Posts Tagged ‘dow corning claims’
Breast Implant Lawyers Accepting Dow Corning Breast Implant ClaimsOur Breat Implant lawyers are reviewing Dow Corning Breast Implant Claims for women implanted with Dow Corning implants prior to June 1, 1993 and who are registered with the SF-DCT.
We are here to help with your Dow Corning silicone breast implant claims and will connect you with a female silicone breast Implant lawyer who has been helping women for 2 decades. Our lawyers have helped women obtain settlements for breast implant diseases such as Lupus, Scleroderma and General Connective Tissue Diseases.
DECEMBER 3, 2015
The District Court issued an Order approving the Consent Order To Establish Guidelines for Distributions From The Class 7 Silicone Material Claimants’ Fund. This means that the Court has authorized approved disease claims in Class 7 to be paid and has approved the parties’ agreed interpretation of “marshaling.” The order will become final once the 30-day time period for appeals has expired and no appeals have been filed. Payments can begin once the Order is final. This means that payments will not begin until sometime in January 2016 or thereafter.
DECEMBER 1, 2015
Copy of the SFDCT letter sent to claimaints with an approved Disease Option 2 claim regarding Increased Severity – Please note the deadline date of June 2, 2019 is incorrect. The correct deadline date is June 3, 2019. To read the response, click here.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
Omnibus Response to Objections & Submissions Responding to Consent Order to Establish Guidelines for Distribution From Class 7 Silicone Materials Claimants Fund. To read the response, click here.
JULY 29, 2015
Scheduling Order Regarding Consent Order to Establish Guidelines for Distributions from Class 7 Silicone Material Claimants’ Fund. To read the order, click here.
JULY 17, 2015ATTORNEYS:
Wells Fargo, the paying agent for the SF-DCT, requires law firms to provide an updated w-9 before payment can be issued. You can download a copy of the updated w-9 form here. Please complete and return the w-9 to the SF-DCT.
JUNE 12, 2015
Copy of the Notice to Class 7 Claimants Establishing Guidelines mailed by the SFDCT. To read the notice, click here.
JUNE 2, 2015
Judge Hood as issued an Order Authorizing Distribution of the Notice in reference to the Class 7 Consent Order. To read the order, click here.
MAY 26, 2015
CAC FILES MOTION ASKING FOR APPROVAL TO PAY CLASS 7 CLAIMS AND TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY DENIED “MARSHALING” CLAIMS
On Friday, May 22, 2015, the CAC filed a proposed Consent Order asking the Court to authorize payment of disease claims for Class 7 claimants. Most claimants in Class 7 have been previously paid a $600 Expedited Release Payment, a Foreign Gel Claimant Payment, or a $3,000 Cash-Out Offer. Claimants that rejected the Cash-Out Offer and elected for a full disease review have been waiting for payment on their approved disease claim. With the filing of the motion, the CAC hopes that these claimants can now be paid once the Consent Order is entered by the Court.
In addition, the CAC has reached an agreement with Dow Corning regarding thousands of Class 7 claims that were previously denied by the SF-DCT on the grounds that the claimant allegedly had not “marshaled” their recoveries from their primary manufacturer (Bristol, Baxter). Under this agreement, claims will be reviewed to determine if the claimant was eligible to apply for disease compensation from the Revised Settlement Program. If so, then that claimant cannot apply for the same disease in Class 7. However, if a claimant was not eligible to receive benefits for a particular disease in the RSP, then that claimant may seek compensation from Class 7.
For example, if a claimant was an Other Registrant in the RSP, the only disease option she was eligible for was Disease Option 2 (called Long Term Benefits). Other Registrants were not eligible for Disease Option 1 (Fixed Benefits) and diseases like ACTD. These claimants may now seek compensation for Disease Option 1 from Class 7.
The SF-DCT will re-review the claims that were previously denied and will send eligible claimants either a $600 Expedited Release Payment or $3,000 Cash-Out Payment. The Cash-Out Payment is available only to those claimants who submitted a disease claim in 2006. Claimants may reject the Cash-Out Payment and instead elect for a full disease review; however, if the claim is not approved, they will not be eligible for the Cash-Out Offer again.
MAY 4, 2015
The MDL Common Benefit Trust fund has announced that it will offer women who were not compensated for Explantation in either the MDL or Dow Corning Settlement a chance to apply for $5,000 explant payment. For more information about this program, please click here. Please note that this program is not affiliated with either the RSP or Dow Corning Settlement Plan.
