Blog Archives - golombhonik

Granuflo Lawsuits Rising

5:10 pm by Admin

As of February 2015, more than 2,575 lawsuits are pending against Fresenius in the District of Massachusetts federally-filed GranuFlo MDL. The lawsuits claim Fresenius knew—or should have known—about the increased risk of death and serious injury associated with GranuFlo, and that those risks were concealed and misrepresented by Fresenius Medical Care. Lawsuits seek punitive damages in addition to medical expenses and pain and suffering, claiming Fresenius knowingly exhibited a deliberate disregard for the value of human life.

Dialysis concentrate GranuFlo was recalled by the FDA after it was determined the product could place patients at risk for cardiac arrest when administered or prescribed improperly. The manufacturer of GranuFlo, Fresenius Medical Care, has been charged with failing to adequately warn doctors or their patients that the product contains more of an ingredient which the body converts to bicarbonate than other brands. Overdoses of bicarbonate have been linked to heart problems, and while Fresenius warned its own clinic doctors about GranuFlo’s potential to cause cardiac arrest, they failed to warn outside clinics.

In fact, these outside clinics continued to use GranuFlo until an internal memo from the company was leaked. In early 2012, Fresenius voluntarily changed GranuFlo’s labeling, however they continued to market the product. The Class I recall for GranuFlo mandated by the FDA is the most serious type of recall available. A Class I recall indicates a reasonable probability that the use of the product could cause serious adverse health issues or even death.

Understanding the GranuFlo Recall

During hemodialysis, a medical machine filters waste and extra salt and water from the blood of the patient. This process involves neutralizing acid in the blood by supplying the patient with bicarbonate, an alkaline substance. Granuflo is a powder concentrate and NaturaLyte is its liquid counterpart. These two drugs are in a class known as dialysates, and are used during the dialysis process to neutralize the buildup of acids in the blood. The active ingredient in NaturaLyte and Granuflo is sodium dialysate, which is comprised of acetate and bicarbonate.

Reportedly, doctors failed to account for the additional bicarbonate contributed by GranuFlo when making the decision on how much bicarbonate to administer separately. High bicarbonate levels in the body can cause low blood pressure, cardiac arrhythmia, low potassium levels, and higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the blood. According to a company memo, 941 patients treated at Fresenius Clinics experienced cardiac arrest during 2010 because of using GranuFlo.

Granuflo and NaturaLyte Lawsuits

The 2,575 lawsuits have been consolidated into an MDL in the District of Massachusetts. As the statutes of limitations grow near for those in some states, attorneys across the U.S. believe many more lawsuits will be filed. The first trial is scheduled for January 2016, with a second trial scheduled in February 2016. The currently filed lawsuits have in common the following allegations:

Fresenius knew of the dangers associated with Granuflo and NaturaLyte yet failed to warn consumers.
Fresenius intentionally placed patients in harm’s way through their refusal to warn health care providers of the risks of Granuflo and NaturaLyte.
Fresenius failed to warn consumers and health care providers of the significant risk of cardiac arrest and death associated with NaturaLyte and Granuflo.
Fresenius intentionally withheld risks of adverse cardiac events associated with NaturaLyte and Granuflo and did not report the risks to the FDA.
Fresenius failed to release adequate product-related warnings and instructions to health-care providers.

If you or a loved one has suffered injury or harm from the use of Granuflo or NaturaLyte, it can be beneficial to speak to a knowledgeable product liability attorney who can ensure you receive just compensation for your injuries.

Contact Our National Dangerous Drug Attorneys

If you suffered harm that you believe may have been caused by GranuFlo® and NaturaLyte® dialysis products, please contact the national dangerous medical device attorneys at Golomb & Honik, P.C. for a no-cost evaluation. Our lawyers have the resources to take on large pharmaceutical companies—and win. We believe in holding negligent drug companies responsible for their dangerous drugs and products and fight aggressively for justice.

To learn more about your legal options or to schedule a free consultation call the Philadelphia product liability lawyers at Golomb & Honik today at 1-800-355-3300 or 1-215-985-9177 or fill out our confidential Contact Form.

The national dangerous drug lawyers at Golomb & Honik have successfully represented individuals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and throughout the United States.

