children-football-banner

Banning Football to Tackle Children’s safety

It is well-established that football causes C.T.E. a devastating injury responsible for dementia, and even death.  See last week’s note, “Football Settlement Excludes Players”. The NFL has even created a billion-dollar fund to pay the claims of players who suffer from CTE as a result of playing football.

And yet, the pipeline is full:  Hundreds of thousand of high school players want to play college football;  many of those seek a career playing football professionally.  Each of those athletes will have to decide if the risk is worth it; whether the significant risk of irreversible brain jury is outweighed by the minute chance of playing football in the NFL.    They, at least, are adults, capable of making their own decisions.

But who will protect children from the brain injuries associated with tackle football?  Who speaks for them?

One New York State assemblyman, at least, is trying.  On January 24, 2018, the New York Times reported on the efforts of New York Sate Assemblyman Michael Benedetto to ban tackle football for children. K. Belson, “New York Legislator Renews Effort to Bar Tackle Football for Children,” NY Times, January 24, 2018. 

It is unlikely that the bill will pass – it doesn’t even have co-sponsor in the State Senate. Yet it is worth doing.  Since he first introduced the bill in 2013, the link between repeated trauma to the head, from football, and C.T.E. has gotten stronger.  “I firmly believe that when we see evidence of the danger to children, we need to act on that,” Benedetto said. “There are laws that you need to use a car seat, wear a bicycle helmet. It’s the same principle.”

Tackle football is a big problem for children for three reasons.  First, the link between tackle football and C.T.E. is now well-established.  Second, lots of kids are at risk:  The article reports that over one million boys play high school football.  And finally, children have a particular risk for C.T.E.: “Doctors note that head hits absorbed by young players are more damaging because their brains are not fully developed, and are less capable of fully repairing themselves. Younger players also have weaker neck muscles, and therefore are less capable of bracing for impact and supporting the weight of a football helmet.”

Fortunately, there is a safer alternative to tackle football, and it is growing:  Flag football.  “[T]he N.F.L., USA Football and other organizations have also begun promoting flag football as a safer alternative for children interested in the game. Flag football participation rates have risen sharply.”

As the article notes, other sports have taken steps to prevent or minimize the likelihood of head trauma to child-athletes.  Because of it’s unique characteristics, though, tackle football remains very dangerous to children.  Because there is a good alternative, in the form of flag football, it is difficult to see who could oppose this effort to protect children from entirely unnecessary, entirely preventable traumatic brain injuries. Perhaps the pendulum will continue to swing in favor of protecting children from injuries of this sort.

hip replacement

The Medical Device Nightmare

Medical devices – artificial hips, etc. – are poorly regulated, and patients who receive them can suffer devastating consequences. A recent New York Times article sheds some light on this shocking industry: Lenzer, J. “Can Your Hip Replacement Kill You?” New York Times, January 13, 2018. The article includes a horrifying anecdote about a physician who received a metal-on-metal artificial hip called the ASR XL, made by Johnson & Johnson. Five years later, the patient had the artificial hip removed, because he was in excruciating pain. Here’s what his surgeon found:

When the surgeon sliced into his hip, what he saw looked like a crankcase full of dirty oil. Tissue surrounding the hip was black. Cobalt leaking from the ASR hip had caused a condition called metallosis, destroying not only local muscle, tendons and ligaments, but harming [the patient’s] heart and brain as well.

This, sadly, is not an isolated occurrence. Despite warnings that the artificial hips ere harming patients, Johnson & Johnson continued to sell the ASR XL model for years, and later sold another similar model, the Pinnacle, until 2013.

9000 patients have now sued Johnson & Johnson for the injuries and losses caused by the hip implants and for failing to warn doctors and patients about its dangers. Recently, a group of six plaintiffs won a verdict of $247 million dollars against Johnson & Johnson for injuries caused by the Pinnacle model.

The numbers are enormous. As the author notes, “about 32 million Americans — or about one in 10 — have at least one medical device implanted, from artificial joints to cardiac stents, surgical mesh, pacemakers, defibrillators, nerve stimulators, replacement lenses in eyes, heart valves and birth control devices.”

It is certainly true that many of these devices have helped many, many patients. But – there are also significant problems. As the article notes:

Medical interventions are now the third-leading cause of death in the United States, and devices play an increasing role in that statistic.