If you are having difficulty getting your medical insurance to cover the cost of the explant surgery, there is a new resource for women. The Insurance Coverage Assistance Program will be available to provide advice and assistance on how to assess this Medicare, Medicaid, and health care coverage for issues related to breast implants. This program is to be operated by the National Center for Health Research, a consumer-oriented non-profit group in Washington, D.C., that has helped women seek insurance coverage for breast implant removal. The National Center currently operates the breastimplantinfo.org website. You may email them at email@example.com with your name and email address for more information, including their toll-free number. If you do not have access to email, you can call them at 202-223-4000.
FEBRUARY 10, 2015
On January 27, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s authorization to make 50% partial Premium Payments. Fortunately, the SF-DCT has already made 98% of the partial Premium Payments to eligible, approved claimants. This money does not need to be repaid. Claimants can keep the partial Premium Payment checks that were issued to them. Unfortunately, the remaining 2% of claimants who did not receive their partial Premium Payment check (or returned it for reissuance, or who had lost checks) are on hold pending either a consensual resolution to pay their claims or a court order. A copy of the ruling is under the tab “Court Orders.”
February 10, 2015,
CAC filed a petition for rehearing on this ruling, asking the Court of Appeals to reconsider or rehear the issue based on what the CAC believes are two serious legal errors. A copy of the petition is under the tab “Appeals to the 6th Circuit” and then under the sub-tab “Premium Payments.”
IF YOU NEED HELP WITH YOUR DOW CORNING BREAST IMPLANT CLAIM CONTACT US TODAY
Breast Implant Helpline keeps you updated on all breast implant news. Years after the Dow Corning Silicone Breast Implant disaster a new silicone breast implant hits the market. The FDA has approved a new silicone gel breast implant from Johnson & Johnson.
Next Generation breast Implant?
The Food and Drug Administration said it has approved a next-generation silicone breast implant from Mentor, a unit of New Brunswick-based Johnson & Johnson. Ladies let’s remember who this is. The same folks that bring you the vaginal mesh implant that is ruing lives nationwide. We watch with skepticism. The company’s MemoryShape breast implant uses a cross-linking gel design that the FDA says is firmer than previous implants. FDA regulators approved the new implant for breast enhancement and reconstruction in women at least 22 years old.
Can Silicone Breast Implants Make A Comeback?
Silicone gel implants have made a comeback recently after safety concerns kept them off the market for nearly 25 years.
The FDA banned sales of silicone breast implants in 1992, saying manufacturers had not provided enough medical data showing their safety and effectiveness. At the time, there were worries about a connection to a variety of diseases, including cancer and lupus. Alarming cases of ruptures added to the concern. Women are still waiting on settlements from the Dow Corning Class Actions and a new breast implant explant program has been announced.
The FDA said Friday it approved Mentor’s new implant based on studies tracking six years of data in 955 women. The agency said complications with Mentor’s MemoryShape implants were similar to those from previously approved silicone gel implants.
FDA is requiring Mentor to meet a number of requirements in connection with the new approval, including:
• Tracking the 955 women with the new implant
• Conducting a new study of 2,500 women who receive the new implant
• Evaluating women’s comprehension and perception of the implant’s labeling
• Analyzing any implants that are removed from women and returned to the manufacturer
More than one in five women who get implants for breast enhancement will need to have them replaced within five years, accord to an FDA analysis of company data released in 2011. Despite that relatively high failure rate, FDA regulators concluded that the silicone-gel implants are basically safe, as long as women understand they come with complications. Some critics of the implants say the failure rate may be even higher, since many women have dropped out of the company studies.
We will be watching.
If you are registerd with the Dow Corning Settlement Facility and are having problems with your settlement that is due you due to Dow Corning Ruptures contact us for a Dow Corning Lawsuit lawyer
Dow Corning Ruptures
Dow Corning implants were originated in the 1940’s by Dow Corning Chemical Company. The implants were found at the University of California Los Angeles in 1995 that the silicone could be expected to be a bioactive material and immunological data at the experimental level was compelling. The implants will continue to rupture and leak within 10 years of placement in 1995, yet the Commissioner stated the ruptured silicone implant would range from 5 to 51%. We do not know with any confidence where within that range the real rupture rate lies. They felt that even 5% was too high a risk to allow use of silicone in humans.
The Canadian General of Plastic Surgery found after a 12-year period of use, 40% of the 1,717 silicone Dow Corning breast implants after six years of use had a rupture rate and 95% after 12 years of use. In the Annals of Plastic Surgery in 1995, it was found that 71% of the 300 patients examined had either ruptured silicone or silicone bleed and 63% of 592 patients were found to have rupture of the Dow Corning implants. This led to the conclusion that most implants will lose their integrity of the silicone shell between 8 and 14 years, which could leave free silicone both intra and extracapsular in the breast.
