Invokana Lawsuits on the Rise As Patients Report Drug Related Kidney Damage      

 

Unexpected side effects linked to the drug Invokana have led to lawsuits all over the country. When taken orally, Invokana is a prescription drug that helps individual control their diabetes by prompting the kidneys to flush glucose from the bloodstream, which is wonderful, but many people have developed ketoacidosis as a result of the Invokana. Ketoacidosis is a condition where the body no longer has the insulin needed for the cells to process the glucose needed to create energy. Ketoacidosis is a potentially fatal condition.

A Kentucky woman decided to file an Invokana lawsuit in 2013 after she developed ketoacidosis. She’s seeking a settlement that will cover both punitive and compensatory costs. The paperwork she filed states that she received inaccurate, false, or misleading information about the potential side effects associated with Invokana before she started using it.

Ketoacidosis is a serious health condition that has sent many people into a coma, and been terminal in other cases. The condition makes it impossible for the cells to convert glucose to energy which prompts the cells to use fatty tissue instead. This causes the fat to release ketones which create acidic blood levels that can poison a patient if the normal blood pH level can’t be restored. Some people who have used Ivokana report kidney damage.

Invokana is quite a new drug, it didn’t gain FDA approval until March 2013 at which point doctors were permitted to prescribe it to patients who suffered from Type 2 diabetes. At the time of it’s approval, Invokana was classified as a gliflozin drug. The severity of side effects that patients have experienced since they started taking Invokana has prompted them Invokana lawsuits all over the country with plaintiffs stating that the manufacture didn’t clearly communicate the potential risks connected to the disease.

The FDA has been paying attention to the mounting complaints about Invokana. In mid-2015 they publicly announced that the drug can lead to a dangerous amount of acid in the blood. The organization reminded patients that this increased acid can trigger a coma and severely and irreparably damage internal organs. To patients already taking Invokana, the FDA suggested they watch for symptoms like nausea, irregular heartrate, and fatigue.

It was at this point that the Invokana manufacturers had to strengthen the warning they included on bottles of Invokana. While the FDA’s announcement was a good reminder to patients currently taking Invokana to pay close attention to their health, it also prompted a surge of lawsuits all over the country as people suddenly realized that their medication was the trigger for a decline in their health.

If you have been taking Invokana and have started to experience Ketoacidosis the first thing you need to get checked out by your doctor. Following that, you should book a consultation appointment with an experienced attorney and find out what your legal options are. If you decide to file an Invokana lawsuit, your attorney will walk you through the entire legal process and make sure all your rights are adhered to. If you’re looking for more information Invokana lawsuits, check out rxinjuryhelp. They have a wealth of information.

 

 

Why Can’t Cruz Sue Trump for Defamation?

As the political campaigns continue to heat up and opponents volley insults back and forth, some may wonder why those seeking the presidential nominations for their party aren’t involving New York personal injury attorneys into the fray. I mean, presidential campaigns get dirty and with all of that badmouthing and swagger, there’s bound to be some libel and slander, right? Plenty of stump speeches and debate monologues can sound pretty slanderous as one candidate tries to debunk another. And how about those campaign ads? Shouldn’t some of them be considered libelous?

While some of the things politicians say about each other or what journalists publish about candidates might be cause for a defamation suit if the target was an ordinary civilian not running for elective office, it doesn’t qualify for defamation under personal injury law.

Why is that? I mean, isn’t challenging someone’s right to run for president because of where they were born, saying they aren’t a citizen, or demeaning or misrepresenting another candidate’s record or values harmful to their reputation? Wouldn’t that qualify those speeches, comments, and campaign ads as defamation?

Not quite. Thanks to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, politicians and other public figures are held to a different standard when it comes to defamation under personal injury law. While mudslinging can certainly harm a candidate’s reputation and hinder his chances of job procurement—i.e. election—the court must decide that something called “actual malice” has occurred. In Cruz v. Trump, this would mean that a jury would need to find that Donald Trump knowingly said false things, or said false things not caring whether they were true or not. Plus, rather than the typical preponderance of evidence that is needed in other civil cases, a jury would need to be convinced by “clear and convincing evidence.” This is a higher burden of proof than a “preponderance of evidence”, but still less than what is needed in criminal court to prove a defendant guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Basically, there’s a higher standard of defamation that a politician must meet if he wants to claim someone is defaming his name. Which makes sense if you consider that defamation law might’ve been used as a way to dissuade people from disagreeing or arguing with public figures. Having to prove actual malice reduces the number of likely cases that make it to court and allows people to criticize politicians and public figures without fear of retaliation.

Thankfully, most of us don’t have to meet that higher standard to find justice when someone has sullied our good name. If we have proof of slander or a copy of libelous literature or photographs, we are lucky that can enlist the services of a trustworthy New York personal injury attorney to help protect our reputations and seek damages. If your professional reputation has been injured by a rumor or verbal attack, it is important to seek help from a New York personal injury attorney as soon as possible. Defamation cases have a statute of limitation of one year. Consulting with a New York personal injury lawyer will help you determine whether you have a case and help you move forward to fix your good name.