Shareholder Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Minority Shareholder Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Accredited Investor Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Shareholder Suppression Lawsuits, and Business Misrepresentation Lawsuits

Shareholder Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Minority Shareholder Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Accredited Investor Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Shareholder Suppression Lawsuits, and Business Misrepresentation Lawsuits
by Texas Shareholder Investment Fraud Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Business fraud and negligent misrepresentation cost investors, shareholders, and  businesses and individuals Billions of Dollars each year.  Shareholder investment fraud lawsuits, minority shareholder lawsuits, shareholder suppression lawsuits, and other business misrepresentation and fraud lawsuits allow investors and shareholders to seek back large sums of money that have been wrongfully taken from them.

  

Shareholder Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Minority Shareholder Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Accredited Investor Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Shareholder Suppression Lawsuits, and Business Misrepresentation Lawsuits

Since the 1980s, the deregulation of investment markets and decreased SEC enforcement, have come large investor fraud schemes that have fraudulently taken Billions of dollars from consumer and business investors.  Many businesses have set up elaborate investment scams that have taken advantage of high end investors, accredited investors, business investors, and individual investors. 

During this era of deregulation many safe guards were removed, but even more rules and safe guards were not adhered to when these fraudulent businesses lured investors into fraudulent and risky investments.  Understanding SEC rules on what should have been disclosed during investment negotiations as well as who may be a potential defendant for failing to properly disclose necessary information or intentionally misleading investors about an investment are crucial in determining if a shareholder or investor has a viable shareholder investment fraud lawsuit, minority shareholder lawsuit, shareholder suppression lawsuit, or other business misrepresentation and fraud lawsuit.

Further, in determining who is a viable defendant for a potential shareholder investment fraud lawsuit, minority shareholder lawsuit, shareholder suppression lawsuit, or other business misrepresentation and fraud lawsuit, it is important to understand the fiduciary duties owed by corporate officers, the board of directors, investment firms, brokers, financial planners, real estate professionals, lawyers, and other business professionals.  Understanding these duties can often help determine if there is a viable party to seek compensation from after a large investment was lost or stolen.

Shareholder Suppression Lawsuits, Corporate Malfeasance Lawsuits, Breach of Fiduciary Duty Lawsuits, and Shareholder Actions Lawsuits

Unfortunately, majority shareholders sometimes wrongfully and fraudulently use their controlling interest in a company for their own benefit at the expense of minority shareholders.  When a majority shareholder uses corporate malfeasance and breach of fiduciary duties, the minority shareholder may have a viable shareholder suppression lawsuit against the majority shareholders.  

In any Shareholder Suppression Lawsuit, Corporate Malfeasance Lawsuit, or Breach of Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit, it is important to understand the rights, fiduciary duties, and responsibilities of the majority shareholders, board of directors, managing partners, corporate officers, corporate counsel, chief financial officers, and managers.  It is also important to obtain as much evidence of the malfeasance, self dealing, fraud against shareholders, wrongful suppression, embezzlement, or other bad acts as possible prior to the start of litigation.  In many of these cases, once litigation has begun, obtaining evidence of the unlawful and bad acts are difficult and heated battles as many documents begin to disappear and proving spoliation becomes a key issue.  The term spoliation broadly refers to the intentional, reckless, or negligent destruction, loss, material alteration or obstruction of evidence that is relevant to litigation.

 Texas Negligent Misrepresentation Lawsuits and Texas Fraudulent Misrepresentation Lawsuits

Texas has business tort laws against both fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation that can be brought against businesses and individuals that make misrepresentations that cause significant damages.  Under Texas negligent misrepresentation law, a business or individual "who, in the course of his business, profession or employment, or in any transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information."  described by the Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 522. See Federal Land Bank Ass’n of Tyler v. Sloane, 825 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1991).

In moving forward on a Texas Fraudulent or Negligent Misrepresentation Lawsuit against a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, professional corporation, individual or other business, it is important to have an experienced business litigation lawyer or business litigation team that is able to review and prosecute your Texas Misrepresentation Lawsuit.

 Accredited Investor Fraud Lawsuits, Federal Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Texas Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Shareholder Investor Lawsuits, and Business Misrepresentation Lawsuits

Accredited Investors are commonly the targets of investment fraud schemes.  This is because under the Securities Act of 1933, a company that offers or sells its securities must register the securities with the SEC or find an exemption from the registration requirements. The Act provides companies with a number of exemptions. For some of the exemptions, such as rules 505 and 506 of Regulation D, a company may sell its securities to what are known as "accredited investors."

By targeting Accredited Investors, some companies and their lawyers are able to exempt themselves from disclosure rules.  When investing as an accredited investor, it is often a good idea to have an attorney assist you prior to making a substantial investment.  Additionally, if you have already made a substantial investment and suspect foul play, it is important to make sure that you are aware of your rights and how to seek information on your investment.

 

Texas Shareholder Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Texsa Minority Shareholder Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Texas Accredited Investor Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Texas Shareholder Suppression Lawsuits, Texas Business Fraud Litigation Lawsuits, Texas Business Fraud Lawsuits, and Texas Business Fraud Litigation Teams

For more information on Texas Shareholder Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Texsa Minority Shareholder Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Texas Accredited Investor Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Texas Shareholder Suppression Lawsuits, Texas Business Fraud Litigation Lawsuits, Texas Business Fraud Lawsuits, and Texas Business Fraud Litigation Teams, please feel free to go to the following web page on Shareholder Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Minority Shareholder Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Accredited Investor Investment Fraud Lawsuits, Shareholder Suppression Lawsuits, and Texas Business Fraud Litigation.

Off Label Drug Marketing Fraud Whistleblower Lawsuits, Pharmaceutical Marketing Fraud Illegal Kickback Lawsuits, and Pharmaceutical Defective Drug Fraudulent Marketing Physician Whistleblower Lawsuits

Off Label Drug Marketing Fraud Whistleblower Lawsuits, Pharmaceutical Marketing Fraud Illegal Kickback Lawsuits, and Pharmaceutical Defective Drug Fraudulent Marketing Physician Whistleblower Lawsuits (Off Label Marketing and Pharmaceutical Whistleblower False Claims Act Law Suits)

Through Whistle Blower Lawsuits, Qui Tam Lawsuits, and other Health Care Fraud Lawsuits, hundreds of billions of dollars have been recovered from dishonest pharmaceutical companies, marketing executives, health insurance companies, health providers, individuals and organizations that have committed health care fraud and stolen large amounts of money from the government.

Some of these pharmaceutical marketing fraud scams include providing false information about drugs and medications to push important doctors to help a drug get added to formularies and become the treatment standard for off label treatments despite the fact that the drug or medication is not approved for such indications.  These elaborate schemes can cause chairs of committees and other prominent physicians to approve medications based on false information.  For more information on Medicare Pharmaceutical Marketing Fraud and Off Label Whistleblower Lawsuits, please go to the following web page on Medicare Pharmaceutical Marketing Fraud and Off Label Whistleblower Lawsuit Web Page. 

Further, some of these drug marketing scams include elaborate illegal kickback and bribe scenarios where physicians are handsomely rewarded for helping a drug become a standard of care in the local medical community and to get a specific drug on formularies.  For more information on Pharmaceutical Illegal Kickback and Bribe Whistleblower Lawsuits, please go to the following web page on Pharmaceutical Illegal Kickback and Bribe Whistleblower Lawsuits.

Pharmaceutical Quality Assurance Whistleblower Lawsuits, Drug Safety Whistleblower Lawsuits, Adulterated Drug Whistleblower Lawsuits, Contaminated Drug Whistleblower Lawsuits, and Pharmaceutical Drug Calibration Whistleblower Qui Tam Lawsuits

Pharmaceutical Quality Assurance Whistleblower Lawsuits, Drug Safety Whistleblower Lawsuits, Adulterated Drug Whistleblower Lawsuits, Contaminated Drug Whistleblower Lawsuits, and Pharmaceutical Drug Calibration Whistleblower Qui Tam Lawsuits (Drug Quality, Contaminated Drug, Adulterated Drug, and Pharmaceutical Quality Assurance Whistleblower False Claims Act Lawyer)

Pharmaceutical Quality Assurance Managers, Drug Calibration Whistleblowers, and other Drug Safety Whistleblowers are stepping forward to blow the whistle on adulterated drugs, contaminated drugs, and poorly calibrated drugs that threaten the health and lives of children, women, and men that are taking the drugs.  Because of the danger of giving defective drugs to the sick and injured, it is extremely important that pharmaceutical whistleblowers continue to step forward to blow the whistle on drugs that threaten the health and safety of the people taking these drugs.  It is clear that the government will not tolerate any lapses in safety standards for pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmaceutical whistleblowers that blow the whistle on defective and dangerous drugs, may receive a large amount of money for properly reporting fraudulent disregard for safety standards.    