In 1956, Dow Corning Chemical researchers knew that liquid silicone injected in the body will migrate to all major organs, including the spleen, liver, heart and brain. They also confirmed in 1970 silicone after injection will migrate to the bone marrow of animals and change brain weight. It also showed that silicone particulate will migraine from a human finger joint into the lymph node.
Also found by research from the ruptured Dow Corning implants was that silicone produces abnormalities in the immune system functioning. Elevated T helper cells to T suppressor cells were found. In 1992, the General Toxicology Industrial Health activities of natural killer cells were suppressed in 50% of the women with silicone implants of Dow Corning nature, putting women at a higher risk for developing other problems. Silicone produces a classifiable possible new disease within autoimmune systems. Tens of thousands of women had their implants removed after over 20 years. They sought help for their symptoms which included autoimmune dysfunction, connective tissue disorders, scleroderma and fibromyalgia; however, at this time the FDA has reviewed these symptoms as being consistent or correlated with silicone gel implants. Neither cancer or autoimmune disorders in 2012 have been shown to be associated directly with ruptured Dow Corning implants.
The settlements for the Dow Corning rupture claims resulted in over 100,000 settlements to women, permanently closed on December 15, 2010. The Dow settlement from the Dow Corning Trust Fund was processing classified claims for disease and explant benefits. The deadline to file and explant claim if you have your Dow Corning implants removed and not replaced with silicone is June 2, 2014. Deadline to file either a claim or expedited relief claim is June 3, 2019.
Dr. Linder has presented with multiple cases of Dow Corning ruptured silicone implants, including having patients referred directly from Dow Corning in Michigan. Upon taking these patients into the operating room, it was found clinically that these patients often present with severe Baker IV capsulation with hardened scar tissue contracture, visible distortion, pain and hardened, distorted, disfigured breasts. Removal of the silicone implant material is not as easy as it looks. Dr. Linder performs the incision usually either through the inframammary approach or periareolar.
After making the incision through the skin, electrocautery dissection is carried down through the glandular pocket. These implants are most commonly placed subglandular. At this time, the capsule is usually rock hard solid, thicker than chalk, and requires often a blade in order to cut through and remove it from the overlying tissue. Breast tissue itself is often difficult to find, as there is significant mastitis associated with silicone gel bleed directly into the surrounding breast tissue. Many of these patients have been seen to have complete disintegration of the shell of the thin Dow Corning implants which no longer exist. The calcifications and granulomas are extraordinary, and the difficulty in removing the entire shell is extraordinarily difficult, including the posterior wall.
Only Board Certified Plastic Surgeons should be performing open capsulectomies with silicone Dow Corning implant rupture material removal and reconstruction. When removing these implants permanently without replacement, it is important to use a drainage tube for 7 to 10 days with patients on oral antibiotics in order to prevent seroma formation. It is not unlikely that these patients will have a slightly elevated temperature over the next 7 to 10 days with associated slight toxemia from the silicone spreading through the bloodstream, especially for the first 72 hours. The challenge of removing these implants is equally as amazing as the intraoperative photographs. The following shows intraoperative photographs of ruptured silicone Dow Corning material being removed from the breast, the Dow Corning implants with the patch materials on the posterior wall, as well as the massive amounts of calcified granulomas from the capsule removed around the implant bag or internal silicone viscous liquid.
Finally, in 1992, the FDA approved adjunct study protocols for silicone gel implants for reconstruction revision patients. In 1995, major manufacturers of silicone and other implants, including Dow Corning Corp. have faced over 19,000 legal suits for defective breast implants which forced Dow Corning into filing bankruptcy. The FDA has now approved implants of silicone nature for women 22 years of age and older, as well as all women having breast reconstruction for cancer purposes. They do warn women that there are certain risks involved, including rupture, encapsulation, scar tissue contracture, and the requirement for replacement of the implants due to non-lifetime devices. The indications of a ruptured Dow Corning implant are similar to those of the other gels, including severe breast pain, chemical sensitivity, achy or swollen joints, fatigue, rashes, swollen breasts, loss of upper pole fullness, increased pain or scar tissue contracture, fever, erythema and redness.
courtesy of Dr Linder a Plastic Surgeon who may be able to help you.
Dow Corning and the Silicone Breast Implant Controversy
posted by Handsome Devil on Wed, 01/04/2012 – 20:32
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
1. What are some of the major factors that led to the Breast Implant Controversy?
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, class-action lawsuits claimed that Dow Corning's silicone breast implants caused systemic health problems. The claims first centered around breast cancer, and then migrated to a range of autoimmune diseases including lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and various neurological problems. Ok
Even though Dow Corning has spotted the signs such as stakeholder complaints and various test reports in advance, they have not handled the problems ethically and have tried to manipulate information detrimental to themselves.
