(844) 815-9632

appeal

Fair Housing Act Protects LGBT Couples

The Fair Housing Act, passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, protects renters and home buyers from a variety of discrimination based on everything from sex, race, and national origin to religion, marriage status, and pregnancy. But until Wednesday of this week, no court had extended those protections to include lesbian, gay, or transgender people. That all changed when a federal court in Denver ruled that sex discrimination under the Fair Housing Act includes discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation, including discrimination motivated by outdated stereotypes about how men and women should act and with whom they should romantically partner. Judicial Protection Rachel Smith, a transgender woman, and her wife Tonya Smith attempted to rent a townhouse for themselves and their two children in Boulder, Colorado, but were denied, according to their lawsuit, because the landlord did not approve of their "unique relationship." In a ruling their lawyer believes is the first of its kind, the court found that LGBT renters are protected from such discrimination under federal law. "This is the first case under the Fair Housing Act dealing with gender identity where there's been liability found for discrimination based on stereotypes," Omar Gonzalez-Pagan told the Washington Post. "It demonstrates the importance of bringing these cases. Housing discrimination is a significant unreported problem" for LGBT people. Judicial Reasoning The district court's ruling mirrored one issued a day earlier by the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. There, the court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Both courts found that sexual stereotyping is a form of sex discrimination, and therefore illegal under federal statutes that bar discrimination based on "sex." In doing so, the courts relied on a 1989 Supreme Court case holding that male partners and managers discriminated against a female employee when they said she needed to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry" in order to advance. In the Smith's case, U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore wrote, "Such stereotypical norms are no different from other stereotypes associated with women, such as the way she should dress or act (e.g., that a woman should not be overly aggressive, or should not act macho), and are products of sex stereotyping." Such sexual stereotyping is illegal under federal law, and therefore the landlord's refusal to rent to the Smith's based on their relationship violated the Fair Housing Act. Related Resources: Find Landlord-Tenant Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory) Can Landlords Discriminate Against Unmarried Couples? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) Housing Discrimination for LGBT Couples (FindLaw's Learn About the Law) Understanding Your Rights: Housing Discrimination (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
continue reading

Federal Court: Civil Rights Act Protects Gay, Lesbian Workers From Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination against employees based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Because it was enacted in 1964, many have wondered whether gay and lesbian workers were also protected under the law. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals answered that question this week, ruling that Title VII protects employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The court reasoned that the statute's ban on sex discrimination also prohibited sexual orientation discrimination because, among other reasons, the discrimination is based on outdated gender stereotypes. Here's a look: Stereotypical Discrimination The plaintiff in the case, Kimberly Hively, contends that she was passed over for full-time employment at Ivy Tech Community College because she is lesbian. Her central claim, as it pertains to Title VII, is that this discrimination was based on her sex or gender -- that, had she been a man, she would not have been discriminated against for being sexually attracted to women. And the majority found it persuasive: Viewed through the lens of the gender non-conformity line of cases, Hively represents the ultimate case of failure to conform to the female stereotype (at least as understood in a place such as modern America, which views heterosexuality as the norm and other forms of sexuality as exceptional): she is not heterosexual ... Hively's claim is no different from the claims brought by women who were rejected for jobs in traditionally male workplaces, such as fire departments, construction, and policing. The employers in those cases were policing the boundaries of what jobs or behaviors they found acceptable for a woman (or in some cases, for a man). Essentially, Hivey was still discriminated against based on her sex in that she did not conform to stereotypes about female sexual orientation. A Definitive Decision? The court's decision is groundbreaking. Until now, the majority of courts interpreting Title VII have held that it did not cover discrimination based solely on sexual orientation. While the Second Circuit found that sexual-orientation discrimination wasn't explicitly prohibited by Title VII, it recently found that gay workers who were subject to gender stereotyping still had the right bring sex discrimination claims. The Supreme Court has yet to decide the issue, but may need to soon, giving the disagreement between circuits. For now, the Seventh Circuit's ruling applies only to its own jurisdiction: Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Related Resources: Find Employment Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory) Seventh Circuit Holds That Title VII Forbids Anti-Gay Job Discrimination (The Washington Post) LGBT Worker Protections Missing in Mississippi and Most States (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) 5 Signs of Employment Discrimination (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
continue reading

