That depends who you ask. GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Wellbutrin, has not questioned its safety. Unfortunately, neither has the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) but sometimes this U.S. government agency is slow to act.

Wellbutrin was touted as the safe antidepressant during pregnancy. Other antidepressants like Zoloft, Paxil, Prozac, and Celexa are known no-no’s during pregnancy.

The American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology recently published a study alerting doctors about women taking Wellbutrin during the first trimester and the risk of congenital heart birth defects. Mothers who used Wellbutrin during early pregnancy had more than double the risk of heart defects compared to infants whose mothers did not take Wellbutrin.

Wellbutrin babies suffer the following heart afflictions:

• Atrial septal defect (ASD)
• Coarctation of the aorta (CoA)
• Heart ventricle outflow track defects
• Pulmonary stenosis (PS)
• Thickened heart muscle is right ventricular hypertrophy (RVH
• Ventrical septal defect (VSD)

Nobody likes to think about lawsuits but your baby may need expensive life-saving and life-improving medical procedures that your health insurance will probably not cover or most certainly not cover in its entirety. Your baby will need costly care giving, expensive prescription drugs and perhaps medical devices, and ongoing therapy. Your baby’s pain and suffering will entwine with your emotional pain and suffering.

A Wellbutrin personal injury lawsuit can help pay for your medical bills and expenses.
A word of caution: Don’t wait and don’t dwell. Before you know it, too much time passes and in Arizona and Pennsylvania, personal injury lawsuits must be filed within two years of the date when the injury occurred. Please contact Attorney Larry Coben to find what legal recourse you have.

Air bag systems were installed in the United States in thousands of automobiles during the model years 1974 through 1976. These air bags were designed and installed in large size vehicles by both General Motors Corporation and Ford Motor Company. At the time, the intent was to provide frontal crash protection for the general population of motorists who, on the whole, were not wearing seat belts. Consequently, the air bags installed in the 1970s were quite large in circumference — occupying fully the entire front of the vehicle from door to door. The very few accident studies of early vintage air bag crashes concluded that these systems were working to minimize injury potential. Those studies were consistent with laboratory testing which demonstrated that these passive restraint systems provided protection in barrier impacts through 30 to 40 mph crash speed range. (more…)

This report was written and its research conducted by Safety Research & Strategies, Inc. on behalf of consumers and the injured individuals, families and loved ones of the fatal vicitims of Toyota Sudden Unintended Acceleration.

View Report

In the United States every year, more than 355,000 Americans are injured or killed in rollover accidents. Of those victims, about 10,000 die and approximately 14,000 are seriously, severely or critically injured. Study after study has proven that the primary sources of injury associated with the most severe injuries are vehicle roof pillars, rails and headers. Further, the body regions of the head (brain), face and neck (spine) have the highest frequency among the severe injuries. Despite the fact that rollovers only represent about 3% of the many types of accidents happening on our highways, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has found that more than 30% of all fatalities and catastrophic injuries happen in rollovers. Rollover casualty rates are now three times higher than frontal rates. (more…)

On January 26, 1994, at about 9:17 a.m., Kenneth Munroe was driving his 1990 Chevrolet Corsica westbound on Rural Road through the intersection at Broadway Road in Tempe, Arizona, when another motorist turned in front of Mr. Munroe and caused a collision. The impact to Mr. Munroe’s car was frontal, and the accident occurred at a relatively low speed. At the time of the collision, Mr. Munroe was wearing the door mounted seat belt system that came with the car. During this collision, the seat belt failed to safely control Mr. Munroe’s movement. (more…)

After the promulgation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, literally every state jurisdiction, including Arizona, revised its pre-trial discovery rules by either adopting the Federal Rules, or by promulgating similar procedural rules. These rules were a welcomed modification to the early practice known by may as “trial by ambush”. This report will look at the working application of the rules of discovery to a certain sub-set of products liability litigation, review the major changes made to the Arizona rules of discovery, and suggest how these alterations will effect the litigation of a motor vehicle product liability case. (more…)

Lawyers, doctors, architects, psychiatrists, accountants and many others who have, through laborious studies, earned advanced degrees to provide sophisticated and diverse services to the public may one day have a common experience – the sobering experience of a malpractice lawsuit. In the past, writers have specifically analyzed some of the more predictable issues which arise in some of these specialized areas1; others have pondered whether individual reported cases represent the best or the worst examples of judicial tolerance. It therefore seems appropriate to reflect upon the responsiveness of our judicial system to professional malpractice. (more…)

The increasingly complex task of representing the victims or manufacturers of mass produced products has caused lawyers representing plaintiffs and defendants to form various organizations, whose task is to coordinate the joint efforts of counsel in fairly representing their respective clients. These organizations — such as the Defense Research Institute, the American Trial Lawyers Association, and the Products Liability Advisory often require member counsel to sign joint prosecution/confidentiality agreements, which forbid the dissemination of materials prepared, organized or generated by these litigation support groups to anyone outside the membership–except in the case of the use of the data in a specific case. (more…)

Under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (“UCATA”), each tortfeasor in a personal injury action is liable for his share of fault. UCATA expressly restricts the liability of each defendant to “the amount of damages allocated to that defendant in direct proportion to that defendant’s percentage of fault.” A.R.S. §12-2506(B) requires that “in assessing percentages of fault the trier of fact shall consider the fault of all persons who contributed to the alleged injury, death…” How must these statutes be construed in a case sounding in strict liability? How do these statutes affect a plaintiff’s right to recover when there are no other “parties at fault” beside the defendant and the plaintiff? (more…)

In this era of consumerism and government regulation, we are constantly learning of errors in product manufacture which either require or compel recall. Litigants, who have been the victim of product defect, are now training their sights on the proposition that a manufacturer has a legal/factual duty to recall and correct a product defect if that defect was recognized and correctible before the accident event. There is, however, little defining law on this topic. Nevertheless, common sense and morality should direct our legal analysis. The following review demonstrates the rationale for allowing juries to consider whether a product manufacturer has an obligation and whether it has satisfied its obligation to recall and correct a product defect. (more…)