Filed Under: Blog, Drug Injuries, Product Liability

Anesthesia Errors

11:07 pm by golombhonik1

All surgery carries certain risks including infection, anesthesia problems and death. Anesthesia errors are particularly catastrophic, and the result is often fatal. While rare considering how many surgeries are performed each year in the United States, anesthesia errors do occur. If you or your loved one has suffered harm due to an error in anesthesia, you may be entitled to monetary compensation.

Most people are aware that general anesthesia carries significant risks because it renders patients unconscious and completely dependent on others to keep them alive. While typically less risky than general anesthesia, regional and local anesthesia can also be dangerous, and errors in administration can cause serious injury.

Anesthesia errors and the harm that they cause are preventable. In some cases they are the result of inadequate product labeling or defective equipment, but in most cases they are the result of medical malpractice.

Those who survive anesthesia errors may need extensive treatment to recover or may be permanently disabled, unable to work, and require life-long care. Victims of anesthesia awareness can suffer severe psychological and emotional damage that may or may not respond to therapy. This can lead to serious health problems and even death when patients are so terrified that they will no longer seek medical care under any circumstances.

If you or a loved one has been the victim of an anesthesia error, please contact Golomb & Honik using the form at the side of the page or call 855-889-5389 today to schedule your free medical malpractice consultation. Golomb & Honik serve clients nationwide from our offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Filed Under: Blog, Medical Malpractice

Patients Taking Xarelto Don’t Know There is NO Antidote

7:05 am by Admin

Those patients taking the blood thinner, Xarelto, still don’t know that they are at an increased risk for bleeding to death. That’s because Xarelto manufacturers have kept that secret pretty well hidden. Now, lawsuits across the country are cropping up, after patients taking Xarelto have bled to death or experienced serious injury.

Unlike traditional blood thinners, Coumadin or Heparin, there is no known antidote to stop uncontrolled bleeding. Xarelto was marketed and released to the public without one. While Xarelto manufacturers are working on the antidote, none presently exists – and many people have been injured or killed as a result. To date, there have been at least 65 deaths attributed to Xarelto bleeding complications – with that number expected to climb quickly into the thousands.

Those taking Xarelto who have any of the following issues may be at a much higher risk of developing paralysis or uncontrolled bleeding:

Patients who have previously had spinal surgery
Patients with current spinal problems
Patients currently taking other blood thinners
Patients currently taking NSAIDS
Patients with an epidural catheter

If you were harmed by the drug Xarelto, you could be entitled to collect compensation from the manufacturer for current and future medical expenses as well as damages for pain and suffering. Every lawsuit filed also holds the manufacturers of Xarelto accountable for releasing a potentially dangerous drug to consumers.

How Dangerous is Xarelto?

A report from the Institute for Safe Medication Practices identified 356 reports of serious, disabling, or fatal injury in which Xarelto was the primary suspect drug. In March 2014, the FDA required a black box warning be added to Xarelto, which warns of the risks of using Xarelto when the patient will have an epidural or spinal anesthesia or spinal puncture. Physicians are asked to monitor patients taking Xarelto and undergoing one of these procedures in order to detect signs of neurological impairment, sensory and motor deficits, and bowel or bladder dysfunction.

In some cases, paralysis can result in patients taking Xarelto and undergoing spinal/epidural anesthesia or puncture. Although the FDA has not placed uncontrollable bleeding in a black box warning, it did require the manufacturer to warn of the potential for uncontrollable bleeding under “adverse reactions.” In 2013, the FDA issued a warning letter to Janssen stating the print advertisement for Xarelto minimized the risks associated with the drug and made misleading claims. The FDA stated that including risk information without the same emphasis included in the benefit section made it appear as though the risks were unimportant.

National Dangerous Drug Lawyers

If you have suffered medical complications, pain, or excessive bleeding after using Xarelto, your injuries may be the result of a drug manufacturer’s negligence. To learn more about your legal options or to schedule a free consultation call the Philadelphia class action lawyers at Golomb & Honik today at 1-800-355-3300 or 1-215-985-9177 or fill out our confidential Contact Form.

The national dangerous drug lawyers at Golomb & Honik have successfully represented individuals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and throughout the United States.