So You Married a Criminal? 3 Legal Tips

While accidentally marrying a criminal sounds more like the subject of TV drama (or comedy) than a real life occurrence, it does happen in real life. Unfortunately, even when a person marries a criminal on accident, there could be real life consequences. Most often, legal consequences for uninvolved spouses stem from organized, or white-collar, criminal activities. For instance, spouses that agree to put things in their names, or sign checks, or take other relatively passive roles, can find themselves looking at actual jail time. Alternatively, spouses that merely reap the financial benefits, completely passively, without being involved at all, can usually expect to minimally have those benefits seized and forfeited. Here are three legal tips on what to do if you accidentally marry a criminal: 1. Annulment May Be Possible If you were tricked into the marriage, you may be able to qualify for an annulment based upon fraud. Unlike a divorce, an annulment will dissolve a marriage and treat it like it never happened. There may be some complicated issues when it comes to separating joint property, but it could potentially protect an innocent spouse from liability. State laws differ about how and when a person will qualify for an annulment, but generally state laws require a showing that the innocent spouse materially relied on a significant misrepresentation in agreeing to marry. If an annulment isn't possible, divorce or legal separation can be pursued. 2. Consult and Retain an Independent Attorney So long as you are not actively involved in the criminal enterprise, you can consult with an attorney on how to keep on the right side of the law. Depending on your situation, this may involve legal separation, divorce, annulment, or maybe not. If you get involved with the criminal enterprise, an attorney will not be able to assist you in continuing to break the law, but may be able to help keep you out of trouble if you are arrested. It is also important to retain your own attorney, rather than rely on joint representation, particularly for a spouse that is not actively engaged. 3. Maintain Separate Accounts Maintaining sufficient separation of financial accounts may not be possible if the criminal enterprise is the sole source of income. However, if there are premarital assets, or you earn legitimate income, these should be maintained separately and diligently tracked. In the event that a criminal prosecution occurs against the criminal spouse, depending on the jurisdiction, being able to trace separate legitimate income may be what prevents it from being seized by the authorities. Related Resources: Find Family Law Attorneys Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory) 5 Potential Ways to Get an Annulment (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) What Is the Spousal or Marital Privilege? (FindLaw Blotter) How Marriage Annulments Differ from Divorces and the Grounds for Obtaining a Marriage Annulment (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
continue reading

Georgia Judge Who Blocked Transgender Name Changes Overruled by Appeals Court

When Rebecca Elizabeth Feldhaus and Delphine Renee Baumert attempted to legally change their names -- to Rowan Elijah Feldhaus and Andrew Norman Baumert, respectively -- they were told by a Georgia judge that their choices weren't gender-neutral enough to suit his taste. "I do not approve of changing names from male to female -- male names to obvious female names, and vice versa," Columbia County Superior Court Judge J. David Roper, said in denying Feldhaus's request. "I think it is misleading to the public and think that it is dangerous in some circumstances for one -- for the public not to know whether they're dealing with a male or a female." But an appeals court has ruled that Judge Roper abused his discretion in denying the name change petitions, and ordered that the changes be granted. Names You Can Live With Both Feldhaus and Baumert were born female but identify as male. Under Georgia law, if a person follows the proper procedure to petition for a name change, "there is nothing in the law prohibiting a person from taking or assuming another name, so long as he does not assume a name for the purpose of defrauding other persons through a mistake of identity." And in rejecting Feldhaus and Baumert's petitions, he wrote that "[n]ame changes which allow a person to assume the role of a person of the opposite sex are, in effect, a type of fraud on the general public," and that "third parties should not have to contend with the quandary, predicament, and dilemma of a person who presents as a male, but who has an obviously female name, and vice versa." Roper also said that name changes that were not to more gender-neutral names "offend the sensibilities and mores of a substantial portion of the citizens of this state." When it came to Baumert's request, Roper suggested several names he said he "can live with," including Morgan, Shannon, Shaun and Jaimie, and when Baumert rejected those options, Roper denied his petition. Sound Legal Discretion In a terse opinion, the Fourth Division Court of Appeals overruled Roper's decisions, reiterating that "a trial court's conclusions about any person's 'confusion' or 'embarrassment' was 'not a valid basis for denying' a petition for a name change," and that the only basis for denying a petition for a name change was evidence that "showed that the petitioner was acting under an 'improper motive,' such as intentionally assuming another person's name for the purpose of embarrassing that person or avoiding the petitioner's own criminal past." Absent that evidence, the appeals court ruled, Roper should not have denied the name change requests. Name and gender change petitions are becoming more common in courts, even if some judges remain resistant. If you need help with a name change or a gender change petition, or if yours has been denied, contact an experienced civil rights attorney in your area. Related Resources: Find Civil Rights Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory) Oregon Residents Can Be 'Agender' as Well as 'Non-Binary' (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) DMV Sued by Transgender Woman Over Privacy (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) Can Parents Block Children's Gender Transitions? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
continue reading