Many people assume that the Food and Drug Administration requires rigorous testing of medical devices before they are approved, the same as the lengthy approval process it requires for new drugs. In fact, most high-risk devices on the market, including implants, have undergone no clinical testing at all.

It’s not just artificial hips, either. “In October 2007, Medtronic, a leading medical device manufacturer, recalled the lead wires in its Sprint Fidelis defibrillator after they were found to fracture and misfire, harming or even killing patients. . . . After the recall, many patients rushed to have the devices removed, but removal posed its own dangers, causing major complications in 15 percent of patients.”

The number of medical devices, which have been recalled, has risen over the least several years, from 8 in 2003, to 117 in 2016. And these are not minor recalls either – these are recalls of Class 1 devices, which the F.D.A. defines as indicating “a reasonable probability” that a device will “cause serious adverse health consequences or death.”

You might think that better governmental oversight and regulation would help ensure the safety of new medical implants and devices.

Yet the Trump administration’s picks to lead the Department of Health and Human Services and the F.D.A. are advocates of deregulation, which they insist will speed the march of “lifesaving” devices to market. This presumes that such speed and innovation is actually lifesaving or life-enhancing. The number of device-related deaths shows how dangerous that presumption is.

The tort system, which lets injured patients sue the manufacturers of dangerous and defective medical devices is – so far, at least – one remedy. Still, prevention is better, and stronger oversight and testing of medical devices might prevent injury to tens of thousands of Americans.

arbitration

Removing the Veil of Secrecy

On December 19th, 2017, the New York Times reported that Microsoft has “eliminated forced arbitration agreements with employees who make sexual harassment claims and was also supporting a proposed federal law that would widely ban such agreements.” (Wingfield, N. and Silver-Greenberg, J., “Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims,” NY Times, December 19, 2017).

Why is this important? This makes Microsoft the most prominent company to take steps to “end legal agreements that have been criticized for helping to perpetuate sexual abuse in the workplace. Forced arbitration lets companies keep harassment and discrimination claims out of court, effectively cloaking them from public view and, in some cases, allowing serial harassers to continue their conduct for years.” (emphasis added).

Too many companies require their employees to agree to mandatory, and binding arbitration as a condition of employment. In fact, “according to the Economic Policy Institute, more than half of American workers are bound by arbitration clauses.” Now, however, the tide may be turning, at least as it pertains to harassment claims.

As the Times reports, “this month, a bipartisan group of senators, including Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, and Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, proposed legislation that would make forced arbitration in harassment cases unenforceable under federal law.”

“Ms. Gillibrand said that getting rid of the arbitration agreements would benefit employers in the long run. ‘Without the secrecy of mandatory arbitration agreements, serial predators will be less likely to continue climbing the corporate ladder and employees won’t be forced to stay quiet about the harassment they have faced at work, which is good for employees and good for business,’ she said in a statement.”

This is also important because studies have shown that mandatory arbitration clauses result in unfair treatment of employees. As the Times notes:

By using the arbitration clauses to bar people from joining together as a group, employers — both large and small — have effectively taken away one of the few tools that workers have to fight harassment or discrimination. . . In arbitration, the rules tilt heavily in favor of businesses, employment experts said. Part of the problem is that instead of judges, cases are decided by arbitrators who sometimes consider the companies that routinely bring them business their clients, according to interviews with arbitrators.

The more often companies head to arbitration, the better their chances of winning the case, according to the conclusion of a 2011 analysis by Alexander J. S. Colvin, a professor at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

Microsoft’s decision to eliminate this mandatory arbitration clause in sexual harassment claims is an important first step. Let us hope that other companies follow Microsoft’s lead.

car-dealers

What victims of sexual assault can learn from car dealers.

Recently, Kevin Webb, a former dealership service manager wrote a fascinating letter to to Automotive News.  It is so startling that it is worth quoting the first four paragraphs, in full:

With the recent downfall of many media people, including Charlie Rose, maybe the entertainment industry could use a lesson from car dealers.  In my 20-plus years in automotive dealership management, the transition from old boys’ club to today was swift and without mercy.

And it was pretty simple:  Dealerships started getting sued.

Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, dealership employers found themselves in court, defending themselves and stores against accusation of unacceptable behavior.

