Castlewood Treatment Center Settles HIV Discrimination Lawsuit

Castlewood Treatment Center for Eating Disorders has settled a case brought against it by a women for turning her away because of her HIV infection.

Sue Gibson, who has been HIV positive since 1989, tried to get treatment at Castlewood for an eating disorder and was initially told there was a waiting list. Gibson waited months as her health deteriorated before going back to Castlewood. An employee of the treatment center then informed her that she would not be admitted into their car because of her illness. By that time, Gibson had lost 20 pounds due to her anorexia and developed depression and anxiety.

As part of the settlement, Castlewood has agreed to a $140,000 with the United States Justice Department, $115,000 of which will go to Gibson and the rest to be paid in civil penalties. Castlewood also eventually agreed to take Gibson as a patient without pre-conditions, though Gibson is now being treated elsewhere.

Title III of the ADA prohibits entities from discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability, specifically including individuals with HIV in its list of disabilities. Similarly, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination by all business establishments in California because of age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation.

If you or anyone you know has been discriminated against because of disability, please contact Khorrami, LLP for a confidential consultation.

Lawsuit alleges that school district manipulated student data to increase school performance ratings

Jonathan Beard filed a civil suit earlier this year in Franklin County, Ohio state court on behalf of his daughter, Kailey, an East High School student who was unable to use a charter voucher to attend East after East manipulated its academic ratings stores to shut out charter students.  Beard is the second parent to sue the district for what has been dubbed the student-data scandal. The first suit was filed in November, 2012.

Under Ohio’s Edchoice program, students with private-school vouchers must be assigned to low-performing schools. East High School, however, was the subject of an internal audit that determined that the school was improperly manipulating rankings and academic ratings data in a way that prevented students with vouchers for private charter schools from being admitted.

According to the East High School internal auditor, East High School was withdrawing students who were actually still at the school.  The withdrawal of these students  allowed the school to toss out their test scores and attendance records.   Because they had been withdrawn, those students’ test scores were wiped from report-card calculations. Beard alleges that the improper withdrawal of low-performing students caused his daughter’s home school, East High School, to rise in academic status, making her ineligible for a state voucher that allows students in failing institutions to attend better schools.   Without the voucher, Kailey Beard’s $9,000 tuition to a nearby private school was not covered.

Beard wants the court to force the district to submit accurate data to the Ohio Department of Education and he wants the district to stop denying that incorrect data has been submitted already “My family was harmed. We were financially harmed. We informally approached (the district) and asked them to make us whole, and they rejected that”, Beard said. The Columbus Dispatch reports that Jeff Warner, spokesman for the Columbus School District, said that Beard’s lawsuit is “without merit” and that the district plans to make that case.

If you suspect that you have been the victim of school data manipulation, contact Khorrami, LLP for a confidential consultation.

$1.3 Million Settlement Reached in Consumer Fraud Class Action Against Neutrogena Naturals

A settlement has been reached in Stephenson, et al. v. Neutrogena Corporation, the consumer fraud class action lawsuit over the packaging and advertising of Neutrogena Naturals products. According to the suit, Neutrogena Naturals products packaging and advertising falsely indicated the products were “natural.”  Neutrogena has agreed to create a $1.3 million settlement fund to reimburse Class Members for a portion of the cost of products they purchased. The Class Members eligible for settlement include anyone who purchased a product from the Neutrogena Naturals line between January 1, 2011 and April 22, 2013.

Despite settling the lawsuit, Neutrogena denies all the plaintiffs’ allegations. Neutrogena has, however, agreed to change the labels and advertising for the Naturals products by: (1) removing the term “petrochemicals” from the statement “No harsh chemical sulfates, parabens, petrochemicals, dyes, phthalates” on the Naturals product labels and/or packages and replacing it with the term “petrolatum”; and (2) adding a statement regarding the percentage of each product that is naturally derived to the front of the labels and/or packages of the Naturals products.

If you or someone you know has been misled or harmed by false claims about a product, contact Khorrami, LLP for more information and a free consultation regarding your possible claims.

Pfizer Sued for Failure to Warn That Zoloft May Cause Birth Defects

On November 28, 2012, in the U.S. District Court or the Northern District of Florida, a Grandmother of a child born with birth defects filed a lawsuit against Pfizer, makers of the antidepressant Zoloft, for failing to warn her daughter that taking Zoloft during pregnancy could lead to birth defects.  The complaint alleges that the child was born with a severe heart defect that was directly caused by the mother taking Zoloft during her pregnancy and that Pfizer did not provide an adequate warning of such a possibility. According to the Complaint, had these side effects been known, the mother would have been able to make an informed decision as to whether taking Zoloft was worth the potential risks.

