Nationwide Class Action Lawsuit Filed in Missouri Against Baby Bottle Manufacturers

Wednesday, New York, NY - April 30, 2008

Rights For America attorneys, Robert H. Weiss and Stephen Murakami, along with two prominent Class Action law firms from Missouri (Scharnhorst Ast & Kennard, P.C.) and Kansas (The Hodges Law Firm), filed a billion dollar consumer class action lawsuit against the leading baby bottle manufacturers (Avent America, Evenflo, Gerber, Handi-Craft (Dr. Brown's) and Playtex) for their use of Bisphenol A in polycarbonate plastic baby bottles and toddler training cups. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri pursuant to Missouri Consumer Protection Laws on behalf of the infants and children of Missouri and the United States who were unknowingly exposed to BPA through their use of plastic baby bottles and training cups.

Robert Weiss filed the first such lawsuit last spring in California against the same baby bottle manufacturers. That case is pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Victoria Chaney.

Bisphenol-A or "BPA" was originally examined in the 1930s for use as a synthetic estrogen however it is primarily used today in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics for its clear and shatterproof qualities. Studies have shown that BPA can activate estrogen receptors that lead to the same effects as the body's own estrogens. Exposure to BPA has been linked to lowered sperm count and infertile sperm in men, developmental toxicity, carcinogenic effects, and possible neurotoxicity. Infants are especially vulnerable and are believed to be at greater risk from the effects of BPA, which acts as a powerful hormone that can interfere with an infant's normal brain and sexual development.

Robert Weiss and Rights For America is committed to protecting our infants and will not stop until the infants of America are protected.

To contact Robert H. Weiss for comment and to schedule an interview, phone PR Consultant Jo Jo Holotka at (404) 406-7183 or (404) 525-3900.

Court: Protection act applies to doctors

Saturday, February 10, 2007

The Kansas Consumer Protection Act can apply to a physician's conduct in providing treatment to a patient, but expert testimony may be required to prove a claim, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The 5-2 decision is the first time the state's highest court has addressed the issue of whether professional conduct by physicians in providing care falls under the consumer protection act.

The court concluded there is nothing in the law exempting physicians, although it suggested the Legislature could change that. The case was returned to Sedgwick County District Court for trial on the claims.

"The plain language of the KCPA is broad enough to encompass the providing of medical care and treatment services with a physician-patient relationship," the court held.

"A physician is, in the ordinary course of business, a seller or supplier of services. A patient is a consumer of those services for personal, family or business purposes. The sale of those services is a consumer transaction," it said.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Robert E. Davis said Kansas statutes distinguish medical and health care professionals from supplier-consumer transactions covered by the consumer protection act. He was joined by Chief Justice Kay McFarland.

The ruling arose from a lawsuit in which Tracy Williamson, of Parker, claims Dr. Jacob Amrani, now in Scottsdale, Ariz., told her in 1999 that the back surgery he recommended had a high likelihood of relieving pain, when it was unsuccessful in the majority of cases where Amrani used the same procedure.

The trial court ruled a year ago that the consumer protection act didn't apply to physicians, and Williamson appealed. The act allows the attorney general's office, or a consumer, to bring a civil action against someone accused of deceptive practices.

Williamson's attorney, Michael Hodges, of Lenexa, called it a mixed ruling.

"The jury ought to be able to determine if it is reasonable to be told certain things by a physician. We will be required to have an expert say whether what was said in this case departed from what a reasonable physician would have told a patient in order to prove a deceptive act," Hodges said.

But Mark Stafford, Kansas Board of Healing Arts chief counsel, said it is too soon to say what the effect might be.

"What we need to watch is whether this is going to be applied in typical malpractice cases or whether it will be applied only whether there is a deceptive act connected to patient care. That will be decided by future litigation," he said.