This brought awareness of the issue industrywide and new training programs that showed all employees that the behavior, the suggestions and even girlie calendars in the shop would no longer be tolerated.  All areas of the dealership have been affected, and that’s a great thing.1 (Emphasis added).

And Mr. Webb is onto something.  Those who have been harmed by sexual assault have recently begun speaking out, much more openly, more publicly than ever before.  And that is a good thing.  But there is another, additional remedy; another way to hold the assailants accountable – sue ‘em.  That is, take them to court in a tort lawsuit, seeking damages for the harms that their actions have caused.  This sort of action has two other consequences as well, in addition to whatever monetary recovery the injured victim might receive.  First, the details of the harmful conduct will become public record, part of the trial, and so, open to press and the public.  The attackers will no longer be able to hide behind the shield of confidentiality.

And secondarily, as Webb suggests, one or two significant jury verdicts will send a strong message of deterrence to other would-be assailants, and put them on notice that they, too, can and will be held accountable.

Moreover, because the rules of evidence, and the strength of cross-examination come into play in the courtroom, fraudulent, spurious, or exaggerated claims would be sifted out.

This is not a partisan issue, not republican, nor democratic.  It is not even, necessarily a gender-linked issue. It is rather a powerful tool for victims of assault to hold their attackers to account, and force them to pay for the harms that they have caused.

If you want to change behavior, change the whole culture, and not merely ostracize sexual predators – take ‘em to court.


1 Webb, K., “Hollywood Should Follow Dealers’ Lead,” Letter to the Editor, Automotive News, December 4, 2017

Equif*cked

Equif*cked

Why All Americans Need the Tort System, And Accountability for Wrongdoing.

The news that up to 143 million Americans’ private data and personal information has been hacked is shocking.  What is worse are the details.  And what is still worse, are corporate efforts to avoid being held accountable for the damage that this catastrophic breach has caused, and may continue to cause.

Here’s what we know:  Equifax is a credit checking company that collects and holds sensitive personal information: social security numbers, credit card numbers, and other personal data, for tens of millions of Americans.  On July 29th, Equifax learned that it had been hacked, and that the sensitive personal information of up to 143 million Americans had been compromised – stolen, and was now available to hackers. This was a major, major security breach.

Shockingly, it was not until September 7th, that Equifax notified the world that it had been hacked; five weeks before Equifax filed an 8-K.  (This is a governmental filing meant to inform investors of a material event, in this case the loss of private and confidential information of 140 million Americans).  This delay is unfathomable and unacceptable.  The hackers who stole the information had five whole weeks to make use of it, before the government was even notified.

And, to make matters worse, the Congress is considering a bill that would shield companies like Equifax from being held accountable for credit reporting abuses.  Representative Barry Loudermilk, who is a Republican congressman from Georgia, has proposed H.R. 2359, a bill that would favor credit companies like Equifax over harmed consumers. In a press release calling for Congressman Loudermilk to withdraw the bill, representatives for the National Association of Consumer Advocates noted that the bill

would amend the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act to essentially shield credit reporting agencies from full accountability for willful and reckless conduct that upends individuals’ employment and financial lives.

     Specifically, the ‘FCRA Liability Harmonization Act’ would eliminate punitive damages, a tool used to punish the worst actors, and would impose an arbitrary $500,000 limit on statutory and actual damages in class actions. These illogical blocks on consumer remedies would obstruct individuals’ legal rights.

Equifax has set up a website where consumers can go to learn if they have been hacked, but as consumer advocates have noted, use of the website may lock injured parties out of the courthouse, since Equifax has

inserted forced arbitration clauses in the terms and conditions of various credit monitoring services that it is encouraging affected consumers to enroll in.

     “Equifax’s use of forced arbitration clauses and class action bans means that consumers cannot band together in court to seek remedies against it,” said Liz Coyle, executive director of Georgia Watch.  “This is unacceptable and will have disastrous effects on the marketplace.”

This is why we have a system of civil justice; where we can go to trial in a court of law, before a jury of our peers, and obtain full justice; where we have the right to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable, in the same way that a drunk driver should be held accountable.

Are you one of the 143 million Americans at risk of identity theft because of this breach?  What are you going to do about it?

