“One of the biggest manufacturers of vaginal mesh implants, C.R. Bard, is ending all production and marketing of the controversial products after years of campaigning by women around the world.” (https://www.icij.org/investigations/implant-files/leading-manufacturer-exits-vaginal-mesh-market/).
Aggressively, efficiently, and successfully litigating complex cases against companies worth hundreds of billions of dollars requires a legal team of experienced law firms with seasoned trial attorneys who also have the financial ability to advance the millions of dollars that will be needed. Fransen & Molinaro, LLP is working with a team of law firms that meet these criteria. One member of the team is the law firm of Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty Proctor P.A. This firm has been handling mass tort, medical device, and pharmaceutical cases for decades. In 2004, Mike Papantonio helped launch a nationwide organization called Mass Torts Made Perfect. This organization holds annual conferences for the top personal injury attorneys and teaches them successful litigation strategies to use against multi-national corporations.
The team approach is well-suited to handle the representation of cities, counties, and states in litigation against billion-dollar international companies like Purdue Pharma, McKesson, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen, Mallinckrodt, Janssen, Endo Health Solutions, Cephalon, Watson, Allergen, Johnson & Johnson, and others. The team will pool resources, work more efficiently, and replicate successful strategies. They know how to bring lawsuits designed to hold billion-dollar international companies responsible for the damages their opioids cause.
If you are a governmental official in California, Fransen & Molinaro, LLP wants to work with your city or county, or with the State of California to sue the corporations that have ruined countless lives and financially drained local governments. These corporations need to be held accountable.
“There is no fee if there is no recovery.” “There is no reimbursement of litigation expenses if there is no recovery.” These two sentences are written, in boldface type, in every retainer agreement a governmental client will sign when it decides bring a lawsuit against the opioid manufacturers and distributors through Fransen & Molinaro, LLP and their associate attorneys. These contractually binding statements mean that there are zero upfront costs to the client.
This important fact should not be overlooked, because it means that the enormous litigation costs will be completely advanced by the attorneys and not come from your budget. This fact also means that there is no risk of financial loss to your department. Even if a suit is unsuccessful, no reimbursement will be sought by your attorneys. The retainer agreement will also state that, upon recovery, the lawyers will be paid thirty percent of the gross recovery plus reimbursement for litigation expenses. Considering that many personal injury attorneys charge forty percent of the gross recovery for simple automobile accident cases, the thirty percent contingent recovery rate is quite reasonable.
Another advantage to hiring Fransen & Molinaro, LLP and its associate attorneys is less obvious. By representing multiple governmental clients against the same manufacturers and distributors, many of the pleadings, discovery efforts, and litigation actions will be used in other cases. This means that the costs, for which each individual client is responsible will be less than if only one lawsuit was filed. Handling many similar lawsuits against the same defendants, allows private practice attorneys to not only decrease litigation expenses, but duplicate the tactics. Fransen & Molinaro, LLP and its associate attorneys are not new to litigation against billion-dollar corporations. Their experience and track make them the right choice.
The United States is suffering from a prescription opioid epidemic, the likes of which has never been seen before. In the late 1980s, when I was in medical school, I was correctly taught that opioids were addictive and dangerous pain relieving medications which should be used in very limited situations. I was taught that opiate pain relievers were only to be used for short-term treatment of severe acute pain like that experienced immediately following surgery or for long-term palliative (end-of-life) care in cancer patients. My respected medical school professors and fellow students did not question these ethical and wise standards.
Many people wrongly believe that those who suffer from opiate abuse and die from opiate overdoses are heroin addicts and abusers of other illegal street drugs. However, the truth is that the majority of opiate abusers are abusing prescription opiates. The prescription opiates causing the physical, economic, and social devastation are made by large scale pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributed by billion-dollar wholesalers, prescribed by licensed healthcare providers, and sold by pharmacies. The only true link to heroin and the current opiate epidemic is that most of today’s heroin users abused prescription opiates before turning to heroin.
Fransen & Molinaro, LLP will represent California counties and cities against opiate manufacturers and distributors and sue them to recover the money spent by these governmental entities fighting the opioid epidemic with its hundreds of millions of dollars in associated medical, criminal, and societal costs.
The electronic medical record (EMR) is touted as one of the best new additions to medical record keeping due to its time-saving abilities, its ease of transferring records and its tailor-made templates, which should make it all but impossible to fail to document an important step in patient care. And, yes, recording the detailed care of the patient can be your best friend in the event of a malpractice case. However, some of the very features that make the EMR so quick and easy to use make it potentially dangerous with a couple of pitfalls.
“Medical malpractice” refers to actions for personal injury against a healthcare provider based on professional negligence. The term is most often used to apply to law suits brought by patients against physicians as a result of getting “bad care.” However, “healthcare provider” also includes nurse practitioners, physician assistants, dentists, chiropractors, and anyone else holding a healthcare license. Continue reading
With regard to potential case evaluation, law is as much about opinion as it is about facts. The good medical malpractice case will have substantial injury as a result of medical services done below the standard of care. Both damages and poor practice are needed. Opinions differ greatly as to what constitutes substantial damages and poor practice. Continue reading