Obesity is one serious health problem that can increase the risk of heart attack, hypertension, stroke, diabetes, and certain types of cancer; and records from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey reveal that 35.7 percent (more than one-third) of U.S. adults suffer from this unfavorable condition.
For many years the various options to shed off extra pounds have been strict diet, regular exercise, dietary herbal supplements, weight-loss pills or, if choosing to resort to medical means, then through bariatric surgery (which is removal of parts of the small intestines and stomach through surgery) or gastric banding (the surgical implanting of an inflatable silicone device around the stomach’s top portion to make a person eat less as well as prolong the time for the digestion of food).
Diet and exercise required very strict discipline, weight-loss pills were linked to adverse events and the two surgical procedures presented possible serious side-effects, besides failing to ensure long term effects. The lack of, and the dire need for, an easier, more effective and safe means to shed off a substantial amount of unwanted fats, which could also ensure long-lasting results, were major reasons that made the introduction of the two new diet pills Qsymia (pronounced kyoo-sim-EE-uh) and Belviq (pronounced BEL-VEEK) an excellent news for those suffering from obesity in the US.
The oral prescription drugs Qsymia and Belviq were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2012. Belviq (lorcaserin hydrochloride), a serotonin 2C receptor agonist, is manufactured by Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc. The FDA approved it in June 2012 to serve as a therapy prescription for long-term weight loss; it should be taken in combination with a healthy diet and exercise program.
Qsymia (formerly Qnexa), on the other hand, is a diet pill that combines two FDA-approved drugs: phentermine and (the extended-release formulation of) Topamax or topiramate. It is manufactured by the California pharmaceutical company Vivus, Inc. Qsymia was approved for chronic weight management, as an adjunct to increased physical activity and a reduced-calorie diet.
Both prescription drugs are intended to treat chronic weight problems in adults who are obese (that is, those who have a Body Mass Index or BMI of, at least, 30) or overweight (with a 27 or greater BMI) and suffering from type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure (hypertension), high cholesterol, or any weight-related condition.
Despite the delays in the further conduction of clinical trials that will determine the actual level of safety or danger associated with using Qsymia or Belviq cases of dangerous side-effects, with disturbing frequency, are already being reported.
According to an article in the website of Williams Kherkher, some of the serious harms that Qsymia and Belviq can cause are cardiovascular damage, depression, language problems, attention difficulties and memory loss.
Vision impairment, suicidal thoughts and actions, and increased heart rate, are also being linked to Qsymia, while those taking Belviq have also complained of valvular heart disease, serotonin syndrome or NMS-like reactions, slow heartbeat, hematological changes, low blood sugar (hypoglycemia), painful erections and prolactin elevation.
Williams Kherkher advises those whose health have been affected due to their use of either Qsymia or Belviq to contact a lawyer who has extensive knowledge on both drugs and their side-effects. His expertise on the issue is sure to benefit those harmed by either of the drug by helping them look into their personal cases for the possibility of claiming damages for any harm they are made to suffer.
Generic drug makers have it good; they ride on the research, development and marketing done by other companies to (once the patent has expired) manufacture drugs that already have a proven market without spending a single red cent. Sure, they can sell the drug at a much lower cost, making it more accessible to the public, but then again they had no pre- and post-manufacturing costs to recover. Overall, they make a good if not great profit over it.
In addition, they are protected by a recent court decision against product liability suits because they didn’t make up the formula; they only duplicated it. Because the brand-name drug had already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and being a federal agency preempts state laws on product liability, these generic drug makers are held in no way responsible when the drug is found to be dangerous beyond what is already known.
An example would be Boniva, the brand name for the osteoporosis drug ibandronate, which was recently approved by the FDA for generic versions to be released. There are ongoing product liability cases against Roche, Boniva’s developer and manufacturer, for undisclosed side effects which includes but not limited to osteonecrosis of the jaw, also known as “dead jaw.”It would seem logical that if generic drug makers benefit from selling ibandronate, they should share part of the liability if a plaintiff suffers injury from a generic version of Boniva.