What You Can Do

Here are several things you can do to protect your rights:

consumer-law-header

Defending the Rights of Consumers

The New York Times published an important and excellent Op-Ed on Tuesday, August 22, written by Richard Cordray, the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The article, “Let Consumers Sue Companies” highlights an important issue for protection of consumer rights – that is, of your rights.

Cordray lays out the issue succinctly:

Companies have the choice of taking legal action together. Yet consumers are frequently blocked from exercising the same legal right when they believe that companies have wronged them.

That’s because many contracts for products like credit cards and bank accounts have mandatory arbitration clauses that prevent consumers from joining group lawsuits, forcing them to go it alone. For example, a group lawsuit against Wells Fargo for secretly opening phony bank accounts was blocked by arbitration clauses that pushed individual consumers into closed-door proceedings.

This is an important issue, for this reason. Many contracts between a consumer and a giant corporation include two provisions that effectively lock consumers out of the courtroom, even in clear cases of injustice. The first, provides that in any dispute between the consumer and the corporation must be resolved by arbitration, rather than by going to court. The second provides that consumers can’t band to together with other consumers, even if they have suffered the identical wrong.

Why is this a problem? Here is Cordray’s answer:

Almost nobody spends time or money fighting a small fee on their own. As one judge noted, “only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.” When a bank charges illegal fees to millions of customers and then blocks them from suing together, a result is not millions of individual claims, but zero. So the bank gets to pocket millions in ill-gotten gains.

Predictably, lobbyists for corporate interests have “unleashed attacks to overturn the rule, and the House just passed legislation to that end.” Cordray, however, rebuts each of the attacks, as follows:

First, opponents claim that plaintiffs are better served by acting individually than by joining a group lawsuit. This claim is not supported by facts or common sense. Our study contained revealing data on the results of group lawsuits and individual actions. We found that group lawsuits get more money back to more people. In five years of group lawsuits, we tallied an average of $220 million paid to 6.8 million consumers per year. Yet in the arbitration cases we studied, on average, 16 people per year recovered less than $100,000 total.

[The] rule does not ban individual arbitration, as our opponents falsely claim. It simply ensures that consumers have the option of joining together to sue companies. Companies and consumers can still use arbitration to resolve their differences, but companies cannot unilaterally block group lawsuits.

Opponents also claim that the rule benefits lawyers rather than consumers. In reality, lawyers collect a small portion compared with consumers, and only if they succeed. For every $10 that a company pays out for wrongdoing, we found about $8 goes to consumers and $2 goes to pay legal costs. In any event, banks choose to hire lawyers to file class-action lawsuits, and ordinary people deserve to make the same choice.

Finally, this rule does not risk the safety or soundness of the banking system. We estimate the potential costs of this rule for the entire financial system at under $1 billion per year, whereas banks alone made $171 billion in profits last year. The law already bans mandatory arbitration clauses in financial contracts for military service members and in mortgages (the largest consumer financial market), yet the financial sector remains strong.

Cordray makes an additional point, and this one, too, is important. The proposed rule allowing consumers to band together to fight corporate wrongdoing, not only benefits the wronged individuals – it also deters continuing wrongful conduct. As Cordray puts it,

Not only do group lawsuits help consumers recover money they otherwise would forfeit, but they also protect many more consumers by halting and deterring harmful behavior. For example, when banks reordered bank debits to charge more overdraft fees, consumers sued and recovered $1 billion. Most banks have since stopped the practice.

His conclusion should be required reading for everyone who believes in our American system of civil justice:

In truth, by blocking group lawsuits, mandatory arbitration clauses eliminate a powerful means to get justice when a little harm happens to a lot of people. It is the height of hypocrisy for companies to say they’re helping consumers by closing off the very same legal option they use when they’ve been wronged.

A cherished tenet of our justice system is that nobody should escape accountability for breaking the law. Our rule restores consumers’ legal right to stand up for themselves and have their day in court without having to wait on the government to act. That is an idea everyone should support.

The article may be found at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/let-consumers-sue-companies.html, although it may be hidden behind a paywall.

What You Can Do

Here are several things you can do to protect your rights:

Join Public Citizen. Go to https://www.citizen.org.
Support Public Justice. https://www.publicjustice.net
Subscribe to the Museum’s mailing list to receive other news and articles like this.