Filed Under: Blog, Drug Injuries

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits on Hold due to Delayed Bellwether Trial

9:04 pm by Admin

All transvaginal mesh lawsuits against the TVM manufacturer, Ethicon, are currently on hold due to delays in the next bellwether trial. Over 65,000 TVM lawsuits are currently pending against TVM manufacturers, because their mesh slings caused complications and permanent injuries to women across the country. Before these lawsuits can be addressed, however, the third Ethicon bellwether trial must proceed. Unfortunately, the third bellwether trial, which was scheduled to start on December 4, 2014, has been postponed and rescheduled for March 2, 2015.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin is overseeing seven of the MDL’s involving transvaginal mesh slings, including Boston Scientific, Ethicon, American Medical Systems, Bard Avaulta, Coloplast, Cook Medical, and Neomedic. Multidistrict litigation is currently established for all those TVM manufacturers.

What is Multidistrict Litigation?

Multidistrict litigation is useful when numerous individuals share common grievances against a singular entity. In other words, when a corporation or manufacturer harms numerous patients in similar ways, MDLs are established so that they can share discovery. This also allows them to accelerate the early trial proceedings and avoid duplicate testimony, while preventing conflicting rulings. MDLs differ from class actions in that each case is treated singularly and awards are based on the individual’s injury and complications.

In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, there are presently 21,700 Ethicon lawsuits pending. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that the TVM sling led to serious complications, such as mesh erosion, extrusion, infection, and pain. Some patients have never fully healed from their injuries and some have been left with permanent disabilities.

The first two Ethicon bellwether trials against Ethicon have already been completed and resulted in very different verdicts. In the first bellwether trial, the jury found in favor of the defendant because they determined that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence. The second bellwether trial, however, was vastly different. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded $3.27 million to the injured plaintiff. Due to the different verdicts in the first two Ethicon bellwether trials, all eyes are on this third trial. Until then, however, all plaintiffs that have filed vaginal mesh lawsuits will have to wait and see.

National Defective Medical Device Lawyers

If you have suffered complications as a result of your transvaginal mesh implant, you could have a case against the manufacturer. Call the defective medical device lawyers at Golomb & Honik today for a consultation and to learn about your legal options. Our goal is to get you the greatest maximum recovery for your physical and emotional suffering.

The national defective medical device lawyers at Golomb & Honik have successfully represented individuals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and throughout the United States.

Filed Under: Blog, Defective Products

Types of Cerebral Palsy

10:49 pm by golombhonik1

Cerebral palsy (CP) can affect your child’s life in many different ways and degrees of severity depending on the type and the part of the body that is affected. Your child’s chance of recovering and living a normal life is largely dependent on the treatments you can afford. When cerebral palsy is the result of medical malpractice, just compensation can mean access to the best and newest treatments available.

In spastic CP, the muscles are too tight; spastic CP can affect just one limb or the entire body. When the entire body is affected, there is a high likelihood of mental retardation and seizures.

Ataxic CP causes the muscles to be too weak creating problems with balance, walking, and motor skills.

Athetoid CP results in the muscle fluctuation from being too tight to too weak. Some muscles can be too tight at the same time as others are too weak. The result is involuntary movements. This type of cerebral palsy can be so severe that your child cannot sit upright on his own. Athetoid CP does not cause cognitive impairment.

Mixed CP is common and simply means that there are symptoms of more than one type.

The type of CP a child develops and the parts of the body that are affected depend on the area of the brain that is injured. Only about 50% or less of children with CP experience cognitive impairment, but when motor skills are severely impaired, accurate testing of cognitive skills can be very difficult.

If you suspect that your child’s cerebral palsy may be the result of medical malpractice and you live in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area, please contact Golomb & Honik using the form on the left side of the page or call 855-889-5389 today to schedule your free consultation.

Filed Under: Birth Injury, Blog, Medical Malpractice

Shire’s Unlawful Monopoly Directly Harmed Consumers Taking Adderall

10:29 pm by Admin

Adderall manufacturer, Shire Pharmaceuticals, can’t seem to stay out of trouble with the FDA and consumers. In October 2014, the company settled claims of deceptive marketing for more than $56.8 million. The settlement was in response to allegations that Shire inappropriately promoted the sale of Adderall, a drug for ADHD and ADD, by advocating the drug for off-label use—despite lack of clinical data to support those claims. Shire not only stated that competitor’s ADHD medications could not achieve similar results, but also that Adderall XR was “clinically superior to other similar drugs because it would normalize its recipients.” The lawsuit was brought by attorney generals in each U.S. state.