Christina Swarns argues racial bias before U.S. Supreme Court

Christina Swarns, director of Litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc. argued Buck v. Davis before the United States Supreme Court in October of this year. Buck is a case which involved the Fifth Circuit’s denial of a Certificate of Appealability (COA) to a Texas death row inmate on his death sentence appeal based on the argument that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for knowingly presenting a defense expert who testified that Buck’s identity as a black man increased the likelihood of his future dangerousness (likeliness of future dangerousness is a factor used in Texas courts to justify the death penalty over life in prison). It of course defies all logic why Buck’s counsel would have called a witness to provide this testimony, but such illogical and self-destructive tactics lay at the heart of Buck’s ineffective counsel argument. What made the denial of the COA so egregious was that the state of Texas had, in 2000, released a statement indicating that it would not object to death penalty appeals made on the basis of this exact expert’s testimony (notably, all of the other appeals had been based on the prosecution’s use of the “expert,” making the defense’s use of the expert all the more bewildering). Yet, during the argument before the Supreme Court the Solicitor General for Texas tried to distinguish that assurance between cases where the State called the expert versus when the defense had called the expert. That argument didn’t appear to be persuasive, as having your own attorney introduce such racially charged and damaging evidence would certainly seem to support an ineffective assistance of counsel argument. By all accounts the Justices seemed inclined to rule in Buck’s favor, with even Justice Alito commenting that the use of the testimony was “indefensible.” While the arguments and pending decision in Buck are highly relevant to those who work in the defense bar, what was also highly notable about Swarns’ argument in Buck was that it was one of very few occasions that a black woman has argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. Over the history of this country, those attorneys arguing before the Supreme Court have usually been white and usually been men. But this once highly exclusive club is changing, albeit slowly. Diversity in the highest court both on and in front of the bench continues to be an aspirational goal, and Swarns’ argument in October is a great step forward. Christina Swarns is an inspiring example to all female attorneys and attorneys of color desiring to help in the cause of justice. Swarns started out at the Legal Aid Society in Manhattan, and then began dedicating herself to death-penalty work at the capital unit of the Philadelphia Federal Community Defender’s Office. She later joined the Legal Defense Fund, first as Director of the Criminal Justice Project in 2003. In 2014, Swarms became the organization’s Director of Litigation. Swarns is considered a national expert on death penalty and race and speaks throughout the country on the issue. She was profiled in an ABA article titled Lady of Last Chance as well as in the Washington Post. In 2014, Christina was selected by the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School to be an Honorary Fellow in Residence, an honor given to an attorney who makes “significant contributions to the ends of justice at the cost of great personal risk and sacrifice.” Christina Swarns is an attorney whose ongoing dedication to living out a commitment to public service on behalf of defendants makes her a true champion of justice. The post Christina Swarns argues racial bias before U.S. Supreme Court appeared first on Women Criminal Defense Attorneys.
continue reading