If you think that this was useful, helpful and informative, please donate $5.00 to support our work.

bad-doctor-banner

When Your Doctor Breaks You

When people who have had profoundly serious wrongs inflicted on them sue, they are suing for money. But the fact is that they don’t want money. What they want, more than anything in the world, is a time machine. They want to be put back to one minute before their spouse was killed by the drunk driver; one hour before their daughter was paralyzed by a careless surgeon; or one day before they were poisoned by a toxic product.

But we don’t have time machines. All we have, is money, to try to help broken people put the shattered piece of the lives back together. It is a system that has worked for centuries, based on jury verdicts.

Generally speaking, the money used to compensate someone who has been wrongfully injured falls into two categories: Economic help, for things like medical bills and lost income or wages; and Non-economic compensation, to make up for what has been lost, or taken, or broken. Take the case of a little girl paralyzed by her surgeon. Totally paralyzed from the chest down. Permanently. Which loss would be greater – economic or non-economic? Well, her medical bills, although big, would not be enormous – she is paralyzed after all. Not much more can be done for her. And she’s a bright little girl, and can use her arms, so she’ll be able to work – no significant lost future income. But what about the non-economic losses? Money for things like pain, suffering, that sort of thing? What does that mean in her case?

Well, it means that the little girl will never play soccer with her playmates; never dance at her high school prom; never walk down the aisle to get married; never give birth to children; never walk down a beach holding hands with her beloved. And you should see her try to turn over in bed at night.

The non-economic damages in a case like that are huge. Her life – everything that makes sweet, and wonderful, and fun, has been broken – permanently, for the rest of her life.

Predictably, the House of Representatives has just passed a bill that would limit how much money the little girl, and others like her, could receive for those non-economic losses, from bad, or careless, or negligent doctors. H.R. 1215, with the Orwellian name “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017” would limit those amounts that that little girl, or anyone else – everyone else – could get from a bad doctor, to $250,000. Does that seem fair to you? That the most seriously injured people are the ones who get limited justice?

And here’s something else – under the Republican Bill, the jury can’t be told about this cap. In the case of our little girl, a jury, under the supervision of a judge, might return of verdict of 10 million dollars. That is a verdict from an impartial jury, which has heard all the evidence, and reflects the community’s sense of fair compensation for the little girl’s injuries. The jurors would (mistakenly) think that they have served both the cause of justice, and the parties, fairly. But only then, after the trial is all over and the jury goes home, would the judge, hands tied by a remote legislative directive, reduce the verdict. Doesn’t it seem particularly cruel to force the family to go through the trial, learn what the jury’s verdict would have been, only to watch the judge reduce it? Does that seem fair to you? Why do a group of Republican representatives in Washington think that they know more about justice than a local jury which hears all the evidence? And why the secrecy – Why do the Republican want to hide this from the jury? And, for that matter, what about the Constitutional right of trial by jury?

Study after study has shown that medical malpractice lawsuits have a very minimal impact on the costs of healthcare, so the stated purpose for this bill – “reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system,” is false.

Our system of civil justice is based on two pillars: trial by jury, and holding wrongdoers accountable. Why would the Republicans want to protect bad doctors at the expense of the most severely injured? Why would they limit just, full, and fair compensation for the profoundly injured? Is that what you would want for your little girl?

law-education-header

Tort Law, the Wall Street Journal, and the Urgent need for Public Education.

When even the Wall Street Journal says that “We Won’t See You in Court: The Era of Tort Lawsuits Is Waning,” you know that you’ve got a problem.

In a recent front Page article the Wall Street Journal noted two completely incongruous facts: 

  1. The number of lawsuits is dwindling, from 10 lawsuits per 1,000 people in 1993, to 2 lawsuits per 1,000 people today: 

Fewer than two in 1,000 people—the alleged victims of inattentive motorists, medical malpractice, faulty products and other civil wrongs—filed tort lawsuits in 2015, an analysis of the latest available data collected by the National Center for State Courts shows. That is down sharply from 1993, when about 10 in 1,000 Americans filed such suits.

Tort cases declined from 16% of civil filings in state courts in 1993 to about 4% in 2015, a difference of more than 1.7 million cases nationwide, according to an analysis of annual reports from the National Center for State Courts.

Tort lawsuits now account for less than 5% of all civil filings in state courts.


