The $71 million spinal cord injury verdict was broken down as follows: $60 million for future medical expenses, $6 million for future pain and suffering, and $5 million for past pain and suffering, according to the New York Law Journal.

Rubinowitz told the New York Post that due to her catastrophic injuries , his client, now 24, had to withdraw from Cornell because its hilly campus “was too challenging for her to navigate in a wheelchair” and that Wang, a former skier, runner and sailor, has permanently lost feeling in her feet.

In a 2015 article published in the Cornell Daily Sun, with the headline “Access and Stigma Key Issues for Disabled Students,” Wang was quoted as saying that “physically navigating the [Cornell] campus is a total nightmare.”

Wang now battles depression, telling the Daily News that she is “fearful of the future because I know that unfortunately I will be confined to a wheelchair at some point in my life.”

She requires ongoing medical and psychological treatment.

“My life has never been the same” since the accident, she told the Post.

If you or a loved one has suffered a catastrophic personal injury, you may be able to file a California personal injury lawsuit to seek compensation for your lost wages, pain and suffering, medical expenses, and other losses. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

Pharmacy Chain to Pay Millions to Settle Medicare and Medicaid Fraud Claims

Tue, 17 Oct 2017 04:08:42 GMT

A Pennsylvania pharmacy chain accused of Medicare and Medicaid fraud will pay the federal government $2.67 million to settle civil False Claims Acts allegations, the U.S. Department of Justice in the Western District of Pennsylvania announced on Oct. 4, 2017.

The government pursued Med-Fast Pharmacy, Inc., its owner and some employees both civilly and criminally. According to the Department of Justice, Med-Fast submitted false claims to Medicare and Medicaid , allegations that included distributing recycled medications to nursing homes and submitting claims for retail-packaged versions of diabetes testing strips while actually supplying patients with cheaper, mail-order versions.

The global resolution of the case included charging Med-Fast’s former vice president of store operations, 47-year-old Gino Cordisco, of Mars, Pa., with a count of conspiracy for his role in a scheme to fill nursing home prescriptions “with recycled unused drugs that were commingled with drug stocks on hand at Med-Fast’s Institutional Pharmacy,” according to the Justice Department, which reported that Iserve Technologies, Inc., operated out of Med-Fast, participated in the same scheme, and was similarly charged with conspiracy.

The government brought the criminal charges against Cordisco and Iserve Technologies after Med-Fast Institutional Pharmacy’s former manager, Correna Pfeiffer, 37, pleaded guilty to conspiracy in 2015.

Law 360 reported that Cordisco and Pfieffer were “responsible for mixing the recycled drugs with Med-Fast’s other stocks and then using them to fill prescriptions at nursing homes between 2009 and 2013.”

The $2.67 million settlement, to be paid by Med-Fast owner Douglas Kaleugher and related entities, resolves claims brought by two whistleblowers , both former Med-Fast employees, who filed separate lawsuits in federal court in Pittsburgh.

One alleged that she was instructed to “falsify records, including expiration dates of drugs that were recycled, and that company officials ‘recklessly and deliberately disregarded’ her complaints,” according to U.S. News & World Report.

The other whistleblower, Med-Fast’s former marketing and sales director said “he had access to records showing the pharmacy was overcharging Medicare and Medicaid for the diabetes testing strips.”

“Unused prescription drugs are supposed to be destroyed, but Med-Fast drivers would pick up unused drugs from nursing homes after patients died or otherwise no longer needed the drugs, so they could be recycled to fill future prescriptions, prosecutors said,” according to U.S. News & World Report.

“As a result the older, unused drugs were commingled and relabeled with newer drugs, in violation of federal law.”

Med-Fast spokeswoman Elisabeth Mistretta said the company has corrected the problems and all of its patients received the correct medication.

Med-Fast’s website states that it operates 13 retail pharmacy locations in Western Pennsylvania, many of which are located inside Shop’n Save Grocery stores. The company also sells durable home healthcare medical equipment, such as hospital beds, wheelchairs, scooters and oxygen equipment.

Its Long Term Care division services to personal care homes, assisted living centers and hospice patients as well as compounding, or customized, pharmacy services.

If you have evidence of Medicare and Medicaid fraud, or another type of fraud against the government, the whistleblower attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher want to hear from you. They can help you determine if you have a case and advise you on the next steps to take. Fill out the form on this page for a FREE and confidential case evaluation.

Foul Ball Injury Caused Blindness, Says Cubs Fan

Fri, 13 Oct 2017 04:05:48 GMT

A Chicago man is suing Major League Baseball and the Cubs after he was hit by a foul ball at Wrigley Field on August 29, saying the injury caused blindness in his left eye that may be permanent and may require him to get a prosthetic eye.

The plaintiff said at a news conference Tuesday that he is bringing the catastrophic injury lawsuit in an attempt to “protect others from going through what I and my family are going through.”

‘Preventable’ Injury Caused Blindness, Lawsuit Says

According to the lawsuit, “Defendants were aware that patrons have suffered serious injuries (i.e., blindness, skull fractures, severe concussions, brain hemorrhages) or been killed by baseballs entering the stands at a high rate of speed in foul territory at Wrigley Field and other MLB team fields. For instance, in July 2008, a seven-year-old fan was struck in the head and suffered a fractured skull and brain swelling after being struck by a foul ball at Wrigley Field.”

As a result, the MLB and ball parks are under pressure to provide adequate netting to protect their fans from high-speed foul balls and have erected such netting intended to protect them. However, this protection was not enough for the 60-year-old plaintiff.

“In fact, Defendants have increased the risk of injury to patrons not only by failing to extend the netting further, but also by including distractions during the game, increasing the pace of the game, and encouraging the use of mobile devices during the game,” the personal injury lawsuit continues.

According to his lawsuit, the foul ball injury caused blindness in one of the man’s eyes. He has undergone surgery and has been unable to return to work in the meantime. He also suffered five facial fractures and persistent bleeding from his sinus into his mouth. The man says that he may need to resort to a prosthetic eye and his blindness may be permanent despite the two other surgeries he will have.

A 2014 Bloomberg report cited in his lawsuit found that more than 1,700 baseball fans are injured by high-speed balls each year. This is because stadiums are designed to seat individuals in “exposed areas along the first and third baselines in foul territory,” says the lawsuit .

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff was given a ticket to the Cubs-Pirates game in August – section 135, row 11, seat 107. Wrigley field tickets do limit the liability of the team by stating the risk of being hit by a high-speed ball. However, says the plaintiff, he did not actually see a ticket and he did not know where the seats were exactly.

Before the injury caused blindness, the plaintiff alleges that he had perfect sight; now the plaintiff is not sure when he can return to work.

“I haven’t done much since August 29” the plaintiff told CNN . “I am on short term disability. I’m not sure when I will be able to return to work.”

The case is Loos v. Major League Baseball and Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Law Division.

Catastrophic Injury

It is devastating when the negligence or recklessness of others or even an organization leads to catastrophic personal injury , including injury caused by blindness. Additionally, companies sometimes know of the risks of their negligence, but refuse to fix problems until it is too late for the victims.

Disfigurement, like an injury that caused blindness, can have a lifelong effect on a person. Not only does it impact a person’s physical abilities, it can also devastate them emotionally. Further, a person may require a lifetime of medical treatment and may suffer financial damages as a result.

Whether it is disfigurement, such as when an injury caused blindness, or other type of personal injury, victims have a legal right to be compensated for their medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost wages.

It can be difficult for a person suffering from catastrophic personal injury to navigate the network of insurance, laws and regulations surrounding their rights, but an experienced attorney can help. You can obtain a free case evaluation by filling out the form on this page now.

$4.5M Awarded to Family in Baby’s Personal Injury Disfigurement Lawsuit

Thu, 12 Oct 2017 04:00:33 GMT

The family of a baby who suffered nerve damage and permanent paralysis was awarded $4.5 million in a personal injury disfigurement lawsuit accusing the OBGYN of using excessive force.

According to the personal injury disfigurement lawsuit, the doctor used excessive force to deliver the baby boy who was stuck on the mother’s pelvis, resulting in disfiguring injuries including nerve damage in his shoulder and permanent paralysis of his arm.

After four years of litigation, a seven-day trial and three hours of deliberation, a Delaware jury awarded the family $4.5 million for pain and suffering, disfigurement and noneconomic damages. The baby boy is now nearly 10 years old.

The mother alleged in the personal injury disfigurement lawsuit that the OBGYN failed to warn her of the risks during the delivery and she would not have agreed to the procedure if she had known. Her son suffered nerve damage in his shoulder, known as a brachial plexus injury, along with Erb’s palsy. The lawsuit claimed medical negligence.

The attorney for the family voiced concerns that the case took nearly 10 years. He said the family did not understand why the insurance company for the doctor refused to participate in mediation or any attempts to settle the case.

“They couldn’t understand why there was no resolution,” the attorney told Law360. “There were numerous efforts made by plaintiff’s counsel to reach an amicable settlement of this case, which has ended nine-and-a-half years after the baby was born. The insurance company refused to make any offer whatsoever and despite the fact that the court had ordered mediation, they even refused to participate in that.”

However, under Delaware state law, the doctor’s insurance company will have to pay an additional $1.5 million in interest, noted the family’s attorney.

The Personal Injury Disfigurement Lawsuit is Case No. N14C01185, in the Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.

Disfigurement and Personal Injuries

Erb’s Palsy and other birth injuries can go on to affect a child for the rest of their life. Disfigurement in particular can take a toll on a person’s self-esteem, job prospects, and relationships. When disfigurement or other catastrophic personal injury occurs at birth, a child is left with a lifetime of coping.

When these injuries are caused by the negligence or recklessness of another, it can be devastating to the entire family. Families can face extensive medical bills and continued care for the disfigured child potentially throughout their lifetimes.

If you or a loved one have been disfigured due to medical malpractice or other event, it is important to consider your legal options. An experienced personal injury attorney can help you decide whether legal action is the right course to compensate you for additional medical bills, pain and suffering, and potential future losses.

Doctors and medical centers have insurance companies and attorneys who will make it hard for you to get the compensation you deserve in these terrible situations. The experienced personal injury attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher will be on your team.

Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

Ex Employee Files Facebook Age Discrimination Lawsuit

Thu, 12 Oct 2017 03:58:39 GMT

A former employee of the social media magnate Facebook has filed an age discrimination lawsuit in California state court alleging that numerous derogatory comments and statements were made in front of management personnel that constituted age discrimination.

Federal Laws Against Age Discrimination

Age discrimination is prohibited under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. That Act applies to people of all ages, but the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects employees and applicants 40 years of age and older from being discriminated against on the basis of age when it comes to discharge, hiring, compensation, promotion, terms, privileges, or conditions of employment. This is enforced in the U.S. through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Allegations Raised in the Facebook Age Discrimination Lawsuit

The 52-year-old employee who initiated the Facebook age discrimination lawsuit argued that the company is responsible for age discrimination, disability discrimination, illegal retaliation, and wrongful discharge in addition to other things. Some of the comments allegedly made by younger employees and named in the Facebook age discrimination lawsuit include:

“Old people are just creepy,” and
“Old people don’t belong at Facebook.”

In the fall of 2015 the employee who filed the Facebook age discrimination lawsuit took medical leave and was falsely accused of taking unauthorized leave in addition to failing to meet the performance expectations for the company. He was informed at that time that he would be terminated on the first day of the following month and was offered money in exchange for a full release of any claims he might allege against Facebook.

When he was let go on November 1, 2015, the employee who filed the Facebook age discrimination lawsuit argued that he believed he was replaced by someone much younger and believed he was terminated in retaliation for his opposition to alleged illegal discriminatory employment practices engaged in by the company.

In the spring of 2015 that same employee wrote CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, an email with allegations and complaints about the ageist and discriminatory culture at the company.

The Facebook Age Discrimination Lawsuit is Gary G. v. Facebook Inc., Case No. BC677017, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District.

Proving Age Discrimination

While an employee may know age discrimination when they see it, proving it in court is another matter and often requires the insight of a legal professional. There are several different ways in which an employee can show a pattern of discriminatory behavior, including:

Direct evidence, like statements made by HR or supervisors
Harassment
Exclusion
Disciplinary practices based on age
Favoritism to younger employees
Promotion and hiring decisions based on age

Gathering evidence and keeping track of all written or verbal statements related to age may help a worker or applicant who believes they have been subjected to illegal age discrimination.

If you or someone you know has been subjected to illegal employment practices , you may have grounds to file a lawsuit with the help of an experienced attorney. The lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher work hard on behalf of affected employees and job applicants.

Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

The Right to Know Chemicals in Cleaning Products Passes in California

Wed, 11 Oct 2017 03:56:59 GMT

A bill that will require companies to tell California consumers about the chemicals in cleaning products, including chemicals that are on California’s Prop 65 list, was passed by the California Senate in September.

The bill, known as the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act (SB 258), will make California the first state to require ingredient labeling for common cleaning products if it is approved by California Governor Jerry Brown. The law stresses the inclusion of chemicals that are dangerous to health, including those listed under Prop 65 .

Prop 65 is the California law approved by voters in 1986 that requires the state to publish a list of chemicals known to cause health problems. It currently contains more than 800 chemicals identified as causing serious problems and is updated yearly.

Under the new Cleaning Product Right to Know Act, companies will have to list the chemicals they use in the cleaning products they sell to consumers both on the product and online. This hasn’t been required before and represents a big win for consumers who are concerned about the products they bring into their homes.

A poll commissioned by sponsors of SB 258 showed 78% of California voters support the requirement that companies list cleaning product ingredients.

Advocacy groups also point out that those in the cleaning industry, like janitors, will now have a better idea of the chemicals they are being exposed to as a part of their work. Additionally, those with allergies and other health problems aggravated by exposure to chemicals or whose family members may be sensitive will know when not to bring a problem chemical home.

Under the terms of SB 258, trade secrets are protected, but companies that use chemicals listed in California’s Prop 65 will need to disclose that information.

According to NRDC.org , the bill is the result of momentum building through collaboration between the cleaning product industry and public health groups. The NRDC credits industry leaders for providing greater transparency about what chemicals go into their products.

PROP 65 AND THE NEW LAW

Chemicals in cleaning products will need to be disclosed if they are included in California’s Prop 65 list as causing cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm.

There are several different ways a chemical makes the list, including;

The chemical is identified in the California Labor Code;
The chemical is identified by the committees on Carcinogen Identification or Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification;
The chemical is identified by an organization designated by one of the two committees as an authority; or
The chemical is required to be labeled by a state or federal government agency, like the Food and Drug Administration.

Companies that fail to make the required disclosures under California’s Prop 65 law can be held accountable. Consumers can bring legal action against them by filing a Prop 65 lawsuit , but a very specific procedure is necessary.

The Attorney General must first be notified and copies of the notification and supporting documentation must also be provided. Notice of settlement must also be provided to the Attorney General.

Because of the specific procedure under Prop 65 and the new California law, consumers who want to hold a company responsible for not notifying the public about dangerous chemicals in cleaning products should contact an experienced Prop 65 attorney.

Contact the experienced Prop 65 attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher by filling out the form on this page now.

Angie’s List Based on Advertising Fees, Not Reviews Says Class Action

Wed, 11 Oct 2017 03:55:12 GMT

A Kansas business has hit Angie’s List with a class action lawsuit alleging that the company ranks local businesses based on the advertising fees they pay, but tells consumers that the rankings are based on customer reviews.

Angie’s List is an online business directory that allows users to read and publish crowd-sourced reviews of local businesses and contractors.

Plaintiff Steve Strauss, owner of Classic Tree Care, accuses the website of false advertising and deceptive business practices.

“Angie’s List ranks service providers higher than their competitors based on how much they pay it in advertising and referral fees, such that a service provider who qualifies for an ‘A’ rating and has uniformly positive consumer reviews but who did not pay any ‘advertising’ or other fees to Angie’s List will and would be ranked lower than a service provider who did pay such fees to Angie’s List but has demonstrably less favorable reviews, ratings and consumer endorsements,” alleges the Angie’s List class action lawsuit .

Strauss alleges in his Angie’s List class action lawsuit that the online review company says that it collects reviews from customers of local businesses and then ranks them; however, a business’ ranking is not based on reviews, alleges the plaintiff, but on the advertising the business buys from Angie’s List.

The plaintiff alleges that Angie’s List required him to both pay for advertising and use revenue sharing coupons to maintain his place on this list. Initially the plaintiff agreed, but when he found the coupons were taking too big of a bite out of his revenue – including a discount to customers and 25-percent revenue sharing with Angie’s List leading to $200,000 – he had second thoughts.

The plaintiff says that when he decided to stop using revenue sharing coupons with Angie’s List, the local representative was instructed to stop promoting his business. The plaintiff alleges that Angie’s List also recruited two of his competitors and moved his business down the list.

Further, alleges the Angie’s List class action lawsuit, the plaintiff’s business was falsely labeled as having failed a criminal background check and having “no ratings or reviews.” The plaintiff contends that his business did not fail a background check and has reviews.

“Based on its many positive consumer reviews and endorsements as received over the years, Classic Tree was unjustifiably placed low on the list of providers in an effort to suppress price competition and otherwise to ‘punish’ Classic Tree,” alleges the Angie’s List class action lawsuit.

“Despite what Angie’s List claims in its membership agreement, it is not acting or no longer acts as a passive conduit for consumers. Instead, Angie’s List actively pursues advertising and revenue sharing/referral commissions from service providers. In return, Angie’s List inflates the search result rankings of those service providers who pay advertising fees,” the complaint continues.

According to the plaintiff, Angie’s List deceives consumers into believing that its list is based on reviews and not advertising.

The plaintiff is seeking to represent other businesses harmed by Angie’s List’s deceptive marketing. The plaintiff is asking a court for damages and an order stopping Angie’s List from its deceptive marketing scheme.

The Angie’s List Class Action Lawsuit is Steve Strauss d/b/a Class Tree Care v. Angie’s List, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-02560, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

California law prohibits companies from engaging in false advertising or deceptive business practices. If you believe a company is violating consumer false advertising law , you may have a legal claim. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

Patient Sues After Suffering Life-Threatening Bleed From Xarelto

Tue, 10 Oct 2017 03:53:23 GMT

A new lawsuit has been filed against the makers of Xarelto due to allegations of dangerous side effects. The plaintiff sustained severe injuries caused by a life-threatening bleed from Xarelto after being prescribed the medication from a physician.

Xarelto is a commonly used blood thinner prescribed to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, to treat and reduce the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, and to prevent DVT for patients undergoing hip or knee replacement surgery.

New research and adverse event reports from patients, however, show that people may suffer severe injuries caused by a life-threatening bleed from Xarelto despite the fact that it’s marketed as a safe and modern alternative for treating the above-mentioned issues.

Xarelto has been linked to severe and uncontrollable bleeding in patients because it does not have a bleeding antidote. If a Xarelto patient begins to hemorrhage, there is very little a doctor can do to stop the bleeding.

Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed by patients who suffered a life-threatening bleed from Xarelto and from family members of patients who died from Xarelto bleeding. These lawsuits accuse the drug manufacturer of failing to properly warn physicians and patents about the risk of uncontrollable bleeding from Xarelto and that no antidote to stop the bleeding exists.

Allegations of Life-Threatening Bleed From Xarelto Emerge in New Lawsuit

Plaintiff Louise P. of Ohio is one of many who has alleged a life-threatening bleed from Xarelto in legal action against the drug’s manufacturers.

The manufacturers of the drug are accused of making an unsafe drug and marketing the medication to the medical community without a full disclosure of the risks. Furthermore, the defendants are accused of failing to carry out the proper tests in order to ensure that the medication was safe for use.

In this case, which argues that the plaintiff was ultimately the victim of a life-threatening bleed from Xarelto, the patient began taking the drug on September 1, 2015. The medication was taken through September 18, 2015. On September 13th, the patient suffered gastrointestinal bleeding believed to be tied to Xarelto use. The life-threatening bleeding from Xarelto led to a hospital stay, medical expenses, and severe permanent injuries, according to the lawsuit filed.

Xarelto inhibits thrombin, a substance necessary for blood clotting in the human body. When there is no mechanism in the body to stop blood flow, it can lead to severe or a deadly combination of medical conditions. If bleeding occurs in the upper GI tract, which is made up of the stomach, some of the small intestine, and the esophagus, bleeding can cause abdominal tenderness, vomiting blood, and stomach upset. If doctors do not intervene immediately, life-threatening injuries can occur.

More often than not, an underlying condition is exacerbated by use of Xarelto that causes gastrointestinal bleeding. The underlying conditions could include stomach ulcer bleeding, chronic acid reflux, bleeding intestinal polyps, anal fissures, or ulcerative colitis.

If left untreated, internal bleeding can develop into life-threatening complications. In the worst cases, the patient may even die from gastrointestinal bleeding if its not caught right away.

Did You Suffer a Life-Threatening Bleed From Xarelto?

If you or someone you know has suffered a life-threatening bleed from Xarelto such as a GI bleed, brain bleed or other type of internal bleeding, the lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher can help you determine your eligibility for a claim and to help you file legal action right away.

Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

Deadline for Calif.’s Prop 65 Label Changes Hit the Bike Industry, Others

Mon, 09 Oct 2017 03:51:56 GMT

California companies have until August 18, 2018 to make changes to their labels under new Prop 65 regulations, but some bicycling companies are exempt from the changes.

Under California’s Prop 65 , companies are required to disclose to consumers that harmful chemicals are included in their products. The California legislature made changes to the law that require companies to provide consumers with more information about the dangerous chemicals included in their products.

A generic warning label was used commonly by companies under the previous regulations, but Prop 65 label changes require companies to include the specific chemical included in the product.

Under the old law, companies would provide a generic warning to consumers that one of the hundreds of chemicals identified as dangerous to human health was included in their product. The updated law requires companies to disclose which chemicals are included in harmful amounts.

Companies have lagged behind, however, and the new Prop 65 labeling requirements will require them to get up to speed and protect their consumers. In particular, Amazon and other online retailers have been subject to Prop 65 lawsuits because they failed to include proper Prop 65 warnings on their products. These companies will have until next August to meet new Prop 65 labeling requirements.

Prop 65 and Bicycle Companies

Bicycle Retailer and Industry News reports that a letter from the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association has been sent to its members detailing the new Prop 65 label changes.

“Before, you didn’t have to test for the hundreds of chemicals. If you knew there were three or four, you could use a generic warning label,” QBP’s general counsel and a BPSA board member to Bicycle Retailer. “Now you have to be specific about the chemicals in the product.”

Twenty-two bicycle companies are exempt from the new Prop 65 label changes, however. These companies were a part of a settlement in 2006 over lead content in various bike components. They include Chia Cherne Industry Company, Shimano, SRAM, QBP, Pacific Cycle, Trek, Giant, Specialized, Bell Sports, Raleigh, Cannondale, Cyclereuope USA (including the Bianchi brand), G. Joannou Cycle Co., Dynacraft BSC, Electra Bicycle Co., Felt Bicycles, Advanced Sports (including the Fuji brand), REI (including the Novara brand), Scott USA, Iron Horse Bicycle Co. and Kung Hsue She.

These retailers can use labels under the previous Prop 65 requirements, but there are many other companies that must adhere to the new requirements. Bicycle Retailer reports that the BPSA representative noted website compliance in particular.

“I think other retailers need to get up to speed by 2018,” noted the BPSA board member. “Website and any software changes take time. But websites need to change to be compliant.”

Consumers who are worried that they and others may have been exposed to dangerous chemicals in products without proper Prop 65 labeling should contact an experienced Prop 65 attorney to help them navigate the complex legal network and hold those companies responsible.

Obtain a FREE legal review of your Prop 65 claims by filling out the form on this page now.

New Lawsuit Joins Mass Litigation Over CR Bard Blood Clot Filter Problems

Mon, 09 Oct 2017 03:50:12 GMT

A plaintiff from Pennsylvania had joined hundreds of other patients suing medical device manufacturers C.R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. for allegedly placing dangerous and defective blood clot filters on the market that have been linked to at least 27 deaths and hundreds of reports of problems from patients implanted with them.

The filters, known as Inferior Vena Cava (or “IVC”) filters are small, spider-like metal devices that are implanted into the largest vein of the body to stop blood clots from traveling from the lower body to the lungs, where they can cause death.

IVC filters are often implanted temporarily or even permanently into patients who have undergone lower body surgery such as a hip replacement or knee replacement and are at risk for blood clots.

It has been reported that by 2012, an estimated 260,000 U.S. patients had been implanted with an IVC blood clot filter.

CR Bard Blood Clot Filter Problems

Plaintiff Nafeesah Y.W. alleges in the CR Bard blood clot filter lawsuit that he was implanted with the G2® Vena Cava Filter in June 2007 and suffered injuries as a result, which neither he nor his doctor were warned about.