Shire’s Pay-For-Delay Deals

Unfortunately, this settlement may be only the tip of the iceberg as far as Shire’s history of padding profits at the expense of consumers. In 2012, Adderall topped the list of twenty drugs which adversely impacted consumers due to pay-for-delay deals. Pay-for-delay agreements are a form of patent dispute settlement agreements in which a generic manufacturer acknowledges the patent of the original pharmaceutical company. The generic manufacturer then agrees to refrain from marketing the generic for a specific length of time. In return for this agreement, the original pharmaceutical company pays the generic company an agreed-upon sum of money.

Pay-for-delay deals can delay generic drugs for three to five years on average, and, in some cases, as long as nine years. Brand name drugs cost as much as ten times their generic equivalent on average, and sometimes as much as thirty-three times more. The twenty companies listed as biggest offenders have made more than $98 billion in total sales of their drugs while the generic versions were being delayed. Shire inked their pay-for-delay deal in 2006, for a period of three years.

Shire Shifts Gears, Allowing “Authorized Generics”

Once the pay-for-delay deals ran out, Shire changed its tactics, reaching settlements with the same companies they had previously tried to squeeze out of the market. These settlements allowed the generic companies to introduce “authorized generics,” in return for royalty payments made to Shire. Even this, apparently, was not enough for Shire, as the company failed to provide the generic companies with enough product to meet demand, ensuring consumers could not purchase generic versions of Adderall XR. In any case, from 2006 to 2012, Shire maintained their hold on the Adderall market through one tactic or another. Finally, in 2012 and 2013, the first two unauthorized versions of Adderall generics were approved by the FDA.

The FTC has challenged pay-for-delay agreements in court, on the basis they violate United States antitrust laws, which protect consumers by allowing them to purchase cheaper generics of expensive drugs. The Senate has looked at prohibiting the pay-for-delay practices altogether. Shire points to the Hatch Waxman Act of 1984 which, among other provisions, offers a thirty-month stay to drug companies that file suit against generic manufacturers who challenge their patent. The Hatch Waxman Act has become controversial because of companies like Shire who manipulate the system to prevent generics from taking a piece of “their” profits.

Shire Attempting to Introduce a New Version of Adderall XR

When Shire entered into the three-year pay-for-delay deals back in 2006, they wasted no time. The pharmaceutical company developed a new form of Adderall which would last 16 hours, requiring only one dose per day. This drug contained the same active ingredients as Adderall XR, however Shire has run into a few stumbling blocks in obtaining FDA approval of the drug. In April, 2014, it appeared as though Shire’s new ADHD drug would finally be approved, but very recently, the FDA demanded further studies on the drug, particularly as it relates to children. Anti-trust lawsuits have been filed against Shire in Florida, Pennsylvania, and California on behalf of consumers who were unable to purchase generic versions of Adderall XR due to Shire’s delaying tactics.

Contact National Consumer Protection Lawyers

Golomb & Honik is currently seeking individuals to serve as class action representatives in statewide and nationwide anti-trust class action lawsuits against Adderall XR manufacturer, Shire Pharmaceuticals. If you purchased Adderall XR and were forced to pay a higher price because a generic was not available, it is important to contact Golomb & Honik today. We are seeking individuals in Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey who may have been affected. To learn more about your legal options or to schedule a free consultation call Golomb & Honik today at 1-800-355-3300 or 1-215-985-9177 or fill out our confidential Contact Form.

The national consumer protection lawyers at Golomb & Honik have successfully represented individuals in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and throughout the United States.

Filed Under: Blog, Class Action

Six Ridiculous Bank Fees That are Hidden in the Fine Print

9:04 am by Admin

Many consumers are totally unaware of the bank fees they are paying each month. If they are aware, they may feel there is little they can do regarding those fees. In actuality, less than a third of all bank accounts come with no fees at all, and bank accounts with fees will see those fees continue to rise.

