Most cases taken on a “if you don’t win, you don’t pay” basis.
Not all lawyers are willing to take your case.
Find out how to collect the most money for your injuries!
Fill out the form on the right to have a lawyer contact you.
For faster service call 800-611-7080
Choosing the right lawyer for your case can be a life changing decision.
Choosing the wrong lawyer for your case can cost you millions.
We match injured clients with law firms experienced in their case types.
We match injured clients with law firms experienced in their case types.
Fill out the form on the right and we will have an experienced lawyer contact you.
For faster service call 800-611-7080
  • Contact Form

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Phone

    Case Details

    Contact Form Agreement

  • Nuvaring Lawsuit

Nuvaring Lawsuit

Deep Vein Thrombosis

Deep Vein Thrombosis

Nuvaring Lawsuit News from Best Legal Source (5/9/12): Lawyers are currently representing Nuvaring Lawsuit clients who suffered side effects while taking this particular form of contraceptive. Women can be represented for blood clot events they endured through a Nuvaring Lawsuit. Our company, Best Legal Source, is a trusted business known for successfully connecting thousands of injured parties with qualified lawyers such as those looking into the Nuvaring Lawsuit. Call us today to be connected with a Nuvaring Lawsuit attorney. You can contact Best Legal Source through the information form to the right or by calling (800) 611-7080.

1-800-611-7080

The Nuvaring Lawsuit might result in compensation due to certain health complications associated with contraceptives.  The women who have felt the health complications of blood clots, or issues caused by blood clots, know the long-term effects of these conditions. Your health affects all areas of your life and a Nuvaring Lawsuit is an attempt at justice for the emotional and physical pain caused by blood clots.

Best Legal Source works tirelessly to help those injured by pharmaceutical drugs like Nuvaring, find knowledgeable attorneys for cases like the Nuvaring Lawsuit. We believe manufacturers should be held accountable for defective products and the toll the products take on people’s lives.

Blood clots that form in the legs can travel to the lungs and create blockages. This is the serious condition known as a pulmonary embolism. Events such as this can cost an exorbitant amount of money through hospital stays, treatment, surgery and ongoing medical care. A Nuvaring Lawsuit may afford you the possibility to pay for these expenses and remove this financial strain from your life.

Blood clots can result in deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). The Nuvaring Lawsuit participants may have been affected by DVT, PE, stroke and other serious blood clots. The validity of the Nuvaring Lawsuit is reinforced by the fact that these women were not previously at risk for blood clots. If you had no other significant blood clot risk factors such as smoking, you may be especially eligible to enter the Nuvaring Lawsuit.

You owe it to yourself to seek further information regarding a Nuvaring Lawsuit if you or a loved one has suffered any injuries while using Nuvaring.     Compensation for damages or other health conditions that developed while you were on Nuvaring could possibly be recovered if a Nuvaring Lawsuit is filed.

1-800-611-7080

Our use of the phrases Nuvaring Lawsuit and Nuvaring Lawsuits, as well as other terms containing the phrase Nuvaring Lawsuit, does not indicate a relationship between Best Legal Source and the makers of Nuvaring. Nuvaring Lawsuit is a general term used for descriptive purposes only.  It is used to explain the legal process and services provided by an attorney experienced with the Nuvaring Lawsuit and similar cases.   Financial difficulties such as high hospital and medical costs are primary reasons individuals consider filing a Nuvaring Lawsuit when injuries were sustained due to the use of this medication.

More on Nuvaring Lawsuit

Don’t be intimidated by the drug giants like the manufacturer of Nuvaring. We know lawyers who are experienced in pharmaceutical litigation and will fight diligently for your rights through the Nuvaring Lawsuit. We can get you into conversation with these Nuvaring Lawsuit attorneys through a free consultation. There are no outside expenses for you; in fact, there are no out-of-pocket costs for our service or the service of the Nuvaring Lawsuit attorneys. If the Nuvaring Lawsuit is successful, the attorneys will be paid a designated portion of the earnings. You will not owe any expenses for the Nuvaring Lawsuit if the case is not won.

Our mission at Best Legal Source is to assist those individuals injured by Nuvaring find a law firm willing to take their Nuvaring Lawsuit.  If you or someone you love is among those that have been injured, contact us today.  Time is essential in these cases.  Best Legal Source is waiting to help you find an experienced and knowledgeable Nuvaring Lawsuit attorney to begin the legal process. Pick up the phone today and call us at (800) 611-7080.

1-800-611-7080

Historical Information Regarding Blood Clots

Information centered on oral contraceptives that may influence a Nuvaring Lawsuit: An increased risk of thromboembolic and thrombotic disease associated with the use of oral contraceptives is well established. The Nuvaring Lawsuit will determine whether this risk is also present when using this birth control ring.

This medication may increase the risk of serious and life threatening injuries such as heart attack, stroke, pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.  If you are taking Nuvaring and suffered from any of the adverse events linked to this drug, it is vital you contact your healthcare provider immediately.  You then have the right to contact a Nuvaring Lawsuit attorney and seek financial compensation for your losses.  Call Best Legal Source at 800-611-7080 or complete the form above and an experienced Nuvaring Lawsuit attorney will contact you about getting a Nuvaring Lawsuit started.

Background information leading to a Nuvaring Lawsuit: The birth control ring is a relatively new form of birth control, so studies are not as prolific as the documented and published studies are concerning the earlier forms of hormonal birth control. The safety risk accompanying oral contraceptives has been documented since 1995, and showed an elevated risk of blood clots in those pills containing desogestrel compared to other progestins. Recently published studies found that women who take a birth control pill containing the hormone drospirenone have a higher risk of blood clots.  A Safety Alert by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated they are currently evaluating results from studies to evaluate risks versus benefits of drospirenone containing birth control pills. This information may or may not benefit your counsel in the Nuvaring Lawsuit, but it does substantiate claims against other contraceptives.

Nuvaring Lawsuit:

Nuvaring Lawsuit

Nuvaring Lawsuit

  • Nuvaring Lawsuit Evidence Released

    Nuvaring Lawsuit News 10/30/2012: A recent ruling by the Judge overseeing the Nuvaring Lawsuit Multidistrict Litigation could be good news for women who have suffered a blood clot related injury and have  already filed  a Nuvaring Lawsuit. For anyone who was injured by Nuvaring that has yet to file a Nuvaring Lawsuit to recover compensation for your injuries, please contact our toll free number today to arrage a legal consultation to start the process of filing your Nuvaring Lawsuit before the legal time limit to file your Nuvaring Lawsuit runs out.

    1-800-611-7080

     

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Ruling

    The ruling made by the Judge in the Nuvaring Lawsuit Multidistrict Litigation forces the defendant, Oraganon USA Inc., to turn over documents which it had previously sought to keep sealed. It has been reported that some of these documents may contain evidence that will be harmful to the Nuvaring Lawsuit defendants case.  Many Nuvaring Lawsuit case filing accuse the maker of Nuvaring of concealing information relating to the health risks associated with the use of Nuvaring.  If the documents, recently ordered unsealed, prove that the maker of Nuvaring was in fact withholding information regarding the health risks associated with Nuvaring,  this evidence could severely limit the Nuvaring Lawsuit defendants ability to defend themselves against allegations made in Nuvaring Lawsuit cases.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Evidence and the Effect on Jurors

    With the first Nuvaring Lawsuit trials set for early next year, the release of the documents the maker of Nuvaring had been trying to keep sealed could have a major impact on the outcome of these first Nuvaring Lawsuit Trials. If it is shown that the maker of Nuvaring intentionally concealed information that possibly could have prevented injuries to women who use their product,  jurors could take this into consideration when awarding a financial judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.  Jury sentiment can play a major role in the outcome of any case and Nuvaring Lawsuits are no exception. If  the recently unsealed documents provide evidence that the maker of Nuvaring willfully withheld information, this could cause jurors to take an unfavorable view of the Nuvaring Lawsuit defendants integrity. If the Nuvaring Lawsuit defendants credibility is damaged  this damage could  color how the jury views an evidence presented by the Nuvaring Lawsuit defendant.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit First Trials

    The outcome of the first Nuvaring Lawsuit trials set for early next year could have a major impact on how the defendant proceeds after those trials.  If the newly unsealed documents have the effect of causing juries in these initial trials to render monetary awards in amounts larger than they may have in the absence of these documents, then the impact of these initial large jury awards could impact the defendant in future Nuvaring Lawsuit cases. This impact could be felt in Nuvaring Lawsuit cases  that go to trail and even in the amount they may have to offer Nuvaring Lawsuit plaintiffs to settle out of court.  In cases like the Nuvaring Lawsuit, the first cases that go to trail can establish a baseline for the amount that the defendant will have to offer in settlement to prevent other cases from going to trial. Any given Nuvaring Lawsuit plaintiff would have no reason to accept an offer that was far out of line with what Nuvaring Plaintiffs that took their cases to trial received in jury awards.