The G2 blood clot filter is one of seven filters listed in a Master Complaint against the defendants, which includes IVC filters sold under the following brand names:

Recovery® Vena Cava Filter
G2® Vena Cava Filter
G2® Express Vena Cava Filter
G2® X Vena Cava Filter
Eclipse® Vena Cava Filter
Meridian® Vena Cava Filter
Denali® Vena Cava Filter

Bard was the first medical device manufacturer to obtain FDA clearance for marketing a “retrievable” IVC filter (the Bard Recovery filter) in July 2003.

According to the master CR Bard blood clot filter complaint, “this ‘clearance’ was obtained despite a lack of adequate testimony on the safety and efficacy of the new line of devices.”

According to the complaint, Bard did not adequately research problems that can be caused by the CR Bard blood clot filters. Further, says the complaint, when other scientists discovered the side effects, Bard failed to warn patients and doctors about the side effects. Instead, alleges the plaintiff, Bard focused on marketing the IVC filters and obtaining a bigger share of the market.

“Bard targeted the bariatric, trauma, orthopedic and cancer patient population,” notes the complaint. “Expansion to these new patient groups would triple sales and the first manufacturer to market would capture market share.”

However, patients continue to experience serious side effects after being implanted with CR Bard blood clot filters. In fact, research reveals that the IVC filters do not actually prevent the blood clots they were designed to prevent.

“Bard’s retrievable IVC filters have been plagued with problems – all created by Bard itself – most notably, the absence of any evidence that the products were effective in preventing pulmonary embolism (the very condition the product was indicated to prevent),” states the CR Bard blood clot filter lawsuit.

Side Effects of CR Bard Blood Clot Filters

Those who have been implanted with CR Bard blood clot filters have reported:

Chest pain,
Shortness of breath,
Hemorrhage,
Severe pain,
Cardiac/pericardial tamponade, and
Death

Blood clot filter complications also include reports of the devices migrating, perforating veins and organs, and breaking apart.

Bard IVC Filter Litigation

Hundreds of patients have sued C.R. Bard over problems caused by a CR Bard blood clot filter. Many of these lawsuits have been consolidated into a defective medical device mass tort known as In re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2641.

Due to the large number of plaintiffs suing Bard, a Master Complaint was created for the convenience of the Court and all parties to serve as a “long form” complaint that includes all of the allegations that some or all Plaintiffs allege against Bard. This allows plaintiffs to conveniently fill out a “short form” complaint and check off their allegations against the defendant.

The complaint alleges that patients who received the CR Bard blood clot filters suffered serious side effects.

“The injuries suffered and damages sought by Plaintiffs…may include, without limitation: wrongful death of a spouse, child, parent, or other legally-cognizable relationship; pain and suffering; bodily injuries of any type (including, without limitation, perforation of organs and venous structures, thromboembolic events, and cardiovascular injuries); disability; impairment; scarring; disfigurement; dismemberment; physical; emotional and psychological trauma; anxiety; diminished capacity; loss of consortium; hedonic damages; past medical expenses; future medical expenses; caregiving costs; lost wages; loss of earning capacity; and any other form of damages under the law of any forum which governs any individual case,” states the Master Complaint.

Do You Have a Legal Claim?

If you or a loved one received an IVC blood clot filter and are experiencing any medical problems, you should contact a medical professional immediately. Your filter may have migrated or pieces of the filter may be close to your heart or lungs. The blood clot filter may need to be removed.

Those who have experienced problems with their C.R. Bard blood clot filter or another type of IVC filter should consider contacting an experienced attorney. An attorney may be able to help you recover compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and more.

Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE legal review of your claims. If you have a case, you will be contacted for a no cost, no obligation consultation on how to proceed with taking legal action.

California City Hit With Unpaid Overtime Class Action Lawsuit

Mon, 09 Oct 2017 03:48:40 GMT

The City of Azusa in Los Angeles County, California, has been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging the city used an illegal compensation method that resulted in city employees being unpaid for their overtime for three years.

The plaintiffs, two Azusa city workers, allege the California city used a “regular rate” of pay to compute compensation; however, using this rate resulted in unpaid overtime for the plaintiffs and other city workers.

According to the class action lawsuit, the City of Azusa violated the Fair Labor Standards Act when it computed overtime pay for its workers. Under the FSLA, overtime pay is calculated at one and one-half times the “regular rate” of pay for all hours of overtime worked. The plaintiffs say that the city impermissibly excluded certain remunerations or undervalued the “regular rate” of pay, resulting in unpaid overtime.

“As part of the compensation it provided Plaintiffs, Defendant paid Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals monetary compensation in lieu of contributing towards Defendant-provided health benefits coverage,” explains the unpaid overtime lawsuit. Additionally, the city provided compensation for spending less than the monthly allowance toward health benefit coverage.

But, says the complaint, the city excluded the remunerations it paid to city workers for health benefits when calculating the “regular rate” of pay for the purposes of overtime. However, these amounts were included as wages for tax purposes, say the plaintiffs, flying in the face of several FLSA regulations.

“Because the remunerations paid to Plaintiffs, and similarly situated individuals, in lieu of health benefits were not made for hours of non-work or, on information and belief, made pursuant to a bona benefit plan they must be included in the ‘regular rate’ of pay for determining overtime compensation as required by the FLSA,” alleges the City of Azusa unpaid overtime class action lawsuit.

The City of Azusa failed to include the health benefit remuneration when it calculated overtime pay for its workers, allege the class action plaintiffs. For three years, the city failed to include this remuneration in its calculation and, thus, failed to pay workers the FLSA-mandated one and one-half times the “regular rate” of pay for overtime work.

The plaintiffs seek to represent all City of Azusa workers who did not receive the correct overtime pay over the past three years. They are seeking recovery of the overtime pay plus interest as well as a court order forcing the City of Azusa to update their policy to comply with FLSA requirements.

Unpaid Overtime

Under California law, employees are entitled to additional pay work more than eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a week. The rate of pay for overtime work is 1.5 times the employee’s regular hourly rate.

The employer must also pay the overtime rate for the first eight hours worked on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek, and double the employee’s wages for all hours of work after the eighth hour. If an employee works more than 12 hours in a day, the employer must pay double the employee’s wages for all hours worked in excess of 12 hours.

Despite the law, some business and organizations fail to appropriately compensate their workers. It can be intimidating for an employee to take on their employer to get the compensation they are entitled to.

If you are working unpaid overtime, you should call an experienced employment law attorney. An experienced attorney can help determine if you should take legal action against your employer or begin an employment law class action lawsuit like the one described above.

Fill out the form on this page to receive a FREE and confidential review of your potential case.

Healthcare Fraud Lawsuit Proceeds Against Visiting Nurse Service of New York

Thu, 05 Oct 2017 03:46:32 GMT

A federal judge has ordered that Visiting Nurse Service of New York, one of the largest nonprofit home health care agencies in the U.S., must face the majority of whistleblower claims brought forth in a healthcare fraud lawsuit against the company.

The healthcare fraud lawsuit was filed by a former employee of the company, who worked as the vice president of operations improvement and integrations for 16 years before leaving in January 2015. The whistleblower employee accused the nonprofit of receiving hundreds of millions of dollars through false and improper billings to Medicare and Medicaid.

Whistleblowers are those individuals who become aware of information that could illustrate fraud or illegal activity and take action to report it to the appropriate authorities without fear of reprisal. They are instrumental in helping the government curb abuse of its programs and to recover money lost to fraudulent schemes.

Individuals with information about healthcare fraud, including Medicare fraud, Medicaid fraud and health insurance fraud, can use the evidence they have about the misconduct to file a whistleblower lawsuit (also known as a qui tam lawsuit) against the offending company.

If the government decides there is enough evidence they may choose to step in and help the whistleblower prosecute the case. Whistleblowers will be rewarded between 15 percent and 25 percent of whatever money the government recovers if they step in and the qui tam lawsuit is successful.

Details Behind the Healthcare Fraud Lawsuit

More than 142,000 patients were served at the Visiting Nurse Service throughout Westchester, Suffolk, and Nassau counties in New York.

The plaintiff in the healthcare fraud lawsuit alleges that doctors for the nonprofit ordered services that were never provided for tens of thousands of impoverished elderly and disabled patients. He further alleged many instances in which patients received improper care for things such as Alzheimer’s, heart disease, diabetes and a kidney transplant, including 14 patients who either did not receive any of the care they were prescribed or only received a small fraction of what they were supposed to get.

U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan ruled September 26 that the whistleblower plaintiff had plausibly alleged that Visiting Nurse Service of New York filed false claims for Medicare and Medicaid payment through several alleged fraudulent schemes, including the ordering of services that were never performed.

Defining Healthcare Fraud

Healthcare fraud is a broad term that applies to misuse and abuse of Medicaid, Medicare, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Abuse of these programs decreases the availability of access for those who need it and costs taxpayers money.

The federal government has recently launched investigations to crack down on healthcare fraud, but more often than not it’s a whistleblower who shares information that leads to a successful outcome in a healthcare fraud lawsuit. The law protects whistleblowers who report fraud from being retaliated against in an effort to encourage those with information to come forward.

It’s estimated that fraud against these government programs totals more than $100 billion every single year. In addition to the protections afforded to whistleblowers, someone convicted of healthcare fraud may face both civil and criminal penalties.

The False Claims Act allows whistleblowers to sue on the government’s behalf and share in the proceeds as in this health care fraud lawsuit. Both the New York Attorney General’s Office and the U.S. Department of Justice decline to help the plaintiff in this case.

The Healthcare Fraud Lawsuit is U.S. and State of New York ex rel Lacey v. Visiting Nurse Service of New York, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 14-05739.

Do you have evidence of healthcare fraud or other misconduct by your employer? Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE and confidential review of your claims by the whistleblower attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher.

Amazon Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over Fake Eclipse Glasses

Wed, 04 Oct 2017 03:43:26 GMT

Amazon.com has been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging the online retailer sold eclipse glasses that cause “permanent blindness.”

The plaintiffs, a couple from South Carolina, allege in the Amazon eclipse glasses class action lawsuit that they were partially blinded after using the eyewear to watch the historic total solar eclipse on August 21.

According to the class action lawsuit, the couple is now experiencing personal injury including “blurriness, a central blind spot, increased sensitivity, changes in perception of color, and distorted vision.”

Amazon emailed customers who purchased defective and possibly counterfeit eclipse eyewear on August 19 before the event, but the plaintiffs allege they never received the message and that the “e-mail ‘recall’ was tragically too little, too late.”

“[Amazon’s] e-mail notification was insufficient to timely apprise customers of the defective nature of their glasses, and resulted in Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class using defective Eclipse Glasses,” claims the Amazon class action lawsuit.

The plaintiffs allege that the email did not sufficiently warn them and others that the eclipse glasses could cause blindness and other vision problems. The email, say the plaintiffs, noted that Amazon issued the recall “out of an abundance of caution,” which did not disclose the scale of the recall or list of vendors.

Fake Eclipse Glasses Sold by Other Vendors

The historic North American eclipse of 2017 was rocked with fake eclipse glasses scandals.

Just prior to the event on August 21, glasses were recalled for not providing enough protection. The company that made the allegedly fake eclipse glasses, American Paper Optics, was not included in the class action lawsuit.

“The popularity of the 2017 [Total Solar Eclipse ‘TSE’] created an economic boom for Eclipse Glasses makers. As of July 27, 2017, it was reported that American Paper Optics, located in Bartlett, Tennessee, had produced 37 million Eclipse Glasses, and was expecting to make and sell 100 million. USA Today reported that approximately 10 million Eclipse Glasses manufactured by American Paper Optics were sold to Amazon,” notes the Amazon class action lawsuit.

The eclipse glasses that caused blindness were sold in packs of 3 and 20, allege the plaintiffs. The glasses were distributed to those who never would have received an email notice from Amazon about the recall.

In addition to vision problems experienced after the eclipse, those who used the recalled eclipse glasses will require medical monitoring for the early detection of such eye injury, disease or disease resulting from exposure to the sun, allege the plaintiffs. The recalled eclipse glasses will even cause permanent blindness in some users.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of individuals who used eclipse glasses purchased from Amazon, along with a subclass of those residing in South Carolina.

The plaintiffs claim that Amazon violated South Carolina consumer protection laws and national trade laws . The plaintiffs also say that Amazon was negligent in the way that they recalled the eclipse glasses, that it failed to warn consumers, and was in breach of warranty. They further allege Amazon was unjustly enriched by selling the eclipse glasses that caused blindness.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages, including future medical expenses for vision problems caused by the eclipse glasses for class members.

If you were injured after using defective eclipse eyewear or another type of defective product, you may be eligible for compensation. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation and to see if you qualify to join a class action lawsuit.

Nexium Kidney Injury Lawsuit Joins Over 160 Other Cases in Mass Tort

Mon, 02 Oct 2017 03:41:27 GMT

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals has been hit with a new Nexium kidney injury lawsuit alleging the over-the-counter heartburn medication is defectively designed, researched, manufactured and promoted, among other things.

Plaintiff Clarice A. alleges in the Nexium kidney injury lawsuit that the heartburn medication, known as a proton pump inhibitor or “PPI,” caused her severe injuries that include acute interstitial nephritis, acute kidney injuries, chronic kidney disease and renal failure.

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Are Drug Makers Hiding the Risks of PPIS?

According to the Nexium lawsuit, nearly 21 million Americans used PPIs like Nexium in 2009, earning AstraZeneca $11 billion dollars that year. Previous studies show, however, that there is a causal connection between the use of PPI drugs and kidney injuries.

Recently, the Food and Drug Administration has responded to complaints about the increased risk of kidney injury from Nexium and other PPIs by requiring consistent labeling about the risk on prescribed drugs.

“The FDA noted ‘that the prescription PPI labeling should be consistent with regard to this risk’ and that ‘there is reasonable evidence of a causal association,’’ states the Nexium lawsuit.

Although over-the-counter PPIs were not required to include additional warnings, the Nexium lawsuit notes that further studies revealed a connection between these drugs and kidney injuries as well.

“In spite of their commercial success and global popularity,” says the complaint, “up to 70% of PPIs may be used inappropriately for indications or durations that were never tested or approved.”

Further complicating the problem, patients experiencing kidney injuries after taking Nexium and other PPIs report non-specific symptoms, like fatigue, nausea, and weakness, making the injury hard to diagnose.

“As the kidneys lose their ability to function properly, wastes can build to high levels in the blood resulting in numerous, serious complications ranging from nerve damage and heart disease to kidney failure and death,” says the Nexium kidney injury lawsuit.

Patients undergoing kidney complications after taking Nexium or other PPIs must be taken off the drug immediately. Kidney injuries that have progressed too far cannot be reversed.

The plaintiff alleges that AstraZeneca knew of the risks associated with PPIs and Nexium kidney injuries, but concealed this information from patients, doctors and the public to boost sales. The plaintiff also alleges that there are numerous safe alternatives for heartburn treatment that don’t cause kidney injury.

The Nexium Kidney Injury Lawsuit is Clarice A. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, etc., Case No. 17-cv-07351, in the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey.

Did You Suffer a Nexium Kidney Injury?

Drug manufacturers have a legal responsibility to keep defectively designed, manufactured, tested and labeled products off the market.

If you or a loved one suffered a kidney injury after taking Nexium, Prilosec, PrevAcid or another drug, you may have a legal claim. Defective drug lawsuits can attempt to recover compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, missed work, and more.

Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

Buffalo Wild Wings Wage & Hour Lawsuit Alleges Unpaid Overtime Pay

Fri, 29 Sep 2017 03:38:11 GMT

A former Riverside, California employee of Buffalo Wild Wings has filed a class action lawsuit against the restaurant chain, alleging it intentionally fails to pay proper overtime wages to non-exempt hourly store managers by failing to calculate bonuses into their regular rate of pay.

Buffalo Wild Wings Wage and Hour Lawsuit Allegations

Plaintiff Heath Hustad-Ramos alleges in the Buffalo Wild Wings wage and hour lawsuit that he and other hourly store managers were required to more work longer than 8 hours in a day or a total of more than 40 hours within a week without proper overtime pay.

According to the Buffalo Wild Wings wage and hour lawsuit , defendants Buffalo Wild Wings Inc. and Blazin Wings, Inc. “had a consistent policy or practice of failing to compensate NON-EXEMPT HOURLY STORE MANAGER[s], including Plaintiff, overtime pay for all overtime hours.”

Hustad-Ramos says he was paid on a per-hour basis and received regular quarterly and/or monthly bonuses from Buffalo Wild Wings, which constituted part of his regular rate of pay.

“However, Defendants systematically and intentionally deprived Plaintiff of his full overtime wages by paying him one-and-a-half-times his hourly rate of pay from his hourly wage alone and never incorporating his quarterly or monthly bonuses when determining the rate of overtime wages,” states the unpaid overtime lawsuit.

The plaintiff alleges the defendants had a consistent policy and practice of treating other non-exempt hourly store mangers across the country similarly “for the purpose of cheating its employees from the pay owed to them in order to reap their person[al] benefits.”

The Buffalo Wild Wings wage and hour lawsuit is seeking class action status to represent all current and former non-exempt hourly store managers of Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and Blazin Wings, Inc. who have worked in the United States at any time during the last three years, plus periods applicable tolling. It is also seeking to certify a separate California subclass of similar employees.

The Buffalo Wild Wings Wage and Hour Lawsuitis Heath Hustad-Ramos v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and Blazin Wings, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-01898, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Eastern Division.

California Labor Law Regarding Overtime & Regular Rate of Pay

California labor law requires employers to pay overtime pay of one-and-one-half-times the regular rate of pay to non-exempt hourly employees who work more than 40 hours in a work week or 8 hours a day.

The regular rate of pay is the compensation that was typically earned for the work performed including a number of different kinds of factors such as salary, hourly earnings, commissions, and bonus earnings. An employee’s regular rate of pay must be equal to at least the applicable minimum wage.

If you believe your employer miscalculated your overtime pay and deprived you of all wages earned, you may have a case to wand seek the compensation owed to you.

The California employment lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher work hard on behalf of clients who have been harmed by unfair business practices carried out by employers. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE and confidential case evaluation.

YummyEarth Hit With Deceptive Marketing Lawsuit Over Ingredients List

Fri, 29 Sep 2017 03:36:30 GMT

A new deceptive marketing lawsuit accuses YummyEarth Inc. of “going out of its way” to advertise its products, including its YumEarth Organic Vitamin C Pops, as healthy by listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient instead of calling it what it really is: sugar.

Labels have become increasingly important as a way for consumers to make informed decisions about what to buy and what to pay for certain products.

Products marketed as healthy, for example, may encourage a consumer to pay a premium when compared with similar options. When the manufacturer uses confusing or misleading language designed to trick the consumer into purchasing a product based on misleading statements, however, this could lead to a false or deceptive marketing lawsuit.

The YummyEarth Deceptive Marketing Lawsuit

California plaintiff Summer Sandoval alleges in a class action lawsuit filed September 8 that she purchased YumEarth Organic Vitamin C Pops earlier this year, and she was willing to pay more for the product over other similar products, because sugar was not listed as the most prominent ingredient.

Sandoval’s deceptive marketing lawsuit takes issue with the term “evaporated cane juice,” which was used instead of “sugar.”

“The Food and Drug Administration (‘FDA’) has warned manufacturers and advertisers not to use the term ‘evaporated cane juice’ because: (1) it is false and misleading; (2) the term violates a number of labeling regulations requiring products to be labeled with the usual and common names of ingredients and to accurately describe those ingredients; and (3) ‘evaporated cane juice’ is not juice,” states the YummyEarth class action lawsuit.

The deceptive marketing lawsuit accuses YummyEarth of violating California false advertising law and the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which carry similar guidelines. The FDCA states that a food item is misbranded when the label is misleading or false in any way or if it does not contain the required information listed on the label.

According to the YummyEarth class action lawsuit, both California and federal labeling regulations have been violated because the term “evaporated cane juice” is misleading for consumers because the primary ingredients are syrup or sugar.

Sandoval is seeking to represent all persons in the United States who purchased YumEarth Organics Vitamin C Pops labeled with “evaporated cane juice” at any time in the past four years.

The YummyEarth Deceptive Marketing Class Action Lawsuit is Summer Sandoval v. YummyEarth Inc., Case No. 17-cv-01832, Superior Court of the State of California, For the County of San Bernardino.

Did you purchase a product that was deceptively labeled? You may be eligible to file a deceptive marketing lawsuit or join a class action lawsuit against the company. Fill out the form on this page for a FREE case evaluation.

Fired Employee Files Medicare Fraud Lawsuit Against Medical Center

Thu, 28 Sep 2017 03:34:51 GMT

An employee who says she was fired after bringing to light falsified records by the Nebraska Medical Center has filed a Medicare fraud lawsuit against the Center.

Whistleblower Roberta H. alleges in her Medicare fraud lawsuit that Nebraska Medical Center retaliated against her when she tried to tell leadership about falsified Medicare submissions by the Center. In addition to Medicare fraud, the plaintiff says that the Center violated Nebraska state employment law.

According to the Medicare fraud lawsuit , Nebraska Medical Center “submitted false claims to Medicare by relying on bills that were never signed by the provider, including billings for services that were not rendered.” The plaintiff says that in 2015 she learned that a cardiologist at the practice had given members of his staff his electronic password to sign off on medical procedures and tests.

The doctor “falsely certified, on behalf of NMC, that Medicare services were provided in compliance with regulations. Each statement and certification submitted by NMC, which was required to be certified by [the doctor] was both false and fraudulent because the forms were not certified by [the doctor], but by staff assistants, sonographers and others,” Roberta alleges in the Medicare fraud lawsuit.

Employee Claims Illegal Retaliation for Reporting Medicare Fraud

The plaintiff states that she reported the illegal practice to the Nebraska Medical Center’s Medical Director who told her to report it to the plaintiff’s manager. The plaintiff’s manager said that she would investigate, alleges the Medicare fraud lawsuit, but never told the plaintiff the result of the investigation.

However, after reporting the alleged Medicare fraud, the plaintiff says she was targeted by her supervisor in weekly meetings in which her manager confronted her about trivial matters. The plaintiff says she had never been targeted for such monitoring since she began her employment at the Medical Center in 1982.

“This practice continued throughout the remainder of [her] employment,” the Medicare fraud lawsuit states. “[She] had never been subjected to such frequent monitoring until after she reported [the doctor’s] practice of allowing staff members to forge his electronic signature on submissions to the CMS for payment from Medicare and Medicaid.”

The whistleblower plaintiff alleges Nebraska Medical Center committed Medicare fraud by knowingly creating false billing records for the government, presenting these false bills for payment from the government, and conspiring to commit the fraud.

In addition to the alleged Medicare fraud, the whistleblower plaintiff alleges that the Nebraska Medical Center unlawfully retaliated against her for reporting – violations of the False Claims Act and FEPA (Fair Employment Practices Agencies), committing age and sex discrimination, and harming the ability for the employee to do her job.

This practice allegedly continued throughout the remainder of her employment. The plaintiff claims she had never been subjected to such frequent monitoring until after she reported the doctor’s practice of allowing staff members to forge his electronic signature on submissions to the CMS for payment from Medicare and Medicaid.

Reporting Medicare Fraud

Medicare and Medicaid fraud robs the government and tax payers of desperately needed healthcare funds used to support programs across the country. Fraud can include false bills submitted to the government for services not provided or submitting bills that solicit overpayment for services.

Employees who have evidence of Medicare fraud or other illegal activities may be hesitant to bring this information to their employers for fear of retaliation; however, the courageous employees who blow the whistle on their employers’ illegal activities should know that they are protected from retaliation under various federal and state laws.

Additionally, employees who go on to file a successful whistleblower lawsuit on behalf of the government are typically provided between 15 percent and 30 percent of any damages or settlement awards. Many whistleblower awards run into the millions, so the amount that the whistleblower may get could be substantial.

If you have evidence or suspect Medicare fraud at your place of employment, an experienced whistleblower attorney can help guide you through the process and stop the illegal activity that defrauds our government.

The whistleblower attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher can help. Fill out the form on this page for a free and confidential review of your whistleblower claims. If you have a case, they will contact you to discuss your next steps in a free, no-obligation consultation.

Rite Aid Hit With Class Action Over Fake Aloe Vera Gel

Wed, 27 Sep 2017 03:33:04 GMT

Ride Aid was hit with a class action lawsuit alleging that its “Renewal After Sun Gel” is marketed as containing Aloe Vera, but independent tests show that the product contains none of the plant extract.