Here are a few issues we found in the article:
Ethically the company should have listened to the scores of questions from customers and their doctors about serious medical problems resulting from the use of its product; however, the company has not stopped producing the product or not done anything to improve the current situation for the stakeholder’s benefits – consumer health. Yes
Secondly, the company ignored the internal reports over lack of safety testing, as reported. The mammary task force raised a question that the product could cause “a bleed through” into surrounding tissue and the test result was still “inconclusive”, even in the new product tests the engineers didn’t make sure of the product safety. In spite of these facts, the company kept selling the product to the market.
Thirdly, the company has disregarded its social responsibility to lead its community. It seemed to limit its responsibility only within its legal responsibility in a case that its product breaks the rules. To make business ethics perfect in its community, it should take care about its full responsibility on its legal aspect and its moral ethics. The unbalanced ethics approach finally not only risked the stakeholder’s health but also increased social costs in its communities. Ok
Lastly, the top managers violated its fiduciary duty to its stakeholder even in facing the allegations that the company had hidden negative test results and lied to the public about the safety of its products. The board of the directors continued to manufacture and sell the product as well as to proceeded to fight customers who brought suit alleging injury. Ok
There are other key factors such as the competition etc that need to be discussed
2. What are the ethical issues and principals involved in this case? Who has acted the most and the least responsibility? Explain.
The main ethical issue of the article was whether or not breast implants, although potentially harmful to the body, should be on the market.
Since the 1960’s when Dow Corning used silicone to develop the first prototype of a breast implant, there have been ethical concerns that have not been resolved.
In the early 90’s, breast augmentation was the second most common cosmetic procedure performed by plastic surgeons, and the top money maker. Not only were breast implants important for reconstructive surgery, such as after an accident or cancer treatment, but the demand for the implants was growing more rapidly as an elective procedure. There is even a growing medical opinion that micromastia, known as flat-chestedness, is a disease which can result in a patient having a total lack of body image and low self esteem. Thus, the enlargement is necessary to insure an improved quality of life for the patient. Ok
However, as the number of breast implant patients increased, so did the number of complaints. There were allegations of the implants causing pain, scarring, and even debilitating autoimmune diseases in the patients. But how was a product that was clearing injuring patients allowed to be on the market? How ethical was it to allow these products to be so available, and yet, so potentially dangerous? Yes
First of all, breast implants were not governmentally regulated when first developed in the 1960’s. FDA could not require approval for safety and effectiveness before products were on the market.
Second, in accordance with “good manufacturing” practices, Dow Corning did attempt to determine safety of medical products before releasing them to the public. However, the determination of “safety” was vague and based on the company’s opinion. When tested on animals, silicone was injected into the body. There was clear evidence of chronic inflammation; however, because the silicone would not be injected into humans, the finding was ignored.
Third, the new and improved implants were brought into the market quickly without extensive medical testing. The reasoning for this was because similar substances had already been tested in other facilities. It was; however, brought to the attention of Dow Corning that “bleed throughs” were occurring. The company assigned a few employees to investigate (meanwhile still providing breast implant procedures). They found that the bleeding was “no greater than what we measure from old control gels”. However, it was stated that these tests were “inconclusive”, and were never researched again. Ok
Finally, in 1975, it was found that the reject rate at inspection was as high as 50% on some production lots. And yet, the implants were still available on the market.
Need to also integrate some theoretical perspective to assess Dow’s egoism + utilitarian principles
The responsibility for these ethical issues is a combination of both the Dow Corning company and the government. The Dow Corning company, although not held to any level of standards, was providing a potentially harmful product to the public. Yes Testing was done, but was not conclusive. The government (FDA) allowed companies, like Dow, to supply harmful products because they did not require extensive testing. It was not until 1989 when the FDA finally identified silicone implants as Class III devices, meaning riskiest. But still, after many hearings, breast implants were cited as a “public health need” and were left on the market.
Plastic surgeons and the public also hold some responsibility. Surgeons, although knowledgeable about the possible effects, still recommended and used the products on their patients. Many breast cancer advocacy organizations and satisfied recipients also supported Dow Corning and the use of breast implants. Ok
3. What was the role of the US Food and Drug Administration? Should they take some blame for the scandal? Should they have taken a more active role early in the controversy? Is the role government agencies can play in this respect limited?