     

     Nuvaring Lawsuit Injuries

    The common blood clot related events and injuries that have led to the filing of Nuvaring Lawsuits include Pulmonary Embolisms, Deep Vein Thrombosis, Stokes, Heart attacks and other injuries . Some of these injuries have resulted in the death of the person who suffered the blood clot related health issue. The blood clot related injuries  linked to Nuvaring can be fatal and can also cause severe and permanent disability.  The allegations that the Nuvaring lawsuit defendant is facing are serious and could already result in large payments to victims. The newly released documents could make the Nuvaring Lawsuit cases the defendant already face as well as new Nuvaring Lawsuit cases that are filed even more costly for the Nuvaring Lawsuit defendant.

     Ongoing Nuvaring Lawsuit News

    We will continue to report future Nuvaring Lawsuit news as it becomes available to us. If you used the Nuvaring Contraceptive device and experienced a blood clot related injury, take action now.  Do not delay in contacting us to arrange a free legal consultation about your potential Nuvaring Lawsuit.

     Other Nuvaring Lawsuit Resources

    Visit this link  Nuvaring Lawsuit  United States Food and Drug Administration for information from the FDA regarding Nuvaring.

    You may finf the following link useful for educational purposes for information on the Nuvaring Lawsuit.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Evidence Released

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Evidence Released

    Share and Enjoy:
    • Print
    • Digg
    • StumbleUpon
    • del.icio.us
    • Facebook
    • Yahoo! Buzz
    • Twitter
    • Google Bookmarks
    • LinkedIn
    • MySpace
    • Reddit
    • Technorati

    Technorati Tags:

  • Nuvaring Lawsuit News

    Nuvaring Lawsuit News

    10/19/2012 Nuvaring Lawsuit News: After Several Years of delays, the first trials in the Nuvaring Lawsuit may begin in May of 2013. A large portion of the outstanding Nuvaring Lawsuits that have been filed over the past several years have been previously scheduled for trail however, delays have occurred that have prevented the Nuvaring Lawsuits from actually reaching trial. If you used Nuvaring and suffered a blood clot related injury such as a stroke, a pulmonary embolism, a deep vein thrombosis or other blood clot related injury you may still be eligible to file your Nuvaring Lawsuit. Contact us on our toll free number at (800) 611-7080 to arrange a free legal consultation with a Nuvaring Lawyer.

    First Nuvaring Lawsuit cases will be significant

    Having the first Nuvaring Lawsuit cases make it to trial is important to all of the plaintiffs with pending Nuvaring Lawsuit cases. It is common for drug manufacturers and medical device manufacturers to start offering settlements to avoid future trials after the outcome of the first trials in a case like the Nuvaring Lawsuit. The first Nuvaring Lawsuits that reach a jury will determine how much the manufacturer of Nuvaring is likely to have to pay out in damages on future Nuvaring Lawsuit cases if they go to trial. Once the manufacturer of Nuvaring knows how much they are likely to have to pay out if they take cases to trail, they have something to base Nuvaring Lawsuit settlement offers on to avoid the expense of additional trials.

    Some Nuvaring Lawsuit cases could being earlier

    The Nuvaring Lawsuit cases that are scheduled for Trail in May of next year are part of the Nuvaring Multidistrict Litigation being conducted in Federal Court in New Jersey. Some Nuvaring Lawsuit cases tat were not joined to the Nuvaring Multidistrict Litigation could be heard in State Courts earlier than the Nuvaring Lawsuit Cases scheduled to be heard in Federal Court. The outcome of Nuvaring Lawsuit State Court cases could prompt the manufacturer of Nuvaring to begin making settlement offers to other plaintiffs with outstanding Nuvaring Lawsuit cases before the beginning of the Federal Court trails scheduled for May. The decisions that the maker of Nuvaring makes with regard to offering out of court Nuvaring Lawsuit Settlements depends largely on the outcome of the cases that go to trial. A single State Court case might not be enough for the maker of Nuvaring to base any decisions on with regard to offering Nuvaring Lawsuit Settlements to avoid trail on other Nuvaring Lawsuit cases.

    Is there still time to file a Nuvaring Lawsuit?

    There is a time limit to file a Nuvaring Lawsuit and this time limit differs from State to State. Numerous Nuvaring Lawsuits are still being filed. If you used the contraceptive device Nuvaring and suffered a blood clot related injury you should contact our toll free number now to arrange a consultation with a Nuvaring Lawyer. The time limits for filing a Nuvaring Lawsuit or any lawsuit for that matter are absolute. One day can make the difference in whether or not your Nuvaring Lawsuit can still be filed. Do not delay in contacting us if you believe you have grounds to file a Nuvaring Lawsuit.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit FDA Information

    For Nuvaring LawsuitFDA information, visit the website of the United States Food and Drug Administration at www.fda.gov.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit News

    Nuvaring Lawsuit News

     

    Connect with John Ray on Google+.

     

    Share and Enjoy:
    • Print
    • Digg
    • StumbleUpon
    • del.icio.us
    • Facebook
    • Yahoo! Buzz
    • Twitter
    • Google Bookmarks
    • LinkedIn
    • MySpace
    • Reddit
    • Technorati

    Technorati Tags:

  • Nuvaring Lawsuit

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Contact Page

    Nuvaring Lawsuit

    Nuvaring Lawsuit

    Nuvaring Lawsuit 06/06/2012- The contraceptive device Nuvaring, has been linked to blood clot related injuries including strokes, venous blood clots and other blood clot related injuries. If you used Nuvaring and suffered from a blood clot related injury, please contact us to arrange a free consultation with a Nuvaring Lawyer who can discuss your potential Nuvaring Lawsuit with you in detail.

    1-800-611-7080

     

    How do I file a Nuvaring Lawsuit?

    If you have been injured by the use of Nuvaring, the first step in filing a Nuvaring Lawsuit is to consult with a Nuvaring Lawyer. You can arrange a free consultation with a Nuvaring Lawyer by contacting us on our toll free number or by using the contact form on this page.

    What Happens after I speak with a Nuvaring Lawyer?

    Once you have discussed your potential Nuvaring Lawsuit with your Nuvaring Lawyer, certain documentation will need to be signed by you giving the Nuvaring Lawyer the right to collect certain evidence including medical records to represent you in your Nuvaring Lawsuit.

    How much will it cost to file a Nuvaring Lawsuit?

    You will not have to pay anything upfront to file your Nuvaring Lawsuit. Best Legal Source only works with experienced Nuvaring Lawyers that agree to take Nuvaring Lawsuit clients on a fee contingency basis. You do not pay any out-of-pocket legal fees related to the legal work involved in your Nuvaring Lawsuit. Your Nuvaring Lawyer will only be paid legal fees if they win your case. The amount of those fees will be based on how much the Nuvaring Lawyer recovers for you in your Nuvaring Lawsuit.

    1-800-611-7080

     

    How much money will I get from my Nuvaring Lawsuit

    The amount of money you stand to collect from your Nuvaring Lawsuit will depend on numerous factors. The extent of your injuries is a major factor in determining how much money you may receive in your Nuvaring Lawsuit. It is not possible to put an exact number on how much you may be paid from your Nuvaring Lawsuit. Your Nuvaring Lawyer will provide you with the best information available.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit cases filed

    A significant number of Nuvaring Lawsuit vases have already been filed by women in the United States who used the contraceptive device Nuvaring and experienced blood clot related injuries. An excerpt from a Nuvaring Lawsuit is included on this page for educational purposes for women who were injured by Nuvaring and are interested in filing a Nuvaring Lawsuit.