Lead plaintiff Tina Kalajian alleges in her Rite Aid false advertising lawsuit that the Renewal After Sun Gel label says that it is made of “Aloe” and has a picture of a green leafy plant, and the ingredient label says it contains “Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice Powder.” Kalakian alleges this implies to consumers that Rite Aid Renewal After Sun Gel contains Aloe Vera; however, independent lab tests reveal that no actual Aloe Vera exists in the product at all.

The plaintiff claims she decided to purchase Rite Aid Renewal After Sun Gel because she thought that the products contained Aloe Vera. The plaintiff “wanted Aloe Vera for its commonly understood recuperative skin-healing and sunburn-relief qualities,” says the Rite Aid false advertising lawsuit .

“Aloe Vera is used in many products marketed for recuperative, burn and/or sunburn relief. It is also a popular folk remedy, believed by some to treat everything from hypertension to the common cold when ingested,” states the class action lawsuit.

The International Aloe Science Council says that the global market for Aloe Vera products is estimated at $13 billion, according to the class action complaint. Ride Aid is attempting to cash in on perceived health benefits of Aloe Vera without actually including any of the ingredient in its products, says the Rite Aid false advertising lawsuit.

“The difference between the Product promised and the Product sold is significant,” states the Rite Aid false advertising lawsuit. “The lack of Aloe Vera in the Product diminishes its value to zero. Consumers, including Plaintiff and Class Members, would not have purchased the Product had they known the Product contains no detectable amount of aloe”

The plaintiff says that Rite Aid knowingly used a marketing strategy that included leafy greens and the words “contains Aloe” on the product in order to deceive consumers. Only a small percentage of products sold to “soothe” burnt or irritated skin claim they contain Aloe, says the plaintiff, and consumers who wanted Aloe would not have purchased Rite Aid Review After Sun Gel if they had known it did not contain Aloe.

“The name ‘After Sun Gel,’ the net weight, the terms, ‘with Aloe,’ ‘No Added Color’ and ‘Soothes & Cools’ are the representations on the front of the Product,” alleges the Rite Aid false advertising class action lawsuit. “Together with a prominently stylized illustration of the multiple green leaves of an aloe plant that further conveys the importance of aloe as a Product ingredient, these claims comprise the entire front panel.”

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California consumers who were deceived by Rite Aid’s alleged false advertising and purchased its Renewal After Sun Gel over the past four years. The plaintiff claims that Rite Aid’s false advertising violates California’s advertising, consumer protection, and commercial laws .

The plaintiff is seeking damages as well as a court order stopping Ride Aid from falsely advertising its Renewal After Sun Gel.

The Rite Aid False Advertising Lawsuit is Tina Kalajin v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-06777-ODW-AGR in the United States District Court Central District of California.

Did you purchase a product that contained a false or misleading label? You may have a legal claim. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

Kiley Grombacher Speaking at Class Actions and Complex Case Management Conference

Wed, 27 Sep 2017 03:31:14 GMT

Bradley/Grombacher is proud to announce that Founder and Managing Partner Kiley Grombacher will be speaking at the Beverly Hills Bar Association’s Class Actions and Complex Case Management Conference on October 26, 2017.

The seminar will discuss “Complex Case Management,” a process that requires the trial court and counsel to actively and collaboratively manage the filing of a class action lawsuits, mass tort litigation or other cases involving multiple parties, multiple attorneys, geographically dispersed plaintiffs and defendants, and/or complex subject matter.

The process is intended to give judges greater control over the litigation, including the timing and scheduling of settlement negotiations, consolidated pre-trial litigation, class certification motions and trial.

If you understand the process of Complex Case Management, you will have a great deal of control over how the case proceeds, and maximize efficiency. If you do not understand the process, you can lose valuable opportunities, and draw the ire of the court.

Kiley Grombacher will be joining two other speakers — Corey Haden, Senior Counsel at Ezer Williamson Law, and Jack Risemberg, Partner at RG Lawers, LLP — to discuss Complex Case Management, and what the complex judges expect of counsel, from the filing of the case to the initial conference, and including:

the timing of mediation and the role of informal versus formal discovery,
Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings (JCCP) and Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) processes,
the class certification process,
pre-certification and post-certification discovery,
class action settlement procedures, and
both the need for, and the timing of, a trial plan.

When: Thursday, October 26, 2017, 6:00 p.m. | Program: 6:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

Where: Beverly Hills Bar Association ( Directions , Parking at 241 No. Canon Drive)

$0 –Members of todaplus & The Order of Distinguished Attorneys
$25 – BHBA Members who pay in advance*

$225 – Non-BHBA Members who pay in advance*

MORE ABOUT THE SPEAKERS:

Kiley Grombacher is a founder and managing partner of Bradley/Grombacher, LLP. Ms. Grombacher specializes her practice in complex litigation including consumer and employment class actions, product liability, and pharmaceutical mass torts. Throughout her career, with her respective firms, Ms. Grombacher she has been instrumental in recovering more than $500 million dollars as well as significant injunctive relief for her injured clients. She has been selected by Super Lawyers Magazine as a “Rising Star” in the field of complex litigation since 2015 and has published articles on the field of class action litigation.

Corey Hayden has practiced at various large Los Angeles law firms for three decades. He represents employers in all aspects of labor and employment disputes. Mr. Hayden was a partner at RGLawyers, LLP, where he represented both employees and companies in employment litigation, including class actions, wage and hour, and wrongful termination. Mr. Hayden is currently Senior Counsel at Ezer Williamson Law.

Jack Risemberg, a Partner at RG Lawyers, LLP, handles a wide variety of civil litigation matters with a strong focus on employment litigation, including wage and hour class actions. He has experience with all facets of litigation including case evaluation, propounding and responding to written discovery, taking and defending depositions, preparing dispositive motions, mediating and settling cases, and taking cases to trial. Recently, Mr. Risemberg has served as class counsel on multiple wage and hour class actions, and recently settled cases for 1.275 million dollars, and 1.4 million dollars, in federal and state court.

New Update to Proposition 65 Food Warnings Coming August 2018

Wed, 27 Sep 2017 03:29:49 GMT

New California regulations will require companies with 10 or more employees to provide “clear and reasonable” warnings and more detailed information to consumers on warning labels placed on products manufactured after August 30, 2018.

The new regulations are the first major update made to the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, which was initially approved as a ballot initiative. The Act, also known as Proposition 65, outlines a list of dangerous toxins and chemicals that companies must inform California consumers about inside of products, including food products.

Proposition 65 food warnings are expected to be the next legal battleground for consumers attempting to hold companies responsible for accurate food labels. Already in 2016, consumers filed nearly 250 Proposition 65 warning letters to companies regarding everything from food to beverages to spices.

What Are the New Requirements for Proposition 65 Food Warnings?

Businesses involved in any link of the chain of commerce have to give a clear and reasonable warning to California consumers about exposure to particular chemicals for products that are released into the environment or used and purchased by consumers.

Under the new state regulations, manufacturers must provide a more detailed warning on products identifying the chemical contained therein and the possible harm it could cause, including whether it could cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm.

Companies must include a pictograph warning label containing a black exclamation point inside a yellow triangle with a black outline, in a font size of at least 6 points.

The following language is also required for all Prop 65 food warnings and other types of products:

WARNING: THIS PRODUCT AND EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS INCLUDING [ONE OR MORE OF THE LISTED CHEMICALS] WHICH [IS/ARE] KNOWN TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE [CANCER AND/OR BIRTH DEFECTS OR OTHER REPRODUCTIVE HARM]. FOR MORE INFORMATION, GO TO www.P65Warnings.ca.gov .

Other requirements include:

Manufacturers must ship their products with the Prop 65 warning labels attached or provide the warnings to the retailer with written confirmation of receipt by the retailer.
For products listed for sale online, the Prop 65 warning lable must be contained on the product display page together with a hyperlink to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov. (See above example.)
The Prop 65 warning label must be renewed annually or within 90 days of when changes are made to the list of chemicals or risk of harm.

Prop 65 Food Warnings

California keeps an updated Prop 65 list of chemicals known to cause reproductive toxicity or cancer. More than 900 chemicals on the list presently.

Since new chemicals are added to the Proposition 65 list annually, manufacturers must monitor whether any of their products are affected and ensure compliance each year. Items that previously did not require a Proposition 65 food warning may need one if a new chemical is added to the list.

Businesses are not currently required to relabel products that are already in the stream of commerce to comply with the new Prop 65 warning regulations. However, any products manufactured after August 30, 2018 must have the updated warning.

If you purchased a product that did not contain a proper Prop 65 warning label, the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher want to know. They work hard on behalf of clients who have been misled about what materials are inside their consumer products. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE review of your claims.

Invokana Kidney Injury Alleged in New Lawsuit Against Janssen, J&J

Tue, 26 Sep 2017 03:27:29 GMT

A Mississippi plaintiff is alleging that the diabetes drug Invokana caused her severe and permanent injuries, including diabetic ketoacidosis, stroke, heart attack, and severe kidney damage.

The plaintiff says that the makers of Invokana, Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, failed to properly design, develop, test and manufacture the diabetes treatment. As a result, she and others have suffered Invokana kidney injury that will affect them the rest of their lives.

According to the Invokana lawsuit, the plaintiff was prescribed Invokana in January 2014 to treat her type 2 diabetes. She says that she took the drug as directed. By September of that year, however, the plaintiff says that she was hospitalized for severe kidney injuries caused by Invokana.

Invokana was approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration in 2013. The Invokana lawsuit alleges that the drug works by inhibiting glucose absorption in an effort to help those with type 2 diabetes control their blood sugar; however, states the lawsuit, the extra glucose is sent through the kidneys of a population already at risk for kidney disease. The extra stress placed on the kidneys in this group increases the likelihood of injury in adult type 2 diabetics taking Invokana.

The drug makers exacerbated the problem of Invokana kidney injury by marketing the drug for off-label uses, including for weight loss, blood pressure and improved glycemic control in type 1 diabetics, alleges the Invokana lawsuit.

The plaintiff notes that analysis of FDA adverse events show that patients taking Invokana are several times more likely to report kidney injuries than those not taking the drug. Additionally, the FDA has received a significant number of reports of Invokana kidney injury, says the plaintiff.

Numerous defective drug lawsuits have been filed by Invokana patients alleging similar injuries caused by the diabetes drug. They have been consolidated into a mass tort called In re: Invokana (Canagliflozin) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2750, in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey.

The drug makers failed to properly warn doctors and patients about the risk of Invokana kidney injury and other problems with the drug, alleges the Invokana lawsuit. Additionally, there are several safer alternatives that do not carry the same risk of permanent injury.

“Plaintiff agreed to initiate treatment with Invokana in an effort to reduce her blood sugar,” says the lawsuit. “In doing so, Plaintiff relied on claims made by Defendants that Invokana was safe and effective for the treatment of diabetes. Instead, Invokana can cause severe injuries, including kidney injuries. After beginning treatment with Invokana, and as a direct and proximate result thereof, Plaintiff suffered a severe kidney injury.”

Johnson & Johnson and Janssen “failed to properly assess and publicize alarming safety signals,” alleges the plaintiff, and even suppressed information revealing serious and life-threatening risks of the drug.

The plaintiff is seeking compensation for the past and future medical care she will require as a result of her Invokana kidney injury, as well as for pain and suffering. The plaintiff is also seeking punitive damages against the drug makers for “the wanton, willful, fraudulent, reckless acts of the Defendants who demonstrated a complete disregard and reckless indifference for the safety and welfare of the general public and to the Plaintiff” to deter them from such acts in the future.

The plaintiff estimates those damages will be in the tens of millions.

The case is Kelly v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Co., Case No. 17-cv-07082-BRM-LHG.

Were you injured by Invokana or another drug or medical device? You may be eligible to seek compensation for your injuries. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

Allegations of Illegal Kickbacks for Eye Surgeons Settled for $12M

Mon, 25 Sep 2017 03:22:41 GMT

A whistleblower lawsuit alleging eye surgeons took illegal kickbacks from medical suppliers has been settled for $12 million.

A former executive of Sightpath Medical and Precision Lens accused the company of bribing physicians to promote its products in cataract surgeries and related procedures by offering them luxurious vacations, free equipment, and easy-street paid consulting gigs.

Sightpath Medical is a mobile ophthalmic company that works across many states. Under federal law, it is illegal for medical device companies to pay kickbacks in the form of goods or services for Medicare and other federal health care programs.

According to the whistleblower lawsuit, Sightpath treated eye surgeons to travel and accommodations including high-end skiing trips, fishing and hunting trips, and golf. The illegal kickbacks also allegedly included paying doctors thousands of dollars in consulting fees for little or no work, and providing expensive surgical equipment.

Further, alleged the whistleblower lawsuit, eye surgeons failed to properly document their services, if they documented them at all, which were performed in return for consulting fees that ran into thousands of dollars each month. In return, the eye surgeons allegedly promoted the use of the medical device companies’ cataract products to patients.

Whistleblower Receives $2.3 Million for Reporting the Fraud

Under the terms of the whistleblower settlement, the company will pay $11.65 million and Sightpath’s former CEO will pay $350,000 to resolve the claims of illegal kickbacks.

The former executive who raised concerns and initiated the whistleblower lawsuit will receive $2.3 million under federal whistleblower law.

Sightpath and Preceision Lens is a company based in Bloomington, Minn. The whistleblower alleged that company executives bribed physicians with illegal kickbacks for almost a decade. The illegal kickbacks, stated the whistleblower’s lawsuit, were a way for Sightpath to increase payments from Medicare and other federal healthcare programs as well.

“Medicare beneficiaries depend on their physicians to make decisions based on sound medical judgment,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Chad Blumenfield said in a statement reported by the StarTribune . “Our office will take decisive action to address allegations that medical providers are receiving improper financial benefits that could influence medical decision-making.”

The whistleblower’s claims of illegal kickbacks triggered a federal investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The U.S. Attorney’s Office also intervened in a related lawsuit against medical device suppliers Cameron-Ehlen Group, Inc.

Sightpath’s former CEO, who served from 2010 until 2013, was allegedly directly involved in the deal making for the illegal kickbacks between the medical device company and physicians. He also joined in the luxe vacations, alleged the whistleblower. However, according to statements from the former CEO’s attorney, his share of the settlement will be paid by Sightpath.

Further, Sightpath has agreed to enter into a “corporate integrity agreement” as a part of the whistleblower settlement agreement.

Do you have evidence of employer misconduct such as illegal kickbacks, Medicare/Medicaid fraud, health insurance fraud, or other illegal activity that is defrauding the government? You may be eligible to file a whistleblower lawsuit. Fill out the form on this page now for a free case evaluation.

Katy Perry Sued in Amputation Lawsuit by Toeless Stagehand

Mon, 25 Sep 2017 03:19:43 GMT

A stagehand has sued Katy Perry, Live Nation and several other stage production companies for an undisclosed sum after a backstage accident and injury led to a toe amputation.

Employee Christina Fish alleges in the amputation lawsuit that she lost her toe during an accident while working on Katy Perry’s World Tour stop in Raleigh, North Carolina in 2014. Fish was requested to move a wall that ultimately became stuck and rolled across her foot requiring a full toe amputation.

Fish claims in the amputation lawsuit that she could feel her shoe filling up with blood but no one offered to call an ambulance, forcing her to call a friend to take her to the hospital. Shortly after, her toe turned black and gangrenous.

Fish alleges in the amputation lawsuit that doctors requested that she keep the dead toe on as long as possible before having it amputated, which ultimately caused her emotional distress and the inability to use her foot for several months because of the extent of the injury. She is no longer able to practice yoga, something that was a big part of her life. Any catastrophic personal injury that requires amputation or other severe medical response can have a significant impact on the victim’s life.

Fish claims that at the scene of the accident, other crew members offered to help her ice the injury but did not recognize the severity of the roll over accident.

Most Common Types of Injuries Requiring Amputation

Research published in the American Journal of Surgery found that the vast majority of amputations are caused by blunt trauma.

More than 80 percent of the 8,910 amputuees included in the study suffered blunt trauma injuries caused by car or machinery accidents. For car accident victims, upper body limbs were the most common to be amputated. For pedestrians and motorcyclists, however, amputation of the lower limbs was more common.

No matter how the catastrophic personal injury happens, amputees are left to cope with major physical limitations and may require adaptive devices or prosthetics on a daily basis.

Amputations may also occur because medical treatment was not provided in time, and any amputation patient faces risk of post-procedure problems like infection and other complications. Even with a successful amputation of the affected limb, recovery can take time and limit the victim’s day-to-day life.

When Can an Amputation Lawsuit Be Filed?

If a person or company is responsible for causing injuries that lead to amputation, that liable party may be held accountable in court for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and other damages tied to the injury. An amputation can have a significant impact on someone’s ability to move on with their life and may limit their physical ability and ability to return to work.

If you or someone you know has been seriously injured in an accident that ultimately required amputation, you may have grounds to recover compensation through filing an amputation lawsuit or catastrophic personal injury lawsuit. The California personal injury lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher have a track record of comprehensively evaluating these claims and putting together compelling arguments in court in an effort to help you recover compensation in settlement or trial.

Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

New Amazon Proposition 65 Violation Filed Over Drinkware

Fri, 22 Sep 2017 03:17:00 GMT

Did you know that, as a California resident, you have rights if you discover a consumer product has dangerous amounts of certain chemicals listed in Proposition 65 ? Your decision to take action could prevent further harm for you and other consumers and may hold the company accountable for past actions violating this proposition.

New Amazon Proposition 65 Violation Adds to List

A California resident has lodged a notice of violation against Amazon.com, alleging that lead and lead compounds are found inside some of the products sold on the site. Any California citizen who acquires, buys or uses the named products could be exposed to lead and lead compounds which could lead to birth defects or other reproductive challenges, the notice alleges.

The products in question include copper drinkware with brass handles sold on Amazon.com. The Amazon Proposition 65 violation notice was filed on August 25, 2017, by California resident Susan Davia.

The online retailer has been hit with multiple violation notices in recent months.

An Amazon Proposition 65 violation notice filed August 10 accused the company of selling a waterproof cosmetic bag containing a Prop 65 chemical that poses risks to the male reproductive system. According to the Amazon Prop 65 violation notice, the item for sale on Amazon.com does not provide a “clear and reasonable warning” about the toxic effects of consumers’ exposure to the chemical.

Other examples of Prop 65 violation notices are claims that Wal-Mart sells a tote shoulder bag containing a cancer causing chemical and that Starbucks and roughly 70 other coffee companies are failing to warn consumers that the coffee they’re drinking could contain a chemical linked to cancer.

What Is Proposition 65?

Proposition 65 was approved in 1986 by California voters to address their growing concerns about being exposed to toxic chemicals, but many consumers today are still taking advantage of the opportunity to hold companies accountable when proper notice about these chemicals is missing from product materials. The 1986 Proposition 65 version was instrumental in establishing a baseline of accountability for companies that fail to meet notice requirements.

Ultimately, that initiative evolved into the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 , also referred to as Proposition 65. A list of chemicals is included inside Proposition 65, and these chemicals are known to cause reproductive issues or birth defects. The list is updated a minimum of once per year and now includes more than 800 chemicals since it was initially established in 1987.

Businesses are responsible for notifying California residents about high amounts of these chemicals in the products they purchase in workplaces or in the home or those that are released into the environment.

Businesses that expose individuals to a chemical that does not have a safe harbor level means that they must provide a Proposition 65 warning, unless the business can successfully illustrate that the exposure level would not lead to a significant risk of reproductive harm or cancer.

How Does Proposition 65 Empower Consumers?

A consumer bringing forth a claim such as the Amazon Proposition 65 violation can file a lawsuit that forces the responsible company to pay steep fines. Up to $2,500 per day for each violation can be levied against the responsible company.

Proposition 65 is enforced throughout California by the California Attorney General’s Office and city/district attorneys in locations with more than 750,000 people living there.

Consumer products purchased online may pose risks to individuals that are not learned about until a serious injury has occurred.

If you or someone you know may have been exposed to a chemical listed in Proposition 65 or you believe you may have another Amazon Proposition 65 violation requiring investigation, fill out the form on this page for a FREE case evaluation. The Prop 65 lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher will evaluate your claim and contact you for a no-cost, no-obligation consultation if they think you have a case.

Starbucks False Advertising Lawsuit Takes Aim at Doubleshot Espresso

Thu, 21 Sep 2017 03:15:10 GMT

A new Starbucks false advertising lawsuit has been filed against the coffee giant due to an allegation that Starbucks Doubleshot Espresso does not contain two shots of espresso as advertised.

Deceptive Advertising Laws

Advertising laws and consumer laws protect consumers from deceptive advertising . The primary purpose of these laws is to promote accuracy in labeling. This means that any information that a consumer should reasonably be informed about should be printed on a label of the product, ensuring that consumers know exactly what they are purchasing to minimize the level of manipulation engaged in by advertisers and manufacturers.

Deceptive advertising may also be referred to as false advertising and can lead to legal claims filed by consumers who believe that a company is trying to take advantage of misleading or false information. False advertising can refer to confusing, untrue or misleading statements that are used when promoting a product.

Labeling is a crucial component of a consumer’s decision-making process and materials that are printed on the front of any product label should be accurate so that a consumer can make an informed buying decision. When a manufacturer tries to take advantage of consumers by using confusing labeling techniques or false materials to support the sale of a product, this can lead to legal action such as the Starbucks false advertising lawsuit.

Starbucks False Advertising Lawsuit

The Starbucks false advertising lawsuit, filed by plaintiff Oliver Naimi in California federal court, says Starbucks misleads consumers into believing that its Doubleshot Espresso products contain a “doubleshot” — or two shots — of espresso.

Naimi argues that he and other consumers would not have purchased the Doubleshot Espresso products, or would have paid much less for them, if they knew they did not contain two shots of Starbucks brand espresso.

The Starbucks brand Doubleshot beverage has been on the market since 2002.

Research from the Starbucks website indicates that a single shot of Starbucks espresso contains approximately 75 mg of caffeine, and two shots contains approximately 150 mg. The products in the Starbucks Doubleshot Espresso line contain between 70 and 120 mg of caffeine content, not at least 150 mg.

The labeling on the product, according to the Starbucks false advertising lawsuit, leads consumers to believe they’ll be reaping the benefits of at least 150 mg of caffeine. Only upon closer inspection of the product would anyone see the actual amount of caffeine included, according to the plaintiff.

The Starbucks false advertising lawsuit attempts to hold the company responsible for using misleading advertising materials that encourage consumers to purchase products or to pay a premium price for those Doubleshot Espresso products.

Naimi is asking the court to certify the Starbucks false advertising lawsuit as a class action lawsuit on behalf of all similarly situated consumers in California. He is seeking damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and other remedies the Court deems appropriate.

The case is Oliver Naimi v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 17-cv-06484, U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

Did you purchase a product that was deceptively labeled? You may have a legal claim. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

What Is Considered Off-The-Clock-Work in California?

Thu, 21 Sep 2017 03:13:38 GMT

California employees are entitled to protections under state and federal regulations. Being aware of your rights can help to protect you in the event that your employer is violating existing labor laws at the state or federal level.

What Is Considered Off-The-Clock-Work in California?

One of the most common situations that leads to legal claims brought forward by employees has to do with off-the-clock work . When your employer violates this, you may be entitled to bring a wage and hour lawsuit against him or her.

State laws and federal laws generally require employers to pay non-exempted employees wages for all of the time in which that individual works. This is typically interpreted to mean any time that the employee is required to be on duty at a prescribed workplace or on the employer’s premises, at any time during which the employee is permitted or suffered to work, whether or not required to do so.

Active productive labor includes all hours worked. If an employer attempts to encourage you to engage in off-the-clock work that you will not be paid for, this could be a violation of California labor laws .

Working time in California is different from other states because it is not limited only to hours worked in active productive labor. Unauthorized overtime, as one such example, could also be included in terms of hours for which the employee should be paid.

What Is Off-The-Clock Work?

An employer is responsible for paying an employee for off-the-clock work, including time worked after or before a scheduled shift, if the employer should have known or did know that the employee worked those hours.

Common examples of off-the-clock work in California include:

work that an employer does,
working during a required rest or meal break,
redoing a project or correcting problems at the employer’s request,
post-shift work,
pre-shift work, and
administrative work.

In some situations, California employers may attempt to engage in off-the-clock work violations by using payroll practices that only pay employees for the time they are scheduled to work, even though they may be still under the employer’s control after the shift ends. This leads to wages in which the employee does not receive the appropriate payment for his or her off-the-clock work.

Employees in California are entitled to be paid for working off-the-clock, but it is important to remember that supervisors or employers may not always be explicit about requiring off-the-clock work. In some situations the employer may suggest or encourage off-the-clock work in order to avoid paying out the hourly wage due to that employee for the entire time they are working.

If you believe that you have been subjected to an off-the-clock work violation, an experienced wage and hour attorney in California can help. The lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher can help you with your California wage and hour claim, contact us today .

