Month: December 2011

Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) Compensation Likely in the UK

Thousands of breast implant recall compensation claims could come from women worried about the Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) recall in the UK.

When the recall was first revealed in March 2010, the advice provided at the time by the French medical device regulatory authority AFSSAPS was for women who were concerned over their PIP breast implants to undergo an ultrasound scan to check for suspected ruptures of the implant sac.

Subsequently it was revealed that the recalled breast implants, which have a higher incidence of rupturing than is usual, also contained an unauthorised silicone gel which could cause an inflammatory reactions in certain women. Now health officials in France are informing all women who have received PIP recalled breast implants to have them removed.

Though the UK´s medicines watch dog – the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency – insists there is no risk of cancer from this lower grade silicone gel, one woman in France is known to have died due to anaplastic large cell lymphoma and many women in the UK have suffered unusual and painful symptoms once the silicone gel has secreted into their lymph nodes.

With the maker of the recalled breast implants having gone out of business since the recall, breast implant recall compensation claims are being directed against the clinics and surgeries which originally performed the breast implant operation – not only for the physical ailments caused by the ruptured implants, but for the emotional distress of suffered by the affected women who may not yet be aware of how badly their health has been affected.

Car Park Slip Compensation for Shop Car Park Victim

A woman, who slipped and fell on her way from a supermarket car park to the stores, is to receive an undisclosed amount of shop injury compensation after the shopping centre owners admitted liability for her injuries.

Gweneth Bowler (64) from Quorn, Leicestershire, broke her right shoulder and hip when falling on a wet surface that had formed within the covered bridge area connecting the Highcross Shopping Centre car park with the stores.

Following the slipping incident, which happened in January 2011, Gweneth wrote to Leicester City Council about her fall and injuries which prompted a health and safety investigation into the hazard. The investigation showed that the surface of the bridge posed a high risk of slipping when the weather was wet and that there was evidence of inadequate cleaning.

After seeking legal guidance, Gweneth then sued the owners of the shopping centre – Hammerson PLC – who accepted liability and negotiated an undisclosed settlement of shop injury compensation to account for the pain and suffering that Gweneth experienced at the time of her injury and her ongoing inability to drive and lift items of any weight.

Faulty Shoes Foot Injury Compensation Settled On

A man whose feet erupted in blisters due to the high irritant content in a new pair of shoes has settled his foot injury compensation claim against the makers in an out-of-court compensation settlement.

Chris Heleine (51) from Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, had bought the Sperry Top-Siders shoes from the Leeds branch of Hip Menswear in April 2009 before going on vacation to Spain. However, within hours of donning the shoes, his feet had erupted into big blisters and he was rushed to hospital.

Medical staff at the hospital in Menorca burst the blisters and drained the fluid that had collected underneath but, following the initial treatment, Chris had to return to the hospital each day for a week to have his dressing changed as the high humidity in Menorca could have resulted in both feet becoming infected.

On his return to the UK, Chris took legal guidance, and his solicitors arranged to have the chemical content of the shoes analysed. The results of the analysis showed unusually high levels of 2-Mercaptobenzothiazole – a classified irritant and the causing factor of Chris´ blisters.

Chris took a foot injury compensation claim against the manufacturers of the shoes – American company Collective Brands – and, after they carried out their own independent chemical analysis, the company admitted liability for Chris´ injuries and paid a four-figure sum in settlement of the foot injury compensation claim.