In the early years of the product, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had very little oversight of silicone breast implants. The FDA did regulate products meant for ingestion (pharmaceutical drugs) since 1906 (Pure Food and Drug Act) but implants were considered medical devices and outside the FDA’s regulatory scope. The products could be removed from the market only if the manufacturer was proven to break the law. Despite the Medical Amendments Act to the Food and Drug Act (1976) the FDA didn’t label breast implants as dangerous until 1989 (after numerous lawsuits). Ok
The FDA should have taken an active role to regulate these products and can be considered somewhat responsible. Dow Corning was able to put a new product designed for internal human use into the market with little testing and no oversight. Their testing revealed health dangers that they ignored and kept from the public. If the product was regulated, the FDA would have seen the effects on laboratory animals – the Silicon causing inflammation as it sticks to various organs and lymph nodes. Despite intent to keep the silicon out of the body, ruptures or leaks would cause damage and users at least need to be aware of the risk before putting the product inside their bodies. Regulation would have revealed the numerous red flags (animal testing, plastic surgeons’ trade show) associated with Dow Corning’s implants and their FDA approval would have been delayed until the problems were solved. Yes
Dow Corning and other corporations have the goal of making profits and increasing their shareholders’ wealth. The FDA and other government agencies should realize this and put checks in place to ensure these companies offer safe products and services. Breast implants may not be a food or a drug but they are meant for internal use in the human body and they should have been added to the regulatory scope of the agency much earlier than they were. One of the roles of government is to protect its citizens (national defense, criminal justice, health care) and while it is often hesitant to regulate business (especially when that business makes significant contributions to political campaigns) when blatantly dangerous products are made available to consumers, the government does have and should use its authority to regulate and prohibit sales of these devices.
4. Why did Dow’s exemplary formal code of conduct fail in preventing the controversy? What can be done to make a Code of Ethics more effective?
Dow’s exemplary formal code of conduct failed because its implementation was flawed and didn’t address all ethical issues, most important being safety. With great diligence they fought to make all business transactions legit, thus denouncing scandals which was admirable, but to avoid addressing safety as an ethical issue is not above reproach. The first ethical question raised should be “is the product we are manufacturing safe to the parties we are soliciting?” If studies are performed findings should be disclosed on the label and not hidden. Safety not being on the ethics score card made the formal code of conduct vulnerable to controversy. Ok To make a product that may have safety issues without proper notification to the parties involved is highly unethical. The employee’s at Dow involved in the safety studies as well as the top level managers that made the decision to push the product were quite aware of the situation. The urge to generate profit and regain market share took precedent over any safety concerns.
In an effort to make the Code of Ethics more effective, a company such as Dow’s must address all ethical issue’s leaving nothing to chance. To the fullest extent any possible ethical dilemma the company could face should be analyzed and given a proper course of action. Yes Granted no society lives in utopia, thus no Code will be perfect, but at no point should major issues such as safety be brushed under the rug to obtain a profit. Companies must also be willing to be honest with themselves in addition to the parties that they serve. Doing so not only makes it easier to create an effective Code of Ethics but also implementing it will come with ease. In the Dow’s case they were not being honest about the product they were promoting and selling. Stemming from the early stages they knew the product had potential to be a safety hazard but elected to forgo the proper testing to ensure the product wasn’t detrimental to an individual’s health.
Breast Implant Helpline can help you with your breast implant claim
Nationwide Breast implant helpline and Breast implant lawyers are helping women get compensation from the silicone Breast implant claims class action Recovery and compensation settlements.
Currently there are several class action lawsuits being filed by victims of defective breast implants.for Dow Corning, Mentor, Squibb, and others resulted in Lawsuits alleging such harm as cancer and autoimmune disease raked in millions of dollars throughout the 1990s, putting silicone breast implant manufacturers out of business or in danger of bankruptcy. With the assistance of “silicone doctors” who used minimal scientific evidence to support their claims, plaintiffs had stunning success. The wave of silicone breast implant lawsuits was largely a result of public opinion and aggressive pursuit of lawsuits by plaintiffs’ attorney, not medical evidence.
Dow Corning Brand Breast Implants Handled by Dow Corning Trust Facility (SF-DCT)
Settlements are currently handled for Dow Corning brand breast implants for Class 5 claimants as well as cases involving implants that contained silicone gel for Class 7 claimants. A product liability attorney will be able to explain the requirements for each of these defective breast implant lawsuits.
Funds are available for various foreign claimants and for those that received other Dow Corning manufactured products
The program offers settlement payments ranging from $2,000-$300,000 to eligible defective breast implant claimants until June 3, 2019.