    What issues led to the Nuvaring Lawsuit

    As early as 1995, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued statements acknowledging that studies existed indicating that the use of Nuvaring increased a woman’s risk of experiencing a blood clot related injury two fold. If you or a loved one has experienced permanent damage to your health after using Nuvaring, you can contact an attorney and discuss your options with them. Best Legal Source can help connect you with a lawyer and give you information regarding a potential Nuvaring Lawsuit. Fill out the form to the right or call (800) 611-7080 to speak with a member of the Best Legal Source team.

     

     

     

     

     

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Excerpt

    Below is an excerpt from a Nuvaring Lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. This Nuvaring Lawsuit excerpt is provided for educational purposes only and was taken from the public record. We have added headers, comments, opinions and notes to the lawsuit written in layman terms.  These notes and opinions were not written by a lawyer. These additions to the excerpt were added for the benefit of the reader and are not intended as legal opinion or legal advice.

    Begin Nuvaring Lawsuit Excerpt

    MEHPARA ANGELINA SULEMAN, Plaintiff,

    v.

    ORGANON USA, INC., Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Organon International, Inc., Schering-Plough Corporation, and Merck and Co., Defendants.

    Naming of the Plaintiff and Defendants in a Nuvaring Lawsuit

    The naming of the Nuvaring Lawsuit Plaintiff or Plaintiffs and the Nuvaring Lawsuit defendants will commonly be one of the first things you see in a Nuvaring Lawsuit.

    Complaint and Jury Demand

    COMES NOW Plaintiff Mehpara Angelina Suleman, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby alleges against Organon USA, Inc., Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Organon International, Inc., Schering-Plough Corporation and Merck and Co., the following:

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Demand for a Jury Trial

    The demand for a Jury Trail made in a Nuvaring Lawsuit does not necessarily mean that there will be a jury trial or a trial at all if the Nuvaring Lawsuit is settled out of court. Certain demands must be made at certain points in a Nuvaring Lawsuit even if what is being demanded many never come to pass.

    PARTIES AND JURISDICTION of this Nuvaring Lawsuit

    A detailed naming and identifying of the parties in a Nuvaring Lawsuit beyond the identification of the parties at the beginning of the Nuvaring Lawsuit is common. Redundancy is common is Nuvaring Lawsuit filings as well as other lawsuit filings.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Plaitiff Mehpara Angelina Suleman

    Plaintiff Mehpara Angelina Suleman is, and was at all times relevant to this Complaint, a citizen and resident of the State of Illinois, residing in Cook County.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Defendant Organon USA, Inc

    Defendant Organon USA, Inc., is a Delaware corporation organized, existing and conducting business in the state of New Jersey with its principal place of business at 56 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, New Jersey 07068.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Defendant Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    Defendant Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation organized, existing and conducting business in the State of New Jersey with its principal place of business at 56 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, New Jersey 07068.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Defendant Organon International, Inc.

    Defendant Organon International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation organized, existing and conducting business in the State of New Jersey with its principal place of business at 56 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, New Jersey 07068.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Defendant Schering-Plough Corporation

    Defendant Schering-Plough Corporation is a New Jersey corporation organized, existing and conducting business in the State of New Jersey with its principal place of business at 2000 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, New Jersey 07033.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Defendant Merck and Co.

    Defendant Merck and Co. is a New Jersey corporation organized, existing and conducting business in the State of New Jersey with its principal place of business at One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, 08889.

    In 2009, Defendant Merck & Co., Inc., which has its principal place of doing business in New Jersey, acquired defendant Schering-Plough Corporation and assumed the liabilities attendant to both Schering-Plough and the previously named Organon defendants, plus became liable for injuries which the said product caused after it took control of it.

    History of the Nuvaring Lawsuit defendants

    On November 19, 2007, Defendant Schering-Plough Corporation acquired Organon BioSciences N.V. Upon information and belief, Schering-Plough Corporation attained the liabilities of Defendant Organon through the merger.

    In or around March 2009, Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. merged with Schering-Plough Corporation under the name of Merck. Upon information and belief, Defendant Merck attained the liabilities of Defendant Organon through the merger.

    At all times relevant to this Complaint, each of the above Defendants conducted business and derived revenue in the State of Illinois, including through its prescription of NuvaRing to Ms. Suleman.

    This court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants in that the prescription drug at issue, NuvaRing, was prescribed to, marketed and sold to Plaintiff in the State of Illinois.

    This court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs.

    Comments on the history of the Nuvaring Lawsuit Defendants

    It may be common to see multiple defendants in a Nuvaring Lawsuit. In Pharmaceutical Lawsuits like the Nuvaring Lawsuit, the naming of multiple defendants is due to the way the pharmaceutical industry operates. It is common for multiple companies to be involved at one point or another in the manufacture, distribution, research, marketing and other tasks related to a pharmaceutical product. As a result of these facts, seeing more than one defendant named in a Nuvaring Lawsuit may be very common.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Venue

    Venue in this district is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this district, Plaintiff was prescribed and used NuvaRing in this district, Plaintiff suffered a blood clot in this district and because at all times relevant resided in this district.

    Furthermore, the Defendants collectively have marketed, sold, distributed or otherwise distributed NuvaRing within the District of Illinois.

    This is a potential tag-along action and in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §14-7, it should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri for inclusion in In re NuvaRing Products Liability Litigation, MDL 1964 (Hon. Rodney W. Sippel).

    Notes on Nuvaring Lawsuit Jurisdiction and Venue

    Establishing proper jurisdiction and venue in a Nuvaring Lawsuit is something that you are likely to see in most if not all Nuvaring Lawsuit cases. Lawsuits like the Nuvaring Lawsuit must be brought before a court that has proper jurisdiction and the venue must be proper of the Nuvaring Lawsuit could possible be dismissed for improper Jurisdiction or Venue.

    Facts of the Nuvaring Case

    Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth, and further alleges as follows:

    NuvaRing is a combination therapy contraceptive containing the drugs etonogestrel (a progestin) and ethinyl estradiol (an estrogen). The combination acts to prevent conception by suppressing ovulation, changing cervical mucus to prevent sperm from penetrating the uterus, and thinning the endometrium to prevent sperm implantation.

    NuvaRing’s contraceptive medication is delivered vaginally via a flexible plastic ring manually placed into the vagina by its user. It is designed to release small amounts of the progestin and estrogen hormones over the course of 21 days, after which it is removed and discarded. The user is to replace a new ring after a 7 day break from the hormonal regimen.

    The progestin in NuvaRing, etonogestrel, is the active metabolite of desogestrel, a synthetic progestogen linked to a doubling of the incidence of thrombotic events, including blood clots, strokes and heart attacks, in its users.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Defendants Promotion of Nuvaring

    Defendants heavily promoted, and continue to heavily promote, NuvaRing as the “hassle-free” contraceptive of choice. Defendant’s website, www.nuvaring.com, specifically targets youthful contraceptive users with current and/or former marketing programs like “ClubNuva” which includes NuvaNews (“the latest in women’s health, fashion and entertainment”), “NuvaCards” (allowing users to create cards by importing faces, “fun accessories and a personal message”), and Daily Horoscopes.

    The on-line promotional materials for NuvaRing state that the product offers 99% effectiveness, convenience, and low incidence of side effects. Defendants’ ads also state that “NuvaRing allows for spontaneity” and has a low incidence of breakthrough bleeding compared to oral contraceptives.

    Defendants failed adequately to emphasize the potential for blood clots, heart attack, stroke and pulmonary emboli in any of their print and multi-media advertisement.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Plaintiff Alleges that the defendants acted with indifference

    NuvaRing’s label underscores Defendants’ indifference as to the potential for the contraceptive’s harm to users.

    The label reads “[a]lthough the data are mainly obtained with oral contraceptives, this is likely to apply to NuvaRing as well” despite the absence of any long-term studies to validate this statement.