Supreme Court to Decide Which Bathroom Trans High School Student Can Use

Last week, the Supreme Court announced that they will be taking up the case of Gavin Grimm, the high school student who has been told he can't use the boys' restroom because he is transgender. The case will be heard at some point next year, as the Court has only accepted to hear the case at this point. When a case is appealed to the Supreme Court, one party to a case is asking the Court to review a Federal Appeals Court's decision. The Supreme Court is asked to review thousands of cases each year, and only selects about 80 to review. Although Gavin won the last appeal, the Supreme Court ordered that the appeals court's decision not go into effect until they decide to reject the case or after they decide the case. The Case of Gavin Grimm Gavin's case was forced upon him. When he started high school as a freshman, he initially used the unisex/single stall restroom in the nurse's office. However, it was the only single stall in the building and Gavin did not feel like he could solely use that restroom as it was the only one. When he requested that he be allowed to use the regular boys' bathroom, the school approved his request. However, when some other students' parents learned that Gavin was using the regular boys' bathroom, they petitioned the district to stop Gavin, and won. But Gavin didn't stop fighting for his rights as a transgender student. Gavin challenged the school district in court and on appeal, Gavin won. After the appeal, but before the Supreme Court announced that they would weigh in, the Department of Education, with the Department of Justice, issued formal guidance on how public schools should handle any policy relating to sex segregation and gender identity. Basically, both agencies state that Gavin, and other trans students, should be able to use the bathroom that conforms with their gender identity, regardless of how they are identified in legal documents. Trans Bathrooms: Separate Is Not Equal For the purposes of Title IX, which applies to schools that receive federal funding, a student's gender identity is their sex, and Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex. Soon, the Supreme Court will weigh in and may provide some judicial certainty to this politically divisive question. Related Resources: Find an Attorney Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory) Transgender Bathroom Laws in Public Schools: A National Overview (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) California's Gender Neutral Bathroom Bill (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) Primer for Parents and Students on Transgender Bathrooms in Schools (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) Do I Need a Lawyer for a Gender Change? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
continue reading

Why Voter Fraud Doesn’t Matter, but Allegations of Rigged Elections Do

A lot of accusations get tossed around come election time, and this year has been no exception. Some are old -- accusations of voter fraud have been thrown around for at least a decade and have spawned strict state voter ID statutes. Some are new -- few candidates, if any, have claimed outright that an election is rigged and refused to say they will accept the results of an election if they lose. Both claims sound serious, striking at the heart of our democracy. But the negative effects of one of these charges have been disproven, while the consequences of the other may be right around the corner. The (Mostly) Myth of Voter Fraud The claim goes something like this: unscrupulous voters could register to vote in more than one place, vote in districts where they don't live, vote more than once, or provide false information to election officials. And as Justin Levitt noted in the Washington Times, this can be a real concern: "This sort of misdirection is pretty common, actually. Election fraud happens ... Or vote buying. Or coercion. Or fake registration forms. Or voting from the wrong address. Or ballot box stuffing by officials in on the scam." And then there's pretending to be someone else at the polls, which Levitt describes as a "clunky way to steal an election." Levitt began tracking allegations of voter fraud, and looked at "general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014," a data set containing at least 1 billion ballots. And in all, found just 31 specific, credible allegations of voter fraud at the polls. To put that number in context, all 31 of those votes would not have been enough to swing the state of Florida for Al Gore in the 2000 election. As Senator Cory Booker, D-N.J., put it, "You're more likely to get struck by lightning in Texas than to find any kind of voter fraud." The Very Real Voter ID Law Response In response to allegations of voter fraud -- or for more sinister reasons that courts have touched on below -- some states began passing voter ID laws requiring voters to present some form of identification at the polls in order to cast a ballot. Voter ID laws can vary from state to state, from strict photo ID requirements in some states to no ID requirement at all in others. In general, courts have upheld these requirements. In 2008, the Supreme Court looked at Indiana's ID law that required a person to present a U.S. or Indiana ID in order to cast a ballot. (Voters without a photo ID could cast a provisional ballot, and had to visit a designated government office within 10 days with a photo ID or a signed statement saying they cannot afford one in order to have their votes counted.) The Court found the law constitutional, even though the state failed to produce any evidence of the kind of fraud the law was passed to prohibit. But some courts have started to push back on overly restrictive ID laws. The federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently struck down North Carolina's voter identification requirement, but for reasons that may be unique to the state. Along with requiring photo ID in order to vote, the North Carolina law also abolished same-day voter registration and ended preregistration. But it wasn't just the text of the law that the court had a problem with -- it was the context: ... the General Assembly enacted [the laws] in the immediate aftermath of unprecedented African American voter participation in a state with a troubled racial history and racially polarized voting. The district court clearly erred in ignoring or dismissing this historical background evidence, all of which supports a finding of discriminatory intent. Because the law was passed with discriminatory intent, the court ruled it invalid. Given the near absence of any in-person voter fraud, it's fair to wonder whether these voter ID laws accomplish the goal of preventing fraud, and, if not, what they actually do prevent. Critics of the laws point to a disparate impact on minority and senior voters -- those less likely to have an ID -- and many believe voter ID laws were passed with that purpose in mind. The Fourth Circuit felt the same in its opinion on North Carolina's ID law: "Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices" the court noted. The state's General Assembly then acted on that data in multiple ways, "all of which disproportionately affected African Americans." The Dangerous Allegation of Election Rigging Since August, Donald Trump has been suggesting that the "election is going to be rigged." And the type of fraud he's alleging -- "People are going to walk in and they're going to vote 10 times, maybe, who knows?" -- is exactly the kind that voter ID laws are intended to stop and the kind that happens just 31 times in fourteen years. But the fact that an election can't be rigged or could not effectively be swayed in the way Trump imagines doesn't make his claims any less serious. The legitimacy of any representative democracy is the belief that the government officials selected to represent the people were chosen fairly, and that their presence in government is the will of their constituency. To suggest a rigged election, or a corrupt election process, is to undermine that legitimacy. Absent the legitimacy of elected officials, the laws they enact and represent also lose their legitimacy. And, according to recent psychological studies, the perceived legitimacy of law effects whether people follow it or not: ... people who respond to the moral appropriateness of different laws may (for example) use drugs or engage in illegal sexual practices, feeling that these crimes are not immoral, but at the same time will refrain from stealing. Similarly, if they regard legal authorities as more legitimate, they are less likely to break any laws, for they will believe that they ought to follow all of them, regardless of the potential for punishment. Delegitimizing the election's process and results can have dangerous consequences, both during and after the election. ...
continue reading

Sandy Hook Victims’ Families’ Lawsuit Dismissed Against Gun Maker

Recently, a Connecticut judge dismissed the lawsuit brought by the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre against the gun manufacturer of the weapon used for the killings. Pursuant to a 2005 act signed into law by George W. Bush, the Protection of Lawful Commerce of Arms Act (PLCAA), the case was dismissed as the judge ruled the gun manufacturer could not be held liable. Under the PLCAA, a gun manufacturer or dealer cannot be held liable for how a gun is used if the gun was sold legally. The families of the victims based their lawsuit on a theory of negligent entrustment, which is one of the few exceptions to the PLCAA. Gun Manufacturers and Dealers Are Immune The PLCAA protects gun manufacturers and dealers from liability for how their guns are used so long as the sale of the weapon was lawful. In the Sandy Hook case, the shooter did not purchase the weapon, but rather obtained it from his mother, whom he killed. As such, making the argument that the dealer was negligent by entrusting the weapon to the killer just does not work as neither dealer, nor manufacturer, had any interaction with the actual killer. The judge in the matter also explained that the 2005 PLCAA intended to give gun dealers and manufacturers broad immunity. A Never-Ending Battle The attorney for the families has pledged to file an appeal and continue fighting. While the fight may seem futile, especially given the PLCAA broad protections for gun dealers and manufacturers, the attorneys and victims’ families believe very strongly that the gun manufacturer should be held liable. As part of their negligent entrustment theory, they claimed that the manufacturer and dealer were negligent by entrusting anyone with the weapon as it is designed to kill people. The manufacturer denies that claim, and convinced a court that the PLCAA prevents them from being liable at all. As a counterpoint, gun groups view this lawsuit very differently. They point out that the AR-15 rifle, which was the one used in Sandy Hook, is one of the most common rifles sold in America, and that it is not an automatic assault rifle, despite the aggressive, militarized look. Additionally, pro-gun groups argue that the PLCAA protections are reasonable, and that the person who pulls the trigger, not the company that makes the trigger, should be liable. Related Resources: Injured by a gun? Get matched with a local attorney. (Consumer Injury) Chemical Spill in Kansas Hospitalizes Over 100 People (FindLaw’s Injured) When to Sue a Chiropractor for Injury (FindLaw’s Injured) Is Apple Liable for Distracted Driving Accidents? (FindLaw’s Injured)
continue reading

