by

In October 2010, JP Morgan Chase announced that the company would be temporarily suspending certain foreclosure processes following the discovery that court documents were not being properly reviewed by third party personnel. JP Morgan Chase had allocated some of its foreclosure verification processes to third party foreclosure companies. However, JP Morgan determined that the personnel at the third party companies were not reviewing or properly notarizing foreclosure affidavits before signing off on them.

Consequently, two lawsuits have been filed against JP Morgan Chase regarding their methods for managing foreclosures. The lawsuits were specifically filed against Washington Mutual Bank and JPMorgan Chase & Co in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and against Chase Home Finance in California state court.

The allegations in the lawsuit are common law fraud and misrepresentation, as well as violations of state consumer fraud statutes. It is not known who filed the lawsuits at this time. JP Morgan also indicated that the company is being sued for mortgage backed securities by other companies, such as Charles Schwab and Cambridge Place Investment Management. For this reason, class action status seems appropriate to some.

Continue reading

by

Hostility, irritability and aggressive behavior are the serious side effects that are still being reported by parents whose children take Singular.   This comes as no surprise to the U.S Food and Drug Administration because in March of 2008 the agency reexamined the safety of Singular and required new labeling to disclose the risks associated with the drug for adults and children, including:

  • Anxiousness
  • Depression
Continue reading

by

A year ago, it was difficult to know who to sue for the health issues and property damage caused by defective Chinese Dry Wall located in homes across the U.S. Recently, a $2.6 million verdict came back in favor of seven Virginia homeowners who were adversely affected by Chinese Dry Wall. This verdict lays the foundation for thousands of others to receive financial compensation for the injuries they have sustained because of the dry wall. The Chinese Dry Wall lawsuit claims are being overseen by a federal judge in New Orleans. This is considered multidistrict litigation (MDL), but you can contact a local attorney if you feel you have been injured by Chinese Dry Wall.

If you have experienced serious respiratory infections, sinus infections, rashes, hair loss, hospitalization or irreparable damage to your home’s air conditioning unit, heating unit, electricity or plumbing, your damages may be linked to Chinese Dry Wall. It is not uncommon for all household members to become ill from Chinese Dry Wall.

People who live in homes with Chinese Dry Wall should evacuate because of the risk of toxicity and unknown long term side effects. There is also no viable means to remedy Chinese Dry Wall toxicity and damage, making the financial loss for property very high.  It is also unknown how Chinese Dry Wall will affect the groundwater supply in areas that have homes built with this type of dry wall.

Continue reading

by

On November 18, 2010, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will meet in Durham North Carolina to decide if all states’, including Indiana, DePuy ASR Hip Implant lawsuits should be heard in one court.  This outcome is the result of the high number of lawsuits that are being brought against the company, estimated at 4000 to date and thousands more expected because consumers who have this hip implant are still learning about the risks.

The DePuy ASR Hip Implant was recalled by the FDA following a report by the National Joint Registry of England and Wales which demonstrated that 1 out of every 8 patients who received the DePuy ASR Hip Implant had undergone revision surgery within a five year time period after the initial placement of the implant. Typically, a hip implant should be long lasting, at least 15 years.  Revision hip surgery is real surgery that is very invasive, requires a significant recover time period and is associated with risks. There has also been an additional warning about metal on metal hip implants, such as the DePuy ASR Hip Implant, which can cast metal particles into the body, causing soft tissue damage and inflammatory responses that may lead to bone loss.

People who have filed lawsuits are those who have undergone revision hip surgery or are concerned about the increased risks associated with the hip implant. Approximately, 93,000 DePuy ASR Hip Implants were distributed throughout the U.S.

Continue reading

by

In order to safeguard against misunderstandings and medical malpractice lawsuits, physicians and surgeons must have discussions and secure agreements about treatment with people that they are interested in receiving treatment.  These discussions and agreements are part of the informed consent process that every physician and surgeon must provide to a patient when undergoing care. Physicians and surgeons use several tools to enforce informed consent communication. These tools include visual props to help people understand information about the proposed treatment, risks associated with the treatment, skill required to compensate for complications, and alternatives to the procedure. These tools may also include: video tapes, DVD’s and informational websites.

Legal Consent

Legal consent to treatment is evident in the document entitled Informed Consent that you sign at your physician’s office before undergoing treatment. Physicians also document in your chart that you understand and have agreed to the procedure. In the case of medication distribution, you will be advised to read the product label which outlines risks associated with the drug. You will also have a discussion with your pharmacist about the medication when it is dispensed to you.

Continue reading

by

The crux of the Duke Energy Corp scandal surrounds the company’s $2.8 billion power plant located in Southern Indiana.  Michael Reed, president of Indiana operations, and Scott Storms, regulatory affairs lawyer, both based out of the Plainfield Indiana office were fired, according to a newsletter announcement that went out to employees.

Duke Energy Corp had been hit hard when it came to the attention of the public that Reed and Storms created a conflict of interest by proposing to raise fees for consumers while discussing a job opportunity for Storms with Duke. Specifically, Reeds was speaking to Storms about a job opportunity with the company while Storms was an administrative law judge for the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. During Storms’ term as an administrative law judge, he ruled on Duke Initiatives that help to pass cost overruns for its coal gasification plant in Edwardsport onto customers.

