Grace Lee USNA 289R 19 April 2024 An Era of Breast Implant Litigation: Dow Chemical Co v. Mahlum Introduction Breast implant litigation is one of the most highly controversial and expensive series of cases in United States legal history. In 1990, as the FDA banned silicone breast implants and a rise of media information arose on the possible harmful impacts of these implants, a wave of lawsuits emerged against various breast implant companies. Dow Chemical Co v. Mahlum discusses an appeal from Dow Chemical Co. to overturn Charlotte Mahlum’s claims of negligence and fraud for distributing breast implants. This case provides a precedent in determining the risk of selling invasive technologies that could possibly affect human health. Particularly, …show more content…
Mahlum decision. The controversy began in 1985, as Charlotte Mahlum decided to receive silicone gel breast implants. In 1990, her health began to detonate and, “In July 1993, one of Mahlum’s breast implants ruptured, requiring the surgical removal of both implants,” however all of the silicone could not be removed and her health continued to deteriorate. In 1993, Charlotte Mahlum, with many other plaintiffs, decided to sue Dow Chemical Company, as she claimed she had contracted an autoimmune disease as a result of the implants. She attempted to prove that Dow Chemical had negligently and fraudulently hid information that the breast implants could be harmful. She relied heavily upon medical experts and testimony from licensed doctors to defend her case and prove causation between the implants and her autoimmune disease. After four weeks, the jury voted against Dow Corning on fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, aiding and abetting Dow Corning, and negligent performance. For these reasons, “The jury awarded Charlotte Mahlum $38,654.00 in past damages and $3,915,000.00 in future damages, and awarded Marvin Mahlum $200,000.00 in future damages. The jury also awarded the Mahlums $10,000,000.00 in punitive damages.” This case is Dow Chemical’s appeal to the decision awarded in the original case. Dow Chemical argues “(1) it is …show more content…
Although there was previously a lawsuit in 1984, the Stern lawsuit went largely unnoticed until 1990 when, on the eve of congressional hearings on the safety of breast implants, a program on the dangers of silicone implants aired on Face to Face with Connie Chung. From there, a series of breast cancer cases emerged by 1991, with the negative media attention the implants received. Charlotte Mahlum’s case, in context with the media attention, was at the later end of breast implant litigation, following the wave of lawsuits. There had already been a variety of successful and unsuccessful lawsuits against Dow Corning throughout this period, however each case received media attention inciting fear into the general public. This contextualization explains the complications between Dow Corning and Dow Chemical described above, as Dow Corning had already experienced a litany of cases against them. Charlotte Mahlum’s case was part of a very specific era of breast implant litigation, most likely contributing to her success. Her case, beginning in 1993, was one of “12,359 individual lawsuits” filed against Dow Corning, focusing on how silicone implants cause autoimmune disease. A shift in medical literature regarding this causation only emerged in 1994 after the end of Mahlum’s case. Although the court began taking note of these findings, this shift took place
No further information was given and the questionnaire was not filled out. LAA’s doctors (Defendant), Dr. Preau and Dr. Dennis, submitted referral letters for on his behalf. The letter from Dr. Dennis and Dr. Preau stated that both of them had worked with Dr. Berry and they highly recommend Dr. Berry as an anaestheologist. Based on the letter and recommendations, Kadlec hired him. Approximately a year later, Berry again started using Demerol. On work at Kadlec, he committed gross negligence resulting in severe brain damage to patient. Due to this incidence Kadlec learned that Dr. Berry had been fired from Lakeview. Kadlec first settled Dr. Berry’s malpractice case and then filed suit against Lakeview, its shareholders, and LMC for intentional negligence and strict responsibility misrepresentation based on LMC’s omission of material facts in the letter to Kadlec. The district court supported Plaintiff’s theory. LMC’s moved for summary
Medical malpractice cases are difficult for the families who have lost their loved one or have suffered from severe injuries. No one truly wins in complicated court hearings that consist of a team of litigation attorneys for both the defendant and plaintiff(s). During the trial, evidence supporting malpractice allegations have to be presented so that the court can make a decision if the physician was negligent resulting in malpractice, or if the injury was unavoidable due to the circumstances. In these types of tort cases, the physician is usually a defendant on trial trying to prove that he or she is innocent of the medical error, delay of treatment or procedure that caused the injury. The perfect example of being at fault for medical malpractice as a result of delaying a procedure is the case of Waverly family versus John Hopkins Health System Corporation. The victims were not compensated enough for the loss of their child’s normal life. Pozgar (2012) explained….