Lawsuit: Big Rig Truck Wreck Left Child With Life-Long Disfigurement

Wed, 20 Sep 2017 03:10:33 GMT

The mother of a six-year-old child who was injured and faces life-long disfigurement hit Swift Transportation with a lawsuitalleging the company failed to exercise reasonable care in operating the truck that jackknifed and killed two others in the incident.

The catastrophic personal injury lawsuit alleges that a Swift Transportation big rig truck drifted across lanes of traffic and stopped in a jackknife position on State Route 124 in La Mesa, California.

According to California Highway Patrol officials, the semi-truck was entering southbound lanes on the highway on an August afternoon when the driver lost control and went through the guardrail and crossed into oncoming traffic. Two women were killed and six others injured, including the six-year-old who had a broken neck and wasn’t breathing when first responders arrived, reported NBC 7 San Diego .

The mother of the injured six-year-old alleges that the Swift Transportation driver is responsible for the big rig truck accident and her child’s injuries.

“The defendants’ negligent acts proximately caused Plaintiffs’ devastating injuries, including pain and suffering, financial loss, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional distress,” alleges the catastrophic personal injury lawsuit.

Catastrophic Personal Injury: Disfigurement

When someone is injured because of the negligence or recklessness of others, a host of personal injuries can affect that person for life, including disfigurement.

Disfigurement can have a particularly long-lasting effect because it can impact a person’s physical abilities as well as their emotional wellbeing. Disfigurement may also require life-long medical treatment, taking a financial toll as well.

If an accident caused by the negligence or recklessness of others has disfigured an individual, that individual can claim monetary relief for the physical, emotional and financial damages caused by the accident. Compensation for disfigurement depends on a number of factors, including;

The part of the body that has been affected by the disfigurement; for example, significant facial scarring;
If an individual’s daily routine and abilities are affected by the disfigurement; for example, if an individual is unable to drive or do their job;
If the disfigurement will cause embarrassment; and
If it will require additional medical treatment or life-long treatment.

If you or a loved one have been in an accident, you should keep in mind that disfigurement can be as damaging in the long-run as other catastrophic personal injuries. Disfigurement can also lead to depression and even post-traumatic stress disorder, requiring mental health services. A person’s overall well-being and quality of life can be affected by disfigurement as well.

Those who have been disfigured because of the actions of others may want to consider contacting an experienced California personal injury attorney to ensure they receive appropriate compensation for their injuries. A personal injury attorney can help you determine if it was the recklessness or negligence of another that caused you harm and can help you file a lawsuit to help compensate you.

Fill out the form on this page for a FREE case evaluation by the California personal injury attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher.

Shoulder Implants Recalled Due to High Rate of Fracture Inside Patients

Wed, 20 Sep 2017 03:07:15 GMT

Medical device manufacturer Zimmer Biomet has recalled more than 3,000 shoulder implants due to a high fracture rate inside of patients, leading to severe injury and revision surgery.

“The FDA has identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall. Use of these devices may cause serious injuries or death,” according to a Recall Alert by the agency.

This is the second time the company has had to recall this type of shoulder implant, known as the Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder system.

The device is surgically implanted to help restore arm movement, especially in patients with rotator cuff tears who have developed severe shoulder arthritis. It is also used in patients with a previously failed shoulder joint replacement.

Shoulder Implants Keep Fracturing Years After First Recall

According to the FDA, “Zimmer Biomet is recalling the Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder because these devices are fracturing at a higher rate than is stated in the labeling. Fractures may result in revision surgeries which could cause serious adverse health consequences such as permanent loss of shoulder function, infection, or rarely, death.”

Shoulder implants are designed to replace the typical shoulder anatomy. The recalled Zimmer Biomet reverse shoulder implant is intended to work, and is marketed as being, more effective than traditional shoulder implants. The reverse shoulder works by relying on the patient’s deltoid muscle rather than the rotator cuff. The deltoid muscle is used to both stabilize and operate the patient’s arm.

Surgery for reverse shoulder implants has become the third biggest market for joint reconstruction.

A recall notice was first distributed by Zimmer Biomet in December 2016 requesting that health care practitioners across the nation quarantine any remaining stock of Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder systems.

More than 3,662 units have been sold across the country and no guidance has yet been provided by the manufacturer about how patients with the recalled Zimmer shoulder implants should respond.

This is the second recall for this shoulder implant, leading some to wonder if it should be considered a defective medical device.

The Biomet Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder implant was previously recalled in 2010 after the company, which was later purchased by Zimmer, received complaints about the implant fracturing. Now that six years have passed, the shoulder implant has been recalled again.

Both shoulder implant recalls had to do with the humeral tray, a portion of the product that has a high rate of fracture risk after it has been implanted.

How Do I Know If I Have One of the Recalled Zimmer Shoulder Implants?

Typically, patients are not familiar with the type of implant they have received so if you have questions about whether or not you are affected by the Zimmer shoulder implant recall, you should consult with your physician. Patients may be at severe risk of serious injury if they have a Zimmer Biomet shoulder implant.

Shoulder implant fractures can lead to revision procedures that are extremely invasive and could cause adverse problems such as infection, permanent loss of shoulder function, or death. While revision surgery may be an option, that procedure comes with a high risk for the patient losing all use of the shoulder.

If you suffered a shoulder implant fracture and had to undergo revision surgery, you may have a legal claim. The defective medical device lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher have experience helping patients with medical device problems. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

Annie’s Salad Dressings Target of New Class Action Lawsuit

Mon, 18 Sep 2017 03:03:41 GMT

Companies that distribute services and products throughout the United States have a responsibility to make sure that their labelling and advertisement of products is accurate and in line with what the product can truly provide. That’s the allegation behind a new Annie’s False advertising lawsuit.

Annie’s False Advertising Lawsuit Targets “Natural” Salad Dressings

General Mills Inc. and Annie’s Homegrown Inc. were hit with a proposed class action lawsuit arguing that they have deceptively marketed their salad dressings with labels stipulating that the products are natural even though synthetic ingredients are included.

An Alabama resident is the lead plaintiff in the case and argued that the products are inappropriately marketed as natural even though they contain xanthan gum, a thickening agent that is a synthetic ingredient. Allegedly the salad dressing bottles included the word ‘natural’ and indicated that there were no synthetic colors, artificial flavors or synthetic preservatives but the plaintiff later learned that the products were not all natural because they contained xanthan gum.

Bacteria are fermented with sucrose, glucose or lactose in order to produce the thickening agent in a commercial manufacturing setting. U.S. regulators, according to the Annie’s false advertising lawsuit, name xanthan gum as a synthetic substance.

The basis of the Annie’s false advertising lawsuit is that the manufacturers misled consumers to believe they were purchasing a non-synthetic and natural product, and that by using a label with the word ‘natural’ on it the product encourages consumers to pay a premium price over other products without really understanding what is inside.

A separate proposed Annie’s false advertising class action lawsuit was filed earlier this month alleging misbranding, false advertising and deceptive marketing regarding their lineup of Organic Fruit Snacks that plaintiffs claim do not contain any strawberries.

What Is False Advertising?

False advertising refers to statements made by the manufacturer that are misleading, untrue, or confusing when it comes to marketing a product.

The purpose behind consumer and advertising laws has been to promote truth in labeling such that consumers know what they are purchasing and can make informed decisions about what products do and do not include or purport to do. In general, false advertising lawsuits can encompass several different types of behaviors, all of which are illegal.

Some examples of false advertising include hidden surcharges or fees, marketing “going out of business” sales for products that were already reduced in price, and labels that do not make it clear what’s inside the product.

If you have recently discovered that a product you purchased does not have an accurate label and that the misleading label enticed you to purchase the item, talking to a lawyer may be your next step. While the Annie’s false advertising lawsuit is just one example, all kinds of products may be named in a false advertising lawsuit.

If you have been the victim of false advertising, you may have grounds to file a lawsuit with the help of an attorney. The lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher are committed to holding companies accountable when false advertising has occurred. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

Postmates Agrees to $8.75M Employee Misclassification Settlement

Mon, 18 Sep 2017 03:01:52 GMT

A California federal judge has granted preliminary approval to an $8.75 million class action settlement over claims the “on-demand” delivery service misclassified its couriers as independent contractors and paid them below minimum wage.

The employee misclassification settlement will resolve a 2015 class action lawsuit filed by Postmates couriers, alleging they had been misclassified as independent contractors and denied compensation and protections provided to employees in the states of California, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington D.C.

Postmates denies any wrongdoing but agreed to the employee misclassification settlement to resolve the litigation.

Class Action Lawsuit Allegations

Postmates is an “on-demand” delivery service available in major cities throughout the United States. It uses an online platform to connect customers with local couriers who will deliver “anything from any store or restaurant in minutes” with no waiting.

The workers alleged that Postmates had violated California employment law, the Private Attorneys General Act and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

In a September 1 order, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White agreed that the employee misclassification settlement was appropriate, noting that laws about employee classification in the emerging “gig economy” are still being hashed out in the California courts.

A gig economy is a labor market characterized by short-term contracts or freelance work by independent contractors instead of hiring full-time employees.

“A class recovery through settlement may be the best hope for most of these couriers recovering anything at all on these claims, given the very low number of couriers who would file individual claims, if required to do so,” said the judge.

Employee Misclassification Settlement Terms

According to the terms of employee misclassification settlement, $75,000 will go to the state and another $25,000 will go to the couriers to resolve the Private Attorneys General Act. An additional $300,000 will go to the settlement administrator. In addition, Postmates has agreed to change its business practices to provide its couriers occupational accident insurance and clearer termination terms.

The proposed classes include tens of thousands of Postmates couriers, including approximately 88,000 couriers in California, 28,000 couriers in New York, 8,000 couriers in Washington D.C., 3,000 couriers in Massachusetts, as well as 107,000 in other states.

The employee misclassification settlement also requires Postmates to revise their termination policy for their couriers, allowing them to appeal termination decisions in arbitration. Postmates will also provide a means for couriers to provide feedback about their interactions with the company.

Similar employee misclassification settlements have been reached in recent years, including a $27 million settlement paid by Lyft, a $7.75 million settlement by Uber, and a $4.6 million settlement by Instacart.

Employee misclassification has been emerging as the number of “gig-economy” workers increase.

This case is Sherry Singer et al. v. Postmates Inc., Case No. 4:15cv01284, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The ‘Gig-Economy’ and Worker Rights

Under the so-called gig-economy, workers are often deemed independent contractors and therefore not provided many of the protections and benefits provided under the law to regular employees, such as overtime pay and leave benefits.

Companies have been using gig-economy workers to cut costs and some workers enjoy the flexibility, but concerns about worker protections have been emerging over the past several years.

If you believe your rights as a worker have been violated as a member of the gig-economy, you should call an experienced employment law attorney. An experienced attorney can help determine if you should take legal action against your employer or begin an employment law class action lawsuit. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

Marcus J. Bradley Speaking at 2017 Wage & Hour Litigation & Management Conference – Los Angeles

Sat, 16 Sep 2017 02:59:54 GMT

Bradley/Grombacher is proud to announce that Founder and Managing Partner Marcus J. Bradley will be speaking at Bridgeport’s 2017 Wage & Hour Litigation & Management Conference in Los Angeles on December 8, 2017.

Bridgeport’s annual Wage & Hour Update explores and explains, in-depth, the critical and changing aspects of Wage & Hour litigation.

This year’s program will focus on the ever increasing use of PAGA in wage and hour litigation; key developments in the case law such as Uber & Lyft, Duran; Iskanian; Ayala, interpreting the white collar exemptions, New Legislation, Regulations and Statutes and the enforcement and litigation of arbitration agreements.

Developments in PAGA, class certification, independent contractor classification and arbitration agreements impact most wage and hour practitioners currently prosecuting or defending these cases.

For those who dedicate their practice to class actions, whether plaintiff or defense, there is much to review and discuss from the past year.

This program, which is geared for the advanced practitioner, will cover the latest developments in the law of state and federal wage and hour actions as well as procedural advice from leaders in the field. This timely conference will include a discussion of the development of recent major cases and decisions as well as a look at upcoming cases and current practice.

The program is co-chaired by Timothy J. Long, Orrick and Christina Humphrey, Humphrey & Rist, LLP.

When: December 8, 2017, 9:00 am – 4:40 pm

Where: Hotel Indigo LA Downtown

Individual Price: $325.00

Group Rate: (2) registrants: $295.00, (3) registrants: $215.00

TOPICS:

Discussion of New Developments in:

PAGA Update – Civil Procedure and Legal Landscape; PAGA Letters, PAGA Trials, PAGA Judgments & Settlements
Gender Issues in Wage and Hour Law
Changing the Rules in the Independent Contractor Game and Joint Employer Issues, including New Economy Issues
Planning for and Executing Trial in Class and Collective Wage & Hour Cases
Procedural Issues in Wage & Hour Litigation including Discovery, Class Certification, Conditional Certification, and Arbitration
Mediation and Settlement: Tips on Damages Analysis, New Case Law and cy pres
Spokeo v. Robins – The Effect on Standing and Article III Issues
Compensable Time Issues

FACULTY:

Christina Humphrey, Humphrey & Rist, LLP
Timothy J. Long, Orrick
Cathy Conway, Gibson Dunn
Jesse Cripps, Gibson Dunn
Kevin Barnes, Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes
Michael Morrison, Alexander Krakow + Glick LLP
Wilmer J. Harris, Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP
Gelnn Danas, Capstone Law, APC
Kelsey Szamet, Kingsley & Kingsley
Yesenia Gallegos, Fox Rothschild
Marcus J. Bradley, Bradley/Grombacher, LLP
Robert R. Roginson, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Timothy G. Williams, Pope, Berger, Williams & Reynolds, LLP
Joseph A. Krock, Ph.D., The Claro Group, LLC

This program is approved for 6 hrs of CA MCLE general credit hours.

Bridgeport is a State Bar of CA provider of MCLE (Provider 11872) This program offers 6 hrs of MCLE. Bridgeport will assist attorneys from outside CA obtain CLE in accordance with the rules of their state.

Lawsuit Explores Compensation Opportunities for Traumatic Brain Injury

Thu, 14 Sep 2017 02:58:10 GMT

A husband and wife who crashed the small plane they were flying in are suing the Federal Aviation Administration, alleging they were misdirected by an FAA air traffic controller and suffered serious injuries as a result of the alleged negligence, including sustaining a traumatic brain injury.

The lawsuit raises concerns about what to do after a serious traumatic brain injury accident and who is liable.

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Signs of a Traumatic Brain Injury

It’s not always easy to spot a traumatic brain injury with the naked eye, and it’s also possible that the symptoms won’t manifest until hours or days after an accident happens. Identifying a brain injury early on gives the patient the best possible chance of maximum recovery, but many brain injury victims suffer for years and have to completely adapt their life because of such an accident.

If you or someone you know has recently been in any kind of accident, it’s vital to watch for symptoms that could indicate a brain injury. Some of the most common signs of traumatic brain injury include:

feelings of depression,
memory loss,
visual disturbances,
fatigue,
dizziness,
loss of smell,
confusion,
nausea, and
irritability.

What to Do After a Traumatic Brian Injury

If you suspect that you or someone else has a traumatic brain injury, getting that person to a hospital sooner rather than later could help to provide a diagnosis and treatment plan that could address the traumatic brain injury as effectively as possible.

Injuries can vary in severity and can lead to significant care required by outside personnel when someone has sustained a traumatic brain injury.

If you believe that you or someone you know has recently suffered a traumatic brain injury and it was caused by another person’s recklessness or negligence, you may be eligible to recover compensation through a traumatic brain injury lawsuit .

The attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher have years of experience working with victims of catastrophic personal injury to help recover the compensation they need to treat their medical conditions appropriately. Fill out the form on this page for a FREE case

Will Coffee Soon Come With Proposition 65 Cancer Warning?

Wed, 13 Sep 2017 02:54:49 GMT

Starbucks and roughly 70 other coffee purveyors are fighting lawsuits that allege a carcinogen has been found in coffee and the drink should carry a Proposition 65 cancer warning under California law.

According to the Council for Education and Research on Toxics, a possible carcinogen called acrylamide has been found in roasted coffee beans. The chemical is listed in the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, also known as Prop 65 .

The New York Post reports that the plaintiffs in the Prop 65 coffee lawsuits and number of other groups want coffee companies to provide a Proposition 65 cancer warning on coffee products warning consumers about the chemical.

The Prop 65 coffee lawsuits and public interest groups also take issue with recent reports that coffee provides health benefits, including a lower risk of death from a number of diseases, in addition to the caffeine buzz consumers crave. One plaintiff argues that the purported health benefits of coffee are only “a bunch of hypotheses” and consumers should be aware that drinking coffee exposes them to “really high levels of a carcinogen.”

Starbucks shot back in one Proposition 65 cancer warning lawsuit, arguing that the alleged carcinogen, acrylamide, is commonly found in a number of products, including fried foods, toast, and cereals.

The chemical, according to an article from Shape.com , is “a substance formed in all baked, toasted, roasted and fried foods by a reaction between sugars (naturally occurring or added) and the amino acid asparagine.” Further, the odorless crystal is also credited with making cooked foods golden brown and delicious, says the article.

Complicating matters, continues Shape, acrylamide is a byproduct of preparing food and coffee, so it is not easy to remove like a food additive. The chemical is produced when food is cooked at high temperatures, so the article recommends eating more raw foods and using different cooking methods, like grilling or steaming to cut down on acrylamide consumption.

Additionally, individuals worried about acrylamide consumption can do things like soaking potatoes or preparing things like toast to a golden yellow rather than brown to cut the production of the chemical, notes the Shape article.

“A recent study found that natural substances in broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower and Brussels sprouts fight heart disease by protecting the bends and branches in blood vessels, which tend to be the areas most prone to cholesterol build-up and inflammation,” explains the Shape article, noting that “[t]hose exact same foods also contain natural detoxers that deactivate cancer causing chemicals and stop the growth of existing cancer cells, meaning they offer dual protection against the effects of acrylamide.”

Proposition 65 cancer warnings have popped up in interesting places, including parking garages, where individuals are exposed to potentially dangerous chemicals.

The plaintiffs in the 7-year-long litigation over the Proposition 65 cancer warning for coffee assert that the brown beverage should be no different. Even if only low levels of the Prop 65 listed chemical are found in coffee, say the plaintiffs, consumers should be aware that they are drinking a carcinogen.

The Prop 65 coffee carcinogen lawsuit has taken on 70 coffee companies and a bench trial has begun in the litigation.

Are you aware of a product that should contain a Proposition 65 cancer warning but does not in violation of the law? You may have a case to file a Prop 65 lawsuit and hold the company accountable. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation. If the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher think you have a case, you will be contacted for a free, no-obligation consultation.

Spirit Airlines’ Low Airfare Is Bait-And-Switch Tactic, Lawsuit Claims

Wed, 13 Sep 2017 02:52:19 GMT

A class action lawsuit accuses Spirit Airlines of using bait-and-switch tactics to trick customers into believing they are purchasing low airfare, “when, in fact, Spirit makes up whatever discount it purports to give consumers in fraudulent and unwarranted charges.”

For example, the Spirit Airlines class action lawsuit claims that a carry-on piece of luggage costs as much as four times the cost of a checked one. It also tacks on a “Passenger Usage Fee” at the time of ticket purchase, misleads consumers about the cost and quality of its “$9 Fare Club,” and intentionally limits the actions customers can take on its website so they are forced to call customer service where they must pay a fee to receive help, among other allegations.

“Spirit’s bait-and-switch and ‘gotcha’ tactics are designed to confuse, trick, and trap consumers to the public’s detriment,” states the class action lawsuit.

From a legal standpoint, a company could be accused of using bait-and-switch tactics when it engages in advertising efforts that are false or misleading, causing customers to behave a certain way or to purchase a product or service. This dishonest sales practice, unfortunately, occurs far too often and harms consumers by not giving them accurate information to make educated decisions about purchases.

The advertisement of a low-priced item, such as an airfare fee, is used to draw customers in, but then those consumers are encouraged or forced to purchase a higher-priced item. If you have been subjected to these kinds of actions by Spirit Airlines or another company, you may have grounds to file a consumer false advertising lawsuit with the help of a lawyer.

Did Spirit Airlines Use Bait-And-Switch Tactics to Mislead Consumers?

The Spirit Airlines class action lawsuit alleges the airline’s actions and omissions constitute fraud, violate the Consumer Protection Act of New York, and are in material breach of the understandings between Spirit Airlines and consumers.

Spirit Airlines uses the terminology “Ultra Low” when describing their travel opportunities. The bait-and-switch tactics lawsuit, however, believes that these advertised prices are especially misleading to consumers because the fees and charges assessed to consumers after purchasing the ticket are fraudulent, and are a bait-and-switch tactic designed to confuse and defraud consumers after the fact.

The fee structure, according to the lawsuit, is not clear to consumers at the time that they purchase an airline ticket, particularly if they obtain a Spirit Airlines ticket through a third-party vendor.

Third-party vendor websites and Spirit’s website do not conspicuously explain these fees and, therefore, consumers find themselves unaware of the “plentiful” fees they will incur until after they purchase a ticket that “initially appeared attractive,” the class action lawsuit alleges.

The case is Thomas Cox v. Spirit Airlines Inc., Case No. 17-cv-05172, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York.

If you have been subjected to bait-and-switch tactics that enticed you to purchase a product or service that was misrepresented, you may have a legal claim. Obtain a FREE case evaluation by filling out the form on this page now. The attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher have years of experience helping consumers fight for their rights.

Cintas Overtime Pay Lawsuit Emerges in California

Tue, 12 Sep 2017 02:49:20 GMT

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cintas Corporate Services alleging violations of employee rights. The Cintas Corporation has specialized services and products that serve 900,000 customers throughout the United States but is now the subject of an overtime pay lawsuit.

If you or someone you know has been deprived of the right pay or subjected to other unlawful workplace practices , you could have grounds to file an overtime pay lawsuit. It can be challenging to come forward with such a legal claim without the experience and knowledge provided by a dedicated lawyer.

What’s Behind Any Overtime Pay Lawsuit?

Overtime pay can often lead to questions raised by employees who were never appropriately paid for their extra work. Going above and beyond a weekly limit for hours, for example, should trigger overtime pay provisions, but some companies attempt to downplay overtime pay by asking employees not to clock in or keep track of all the hours worked.

Cintas contracts with California residents and businesses located in California to install, repair, and maintain fire alarm systems. The plaintiff filing the Cintas overtime pay lawsuit worked as a non-exempt technician for the company and filed a class action lawsuit due to an alleged failure to pay plaintiff and other Cintas technicians the appropriately calculated overtime rate.

He alleges that the overtime rate should have been time and a half for all hours worked including those hours traveling to and from the first and last worksites over the course of the work day, as well as the post-shift and pre-shift work putting together paperwork.

Off-The-Clock Hours Concern Raised in Overtime Pay Lawsuit

The Cintas overtime pay lawsuit alleges that technicians including the plaintiff worked to maintain, install or repair fire alarm systems in accordance with national standards. According to the plaintiff, he and other Cintas technicians worked off the clock for many of these hours and Cintas never compensated them for their time. The plaintiff alleges that this qualifies for time-and-a-half pay under state and federal laws.

The Cintas overtime pay lawsuit is seeking damages and unpaid wages under the California Labor Code, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Private Attorney General Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Company vehicles are provided to those technicians to travel to and from their job locations but those vehicles are also taken home after work and used to get to the first worksite of the day. As alleged in the overtime pay lawsuit, the plaintiff and other Cintas technicians are required to put together a vehicle inspection and a driver vehicle inspection report.

This process takes up to 15 minutes every single day and the plaintiff argues that Cintas has failed to pay its technicians for this time, thus prompting an overtime pay lawsuit.

The case is Cassingham v. Cintas Corporate Services Inc., Case No. 17-cv-05014-NC, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.

If you have been subjected to unfair labor practices, you may be eligible to file a wage and hour lawsuit. Obtain a FREE evaluation of your potential case by filling out the form on this page now .

Study Finds Certain Antibiotics May Increase Risk of Aortic Aneurysm

Tue, 12 Sep 2017 02:45:14 GMT

Fluoroquinolone antibiotics, widely popular because they treat a broad spectrum of diseases caused by bacteria, may increase the risk for life-threatening aortic aneurysm, according to MedPage Today, a publication for medical professionals.

An aortic aneurysm is an enlargement of the aorta to greater than 1.5 times its normal size and poses an increased risk of an aortic rupture, which results in massive internal bleeding, shock and death, unless immediately treated.