    Defendants’ patient information sheet and Physician’s Insert similarly fail fully to advise women of the risks associated with the product: “Most studies on combination contraceptives have used oral (taken by mouth) contraceptives. NuvaRing may have the same risks that have been found for combination oral contraceptives. This leaflet will tell you about risks of taking combination oral contraceptives that may also apply to NuvaRing users.”

    Note on the Nuvaring Lawsuit facts related to the defendant

    The establishing of the facts, claims and allegations the plaintiff in a Nuvaring Lawsuit is making against the defendant in the Nuvaring Lawsuit are a common part of Nuvaring Lawsuit filings. The facts of a Nuvaring Lawsuit are what will support the allegations and claims made in the Nuvaring Lawsuit.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit facts related to Plaintiff

    Plaintiff was prescribed NuvaRing in approximately May 2010.

    Plaintiff never suffered from any blood clotting disorder, deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism incidents prior to her use of NuvaRing.

    Plaintiff used the NuvaRing product from May 2010 until September 2010.

    When Plaintiff began using Defendants’ product, she had no health problems that contraindicated her for NuvaRing use.

    Plaintiff was careful about her use of NuvaRing and strictly followed all instructions for use.

    On September 11, 2010, Plaintiff presented to the emergency department of St. Francis Hospital with acute right leg pain and swelling.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Plaitiff Suffered a Deep Venous Thrombosis

    Plaintiff was diagnosed with an iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis and was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit where she was started on Heparin and on Coumadin. Plaintiff.

    Plaintiff was discharged home on September 13, 2010 and prescribed a continued course of Coumadin and Coumadin diet.

    On October 25, 2010, Plaintiff presented to Northwestern Memorial Hospital with continued leg pain and swelling despite her Coumadin therapy.

    On October 25, 2010, Plaintiff underwent thrombolysis and stenting of the right iliac and femoral veins.

    Plaintiff was discharged home on October 26, 2010, and prescribed a continued course of Coumadin therapy.

    Note on the Facts related to the Nuvaring Lawsuit Plaitiff

    In a Nuvaring Lawsuit a Plaintiff will need to establish certain facts, the most common fact that must be established in the Nuvaring Lawsuit Plaintiffs case is that they did in fact use the plaintiff’s product. It may also be common in Nuvaring Lawsuit Filings for the plaintiff to claim that they used the product properly. In addition to establishing the plaintiff used the product properly, Nuvaring Lawsuit filings are likely to also include what damage the plaintiff suffered as a result of using the product.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Negligence Claim

    AS A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE

    Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth and further alleges as follows:

    Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care to properly design, research, develop, test, manufacture, inspect, label, prepare for use and sell NuvaRing, including a duty to insure that NuvaRing not cause users to suffer from unreasonably dangerous or untoward adverse side effects.

    39 Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care in the design, research, development, testing, manufacture, inspection, quality assurance, quality control, labeling, distribution, marketing and/or sale of NuvaRing into interstate commerce, in that defendants knew or reasonably should have known that NuvaRing created a high risk of unreasonably dangerous or untoward adverse side effects.

    Defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that NuvaRing was of such a nature that if not properly manufactured, labeled, tested, and inspected before sold, it was likely to cause injury to NuvaRing users.

    Defendants were negligent in the design, manufacture, testing, promotion, advertising, warning, labeling, marketing and sale of NuvaRing, in that they:

    a. failed to use due care in the designing, testing, and manufacturing of NuvaRing so as to prevent the aforementioned risks to individuals when NuvaRing was used;

    b. failed to accompany their product with proper and adequate warnings regarding all possible adverse side effects associated with the use of NuvaRing and the frequency, comparative severity and duration of such adverse effects;

    c. failed to conduct adequate pre-clinical and clinical testing and post-marketing surveillance to determine the safety of NuvaRing;

    d. failed to provide adequate training and information to medical care providers for the appropriate use of NuvaRing;

    e. failed to properly and adequately warn users, including Ms. Suleman, prior to actively encouraging and promoting the sale of NuvaRing, either directly or indirectly, orally or in writing, about the adverse side effects associated with the use of this product including but not limited to deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism and death; and

    f. were otherwise careless and/or negligent.

    Comments on Nuvaring Lawsuit Negligence Claim

    Nuvaring Lawsuit case filings may often contain a claim of Negligence on the part of the defendant. Negligence in a Nuvaring Lawsuit is a claim that can greatly impact the damages awarded by a jury if a Nuvaring Lawsuit goes before a jury. Negligence is a broad term and many acts or inactions can be alleged to be negligent in a Nuvaring Lawsuit case.

    Allegations “Nuvaring Lawsuit Defedant(s) should have know

    Despite the fact that Defendants knew or should have known that NuvaRing caused unreasonable and dangerous side effects, which many users would be unable to remedy by any means, Defendants continue to market NuvaRing to consumers when safer alternative methods of treatment are available.

    Defendants knew or should have known that consumers such as Ms. Suleman, would suffer injuries as a result of Defendants’ failure to exercise ordinary care as described above.

    As a direct and proximate result of one or more of these wrongful acts or omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered profound injuries that required medical treatment and incurred medical and hospital expenses, for which Plaintiff has become liable.

    WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against each Defendant for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and all such other relief as the Court deems appropriate pursuant to the common law and statutory law.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Claim of DEFECTIVE MANUFACTURING

    AS A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: STRICT LIABILITY – DEFECTIVE MANUFACTURING

    Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth, and further alleges as follows:

    Defendants are the manufacturers, designers, distributors, sellers, or suppliers of NuvaRing and were responsible for marketing, labeling, and/or selling the NuvaRing and otherwise putting it into the stream of commerce.

    The NuvaRing manufactured, designed, sold, distributed, supplied and/or placed in the stream of commerce by Defendants, was defective in its manufacture and construction when it left the hands of Defendants in that it deviated from product specifications, rendering it unreasonably dangerous and thereby posing a serious risk of injury and death to consumers, including Plaintiff.

    As a direct and proximate result of one or more of these wrongful acts or omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered profound injuries that required medical treatment and incurred medical and hospital expenses, for which she has become liable.

    WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and all such other relief as the Court deems appropriate pursuant to the common law and statutory law.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Claim of DEFECTIVE Design

    AS A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: STRICT LIABILITY – DEFECTIVE DESIGN

    Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth and further alleges as follows:

    Defendants were the manufacturers, designers, distributors, sellers or suppliers of NuvaRing and were responsible for marketing, labeling, and/or selling the NuvaRing and otherwise putting it into the stream of commerce.

    The NuvaRing manufactured and supplied by Defendant contained an unreasonably dangerous defect in design or formulation in that, when it left the hands of Defendants, an average consumer could not reasonably anticipate the dangerous nature of the NuvaRing nor fully appreciate the attendant risk of injury associated with using the NuvaRing.

    NuvaRing was defective in that it was not properly designed or prepared and/or was not accompanied by proper warnings regarding the prevalence and severity of adverse side effects associated with its use.

    NuvaRing was further defective in that its design and manufacture contained unnecessarily dangerous hormones and released unsteady amounts of the said hormones.

    The foreseeable risks associated with the design of the NuvaRing include, but are not limited to, the fact that NuvaRing is more dangerous and presents a greater risk of injury than an ordinary consumer would reasonably expect when using this type of product in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.

    At the time the NuvaRing left the control of Defendants, there were practical and feasible alternative designs that would have prevented and/or significantly reduced the risk of Plaintiffs injuries without impairing the reasonably anticipated or intended function of the product. These safer alternative designs were economically and technologically feasible, including use of a second generation progestin, and would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of Plaintiff’s injuries without substantially impairing the product’s utility.

    As a direct and proximate result of one or more of these wrongful acts or omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered profound injuries that required medical treatment and incurred medical and hospital expenses, for which she has become liable.

    WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and all such other relief as the Court deems appropriate pursuant to the common law and statutory law.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Claim of FAILURE TO WARN

    AS A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: STRICT LIABILITY – FAILURE TO WARN

    Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth and further alleges as follows:

    Defendants failed to provide adequate warnings and/or information concerning the harms or potential harms and dangers of NuvaRing to its users, including but not limited to Ms. Suleman.