That is the reality. 

But the perception is completely different:

  1. “An election-night poll last November by Public Opinion Strategies showed that 87% of voters agreed that there are ‘too many lawsuits filed in America.’”

And the Journal said publicly what has long been known:  This decline is lawsuits is the result of “a long campaign by businesses to turn public opinion against plaintiffs and their lawyers.”

It seems to be working.  Americans with garden-variety cases no longer see courts as an affordable way to seek redress for their injuries. 

The slump in tort filings coincides with dwindling membership in some state trial-lawyer associations. It follows a decades-long public-relations campaign highlighting wrongdoing by trial lawyers. Stephen Daniels, a research professor at the American Bar Foundation who co-wrote the Texas study, says advocates of lawsuit restrictions have succeeded in making many tort cases economically impossible for trial lawyers to bring.

Worse still, the opponents of access to the courts, and the civil justice system are still not done. Despite the evidence of many fewer lawsuits, the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is quoted as “saying that while state measures have ‘weeded out some frivolous lawsuits,’ litigation abuse remains a problem. ‘The American public wholeheartedly agrees there are too many lawsuits in the country,’ she says.”

This is simply not true.  And as a result, many thousands of grievously injured people never get compensation; and wrongdoers get away with it.  They are never held accountable, and so are free to continue injuring others.  Trial by jury and tort are the most powerful weapons of the weak – together they let individuals hold any wrongdoer accountable.  This is a system that works, and must be preserved.

This article is very bad news.  It is bad to watch the erosion of the tort system; worse to watch the erosion of the court system; and worst of all to watch the erosion of American faith in our system of civil justice.

This is why there is such an urgent need to expand public education about how trial by jury really works, and how tort law benefits all of us. 

This is why the American Museum of Tort Law exists. 

Thank you.

Rick Newman, Esq.
Executive Director
American Museum of Tort Law
860-379-0505

blm-header

Black Lives matter! Blue lives matter! All lives matter!

In the past few years there has been much attention paid to controversial cases where police have used (or misused) force to subdue people, and the people have died, or been severely injured as a result.

Are these cases of excessive force? Are the police themselves criminals? Should the police be liable for committing tortious acts?

The Center for Justice and Democracy has just released an interesting and timely fact sheet – “Fact Sheet: Civil Lawsuits Lead to Better Safer Law Enforcement,” that shows that suing the police for acts of violence leads to better policing. The fact sheet contains a number of cases where “[lawsuits have] had a direct and positive impact on law enforcement, with settlements in individual cases leading to better training, safer policies and overall better practices.”

It is a good example of the ways that the tort system, and trial by jury benefits, not merely for the injured victim, but all of us. Unfortunately, as the fact sheet points out, “each case would be essentially barred by current legislation in Congress that would make it nearly impossible to sue the police, no matter how severe the constitutional violation.”

The article may be found here: https://centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-civil-lawsuits-lead-better-safer-law-enforcement.

It is well worth reading.

A history of dangerous devices

The American Association for Justice (AAJ) has just released a new report detailing how women have been disproportionately harmed by dangerous and unsafe drugs and medical devices: “FROM ACCUTANE TO ZONITE: A HISTORY OF DANGEROUS DRUGS & DEVICES MARKETED TO WOMEN,”

It is a long, fascinating, and shocking story. Did you know, for example, that it wasn’t until 1993 that legislation was passed requiring that women be included in biomedical research studies? And this was true even though “women take more medications than men, respond differently to them, and are more likely to suffer adverse drug events.”

The list of horrors is long: Thalidomide, the Dalkon Shield, DES, Vaginal mesh, and on and on. Again and again women in particular have been victimized by the pharmaceutical and medical products industries.

The report’s conclusion rings out, and should be shared widely:

Our current laws provide little incentive for the manufacturers of many of these products to keep them out of medicine cabinets and out of women’s bodies. In almost every case profiled here, the reports of death and serious injury have not forced manufacturers to take their dangerous products off the market; the civil justice system has. It is critical to the health of all Americans – not just women – that the ability to hold pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers accountable when their products cause harm be upheld.

The article may be downloaded from the AAJ site, at https://www.justice.org/news/new-aaj-report-examines-history-women’s-exposure-dangerous-drugs-and-devices.

It is well worth reading.