The rules set up for breast implant litigation are very complex for the MDL-926, Revised Settlement Program and the Settlement Facility Trust of Dow Corning (SF-DCT). get help from a breast Implant helpline lawyer.
Speak to an experienced breast implant settlement attorney regarding defective breast implant claims or any other product liability cases for specific rules setup for product claims.
If you or a loved one are seriously injured or a death has occurred as the result of a defective breast implant or product, contact breast implant helpline and our breast implant lawyers to learn if you are entitled to legal compensation or have any questions regarding a breast implant registered claim.
Breast Implant claim help for registered claims for silicone Breast Implants:
- Heyer Schulte,
- American Hospital Supply,
- Dow Corning,
- Natural Y,
- Brystol Meyer Squibb,
- Medical Engineering,
- McGhan Medical,
- Dow Corning,
Baxter Health Care,
Call the Dow Corning breast Implant Helpline and we will locate a nationwide breast implant lawyer for you. Dow Corning breast Implant Claim Helpline is sponsoring a Nationwide Program to help women currently registered with Dow corning trust to get what they deserve for the damage and injury of their Dow corning silicone Breast Implants. You must be registered with the Dow corning trust settlement office to participate in this free Breast Implant lawyer assistance program. This Free breast implant claims helpline program is for woman who:
- are currently listed with the Dow settlement Trust
- Silicone Breast Implant Dow Corning Claim current registrant
- Are currently under the MDL-926 program
- Have received a rejection notice from their current Dow Breast implant Claim Lawyer
- Are seeking a new Dow corning Breast Implant attorney
Silicone Gel Breast Implants Class Action
April 2012 Updates – Dow Settlement
The SF-DCT has moved, and their new address effective April 3, 2012 is:
3200 SW Freeway, Ste. 1500
Houston, TX 77027
Their telephone number remains the same: 1-866-874-6099.
Their P.O. Box also remains the same: P.O. Box 52429, Houston, TX 77052
Regarding Premium Payments: the matter of if and when the SF-DCT issues premium payments is now under consideration by the Court. We do not know when the Court will issue a ruling. As soon as an order is entered, we will post it on our website and contact any potentially eligible LCHB clients.
Regarding Class 7 Payments: Because some unreviewed Class 7 claims were found during an audit at the SF-DCT, the SF-DCT cannot issue any Class 7 payments until those unreviewed claims are processed and given the one year time period within which to cure deficiencies. As of this date, the SF-DCT cannot predict the exact date when Class 7 payments are going to be made, but it will probably be at least another year before they can issue payments.
REMINDER ABOUT THE EXPLANT DEADLINE: The final deadline to submit an Explant Claim to the SF-DCT is June 2, 2014. Please remember that you must have acceptable Proof of Manufacturer before you can be considered for the Explant benefit. The Explant benefit is $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars), and in order to qualify for this benefit, you must have your Dow Corning implants removed and not replaced with silicone.
Please keep in mind that it can sometimes take six months or longer to schedule an explant surgery and to obtain the necessary medical records from your surgeon or hospital. Therefore, if you want to apply for this benefit, you should keep this deadline date in mind, and not wait too long to discuss your potential explant surgery with your doctor.
A Nationwide free Service Sponsered by the Breast Implant Helpline