    Defendants failed to perform adequate testing which would have established that NuvaRing possessed potentially serious side effects about which the Defendants should have provided full and proper warnings including a warning that there was nothing a consumer or physician could do to remove these risks.

    Defendants marketed and promoted NuvaRing for sale to physicians and individuals, Ms. Suleman, without proper warnings about the long-term health consequences associated with use of the drug combination in the contraceptive.

    Defendants’ label, patient information, website, and other advertising materials failed to adequately warn physicians and the public about the increased potential of thromboembolic events related to NuvaRing use despite Defendants’ knowledge of the heightened risk.

    NuvaRing manufactured and/or supplied by the Defendants was defective due to inadequate post-marketing warnings and/or instructions in that Defendant’s failed to provide adequate warnings to users and consumers of NuvaRing and have continued to aggressively market NuvaRing after they knew or should have known of the risk of serious harm from NuvaRing.

    In the alternative, NuvaRing manufactured and/or supplied by Defendants was defective in design or formulation because at the time it left the control of the manufacturers it was unreasonably dangerous to health, more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect and more dangerous than other methods of contraception.

    NuvaRing was defective in design or formulation because when this product left the control of the manufacturer or supplier, the foreseeable risks exceeded the benefits to be derived from the use of this product.

    As a result of Defendants’ failure to adequately warn physicians and potential users of NuvaRing about these increased risks, Ms. Suleman used NuvaRing and subsequently suffered an iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis.

    Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in that the Defendants’ failure to warn was reckless and without regard for the public’s safety and welfare. The Defendants have misled both the medical community and public at large, including Ms. Suleman, by making false representations about the safety of NuvaRing. The Defendants downplayed, understated and/or disregarded their knowledge of the serious and permanent side effects associated with the use of NuvaRing despite available information demonstrating it was likely to cause serious and sometimes fatal side effects to the users.

    Defendants were or should have been in possession of evidence demonstrating that their product caused serious side effects. Nevertheless, they continued to market NuvaRing by providing false and misleading information with regard to safety and efficacy.

    As a direct and proximate result of one or more of these wrongful acts or omissions of the Defendants, Ms. Suleman suffered a profound injury that required medical treatment and incurred medical and hospital expenses, for which she has become liable.

    WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and all such other relief as the Court deems appropriate pursuant to the common law and statutory law.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Claim TO FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY TEST

    AS A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY DEFECT DUE TO FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY TEST

    Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth and further alleges as follows:

    Defendants repeatedly advised consumers and the medical community that the NuvaRing contained the same safety profile as oral hormonal birth control pill. Defendant failed to adequately test the safety of the NuvaRing versus oral hormonal birth control pills.

    Had Defendants adequately tested the safety of the NuvaRing versus oral hormonal birth control pills and disclosed those results to the medical community or the public, Plaintiff would not have undertaken birth control therapy with NuvaRing.

    As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to adequately test the safety of the NuvaRing versus oral hormonal birth control pills, Plaintiff sustained injuries as described herein.

    As a direct and proximate result of one or more of these wrongful acts or omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered profound injuries that required medical treatment and incurred medical and hospital expenses, for which she has become liable.

    WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and all such other relief as the Court deems appropriate pursuant to the common law and statutory law.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Claim BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY

    AS A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY

    Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth and further alleges as follows:

    Defendants marketed, manufactured, promoted, distributed and/or sold NuvaRing as safe for use by the public at large, including Plaintiff herein, who purchased NuvaRing. Defendants knew the use for which their product was intended and impliedly warranted the product to be of merchantable quality, safe and fit for use.

    Plaintiff reasonably relied on the skill and judgment of the Defendants, and as such their implied warranty, in using the aforementioned product. Contrary to same, NuvaRing was not of merchantable quality or safe or fit for its intended use, because it is unreasonably dangerous and unfit for the ordinary purpose for which it was used.

    As a direct and proximate result of one or more of these wrongful acts or omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered a profound injury that required medical treatment and incurred medical and hospital expenses, for which Plaintiff has become liable.

    WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and all such other relief as the Court deems appropriate pursuant to the common law and statutory law.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Claim BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

    AS A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

    Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:

    The aforementioned manufacturing, designing, distributing, marketing, and promoting of NuvaRing were expressly warranted to be safe by Defendants for Plaintiff and members of the public generally. At the time of the making of these express warranties, Defendants had knowledge of the foreseeable purposes for which NuvaRing was to be used and Defendants warranted NuvaRing to be in all respects safe, effective and proper for such purposes.

    NuvaRing does not conform to these express warranties and representations because NuvaRing is not safe or effective and may produce serious side effects, including, among other things, blood clots, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, heart attack, stroke and death.

    As a direct and proximate result of one or more of these wrongful acts or omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered profound injuries that required medical treatment and incurred medical and hospital expenses, for which Plaintiff has become liable.

    WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and all such other relief as the Court deems appropriate pursuant to the common law and statutory law.

    Notes on Nuvaring Lawsuit Claims of Breach of Warranty

    Nuvaring Lawsuit claims of Breach of Implied Warranty of Breach of Express Warranty may be common in the filings of Nuvaring Lawsuit cases. The manufacturers of any product are responsible for making a product that is not defective and warn the public of any risks associated with their products. A breach of Warranty claim in a Nuvaring Lawsuit would be based on the manufacturers failure to meet its duties in this area.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Claim of :NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

    AS AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

    Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:

    Defendants, having undertaken the designing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and/or promotion of NuvaRing, owed a duty to provide accurate and complete information regarding NuvaRing.

    Defendants falsely represented to Plaintiff that NuvaRing was safe and effective as a contraceptive. The representations by Defendants were in fact false, as NuvaRing is not a safe contraceptive method and is dangerous to the health of its users.

    At the time the aforesaid representations were made, Defendants concealed from Plaintiff and health care providers information about the propensity of NuvaRing to cause great harm. Defendants negligently misrepresented claims regarding the safety and efficacy of NuvaRing despite the lack of information regarding same.

    These misrepresentations were made by Defendants with the intent to induce Plaintiff to use NuvaRing, which caused her injury.

    At the time of Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiff was ignorant of the falsity of these statements and reasonably believed them to be true.

    Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiff by providing false, incomplete and/or misleading information regarding their product. Plaintiff reasonably believed Defendants’ representations and reasonably relied on the accuracy of those representations when agreeing to treatment with NuvaRing.

    As a direct and proximate result of one or more of these wrongful acts or omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered a profound injury that required medical treatment and incurred medical and hospital expenses, for which Plaintiff has become liable.

    WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and all such other relief as the Court deems appropriate pursuant to the common law and statutory law.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Claim FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION

    AS A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION

    Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth and further alleges as follows:

    Defendants, having undertaken the manufacturing, marketing, prescription, dispensing, distribution and promotion of NuvaRing described herein, owed a duty to provide accurate and complete information regarding NuvaRing.

    Defendants fraudulently misrepresented material facts and information regarding NuvaRing including, but not limited to, its propensity to cause serious physical harm.

    At the time of Defendants’ fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiff was unaware and ignorant of the falsity of the statements and reasonably believed them to be true.

    Defendants knew this information to be false, incomplete and misleading information.. Defendants intended to deceive and mislead Plaintiff so that she might rely on these fraudulent misrepresentations.

    Plaintiff had a right to rely on and did reasonably rely upon Defendants’ deceptive, inaccurate and fraudulent misrepresentations.

    As a direct and proximate result of one or more of these wrongful acts or omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered profound injuries that required medical treatment and incurred medical and hospital expenses, for which Plaintiff has become liable.

    WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and all such other relief as the Court deems appropriate pursuant to the common law and statutory law.

    AS A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act

    Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:

    At all times relevant, the Illinois Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., (hereinafter “the Act”) prohibits “the use of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact … in the conduct of any trade or commerce” and declares such acts or practices as unlawful.