Duke hired the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Duke to investigative the matter internally. Based on the attorney’s findings, Storms and Reed were fired. Duke has revealed some of internal information with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Continue reading

by

A medical malpractice Indiana lawsuit was filed against Dr. Schraut, a retinal ophthalmologist located in Lafayette, Indiana by Mr. Paul Arlton of Indiana following his laser eye surgery in 2002. However, Mr. Arlton lost the lawsuit so his attorneys are filing an appeal based on the contention that jurors did not receive certain medical images that would have otherwise supported Arlton’s claim.

Mr. Paul Arlton had seen Dr. Schraut because of an eye condition known as choroidal neovascularization in his left eye. This condition occurs when there is abnormal blood vessel growth and can cause vision loss or blindness, when left untreated. In 1987, Arlton had undergone laser eye surgery to destroy the abnormal growth of blood vessels. However, treatment was not 100% successful due to resulting scar formation which created a blind spot in Arlton’s vision.

In November 2002, Dr. Schraut performed laser eye surgery on Arlton’s left eye due to the reoccurrence of his choroidal neovascularization. Mr. Artlon understood the risk of unexplained vision loss following surgery, but wanted to proceed with the procedure. This procedure was not successful as well. Arlton had 20/15 vision, with a blind spot in his vision before surgery, but had 20/400 vision, periodic double vision, eye pain and headaches following surgery with Dr. Schraut. The results of the surgery have been remedied with Arlton’s use of eyeglasses that have a prism, but Artlon feels his reading speed has been significantly reduced.

Continue reading

by

Thousands of surgeons perform nose surgery, but the level of training and expertise varies among surgeons. In fact, there are over 150 self designated boards in plastic surgery, but the only ones that align with the goals of American Board of Medical Specialties are the American Board of Plastic Surgery, the American Board of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery American Board of Otolaryngology. These factors can make it difficult for people interested in nose surgery to select the right nose surgeon. Yet, it is not typical to find a nose surgeon who is faced with more than 300 medical malpractice cases, as is the case for Mark Weinberger, also known as “The Nose Doc”.

In August 2010, a Lake Superior Court put forward a $300,000 medical malpractice verdict against Mark Weinberger. This case involved William Boyer, 58, of Gary, Indiana who was told by Mark Weinberger that he needed surgery to repair bloody sinuses. Conversely, Mark Weinberger presented photos of another patient who needed surgery to Mr. Boyer, as if the photos were Mr. Boyer’s photos. Consequently, Mr. Boyer had unnecessary nose surgery. The allegations included that the Merrillville physician had mistreated and misdiagnosed William Boyer. Weinberger had operated the Merrillville Center for Advanced Surgery LLC and Nose and Sinus Centers LLC between November 2002 and 2004.

In 2004, Mark Weinberger was featured on an episode of “America’s Most Wanted because he failed to return from a trip to Greece. In 2006, 22 counts of health care fraud perpetuated against insurance companies were filed in U.S. District Court in Hammond. In total, roughly 300 medical malpractice cases have been filed against the nose surgeon.

Continue reading

by

Recently, there have been recalls involving blood products following the discovery that the donor posed a risk injury to any individual who may receive the product.  Typically, donors are screened to ensure that they are safe candidates to donate blood. It is not known why the blood products in the recall were distributed following the screening process. Given the traditional screening process, this problem does not usually occur. The following includes a list of the blood products that have been recalled in October and the reason for the recall.

  • LifeSource, Glenview, IL, Red Blood Cells collected from a donor who emigrated from an area considered endemic for malaria, 2 units. Recall # B-2630-10; Platelets. Recall # B-2631-10.
  • American Red Cross Southeastern Michigan Region, Detroit, MI Red Blood Cells Leukocytes Reduced collected from a donor for whom donor suitability was not adequately determined, 1 unit. Red Blood Cells Leukocytes Reduced. Recall # B-2586-10.
Continue reading

by

The Meredia Diet Pill has recalled by the Federal Drug Administration on October 8, 2010.  Previously, the dietary supplement was banned from Europe and Australia.  The drug is manufactured by Abbot Drugs, located in Lake County, Illinois. The reason for the ban and recall is because of very serious side effects associated with the drug. The drug has been known to increase the risk for cardiovascular disorders, strokes and other health issues.  This is especially true in patients who had previously suffered from cardiovascular issues in the past.

Now, Acquisitions LLC dba Leiner Health Products, of Carson, CA and Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., of Phoenix, AZ have announced that a large group of their dietary supplements have been recalled due to undeclared soy from a selenium chelate raw material, including:

The Lemon-Lime Flavor Effervescent Tablets Dietary Supplement, 0 tablets per box, distributed under the following names and labels:

Continue reading
Contact Information
8320 Kennedy Ave
Highland, IN 46322
Phone: 219-836-2200
Fax: 219-836-9388

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, Padove Law
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design