for women with Dow corning claims in: Auburn AL; Birmingham AL; Dothan AL; Gadsden AL; Huntsville AL; Mobile AL; Montgomery AL; Muscle Shoals AL; Tuscaloosa AL; Anchorage AK; Fairbanks AK; Juneau AK; Flagstaff AZ; Sedona AZ; Mohave County AZ; Phoenix AZ; Prescott AZ; Show Low AZ; Sierra Vista AZ; Tucson AZ; Yuma AZ; Fayetteville AR; Fort Smith AR; Jonesboro AR; Little Rock AR; Bakersfield CA; Chico CA; Fresno CA; Humboldt County CA; Inland Empire CA; Long Beach CA; Los Angeles CA; Mendocino (new) CA; Merced CA; Modesto CA; Monterey CA; O.C. CA; Oakland CA; Palm Springs CA; Palmdale CA; Redding CA; Sacramento CA; San Diego CA; San Fernando Valley CA; San Francisco CA; San Gabriel Valley CA; San Jose CA; San Luis Obispo CA; San Mateo CA; Santa Barbara CA; Santa Cruz CA; Santa Maria CA; Siskiyou CA; Stockton CA; Susanville CA; Ventura CA; Visalia CA; Boulder CO; CO Springs CO; Denver CO; Fort Collins CO; Pueblo CO; Rockies CO; Western Slope CO; Eastern CT CT; Hartford CT; New Haven CT; Northwest CT CT; Wilmington DE; Dover DE; Newark DE; Pike Creek DE; Bear DE; Washington D.C. District of Columbia; Daytona FL; Fort Myers FL; Ft Lauderdale FL; Gainesville FL; Jacksonville FL; Keys FL; Lakeland FL; Miami FL; Ocala FL; Orlando FL; Panama City FL; Pensacola FL; Sarasota FL; Space Coast FL; St. Augustine FL; Tallahassee FL; Tampa FL; Treasure Coast FL; West Palm Beach FL; Albany GA; Athens GA; Atlanta GA; Augusta GA; Brunswick GA; Columbus GA; Macon GA; Northwest GA GA; Savannah GA; Statesboro GA; Valdosta GA; Big Island HI; Honolulu HI; Kauai HI; Maui HI; Boise ID; East ID ID; Lewiston ID; Twin Falls ID; Bloomington IL; Carbondale IL; Chambana IL; Chicago IL; Decatur IL; La Salle County IL; Mattoon IL; Peoria IL; Rockford IL; Springfield IL; Western IL IL; Bloomington IN; Evansville IN; Ft Wayne IN; INpolis IN; Kokomo IN; Lafayette IN; Muncie IN; Richmond IN; South Bend IN; Terre Haute IN; Cedar Rapids IA; Des Moines IA; Dubuque IA; Fort Dodge IA; IA City IA; Mason City IA; Ottumwa IA; Quad Cities IA; Sioux City IA; Waterloo IA; Lawrence KS; Manhattan KS; Topeka KS; Wichita KS; Bowling Green KY; Eastern KY KY; Lexington KY; Louisville KY; Owensboro KY; Western KY KY; Baton Rouge LA; Lafayette LA; Lake Charles LA; Monroe LA; New Orleans LA; Shreveport LA; Portland ME; Lewiston ME; Bangor ME; West Scarborough ME; Annapolis MD; Baltimore MD; Cumberland Valley MD; Eastern Shore MD; Frederick MD; Western MD MD; Boston Massachusetts; Cape Cod Massachusetts; South Coast Massachusetts; Springfield Massachusetts; Worcester Massachusetts; Ann Arbor MI; Battle Creek MI; Central MI MI; Detroit MI; Flint MI; Grand Rapids MI; Holland MI; Jackson MI; Kalamazoo MI; Lansing MI; Monroe MI; Muskegon MI; Northern MI MI; Port Huron MI; Saginaw MI; Southwest MI MI; Upper Peninsula MI; Duluth MN; Mankato MN; Minneapolis MN; St Paul MN; Rochester MN; St. Cloud MN; Biloxi MS; Hattiesburg MS; Jackson MS; Meridian MS; Natchez MS; North MS MS; Columbia/Jeff City MO; Joplin MO; Kansas City MO; Kirksville MO; Lake of the Ozarks MO; Southeast MO MO; Springfield MO; St. Joseph MO; St. Louis MO; Billings MT; Missoula MT; Great Falls MT; Bozeman MT; Butte MT; Grand Island NE; Lincoln NE; North Platte NE; Omaha NE; Scottsbluff NE; Las Vegas NV; Reno NV; Manchester NH; Nashua NH; East Concord NH; Concord NH; Derry Village NH; Central Jersey NJ; Jersey Shore NJ; North Jersey NJ; South Jersey NJ; Albuquerque New Mexico; Santa Fe New Mexico; Albany NY; Binghamton NY; Buffalo NY; Catskills NY; Chautauqua NY; Elmira NY; Finger Lakes NY; Glens Falls NY; Hudson Valley NY; Ithaca NY; Long Island NY; New York City NY,Brooklyn,Queens,Staten island,Bronx,White Plains,New Rochelle; Oneonta NY; Plattsburgh NY; Potsdam NY; Rochester NY; Syracuse NY; Twin Tiers NY; Utica NY; Watertown NY; Westchester NY; Asheville NC; Boone NC; Charlotte NC; Eastern NC; Fayetteville NC; Greensboro NC; Hickory NC; Outer Banks NC; Raleigh NC; Wilmington NC; Winston Salem NC; Fargo ND; Akron OH; Canton OH; Ashtabula OH; Athens OH; Chillicothe OH; Cincinnati OH; Cleveland OH; Columbus OH; Dayton OH; Huntington/Ashland OH; Lima/Findlay OH; Mansfield OH; Sandusky OH; Toledo OH; Tuscarawas County OH; Youngstown OH; Zanesville/Cambridge OH; Lawton OK; OK City OK; Stillwater OK; Tulsa OK; Bend OR; Corvallis OR; East OR OR; Eugene OR; Medford OR; OR Coast OR; Portland OR; Roseburg OR; Salem OR; Allentown PA; Altoona PA; Cumberland Valley PA; Erie PA; Harrisburg PA; Lancaster PA; Meadville PA; Philadelphia PA; Pittsburgh