    Defendants violated the Act by the use of false and misleading misrepresentations or omissions of material fact in connection with the marketing, promotion, and sale of the NuvaRing. Defendants communicated the purported benefits of the NuvaRing while failing to disclose the serious and dangerous side effects related to the use of the NuvaRing with the intent that customers, like Plaintiff, and her healthcare providers would rely upon the misrepresentations and purchase or prescribe the NuvaRing.

    As a result of violating the Act, Defendants caused Plaintiff to be prescribed and to use NuvaRing, causing injuries as described herein. As a result, Plaintiff suffered harm, economic loss, non-economic loss and damages for aggravating circumstances and other losses in an amount to be proven at trial.

    WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and all such other relief as the Court deems appropriate pursuant to the common law and statutory law.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Claim FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT

    AS AN ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT

    Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth and further alleges as follows:

    Defendants had a duty and obligation to disclose to Plaintiff that the aforesaid product was dangerous and likely to cause serious health consequences to users when used as prescribed.

    Defendants intentionally, willfully, and maliciously concealed and/or suppressed the facts set forth above from Plaintiff with the intent to defraud her as herein alleged.

    Neither Plaintiff nor her physicians were aware of the facts set forth above, and had they been aware of said facts would not have prescribed this product.

    As a proximate result of the concealment and/or suppression of the facts set forth above, Plaintiff has proximately sustained damage, as set forth herein.

    As a direct and proximate result of one or more of these wrongful acts or omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered profound injuries that required medical treatment and incurred medical and hospital expenses, for which Plaintiff has become liable.

    WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and all such other relief as the Court deems appropriate pursuant to the common law and statutory law.

    Comments on Nuvaring Lawsuit Fraud Claims

    Allegations of fraud in a Nuvaring Lawsuit are very serious. There are various types of fraud that may or may not be alledged in Nuvaring Lawsuit filings.

    Nuvaring Plaintiffs Request for Punitive Damages

    REQUEST FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

    Plaintiff incorporate by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth, and further alleges as follows:

    At all times relevant herein, defendants:

    a. knew that NuvaRing was dangerous and ineffective;

    b. concealed the dangers and health risks from Plaintiff, physicians, pharmacists, other medical providers, the FDA, and the public at large;

    c. made misrepresentations to Plaintiff, her physicians, pharmacists, hospitals and medical providers and the public in general as previously stated herein as to the safety and efficacy of NuvaRing;

    d. with full knowledge of the health risks associated with NuvaRing and without adequate warnings of the same, manufactured, marketed, promoted, developed, sold and/or distributed NuvaRing for routine use.

    Defendants, by and through officers, directors, managing agents, authorized sales representatives, employees and/or other agents who engaged in malicious, fraudulent and oppressive conduct towards Plaintiff and the public, acted with willful and wanton and/or conscious and reckless disregard for the safety of Plaintiff and the general public.

    As a direct and proximate result of one or more of these wrongful acts or omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered profound injuries that required medical treatment and incurred medical and hospital expenses, for which Plaintiff has become liable.

    WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and all such other relief as the Court deems appropriate pursuant to the common law and statutory law.

    Summarizing the Nuvaring Lawsuit Facts

    In support of the damages sought, many Nuvaring Lawsuits may end in what is essentially a summarizing of the most important facts brought forth in the Nuvaring Lawsuit filings. This may espscially be true when the Nuvaring Lawsuit requests punitive damages.

    Final Comment on Nuvaring Lawsuit Excerpt

    The foregoing Nuvaring Lawsuit Excerpt was from a single case. Your Nuvaring Lawsuit may look and be worded very differently. This Nuvaring Lawsuit Example was provided for educational purposes for those interested in the Nurvaring Lawsuit case.

    End of Excerpt

    Best Legal Source was not affiliated with this Nuvaring Lawsuit

    Best Legal Source had no association or affiliation with the plaintiffs or attorneys for the plaintiff’s that filed the Nuvaring Lawsuit used as an example in this excerpt. This Nuvaring Lawsuit, as is true with all Lawsuits is a public record and is available for inspection, copy, comment , reprint or any other use that is common to documents in the public domain.

    Our use of terms like Nuvaring Lawsuit

    Nuvaring is a trademark of its maker. Our use of the term Nuvaring Lawsuit and other terms containing the trademarked word “Nuvaring” arenot intended to imply any relationship between Best Legal Source and the maker of Nuvaring.

    1-800-611-7080

     

    Nuvaring Lawsuit Resource

    Share and Enjoy:
    • Print
    • Digg
    • StumbleUpon
    • del.icio.us
    • Facebook
    • Yahoo! Buzz
    • Twitter
    • Google Bookmarks
    • LinkedIn
    • MySpace
    • Reddit
    • Technorati

    Technorati Tags:

  • Nuvaring Lawsuit News
    Nuvaring Lawsuit Contact Page
    1-800-611-7080

    Nuvaring Lawsuit News (5/9/12): Nuvaring Lawsuit is a civil action potentially brought against the makers of Nuvaring due to health complications the birth control ring might be responsible for. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration keeps the public informed of possible health risks. Nuvaring Lawsuit may be in the near future because other birth controls are under scrutiny from recent FDA safety updates concerning the associated risk of blood clots when taking contraceptives similar to Nuvaring. Did you experience blood clots, leg pain or complications from blood clots while on this birth control? You may have a case as a potential plaintiff for Nuvaring Lawsuit.

    1-800-611-7080

    Best Legal Source can keep you updated on the developments in Nuvaring Lawsuit. Call us at (800) 611-7080 or fill out the form to your right to speak to a member of the Best Legal Source team.

    Blood clots are just one safety concern associated with Nuvaring Lawsuit. Blood clots can increase the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE), strokes and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). These life-threatening conditions are grounds for women to pursue Nuvaring Lawsuit. DVT is a typically a clot in the legs that forms within a vein and can cause a pulmonary embolism. PE occurs when a blood clot travels up the blood stream and causes a blockage in the lungs. Both conditions are extremely dangerous and pose a risk to your health which is why Nuvaring Lawsuit attorneys want to speak with you. Best Legal Source can complete the search for the best fit among Nuvaring Lawsuit attorneys for you.

    The term Nuvaring Lawsuit is used descriptively. Best Legal Source is not the manufacturer of Nuvaring, and we do not use the term to feint ownership. The purpose of our business is to assist victims of pharmaceutical drug companies in finding attorneys and information about legal actions such as Nuvaring Lawsuit.

    More on Nuvaring Lawsuit

    Nuvaring Lawsuit may be under the constraints of a time limit. Please don’t hesitate if you or a loved one was adversely affected by this birth control. Complications of blood clots are a serious matter. Call Best Legal Source today at our toll-free number. We’ll put you in touch with a Nuvaring Lawsuit lawyer familiar with the Nuvaring Lawsuit process.

    Nuvaring Lawsuit:

    1-800-611-7080

     

    Nuvaring Lawsuit

    Nuvaring Lawsuit

    Share and Enjoy:
    • Print
    • Digg
    • StumbleUpon
    • del.icio.us
    • Facebook
    • Yahoo! Buzz
    • Twitter
    • Google Bookmarks
    • LinkedIn
    • MySpace
    • Reddit
    • Technorati

    Technorati Tags:

  • Nuvaring Lawsuit News

    Excerpt From Study

    OPEN ACCESS

    0jvind Lidegaard professor1, Lars Hougaard Nielsen statistician1, Charlotte Wessel Skovlund data manager1, Ellen L0kkegaard senior registrar2

    Gynaecological Clinic 4232, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copehagen 0, Juliane Marie Centre, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hillerad Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

    Abstract

    Objective To assess the risk of venous thrombosis in current users of non-oral hormonal contraception.

    Design Historical national registry based cohort study.

    Setting Four national registries in Denmark.

    Participants All Danish non-pregnant women aged 15-49 (n=1 626 158), free of previous thrombotic disease or cancer, were followed from 2001 to 2010.

    Main outcome measures Incidence rate of venous thrombosis in users of transdermal, vaginal, intrauterine, or subcutaneous hormonal contraception, relative risk of venous thrombosis compared with non-users, and rate ratios of venous thrombosis in current users of non-oral products compared with the standard reference oral contraceptive with levonorgestrel and 30-40 |jg oestrogen. Diagnoses were confirmed by at least four weeks of anticoagulation therapy after the diagnosis.