Despite the court decision protecting generic drug makers, patients who suffer from the side effects from using generic versions of ibandronate would still be well advised to consult with an experienced pharmaceutical defect lawyer and file a lawsuit as soon as possible. In this way, if the court’s decision is ever reversed or amended in the future, the complaint would still be on record and the statute of limitations would no longer apply.
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill affected thousands of people and business in 5 states. Predictably, British Petroleum (BP) is currently engaged in legal tussles for one thing or the other, particularly about the issue of the validity of some claims for business economic settlement, even as the courts denied BP’s request to stop claims payments while appeals are ongoing. Legal experts speculate that BP will find it increasingly difficult to get the ear of the Supreme Court as arguments over the case become repetitive.
At the very least, the Medical Benefits Settlement has finally been set an effective date (February 12, 2014) more than two years after the settlement conditions and terms were approved. The earliest 100 filers with small claims have already received payouts, and the claims administration is turning its eyes on filers for the last half of 2013. Successful claimants are eligible for payouts as well as regular medical checkups for 21 years. Individuals who have become ill or injured because of exposure to oil residue and the dispersants used in the cleanup but have not yet filed a claim may do so up to February 13, 2015. Claimants who have been denied may link up with a BP claim appeal lawyer with experience in dealing with the oil giant.
According to the website of law firm Williams Kherkher, BP has systematically denied 75% of claims made to them, and has recently closed down the internal claims program designed to benefit those who opt out of various settlement programs already in place. Appealing a denied claim with BP requires specialized knowledge of the process, and can be difficult for a layperson to follow. To avoid risking getting nothing, a BP claim appeal necessitates the intervention of a knowledgeable and experienced BP claim appeal lawyer.
Birth is a traumatic experience for both the mother and child. There was a time not so long ago when it was toss up whether the mother or the child or both will survive the experience. Thanks to modern prenatal care, medical techniques and surgical methods, most pregnant mothers look forward to the event with little anticipation of anything going wrong, and are often fit to go home within a couple of days after.
However, even with these advantages, there is room for error. According to the World Health Organization, more than 280,000 women worldwide die from childbirth, while 20 times that number suffers some injury or infection. Most of these are attributed to poor or inaccessible health care before, during, and after childbirth, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that in the US, 590,000 women suffered childbirth complications over an 11 year period, and some may have recourse to a Kankakee personal injury lawyer. This is attributed to pre-existing health conditions, lifestyle, and poor prenatal care, but some can be attributed to medical error. The CDC also reports that six infants die out of every 1,000 live births in the US, mostly pre-term, while 3.1% of all births will result in some type of injury.
But even perfectly healthy mothers and full-term babies can still run into trouble during delivery. Two independent studies on the causes of these birth injuries for both normal and cesarean delivery identified incorrect or unsuccessful use of forceps and vacuums during delivery as having the highest incidence. Resulting injuries include damage to the head that is thought to be causative of later development of cerebral palsy. A Baltimore cerebral palsy lawyer will have the resources to dig deeper into the medical records to determine causation.
Medical errors that cause birth injuries such as cerebral palsy signify negligence on the part of the physician. If your child has cerebral palsy or other traumatic injury acquired during birth, you have the right to sue for damages to cover medical expenses, life-care, and the physical, psychological and emotional effects to the child. Consult with a medical malpractice lawyer as soon as you realize that your child has been irreparably injured.
Recent cases of secondary asbestos exposure, so-called “take home” asbestos lawsuits define under what circumstances a defendant can be held liable for asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma. It turns out that premises owners cannot be held liable for secondary exposure to asbestos, at least in California.
In general, it is a given that provided an employer was aware or should have been aware of the health dangers posed by asbestos exposure to employees, contractors, and invitees at the time of the exposure, the employer or property owner can be sued for compensation in a premises liability suit. Such exposure has to be proven to be sufficient to reasonably indicate causation, but that should not be a difficult undertaking for an experienced asbestos lawyer.