“The incidence of aortic dissection and aortic aneurysm in the U.S. has risen over the last several decades, with an estimated 15,000 Americans dying each year from aortic aneurysm alone,” MedPage Today reports, citing research conducted in a Taiwanese study of 1,477 patients hospitalized for aortic aneurysm or dissection from 2000 through 2011.

Researchers found that adults who had recently taken a fluoroquinolone antibiotic had double the risk for aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection. The risk is posed with both current and past use of a fluoroquinolone antibiotic.

Fluoroquinolones include the antibiotics levofloxacin (Levaquin), ciprofloxacin (Cipro), ciprofloxacin extended-release tablets, moxifloxacin (Avelox), ofloxacin (Floxin) and gemifloxacin (Factive). These antibiotics have been named in dozens of drug injury lawsuits accusing drug manufacturers of failing to warn consumers and doctors about their risks.

The website Flouoroquinolone Toxicity Research explains that the medications “cause aortic aneurysm by disrupting the body’s collagen production, the same reason why tendon rupture more than doubles with the use of these drugs, and why Levaquin for dogs makes them lame by damaging their joints.”

Collagen, the site notes, is an “essential protein” needed in tendons, ligaments, the retinas of the eyes and arteries.

FDA Warnings About Fluoroquinolone Antibiotics

Fluoroquinolones kill or stop the growth of bacteria and are highly effective in treating serious bacterial infections. But these antibiotics have been plagued with repeated warnings from the Food and Drug Administration about the debilitating, and sometimes fatal, side effects.

In July 2008 the FDA first added a Boxed Warning warning of the increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture. Fewer than three years later, the agency added to the Boxed Warning the risk of worsening symptoms for those with myasthenia gravis.
In August 2013, the FDA required labels to be updated to describe the potential for irreversible peripheral neuropathy (serious nerve damage).
And in July 2016, the FDA added yet another safety label change, this one to enhance earlier warnings and to advise that fluoroquinolones should be limited to patients with serious bacterial infections who have no alternative treatment options, such as anthrax and certain pneumonias.

For patients with things like acute bacterial sinusitis, acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis and uncomplicated urinary tract infections, the risk of fluoroquinolone antibiotics outweighs the benefits, according to the FDA.

“An FDA safety review found that both oral and injectable fluroquinolones are associated with disabling side effects involving tendons, muscles, joints, nerves and the central nervous system,” according to the FDA. “These side effects can occur hours to weeks after exposure to fluoroquinolones and may potentially be permanent.”

Despite the risks, U.S. healthcare providers wrote more than 26 million prescriptions for fluroquinolones in 2011, according to the Washington Post, accounting for 11 percent of all prescriptions written that year.

If you suffered an adverse side effect after taking an antibiotic or other type of medication, you may be eligible to file a drug injury lawsuit to seek compensation for your injuries. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.New Paragraph

Class Action Targets Clearly Natural Essentials “Pure and Natural” Soaps

Mon, 11 Sep 2017 02:42:21 GMT

A class action lawsuit out of California accuses Beaumont Products Inc. d/b/a Clearly Natural Essentials of deceptively labeling its soap, hand soap and body lotion products as “Clearly Natural” and “Pure and Natural” in an attempt to get health conscious consumers to pay more money for the products.

The false advertising class action lawsuit , filed by Orange County resident Mona Paul, lists 20 Clearly Natural Essentials Pure and Natural products that allegedly contain synthetic ingredients despite being labeled pure and natural.

The products in question include:

Clearly Natural Essentials Pure and Natural Tea Tree Glycerine Soap,
Clearly Natural Essentials Pure and Natural Aloe Vera Glycerine Soap,
Clearly Natural Essentials Pure and Natural Unscented Glycerine Hand
Soap,
Clearly Natural Essentials Pure and Natural Lemon Glycerine Hand Soap,
Clearly Natural Essentials Pure and Natural Glycerine Body Lotion,
Plus 15 other products from the Clearly Natural Essentials Pure and Natural product line.

Paul says she purchased the products from Sprouts Farmer’s Market in California because she saw the labeling, advertising, the Defendant’s website, and read the packaging that represented that the products are “Clearly Natural” and “Pure and Natural.”

“Had she known the truth—that the representations she relied upon in making her purchase were false, misleading, and deceptive—she would not have purchased the Products at a premium price,” the Clearly Natural Essential Pure and Natural class action lawsuit states.

Paul alleges that she and other consumers “paid a premium for the products over comparable products that did not purport to be ‘Clearly Natural’ and ‘Pure and Natural,’” and therefore they suffered injury in the amount of the premium paid.

She is seeking an award of monetary damages, including treble damages; punitive damages and injunctive relief directing Beaumont Products to comply with consumer protection statutes nationwide, including California consumer protection laws .

The case is Moana Paul v. Beaumont Products Inc., Case No. 17-cv-01225, U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

What’s Inside Clearly Natural Essentials Pure and Natural Soap?

The class action lawsuit lists eight ingredients found in some or all of the Clearly Natural Essentials Pure and Natural products that it claims are synthetic and artificial, including:

Sodium Citrate
Tocopherol (Acetate)
Decyl Glucoside
Cetearyl Alcohol/Cetyl Alcohol/Stearyl Alcohol
Phenoxyethanol
Sodium Chloride
Ethylhexylglycerin
Glycerin

The class action lawsuit breaks down each ingredient and why it is believed to be synthetic and artificial. For example:

Sodium citrate is a synthesized sodium salt of citric acid and is often used as a blood thinner or anticoagulant. It is classified as a synthetic chemical under U.S. Federal Regulations.
Tocopherol (Acetate) is a synthetic, inert ingredient used pre and postharvest as an ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest.
Glycerin is a factory-produced texturizer that is created by complex processing. It is recognized by federal regulations as synthetic.

California False Advertising Laws

California has some of the strictest consumer protection laws in the United States.

Given the increase in the number of consumers wanting products without synthetic ingredients, some companies have taken advantage of wording on their product labels that might increase sales without delivering on the promises of the product itself.

If you discover that the marketing or the labeling on a product you use is not accurate, you may have grounds for a legal claim. Various laws at both the state and federal level provide protections for consumers as individuals or together in class action lawsuits to hold companies accountable for misleading or false advertising practices.

Fill out the form on the page for a FREE case evaluation to see if you have grounds to file a false advertising class action lawsuit.

Hip Implant Lawsuit: Depuy Pinnacle Hips Failed for Over 1,300 Patients

Mon, 11 Sep 2017 02:40:53 GMT

DePuy Orthopaedics and Johnson & Johnson have been hit with a hip implant lawsuit accusing the companies of placing a defective medical device on the market that failed for at least 1,300 patients, including the plaintiff, and put them at risk for toxic metal poisoning.

Plaintiffs J. and A. Setter of New York allege in the hip implant lawsuit that Mr. Setter underwent hip replacement surgery in November 2006 and received DePuy’s Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System. He alleges the hip implant prematurely failed, causing him to undergo revision surgery in 2014 and possibly undergo a third revision hip surgery in the future.

The DePuy Pinnacle hip implant lawsuit accuses the defendants of defectively designing the Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System causing it to have a high rate of failure, despite marketing the device as having significant advantages over other hip replacement systems. As a result, Mr. Setter has suffered injuries and damages as a result of the implant’s defective design, warning, construction and unreasonably dangerous character, the Pinnacle hip implant lawsuit states.

The Setters allege that DePuy and Johnson & Johnson are aware that Pinnacle hip implants, including the Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System, have a high failure rate that leads to pain, disability and lack of function. They further claim that Defendants are aware that Pinnacle hip implants may result in metallosis (metal blood poisoning) and biologic toxicity.

“Pinnacle devices may result in unsafe release of toxic metal ions into hip implant recipients’ tissue and bloodstream… [which] may result in metallosis, tissue death, bone erosion, and development of tumors,” the hip implant lawsuit states.

Defendants Knew About Failure Rate but Failed to Warn, Lawsuit Says

The plaintiffs say their doctors were unaware of any problems related to the DePuy Pinnacle hip implant before the hip replacement, but soon after, the plaintiff began suffering injuries and damages from the implant. In 2014, the plaintiff had to have painful hip revision surgery because of the problems and he has been told to expect future surgeries to deal with the defective hip implant.

The plaintiffs say that the makers of the DePuy Pinnacle hip implant failed to warn them and their doctors of the defective design and problems related to the product and they never would have consented to the use of the Pinnacle implant had they been warned of the problems.

The plaintiffs allege that DePuy and its parent companies were aware that the DePuy Pinnacle hip implant could cause problems in patients with the device, including, metallosis, biologic toxicity, and the unsafe release of toxic metal ions into the bloodstream. Additionally, say the plaintiffs, the device has a high failure rate leading to pain, disability, and lack of function. The device has also been associated with severe inflammation, bone erosion and the development of tumors, leading to accusations it is a defective medical device.

Studies, FDA Reports Show Problems With Pinnacle Hip Replacements

According to the hip implant lawsuit, the Food and Drug Administration has received over 1,300 adverse reports over failures of the Pinnacle Hip Implant; however, alleges the complaint, the defendants say that 99.9 percent of “Pinnacle Hip Components are in use today.”

The plaintiffs allege that the metal on metal design of the Pinnacle hip implant causes it to have a propensity to deform, leading to edge loading and loosening and increased wear. The hip implant lawsuit points to a 2006 article in the Journal of Arthroplasty reporting study findings that 90.5 percent of Pinnacle devices showed deformity which may result in negative clinical consequences. A later study reported increased level of cobalt and chromium three in patients with Pinnacle hip implants.

“All of the injuries and complications suffered by Plaintiff were caused be the defective design, warning, construction and unreasonable dangerous character of the Pinnacle Device that was implanted in him,” alleges the hip implant lawsuit. “Had Defendants not concealed the known defects, the early failure rate, the known complications and the unreasonable risks associated with the use of the Pinnacle Device, Plaintiff would not have consent to the Pinnacle Device being used in his total hip arthroplasty.”

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for their medical expenses, pain and suffering and for punitive damages against the makers of the DePuy Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System. They are also seeking costs, fees, and attorneys’ expenses.

The case is Setter v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-00868, U.S. District Court, Western District of New York.

Do You Have a Hip Implant Lawsuit?

Drug and medical device manufacturers have a duty to ensure that their products are safe and that they comply with FDA regulations before they put the products on the market. Plaintiffs who have been injured by a medical device defect or a dangerous drug may be eligible to file a product liability or personal injury lawsuit.

Contact the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher LLP to discuss your legal options. If you have a potential case, your defective hip implant lawyer will work tirelessly on your behalf to put together a compelling case and help you get the compensation you deserve. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE evaluation of your potential hip implant lawsuit.

Sister of Quadriplegic Man Sues Jail for Breaking His Spine

Fri, 08 Sep 2017 02:11:30 GMT

The sister of a quadriplegic man with schizophrenia has sued the Riverside County, California jail, the corrections employees and the county sheriff for allegedly causing catastrophic personal injury to her brother, David Manzo.

Manzo, of Perris, California, had been committed to mental facilities numerous times following calls to his home for domestic disturbances, according to The (Calif.) Press-Enterprise newspaper.

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

On Sept. 5, 2016, deputies responded to another call about a domestic dispute at Manzo’s home. When Manzo flicked cigarette ashes into the responding deputy’s face, Manzo was charged with two felonies, mayhem and resisting arrest, and booked into the Presley Detention Center in Riverside, California.

He left some seven weeks later as a quadriplegic man.

Jail Fight Leads to Catastrophic Personal Injury

After being declared incompetent to stand trial, and while awaiting transfer to a state mental hospital, an inmate attacked Manzo in a day room, according to the newspaper. The fight was captured on jail security cameras.

According to USA Today, Manzo is seen being knocked to the ground by the fellow inmate and lies there for two minutes before seven deputies respond.

Manzo, USA Today reports, “appears limp on the jail floor.”

“The deputies lift Manzo by the back of his shirt, propping him into a sitting position with his legs folded awkwardly beneath him,” according to the newspaper.

“The deputies then lay Manzo back on the floor, at which point he distinctly moves his right arm, showing that he has not yet been paralyzed.”

In an unsuccessful attempt to “hoist him to his feet,” three deputies grab Manzo under his arms, but he falls to the floor. They try twice more to lift him, but Manzo cannot support his own weight.

“Lying on his back, Manzo distinctly moves his head to look toward his feet, but does not move any of his limbs,” according to USA Today.

He is ultimately hoisted into a wheelchair and wheeled out of the camera’s view.

Improper Care Caused Paralysis, Lawsuit Claims

Genoveva Manzo’s catastrophic personal injury lawsuit alleges improper care by the corrections employees for causing her brother’s broken spine, a catastrophic injury that left hi a quadriplegic man.

“No cervical collar was placed on Manzo, nor was a backboard utilized to prevent damage to Manzo’s spine,” according to the catastrophic injury lawsuit. “Video of the incident shows deputies trying numerous times to pick up Manzo only for Manzo to slump back awkwardly to the floor, clearly lacking any ability to move his four limbs after having been picked up by the deputies.”

Genoveva Manzo’s lawyer told the local CBS news station that “a basic boy scout could have provided better first aid than what we have seen here from these trained first responders.”

The lawyer also criticized the corrections officers for putting the quadriplegic man into a wheelchair when “he should have gone out on a backboard and a gurney.”

David Manzo, 36, is now confined to a medical facility where he is battling related health issues, including pneumonia, according to Genoveva Manzo’s lawyer, who said the quadriplegic man’s lifetime medical care will cost $29 million, a figure that does not include the cost of care to treat his schizophrenia.

Catastrophic Personal Injury Lawsuits

A catastrophic personal injury is defined as an injury involving severe damage to the brain, spine, or spinal cord. Some examples of catastrophic injuries include:

Spinal cord injuries
Paraplegia
Quadriplegia
Traumatic brain injuries
Burn injuries
Disfigurement
Internal organ damage
Amputations
Multiple broken bones
Blindness

These types of injuries may be caused by a car accident, slip and fall accident, athletic participation, assault, or a work-related accident. In these cases, it may be possible to file a personal injury lawsuit against the negligent or reckless party that caused the injury.

The lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher understand the devastation that follows a catastrophic injury and they will work tirelessly on your behalf to help you get the maximum amount of injury compensation. Contact the California injury law firm today to schedule a FREE consultation.

Essure Lawsuit Alleges Women Were Harmed With No Warning of Risks

Fri, 08 Sep 2017 02:08:11 GMT

Another woman has filed an Essure lawsuit against Bayer, alleging the permanent sterilization device caused her to suffer severe injuries that she was not warned about and which forced her to undergo numerous surgical procedures to correct.

Plaintiff M. Luster is seeking over $75,000 in compensation for the “significant sums of money” she has spent – and will spend – to treat her Essure problems, as well as for punitive damages, pain and suffering, and more.

The Essure lawsuit joins more than 3,700 cases filed against the Bayer Group in the U.S., alleging Essure caused significant harm.

Essure Lawsuit Details Serious Injuries That Required Surgery to Correct

Essure is marketed as a non-surgical procedure for sterilization that is simpler than traditional sterilization methods such as tubal ligation or hysterectomy.

According to the Essure lawsuit, Luster received an Essure in each of her fallopian tubes in July 2010, and was told that it was a “good device and a good way to avoid surgery.”

The purpose of the Essure device is to cause bilateral occlusion (blockage) of the fallopian tubes using micro inserts that anchor into the tissue and cause tissue growth, theoretically causing the blockage. However, the device is alleged to be dangerous and defective because it migrates from the tubes, breaks into pieces, corrodes and perforates organs, “wreaking havoc on the female body,” the Essure lawsuit states.

This can cause significant ramifications and pain for any patient who is coping with Essure problems.

Luster suffered Essure side effects such as dizziness, excessive menses, vaginal bleeding, vaginal pain, light-headedness, and more, the Essure lawsuit says. As a result, she was forced to undergo a hysterectomy in 2017 even though she had attempted to use Essure as a way to avoid surgery.

As with any implant, a patient and the doctor carrying out the treatment should be aware of all the risks before they make the decision to use it. When patients are not told of the potential problems and only find out post-implantation, serious injuries can occur. Patients should know they might have grounds to file a legal claim against the manufacturers of defective medical devices.

ESSURE PROBLEMS HID FROM FDA

The Essure lawsuit alleges that Bayer misbranded the device because they failed to report known hazards to the FDA and did not meet regular reporting requirements.

In 2013 the FDA discovered an internal spreadsheet with more than 16,000 Essure complaints that were never reported to the FDA.

The Essure lawsuit details numerous instances in which Bayer was cited by the FDA and the Department of Health for failing to comply with federal regulations and the Conditional Premarket Approval Essure received by the FDA, including:

Failing to report complaints that Essure migrated.
Failing to report incidents of Essure bowel perforation, Essure coils breaking into pieces and migrating out of the fallopian tubes.
Only disclosing 22 Essure perforations while having knowledge of 144 perforations.

“Had Defendants disclosed such information as was required by CPMA and Federal law to Plaintiff or [her] Implanting Physician, Plaintiff would never had Essure implanted in her and would have avoided her injuries,” the Essure lawsuit states.

“As a result of Defendants’ negligence, individually, jointly, and severally, Plaintiff had to undergo numerous surgical procedures, diagnostic procedures, and may have to undergo surgeries, diagnostic testing, treatment and rehabilitation into the indefinite future,” the Essure lawsuit continues, adding that Luster has “sustained significant pain and suffering, both physical and mental, and will continue to do so into the indefinite future.”

She has also been forced to expend “significant sums of money for treatment of the multitude of surgeries, testing, medicine, therapies along with related expenses, all to her significant financial detriment and loss, and she may have to endure significant financial expenditures into the foreseeable future,” according to the Essure lawsuit.

The case is Luster v. Bayer Corp., et al., Case No. 17-cv-02351, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

Get Legal Help

If you or someone you know has been significantly injured or sustained damages as a result of Essure problems or another defective medical device, you may be entitled to recover compensation.

When medical devices are not made safely or marketed properly, there are laws and regulations that protect people who have suffered injuries from a defectively designed, manufactured and marketed product.

Contact the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher LLP to discuss your legal options. If you have a potential case, your defective drug lawyer will work tirelessly on your behalf to put together a compelling case and help you get the compensation you deserve.

NM Hospital Pays $12.24 Million to Settle Medicaid Whistleblower Lawsuit

Fri, 08 Sep 2017 02:06:27 GMT

A hospital in New Mexico has agreed to pay $12.24 million to end a Medicaid whistleblower lawsuit alleging it violated the False Claims Act by improperly manipulating federal funding designed to reimburse hospitals for treating the poor.

The Medicaid whistleblower lawsuit accused Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center and its Texas-based parent company of engaging in a scheme involving the now-defunct Sole Community Provider Program, which primarily used Medicaid funds to reimburse hospitals by about 75 percent for treating the indigent population. The program required a matching share from state or county funds.

According to the Medicaid whistleblower lawsuit , Christus Health and Christus St. Vincent were allegedly making illegal payments to county governments to obtain federal matches from the government. The payments violated the law because “Congress expressly intended that states and counties use their own money when seeking federal matching funds,” said a statement released by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

A news release from the Acting Assistant Attorney General from the Justice Department’s Civil Division stated: “Using local (public) funds provides an incentive for the counties and states to, among other things, hold down costs rather than rely on non bona-fide donations by private providers.”

The Medicaid whistleblower lawsuit was initiated by a former Los Alamos County Official, Diana Stepan, in 2011. Ms. Stepan passed away last year, but her estate will receive $2.4 million because the federal government investigated her complaint.

According to the Medicaid whistleblower lawsuit, the New Mexico hospital took over health programs for the indigent population in 2001 from Santa Fe County. The hospital paid the county to use its facilities, which the federal government reimbursed through Medicaid; however, the county then returned the payment as payments for its services.

“Stepan came to realize that St. Vincent’s donations to Santa Fe County were sham transactions designed and implemented specifically to bilk the federal treasury,” said the deceased whistleblower’s attorney in a statement. “She believed that rules should be followed and taxpayer funds protected.”

Under the terms of the settlement, Christus Health and Christus St. Vincent admit no liability, but say that they wish to settle the claims to avoid the expense of litigation.

“We have determined that continued expenditure of time and resources in defense of the allegations is not in the best interests of the Santa Fe community or the hospital,” said a hospital spokesman in a statement.

Medicaid Fraud and the False Claims Act

Under a law enacted during the civil war to prevent fraud against the army called the False Claims Act, whistleblowers are able to sue those defrauding the federal government. The False Claims Act has been an important part in stopping fraud and abuse of federal funding.

Under the False Claims Act, those knowingly submitted (or caused to be submitted) a false claim are in violation of the Act. Knowledge of false information includes actual knowledge as well as deliberate ignorance and reckless disregard for the truth.

Medicaid Whistleblower Lawsuits

If you work in a medical setting and have witnessed someone committing Medicaid fraud and have evidence of the illegal activity, you should consider filing a Medicaid whistleblower lawsuit.

Medicaid fraud steals money from the federal government and other needy programs. An experienced whistleblower attorney can help a courageous whistleblower hold guilty parties accountable for their fraudulent actions. An attorney can also ensure that the whistleblower receives a reward for their Medicaid whistleblower lawsuit.

If you are in the position of needing to file a Medicaid whistleblower lawsuit, you should consider hiring an experienced whistleblower attorney. The attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher are happy to provide a FREE case evaluation .

Amazon Sued for Wage & Hour Violations at Calif. Fulfillment Centers

Wed, 06 Sep 2017 20:19:36 GMT

Two former Amazon employees are suing the company for wage and hour violations they claim occurred at Amazon’s fulfillment locations in California, including San Bernardino and Patterson.

The Amazon wage and hour lawsuit was filed in Stanislaus County Superior Court last month and is seeking class action status on the grounds that other Amazon employees may have suffered similar wage and hour violations .

Amazon has more than 70 fulfillment centers and more than 90,000 full-time Amazon employees in the U.S., according to it’s website.

The Amazon class action lawsuit alleges the company deprived workers of meal breaks, overtime and other requirements under California labor law.

Lawsuit Details Alleged Wage and Hour Violations by Amazon

California wage and hour laws , in addition to federal stipulations, provide guidance for employers as well as employees about how to handle working issues such as overtime and breaks.

The violations alleged in the Amazon wage and hour lawsuit go back at least four years and include:

Failure to pay overtime after eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a week,
Failure to provide meal breaks every five hours,
Failure to pay premium pay for working a split shift, and

Rounding clock-in and clock-out time in favor of Amazon.

Wage and Hour Violations and Required Protections in California

California wage and hour attorneys are hearing more complaints from employees in these situations throughout the state. Any wage and hour violation could lead to an individual wage and hour lawsuit or group class action lawsuit.

There are strict rules in California with regard to overtime. The California Department of Industrial Relations shares that employees can not be required to work more than 8 hours in a given work day or more than 40 hours in a work week unless they are provided one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked beyond that period.

Furthermore, there are specific stipulations related to meal periods . An employee cannot work for a period of more than 5 hours per day without getting an appropriate meal period of at least 30 minutes, except in situations in which the work day of the employee is no more than six hours and the meal period is declined by the approval of both the employer and employee.

Employers cannot claim ignorance when engaging in practices that violate wage and hour laws at the state and federal level. They must be mindful of issues under their review that could violate laws and lead to legal claims. Employees may have recourse in the form of filing a wage and hour lawsuit against an employer who has crossed the line.

If you have been subjected to California wage and hour violations, contact the experienced lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher for a FREE case evaluation.

Woman Left Paralyzed After Accident Sues Uber, Driver and Honda for Negligence

Wed, 06 Sep 2017 20:14:09 GMT

A 24-year-old college student is suing ride-sharing company Uber, her Uber driver, and the owner of the uninsured Honda Odyssey van he was driving, alleging that their negligence caused her to be paralyzed after an accident with another driver. The personal injury lawsuit also names Honda.

The case is an example of how victims of catastrophic personal injury can take legal action against multiple parties they believe are responsible.

Lawsuit Seeks Compensation for Woman Paralyzed After Accident in Uber

Oklahoma State University student Sarah Milburn was visiting Dallas, Texas with friends in 2015 when they obtained an Uber at 1 a.m. to avoid drinking and driving or walking around intoxicated, believing it was the safe, responsible thing to do.

Milburn says Uber driver Arian Yusufzai, 39, arrived in a Honda Odyssey and she climbed in to the third row and put on her seat belt. However, the seat belt failed to protect her when Yusufzai ran a red light and was struck by a Ford F-150 pickup truck. The impact flipped the van upside down and left Milburn quadriplegic. She is now paralyzed from the mid-chest down due to a broken spinal column. No one else was injured.

Despite running the red light, Yusufzai was not charged with causing the accident. Dallas police instead charged the driver of the pickup truck.

Milburn’s personal injury lawsuit, filed in late December 2016, alleges that Honda and Uber “failed to provide [Milburn] with the safety she reasonably expected, and as a result, she was catastrophically injured and faces a lifetime of physical impairment and challenges.”

The catastrophic personal injury lawsuit also asserts that Uber should have stricter guidelines about who drives vehicles under the Uber name.

According to the lawsuit, the owner of the van being driven by Yusufzai was uninsured. Both men were arrested in 2014 on misdemeanor charges involving a “gambling den” and drug possession.

Uber should have known about these arrests and “cared about them,” the lawsuit says, given that Uber requires background checks for drivers. Uber drivers must have, among other things, a clean criminal background with no felonies or misdemeanors involving drugs, theft or violence.

Legal Help for Victims Paralyzed After Accident

Being paralyzed after an accident has the potential to turn your life upside down and leave you with significant medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other life-long difficulties. It often means a much different life for the victim than what he or she was used to before the accident.

Given the many ways that an incident like this can financially, emotionally, and physically shape the life of someone injured, personal injury law allows victims in this situation to file a legal claim against the responsible parties.

In car accidents involving ride-sharing companies, there may be multiple parties named in the personal injury lawsuit for a victim paralyzed after an accident.

If you were seriously injured due to the negligence or reckless actions of another person or company, you may have a legal claim. No victim should have to find themselves in the situation of attempting to pay for and cope with the many different impacts of a serious personal injury such as being paralyzed after an accident.

The lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher understand the devastation that follows a catastrophic injury and they will work tirelessly on your behalf to help you get the maximum amount of injury compensation. Fill out the form on this page for a FREE case evaluation.

Dr. Martens Boot Recalled Due to Chemical Exposure Hazard

Tue, 05 Sep 2017 20:12:33 GMT

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a recall for Dr. Martens unisex Vegan 1460 boots because the lining contains benzidine, a chemical that can cause irritation after prolonged contact.

Benzidine is a chemical listed under California’s Prop 65 which requires companies to include a warning if their product contains a listed chemical. Benzidine was formerly used to test for blood and to produce dyes. The Prop 65 website says that the chemical is no longer produced or imported to the United States; however, benzidine-based dyes may be imported.

Those who are exposed to benzidine may experience rashes, swelling, blisters, and skin allergies. Under Prop 65, benzidine is also listed as causing cancer.

According to the CPSC recall of the Dr. Martens product, the Doc Martens boot was sold in a cherry red color. “The boots have a chunky sole and a golden heel pull tab with ‘AirWair’ printed on it. ‘Made in Vietnam’ and product code 14585 are printed on the tongue label with the batch code starting with ‘GV’ and ending in Q, R or S,” notes the recall. Approximately 30,000 boots were sold in the U.S. and another 900 were sold in Canada.

The boots were sold at Dr. Martens and Journey stores as well as at independent retailers nationwide and online from January 2015 through July 2017. The Doc Marten boots retailed at $125.00.

Owners should stop using their boots and contact Dr. Martens for a refund or replacement. Dr. Martens can be reached by phone at 800-460-3930 or by email at dmservice@drmartens.com. The company also offers a “Product Recall” link on its website, www.drmartens.com .

Prop 65 Lawsuits

Chemicals listed under Prop 65, such as benzidine, are known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. Under Prop 65, the State of California must maintain a list of chemicals known to be hazardous. Companies who use chemicals listed under Prop 65, like benzidine, must include a warning on their product. The law also prohibits companies from releasing Prop 65 chemicals into the water supply.

Under California law, companies who fail to include a Prop 65 warning are subject to steep fines, up to $2,500 per violation per day. Additionally, individuals may file Prop 65 lawsuits against companies that fail to warn them about the dangerous chemicals in their products.

Individuals who wish to file a Prop 65 lawsuit should contact an experienced attorney. The procedure for filing a Prop 65 lawsuit is very specific; first, the California Attorney General’s Office must be notified and provided copies of all documents as soon as the lawsuit is filed. The Attorney General’s Office must also be notified of any settlement agreements, so they can notify the public of the outcome of the case.

If you want to file a Prop 65 lawsuit, you should contact an experienced Prop 65 attorney to help navigate the process. The lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher have experience in helping consumers hold companies accountable for misconduct. Obtain a free review of your potential Prop 65 lawsuit by filling out the form on this page now.

Protein Spiking Lawsuit Filed Over Premier Protein Bars and Drinks

Tue, 05 Sep 2017 20:10:13 GMT

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premier Nutrition Corporation alleging it misrepresented the amount of protein contained in its “Premier Protein” branded ready-to-drink protein products and protein bars.

New York plaintiff Joseph Gregorio alleges in the protein spiking lawsuit that Premier Protein products were marketed in a misleading manner by stating that there are particular amounts of protein inside the products that are not actually there. The class action lawsuit argues that the plaintiff and similarly situated consumers sustained injuries as a result of the unfair, false, misleading, fraudulent and deceptive practices carried out by the company, leading consumers to believe that the products were labelled accurately.

The Protein Spiking Lawsuit Allegations

Gregorio alleges that he purchased a Premier Protein ready-to-drink product from Wal-Mart that prominently displayed on the label that it contained 30 grams of protein. Gregorio asserts that he purchased the product based on this representation.

However, according to the protein spiking lawsuit, testing commissioned by Gregorio’s attorneys showed that the read-to-drink products only contained between 26.9 grams and 28.34 grams of protein. The same alleged mislabeling occurred on defendant’s Protein Bar product, on both the front of the product packaging and in the Nutrition Facts session, the protein spiking lawsuit states.

The proposed class action lawsuit asserts that consumers were misled by the product packaging and that this is a violation of consumer protection laws that prohibit deceptive, unfair and unconscionable acts in the conduct of commerce or trade.

Consumers Protected From False Advertising

Consumer protection laws are designed to prevent companies from tricking consumers into purchasing products using false, deceptive, or misleading claims. Consumers who were misled into purchasing a deceptively advertised product may be eligible to file a false advertising class action lawsuit to seek compensation on behalf of other consumers who purchased the product.

If a court rules in favor of the plaintiff, or if the company reaches a class action settlement, consumers may receive a cash payment or other benefits from the settlement. The lead plaintiff in the case often receives more money as an incentive award.

The Premier Nutrition protein spiking lawsuit is seeking class action status to represent all persons in the United States that purchased the mislabeled products.

The case is Gregorio v. Premier Nutrition Corp., Case No. 17-cv-05987-AT, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

Did You Purchase a Product Based on False Advertising?

Many people rely on protein powders, protein bars, and other similar products in an effort to support their weight loss and muscle mass goals. They have a reasonable expectation that the information stated on these products, including the grams of protein contained therein, is accurate.

If you’ve been the victim of false advertising because you relied on a product that was not labeled or marketed accurately, you may need to speak to an experienced product liability lawyer about your options.

The lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher have years of experience helping consumers and are dedicated to exploring all possible avenues for resolution. Fill out the form on this page now for a free case evaluation.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Wage and Hour Settlement Affects Paper Company Employees in California

Mon, 04 Sep 2017 20:08:43 GMT

A California federal judge has awarded preliminary approval to an $8.5 million class action settlement over claims that paper and packaging company Rock-Tenn Company deprived 800 California employees of wages, overtime and appropriate breaks.

The class action lawsuit was filed five years ago. The judge in the case determined that the wage and hour settlement was reasonable, adequate, and fair.

Laws in the U.S. and at the state level require employers to provide certain breaks and working conditions. When employers try to skirt these rules or force employees into policies that violate the integrity and purpose of such laws, this can lead to a wage and hour lawsuit . If you were the victim of unfair wage, hour, or employment policies, talking to an experienced wage and hour lawyer can help to clarify your grounds to file a legal claim.

Wage and Hour Settlement Achieved After Years of Attempts

Parties in the case, Wilson, et al. v. Rock-Tenn Company, et al., attempted multiple times to reach a wage and hour settlement in the hard-fought litigation, which took nearly five years to resolve. The third round of negotiations was initiated in December 2016.

The class action lawsuit alleged that practices and policies maintained by Rock-Tenn, now referred to as WestRock, decreased rest and meal breaks and did not provide the required compensation pay.

Furthermore, the wage and hour lawsuit argued that the company mandated that employees work off the clock to avoid having to pay overtime.

Despite agreeing to the wage and hour settlement to resolve the litigation, Rock-Tenn maintains it did nothing wrong and that it permitted and authorized meal breaks and rest breaks and paid for all hours worked by employees.

How the Wage and Hour Settlement Breaks Down for the Affected Class

Non-exempt hourly employees working in one of the five factory facilities for Rock-Tenn from July 2008 through May 2015 will receive average individual awards of approximately $6,332. More than 800 individuals were named in the class action lawsuit as plaintiffs.

The named plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit will receive an additional award of $12,000, according to the settlement documents.

WestRock remains one of the largest paper and packaging companies, with $15 billion produced in annual revenue and more than 42,000 employees across numerous countries.

Get Legal Help

A growing number of employees in California and elsewhere are reaching out to lawyers to ask about policies that may violate wage and hour laws. If you think you might fall into that group, it’s suggested that you speak to an attorney sooner rather than later. Whether the case resolves in a wage and hour settlement or a trial verdict, employees may be able to hold employers accountable for violations.

If you were the victim of wage and hour violations such as off-the-clock work, unpaid wages, minimum wage violations, unpaid overtime, missed meals and breaks, and other misconduct, you may be able to seek compensation for the wages you were entitled to receive according to state labor laws.

Fill out the form on this page now to receive a free evaluation. If you have a case, you will be contacted for a no-cost, no-obligation consultation.

Physiomesh Recall Leads to Lawsuits From Hernia Surgery Patients

Mon, 04 Sep 2017 20:06:51 GMT

A hernia mesh recall has been issued by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon due to “higher than average rates” of hernia recurrence and re-operation in patients who received Ethicon’s Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh product.

The Physiomesh recall was announced in May 2016 in an Urgent Field Safety Notice sent to surgeons and hospitals worldwide.

In the notice, Ethicon said it issued the voluntary Physiomesh recall following an analysis conducted at the request of the Ethicon Medical Safety Team of unpublished data from two large independent hernia registries known as the Herniamed German Registry and Danish Hernia Database-DHDB. Analysis showed that patients in these registries who received Physiomesh had higher than average rates of hernia recurrence and re-operation compared to patients who received other types of hernia repair mesh.

Ethicon urged health care practitioners to continue to follow patients who were treated with Ethicon Physiomesh in the usual manner.

HERNIA MESH PROBLEMS

Surgical hernia mesh like that included in the Physiomesh recall is inserted into patients during hernia repair surgery to support weakened and damaged tissues and to allow tissue to regrow and strengthen in these weakened areas.

Typically, surgical meshes are made of animal tissue or synthetic material. Physiomesh is made from polypropylene — the same material used to make Ethicon’s transvaginal mesh and bladder slings, which have led to thousands of defective medical device lawsuits against the company.

The most common hernia mesh problems reported by patients include:

infection,
severe pain,
bowel obstruction,
hernia recurrence,
mesh migration,
organ perforation,
tissue perforation, and
removal of what was intended to be permanent mesh.

PHYSIOMESH RECALL LAWSUITS

Since the Physiomesh recall was announced, several lawsuits have been filed by patients against Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson accusing them of defectively designing and manufacturing a product that did not work as intended.

Ethicon uses polypropylene or plastic material to make the base layer of Physiomesh. Unfortunately, when this breaks down, it can cause the hernia mesh to migrate and serious injuries may occur. Furthermore, the mesh was intended to be a permanent solution for hernia repair but some individuals are experiencing recurring hernia or revision surgery to correct the problems.

According to early Physiomesh lawsuits and investigations, neither doctors nor patients were warned about the risks of Physiomesh and now legal claims name the manufacturers as accountable for injuries sustained by those victims.

The first Physiomesh recall lawsuit is schedule to go to trial in January 2018.

If you or someone you know has been affected by the Physiomesh recall and sustained significant injuries as a result, you may have grounds to file a defective medical device lawsuit.

The experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher have years of experience helping people who have been injured as a result of defective medical devices. Contact us today for a free case evaluation by filling out the form on this page .

Two California Towing Companies Cited for Wage and Hour Violations

Sun, 03 Sep 2017 20:05:12 GMT

Two towing companies in California have been cited for wage and hour violations by the California Labor Commissioner’s Office. The two towing companies are owned and operated by a father and son team Noel Yaco and Aram Yaco.

Irvine Auto Towing Inc. dba Pride Towing and Recovery in Anaheim, California, and Yaco Investments Inc. dba Stride Towing and Recovery in Oakland, California, were the named companies accused of wage and hour violations by a former worker.

Following the accusations, an investigation was launched last December by the Labor Commissioner’s Office which found that the employees of the two companies worked 12-hour shifts and were not provided appropriate meal or rest breaks. Some workers maintained the schedule for seven days per week, with Pride Towing paying workers $110 per day, causing wages to be seriously underpaid.

As a result, the citations issued by the Labor Commissioner totaled $4,874,661 for the wage and hour violations that affected a total of 187 employees working for the companies as dispatchers, mechanics and tow truck drivers.

At Stride Towing, workers were not paid for all overtime hours worked. Additionally, mechanics and drivers with the company were also subject to unlawful deductions and were charged for the uniforms they were required to wear as well as any damages or accidents that resulted during the course of their work.

Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su issued a statement regarding the wage and hour violations, saying “This is an egregious case of wage theft affecting a large group of workers who are denied a just day’s pay and forced to work without meal or rest breaks. My office enforces California’s labor laws to employers from cheating workers as a means to gain an unfair advantage over their law-abiding competitors.”

The citations issued to the companies included wage and hour violations of unpaid overtime, minimum wage violations and rest period and meal break violations. A total of 129 workers at Pride Towing and 58 workers at Stride Towing were the targets of these wage and hour violations.

The citations that were issued included waiting time penalties, liquidated damages and itemized wage statement violations.

If an employer fails to provide a worker his or her final paycheck after separation from the company, waiting time penalties are imposed. the amount of these penalties is calculated by an employee’s daily rate of pay multiplied by the number of days, up to a maximum of 30 days that the employee did not receive payment. Liquidated damages include the amount of underpaid wages and employee is entitled to, along with interest.

The Labor Commissioner’s Office is officially named the Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Labor Standards Enforcement in the state of California. The department is responsible for conducting inspections of workplaces that may be engaging in wage and hour violations, among other duties including educating the public on labor laws.

Has Your Employer Engaged in Wage and Hour Violations?

If you believe your current or former employer has engaged in wage and hour violations, you may be eligible to file a wage and hour lawsuit to recover damages related to such violations. Wage and hour violations may include employee misclassification as an independent contractor, failing to pay at least minimum wage, denying meal and rest breaks, not paying overtime and more.

The wage and hour attorneys with Bradley/Grombacher can assist you by providing a no-cost, no-obligation case review and consultation to discuss the specifics of your case and to help you decide if you qualify to pursue a wage and hour violations lawsuit. Fill out the form on this page for a free case evaluation.

Green Works Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Clorox False Advertising

Thu, 31 Aug 2017 20:04:15 GMT

On August 21, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Branch against the Clorox Company. This Clorox false advertising lawsuit accuses the company of misleading consumers with its labeling and marketing of its “Green Works” brand of cleaning supplies. Green Works cleaning products are a product line of the Clorox company that are promoted as safe for the environment and made of natural ingredients.

The initiating plaintiffs in the Clorox false advertising lawsuit are Adam C., a resident of the State of California and, Adam M., a resident of the State of New York. Both plaintiffs are passionate about eliminating dishonesty in labeling when it comes to products claiming to be naturally-sourced. The two men prefer to purchase products that are organic, plant-based and environmentally benign.

The Clorox Company is headquartered in the City of Oakland, California, and manufactures, markets, and distributes its “Green Works” brand of cleaning products throughout the U.S., which includes California and New York. The Clorox false advertising allegations are directed toward every product in the “Green Works” line.

The Clorox false advertising lawsuit addresses how the Clorox Company allegedly cornered the market on natural cleaners within a year of being on the market with the “Green Works” line using labels with words such as “natural” and phrases such as “naturally-derived” and “safe for the environment”. The company supposedly brought in approximately $200 million in revenue with these products in the first year.

The Clorox false advertising lawsuit also refers to the initial labeling of their compostable wipes in which the label stated the product was 99% naturally-derived. Later, this labeling evidently morphed into a more generic reference that stated the product was 100% naturally-derived with no caveat or remark as to what changed if anything in the formulation.

According to the false advertising class action lawsuit, the labeling also uses pictures of leaves and flowers to mislead consumers while referring them to their website where it is revealed that the products contain several environmentally toxic compounds and known skin allergens. To what percentage these elements are in the cleaning products remains a mystery.

Some of the elements discovered to be in the products are:

sodium lauryl sulfate, a known skin irritant toxic to marine life;
boric acid and sodium borate, associated with problems affecting the reproductive system and developmental delays;
D-Limonene, a known skin allergen toxic to marine life; and
methylisothyazolinone, an environmental protection agency (EPA)-recognized pesticide highly toxic to freshwater and marine organisms.

The Clorox false advertising lawsuit seeks Class Members who purchased Green Works products from the date of lawsuit filing, retroactive four years, until the date of certification.

The plaintiffs and similarly situated bring the following counts against the Clorox Company: Count One – Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices in Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; Count Two – Violations of California’s False Advertising Law; Count Three – Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law; Count Four – Violation of New York General Business Law 349; Count Five – Violation of New York General Business Law 350; Count Six – Unjust Enrichment; Count Seven – Breach of Express Warranty; Count Eight – Breach of Implied Warranty.

The plaintiffs and similarly situated are asking for a trial by jury with a favorable judgement on their behalf. They are asking for monetary damages, statutory damages, and injunctive relief as provided by law. They also are asking for complete return of their court and attorney’s fees.

The case is Adam Cooper and Ryan Matuszewski, et al. v. The Clorox Company, Case No. 3:17-cv-04854-JCS, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.

Consumer False Advertising Class Action Lawsuits

If you purchased a product that was mislabeled or falsely advertised, you may have a legal claim. Consumer false advertising class action lawsuits hold companies liable for telling the truth in advertising and on product labels.

If you think you have a case, fill out the form on this page now for a free review of your claims by the consumer false advertising attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher.

Spinal Cord Injury Lawsuit: Chiropractor Caused Playboy Model’s Death

Thu, 31 Aug 2017 20:01:10 GMT

A chiropractor was hit with a lawsuit alleging a spinal cord injury caused playboy model Katie May to have a stroke after a poorly performed neck adjustment.

Ms. May’s estate alleges in the spinal cord injury lawsuit that chiropractor Eric Swartz, who also founded Back to Total Health Inc., mishandled a neck alignment during an appointment and then failed to get proper medical care after causing the spinal cord injury.

Allegedly, Ms. May sought chiropractic treatment for neck pain she suffered after a photo shoot. The spinal cord injury lawsuit says that Ms. May started showing signs of a stroke after her appointment and she was rushed to the Emergency Room. Ms. May was pronounced brain dead during treatment at the hospital and her parents took her off life support on Feb. 4, 2016.

According to the spinal cord injury lawsuit, it was Ms. May’s second appointment with the chiropractor that lead to her hospitalization and ultimately her death. Ms. May suffered from a condition that caused blood clots and the lawsuit alleges that the chiropractor should have obtained a CT scan before making any adjustments.

“A reasonable chiropractor in Dr. Swartz’s position, would not have adjusted May because of the risks involved and would have referred May to the Emergency Room, as most chiropractors do when they are presented with a patient with spine issues,” alleges Ms. May’s estate. “It is not recommended that chiropractors provide chiropractic care for patients with spinal cord compression or nerve compression where forceful manipulation may have a great potential for problems.”

Further, alleges the lawsuit, the chiropractor did not complete his notes on Ms. May’s treatment until after her death.

“It begs plaintiffs to question whether Dr. Swartz went back to change his report after he was notified that May was hospitalized and subsequently died because of his treatment, the neck manipulation,” contends the lawsuit.

Ms. May was only 34 at the time and leaves a single daughter, Mia. The lawsuit alleges that the chiropractor’s mishandled neck alignment not only caused Ms. May’s spinal cord injury and death, but also took Mia’s mother away for the rest of her life.

“Now, over a year after her death, Mia cannot stop talking about her mother and the moments they shared together,” alleges the spinal cord injury lawsuit. “Mia constantly rehearses lines her mother used to say and speaks about her mother’s favorite color, food, etc. Mia is deprived of growing up with not only her mother, but her best friend and support system.”

The attorney representing Ms. May’s estate stated that “We hope to bring awareness of these dangerous procedures and we hope that [the chiropractor’s] insurance carrier will do the right thing and provide a small college fund for the victim of this horrible tragedy”

Spinal cord injuries can be catastrophic and life altering. Catastrophic injury attorneys can help you or your loved one recover medical expenses and damages for lost income, pain and suffering and emotion harm that can come from a spinal cord injury.

Alex Maimon is represented by Ronald Richards, Marani Stelmach and Justin Ibrahim of The Law Offices of Ronald Richards & Associates APC.

The case is Alex Maimon v. Eric Swartz et al., Case No. BC664945 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.

Legal Help for Spinal Cord Injuries

If you or a loved one suffered a spinal cord injury or other type of catastrophic personal injury that was caused by the negligence of another person or party, you may have a legal claim. Compensation could be awarded to cover medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and more. Find out if you have a case by filling out the form on this page now for a free case evaluation.

Blood Clot Filter Problems Plagued Bard for Years, Confidential Docs Show

Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:57:18 GMT

Medical device manufacturer C.R. Bard has been in the spotlight lately regarding blood clot filter problems associated with 27 deaths and hundreds of reports of problems from patients implanted with the device.

The devices in question – the Recovery filter and the G2 series filters — are spider-shaped blood clot filters implanted into the body’s largest vein called the inferior vena cava (IVC). They are designed to trap blood clots before they travel to the heart and lungs, where they can cause fatal problems.

The FDA approved IVC filters to treat the following medical conditions:

Chronic pulmonary embolisms when use of an anticoagulant failed
Emergency treatment after a massive pulmonary embolism
Thromboembolic diseases in which anticoagulant therapy failed
Pulmonary embolism

However, soon after Bard received FDA clearance to put the devices on the market, reports of blood clot filter problems started to climb. These problems included fracture and movement of the device, leading to dozens of deaths.

Patient Reports Detail Blood Clot Filter Problems

Bard is one of 11 manufacturers that make IVC blood clot filters, which are implanted in an estimated 250,000 people in the United States each year.

Their first-generation filter, the Recovery, was introduced in 2002 and the second-generation G2 filter was introduced in 2005.

A confidential study commissioned by Bard and obtained by MSNBC News showed that the Recovery filter had a higher risk for filter fracture, movement and death compared to other filters on the market. Yet Bard did not recall the device.

Instead, Bard replaced it with a similar blood clot filter known as the “G2 series” three years after it put the Recovery filter on the market. Like its predecessor, the G2 series garnered hundreds of reports to the FDA of similar blood clot filter problems.

MSNBC News also obtained a confidential memo written by a Bard vice president in 2005 that shows his concern about hundreds of reports of the G2 filter tilting, migrating and perforating. The memo noted that Bard had another blood clot filter on the market that had virtually no complaints and asked why doctors were not using that one “rather than the G2.”

Data through 2010 shows the G2 series filters had more fractures, migrations and reported blood clot filter problems than any of its competitors – just like the Recovery filter had.

The FDA received more than 900 reports of serious blood clot filter problems associated with these devices between 2005 and 2010, including:

Filter fracture
Device migration
Detached device components
Filter perforation

Some physicians now believe the filters were never safe to be implanted in the first place.

Although the IVC filters maintain a history of many adverse event reports and concerns shared by physicians, patients now want to know why the company kept the G2 filters on the market for so long when concerns and injuries were indicated much earlier. Blood clot filter problems can cause death if not captured quickly.

IVC Filter Lawsuits

Dozens of medical device injury lawsuits have been filed by victims of IVC filter problems. Plaintiffs accuse device manufacturers, including Bard, of placing dangerous medical devices on the market and failing to warn consumers and physicians about the risks.

If you were injured by an IVC filter or have a loved one who died from IVC filter problems, you may be entitled to compensation. Obtain a free legal review of your claims by filling out the form on this page now. If you have a viable case, you will be contacted by the IVC filter attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher for a free, no-obligation consultation.

Medicare Fraud Schemer Gets 40 Years for $17M in Fraudulent Billing

Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:55:35 GMT

The man behind a recently uncovered Medicare fraud scheme amounting to $17 million in fraudulent billing has been sentenced to decades in federal prison.

Godwin Oriakhi was the owner of several home health care clinics in Houston, and worked with his daughter to run the clinics. The clinics were community-driven, according to court documents, and were meant to offer support for people with developmental disabilities, as well as home visits for people with certain medical needs.

Between 2009 and 2016, Oriakhi and his daughter allegedly submitted a large number of claims to both Medicare and Medicaid that were not actually medically necessary. In other cases, these claims were allegedly submitted even when a patient never received these services, unnecessary or not. Patients were brought in for these services through a number of marketers, who would then provide kickbacks.

According to investigators, the staff at these clinics were not salaried or even paid hourly. Instead, staff were paid on a per-patient basis. This clearly encouraged the Medicare fraud kickback scheme to keep going, prosecutors alleged, as new patients needed to be brought in and medical services needed to be rendered in order for staff to be paid—even, apparently, if these services were medically unnecessary.

Court documents note that the Oriakhi paid doctors to falsify documentation showing that patients had conditions qualifying them for home health services, even though they did not.

All in all, the clinics ended up submitting fraudulent claims amounting to $17.2 million over the course of these seven years involved in the Medicare fraud scheme. Out of that, they were reimbursed for almost all of it—nearly $16.2 million.

Oriakhi pleaded guilty to Medicare fraud this last March. His daughter, who ran the clinics alongside him, has also pled guilty, and is set to be sentenced in mid-November.

Oriakhi was sentenced to 40 years in federal prison, and wasn’t the only one involved in the fraudulent billing scheme to be sentenced. A nurse for one of the clinics was sentenced to five years in prison. A recruiter who admitted to helping bring in hundreds of patients in exchange for kickbacks is also facing sentencing.

Reporting Medicare Fraud

Whistleblower lawsuits are filed by employees or former employees who have found evidence of fraud or other illegal activities against the government. Many of these employees choose to come forward, acting as whistleblowers, because they feel that their employer’s actions are wrong—even if they are worried about retaliation.

When a person is considering becoming a whistleblower on behalf of the government, they may worry about being fired or otherwise retaliated against at work. However, there are regulations in place to protect whistleblowers. On top of these protections, whistleblowers are typically given a substantial reward for calling attention to the misconduct. Whistleblowers are usually given between 15 and 30 percent of the money recovered if the government wins at trial.

Many whistleblower lawsuits end up bringing in millions in settlement money, so a whistleblower monetary reward can be substantial.

If you believe you have witnessed some kind of fraud against the government by your current or former employer, you may be able to file a whistleblower lawsuit (also known as a qui tam lawsuit) against your employer on behalf of the government. Such lawsuits have been filed over Medicare Fraud, Medicaid fraud, health insurance billing fraud, physician/hospital kickbacks, and many other types of government financial fraud.

Contact the whistleblower attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today for a free consultation regarding your claims.

Baby Powder Lawsuit: Cancer Victim Says She Was Not Warned of Risks

Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:50:47 GMT

A California woman diagnosed with terminal ovarian cancer testified before a Los Angeles jury in August that she was never warned that her daily use of Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder products could cause cancer.

Plaintiff Eva Echeverria sued Johnson & Johnson in July 2016 along with six other women, alleging in the baby powder lawsuit that Johnson & Johnson knew about the potential risks for ovarian cancer with long-term, regular use of talcum powder, but failed to place a warning label on its Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower talcum products.

Echeverria was the first plaintiff to go to trial in the joint baby powder lawsuit, which has been consolidated with other cases into complex litigation. The lawsuit also names Imerys Talc America Inc., the company that mined the talcum powder and sold it to J&J, as a defendant.

Plaintiff Details Decades of Talc Powder Use With No Warning of Risks

Echeverria testified that every day and multiple times a day for 50 years, she used Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products on her genitals. She was diagnosed with cancer in 2007 and says she only stopped using the products when she saw a television commercial in 2016 about the potential connection between baby powder products and ovarian cancer.

“I stopped using it because I saw something on TV about a woman who died as a result of ovarian cancer and she had been using Johnson & Johnson baby powder,” she said. “I thought, I use Johnson & Johnson baby powder and I’ve been diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and I’m still using it.”

Echeverria’s depositions from spring 2017 were played for the jury, which showed she received the news in January that she had six months or less to live due to her cancer diagnosis. The plaintiff shared in those deposition tapes that she never saw a warning label on the Johnson’s baby powder products she used that talcum powder could cause cancer. After discovering the potential connection, she filed a baby powder lawsuit.

In those depositions, the plaintiff also shared some of the side effects she has struggled to cope with after her cancer diagnosis, such as nausea, headaches, kidney and liver pain, and extreme fatigue.

J&J Refutes Claims

Later in the week following the videotape testimony by Echeverria, Johnson & Johnson’s first witness refuted the claims that the company knew about the dangers of talcum powder.

Alan Anderson, a former FDA researcher/department director and employee with the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, shared that an expert panel identified that the talc was safe and that there were no studies with a clear enough conclusion that genital talc use was tied to ovarian cancer.

In the opening statements, a lawyer for J&J argued that the products made and marketed by Johnson & Johnson have been used by millions of people for decades and that there were no studies conclusively linking talc use and ovarian cancer.

J&J Fighting Other Baby Powder Lawsuits

Echeverria’s baby powder lawsuit is not the first against Johnson & Johnson.

A series of five baby powder cancer lawsuits in St. Louis led to several verdicts worth more than $300 million. However, one of those trials also ended with clearing J&J of liability. One trial in New Jersey ended in a dismissal after the judge found that the plaintiffs did not provide necessary scientific proof linking ovarian cancer with genital mineral to proceed with a legal claim.

The California baby powder lawsuit is Eva Echeverria, et al. v Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. BC628228, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

The coordinated baby powder litigation is Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases, Case No. JCCP4872, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

If you or someone you know has been diagnosed with ovarian cancer after years of genital talc powder use, you may have grounds for a legal claim. Consulting with a lawyer is strongly recommended. The attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher represent victims in claims against manufacturers regarding dangerous products.

Prop 65 Violations by Amazon Add up as Retailer Is Hit With New Notice

Tue, 29 Aug 2017 19:48:43 GMT

Online retailer amazon.com has been hit with another notice accusing the company of violating California’s Proposition 65 , a law requiring businesses to notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals “in the products they purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment.”

The latest violation notice — filed on Aug. 10, 2017 — targets the ZOONAI portable waterproof cosmetic makeup bag, which according to Safe Products for Californians, contains Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DHEP). Despite containing the Prop 65 chemical, the item for sale on amazon.com does not provide a “clear and reasonable warning” about the toxic effects of consumers’ exposure to the chemical.

“Without proper warnings regarding the toxic effects of exposures to the listed chemicals, California citizens lack the information necessary to make informed decisions on whether and how to eliminate (or reduce) the risk of exposure to the toxic chemical from the reasonably foreseeable use of the products,” states the violation notice served by Safe Products for Californians.

Exposure to Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, commonly referred to by the acronym DEHP, poses the greatest risk to young males’ reproductive system, according to medicine.net.

DEHP is used as a softener in many products made of PVC plastic, such as toys, vinyl shower curtains, beauty products and car seats.

Acting in the interest of the general public, Safe Products for Californians sent a 60-day notice of Prop 65 violations by Amazon, informing the online retailer that it is selling a product containing Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DHEP) without “clear and reasonable warnings” about the toxic effects of exposure to and from the substance.

In an effort to keep residents informed about exposure to toxic chemicals, California voters approved the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, more commonly known as Proposition 65, or Prop 65. The initiative also prohibits California businesses from knowingly discharging significant amounts of listed chemicals into sources of drinking water.

Prop 65 requires the state to annually publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm, according to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s website. The list has expanded to some 900 chemicals since its first publication in 1987.

Though the California Attorney General’s Office enforces Prop 65, any individual acting in the public interest may also enforce the law by filing a Prop 65 lawsuit against a business alleged to be in violation of this law.

Penalties for violating Proposition 65 by failing to provide notices can be as high as $2,500 per violation per day.

Prop 65 violations by Amazon have been plentiful, according to the California Department of Justice . The agency’s website lists pages upon pages of Prop 65 violations by Amazon, predominantly for products containing lead or Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP).

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment published its most recent Prop 65 list of toxic chemical on July 7, 2017.

T-Mobile Wants Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit Moved to Federal Court

Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:47:26 GMT

Cell phone carrier T-Mobile has asked a judge to have an unpaid overtime lawsuit heard in federal court rather than in a California state court, where the case was initially filed.

Lawyers for T-Mobile , which is being sued by field technician Jesse Black for allegedly violating California wage and hour laws , maintain that the proposed class action lawsuit belongs in federal court per the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) of 2005.

CAFA gives United States district courts jurisdiction of class action civil suits with more than 100 presumed Class Members. CAFA also states that federal jurisdiction is proper if any Class Member is a citizen of a different state than the defendants and if the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs.

According to the unpaid overtime lawsuit filed by Black, T-Mobile violated California’s Business & Professions Code by failing to pay overtime, failing to provide meal breaks and rest periods, and failing to properly calculate overtime rates.

Black, who is seeking class action certification, is seeking in excess of $19 million, according to T-Mobile’s filing, dated July 21, 2017.

Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit Allegations

Between October 2008 and December 2015, Black, of Oakland, Calif., was a non-exempt, hourly employee classified as a Field Tech 2, Field Technician, and Senior Field Technician.

His responsibilities included monitoring, maintaining and upgrading cellular sites in the Oakland, Alameda, and San Leandro, California areas.

By the end of his employment with T-Mobile, Black was being paid $38.53 per hour.

T-Mobile, according to Black’s unpaid overtime lawsuit , had a company-wide, rotating on-call policy that scheduled technicians to work on-call weeks.

During an on-call week, T-Mobile technicians had to be available 24/7 to respond to service calls, from Monday at 5:00 p.m. through Monday at 7:59 a.m. T-Mobile issued company cell phones or radios to the techs, requiring them to respond immediately while working an on-call week.

“Plaintiff and Class Members were in essence on controlled standby for Defendants because they could not use that time freely for their own purposes and were forced to put their lives on hold,” according to Black’s unpaid overtime lawsuit.

“For example, Plaintiff refrained from making plans altogether while ‘on-call’ because he knew that he had to drop whatever he was doing at a moment’s notice if he received a call. Defendants paid Plaintiff and Class Members a flat rate of $22.47 per day during an on-call week, plus hours they spent responding to service calls. However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members for the remainder of time during which they were not free to use their time for their own purposes.”

Black maintains that T-Mobile also required the techs respond to and receive emergency calls, but did not compensate them for their time. Additionally, he alleges in the unpaid overtime lawsuit that the defendants did not schedule second meal periods and had no policy for permitting and authorizing its techs to take second meal periods on days that they worked more than 10 hours.

Black claims that he regularly worked 12 hours per day, but did not receive a second, uninterrupted 30-minute meal period on those days. As a result of T-Mobile’s scheduling practices and/or policies, employees routinely missed second meal periods, according to the unpaid overtime lawsuit.

Did Your Employer Violate Wage & Hour Laws?

If you believe you have experienced any of the following labor law violations, you may have a legal claim:

Off-the-Clock Work
Unpaid Wages
Minimum Wage Violations
Unpaid Overtime
Missed Meals and Breaks
Misclassification
Tip Pooling
Donning and Doffing
Employment Discrimination

By filing a wage and hour lawsuit, you may be able to seek compensation for the wages you were entitled to receive according to state labor laws. Obtain a FREE case evaluation by the wage and hour attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher by filling out the form on this page .

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

San Diego Reaches a $4.85m Spinal Cord Injury Settlement With Cyclist

Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:46:14 GMT

The City of San Diego has agreed to a $4.85 million settlement to compensate a man for his catastrophic personal injuries that he suffered while biking in the Del Cerro neighborhood in 2014, the San Diego Union Tribune reports.

Plaintiff Clifford Brown suffered a severe spinal cord injury when the ligaments of his spinal cord were torn. He also lost several of his teeth, and it is believed that he may have suffered a stroke as a result of his biking accident .

According to court documents, Brown was riding his bicycle to a friend’s house when he encountered a raised portion of the sidewalk caused by a tree root that created a seven-inch “launching ramp” that caused him to be thrown a distance of 28 feet. After skidding on the pavement for an additional 10 feet, Brown landed on his head and was found with a small pool of blood before he was taken by ambulance to a nearby hospital.

Brown remained hospitalized for nearly a month. He then spent an additional two months in a skilled nursing facility. At the current time, Brown is still undergoing home health care to assist him with complications he suffered following his spinal cord injury.

The plaintiff originally filed his spinal cord injury lawsuit in 2015 against the City of San Diego as well as the owner of the house adjacent to the sidewalk. It was later determined that the city is responsible for controlling the sidewalk, and the homeowners had no responsibility for its condition or for Brown’s accident.

Initially, San Diego responded that the danger presented by the sidewalk conditions would have been apparent to an individual who was exercising “due care” and stated that the danger itself was “minor, trivial and insignificant.”

Brown stated that the accident leading to his spinal cord injury could’ve been prevented if the city had undertaken corrective measures to eliminate the sidewalk ramp caused by the tree root.

The lawsuit was settled before it was set to go to trial. According to the San Diego Union Tribune, “When government agencies settle litigation before trial, it typically indicates agency officials perceive there is a risk that a jury could end up awarding the plaintiff a larger amount than the settlement amount.”

The settlement amount for Brown’s spinal cord injury case was much larger than other recent settlements that totaled $75,000, $98,000 and $235,000. However, it was significantly less than a $7.6 million settlement awarded by a jury in 2012 to a man who became paralyzed when 60-foot palm tree fell on him during a storm. The plaintiff, in that case, alleged that budget cuts for tree maintenance and inspection affected proper service of the tree.

San Diego City officials will end up paying approximately $3 million of the settlement while the other $1.85 million is anticipated to be paid by the city’s insurance policy. The insurance policy will not cover the entire cost or any more than the $1.85 million because the proposed settlement amount exceeds San Diego’s “self-insured retention and reimbursable expenses,” the newspaper reports.

The total settlement amount in Brown’s spinal cord injury case was determined by estimating the costs of past, present and future medical bills and took into account the likelihood that Brown will possibly be able to work in the future.

If you were injured in an accident and suffered a serious injury , you may be entitled to compensation. Contact the experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher for a FREE case evaluation.

Fla. Surgeon Agrees to Pay $4m in Whistleblower Settlement

Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:44:38 GMT

A Florida surgeon who owns and operates one of the country’s leading centers to treat hyperparathyroidism will pay $4 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit accusing him of double-billing federal healthcare programs.

The healthcare fraud lawsuit accused Dr. James Norman and the Norman Parathyroid Center in Tampa, Fla. of billing Medicare, TriCare (insurance for military personnel), and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program for pre-operative surgical exams that Norman allegedly knew the insurers covered as part of the surgery reimbursement, the Tampa Bay Business Journal reported. The time period covered in the whistleblower settlement is April 2008 through December 2016.

Norman was also accused of charging and collecting additional fees—$150 to $750 for Florida residents and $1,750 or more for out-of-state patients—for services for which he had already been reimbursed by the government. According to the Department of Justice, Norman and his practice made hundreds of thousands of dollars by submitting false claims.

Myra and David Gross, the couple who filed the lawsuit in 2014, will receive about $600,000 of the $4 million whistleblower settlement. The Grosses filed their case under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, which allows private citizens—known as whistleblowers—to sue a person or company believed to have committed significant violations of a fraudulent or criminal nature in a contract with the government, according to Law.com.

The site explains that “Qui tam suits are brought for ‘the government as well as the plaintiff.’ In a qui tam action, the plaintiff (the person bringing the suit) will be entitled to a percentage of the recovery of the penalty (which may include large amounts for breach of contract) as a reward for exposing the wrongdoing and recovering funds for the government.

“Sometimes the federal or state government will intervene and become a party to the suit in order to guarantee success and be part of any negotiations and conduct of the case,” it adds.

In addition to the $4 million, the settlement calls for Norman to enter into an integrity agreement with the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

According to the federal agency, integrity agreements typically last for five years and require a medical practice to do the following:

Appoint a compliance officer who must develop written standards and policies;
Implement an employee training program;
Retain an independent review organization to conduct an annual audit;
Establish a confidential disclosure program;
Restrict employment of ineligible persons;
Report overpayments, reportable events, and ongoing investigations/legal proceedings; and
Provide an implementation report and annual reports to OIG on the status of the entity’s compliance activities.

Special Agent in Charge Shimon R. Richmond of the Office of the Inspector General warned that “physicians who systematically over-bill federal health care programs and their vulnerable patients” will be held responsible.

“Those who engage in such schemes can expect a thorough investigation and strong remedial measures such as those in the integrity agreement we signed with Dr. Norman,” said Richmond.

On the Norman Parathyroid Center website, “Norman claims to have invented minimally invasive parathyroid surgery in the 1990s and says he is the world’s most experienced parathyroid surgeon, with more than 21,000 operations performed,” Law 360 reported.

The tiny parathyroid glands, located near the thyroid gland in the neck, produce the parathyroid hormone which helps control the amount of calcium circulating in the body.

Parathyroid surgery is performed on patients with hyperparathyroidism, which is often caused by a benign growth in one of the four parathyroid glands in the neck.

If the parathyroid gland overproduces parathyroid hormones it can lead to high levels of calcium and parathyroid hormone in the blood, resulting in problems with the nervous system, the kidneys, the digestive system as well as musculoskeletal issues.

If you believe you have witnessed fraud committed against the government such as health care fraud, you may qualify to file a whistleblower lawsuit . Learn more by filling out the form on this page.

Notice Warns of Potential Lawsuit Against Walmart for Proposition 65 Violations

Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:42:25 GMT

A California man has filed a certificate of service against Walmart and two other companies believed to have engaged in Proposition 65 violations for failing to properly indicate that a product the giant retailer carries is known in the State of California to cause cancer.

Potential Plaintiff Anthony F. raised concerns in the notice to the companies that a product that Walmart sells, with components of the product manufactured/distributed by RAJ Plastics Inc. and BagsOnNet, contains chemicals known to cause cancer.

The specific product of concern is the Clear Cross Body Messenger Tote Shoulder Bag w/ Adjustable Strap, as described in the notice. According to the Prop 65 violations notice, the product contains a chemical known as Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP). The notice states that this chemical was listed as a carcinogen on the Proposition 65 chemicals list on Jan. 1, 1988. Additionally, it was listed in Oct. 24, 2003, as a chemical known to cause developmental male reproductive toxicity, the notice states.

“The alleged Violators knowingly and intentionally have exposed and continue to knowingly and intentionally expose consumers within the State of California to Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) at levels that, upon reasonable use of the product, exceed the significant Risk Level in the Maximum Allowable Dose Level without providing clear and reasonable warning of this exposure,” the Proposition 65 violations notice states.

The notice goes on to state that the way consumers are exposed to this chemical is through skin absorption “Users may potentially be exposed to DHP by dermal absorption through direct skin contact with the bag during routine use when the bag is manipulated with bare hands,” the Proposition 65 violations notice says.

“The product can be expected to emit gas phase DEHP into the air and accumulate DEHP at the surface over the lifetime of the product,” it adds.

The notice claims that the alleged Proposition 65 violations have occurred every day since at least June 13, 2017, and the Prop 65 violations will continue to occur daily “until clear and reasonable warnings are provided to product purchasers and users or until this known toxic chemical is removed from the product.”

“Without proper warnings regarding the toxic effects of exposures to this listed chemical that results from contact with this product, California citizens lack the information necessary to make an informed decision on whether and/or how to eliminate (or reduce) the risk of exposure to the listed chemical from the reasonably foreseeable use of the product,” the Walmart Proposition 65 violations notice states.

The notice concludes by saying, “Consistent with the public interest goals of Proposition 65 and desire to have these ongoing violations of California law quickly rectified, Anthony [F.] is interested in seeking a constructive resolution of this matter without engaging in costly and protracted litigation.”

The notice also stated, “Please allow this letter to serve as notice of this violation to the alleged Violators and the appropriate public enforcement agencies.” It goes on to state that the attorneys intend “to file a private enforcement action on behalf of Anthony [F.] sixty (60) days after effective service of this notice unless the public enforcement agencies have commenced and are earnestly prosecuting an action to redress these violations.”

CONSUMERS AND PROPOSITION 65 VIOLATIONS

Consumers in the state of California may file a class action lawsuit over Proposition 65 violations if they believe a company is violating the California statute that aims to protect consumers by providing clear warnings that a product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm.

If you believe a company may be engaging in Proposition 65 violations , the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher can provide you with a free case review and consultation to help you understand the legal options that are available to you. Learn more by filling out the form on this page.

Victoria’s Secret Call-In Shift Lawsuit Settlement Gets Green Light

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:37:40 GMT

A $12 million settlement has been reached and officially approved in the call-in shift lawsuit against Victoria’s Secret stores alleging that workers were not paid appropriately for their time when they called in and were told to stay home.

A former Victoria’s Secret employee first filed the wage and hour lawsuit alleging a violation of California laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act. She and other employees stated that among other violations, they were locked inside the store during closing shifts—after clocking out—and not paid for their time.

Approximately 40,000 Victoria’s Secret employees were included in the class-action settlement, and the call-in shift lawsuit was initially filed in 2014. The call-in shift policy used by Victoria’s Secret required that employees contact the store first thing in the morning to determine whether or not they were needed for a particular shift. However, those employees were never compensated for their time if they were told not to come.

At the initial stages of the call-in shift lawsuit, the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed under the interpretation of California’s wage and hour laws that employees are not owed pay if they do not physically report to their place of work.

Labor laws in California and at the federal level are designed to ensure that all employees are paid fair wages for the hours worked and to ensure working in a safe environment. The employee who filed the call-in shift lawsuit appealed the decision to the Ninth Court and the retailer struck a deal in mediation after several claims in the initial suit were dismissed. The settlement payments for the call-in shift lawsuit are based on how long they worked for the company, expenses and fees to attorneys, and enhancement payments to the lead plaintiffs.

The settlement payments for the call-in shift lawsuit are based on how long they worked for the company, expenses and fees to attorneys, and enhancement payments to the lead plaintiffs.

Victoria’s Secret and other retailers have since updated their policies that require individuals to block off time for a shift they may not necessarily need to work. The call-in shift lawsuit has raised awareness around the industry by exposing companies to potential risks of class action claims of their own.

California labor laws outline that an employee must be paid for his or her reporting time for an on-call shift to the tune of what’s equal to two hours of work if called in for less than an hour or a payment equal to half of the shift if the employee doesn’t work at all that day.

Under state laws, “hours worked” includes the time during which an employee is under the control of the employer, typically interpreted to include pre-and post-shift responsibilities.

Whether or not hours are appropriately recorded on timesheets on timecards, the Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay for all hours worked by an employee. The FLSA stipulates that this begins with the first work-related activity and ends with the last.

If you believe that you’ve been subjected to a violation of California wage and hour laws , you could be eligible to file a call-in shift lawsuit or related claim. Contact the experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today for a FREE case evaluation.

Babyganics Agrees to Pay More Than $2m to Settle Mislabeling Suit

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:35:35 GMT

Babyganics has agreed to pay $2.215 million to settle a mislabeling class action lawsuit filed against the company, which makes sunscreen, skin care, and laundry products marketed for use on infants.

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit are asking a federal court to grant preliminary approval of a settlement agreement with defendants KAS Direct and S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

Filed in September 2016 by plaintiffs Tanveer Alibhai of California and New York resident Tanya Mayhew, the false advertising lawsuit accused Babyganics of deceptive marketing and business practices to promote its brand. The defendants’ were accused of fraudulent, unfair, unlawful, and deceptive business practices that violated both New York and California laws.

The name Babyganics is deceptive, the mislabeling class action lawsuit stated, because it imparts to consumers that its products are organic, when only a small portion of the ingredients meet that definition.

“Defendant knowingly and intentionally uses the ‘Babyganics’ mark to convey to consumers that the Products are, in fact, organic,” according to the mislabeling class action lawsuit.

“Although the Products contain small quantities of organic ingredients, Defendant knowingly and intentionally selected a brand name that looks like and sounds like the word ‘organics’ in order to exploit the growing consumer demand for organic products. To ensure that consumers make the association between ‘Babyganics’ and ‘organics,’ Defendant uses packaging which is predominantly white and green and highlights graphics of leaves, flowers, and other plants. Each product is emblazoned with the name ‘Babyganics’ on the front of the label of the Products in bold type,” the lawsuit adds.

Alibhai purchased Babyganics’ mineral-based sunscreen as well as the company’s bubble bath, foaming bottle & dish soap, and toy & high chair cleaner.

It wasn’t until she applied the sunscreen to her daughter’s skin and the child broke out in a rash, that Alibhai checked the label for the ingredients and learned that the sunscreen was neither organic nor mineral-based, according to the mislabeling class action lawsuit.

Similarly, she bought the other Babyganics products because she believed them to be organic. But the bubble bath aggravated her daughter’s eczema and upon closer review of the ingredients, Alibhai discovered that none of the Babyganics products were organic, the lawsuit states.

And plaintiff Tanya Mayhew maintained that she paid a premium for Babyganics mineral-based sunscreen, mineral-based sunscreen stick, and shampoo & body wash because the labeling, advertising, packaging and information on the defendants’ website represented that the products were organic and mineral-based.

Babyganics sells a wide variety of products including baby wipes, diaper creams, shampoo and body wash, bubble bath, lip and face balms, skin moisturizing lotions, saline nasal sprays, toothpaste, teething gels, insect sprays and skin ointments to promote healing.

The settlement class includes people who made Babyganics retail purchases during the settlement class period. Class members with a proof of purchase will be entitled to a full cash refund of any purchase of a covered product.

Class members without a proof of purchase will be able to receive up to 50 percent of the purchase price, or sometimes more.

If you believe you have been deceived by false advertising , you may qualify to file a mislabeling class action lawsuit. Fill out the form on this page for more information.

What Patients Need to Know About Blood Clot Filter Problems

Thu, 17 Aug 2017 19:34:11 GMT

Have you or someone you know experienced migration and other side effects after having a C.R. Bard inferior vena cava filter implanted? If so, you may be entitled to file a legal claim for compensation.

Medical device manufacturer C.R. Bard has been in the spotlight lately regarding the failure associated with their G2 IVC filter series. These filters were created to replace its initial Recovery filter. However, fatal flaws were associated with G2 filters device that left patients suffering the consequences.

Rather than recalling the G2 filter, the device manufacturer kept these on the market until 2010, for a period of five years, and more than 160,000 of these devices were sold. Hundreds of problems and at least 12 deaths have been associated with the G2 series filters.

An inferior vena cava filter is a medical device implanted inside the patient’s largest vein, called the inferior vena cava. The device returns blood from the body to the heart and was designed to capture blood clots along that pathway that could cause pulmonary embolisms. The primary manufacturer of these devices is C.R. Bard.

The FDA has approved IVC filters to treat the following medical conditions:

Chronic pulmonary embolisms when use of an anticoagulant failed
Emergency treatment after a massive pulmonary embolism
Thromboembolic diseases in which anticoagulant therapy failed
Pulmonary embolism

What Patients Need to Know About Blood Clot Filter Problems

Their first-generation filter, the Recovery, was introduced in 2003 and the second generation G2 filter was introduced in 2005. The FDA received more than 900 reports between 2005 and 2010 about serious negative side effects associated with IVC filters breaking down including:

Filter fracture
Device migration
Detached device components
Filter perforation

Further research on this brand of IVC filters revealed widespread blood clot filter problems. Some physicians now believe the filters were never safe to be implanted in the first place. Approximately 250,000 individuals across the United States each year receive these implants, but many may be unaware of the deadly blood clot filter problems that can result. When the G2 version replaced the initial Recovery filters, similar adverse event reports were filed by patients.

Documents from Bard indicate that the data showed a high rate of blood clot filter problems. The G2 filter, in particular, had more reported problems, migrations, and fractures than any of the similar products on the market.

If you or someone you know has already been negatively affected by the G2 IVC filter, you may face grave risks. Contacting your physician immediately is strongly recommended if you have not done so already.

If injuries have already occurred, you may be able to file a legal claim for compensation. The lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher have a track record of helping victims who have suffered due to defective medical devices. Contacting them today for a free consultation about your case.

What Is Catastrophic Personal Injury?

Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:31:55 GMT

When you have been injured in an accident, it is likely that you will have many different questions about how to best protect yourself and whether or not you have grounds to file a legal claim. Your ability to file a legal claim will depend on numerous different factors such as the medical conditions or injuries you sustained in the accident and the other person’s liability. Consulting with an experienced personal injury lawyer is strongly recommended as soon as possible after you’ve been involved in an accident.

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Retailer to Pay Nearly $1.7M in Walmart Whistleblower Lawsuit

Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:28:43 GMT

Walmart has recently agreed to a settlement of nearly $1.7 million to resolve claims in a whistleblower lawsuit that it neglected to verify pharmaceutical prescriptions prior to seeking reimbursement from Medi-Cal.

In California’s Eastern District, the U.S. Attorney for the case, Philip A. Talbert, said that the settlement represented enforcement of a regulation that is “essential” for preventing pharmacies from submitting claims to Medi-Cal, California’s state medical program, to receive reimbursement for drugs that have not been prescribed for a designated purpose.

The relator in the Walmart whistleblower lawsuit is pharmacist Glenn Dabek who was employed at four different Walmart stores throughout his tenure with the company. The lawsuit, filed in October 2014, accused Walmart of failing to perform its role as a gatekeeper by verifying certain prescription drugs were to be dispensed only if patients had a specific diagnosis. The state does not pay for prescriptions unless they are aimed at a specific ailment.

“These Medi-Cal regulations are essential to protect both patients and limited healthcare funding,” Talbert stated. “My office will continue to hold pharmacies accountable when they failed to comply with regulations like these.”

As part of the settlement in the Walmart whistleblower lawsuit, the retailer did not admit to any wrongdoing in its decision to settle the issue. “We disagree with the allegations, however, in the best interest of the company we elected to settle this issue,” spokesperson Randy Hargrove said in a statement. “We cooperated fully during the investigation and are pleased to have resolved the matter.”

The allegations in the Walmart whistleblower lawsuit focus on the “Code 1” drugs on Medi-Cal’s list. Each of these drugs on the list has certain restrictions designated, with Medi-Cal only reimbursing certain Code 1 drugs on the list if there is an accompanying approved diagnosis. Additionally, the safety, efficacy, potential for misuse and cost of the drug are also taken into account, Talbert stated.

Pharmacies are only able to bill Medi-Cal if they have performed in a gatekeeping capacity first, ensuring that the state medical program is only billed once the pharmacy has verified the intended drug’s usage. Special approval may also be granted by the state for drugs that have not been previously approved on the list on a case-by-case basis from the pharmacy’s request.

The whistleblower stated that during his employment with Walmart, several of the stores he worked at did not perform the required gatekeeping functions and simply billed Medi-Cal for the requested drugs without first consulting the Code 1 list to make sure that the drugs were prescribed for the designated purpose.

Dabek said the lack of gatekeeping was widespread and potentially happening company-wide because billing Medi-Cal without checking was a standard corporate policy, according to the Walmart whistleblower lawsuit.

In May of this year, California and the federal government chose to intervene in a limited manner and settle the lawsuit, according to court records. For his role as the whistleblower, Dabek will receive $264,000 as compensation.

The Walmart Whistleblower Lawsuit is Dabek et al. v. Walmart Stores Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02350, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

If you believe you have witnessed fraud committed against the government , you may be entitled to compensation. Contact the experienced whistleblower attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher for a FREE case evaluation.

Glyphosate: California Now Requires Prop. 65 Warning for Main Roundup Ingredient

Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:25:41 GMT

Glyphosate, the active chemical in the weed killer Roundup, is now required to be labeled under Prop 65 in California as a carcinogenic substance. This change came into effect on July 7 and is overseen by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Prop 65 was voted into law in 1986 and is officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, but it is more commonly referred to in the state as Prop 65. Under this act, California is required to publish a list of chemicals known to cause serious health issues, including cancer.

Currently, more than 900 chemicals appear on the list. These include foods and beverages containing alcohol and caffeine, anti-anxiety medications such as Xanax and Valium, tobacco, marijuana, UV light, gasoline, diesel engine exhaust, and much more.

In addition to appearing on the list, products must also include on their label a Prop 65 warning. The label on glyphosate will include language along the lines of “Warning: This product may contain a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive harm.”

The greatest risk from glyphosate is seen in individuals mixing or applying the herbicide glyphosate. This can be agricultural workers, maintenance and facilities personnel, and home gardeners, among others. Wearing chemical resistant gloves and protective clothing can help, but the issues with glyphosate appear to go beyond simply being careful to not improperly handle the chemical.

Glyphosate has been found in foods and beverages, is sprayed on the lawns at schools and parks where children play, and has been found in natural streams where the herbicide is widely used.

The EPA has established safe levels of glyphosate in food and drink for more than 150 items, but environmental groups disagree on the safety levels, stating that any levels of the probable carcinogen cannot reliably be considered safe.

In other countries, the use and sale of glyphosate have been banned or strict prohibitions have been put into place in order to protect the health of its citizens. France, the Netherlands, Bermuda, Brazil, Sri Lanka and more have made moves to restrict or eliminate glyphosate use. In the European Union, an 18-month review will conclude at the end of this year to determine the future of glyphosate in designated European countries.

Hundreds of Roundup lawsuits have already been filed by individuals who have developed cancer-related to glyphosate exposure. Of those affected individuals, many are homeowners who have simply used the product to treat their home lawns and gardens, yet ended up developing cancer, and in particular, non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

As Prop 65 labeling requirement comes into effect for glyphosate, products containing the chemical will need to be labeled, and this may far exceed just the Roundup products themselves as more information is revealed with respect to the potential contamination of glyphosate in foods and beverages as well as in locations where the chemical is sprayed.

With the recent Prop 65 labeling of glyphosate, research in the works regarding glyphosate and human health and other countries taking the lead on reducing and eliminating glyphosate exposure, more information will come to light on the chemical’s fate.

If you live in the state of California and use a product that contains glyphosate, but it is not properly labeled, you may qualify to file a Proposition 65 class action lawsuit. Contact the experienced attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today for a FREE case evaluation.

Annie’s False Advertising Lawsuit Filed in California Federal Court

Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:23:35 GMT

A proposed class action lawsuit filed in a California federal court says that food company Annie’s Inc. falsely advertises, deceptively markets, and misbrands its products in order to encourage consumers to make a purchase.

The Annie’s false advertising lawsuit centers around Summer Strawberry Organic Bunny Fruit Snacks which apparently do not contain strawberries as an ingredient in the fruit snacks.

Lead plaintiff Raymond Alvandi states that he relied on the marketing of Annie when purchasing the snacks, and had he known that they didn’t actually contain strawberries, he would not have purchased the product.

“Defendant’s product is called ‘Fruit Snacks’ and ‘Summer Strawberry’ and defendant labels and markets its strawberry fruit snacks as containing ‘natural strawberry flavors’ and touts that they are ‘Made with Goodness!’” the Annie’s false advertising lawsuit states. “However, defendant’s strawberry fruit snacks do not contain any strawberries.”

Owned by General Mills, Annie’s has taken part in a marketing campaign that has been deceptively designed to dupe consumers by having them believe that the Summer Strawberry Organic Bunny Fruit Snacks are healthy and nutritious and actually contain strawberries based on the product labeling and consumer marketing, Alvandi alleged in the Annie’s false advertising lawsuit.

Alvandi stated that he purchased the strawberry fruit snacks a number of times, including from Amazon and from a Glendale, California Target store, among other locations. He states that prior to purchasing the snacks, he relied on the marketing and product label that suggested to him and other consumers that the strawberry fruit snacks were made with actual strawberries.

It wasn’t until later that Alvandi discovered that the ingredients in the Annie’s Summer Strawberry Organic Bunny Fruit Snacks which are listed as tapioca syrup, pear juice from concentrate, cane sugar, sunflower oil, and caranuba wax. Strawberries are not listed as an ingredient in the fruit snacks.

“’Strawberries’ are nowhere to be found in the nutrition facts. Indeed, the nutrition facts do not even list a strawberry byproduct such as strawberry juice made from concentrate,” the Annie’s false advertising lawsuit states.

The plaintiff states that claiming fruit snacks actually contain fruit when they don’t is a common practice among companies, and this has been discussed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Alvandi states.

Alvandi quotes commentary from the organization in the Annie’s false advertising lawsuit which states, “Unfortunately for parents and kids, phony fruit snacks don’t always contain the fruits advertised on the front of the box and never in the quantities suggested. Instead, companies use relatively cheap, nutritionally void and highly processed pear, apple, and white grape juices, making phony fruit snacks much closer to gummy bears than actual fruit.”

The proposed Class of consumers in the Annie’s false advertising lawsuit includes all U.S. residents who purchased Summer Strawberry Organic Bunny Fruit Snacks during the six-year class period.

On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Avandi has raised allegations of breach of express warranty, unfair and deceptive acts and practices violating the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California Business and Professions Code. He is seeking injunctive relief in order to prohibit the allegedly false and deceptive advertising as well as compensatory, statutory, treble and punitive damages.

The Annie’s False Advertising Lawsuit is Alvandi v. Annie’s Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-05691, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

If you believe you were the victim of a false advertising scheme , legal help is available. Contact the experienced consumer rights attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today for a FREE case evaluation.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit.

VW’s Deceptive Practices Harmed Sales Reps, Lawsuit Claims

Wed, 01 Feb 2017 19:21:13 GMT

A Volkswagen salesperson says the company’s deceptive practices have caused considerable financial harm for he and his colleagues.

Plaintiff Mickey Gaines claims the Volkswagen emissions cheat device scandal tarnished the brand’s good reputation and caused a drop in demand for Volkswagen vehicles. Those harms translated to lower sales and a loss of income for commissioned Volkswagen sales personnel like himself, he claims.

The scandal came to light in September 2015, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Violation alleging Volkswagen had installed cheat devices in millions of cars for the specific purpose of passing emissions tests.

These cheat devices cause the cars to produce lower emissions during emissions testing. During normal driving, however, the devices allow the cars to produce emissions several times over the legally allowable limit.

“As a direct and foreseeable result of the unlawful Volkswagen emission fraud, the Volkswagen salespersons such as Plaintiff have been harmed in their business in the form of reduced sales, diminished inventories, lost commissions and being charged with the responsibility of selling a product which essentially cannot be sold,” Gaines alleges.

VW Sales Rep: Deceptive Practices Hit Sales Reps in Their Pocketbooks

Gaines says he has worked as a commissioned sales representative for Livingston VW of Woodland Hills, Calif. since 2011. He says he chose to work for a Volkswagen dealership because of the brand’s long history, its reputation for exceptional engineering, and its environment-friendly business culture.

Volkswagen sales dropped as soon as these deceptive practices were publicized, the VW lawsuit claims. Gaines cites reports that deliveries of Volkswagen passenger brand vehicles dropped 5.3 percent in October 2015. By July of 2016, reports showed Volkswagen sales had plummeted by 17 percent.

Gaines says that the drop in sales translated directly to a loss of revenue for Volkswagen sales representatives like himself. Compensation for these salespersons is largely derived from a commission based on their total sales. A drop in sales meant a drop in income for Gaines and his fellow sales workers.

As a Volkswagen sales representative, Gaines says, he has cultivated a loyal customer base, leading some of his customers to return to him for repeat purchases. But reports of the company’s deceptive practices damaged those business relationships, Gaines says, driving away loyal customers and turning them into vocal detractors.

According to Gaines, Volkswagen left its sales personnel hanging after the scandal broke, providing them with no useful information to pass on to their customers and no guidance as to how to preserve their customer relationships.

Gaines proposes to represent a plaintiff Class consisting of all persons in the United States. who worked as Volkswagen commissioned sales representatives from Sept. 18, 2015 through the date of final judgment in this action.

He raises claims for interference with economic relationships, fraud, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act, or RICO.

He seeks an award of damages, restitution, disgorgement, and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation, all with pre- and post-judgment interest.

The Volkswagen Deceptive Practices Class Action Lawsuit is Mickey Gaines v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01114, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

If you were harmed by the deceptive practices of an employer or another company, you may be entitled to compensation. Learn more by filling out the form on this page .

Note: Bradley/Grombacher LLP is one of the law firms representing the plaintiff in this class action lawsuit.

Xarelto Case Alleges Bleeding Risks Were Hidden by Drug Maker

Wed, 01 Feb 2017 19:19:26 GMT

A new Xarelto case alleges the drug’s makers knew the risks of dangerous internal bleeding but failed to warn consumers and health care workers.

Generically known as rivroxaban, Xarelto is a blood thinner that was designed, manufactured, researched, marketed and sold by a combination of companies, including Janssen Research & Development, Johnson & Johnson, and Bayer.

Xarelto has been marketed as a superior alternative to Coumadin, generically known as warfarin, which is a blood thinner has been around for about 50 years.

When taking warfarin, a patient needs to take blood tests to determine how fast the blood clots. This test assures the right dosage is maintained.

If for some reason a patient needs to have warfarin’s anticoagulant properties cease due to accident or injury, a number of options for reversal are available, including vitamin K.

One of Xarelto’s biggest selling points is that it does not need any testing in order to ensure a therapeutic level is maintained. This—along with its once-daily dosing—has been marketed as “the Xarelto Difference.”

However, patients tolerate Xarelto differently, which means some patients are more prone to Xarelto internal bleed injuries.

In Sherri’s Xarelto case, documents note she began taking the drug around Jan. 5, 2015 for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis. She took Xarelto as directed through mid-April 2015.

However, Sherri “experienced an acute gastrointestinal bleed on or about April 14, 2015, and suffered a life-threatening, irreversible uterine bleed and hemorrhagic shock, from the use of Xarelto, as well as severe pain and suffering.”

History of Xarelto Injuries

Xarelto bleeding injuries and failure to prevent a stroke or pulmonary embolism topped the list of adverse events submitted to the FDA in 2015, according to the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP).

Prior to these adverse event reports, the drug’s marketing department spent more than $11 million in 2013 promoting the drug. In the third quarter of the 2013 fiscal year, Xarelto was the number one pharmaceutical promoted in professional health journals based on pages and dollars spent.

Xarelto brought in $582 million in global sales in its first full year of being on the market.

The Xarelto case points out that the Institute for Safe Medication Practices noted in 2012 that during the FDA’s review process of Xarelto, “reviewers questioned the convenient once-a-day dosing scheme” of Xarelto because blood level studies had suggested that “blood level studies had shown peaks and troughs that could be eliminated by twice-a-day dosing.”

Currently, there is no antidote for Xarelto. If a person experiences excessive bleeding, there is no reversal agent available to counteract it.

According to clinical trials for Xarelto’s approval for treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, Xarelto showed an “obvious increased risk of bleeding events as compared to placebo” and “an increased risk of adverse events with Xarelto, including those that resulted in permanent discontinuation of Xarelto or prolonged hospitalization.”

The Xarelto case says that “defendants failed to either alert the public and the scientific community or perform further investigation into the safety of Xarelto.”

The Xarelto Case is Case No. 2:17-cv-02040-EEF-MBN filed in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana.

If you or a loved one suffered an injury after taking Xarelto or another drug, you may be entitled to compensation. Contact Bradley/Grombacher today for more information.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Risks & Costs of a Spinal Cord Injury

Wed, 01 Feb 2017 19:17:00 GMT

People who have suffered a spinal cord injury are faced with extremely high medical expenses, and may even be at risk of further serious health complications.

Spinal cord injury problems are most often caused by car accidents, followed by falling, violence, and sports. A secondary factor is alcohol, which contributes to around a quarter of all spinal cord injury problems.

Spinal Cord Injury Risks

Those who have already suffered a spinal cord injury are placed at risk of further serious health complications. A report from Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, written by neurologists Rochelle Sweis and José Biller from Loyola Medicine, offers information about these spinal cord injury risks.

The elevated risks associated with spinal cord injury include cardiovascular disease, pneumonia, blood clotting, bodily dysfunction, gastrointestinal problems, and more, Drs. Sweis and Biller report. While some of these risks are less common, others can affect huge portions of spinal cord injury patients.

Ninety-four percent of all spinal cord injury patients suffer from chronic pain. According to the report, the onset of chronic pain from a spinal cord injury “typically occurs within the first year after injury but decreases in intensity and frequency with time.”

Chronic pain after a spinal cord injury can have serious consequences.

“It affects patients emotionally and interferes with activities of daily living,” Drs. Sweis and Biller wrote. Spinal cord injury patients also commonly suffer pneumonia and other pulmonary problems.

Spinal cord injury patients are also seriously at risk of death, most often by way of a cardiovascular disease. Life expectancy for these patients has not significantly improved.

Spinal Cord Injury Costs

While the spinal cord injury health risks are certainly a serious issue, they are not the only problem that patients must face. A typical spinal cord injury patient faces between $320,000 and $985,000 in medical and treatment costs in the first year of injury alone.

Of course, costs do not stop after initial treatment in that first year. In fact, a spinal cord injury patient may expect to pay as much as $5 million for treatment over the course of their life.

If you or a loved one has suffered a spinal cord injury caused by another person’s or company’s negligence, you may be entitled to some compensation. While compensation from a spinal cord injury lawsuit cannot reverse the effects of the injury or bring a loved one back to life, it can help offset costs from medical expenses and lost wages. Contact the attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher LLP for more information.

bradley-site

Trajector Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Deceptive and Abusive Practices Toward Nation’s Disabled Veterans

Trajector Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Deceptive and Abusive Practices Toward Nation’s Disabled Veterans

Bradley/Grombacher Partner Kiley Grombacher Named to Daily Journal’s 2026 List of Leading Commercial Litigators

Bradley/Grombacher Partner Kiley Grombacher Named to Daily Journal’s 2026 List of Leading Commercial Litigators

California Telehealth Company Facing Class Action Over Alleged Physician Misclassification and Unpaid Wages

California Telehealth Company Facing Class Action Over Alleged Physician Misclassification and Unpaid Wages

How to Spot False Advertising in 2025 and What You Can Do About It

Key Takeaways: TL;DR

What Is False Advertising?

How Can You Avoid Deceptive Advertising?

1. “Too Good to Be True” Deals

2. Fine Print & Footnotes

3. Misleading Imagery

4. “Free” That Isn’t Really Free

5. Unanswered Questions

Types of Misleading Advertising You Might Encounter

Bait-and-Switch

Greenwashing

Unsubstantiated Health Claims

Fake Sales

Failure to Disclose

The Cost of Falling Victim to False Advertising

What Can You Do About False Advertising?

Why Legal Help After Catastrophic Injury Matters for Consumers Too

How Bradley/Grombacher Can Help You

Know Your Rights in 2025

Take Action Today

How to Recover Financially After Catastrophic Injury

Immediate Financial Steps After a Catastrophic Injury

Understanding Insurance and Legal Options

Building a Long-Term Financial Plan

Step 1: Create a Comprehensive Budget

Step 2: Manage Debt Strategically

Step 3: Plan for Long-Term Care

Accessing Financial Assistance Programs

Step 1: Create a Comprehensive Budget

Step 2: Manage Debt Strategically

Step 3: Plan for Long-Term Care

Accessing Financial Assistance Programs

Returning to Work and Exploring Vocational Options

Workplace Adjustments

Vocational Rehabilitation Programs

Addressing the Emotional Cost of Financial Stress

Strategies to Cope

1. Professional Support

2. Peer Support

3. Financial Simplification

4. Mindfulness and Stress Reduction Techniques

5. Practical Financial Planning

6. Self-Care and Boundaries

How Bradley Grombacher LLP Can Help

Taking Control of Your Financial Recovery

Bradley/Grombacher LLP Attorneys Honored in LA Times Consumer Attorneys of Southern California 2025 List

About Bradley/Grombacher

Kiley Grombacher Recognized in Daily Journal’s 2025 Top Women Lawyers List

Bradley/Grombacher’s Kiley Grombacher Recognized in Daily Journal’s 2025 Top Women Lawyers List

About Bradley/Grombacher

10 Costly Mistakes to Avoid When Filing a Wildfire Insurance Claim

Here are 10 crucial mistakes to avoid when filing a wildfire insurance claim:

Bradley/Grombacher LLP: Your Advocates for a Fair Recovery

Your Legal Rights After a Wildfire: What You Need to Know

1. Your Right to Compensation for Property Damage

2. Your Right to a Fair Insurance Claims Process

3. Your Right to Compensation for Personal Injuries

4. Your Right to Compensation for Lost Income or Business Interruption

5. Your Right to Legal Representation

Bradley/Grombacher LLP: Dedicated to Helping Wildfire Victims

Take the First Step: Contact Us for a Free Consultation

The Impact of Recent PAGA Compromises

Understanding PAGA: A Brief Overview

The Recent Reforms: What Has Changed?

Marcus Bradley’s Perspective: A Pandora’s Box of Litigation ﻿

The Employer’s Defense: A Welcome Relief

Do The Broader Implications Require a Shift in Legal Strategies? ﻿

A Compromise With Uncertain Outcomes

The top 100 women in law

Bradley/Grombacher LLP

Abercrombie Clothing Lawsuit Leads to $25 Million Dollar Settlement

Abercrombie Clothing Lawsuit Says Minimum Wage Requirements Weren’t Met

Marcus Bradley’s Perspective: A Pandora’s Box of Litigation

Do The Broader Implications Require a Shift in Legal Strategies?