    Results Within 9 429 128 woman years of observation, 5287 first ever venous thrombosis events were recorded, of which 3434 were confirmed. In non-users of hormonal contraception the incidence rate of confirmed events was 2.1 per 10 000 woman years. Compared with non-users of hormonal contraception, and after adjustment for age, calendar year, and education, the relative risk of confirmed venous thrombosis in users of transdermal combined contraceptive patches was 7.9 (95% confidence interval 3.5 to 17.7) and of the vaginal ring was 6.5 (4.7 to 8.9). The corresponding incidences per 10 000 exposure years were 9.7 and 7.8 events. The relative risk was increased in women who used subcutaneous implants (1.4, 0.6 to 3.4) but not in those who used the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (0.6,0.4 to 0.8). Compared with users of combined oral contraceptives containing levonorgestrel, the adjusted relative risk of venous thrombosis in users of transdermal patches was 2.3 (1.0 to 5.2) and of the vaginal ring was 1.9 (1.3 to 2.7).

    Extra material supplied by the author (see http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2990?tab=related#webextra)

    Disease codes (international classification of diseases, 10th revision)

    To include only first ever events, we excluded women with any type of venous or arterial thrombotic event before the study period (1977-2000), those with cancer, those who had undergone bilateral oophorectomy or hysterectomy, and those who had been sterilised. From study follow-up we censored a woman’s risk time during pregnancy, calculated from conception to three months after delivery, and women with a coagulation disorder from the first time such a diagnosis was recorded (appendix). The registry records only women admitted alive to hospital. Lethal events from venous thrombosis were captured in the national cause of death registry. A diagnosis of venous thrombosis was confirmed through prescribed anticoagulation therapy recorded in the national registry of medicinal products for at least four weeks after the diagnosis. Since 1 January 1994, and validated from 1995, information on filled prescriptions, including hormonal contraception, collected by the national registry of medicinal products has been complete. From this database we obtained information that had been updated daily on redeemed prescriptions of hormonal contraception from 1995 to 2010. We categorised the products in use according to progestogen type, oestrogen dose, and route of being administered. Duration of use was estimated from the prescribed defined daily doses from the date of prescription until the end date of defined daily doses of the last redeemed prescription or date of a study event. When hormonal contraception was switched without pause, we calculated duration as the sum of use before switch and current use of the new preparation. If a pause lasted for more than four weeks, we reset the length of use. To account for use before study start (left censoring bias), we allocated continuous users of hormonal contraception to the relevant duration of use category on 1 January 2001 by assessing use before the study period back to 1995.

    Women who used the levonorgestrel intrauterine system were censored after three years and included again when a new prescription of a hormonal contraceptive product was recorded. This was done owing to missing information on removal of these devices.

    Length of schooling and level of education were used as proxies for social class. Four strata were applied: elementary school education only, ongoing or completed high school education, high school and ongoing or ended middle length education, and high school and ongoing or ended long education. A fifth category included women without information on education, typically the youngest women.
    We controlled for calendar year to deal with potential secular confounding of increasing adiposity by time.

    Data on smoking were not available. Smoking is a weak risk factor for venous thrombosis in young women. However, we have no reason to believe in preferential prescribing of specific types of hormonal contraception among smokers. In Denmark the correlation between smoking and length of education is strong. Thus, controlling for years of schooling and length of education may have captured most confounding (if any) influenced by smoking.

    As women treated for infertility with ovarian stimulation drugs (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical code G03G) are anticipated to be at an increased risk of venous thrombosis, we censored these women during such treatment.

    Statistical analysis
    Using multiple Poisson regression we analysed data in five year age groups: 15-19, 20-24, and 45-49 years. The non-oral contraceptive products included transdermal patches containing
    norelgestromin (the active metabolite of norgestimate) and ethinylestradiol, a vaginal ring with etonogestrel (third generation progestogen) and ethinylestradiol, subcutaneous implants containing etonogestrel only, and the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (hormone intrauterine device). Two reference oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel and norgestimate, respectively, were assessed for comparison.

    We stratified the estimates into three categories according to length of contraceptive use (<1 year, 1-4 years, >4 years). Absolute as well as relative risk estimates were calculated. The reference group for the relative risk estimates was non-users of all types of hormonal contraception (never users+former users). We calculated rate ratios for the different product types, with users of oral contraceptives containing 30-40 ^g oestrogen and levonorgestrel as reference. Tests for interaction with age and year were carried out.

    Relative risk estimates were adjusted for age, calendar year, length of schooling and education, and eventually for length of contraceptive use. For all relative risk estimates and incidence rate ratios we calculated 95% confidence limits. We set the level of significance at P<0.05.
    Results

    After exclusions and censoring, 1 626 158 non-pregnant women free of previous thrombotic diseases or cancer contributed 9 429 128 woman years of observation. During this time 5287 diagnoses of first ever venous thrombosis events were recorded, corresponding to 8.1 per 10 000 woman years. Current users of hormonal contraception contributed 3 536 946 woman years and of these, 325 849 concerned non-oral products. Non-users of hormonal contraception contributed 5 892 182 woman years, with an overall incidence of confirmed venous thrombosis of 2.1 per 10 000 woman years. The incidence of venous thrombosis increased by 42.9% during the 10 year study period, or by 4.3% per year (table 1^). After adjustment for calendar year and use of hormonal contraception, the incidence increased by 6.3-fold with increasing age and decreased by 51.2% with increasing length of education.

    Hormonal contraception and venous thrombosis

    Current use of combined oral contraceptives with 30-40 ^g oestrogen and levonorgestrel increased the risk of confirmed venous thrombosis by 3.2 (2.7 to 3.8), corresponding to an incidence of 6.2 events per 10 000 exposure years . During 6178 woman years, six confirmed events of venous thrombosis were observed in association with transdermal combined contraceptive patches, corresponding to an incidence of 9.7 per 10 000 exposure years. Compared with non-users of hormonal contraception, the adjusted relative risk was 7.9 (3.5 to 17.7) and compared with users of oral contraceptives containing levonorgestrel the rate ratio was 2.5 (1.1 to 5.6, tables 2 and 3^). After adjustment for length of use, the rate ratio was reduced to 2.3 (1.0 to 5.2). When compared with oral contraceptives containing the corresponding progestogen (norgestimate), the adjusted rate ratio was 2.2 (1.0 to 5.0). During 50 334 woman years, 39 confirmed venous thrombosis events were observed with the combined contraceptive vaginal ring, corresponding to an incidence of 7.8 per 10 000 exposure years and an adjusted relative risk of 6.5 (4.7 to 8.9) compared with non-users of hormonal contraception. Compared with users of combined oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel, the rateprogestogen only contraception on risk of venous thrombosis may depend on dose.

    The inconsistent changes with length of use for the non-oral products could be influenced by the low power in some of the length of use categories. Another possibility, however, is that the non-oral route influences the coagulation system and liver differentially compared with the oral route. Nor did the FDA report show any consistent change in risk with length of use of either the patch or the vaginal ring.

    The clinical implications of the findings can be expressed in terms of the number of women who should change their hormonal contraceptive from the transdermal patch or the vaginal ring to combined oral contraceptives containing levonorgestrel to prevent one event of venous thrombosis in a year. If the incidence rate of venous thrombosis in women using combined oral contraceptives containing levonorgestrel is 6 per 10 000 exposure years, the vaginal ring is 11 per 10 exposure years, and the transdermal patch is 14 per 10 000 exposure years, then 2000 women using the vaginal ring and 1250 using the transdermal patch should shift to combined oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel to prevent one event of venous thrombosis in one year. A risk of 10 per 10 000 woman years implies a risk of venous thrombosis of more than 1% over a 10 year user period. Therefore women are generally advised to use combined oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel or norgestimate, rather than to use transdermal patches or vaginal rings.
    Strengths and limitations of the study

    The inclusion of all Danish non-pregnant women over a decade ensures outstanding external validity. Information on use of hormonal contraception from a prescription database is the most reliable data on exposure available today for four reasons. Firstly, each pharmacy transfers data electronically by bar codes, eliminating typing errors. Secondly, the collection of these data in a central national database is done primarily for reimbursement purposes and therefore should not be biased by the pursuit of pharmacoepidemiological studies. Thirdly, the continued daily update of information on use eliminates recall bias, as we know from case-control studies, and the problems of continuous updating of data on exposure in cohort studies. Fourthly, we eliminated the problem of left censoring bias by assessing exposure to hormonal contraception over a six year period before our study started. And we were able to validate each venous thrombosis event by linking individual data on diagnosis to succeeding anticoagulation therapy.

