Auto Draft

Using acetaminophen during pregnancy has been linked to a 20% to 30% increase in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), ADHD (attention deficit disorder), hyperactivity, and other conduct-related disorders. The link between Tylenol and autism is the most studied. The size of the studies, the consistent methodology, and the studies’ designs (called “robust”) provide solid evidence and a strong argument that paracetamol use while pregnant brings about an increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis in children.

The makers of Tylenol and generic acetaminophen (also called Paracetamol, its chemical name) are facing numerous product liability lawsuits. These mass tort lawsuits claim the product’s makers and retailers negligently failed to warn expecting women, doctors, and the general public about a potential risk that occurs when the products are used during pregnancy.

Judge Cote has accepted permit the defendants to submit a consolidated brief on the Daubert challenges to the admissibility the scientific expert evidence being presented by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had submitted a letter asking Judge Cote to deny the request, claiming that the submission of different briefs for each and every individual expert was necessary to ensure a fair outcome. The future of the Tylenol autism class action will hinge on the outcome of the Daubert challenges. If Judge Cote policies that the plaintiff’s causation evidence is not admissible in court, all of the pending cases will ultimately obtain rejected.

Tylenol autism lawyers for injured parties need to convince a jury that manufacturers like Johnson & Johnson breached their duty of care to consumers by falling short to warn them of the risks related to acetaminophen. tylenol autism pregnancy believe manufacturers and retailers were both negligent by ignoring a growing body of scientific evidence illustrating acetaminophen use during pregnancy increases the risk for autism spectrum disorders. Failing to warn goes to the heart of the Tylenol pregnancy lawsuit.

The Tylenol autism lawsuit encompasses all lawsuits filed in Federal Courts throughout the United States against both manufacturers and retailers of generic acetaminophen products and Tylenol. This form of litigation is called Multi-District Litigation (MDL) because it includes possibly victims throughout the nation. The product liability claims against Tylenol and other makers of acetaminophen have been consolidated into a multi-district litigation class action lawsuit. This suggests all Tylenol lawsuits will be heard in one jurisdiction, even if the plaintiffs are located across the U.S., to consolidate court resources. It also permits plaintiffs to share the burden of expenses like court fees.

Lawyers for both sides in the Tylenol autism MDL lately submitted a joint letter to Judge Cote listing those states where plaintiffs would not be able to claim negligent misrepresentation based upon omission. The list included 15 states: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. Claimants in these states will not be able to pursue negligent misrepresentation claims in the litigation, although this will likely have little influence on the ultimate outcome of their cases.

The Tylenol autism lawsuit is attracting nationwide attention. Also referred to as the Acetaminophen Autism Lawsuit, this nationwide legal action has the potential to be the biggest mass tort. The Tylenol Autism Lawsuit is a nationwide lawsuit brought by parents that took Tylenol during pregnancy and brought to life a youngster diagnosed with autism, ADHD, or other neurodevelopmental disorders. In this article, we share the basic information you require to know to determine if you are eligible for a potential Tylenol-autism claim settlement.

In a joint letter submitted to Judge Cote, the defendants and the plaintiffs in the Tylenol autism MDL have agreed that plaintiffs in certain states will not be able to pursue negligent misrepresentation claims based on omissions. The states where these claims are not recognized include: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. This will probably have little or no effect on the ultimate outcome of the cases.