In the case of Kolchek suing to recover for Litisha’s injuries, she can sure under the negligence liability. Every product should be fully tested in every way possible to see if the product functions correctly and will it injure individuals. There should not have been a whole that is not covered. Like stated in our book The Legal Environment of Business, “if a manufacture fails to exercise “due care” to make a product safe, a person who is injured by the product may sue the manufacture for negligence”. Kolchek could sue the manufacture. In this case which is Great Lakes spa. Porter was just a company that was selling the product. Great Lakes spa should have taken the initiative to examine their products throughly before putting it out on the make for individuals to buy. Like in our book The Legal Environment of Business stated, “A manufacture, seller, or lesser is liable for failure to exercise due care to any person who sustains an injury proximately caused by a negligently made (defective) product.”
Nurse finders later assigned Drummond to work at a Kaiser facility as a medical assistant. The Plaintiff Sara Montegue was a medical assistant at Kaiser. Drummond and Montague had a disagreement, Montague didn’t think it was much of a big argument to report it. Both Drummond and Montague had a discussion about misplaced lab slips where Drummond raised her voice. A few weeks after the discussion, Montague left her water bottle at work. Montague later drank from her water bottle and her tongue and throat started to burn and she vomited. Drummond admitted that she had poured carbolic acid found in a Kaiser examination room into Montague’s water
The experiment lasted more than forty years and did not garner media attention until 1972, when it was finally made public by Jean Heller of the Associated Press to an outraged nation. The fact that a medical practitioner would knowingly violate an individual’s rights makes one question their bioethical practices. What gives doctors the right to make a human being a lab rat? When both of these case studies began in the earlier half of the 20th century, African Americans were still fighting for the most
Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals where the petitioners claimed that their children were born with birth defects due to “the mother’s ingestion of Bendectin, a prescription antinausea drug marketed by respondent” (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993). In Daubert, the lower court applied the Frye Standard to the testimony of eight expert witnesses presented as evidence by the petitioner. The court excluded that the testimony, and findings of the eight expert witnesses presenting on behalf of the petitioners did not meet the Frye Standard because the results “had not been published or subjected to peer review” (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993), or accepted by the relevant scientific community. In reviewing the case, the Supreme Court decided that since the Federal Rules of Evidence superseded the Frye Standard in 1975, the lower court did not properly apply the Frye Standard. The decision in Daubert sets forth a five-prong approach called the Daubert Standard that evaluates scientific evidence against five factors. The five factors the court must consider are whether the theory or technique “can be and has been tested”; subject to peer review and publication, the potential rate of error, the existence of standards, and acceptance within the relevant scientific community (Fish, Miller, Braswell, & Wallace Jr., 2014, p. 22). Daubert also assigns
The intent of “Ashley Treatment” was to improve Ashley’s quality of life by limiting her growth size, eliminating menstrual cramps and bleeding, and prevent discomfort from large breast. In order for the treatment to be successful, Ashley had undergone multiple surgeries that include, hysterectomy to eliminate future menstrual cramps and bleeding and removal of breast tissue to avoid the discomfort of fully formed breast later in life. Also, because of the treatment, she need to received estrogen hormonal therapy. According to Robert W. Newsom, 2009, over the period of 3 years, Ashley received high dose of estrogen, a growth attenuation treatment that will result in her remaining relatively small stature, perhaps 4 feet 6 inches tall and weighing about 65 or 70 pounds.” The combination of multiple surgeries and estrogen hormonal treatment attracted public opinion and ethical analysis, both supportive and condemning.