    We could not control for family disposition or for body mass index. Adiposity is a well documented risk factor for venous thrombosis. So far no study has shown any confounding influence from adiposity, as the rate ratio between hormonal contraception with different progestogens was not changed in studies adjusting for this information.6 8 20

    Conclusion

    Use of transdermal patches and vaginal rings conferred incidence rates of 9.7 and 7.8 confirmed venous thromboses per 10 000 exposure years, and relative risks of 7.9 and 6.5 compared with non-use of hormonal contraception, respectively. A subcutaneous progestogen only implant may increase the risk by 40%, whereas the levonorgestrel intrauterine system did not confer any increased risk, but perhaps even protection.

    What is already known on this topic

    Combined oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel or norgestimate confer half the risk of venous thrombosis than oral contraceptives containing desogestrel, gestodene, or drospirenone

    Progestogen only pills do not confer an increased risk of venous thrombosis What this study adds

    Women who use combined contraceptive transdermal patches are at an increased risk of venous thrombosis about eight times that of non-users of hormonal contraception, corresponding to 9.7 events per 10 000 exposure years

    Vaginal rings increased the risk of venous thrombosis 6.5 times compared with non-use of hormonal contraception, corresponding to 7.8 events per 10 000 exposure years

    The risk of venous thrombosis was not significantly increased with use of subcutaneous implants or the levonorgestrel intrauterine system compared with non-use of hormonal contraception

    Contributors: 0L planned the study, supervised the analysis, interpreted the results, and wrote the manuscript. He is guarantor of the study. EL planned the study, interpreted the results, and revised the manuscript. LHN made the statistical analyses and interpreted the results. CWS prepared all data from the national registry of patients and national death registry. All authors discussed and approved the final manuscript. 0L decided when and where to attempt publication.

    Funding: The expenses were covered by the Gynaecological Clinic, Juliane Marie Centre, Rigshospitalet.

    Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work. The primary investigator has within the last three years received honorariums for speeches in pharmacoepidemiological issues, including fees from Bayer Pharma Denmark, MSD Denmark, and Theramex, Monaco, and has been expert witness for plaintiff in a legal US case in 2011. EL has within the last three years participated in two congresses the expenses of which were covered by pharmaceutical companies. LHN and CWS declared no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

    Ethical approval: Ethical approval is not requested for registry based studies in Denmark, and consent from participating patients is not required.

    Data sharing: No additional data available.

    1      World Health Organization Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Disease and Steroid Hormone Contraception. Venous thromboembolic disease and combined oral contraceptives: results of international multicentre case-control study. Lancet 1995;346:1575-82.

    2      Jick H, Jick SS, Gurewich V, Myers MW, Vasilakis C. Risk of idiopathic cardiovascular death and nonfatal venous thromboembolism in women using oral contraceptives with differing progestagen components. Lancet 1995;346:1589-93.

    3      Spitzer WO, Lewis MA, Heinemann LAJ, Thorogood M, MacRae KD. Third generation oral contraceptives and risk of venous thromboembolic disorders: an international case-control study. BMJ 1996;312:83-8.

    4      Farmer RDT, Lawrenson RA, Thompson CR, Kennedy JG, Hambleton IR. Population-based study of risk of venous thromboembolism associated with various oral contraceptives. Lancet 1997;349:83-8.

    5      Bloemenkamp KWM, Rosendaal FR, Buller HR, Helmerhorst FM, Colly LP, Vandenbroucke JP. Risk of venous thrombosis with use of current low-dose oral contraceptives is not explained by diagnostic suspicion and referral bias. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:65-70.

    Vlieg AVH, Helmerhorst FM, Vandenbroucke JP, Doggen CJ, Rosendaal FR. The venous thrombotic risk of oral contraceptives, effects of oestrogen dose and progestagen type: results of the MEGA case-control study. BMJ 2009;339:b2921.

    7      Lidegaard 0, L0kkegaard E, Svendsen AL, Agger C. Hormonal contraception and risk of venous thromboembolism: national follow-up study. BMJ 2009;339:b2890.

    8      Parkin L, Sharples K, Hernandez RK, Jick SS. Risk of venous thromboembolism in users of oral contraceptives containing drospirenone or levonorgestrel: nested case-control study based on UK General Practice Research Database. BMJ 2011;340:d2139.

    9      Jick SS, Hernandez RK. Risk of non-fatal venous thromboembolism in women using oral contraceptives containing drospirenone compared with women using oral contraceptives containing levonorgestrel: case-control study using United States claims data. BMJ 2011;340:d2151.

    10     Lidegaard 0, Nielsen LH, Skovlund CW, Skjeldestad FE, L0kkegaard E. Risk of venous thromboembolism from use of oral contraceptives containing different progestogens and oestrogen doses: Danish cohort study 2001-9. BMJ 2011;343:d6423.

    11     Food and Drug Administration, Office of surveillance and epidemiology. Combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) and the risk of cardiovascular disease endpoints. FDA, 2011. www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/UCM277384.pdf.

    12    Jick SS, Kaye JA, Russmann S, Jick H. Risk of nonfatal venous thromboembolism in women using a contraceptive transdermal patch and oral contraceptives containing norgestimate and 35 ng of ethinyl estradiol. Contraception 2006;73:223-8.

    13    Jick S, Kaye JA, Li L, Jick H. Further results on the risk of nonfatal venous thromboembolism in users of the contraceptive transdermal patch compared to users of oral contraceptives containing norgestimate and 35 microg of ethinyl estradiol. Contraception 2007;76:4-7.

    14    Jick SS, Hagberg KW, Kaye JA. Ortho EVRA®and venous thromboembolism: an update. Contraception 2010;81:452-3.

    15     Cole JA, Horman H, Doherty M, Walker AM. Venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke among transdermal contraceptive system users. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:339-46.

    16     Dore DD, Norman H, Loughlin J, Seeger JD. Extended case-control study results on thromboembolic outcomes among transdermal contraceptive users. Contraception 2010;81:408-13.

    17     Van den Heuvel MW, van Bragt AJM, Alnabawy A, Kaptein MC. Comparison of ethinylestradiol pharmacokinetics in the transdermal patch, and an oral contraceptive. Contraception 2005;72:168-74.

    18     Odlin V, Milsom I, Persson I, Victor A. Can changes in sex hormone binding globulin predict the risk of venous thromboembolism with combined oral contraceptive pills? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002;81:482-90.

    19     Fleischer K, Vliet HAV, Rosendaal FR, Rosing J, Tchaikovski S, Helmerhorst FM. Effects of the contraceptive patch, the vaginal ring and an oral contraceptive on APC resistance and SHBG: a cross-over study. Thrombosis Res 2009;123:429-35.

    20     Gronich N, Lavi I, Rennert G. Higher risk of venous thrombosis associated with drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives: a population-based cohort study. CMAJ 2011;183:E1319-25.

    Accepted: 30 March 2012 Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:e2990

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. S
    >Table 5| Incidence of venous thrombosis in users of transdermal contraceptive patch and corresponding combined oral contraceptive (COC) with norgestimate, and rate ratio of venous thrombosis in users of patch versus users of combined oral contraceptives with norgestimate

    *Reference group was users of combined oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel and 30-40 |jg oestrogen.

    Share and Enjoy:
    • Print
    • Digg
    • StumbleUpon
    • del.icio.us
    • Facebook
    • Yahoo! Buzz
    • Twitter
    • Google Bookmarks
    • LinkedIn
    • MySpace
    • Reddit
    • Technorati

    Technorati Tags:

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Technorati

Technorati Tags: