888-ITS-LEGAL (888-487-5342) questions@advocatelawgroup.com
Baby Orajel Lawsuits Implicate Oral Benzocaine in Dangerous Condition

Baby Orajel Lawsuits Implicate Oral Benzocaine in Dangerous Condition

GET A FREE CONSULTATION Call Us at Advocate Law Group: 888-ITS-LEGAL (888-487-5342) Call Now! Offices: Northern California 2330 Marinship Way, Suite 120Post Office Box 835Sausalito, California 94966-0835 Southern California 3857 Birch St, Suite 627Newport Beach, California 92660   Baby Orajel Lawsuits Implicate Oral Benzocaine in Dangerous Condition The pharmaceutical company Church & Dwight markets a line of Orajel products for mouth pain such as cold sores and canker sores. Until recently, Church & Dwight’s product line included oral pain relievers marketed to parents of teething babies. The company announced that it would stop distributing Baby Orajel products in response to a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) threat to ban those products because of the risk that the active ingredient — benzocaine — poses to babies. The FDA acted after receiving hundreds of reports of patients developing a serious disease following their use of oral benzocaine. The disease is methemoglobinemia, a condition that reduces oxygen in the blood supply. Babies are particularly susceptible to the disease. “Blue baby syndrome” is often caused by methemoglobinemia. Parents whose babies experienced cyanosis (skin that turns blue or gray) or other symptoms of methemoglobinemia after using an Orajel product should seek legal advice from a law firm that handles claims against drug companies. Many parents have started or joined lawsuits to recover compensation for harm suffered by their babies and infants after they used Baby Orajel for teething pain. FDA Warns Parents Not to Use Medication for Teething Pain According to the FDA, no medication helps children cope with teething pain. Teething is a normal part of growth. While parents hate to see their...
Gadolinium Deposition Disease Risk from MRI Contrast Agent

Gadolinium Deposition Disease Risk from MRI Contrast Agent

GET A FREE CONSULTATION Call Us at Advocate Law Group: 888-ITS-LEGAL (888-487-5342) Call Now! Offices: Northern California 2330 Marinship Way, Suite 120 Post Office Box 835 Sausalito, California 94966-0835 Southern California 3857 Birch St, Suite 627 Newport Beach, California 92660   Gadolinium Deposition Disease Risk from MRI Contrast Agent   Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become a standard diagnostic tool. Radiologists who administer an MRI sometimes use gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) to improve the quality of the image. Many members of the international medical community agree that some GBCAs can have long-term effects on the body and brain. The risk that patients will develop gadolinium deposition disease (GDD) is one of the most serious potential consequences of using GBCAs to perform an MRI. Advocate Law Group Offering Free Gadolinium Case Reviews What Is Gadolinium? Gadolinium is a heavy metal. Like other heavy metals, including arsenic and mercury, it can be toxic, even at low levels. Gadolinium blocks the movement of calcium into certain muscle cells and harms bodily functions that depend upon an influx of calcium ions. Introducing gadolinium alone into the human body could expose patients to serious health risks. To minimize the risk of harm, doctors use a GBCA that is designed to shield the body from gadolinium by chemically binding it to chemical compounds known as chelating agents. Why Are GBCAs Used in MRIs? Doctors use X-rays to detect broken bones, but an X-ray does not provide a detailed view of the body’s tissues and organs. An MRI, like a PET scan and an ultrasound, allows physicians to get a better look at tissues and organs...
Talcum Powder Lawsuits Filed by Women Who Developed Ovarian Cancer

Talcum Powder Lawsuits Filed by Women Who Developed Ovarian Cancer

More than 1,000 women with ovarian cancer have sued manufacturers of talcum powder and baby powder after learning of the association between those products and their disease. Juries have awarded substantial compensation to cancer victims who were not warned about the risk.