5 Controversial Medical Treatments Still Used Today

It's easy to look back at medieval medical practices and wonder how they ever thought it would work. Theories about the four bodily humors may seem quaint in retrospect, but given the way medical knowledge and technology evolves, it's almost certain future generations will look back at medicine in our time and similarly wonder what we were thinking. So which controversial medical treatments are still in practice? Here's a look at a few. 1. Removing Part of the Skull to Relieve Pressure in the Brain As WebMD notes, a craniectomy for patients suffering from brain swelling can save a person's life, but also leave them permanently disabled. A recent study found that the procedure "can drastically reduce risk of death, with about 30 percent of patients dying following the procedure compared to 52 percent of those treated with standard medical care," but at the same time, "people treated with a craniectomy were three times more likely to wind up in a vegetative state ... and often were as likely to suffer long-term disabilities as patients receiving standard medical care." 2. Chiropractic Treatments It's a running theme -- among non-chiropractors of course -- that chiropractors aren't medical doctors. And as a recent Pain Science article noted, "The concepts of chiropractic are not based on solid science and its therapeutic value has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt." Which is not to say chiropractic treatments don't work, just that their scientific basis hasn't been established. 3. Electroshock Therapy Ernest Hemingway blamed it for his memory loss and diminishing writing ability late in his life. According to Live Science, "Today, the therapy is safer, because patients receive anesthesia and electricity doses are much more controlled ... Still, the treatment can impair short-term memory and, in rare cases, cause heart problems." 4. Leech Therapy If you thought doctors stopped applying leeches to patients in the dark ages, think again. Heathline notes that leech therapy is making a comeback, treating "nervous system abnormalities, dental problems, skin diseases, and infections." Even Demi Moore thinks so. 5. Maggot Therapy Battlefield surgeons first started to notice that injured soldiers would heal more quickly in the field if flies laid eggs in their wounds. Later studies revealed that fly larvae "secrete digestive enzymes that can dissolve the wound's dead and infected tissue, a process known as debridement." Even though the FDA cleared maggots for medical use in 2004, it doesn't sound all that appealing. If you have been injured by a medical procedure, you may be able to seek compensation through a medical malpractice claim. Contact a personal injury lawyer today to find out if you have a case. Related Resources: Have an injury claim? Get matched with a local attorney. (Consumer Injury) 5 Signs You May Need a Medical Malpractice Attorney (FindLaw's Injured) Should Doctors Have to Tell Patients If They're on Probation? (FindLaw's Injured) Can You Sue a Doctor for Lying? (FindLaw's Injured)
continue reading

States Sue Johnson & Johnson for Pelvic Mesh Dangers

Health care giant Johnson and Johnson was sued this week by the attorneys general of California and Washington for misrepresenting the risks of vaginal mesh implants, causing severe complications for thousands of women. The company responded by calling the lawsuits unjustified. But the devices were recently reclassified as high-risk by the Food and Drug Administration and there are already product liability lawsuits against the company for injury from them. Let’s consider the claims. Why This Device? Pelvic organ prolapse describes a condition of shifting organs on the pelvic floor. It can happen to women after childbirth, a hysterectomy or menopause, and the vaginal mesh devices are used to treat the condition. The mesh is also used to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI) as described ably by an appellate court in a product liability case last year: SUI is the involuntary loss of urine when the bladder is put under stress such as from sneezing, coughing, laughing, or exercising. Using a … curved needle, a surgeon pulls the [mesh] tape through incisions in the anterior wall of a woman’s vagina … form[ing] a hammock underneath the urethra to help prevent the leakage of urine. After reports of thousands of injuries from this insertion, however, the FDA now considers these devices dangerous and is scrutinizing them more closely. Meanwhile, the states are closing in on Johnson and Johnson. The Lawsuits California and Washington sued on behalf of thousands of women who they say were injured by the Johnson and Johnson devices, seeking penalties and an end to advertising of the vaginal mesh. The states were part of a national investigation, led by the California attorney general. According to the lawsuit filed in California, Johnson and Johnson and its Ethicon unit falsely marketed the devices as a safe and superior alternative to non-mesh treatments for pelvic floor disorders, despite knowing that they could cause pain, bleeding, loss of sexual function and other side effects. “Johnson & Johnson put millions of women at risk of severe health problems by failing to provide critical information to doctors and patients about its surgical mesh products,” California Attorney General Kamala Harris said in a statement. Injured? If you have been injured by a vaginal mesh, or due to any other defective product, talk to a lawyer. Many attorneys consult for free or a minimal fee and will be happy to hear your story. Related Resources: Injured by a pelvic mesh or defective device? Get your claim reviewed for free. (Consumer Injury) What Is Product Liability? (FindLaw’s Learn About the Law) Legal Basis for Liability in Product Cases (FindLaw’s Learn About the Law) Product Liability Law FAQ (FindLaw’s Learn About the Law)
continue reading