Philadelphia Product Recall Law Firm

Unsafe Drugs and Products

$3.75 Billion Dollar Settlement in National Diet Drug Settlement Case. Sol Weiss started a nine week long trial in Middlesex County, New Jersey seeking medical monitoring screening benefits for New Jersey residents. The case was eventually stayed when Sol and other attorneys negotiated a $3.75 billion dollar settlement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. David Jacoby assisted in the New Jersey State Court Trial.

$114.5 Million Settlement for Baycol Pharmaceutical Cases.  Sol Weiss earned a $68.5 million dollar settlement for 168 people seriously injured by the statin drug Baycol. Sol negotiated the settlement with Bayer, which withdrew the medication from the market in 2001.  Barry Hill negotiated another $46 million in Baycol settlements with Bayer for a separate group of clients.

900 Individual Diet Drug Victims Settle Lawsuits. Sol Weiss, along with David Jacoby, negotiated a confidential settlement for 900 individual diet drug lawsuits on behalf of clients from seven law firms in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Wyeth v. Levine: A Monumental Victory for Consumers. In a 6-3 decision March 4, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Wyeth v. Levin that, in the absence of express congressional intent, drug manufacturers could not use the federal preemption defense to escape liability for harm caused by their products.

Surace v. Caterpillar, Inc., 111 F.2d 1039 (3d Cir. 1997). Court Must Focus on Manufacturer's Conduct Rather than Victim's Actions in Product Liability Cases. Sol Weiss successfully argued that the fact finder must focus on the manufacturer's conduct rather than the victim's actions in a products liability case. Rarely should a jury should consider a victim's actions in such product liability cases.

Pacheco v. Coasts Company, Inc, Mark J. LeWinter established precedent for imposition of liability against a manufacturer of a tire changing machine where the plaintiff agreed that the product did not initiate the chain of events leading to the injury. The concept of “crashworthiness” in automotive product liability cases was thereby amplified in this important product liability case which Mr. LeWinter obtained a $ 325,000 verdict and successfully argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit which affirmed the decision of the Federal District Court.

$1.75 million dollar settlement for forklift driver paralyzed in forklift mishap. Joel Feldman and Paul Anapol represented a 31-year old man who received a $1.75 million dollar settlement in a paralysis case. The plaintiff was seated in a forklift when the boom from another forklift struck the rear of his seat and propelled him upward into an overhead metal bar, breaking his neck and paralyzing him from the waist down. Joel and Paul contended that had the forklift been equipped with flashing lights, backup beepers, alarms or other safety devices, the accident could have been prevented.

2.7 Million Dollar Verdict for Hand Amputation Case. Mark J. LeWinter was awarded a verdict of 2.7 million dollars in a case where a 50 year old machine operator was attempting to clear a jam on a piece of industrial machinery called a “panel cutter”. The worker suffered the amputation of his hand through the center of his palm when the cutting mechanism of the machine cycled and his hand was inadvertently in the path of the cutting blade. Mr LeWinter was successful in light of the removal of a barrier guard by the employer which if in place would have prevented the accident. It was argued that the removal of the guard was foreseeable as there was no interlock which would have prevented movement of the blade if the guard was removed. The case was settled for the verdict amount within 6 weeks of the verdict.

$3.75 Million Dollar Settlement in Fatal Fire Lawsuit
Mark LeWinter obtained a $3.75 million dollar settlement for the surviving members of a family who lost a mother and three sisters in an October 1998 fire in Levittown. A company manufacturing baseboard heaters was held liable for their product including a heater that lacked certain features that would decrease the likelihood of short-circuiting. The company did not adhere to adequate inspection protocols prior to its distribution. Click here to read more on this case.

CALL TODAY 866.735.2792