For more information on a this topic, please go to the following web page on Pharmaceutical Quality Assurance Whistleblower Lawsuits, Drug Safety Whistleblower Lawsuits, Adulterated Drug Whistleblower Lawsuit, Contaminated Drug Whistleblower Lawsuits, and Pharmaceutical Drug Calibration Whistleblower  Qui Tam Lawsuits.

Fatal Fire Lawsuits, Fatal House Fire Lawsuits, Serious Burn Lawsuits, Fire Death Lawsuits, and Smoke Inhalation Lawsuits

Fatal House Fire Lawsuits, Serious Burn Lawsuits, Fatal Burn Lawsuits, Water Heater and Gas Explosion Lawsuits, House Fire Lawsuits, Texas Serious Burn Lawsuits, Texas Fatal Fire Lawsuits, Defective Gas Can Lawsuits, Smoke Inhalation Death Lawsuits, and Fire Death Lawsuits
by Texas Serious Burn, House Fire, and Fatal Fire Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Fatal fire lawsuits, serious burn lawsuits, and smoke inhalation lawsuits are some of the most difficult cases to handle because of the devastation that a house fire, fatal fire, or severe burn can cause.  Representing clients that have had loved ones burn to death,  loved ones die of smoke inhalation, themselves been severely burned and required skin harvesting & grafting, been severely injured, and/or have lost their home and everything in it, requires not only an understanding of the damages and devastation that they have suffered, but also experience in investigating the cause of the fire or explosion as well as proving how the fire was caused and what damages caused the fire.  

Fatal Fire Lawsuits, Fatal House Fire Lawsuits, Serious Burn Lawsuits and Smoke Inhalation Lawsuits

In the United States, each year over 30,000 people are killed or seriously injured by fire and smoke inhalation.  Many of these fires are the result of negligence or defective products, that could have been easily prevented.   In  handling Fatal Fire Lawsuits, Fatal House Fire Lawsuits, Serious Burn Lawsuits, and Smoke Inhalation Lawsuits, it is important to remember that a fatal house fire or serious burn fire can be the result of defective products, careless workers, negligent property owners, defective water heaters, defective gas cans, failure of products to have child proofing, defective wiring, defective appliances, negligence maintenance, and many other negligent actions.  To determine the cause of the fire and/or explosion, it is important to speak with witnesses and fire investigators as well as to obtain any photos or video of the fire and any and all documents related to fire.    

After a fatal fire, house fire, smoke inhalation fire, or other fire that has caused a death, serious burns, injuries, or significant property damage, it is often a good idea to have an experienced fire lawyer investigate a potential fatal house fire lawsuit, serious burn lawsuit, defective smoke detector lawsuit, gas explosion lawsuit, apartment fire lawsuit, smoke inhalation lawsuit, and/or a work place fire lawsuit to make sure that those responsible for the fire pay for the damages that they have caused.

Fatal House Fire Lawsuits, Serious Burn Lawsuits, Gas Can Fire Lawsuits, Water Heater Explosion Lawsuits, House Fire Lawsuits, Texas Serious Burn Lawsuits, Texas Fatal Fire Lawsuits, Defective Gas Can Lawsuits, Defective Gas Container Lawsuits, and House Explosion Lawsuits

It is important to remember that a fatal house fire or serious burn fire can be the result of defective products, careless workers, negligent property owners, defective water heaters, defective gas cans, failure of products to have child proofing, defective wiring, defective appliances, negligence maintenance, and many other negligent actions.  To determine the cause of the fire and/or explosion, it is important to speak with witnesses and fire investigators as well as to obtain any photos or video of the fire and any and all documents related to fire.    

One common cause of fatal house fires are defective products including defective water heaters and defective gas cans. Some gas containers and gas cans can be unreasonably dangerous and defectively designed resulting fatal fires, fires that cause serious burns and catastrophic injuries, house fires that destroy homes, and other fires that cause serious injury, death, and/or damage to property.  Some of these defective gas containers and gas cans do not contain a safety device known as a flame arrester which can prevent a flashback of the flames into a gas can or gas container.  This flame arrester can prevent a gas can explosion that can cause a person to be burned to death or suffer serious and disfiguring burns.   

Other safety features for gas cans and gas containers include child resistant caps and closures to reduce the risk of spills.  By including flame arrestors, child resistant caps, adequate warnings, and other safety features in gasoline cans and gasoline containers, many home fires, fatal fires, and other fires can be prevented. For more information on gas can lawsuits, gas container lawsuits, defective gasoline container lawsuits, defective gasoline container lawsuits, please go to the following web page on Gas Can Fire Lawsuits and Gas Container Fire Lawsuits.

There are many other defective products that can cause house fires and home explosions including defective appliances and defective vehicles.  When investigating a Fatal House Fire or Explosion, it is important to make sure a thorough investigation of all potential causes is made.  For more information on Fatal House Fire Lawsuits and Fatal Home Gas Explosion Lawsuits, please go to the following web page on Fatal House Fire Lawsuits, Fire Death Lawsuits, and Serious Burn Lawsuits.

Medicare Fraud Illegal Kickback Lawsuits, Medicare Fraud Medical Device Kickback Lawsuits, Illegal Hospital Kickback False Claims Act Lawsuits, Medicaid Fraud Kickback Lawsuits, and other Illegal Kickback Qui Tam Health Care Fraud Lawsuits

Medicare Fraud Illegal Kickback Lawsuits, Medicare Fraud Medical Device Kickback Lawsuits, Illegal Hospital Kickback False Claims Act Lawsuits, Medicaid Fraud Kickback Lawsuits, and other Illegal Kickback Qui Tam Health Care Fraud Lawsuits by Medicaid and Medicare Illegal Kickback Whistleblower Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Medicare Fraud and Medicaid Fraud Whistleblowers are stepping forward to blow the whistle on illegal kickbacks that cost taxpayers millions of dollars.  The anti-kickback statute makes it illegal for health care providers to knowingly and willfully accept bribes or kickbacks in return for generating Medicare referrals, Medicaid referrals, Tricare referrals, or other federal healthcare program business.  The federal anti-kickback law's main purpose is to protect patients and federal health care programs from fraud and abuse by curtailing the corrupting influence of money on health care decisions.  

   

Medicare & Medicaid Referral Kickback Lawsuits, Federal Health Program Medical Provider Referral and Service Kickback Law Claims, and other Qui Tam Health Care Fraud Lawsuits (Whistleblower Law Suits)

The Anti-Kickback Statute prevents payoffs to those who have the power to influence health care decisions and potentially make a profit at the expense of patients and the Federal Government.  This prohibition removes potential economic incentives that could influence health care providers to refer or recommend medical goods and services that are medically inappropriate, medically unnecessary, of poor quality, or even harmful to a vulnerable patient population. This legislation combined with the Federal False Claims Act protects federal health care programs from difficult to detect kickback referrals and services as well as provides economic incentives to whistle blowers properly report medical providers that are wrongfully taking money through bribes, and unlawful kickbacks.

Heart Device Manufacturer in Minnesota and Hospitals in Ohio & Kentucky to Pay Nearly $4 Million to Resolve Fraud Allegations

St. Jude Medical Inc., a heart device manufacturer; Parma Community General Hospital; and Norton Healthcare have paid the United States $3,898,300 to resolve false claim allegations that St. Jude paid illegal kickbacks to two hospitals to secure heart-device business, the Justice Department announced today. The government alleges the kickbacks caused false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs in violation of the False Claims Act. The kickbacks included alleged rebates that were "retroactive" and paid based on a hospital’s previous purchases of St. Jude heart-device equipment and rebates that St. Jude paid for purchases of heart-device equipment sold by its competitors to induce purchases of similar equipment from St. Jude in the future.