However, California courts will rule for the defendant if the plaintiff alleges that his or her asbestos-related disease was contracted due to contact with clothing of a family member who had been exposed to the fibers. The property owner is said to have no duty of care to those who are exposed in a secondary manner because such exposure was not foreseeable, and that there is no relationship between the property owner and the plaintiff.
On the other hand, if the take home exposure is a result of primary exposure to a product containing asbestos, the manufacturer, distributor or seller may be named in a product liability lawsuit because they are “in the chain of commerce.” The manufacturer, especially, is said to have a more far-reaching duty of care than a property owner. For example, if a furnace maker uses insulation that contains asbestos, and one its furnaces causes an employee’s family member to develop mesothelioma through take home exposure, the furnace maker can be named by a Los Angeles personal injury lawyer as a defendant as well as the insulation manufacturer, and possibly the furnace seller.
If you had no direct contact with asbestos but develop asbestos-related diseases, you may be able to get compensation. Consult with a personal injury lawyer with a deep understanding of state laws regarding take home exposure to asbestos to determine what kind of case can be filed.
Texas is home to more than 26 million Americans, which is 8.4% of the total US population in 2013. It sprawls over 267,339 square miles or 7.4% of the total land area, twice as big as Germany. Those are big numbers, but then (almost) everything is big in Texas.
The population is mostly young, about 62% between the ages of 18 and 65. Among those over 65 (about 2.9 million), about 3% live in nursing homes. That’s about 87,000 people that depend on healthcare professionals to look after their medical needs and well-being. Unfortunately for about one-third of these residents, they are likely to become victims of either nursing home abuse or neglect. Texas is ranked as the top state for substandard nursing home care, and this is attributed to the fact that nursing homes are facing a constant shortage of qualified and trained staff. This is not an excuse that a Texas nursing home abuse lawyer will be likely to accept as, shortage or not, nursing homes and their staff still owe a duty of care to their residents.
But not all statistics for family legal concerns are so bad in Texas. In terms of divorce rates, about 11 out of a 1,000 residents go through divorce every year, which is about average across the 50 states. Still, divorce is always an iffy situation especially when it comes to child custody and division of property. Texas is a community property state, which can lead to bitter disputes over who gets what. With regard to child custody, the default position of the courts is for the parents to have joint custody or conservatorship, but this is not always possible. The Woodlands divorce lawyer can make it go smoother by acting as the conduit to neutralize hostilities when disputes arise, but the processing time for a divorce decree is at least 240 days or about 8 months, longer when the divorce is contested.
The general definition of obstruction is to prevent or impede, and in criminal law, it refers to interference in the judicial system, administration of courts, or law enforcement. This encompasses a very broad spectrum in criminal law, and an individual can be charged with obstruction for a great many reasons.
The term “obstruction of justice” is likewise very broad, and in the federal level this includes not only lying to an investigator but also concealing or destroying evidence. On the state level, however, the terms and specifics may differ. In New York, for instance, it is “obstruction of public servants generally” which includes officers of the court, law enforcement, even animals such as police dogs and horses.
In Wisconsin, however, the term “obstruction of justice” refers specifically to knowingly lying to an officer of the court which includes court reporters, judges, bailiffs, and district attorneys. It is a Class I felony and carries a maximum penalty of 3 years and 6 months in prison and/or a fine of $10,000.
Lying to a law enforcement officer, on the other hand, is referred to as “resisting or obstructing an officer” and is a Class A misdemeanor (maximum of 9 months in prison and/or $10,000 fine), Class H felony (maximum of 6 years in prison and/or $10,000 fine) felony if it results in a false conviction or causes bodily harm to the officer, or a Class G felony (maximum of 10 years in prison and/or $25,000 fine) if it causes grievous bodily harm to the officer. Milwaukee criminal defense lawyers would definitely know the letter of state law, which would be essential in constructing a viable defense against an obstruction charge.
Obstruction of justice is a serious transgression, a fact that many well-meaning people do not realize when they lie such as providing a false alibi to protect a loved one or conceal damaging facts. If you are facing obstruction charges, waste no time in engaging an experienced criminal defense lawyer practicing in the state to represent you.