The allegations of the lawsuit are nothing new, as Pfizer and manufacturers of other SSRI (“selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors”) antidepressants on the market, have been sued countless times for failing to warn of their dangerous and potentially harmful side effects.  What makes this case somewhat unique however, is that it is a grandparent that alleges she has standing to sue as a result of injuries suffered by her grandchild, and not the direct parents of the child-victim.

If you or someone you know has been prescribed Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, Lexapro, Prozan or any other drug medication that you believe has cause you or a loved one to suffer birth defects or other injuries, please  contact the attorneys of Khorrami, LLP for a free confidential consultation regarding your potential claims.

Monster Is Now A ‘Beverage’

Monster Energy Drinks is now selling its popular energy drink as a “beverage.”  For the last decade, Monster sold its product as a “dietary supplement.”  While the ingredients and the packaging remain largely the same, this classification change has significant legal implications.

As a beverage maker, Monster will have to report to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when they think a product can cause injury.   Monster will also be required to keep scientific data supporting the safety of any ingredients they use in their product unless the ingredient is already approved by the FDA.

As a dietary supplement manufacturer, Monster would have had to meet additional requirements regarding warnings, safety information and labeling.  Most importantly, Monster would have had to report any injuries and deaths to the FDA.

The classification change comes at suspicious time.  The FDA recently reported they have received five (5) adverse event reports of deaths linked to Monster energy drinks over the past three years. One was is a 14 year old girl.  On November 16, 2012, the FDA announced the launch of its investigation into energy drinks given the frequent deaths.

Energy drinks have come under severe scrutiny in the last year.   On November 1, 2012, the city attorney of San Francisco, California, Dennis J. Herrera, submitted a letter to Monster asking the company to substantiate its advertisements which claim daily consumptions of the product is safe for adolescents and adults.  On March 19, 2013, a group of 18 doctors, researchers and public health experts jointly urged the FDA to take action on energy drinks.  In their letter, they wrote that “there is evidence in the published scientific literature that the caffeine levels in energy drinks pose serious potential health risks.”  The letter urges the FDA to take prompt action to protect consumers, especially children, from the dangers of the highly caffeinated energy drinks.

If you or someone you love has suffered an injury from an energy drink, please contact Khorrami, LLP for a private consultation.

Rich Products Recalls 21 Frozen Food Meals

Rich Products Corporation of New York has issued a voluntary recall for their frozen meal products due to possible E. coli contamination. The recall was first announced on March 28, 2013. An expanded list of additional items included in this recall was released again on April 4th bringing the total number of affected items to twenty-one.

The recall affects three brands of frozen food products distributed by Rich Products. Brands affected by the recall include Farm Rich Products, Schwan’s, and Market Day products. A total of 10 million pounds of food items like mini burgers, pizzas, quesadillas, and other items have been recalled. The products are partially baked, snack items that consumers bake or microwave at home. A complete list of all the items and their UPC codes is available on the FDA’s website and here.

Farm Rich Products, Schwan’s, and Market Day food products were distributed and sold nationwide. In addition to distributing to retail markets, Rich Products also distributed the products to select school districts, who served the meals as school lunches. No injuries have been reported but the recalled items have been linked to twenty-four E.Coli outbreaks in fifteen states. E. coli contamination can cause symptoms like mild to severe diarrhea and abdominal cramps. In severe cases, certain individuals can develop a complication called Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS) which can cause the kidneys to fail. The company has already notified all of its distributors and customers about the recall and has directed them to remove and destroy the affected product.

If you purchased a product and suspect it poses serious health and safety risks, contact Khorrami, LLP for a confidential consultation.

ADT Security Services Sued Over Early Termination Fees

A class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court against ADT Security Services (“ADT”) on behalf of all consumers who purchased ADT home monitoring services.  The lawsuit focuses on the termination fees that consumers were charged after cancelling their ADT subscription.  According to the complaint, ADT’s early termination fees amount to unlawful penalties that are used as anti-competitive devices and do not actually compensate ADT for any true costs of breach.

The early termination fees are charged even under circumstances which do not justify the fees.  For example, the fees are charged when ADT has failed to perform the very services that form the basis of ADT’s obligation.  The fees are also charged to customers who contracted with ADT to simply monitor a system that was previously installed, requiring no equipment to be installed and resulting in a windfall to ADT upon termination.

The class is suing for unfair business practices as well as violation of California consumer protection statutes.  According to California’s Business and Professions Code, any person who engages, has engaged, or proposed to engage in unfair competition shall be liable for a civil penalty.  Unfair competition is defined as unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.

If you or someone you know has been a victim of similar termination fees, please contact Khorrami, LLP for a private consultation.

Bugaboo Strollers Recalled

Bugaboo Americas of El Segundo, CA is recalling their Camelon3 strollers due to faulty handle bars that can detach from the stroller and cause a potential fall hazard. The Camelon3 is part of the Bugaboo line of high-end strollers known for mobility, functionality, and streamline design.

More than 10,000 Bugaboo Camelon3 strollers have been affected by this recall. The recalled strollers can be identified with serial numbers:

• 11153
• 00001
• 19010
• 51248
• 00215
• 19010

The recalled Camelon3 stroller frame is made of aluminum and plastic and features rubberized wheels, a removable bassinet, and a sun canopy. The removable carry handle bar used to transport the bassinet from the chassis can detach from the stroller, causing the bassinet to fall. The company has received sixteen reports of carry handles breaking but no injuries have been reported.

The Bugaboo Camelon3 was sold nationwide at Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom, Toys R Us, and online at Bugaboo.com and other online retailers from September, 2012 to March, 2013. The recalled strollers

range in price from $889 to $1,600. Consumers should immediately remove the carry handle from the stroller’s bassinet and contact Bugaboo for a free replacement handle.

If you have purchased a product and suspect it poses serious health and safety risks, contact Khorrami, LLP for a confidential consultation.

CytoSport to pay $5.3 Million in Muscle Milk Class Action Settlement

A preliminary settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against CytoSport Inc., the maker of Muscle Milk bars and sport drinks. The class action lawsuit alleged that CytoSport falsely mislabeled its Muscle Milk sports drinks as “nutritional” and a healthy provider of sustained energy, when in fact these products contained as much calories, fat, and sugar as junk food. Federal and state laws prohibit corporations from making false or misleading statements about their products to consumers.

CytoSport denied any wrongdoing, but decided to settle the class action lawsuit, entitled Claire Delacruz v. CytoSport, Inc., to avoid further litigation. Under the terms of the settlement, the company has agreed to reimburse consumers who bought CytoSport’s Ready-to-Drink products in the U.S. between July 18, 2007 and December 21, 2012, up to $30 upon submission of a valid proof of purchase form. Consumers who submit a claim for payment without valid proof of purchase may receive up to $10 from the settlement.  CytoSport also agreed to remove the phrase “Healthy, Sustained Energy” from the display panels of the Muscle Milk products for three years, and the term “healthy fats” on the label of its Ready-to-Drink products for three years, unless it modifies the statement by adding the phrase “See nutrition information for saturated fat content,” or ensures the product contains less than .5 grams of saturated fat per serving.  Once the settlement is approved by the Court, class members who submit a claim form will be eligible to participate in the settlement.

If you or someone you know has been misled or harmed by false claims about a product, contact Khorrami, LLP for more information and a free consultation regarding your possible claims.

Tylenol Products Liability Claim Filed in Philadelphia Federal Court

Another products liability claim was filed against PPC and Tylenol for failure to warn users that Tylenol and Tylenol PM could cause acute liver failure.  This is just one of the many recently filed claims against the popular pain reliever.

The lawsuit was filed by Krista Elaine Bolick, who purchased the product in or about March 2010.   She claims her liver failed as a result of ingesting Tylenol, even though she took the product at the “appropriate times and in appropriate amounts for therapeutic purposes and within the recommended daily doses for the product.”  Despite using it as recommended, Bolick required emergency room care in spring of that year for acute liver failure.

Bollick alleges the active ingredient in Tylenol, acetaminophen, causes consumers to suffer from liver damage and acute liver failure.  The lawsuit states “the potential for acetaminophen-induced liver damages and failure have been well documented and well known to the Defendants for many years.”  Bollick also alleges that Tylenol over-promoted their product, including over-promoting its safety and efficacy.

This case is the latest in a growing number of lawsuits filed against the manufacturers of Tylenol. Many Tylenol consumers complain of similar problems.   On January 17, 2013, a petition for coordination of all the actions was filed.  On March 21, 2013, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict litigation heard the parties arguments as to why the case should be coordinated.   A decision regarding coordination should be made relatively soon.

If you or someone you love has suffered from Tylenol related injury, please contact Khorrami, LLP for a private consultation.