In the early 1980’s breast implants began gaining popularity, but they have been on the market since the early 1960’s. They were invented by plastic surgeons Cronin and Gerow. Dow Corning began manufacturing them commercially in 1962. Today over two million women have undergone breast augmentation surgery. There are many negative consequences that may arise from the surgery, and there is always the risk of infection or rupture. When beginning my research on the subject I assumed there would be a plethora of information. I was shocked to find out that there wasn’t. Silicone breast implants have been around for 40 years and there have been very few studies on their consequences, and possible effects on a woman’s body. The Food and Drug Administration has never approved the use of silicone implants. It is a surprising fact, because silicone implants are still being used today, but only by women who agree to be in a study of their safety. The politics surrounding breast augmentation are sketchy for lack of a better word. They have been promoted as being safe, yet their safety has never been fully questioned. While looking online, I found a variety of websites on the subject. There were many websites from the plastic surgery industry promoting breast implants as being safe. Then there were the websites like http://www.siliconeholocaust.org, this was by far the most disturbing site I have ever seen. There were dozens of pictures of real women who had their lives ruined by breast implants. If these, and other women had the little information that is available on the subject, they may have opted not to have the surgery because of the unnecessary consequences they now suffer.
Throughout history, beginning as early as 500 BC, animals have been used to test products that will later be utilized by humans (“Animal Testing” 4), what isn’t publicly discussed is the way it will leave the animals after the process is done. Many innocent rabbits, monkeys, mice, and even popular pets such as dogs are harmed during the testing application of cosmetics, medicine, perfumes, and many other consumer products (Donaldson 2). Nevertheless, there are many people whom support the scandal because "it is a legal requirement to carry out animal testing to ensure they are safe and effective” for human benefit (Drayson). The overall question here is should it even be an authorized form of experimentation in the United States, or anywhere else? The fact of the matter is that there are alternatives to remove animals out of the equation for good (“Alternatives” 1). They are cheaper, and less invasive than the maltreatment of the 26 million innocent animals that are subjected to the heartlessness of testing each year (“Animal Testing” 4). All in all, due to the harsh effects of animal testing, it should be treated as animal cruelty in today’s society.
The purpose of this research paper is that to present the difficulties Procter & Gamble faced in the early 1980¡¦s due to a correlation between the company¡¦s Rely tampon and the disease Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS). Also, how the company handled the findings before and after new laws were passed by Congress giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate medical devices, which included tampons. Thereafter, I will analyze the ethical issues relevant to this case within a SWOT analysis.
Janssen, Cecile. How FDA and 23andMe Dance Around Evidence That Is Not There. The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 27 Jan. 2014.
It is now required by law that cosmetics are tested for safety before being made available to the public. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in charge of overseeing drug and cosmetic testing today. Animal testing was the most widespread form of cosmetic testing considered proven, but the technology that is now available may replace the need for animal test...
Goudrea, Jenna. “The Hidden Dangers Of Cosmetic Surgery.” Forbes. 16 06 2011: n. page. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.
Typically when having surgery done, people will weigh the risk of the surgery against against the suspected health improvement. However, when having cosmetic surgery done, there is no health improvement. There is actually no improvement at all except to the patients mental views on themselves. There are many risks when having plastic surgery that are often overlooked by patients because the surgery is being preformed by doctors. Doctors aren’t here to harm us, but heal us, so having a certified person in a white coat cut you open to put implants in you, could’t be harmful could it? Unfortunately, it easily could. “It’s well known that breast implants of many types can cause burning pain, loss of sensation, hardening of breast tissue and serious infection. One woman who suffered complications from implants has filed a petition with the Scottish government urging adoption of such a ban. An argument could even be made that aesthetic surgery violates the Hippocratic oath [taken by medical doctors] because it carries a potential for harm without curing or preventing disease.”(Edmonds) A French company named Poly Implant Prosthese (PIP) is known for having faulty breast implants. The PIP’s are known to rupture more easily and are full of an industrial grade of silicone that was never intended for use in the medical
In 2007 alone, Americans spent $13 billion on 11.7 million cosmetic procedures. This is a fact that, to me is astounding. In such a world of debt and loss of jobs this industry has flourished with out even a hint of slowing down, for some this has become and addiction. Many major television networks have covered the dramatic growth and addiction of the procedure, which such shows as “MTV’s True life I’m getting unusual plastic surgery” or “True life I hate my plastic surgery” as well as “botched” and “My strange addiction”. Now the shows show different spectrums of this billion-dollar industry. For example on an episode of My strange addiction on addict has had 125 different procedures to look like the Ken doll which has cost him up to nearly $160,000. On botched this show centers on procedures that have gone wrong. In once instance the show features a woman named Alicia that has had a breast augmentation that has gone completely wrong from the position of the implants to the location under the skin where they were put