You should know that in today's world, it is impossible to specialize in more than a few medical fields. That's why our attorneys limit our practice to litigation that is related to a select number of drugs and therapeutic devices, specifically DES (diethylstilbestrol).
When you call on the DES attorneys Aaron M. Levine & Associates, you can be assured that you will receive the support and expertise needed to win your case. Our Diethylstilbestrol attorneys not only understand the complex issues of medical litigation in specific areas, they also have the full support of our successful network of specialized nurses, doctors, scientists and others.
Actually prosecuted DES exposure cases through trial as Sole Chief Trial Attorney;
Published articles on DES in Legal Peer Review encyclopedias;
Met and conferred with authors around the world doing current research to prove the association between DES infertility causes and poor pregnancy outcomes;
Has made law in the federal courts easing the burden of DES daughters to:
Has been on national television 60 Minutes, Dan Rather, 6:00 News, CNN and ABC, CBS regarding forensic medicine;
Has four decades of litigation experience;
Is in the current forefront of diethylstilbestrol effects litigation with over 100 cases in active litigation;
Has a staff of certified nurses, doctors and physician's assistants in the mainstream of litigation support;
Has board certification as a civil trial lawyer and was honored as Trial Lawyer of the Year; and
Works closely with pharmacy investigators to determine brand identification.
Discovered the expert and coordinated his research in the first important Fen-Phen case, which resulted in the first million-dollar Fen-Phen settlement. The expert testimony we presented led to the $4 billion nationwide settlement.
Cultivated the first medical expert in the field of silicone breast implants — this testimony contributed to a $6 billion nationwide settlement.
Obtained over $30 million for our DES clients, and fostered two precedent-setting court decisions.
Pioneered the Dalkon Shield litigation, which subsequently resulted in a $2.5 billion nationwide settlement with $40 million awarded to our clients.
A large, comprehensive medical library with thousands of texts and articles focused on injury to the mother and child and reproductive issues.
A large nationwide team of pharmacists and marketing experts available to research product identification.
Complete and extensive medical models, visual aids, videos and actual drugs and devices in the maternal-fetal field.
Deposition banks of virtually all of the DES scientific experts on both sides.
DES promotional materials and labeling and a full sampling of DES pills from the 60's with bottles, labeling and advertisements.
A library of decades of Physician Desk Reference manuals, advertisements and medical texts from the 1900's to present.
Current subscriptions and abstracts to all the important medical and OB / GYN periodicals.
Contacts within the Federal Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute.
In any product liability case, the nature, scope and presentation of the product's real risk is an issue that requires close scrutiny. Russell v. GAF* is our appellate case that resulted in a dramatic change in the responsibility of manufacturers to clearly broadcast product warnings. We obtained the first decision in our jurisdiction that requires manufacturers to put a warning on each and every item until it gets into the hands of the consumer. This ruling, reinforced in Payne v. Soft Sheen Products, Inc.,* another case we were involved in, has had special relevance in drug and product liability injury cases, where the manufacturer or distributor has the responsibility to warn doctor and patient.
We "wrote the book" on proving product identification in DES cases in the encyclopedia of proof which is in most law libraries throughout America. 46 Proof of Facts 2d 51. We made critical case law in Shields v. Eli Lilly* on the issue of product identification. Aaron Levine & Associates was instrumental in providing the legal profession with instructions and checklists for how to obtain and present this information.
In most states, the door to the courthouse shuts in the consumer's face within two or three years from the date of injury. But medical drugs often have complicated and vague effects that can take years to manifest. The wrongful conduct of the manufacturers in promoting Diethylstilbestrol to pregnant women has been concealed to a large degree. The question then becomes, when did a victim's statute of limitations start to run? Statute of limitations questions are complex and require unique expertise. In Dawson v. Eli Lilly* we convinced the court that it would not be fair in a complicated DES medical products case, where the facts are often confusing and beyond ordinary comprehension, to start the three year period until there was notice of the negligence of the manufacturer. Again, Levine & Associates has created instrumental precedent in this area.
The law has great difficulty extending rights of compensation for bad medical care, drugs or devices to children before they were born. For example:
If a woman suffers a uterine injury which years later, during a subsequent pregnancy, causes a premature birth, is that child (who was not in existence at the time of the negligence) entitled to compensation?
Is a parent of a child who is born severely disfigured entitled to compensation for the extraordinary medical care and therapy required because the obstetrician failed to conduct proper tests during pregnancy?
In many of our cases, a woman often suffers a uterine injury which years later results in a premature birth with severe, lifelong complications. We changed the law in Haymon v. Wilkerson,* successfully arguing to the court of appeals in support of a mother, who had a Downs baby after being denied an amniocentesis test even though this procedure was indicated by her age and condition. We successfully argued that the mother was entitled to compensation, since the pregnancy would have been terminated had the doctor performed the procedure correctly. This ruling is of importance in cases requiring genetic counseling, like Spina Bifida, Downs Syndrome, and Fragile X Birth Defects. In a related case, Sorrels v. Eli Lilly and Company,* we were able to convince the court that a child born prematurely 35 years after his mother's uterine injury from synthetic estrogen (DES) was entitled to compensation, even though the child never came into contact with the drug.
We have counseling and psychological experts available to review and assess the emotional impact of DES-caused reproductive injuries. The women suffering from infertility, poor pregnancy outcomes and failed IVF, experience unique stress, dashed hopes, cyclical fears, frustration and feelings of inadequacy, which in many cases develop into marital strife and emotional turmoil. We place special emphasis on and explore all aspects of the situational anxiety, depression, family dynamics, self-image and the other psychological phenomena associated with impaired reproductive function. We pride ourselves on our ability to elucidate psychological injury and present the financial and emotional costs involved.
It has been a half-century since DES was popular. Since that time pharmacies have closed, pharmacists have become unavailable or forgotten the brand of DES they had in the stores at the time of your mother's prescription. Certainly the records of the prescription no longer exist. Prescribing physicians and their records are also often unavailable.
In six states you can sue the industry but you only get a share of the market, not full compensation. However, in the other states you need proof of a particular brand. How do you prove that you were actually exposed to DES and even more difficult, what brand of DES your mother purchased?
We have created a network of physicians, pharmacists, pharmacy investigators and marketing experts who are able to discover the proof necessary to establish the fact of your exposure and the brand to which you were exposed in most cases.
*If you would like a copy of any of these decisions please fax your request on your letterhead to 202-833-8046