Under the terms of the settlement, St. Jude, headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., will pay $3,725,000. Parma Community General Hospital, located in Parma, Ohio, is paying $40,000, and Norton Healthcare in Louisville, Ky., is paying $133,300. The government asserted that Parma and Norton were recipients of improper rebates from St. Jude.

"Hospitals should base their purchasing decisions on what is in the best interests of their patients," said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. "We will act aggressively to ensure that choices about health care are not tainted by illegal kickbacks."

This action was initiated by the filing of an action under the False Claims Act by Jerry Hudson. Under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the Act, private citizens may bring lawsuits on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery. Mr. Hudson’s share of the settlement announced today will be $640,050.

"The Department of Justice is committed to requiring that federal healthcare monies are properly spent," said Steven M. Dettelbach, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio. "This case illustrates the necessity of oversight of federal health care programs in the United States."

The settlement was the result of an investigation by the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio, the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the FBI.

This settlement is part of the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud. One of the most powerful tools in that effort is the False Claims Act, which the Justice Department has used to recover approximately $3.0 billion since January 2009 in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.

Medicare & Medicaid Referral Kickback Lawsuits, Federal Health Program Medical Provider Referral and Service Kickback Law Claims, and other Qui Tam Health Care Fraud Lawsuits (Whistleblower Law Suits)

In 1972, the United States Congress passed the anti-kickback statute which made it illegal for providers, including doctors, to knowingly and willfully accept bribes or other forms of remuneration in return for generating Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare program business.  The federal anti-kickback law's main purpose was to protect patients and federal health care programs from fraud and abuse by curtailing the corrupting influence of money on health care decisions.  The legislation prevents payoffs to those who have the power to influence health care decisions.  This prohibition removes potential economic incentives that could influence health care providers to refer or recommend medical goods and services that are medically inappropriate, medically unnecessary, of poor quality, or even harmful to a vulnerable patient population. This legislation protects federal health care programs from difficult to detect kickback referrals and services as well as works with other laws to provide incentives for whistle blowers that are aware of medical providers that are wrongfully taking money to benefit from disclosing these unlawful kickbacks.

Federal Anti-Kickback Statute Lawsuits, Federal Health Care Program Referral Claim Lawsuits, Federal Health Care Program Medical Supply Bribery Claim Lawsuits, and Benefits for Generating Medicare, Medicaid, Champus/Tricare, and other Federal Health Care Program Lawsuits

The Anti-Kickback statute prohibits any person or business entity from making or accepting payment to induce or reward any person for referring, recommending or arranging for the purchase of any item or service for which payment may be made under a federally-funded health care program. The statute prohibits kickbacks, bribes, inducements, rewards, and other economic incentives that induce physicians to refer patients for services or recommend purchase of medical supplies that will be reimbursable under government health care programs.

Health Care Provider claims for reimbursement to federal health care programs for services or medical supplies that are the result of bribes, kickbacks, or other economic incentives are false claims and are subject to potential Medicare Fraud Kickback Lawsuits including Medicare Anti-Kickback Statute Lawsuits, Medicaid False Claims Act Lawsuits, and other Federal Health Care Program Fraud Lawsuits.

Failure of  a health care provider to comply with the Anti-Kickback Statute is a precondition to participation in federal health care programs and violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute can result in loss of funding, payments, and reimbursements from Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal Health Care Programs. 

Because the Anti-Kickback Statute was initially broad on its face, concerns arose among health care providers that some beneficial commercial arrangements were prohibited. Responding to these concerns, Congress authorized "safe harbors" for various payment and business practices that, while potentially prohibited by the law, would not be prosecuted.  The Antikickback Statute contains certain exceptions or "safe habors", which allow conduct that would otherwise violate the statute including allowing the Secretary of Department of Health and Human Service to promulgate regulations which identify  practices which do not violate the Antikickback Statute. Some of these safe habors can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 1001.952.   

Medicare Fraud Kickback Lawsuits, Medicaid Fraud Kickback Lawsuits, and the Government Contractor Fraud Qui Tam Whistleblower Lawsuit Information Center (False Claims Act Medicare Fraudulent Kickback Whistleblower Qui Tam Action Information)

For more information on Medicare Fraud, Tricare Fraud, Medicaid Fraud, Defense Contractor Fraud, Off Label Fraud, Road Construction Fraud, and other types of False Claims Act Whistleblower Claims, please go to the Medicaid and Medicare Fraud Kickback Lawsuit Webpage on the Texas Medicare Fraud Illegal Kickback Lawyer Website or the  Qui Tam, Whistleblower, and Federal Federal False Claims Act Information Center.

Dentist Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, Orthodontist Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, and other Medicare and Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits

Dentist Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, Orthodontist Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, Medicaid Fraud Dentist Office Whistleblower Lawsuits, Unnecessary Dental Work Medicaid Fraud, Medicare Upcoding Fraud Lawsuits, Dental Upcoding Medicaid Fraud, Orthodontic Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, and Dentist Office Qui Tam Whistleblower Lawsuits
by Texas Orthodontist and Dentist Medicaid Fraud Whistleblower Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Like Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits and Medicare Fraud Lawsuits,  Dentist Medicaid Fraud Whistleblower Lawsuits and Dental Medicare Whistleblower Lawsuits are on the rise.  It is expected that Medicaid and Medicare Fraud Whistleblowers including many Dentist Medicaid Fraud Whistleblowers, Orthodontist Medicaid Fraud Whistleblowers, and Dental Medicaid Fraud Whistleblowers will save the government Billions of dollars and be able to collect a portion of the recovered money for being American heroes and exposing fraud against tax payers. 

 

Dentist Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, Dental Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, Medicaid Fraud Dentist Office Federal False Claims Act Whistleblower Lawsuits, Unnecessary Dental Work Medicaid Fraud, Dental Upcoding Medicaid Fraud, and Dentist Office Qui Tam Whistleblower Lawsuits

Dentists, Orthodontists, Dental Clinics, Orthodontic Groups, and other health care professionals that take Medicaid and Medicare payments including Federal Medicaid Benefits and State Medicaid Benefits are becoming more common.  These Dental and Orthodontic Groups take payments from federal and state funded programs for providing basic dental services to individuals and families.  However, in order to increase profits some of these dental clinics, dental groups, orthodontists, dentists, and orthodontic groups provide false billing statements to the government including double billing, triple billing, billing for services not provided, upcoding, or billing for unnecessary services.  This billing fraud is dental Medicaid Billing Fraud, orthodontic Medicaid Billing Fraud, dental Medicare Billing Fraud, and orthodontic Medicare Billing Fraud.

It is important for families with children needing dental care or orthodontic care to be able to obtain these services as well as elderly people to be able to obtain dental care and orthodontic care, but it is also important that health care fraud including Medicare Fraud and Medicaid Fraud are stopped.  Dental Medicaid Fraud Whistleblowers, Dentist Medicare Fraud Whistleblowers, Orthodontist Medicaid Fraud Whistleblowers, Orthodontic Medicaid Fraud Whistleblowers, and other Medicare Fraud and Medicaid Fraud Whistleblowers are an essential necessary part of identifying and stopping health care fraud.

Dentist Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, Dental Clinic Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, Orthodontist Medicaid Billing Fraud Lawsuits, Double Billing Medicaid Fraud and Unnecessary Dental Work Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, Dental Upcoding Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, and Dentist Qui Tam Whistleblower Lawsuits

As Medicaid and Medicare spending increases, some health care providers including dentists and orthodontists are making false claims for services including billing for services not provided, upcoding services, double billing, and providing unnecessary services.  As such, it is important for Dentists, Orthodontists,  Dentist Office Managers, Orthodontics Office Managers, Medicaid Billing Clerks, Medicaid Coders, and other Dental Professionals to become Medicaid whistleblowers to seek compensation on the government's behalf from companies and people that have defrauded taxpayers out of government money. 

Medicaid Billing Fraud Lawsuits, Medicare Billing Fraud Lawsuits, and the Increase in Medicare and Medicaid Spending

Medicaid is a public health care problem in the United States that provides health care, dental care, and orthodontic care for eligible individuals and families with low incomes and resources. The Medicaid Program is jointly funded by state and federal governments, but is managed by the states.  Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with limited income in the United States and the Medicaid program has been increasing.  The fastest growing aspect of Medicaid is nursing home coverage and this is expected to continue as the Baby Boomer generation begins to reach nursing home age. 

Unlike Medicare, which is solely a federal program, Medicaid is a joint federal-state program. Each state operates its own Medicaid system.  Each state's Medicaid Program must conform to federal guidelines in order for the state to receive matching funds and grants.  For many states Medicaid has become a major budget issue as on average the state's matching costs of the Medicaid program is about 16.8% of state general funds. According to CMS, the Medicaid program provided health care services to more than 46.0 million people in 2001. In 2008, Medicaid provided health coverage and services to approximately 49 million low-income children, pregnant women, elderly persons, and disabled individuals. Federal Medicaid outlays were estimated to be $204 billion in 2008.  Medicaid payments currently assist nearly 60 percent of all nursing home residents and about 37 percent of all childbirths in the United States. The Federal Government pays on average 57 percent of Medicaid expenses. 

Texas Dentist Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, Texas Dental Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, Texas Orthodontist Medicaid Billing Fraud Lawsuits, South Texas Medicaid Orthodontic Group Medicaid Billing Fraud, South Texas Medicaid Billing Fraud Whistleblower Lawsuits, Texas Medicaid Fraud Double Billing Lawsuits, Texas Unnecessary Dental Work Medicaid Fraud, South Texas Dental Upcoding Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, and Dentist Office Qui Tam Whistleblower Lawsuits

The Medicaid program in Texas spendS about $10 Billion annually on providing health care benefits to the poor.  The Texas Medicaid program includes dental work including check ups, fillings, and braces.  Of the Medicaid services provided, it is thought that there is an increasing amount of Medicaid Billing Fraud that could be costing tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars each year. 

As such, it is vitally important for Texas Medicaid Fraud Whistleblowers to step up and blow the whistle on Medicaid Billing Fraud.  Texas Medicaid Whistleblowers, Texas Orthodontic Medicaid Fraud Whistleblowers, and Texas Dentist Medicaid Billing Fraud Whistleblowers need to step up and blow the whistle to stop this Medicaid Fraud.  By filing  Texas Dentist Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, Texas Dental Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, Texas Orthodontist Medicaid Billing Fraud Lawsuits, South Texas Medicaid Orthodontic Group Medicaid Billing Fraud, South Texas Medicaid Billing Fraud Whistleblower Lawsuits, Texas Medicaid Fraud Double Billing Lawsuits, Texas Unnecessary Dental Work Medicaid Fraud, South Texas Dental Upcoding Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, and Dentist Office Qui Tam Whistleblower Lawsuits, Texas Whistleblowers can save the Texas and the United States hundreds of millions of dollars and may be able to recover tens of millions of dollars themselves if they are successful relators. 

The Increase in Government Health Care Spending including Medicare Spending, VA Spending, Tricare Spending, and Medicaid Spending is creating More Health Care Fraud, Medicare Fraud, Medicaid Fraud, and VA Medical Fraud and the need for more Medicaid Billing Fraud Whistleblower Lawsuits, Medicare Billing Fraud Whistleblower Lawsuits, and other Health Care Fraud Whistleblower Lawsuits

Health Care Fraud costs United States Tax Payers approximately $90 billion each year through Medicare, Medicaid, and other government health care programs.  Because the Medicare budget, the Medicaid Budget, the VA Budget, the TRICARE Budget, Medicaid Fraud, and Medicare Fraud are continuing to increase each year, it is vitally important that Medicare Fraud Whistleblowers, Medicare Fraud Upcoding Fraud Whistleblowers, Medicare Medicaid Fraud Hospital Whistleblowers, Hospice Medicare Fraud Whistleblowers, and Medicare Medicaid Fraud Nursing Home Whistleblowers continue to step forward and blow the whistle on health care fraud.

Medicare is Different from Medicaid, but both Medicare Billing Fraud Whistleblowers and Medicaid Billing Fraud Whistleblowers are needed to File Medical Billing Fraud Lawsuits

In 2009, the Medicare program covered an estimated 45 million persons and this number is expected to grow as about 7,000 people a day are reaching retirement age.  As millions of people are added to the Medicare budget each year, the cost of the Medicare budget is expected to grow.  The Medicare programd consists of four distinct parts which are funded differently: 

Part A (Hospital Insurance, or HI) covers inpatient hospital services, skilled nursing care, and home health and hospice care. The HI trust fund is mainly funded by a dedicated payroll tax of 2.9% of earnings, shared equally between employers and workers.

Part B (Supplementary Medical Insurance, or SMI) covers physician services, outpatient services, and home health and preventive services. The SMI trust fund is funded through beneficiary premiums (set at 25% of estimated program costs for the aged) and general revenues (the remaining amount, approximately 75%).

Part C (Medicare Advantage, or MA) is a private plan option for beneficiaries that covers all Part A and B services, except hospice. Individuals choosing to enroll in Part C must also enroll in Part B. Part C is funded through the HI and SMI trust funds. 

Part D covers prescription drug benefits. Funding is included in the SMI trust fund and is financed through beneficiary premiums (about 25%) and general revenues (about 75%).

Spending on Medicare and Medicaid is projected to grow dramatically in coming decades. While the same demographic trends that affect Social Security also affect Medicare, rapidly rising medical prices appear to be a more important cause of projected spending increases.

Economic Incentives for Whistleblowers Lawsuits, Government Fraud Lawsuits, and Qui Tam Lawsuits

When a government imposes a penalty, for the doing or not doing an act, and gives that penalty in part to whistleblowers that will sue for the same, and the other part of the recovery goes to the government, and makes it recoverable by action, such actions are called "qui tam actions", the plaintiff is suing on their own behalf as well for the government and taxpayers.

Qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act are based on the theory that one of the least expensive and most effective means of preventing frauds on taxpayers and the government is to make the perpetrators of government fraud liable to actions by private persons acting under the strong stimulus of personal ill will or the hope of gain.

The strong public policy behind creating an economic gain for whistleblowers is that  the government would be significantly less likely to learn of the allegations of fraud, but for persons in certain positions with specialized knowledge of fraud that has been committed. Congress has made it clear that creating this economic incentive is beneficial not only for the government, taxpayers, and the realtor, but is an efficient method of regulating government to prevent fraud and fraudulent schemes.

The central purpose of the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act is to set up incentives to supplement government regulation and enforcement by encouraging whistleblowers with specialized knowledge of fraud going on in the government to blow the whistle on the crime.

The whistleblower's share of recovery is a maximum of 30 percent and the government's prior knowledge of fraud now does not necessarily bar a whistleblower from collecting lost revenue. If the government takes over the lawsuit, the relator can "continue as a party to the action." The defendant is also required to pay for the relator's attorney fees. The whistleblower is also protected from retaliatory actions by his or her employer. As a result a 1986 amendment to the False Claims Act, qui tam lawsuits have increased dramatically.   Though the amendment was first made for corrupt defense contractors, the amendment has uncovered billions of dollars in health care fraud and will probably apply to fraudulently obtained TARP and Bail Out Funds. 

Federal False Claim Act Whistleblower Lawyers and Federal False Claims Act Fraud Lawsuits (Qui Tam Lawyers & Relator Claims)

Through Federal False Claims Act Whistleblower Lawsuits, Qui Tam Lawsuits, and other Government Fraud Lawsuits, hundreds of billions of dollars have been recovered from fraudulent government contractors that have stolen large amounts of money from the government and taxpayers.

It is extremely important that Whistleblowers continue to expose fraudulent billing practices and unnecessary treatments that cost billions of dollars.   For more information on Qui Tam and False Claims Act Lawsuits, please feel free to go to the following web pages: Medicare Fraud Lawsuits, Defense Contractor Fraud Lawsuits, Stimulus Fraud Lawsuits, Government Contractor Fraud Lawsuits, Health Care Fraud Lawsuits, Medicare and Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, Defense Contract Fraud Lawsuits, or other Government Fraud Lawsuits.  For more information on Dentist Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits and Orthodontist Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits, please go to the following web page: Dentist Medicaid Fraud and Orthodontist Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits.

Medical Mistake Infant Death Lawsuits, Birth Injury Lawsuits, & Birth Defect Lawsuits by Texas Infant Death and Birth Injury Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Medical Mistake Infant Death Lawsuits, Medical Error Birth Injury Lawsuits, Brachial Plexus Birth Injury Lawsuits, Medical Malpractice Lack of Oxygen Lawsuits, Fatal Physician Mistake Lawsuits, Doctor Error Infant Death Lawsuits, Infant Hypoxia Lawsuits, Cerebral Palsy Birth Injury Lawsuits, and Drug Birth Defect Lawsuits by Texas Infant Death and Birth Injury Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Medical mistake infant death lawsuits, birth injury lawsuits, and birth defect lawsuits are some of the most difficult types of Medical Malpractice Lawsuits to handle because of the emotion that goes along with them.  Parents who should be celebrating the birth of a new child, are often caught off guard when their child dies during or shortly after birth or is born with severe disabilities.  It is often all the parents can do to grieve their loss or take care of their new child.  Many don't realize that someone may be responsible for their child's death, birth injury or birth defect.

Infant Brain Injury Lawsuits and Causes of Hypoxia During Birth (Infant Death and Birth Injury Hypoxia Brain Damage Lawsuits)

Several reasons can cause an unborn child to suffer hypoxia resulting in a brain injury  during the birthing process including a difficult labor, unreasonable delay in performing a C-section, delay in delivering an extremely large baby, gestational diabetes in the mother, failure to properly and timely resuscitate the baby, maternal or fetal bleeding complications, excessive administration of Pitocin, and placenta previa. It is important during any birth to have medical professionals that are able to protect the safety of the mother and child by not allowing any of these factors to become a problem. If problems arise and these difficulties occur during the birth of your child and the child sustains a brain injury, you may want to contact a Birth Injury Lawyer with the skill and dedication to help you get the compensation. 

For more information on Lack of Oxygen Infant Death Lawsuits, Medical Mistake Brain Damage Lawsuits, and other Lack of Oxygen Hypoxia Lawsuits, please go to our Lack of Oxygen Infant Death Lawsuit, Medical Mistake Brain Damage Lawsuit, and other Lack of Oxygen Hypoxia Lawsuit Page.

Cerebral Palsy Birth Injury Lawsuits

"Cerebral" refers to the brain and "palsy" to muscle weakness/poor control. Cerebral palsy itself is not progressive, but is a developmental problem that can occur during fetal development, the birthing process, or infancy.  Once a child has cerebral palsy, the child will not get worse over time, however, conditions such as muscle spasticity can develop which may get better or worse over time. Although cerebral palsy is not "curable", training and therapy treatments can help improve function.  For more information on Cerebral Palsy Birth Injury Lawsuits go to our Cerebral Palsy Birth Injury Lawsuit Information Page.

Brachial Plexus Birth Injury Lawsuits

Brachial Plexus Injuries occur when the brachial plexus, a network of nerves between the neck and shoulder, is damaged. Because the brachial plexus conducts nerve signals from the spinal cord to the arm and hand, when it is damaged impairment of the arm and hand can occur causing a limp arm. The brachial plexus is a network of nerves formed by fibers located between the shoulder and the neck. Most brachial plexus injuries happen during birth when excessive lateral traction is applied to the fetal neck region during a vaginal birth and a traumatic stretching of the brachial plexus occurs causing damages to the nerves.  Brachial plexus injuries are more common in infants that are larger than average in size as they have more trouble moving through the birth canal.  For more information on Brachial Plexus Birth Injury Lawsuits including Erb's Palsy Birth Injury Lawsuits, please go to our Erb's Palsy and Brachial Plexus Birth Injury Lawsuit Page. 

Medication Birth Defect Lawsuits

Several medications, products, and drugs have been linked to birth defects.  Some of these medication and products have ample warnings that warn pregnant women to avoid taking these products while they are pregnant, however, some manufacturers have hidden the real dangers of their product in order to sell more of their product and value profits over healthy babies.  For these manufacturers, they may have short term profits, but over the long term they will suffer for the long term birth defects that they have caused.  Some medications that have been linked to birth defects include Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Antidepressants (SSRIs).  Women that have taken SSRIs after the 20th week of pregnancy have a 6-fold increased risk of developing persistent pulmonary hypertension, a life-threatening lung disorder.  Infants with persistent pulmonary hypertension have abnormal blood flow through the heart and lungs and do not get enough oxygen to their bodies and may become very sick or die.  For more information on Paxil Infant Heart Defect Lawsuits & Birth Injury Lawsuits and Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Antidepressant Birth Defect Lawsuits, please go to our Paxil Infant Heart Defect Lawsuit and Infant Birth Injury Lawsuit Page and SSRI Birth Defect Lawsuits Information Page.

Medical Mistake Infant Death Lawsuits, Medical Error Birth Injury Lawsuits, Brachial Plexus Birth Injury Lawsuits, Medical Malpractice Lack of Oxygen Lawsuits, Fatal Physician Mistake Lawsuits, Doctor Error Infant Death Lawsuits, Infant Hypoxia Lawsuits, Cerebral Palsy Birth Injury Lawsuits, and Drug Birth Defect Lawsuits

For more information on Medical Mistake Infant Death Lawsuits, Medical Error Birth Injury Lawsuits, Birth Doctor Mistake Brachial Lawsuits, Medical Malpractice Failure to Monitor Lack of Oxygen Lawsuits, Fatal Hospital Mistake Lawsuits, Federal Tort Claims Act Medical Negligence Cerebral Palsy Birth Injury Lawsuits and other Infant Death or Birth Injury Lawsuits, please go to the following webpage Medical Mistake Infant Death, Birth Injury, and Birth Defect Lawsuits.

Austin Guardianship Lawsuits, Travis County Guardianship Applications, Austin Guardianship Contests, and Travis County Competence Lawsuits by Austin Guardianship Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Austin Guardianship Lawsuits, Travis County Guardianship Applications, Austin Guardianship Contests, Travis County Competence Lawsuits, and Austin Alleged and Proposed Ward Hearings
by Austin Guardianship Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

 

Guardianship lawsuits or lawsuits to determine competence are becoming more common as more and more elderly people are becoming unable to take care of themselves and their finances.  When a person becomes unable to take care of themselves, a danger to themselves, a danger to others, or cannot handle their finances, they will often need a guardian to take care of them and their estate.  

Texas Application for Guardianship, Protecting Incapacitated Persons, and Obtaining Guardianship for a Person and for their Estate

It can be a difficult or easy decision to file an application of guardianship for a loved one depending on your circumstances.  If your loved one is obviously a danger to themselves and is unable to handle their one finances, it is often best to work with an Austin Guardianship Lawyer and the person's family and friends to protect them from the potential dangers of harming themselves as well as to protect them from people and businesses that might try to take their money.

One of the first steps in moving forward with an application of guardianship is to get your loved one to a doctor.  Having a medical doctor examine the person and determine if they are competent is an important first step to determine if the potential ward's condition is reversible and to what extent incompetence has occurred. 

If the proposed ward will not see a medical doctor, it may be necessary to file an Application for Guardianship to get the person the medical treatment that they need.  If they do see a medical doctor and the condition is not reversible as well as is severe, it also may be necessary to file an Application for Guardianship.

Typically, a Texas Probate Court will look to alternative less drastic measures to avoid a guardianship or making someone a ward.  This is because a guardianship takes a person's rights away including use of their finances and decisions on their daily care.  An Application for a Guardianship should only be filed to further a person's best interests. 

Incapacitated Persons Lawsuits, Austin Guardianship Lawsuits, Travis County Guardianship Applications, Austin Guardianship Contests, Travis County Competence Lawsuits, and Austin Alleged and Proposed Ward Hearings

According to the Texas Probate Code Section 601 (14), there are three types of incapacitated people that need guardians.  The first is a minor which includes those under 18 years of age that have not been emancipated.  The second are adults who because of a physical or mental condition, are substantially unable to provide food, clothing, or shelter for themselves, to care for their own physical health, or to manage the individual's own financial affairs.  The third are people that must have a guardian appointed to receive funds due the person from any governmental sources.

A person is determined to be "incapacitated" upon a finding by a court that the person lacks the capacity to do some, but not necessarily all, or the tasks necessary to care for himself or herself or to manage his or her property.

 

A court may appoint a guardian with full authority over an incapacitated person or may grant a guardian limited authority over an incapacitated person as indicated by the incapacitated person's actual mental or physical limitations and only as necessary to promote and protect the well-being of the person. If the person is not a minor, the court may not use age as the sole factor in determining whether to appoint a guardian for the person. In creating a guardianship that gives a guardian limited power or authority over an incapacitated person, the court shall design the guardianship to encourage the development or maintenance of maximum self-reliance and independence in the incapacitated person.

 

Setting Up A Guardianship & Filing an Application for Guardianship

 

An Application for Guardianship can be filed by any person that does not have an adverse interest to the proposed ward. This rule is to make it easy for a good Samaritan to help a person that is unable to help themselves, but to prevent people from attempting to take control over people that they owe money to or are fighting in a court battle. Most applications for guardianships are filed and determined in a county court or probate court, however, the determination can be transferred to District Court.  To have a guardian appointed the applicants must have a medical report from a doctor that states that the proposed ward is substantially unable to take care of themselves.  This medical report can be obtained prior to the application or as part of the court's determination.

 

Drive By Guardianships & the Race to the Court House

 

A proceeding for the appointment of a guardian for the person or estate, or both, of an incapacitated person shall be brought 1) in the county in which the proposed ward resides, or 2 ) is located on the date the application is filed or 3) in the county in which the principal estate of the proposed ward is located. If there are multiple counties where the application for a guardianship can be heard, then the place where the first application is filed controls. Combining this rule with 2) above, we have instances where a family member is brought for a visit for the purpose of filing for an application to get the proceeding in a local court. This can be convenient, but also can create races to the court house for different family members.

 Austin Guardianship Lawyer, Travis County Guardianship Application Lawyer, Austin Guardianship Contest Lawyer, Travis County Competence Lawyer, and Austin Alleged and Proposed Ward Hearing Lawyer

When a person becomes unable to take care of themselves, a danger to themselves, a danger to others, or cannot handle their finances, they will often need a guardian to take care of them and their estate.  For more information on Austin and Travis County Guardian and Guardianship matters, please go to the following web page: Austin Guardianship Lawsuits Applications and Contests and Guardianship and Trust Fraud & Negligence Lawsuits.

Infant Heart Defect Lawsuits, SSRI PPHN Lawsuits, and Paxil Lawsuits by Texas Infant Heart Defect Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Infant Heart Defect Lawsuits, Paxil Heart Defect Lawsuits, Paxil Heart Birth Injury Lawsuits, Paxil Infant Heart Valve Lawsuits, Seroxat Infant Development Lawsuits, & Paxil Heart Defect Lawsuits by Texas Infant Heart Defect Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Mothers that have taken Paxil while pregnant should be aware that the drug Paxil has been linked to an increased number of birth defects and birth injuries in children of mothers that took Paxil they were pregnant.  These heart defects, birth injuries, and birth defects include Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension (PPHN) lung damage, heart valve defects, ventricular valve defects, abnormal cranial shaped heads, pulmonary failure and other birth injuries.   

Infant Birth Injury Lawsuits, Infant Heart Defect Lawsuits, Child Heart Defect Lawsuits, Paxil Infant Heart Problem Lawsuits, Paxil Infant Heart Valve Lawsuits, and other Birth Defect Lawsuits

Avoidable birth defects are one of the most devastating problems that can occur to a family and a new baby.  Parents who should be celebrating the birth of a new child, are often caught off guard when their child is born with severe disabilities and often  do not realize that someone may be responsible for the birth injury or defect including drug manufacturers that hid information about medications that can cause birth defects.  The family is typically busy taking care of the child with the serious health problems and often does not know that the birth defect was preventable.  When they discover the probable cause of the preventable birth defect they are often filled with anger and rage.  To find out that their child will have permanent health problems or that they lost their baby because a drug company hid research and did not provide an adequate warning of a product's safety can be extremely difficult.

FDA Advising of Risk of Birth Defects (including Heart Defects) with Paxil Agency Requiring Updated Product Labeling

In 2005, the Food and Drug Administration alerted health care professionals and patients about early results of new studies for Paxil (paroxetine) suggesting that the drug increases the risk for birth defects, particularly heart defects, when women take it during the first three months of pregnancy. Paxil is approved for the treatment of depression and several other psychiatric disorders. FDA is currently gathering additional data and waiting for the final results of the recent studies in order to better understand the higher risk for birth defects that has been seen with Paxil.

FDA is advising health care professionals to discuss the potential risk of birth defects with patients taking Paxil who plan to become pregnant or are in their first three months of pregnancy. Health care professionals should consider discontinuing Paxil (and switching to another antidepressant if indicated) in these patients. In some patients, the benefits of continuing Paxil may be greater than the potential risk to the fetus. FDA is advising health care professionals not to prescribe Paxil in women who are in the first three months of pregnancy or are planning pregnancy, unless other treatment options are not appropriate.

FDA is advising patients that this drug should usually not be taken during pregnancy, but for some women who have already been taking Paxil, the benefits of continuing may be greater than the potential risk to the fetus. Women taking Paxil who are pregnant or plan to become pregnant should talk to their physicians about the potential risks of taking the drug during pregnancy. Women taking Paxil should not stop taking it without first talking with their physician.

The early results of two studies showed that women who took Paxil during the first three months of pregnancy were about one and a half to two times as likely to have a baby with a heart defect as women who received other antidepressants or women in the general population. Most of the heart defects reported in these studies were atrial and ventricular septal defects (holes in the walls of the chambers of the heart). In general, these types of defects range in severity from those that are minor and may resolve without treatment to those that cause serious symptoms and may need to be repaired surgically.

In one of the studies, the risk of heart defects in babies whose mothers had taken Paxil early in pregnancy was about 2 percent, compared to a 1 percent risk in the whole population. In the other study, the risk of heart defects in babies whose mothers had taken Paxil in the first three months of pregnancy was 1.5 percent, compared to 1 percent in babies whose mothers had taken other antidepressants in the first three months of pregnancy.

FDA has asked the manufacturer, Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK), to change the pregnancy category from C to D, a stronger warning. Category D means that studies in pregnant women (controlled or observational) have demonstrated a risk to the fetus. However, the benefits of therapy may outweigh the potential risks to the fetus.

Based on results of the preliminary data, GSK updated the drug's labeling in September 2005 to add data from one study. As additional data have become available, the label has now been changed to reflect the latest data from the two studies and to change the pregnancy category.

 Paroxetine, Seroxat, and Paxil Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Antidepressants (SSRIs) PPHN Birth Defect Lawsuits

Paroxetine (trade names Seroxat, Paxil) is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant that has been linked to birth defects and birth injuries including Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension (PPHN), Paxil Heart Defects, Paxil Lung Damage, and Paxil Cranial Defects.

Paroxetine (trade names Seroxat, Paxil) is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant that has been linked to birth defects including Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension (PPHN), heart, lung, abdominal and cranial defects.  Women that have taken Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Antidepressants (SSRIs) after the 20th week of pregnancy have a 6-fold increased risk of having their child develop persistent pulmonary hypertension, a life-threatening lung disorder.  Infants with persistent pulmonary hypertension have abnormal blood flow through the heart and lungs and do not get enough oxygen to their bodies and may become very sick or die. 

The SSRIs antidepressants that have been linked to persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN) include Paxil by GlaxoSmithKline, Zoloft marketed by Pfizer; Prozac sold by Eli Lilly; Celexa and Lexapro by Forest Laboratories, Effexor marketed by Wyeth, Luvox by Solvay, and the generic makers of these drugs include Barr Pharmaceuticals, Ranbaxy Labs and Genpharm.

Infants born with PPHN often require mechanical assistance to breath and even worse about 10% to 20% of the infants do not survive even when they receive treatment. The PPHN babies that do survive often experience developmental delays, brain abnormalities and hearing loss, experts say.

Other birth defects that have been associated with SSRIs include Anencephaly, a neural tube defect where much of the brain does not develop; Craniosynostosis, an abnormality in which connections of the skull bones close prematurely; and Heart birth defects including septal defects and ventricular defects.

SSRIs have not only been associated to birth defects, but have been associated with increased risk of suicide.  For more information on suicide claims from antidepressants, please see our antidepressant suicide claim information page. 

Paroxetine, Seroxat, and Paxil Failure to Warn Birth Defect Lawsuits

In 2009, a jury awarded a family $2.5 million in a lawsuit filed against the makers of Paxil that alleged the drug was responsible for a young boy's birth defects. The lawsuit claimed that the family's young child suffered from birth defects, including two holes in his heart, which required surgery.  In the wake of this verdict, GlaxoSmithKline has offered to settle many Paxil lawsuits.

Other medications, products, and drugs have also been linked to birth defects and some are the subject of lawsuits.  Some of these medication and products have ample warnings that warn pregnant women to avoid taking these products while they are pregnant, however, some manufacturers have hidden the real dangers of their product in order to sell more of their product and value profits over healthy babies.  For these manufacturers, they may have short term profits, but over the long term they will suffer for the long term birth defects that they have caused.

For more information on Infant Heart Defect Lawsuits, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Antidepressants (SSRIs) PPHN Birth Defect Lawsuits, and Paxil Lawsuits, please go to the following web pages: Infant Heart Defect Lawsuits and Paxil Birth Injury Lawsuits and Paroxetine, Seroxat, and Paxil Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension Lawsuits

Defective Seat Beat Lawsuits and Failed Safety Belt Webbing Lawsuits by Texas Defective Safety Belt Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Defective Seat Belt Lawsuits, Defective Safety Belt and Shoulder Strap Lawsuits, Deadly Vehicle Accident Lawsuits, Texas Deadly Defective Seatbelt Lawsuits, and Defective Safety Restraint Design Lawsuits by Texas Defective Seatbelt Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Defective seat belts, failed seat backs, defective safety designs, defective safety belt webbing, defective airbags and or other crashworthiness defects in automobiles can turn a simple automobile accident into a fatal automobile collision, deadly car wreck, or catastrophic injury crash.  In designing automobiles, manufacturers know that it is important to design vehicles with safety features that protect occupants.  A manufacturer's failure to design a safe vehicles that are crashworthy and designed to protect vehicle occupants, can result in a vehicle crash that injures or kills drivers and vehicle passengers.  

Automobile Accident Defective Safety Belt Lawsuits, Automobile Seatbelt Failure Crash Lawsuits, Automobile Wreck Defective Shoulder Belt Lawsuits and Fatal Automobile Collision Defective Safety Restraint Device Lawsuits (Texas Defective Seatbelt and Safety Restraint Device Lawyer)

Defective Safety Belts, Shoulder Belts, and other restraining safety devices in an automobile can cause catastrophic injuries or even death to a driver or passengers during an automobile crash. Because seatbelts have a variety of moving parts, it is important to understand how the moving parts work and if each of the parts are working correctly when investigating a defective seat belt fatal accident or defective seatbelt catastrophic injury car crash.  This investigation should look at the overall design of the restraint devices in the vehicle and compare it to the injuries sustained by the driver and passengers as well as determine if any individual part of each safety belt, should belt, child safety seat, airbag, and other safety devices were working properly. Typically, defective seatbelt lawsuits and defective safety restraint device lawsuits can be broken down into many categories of defects. 

Automobile Accident Defective Safety Belt Latch Lawsuits, Automobile Seatbelt Latch Failure Crash Lawsuits, Automobile Wreck Defective Shoulder Belt Latch Lawsuits and Fatal Automobile Collision Defective Safety Restraint Latch Device Lawsuits (Texas Defective Seatbelt Latch and Safety Restraint Latch Device Lawyer)

One such category of defective safety belt and defective seatbelt lawsuits are defective seat belt latch lawsuits, defective shoulder strap latch lawsuits, and defective safety restraint latch lawsuits.  In investigating a defective seatbelt latch lawsuit, the defective seatbelt latch lawyer should remember that a seatbelt latch should never unlatch inadvertently. The only time it should unlatch is when the user chooses to unlatch it by pushing whatever apparatus is required to disengage the latch. 

Sometimes a buckle will disengage on its own. Sometimes a latch plate will never securely lock into the buckle and will pull out with little or no effort. These are just two examples of some of the more common latch defects. Inertial unlatching, inadvertent unlatching and false latching are the most commonly encountered latch defects. Inertial unlatching is a situation in which a latch plate will release out of the buckle during a collision. This is commonly a result of an external force applied to certain components of the seatbelt. Allegations of inertial unlatching have been around since the 1970s and were dismissed by car manufacturers. Subsequently, evidence of inertial unlatching has made it a real issue and a viable defect claim. This defect has been identified in seatbelt systems in which the buckle is housed in a rigid stock secured to the vehicle’s frame. With force to the bottom of the stock, the latchplate can be released from the buckle. That is not the only way inertial unlatching can occur. Investigate the possibility of inertial unlatching when considering a failed seatbelt case.

Inadvertent unlatching can be caused by flying debris or flailing limbs contacting the buckle release button during a rollover or other collision. When a foreseeable accident occurs, there is often flying debris throughout the vehicle, and occupants’ limbs are prone to flailing. These scenarios are foreseeable in a collision and seatbelt buckles are intended to stay latched even in the presence of flying debris contacting the buckle release button. Some buckles are better than others at withstanding contact from flying debris. Chrysler’s Generation 3 seatbelt buckles that were installed in many Chrysler products from 1993-2003 were especially susceptible to inadvertent unlatching. If there is a basis for believing that your occupant was belted before the accident but during the accident scenario became unbuckled, investigate the possibility of inadvertent unlatching. False-latching occurs when the latch plate looks, feels and sounds like it is secured in the buckle but is not securely locked in place. Chrysler’s Generation 3 seatbelt buckles that were installed in many Chrysler products from 1993-2003 were especially susceptible to false-latching due to the spacing and structure of their buckles. These buckles were laid out in a way that a user could fully insert the latch plate into the buckle but miss the entire locking mechanism and therefore, never secure the buckle.

A post collision analysis of the buckle can often indicate if false-latching is a concern. When a seatbelt latch fails it is possible the police report will state, and may be corroborated by first responders and witnesses, that the occupant was not wearing a seatbelt. As discussed above, latches can fail and occupants can appear no longer belted after an accident. Thoroughly analyze the seatbelts and interview all witnesses to see if there is any evidence of usage and/or the possibility of the seatbelt failing. 

Automobile Accident Defective Safety Belt Spooling Lawsuits, Automobile Seatbelt Spooling Failure Crash Lawsuits, Automobile Wreck Defective Shoulder Belt Spooling Lawsuits and Fatal Automobile Collision Defective Safety Restraint Spooling Device Lawsuits (Texas Defective Spooling Seatbelt and Safety Restraint Device Lawyer)

Another category of defective safety belt and defective seatbelt lawsuits are defective seatbelt spooling lawsuits, defective shoulder strap spooling lawsuits, and defective safety restraint spooling lawsuits.  In investigating a defective seatbelt spooling lawsuit, the defective seatbelt spooling lawyer should remember that a seatbelt retractor device should keep the driver and passengers in a vehicle properly restrained during a collision.  The seatbelt retractor should lock the seatbelt and hold the driver and passengers in place preventing them from hitting the windshield or other parts of the inside of the vehicle that could cause serious injury or death.  In order words a proper functioning retractor should not release excess slack during a collision allowing the occupants to move and potentially suffer serious or fatal injuries. 

Seatbelt and safety belt spooling occurs when an excess amount of webbing is introduced into a seatbelt during a collision or rollover event because of a defect in the retractor device. When a defective retractor fails to properly lock, excessive seatbelt webbing can be released out of the defective retractor and results in excess seatbelt webbing or slack in the seatbelt that can prevent the driver or passengers from being safely held in place causing a catastrophic or fatal injury in what should have been an injury free collision.

Seatbelt spooling can happen for many reasons. Regardless of the reason, the seatbelt should not spool-out and fail to keep a driver or passenger properly restrained during a collision or rollover event. If in post-collision the post accident investigation, the seatbelt is found with excess slack in the belt, it is important to carefully consider and analyze the possibility of a spooling defect. Also, if a driver or passenger hit the windshield or appears to have moved a lot when they should have been properly restrained, it is important to consider the possibility of spooling and a defective seatbelt retractor device.

Through pictures or post-collision vehicle inspections, the presence of too much webbing in the belt can often be identified. The defective retractor device often cannot be identified by a cursory examination of the vehicle wreckage, but typically is only identified by experienced defective seatbelt spooling lawyers and the use of defective seatbelt spooling experts. Even if it can be determined that spooling happened, it often takes an experienced defective seatbelt lawyer or expert to determine the cause of the defective seatbelt retractor. Sometimes a seatbelt will spool-out simply as a result of the retractor failing to lock up during a collision. Please keep in mind that retractors are designed to be triggered by certain events. They are created to lock up when there is force applied in one direction or another. For example, a retractor obviously should lock with the force of a high-speed front-end collision.  In the front-end collision, a secure shoulder belt should restrain the driver and passengers in the seats and prevent injurious contacts with the steering wheel and windshield. In front-end collision cases, defective spooling causing a slack or loosely fitting shoulder belt could fail to hold a driver or passenger in their seat and allow them to be thrown into the steering wheel, windshield, or other parts of the interior of a vehicle.

A defective retractor can also fail to lock during a rollover collision, allowing to excess webbing to be introduced into the seatbelts and allowing drivers and passengers to be thrown free during the rollover. Traditional seatbelt systems have been typically ill-equipped to account for the vehicle dynamics of a rollover. In a rollover, however, seatbelts are critical in limiting occupant excursion. Occupant excursion is the extent to which the driver's and passenger's bodies move out of their original seating position during a collision event. Typically, the greater the excursion, the greater the chance of injury. Many retractors, by design, let out excess slack during a rollover because the mechanism for locking the retractor is ineffective while the vehicle is rolling. Instead of staying locked through the entirety of a rollover event, some seatbelt retractors will lock and unlock as the vertical and horizontal forces on the vehicle change. Retractors should stay locked during the entirety of a collision.

A retractor staying locked throughout a rollover is essential to limiting occupant excursion. When investigating and pleading a design defect seatbelt case, always be current on what safer alternative designs were available when the vehicle was manufactured. There are multiple safer alternative designs on the market that can alleviate spooling. Some automobile manufacturers incorporate more than one retractor into their seatbelt systems in case one fails. Rollover fired seatbelt pretensioners were developed in the past ten years to address many of the retractor issues related to rollovers. They are activated when a rollover is sensed and automatically pull in and lock the seatbelt. Seat integrated, or All-Belts to Seats, systems are systems where the seatbelt housing is located in the seat and not the B-Pillar. Also, Web-Grabbers help alleviate the chances of spooling. All of these are safer alternative designs that help to significantly reduce occupant excursion in a collision event. When investigating a design defect seatbelt case, determine what safer alternative designs were economically and technologically feasible at the time the vehicle was manufactured. Retractors can fail to lock because of a variety of defects including design defects and manufacturing defects. 

Automobile Accident Defective Safety Belt Webbing Lawsuits, Automobile Seatbelt Webbing Failure Crash Lawsuits, Automobile Wreck Defective Shoulder Belt Webbing Lawsuits and Fatal Automobile Collision Defective Safety Restraint Webbing Device Lawsuits (Texas Defective Webbing Seatbelt and Safety Restraint Device Lawyer)

Another category of defective safety belt and defective seatbelt lawsuits are defective seatbelt webbing lawsuits, defective shoulder strap webbing lawsuits, and defective webbing manufacturing lawsuits.  In investigating a defective seatbelt webbing lawsuit, the defective seatbelt webbing lawyer should remember that seatbelt webbing should not break or come apart in most vehicle collisions.  Seatbelt webbing that has broken has probably been cut or was the result of a seatbelt manufacturing defect.  In order words seatbelt webbing should not rip or tear apart during a collision allowing the occupants to move and potentially suffer serious or fatal injuries.

The presence of ripped or torn safety belt webbing should raise a red flag that there may be a defect or manufacturing flaw in the safety belt webbing.  When the seatbelt tears or is ripped in half during an accident, something has probably gone terribly wrong. Seat belt webbing is designed to withstand the forces of most survivable collisions without ripping or tearing. Torn or ripped seatbelt webbing might occur because of a defect or manufacturing flaw in the webbing itself, such as material or weaving deficiencies.  Ripped or torn webbing might also be the consequence of some other type of automobile defect including defective spooling, defective detractor, or defective safety design. 

Automobile Accident Defective Safety Restraint Design Lawsuits, Automobile Seatbelt Design Crash Lawsuits, Automobile Wreck Defective Shoulder Belt Design Lawsuits and Fatal Automobile Collision Defective Safety Restraint Design Lawsuits (Texas Defective Seatbelt and Safety Restraint Device Design Lawyer)

Another category of defective safety belt and defective seatbelt lawsuits are defective seatbelt design lawsuits, defective shoulder strap design lawsuits, and defective safety restraint design lawsuits.  In investigating a defective seatbelt design lawsuit, the defective safety design lawyer should remember that a seatbelt retractor device should keep the driver and passengers in a vehicle properly restrained during a collision.  The seatbelt retractor should lock the seatbelt and hold the driver and passengers in place preventing them from hitting the windshield or other parts of the inside of the vehicle that could cause serious injury or death.  In order words a proper functioning retractor should not release excess slack during a collision allowing the occupants to move and potentially suffer serious or fatal injuries. 

Also, sometimes simply the geometry, or layout, of the seatbelt system is such that it will necessarily allow occupant excursion during a crash and render the restraint system ineffective. For  a seatbelt system to be effective, it is important that the seatbelts work in conjunction with the vehicle's seats and surrounding structure.  If the seatbelt safety restrain system is not compatible with the interior of the vehicle or there are other defects in the vehicle including defective airbags, defective seats, or a defective roof, the crashworthiness of the vehicle may be defective and cause drivers or passengers to be injured or killed due to a combination of vehicle failures.

Additionally, defective automatic seatbelt design systems and defective automatic door lock systems can cause dangers if they release during a collision.  For example an automatic seatbelt and door lock system can cause restraints to be released and doors to be opened during a rollover accident. This could cause the driver and passengers to be thrown around inside the vehicle or even out of the vehicle. 

Automobile Accident Crashworthiness Defective Air Bag Lawsuits and Fatal Automobile Collision Crashworthiness Defective Air Bag Lawsuits (Automobile Defective Airbag Product Liability Lawsuits)

Defective Air Bag Claims may arise out of serious automobile accidents where a defective air bag was the cause of death or a catastrophic injury.  An air bag injury may result when an air bag deploys at low impact or no impact. The defective airbag will deploy at tremendous force which is necessary to protect passengers from  forward momentum of a high-speed crash. However, if the air bag deploys At low speed, deployment can snap the head and neck back severely, resulting in spinal damage, brain injury and soft tissue damage. Facial lacerations and even broken bones in the face are also common. Sometimes air bags fail to deploy when they should, resulting in chest, head, face and or neck injury as the body is propelled against the dashboard, windshield or seatback. For more information on Texas Defective Airbag Lawsuits, please go to the following web page on Texas Defective Airbag Lawyer.

Catastrophic Injury Defective Seat Belt Lawsuits, Single Vehicle Accident Lawsuits, Deadly Defective Seatbelt Lawsuits, Defective Restraint Design Lawsuits, Fatal One Automobile Crash Lawsuits, and Catastrophic Injury & Deadly Defective Shoulder Strap Lawsuits (Texas Defective Restraint and Safety Belt Lawsuits)

For more information on defective seat belt lawsuits, failed seat back lawsuits, defective safety design lawsuits, defective safety belt webbing lawsuits, defective airbag lawsuits and other automobile defective crashworthiness lawsuits, feel free to follow the links in this post.  This post was written by Texas Defective Seat Belt Fatal Accident Lawyer, Jason Coomer, who works on Texas Defective Seatbelt Lawsuits involving serious injuries and fatal automobile collisions all over the State of Texas and throughout the United States.  In working on Texas Fatal Seatbelt Crash Law Suits, Jason Coomer commonly works with other Texas Fatal Defective Seat Belt Rollover Accident Lawyers throughout Texas and the United States including Houston Fatal Defective Safety Belt Collision Lawyers, Dallas Fatal Defective Seat Belt Rollover Lawyers, El Paso Defective Safety Restraint Fatal Accident Lawyers, and San Antonio Defective Safety Belt Design Serious Burn and Death Accident Lawyers.