The average fee across the nation for an overdraft charge has reached $34 per transaction. In 2013 alone, banks earned $31.8 billion in overdraft charges. 18% of Americans who overdraft say they overdraw because the overdraft policies of their bank are extremely confusing or they were unaware they had overdraft protection.

Unfortunately, overdrafts are simply the tip of the iceberg where bank fees are concerned. Some of the sneakiest charges associate with your bank account include the following:

Minimum balance fees: Most bank accounts will have a minimum balance that you are required to maintain in order to avoid a monthly service charge. Generally speaking, those accounts with a higher interest rate will come with a larger minimum balance requirement. Some banks will waive the monthly service charge for those with frequent, incoming deposits. The fine print of your bank’s services may state a penalty for those who don’t meet the minimum balance requirement or for not receiving direct deposits over the amount of $250.

Overdraft reordered costs: Nearly half of all larger banks “reorder” or “resequence” checking account transactions. This can mean that instead of one overdraft charge for a larger amount, the consumer may be hit with four, five or six overdraft charges for smaller amounts—even though those smaller amounts actually arrived before the large one. Banks claim they engage in reordering simply to ensure the “important” expenses, such as a mortgage payment, go through. In reality they do it to so customers incur greater fees.

Charges for returned mail: If you move and forget to fill out a change-of-address card at your post office, you could end up paying a bank fee of $5 or more. Banks justify this charge by saying if your bank statements are sent back as “return to sender,” the bank is only attempting to prevent you from being a victim of fraud. Consumers who go paperless and receive e-statements can avoid such charges altogether. Most banks actively encourage their customers to go paperless because it saves the bank money in postage.

Paying a fee not to overdraft: Bank America premiered a service in 2014, which promised customers who paid a $4.95 monthly fee, the ability to avoid an overdraft fee. Any time a customer attempts to spend more than the balance in their account, the transaction will be declined. If you choose to opt-in to this type of monthly fee, you are essentially paying the bank for the favor of not lending you money. To avoid overdraft charges altogether—without paying a monthly fee—monitor your account activity meticulously. In particular, pay attention to automatic transfers.

Fees for large deposits: Many banks have begun charging their largest depositors for continually depositing large amounts. This is the exact opposite of a minimum balance charge—and may be completely avoidable. If you are a large depositor, maintain your money in a number of protected, low-expense investments to avoid large deposit fees from your bank.
Charges for early account closure. 2011 saw the occurrence of the Bank Transfer Day in which hundreds of thousands of banking customers closed their accounts and joined credit unions to avoid predatory banking fees. In response, banks added yet another fee—a fee for early closure. This fee can run from $25 to $50.

Consumer Protection Lawyers

If you have experienced an overdraft dispute with your financial institution and are unable to reach a mutually agreeable resolution, it is imperative that you seek legal representation immediately. Contact the national consumer protection lawyers at Golomb & Honik today at 1-800-355-3300 or 1-215-985-9177 or fill out our confidential Contact Form. We have successfully fought credit card companies, banks, and financial institutions and protected consumer rights for decades. Call us today to review your case.

The national consumer protection lawyers at Golomb & Honik have successfully represented individuals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and throughout the United States.

Filed Under: Blog

Takata Defective Airbag President Steps Down

11:03 pm by Admin

The Takata defective airbag debacle has potentially affected more than 7.8 million U.S. vehicles, as automakers scramble to replace frontal air bags on the driver’s and/or passenger’s side. Takata, a major parts supplier, sold the airbags which were installed on vehicles from model year 2002 to 2008. These airbags can deploy in an explosive manner, injuring or even killing the occupants of the vehicle.

According to a Nissan spokesperson, “The propellant could potentially deteriorate over time due to environmental factors, which could lead to over-aggressive combustion in the event of an airbag deployment.” The airbags are particularly susceptible to error in high-humidity areas. When a defective airbag inflates in a crash, metal shards from the airbag may be sprayed throughout the passenger cabin. So far, there have been five fatalities and more than a hundred serious injuries linked to Takata airbags.

Stefan Stocker Steps Down

Very recently, Stefan Stocker, president of Takata stepped down, leaving Takata’s chairman to determine how to respond to the recall of millions of vehicles with defective airbags. Stocker, a Swiss national and Takata’s first foreign president, will remain with the company as a board member. Shigehisa Takada, grandson of the company founder, will retain his title as chairman and step into the role of president, vacated by Stocker. Stocker was hired last year to increase oversight in Takata’s global operations. Takata, owned primarily by the founding family, has been widely criticized for the way it has handled the airbag safety crisis. The company now faces dozens of class action lawsuits, not to mention a U.S. criminal investigation. While there have been nearly 8 million Takata airbags recalled in the U.S., more than 24 million have been recalled worldwide.

Takata’s Agreement, Automakers Response

Takata has agreed to take a 50 percent pay cut for four months in response to the airbag crisis; Stocker and three other senior staff members will also take a cut in pay for those four months, although the details of those pay cuts are sketchy. All the deaths associated with Takata airbags occurred in automobiles manufactured by Honda. General Motors has developed contingency plans to shift their business to other airbag manufacturers should the recall widen. In fact, GM intends to direct Takata to “share” manufacturing details with TRW and Autoliv so that replacement parts made by other airbag manufacturers would work with Takata airbags. According to a December 18^th statement, Ford is adding an additional 447,310 vehicles to the recall, bringing the company in compliance with the NHTSA’s call for a nationwide recall.

Takata’s Response

Takata maintains the aging of the airbags, particularly in regions with high humidity, is to blame for the potentially deadly results. Takata also stated they would increase their production of replacement units at their Monclova, Mexico plant by nearly a third. This increase would result in an output of nearly 450,000 replacement airbags per month. Some automakers, however, are refusing to wait that long to replace the airbags for their customers. Takata’s largest customer, Honda, has already signed a deal with Autoliv to begin manufacturing replacement airbag parts. BMW disclosed Takata would shift airbag production for the automaker’s vehicles to its plant in Germany. The CEO of Nissan declined to comment on Takata’s response to the airbag crisis.

Was Takata Aware of the Flaws in the Airbags?

According to a New York Times report on November 7^th, Takata was fully aware of the potentially deadly defects associated with their airbags years before papers were filed with federal regulators. The Times stated Takata began secretly testing the airbags for flaws more than four years before officials claimed they were testing the airbags. The Times also reported that after three months of testing the airbags in 2004, Takata’s internal research was abruptly halted and all research materials destroyed. It remains to be seen just how widespread the Takata airbag incident really is. To find out whether your car is one of the millions affected, you can go to http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Owners/vin-lookup-sites and enter your car’s VIN number.

Contact National Product Liability Attorneys

Golomb & Honik has filed a class action against the air bag manufacturer Takata Corporation and multiple car manufacturers. If your vehicle’s airbag was recently part of the 14 million Takata airbag recalls, contact defective automobile product attorney at Golomb & Honik immediately. We have extensive experience handing large class action lawsuits and our firm has the resources needed to take large automobile manufacturers to trial. Call us at 1-800-355-3300 or 1-215-985-9177 or fill out our confidential Contact Form.

The national product liability lawyers at Golomb & Honik have successfully represented individuals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and throughout the United States.

Filed Under: Blog, Defective Products, Takata Airbag Recall

Detecting Birth Injuries

10:22 pm by golombhonik1

In some cases, a birth injury can be caused by the natural birthing process. Other times, it is the result of medical negligence on the part of the obstetric professionals. The problem with birth injuries is that some are immediately evident, and others may not be diagnosed until days or even years after your child’s birth.

The types of birth injuries that are most apparent immediately following the birth of your child include:

Lacerations
Forcep marks
Swelling of the scalp
Facial paralysis
Bruises
Fractures
Subconjunctival hemorrhage (ruptures to the tiny blood vessels in your child’s eye)

Sadly, severe injuries like Cerebral Palsy or Erb’s Palsy may not surface until later in your child’s life.

Many potential birth injuries and other serious conditions can be detected with a simple blood test or through an ultrasound. The most common prenatal screening tests look for markers or evidence of the following:

Cystic Fibrosis
Sickle Cell Disease
Tay-Sachs Disease
Canavan’s Disease
Down syndrome
Spina bifida

Your doctors, nurses and obstetricians owe you a certain standard of care. If your baby was born with an injury that could have been prevented or detected through proper screening, you deserve to be fairly compensated. Not because money will necessarily heal your new baby right away, but because their birth injury will likely require extensive and long-term medical care and that is expensive. Your child and your family should not have to struggle because of someone else’s negligence.

If you believe your child has suffered a birth injury, please contact Golomb & Honik using the form on the left side of the page or call 855-889-5389 today to schedule your free medical malpractice consultation. Golomb & Honik serve clients nationwide from our offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Filed Under: Birth Injury, Blog, Medical Malpractice

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Four Connecticut Energy Providers

4:06 pm by golombhonik1

Four Connecticut power companies have been accused of over-charging consumers, and have recently had a class action lawsuit filed against them. The companies are Discount Power, Viridian Energy, North American Power and Direct Energy, and are being charged with deceptive practices. The lawsuit alleges that four power companies made claims in the contracts they entered into with consumers to the effect that the variable power rates will go up and down, depending on the wholesale cost of electricity. Instead, even when the wholesale prices dropped, the power companies continued to charge customers higher kilowatt hour rates—in some cases as much as five times the wholesale price.

Power Companies Offered “Teaser Rates”

Consumers in Connecticut are given a choice of power companies for their home, and many chose to stay with Connecticut Light and Power. Other consumers, who might be having trouble paying their power bills, were lured to other power suppliers who promised lower rates. The suppliers buy and re-sell energy for a profit, but it appears the profits received by the four power companies were much higher than they deserved—at a cost to their consumers.

The lawsuit claims the companies offered what is known as a “teaser rate,” which they put into effect for a few short months. When the teaser rate expired, it automatically shifted to a variable rate, causing the prices to skyrocket. Only one of the power companies involved in the class-action suit responded to requests for comment. A North American Power spokesman stated the lawsuit has no merit and that their company consistently provides written notice to consumers when the variable rate is about to go into effect.

Class-Action Lawsuits against Other Power Companies Filed Earlier

This lawsuit follows closely on the heels of another class action lawsuit filed against Connecticut-based electric company, Starion Energy in the amount of $50 million. The Starion lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of consumers who had been promised significant savings on their energy bills if they switched from the current energy supplier to Starion. After the customers switched companies, they found the rates they were being charged were two to three times the rates they had been quoted.

Starion Energy has a pattern of deceptive sales practices; in early 2014 the Maryland Public Service Commission determined the company had a pattern of misrepresentation toward potential customers. While Starion received a fine, they continued to perpetrate the fraud against consumers, particularly elderly consumers who were having trouble paying their power bills.

De-regulation of the Electric Energy Benefitted Suppliers

Many energy suppliers benefitted when the electric industry was deregulated, and Starion Energy was no exception. Starion has more than 30,000 customers in Connecticut alone, with thousands more in seven additional states, and is one of the fastest-growing energy suppliers in the United States.

The Starion lawsuit was filed in early November and has been given several weeks to respond to allegations. The Starion lawsuit asks for a jury trial, triple the amount of damages, compensatory damages, and an order to stop Starion from perpetrating further deception on consumers.

Hiko Energy, Palmco Power New Jersey, Keil & Sons, and Palmco Energy New Jersey all have similar lawsuits pending against them. The Hiko Energy lawsuit filed by the lawyers at Golomb & Honik, P.C. in particular, claims that consumers were promised a ten percent reduction in monthly bills for the first six months—instead their bills immediately went up. Hiko customers were given no avenue for reaching the company with their complaints, and no way to terminate their contracts.

The recent class action suit against Discount Power, Viridian Energy, North American Power and Direct Energy has not been answered by the power companies, and many consumers are anxiously awaiting just how the companies will justify the increases in monthly bills.

Contact National Consumer Protection Lawyers

If your electricity rates have increased suddenly after switching to a different service provider, you may have cause to file a claim. The lawyers at Golomb & Honik are actively litigating consumer complaints of rate spikes by deceptive and fraudulent electric companies. For a free review of your case, call the Pennsylvania consumer protection lawyers at Golomb & Honik today at 1-800-355-3300 or 1-215-985-9177 or fill out our confidential Contact Form.

The consumer protection lawyers at Golomb & Honik have successfully represented individuals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and throughout the United States.

Filed Under: Blog, Class Action

215.985.9177 | 855.889.5389

1515 Market Street , Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102