PA; Poconos PA; Reading PA; Scranton PA; State College PA; Williamsport PA; York PA; Providence RI; Warwick RI; Cranston RI; Pawtucket RI; East Providence RI; Woonsocket RI; Charleston SC; Columbia SC; Florence SC; Greenville SC; Hilton Head SC; Myrtle Beach SC; Sioux Falls SD; Rapid City SD; Aberdeen SD; Chattanooga TN; Knoxville TN; Memphis TN; Nashville TN; Tri-cities TN; Abilene TX; Amarillo TX; Austin TX; Beaumont TX; Brownsville TX; College Station TX; Corpus Christi TX; Dallas TX; Denton TX; El Paso TX; Fort Worth TX; Galveston TX; Houston TX; Huntsville TX; Killeen TX; Laredo TX; Lubbock TX; Mcallen TX; Odessa TX; San Antonio TX; San Marcos TX; Texarkana TX; Texoma TX; Tyler TX; Victoria TX; Waco TX; Wichita Falls TX; Logan UT; Ogden UT; Provo UT; Salt Lake City UT; St. George UT; Burlington VT; Essex Junction VT; Bennington VT; Charlottesville VA; Chesapeake VA; Danville VA; Fredericksburg VA; Hampton VA; Harrisonburg VA; Lynchburg VA; New River Valley VA; Newport News VA; Norfolk VA; Portsmouth VA; Richmond VA; Roanoke VA; SouthWV VA; Suffolk VA; VA Beach VA; Bellingham WA; Everett WA; Moses Lake WA; Olympia WA; Pullman WA; Seattle WA; Spokane WA; Tacoma WA; Tri-cities WA; Wenatchee WA; Yakima WA; Charleston WV; Huntington WV; Martinsburg WV; Morgantown WV; Parkersburg WV; Southern WV WV; Wheeling WV; Appleton WI; Eau Claire WI; Green Bay WI; Janesville WI; La Crosse WI; Madison WI; Milwaukee WI; Racine WI; Sheboygan WI; Wausau WI; Cheyenne WY; Casper WY; Laramie WY; Gillette WY;
Have you received a recent rejection letter for your Breast Implant Dow Corning claim. Do not fear the Breast Implant Helpline is here to help you.
Breast implant Claim Helpline Can Help You
If you have filed a claim prior to 1994 and have pending status on a DOW Corning Trust Claim we can help you.
Contact the Breast Implant Claim Helpline and Speak to a female Medical Social Worker about your breast Implant Claim and Complications. We will help you locate a female breast Implant Lawyer. The breast implant Helpline is supporting and assisting women breast Implant victims nationwide. If you need help with Breast Implant Litigation Cases dealing with the Settlement Facility-Dow Corning Trust (SF-DCT) or the Revised Settlement Plant (RSP) – MDL-926 Claims Office contact the breast Implant lawyers of the Breast Implant Helpline and speak to our female medical social worker today. We are here to assit women with legal issues regarding their Dow claims for implants prior to 1994.
You must have a current claim filed.
History of Silicone Breast Implants
In 1992, the FDA approved an adjunct study protocol for silicone gel-filled breast implants for reconstruction and revision patients. Three years later in 1995, the major manufacturer of silicone and other implants, Dow Corning Corp. faced 19,000 lawsuits for defective breast implants, forcing the company to file bankruptcy.
About Siicone Breast Implants
Silicone gel-filled breast implants have a silicone outer shell that is filled with silicone gel. They come in different sizes and have either smooth or textured shells. Silicone gel-filled breast implants were approved for breast augmentation in women age 22 or older and for breast reconstruction in women of any age. They are also used in revision surgeries, which correct or improve the result of an original surgery. However what appeared to be beneficial to woman turned out to be one of the biggest disasters in medical implant History. Research has shown that breast implants have caused woman to suffer life-threatening side effects, including pain and cancer. Breast implant lawyers are helping victims of breast implant related diseases and complications
Medical Studies have shown that there is probably nothing that you can place in the human body that the body will not attempt to break down. Silicone implants in the body are broken down over time through a lipolysis reaction. Most silicone-filled breast implants leak or rupture within 8 to 15 years.
Breast Implant Diseases and Complications
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) recently warned that both silicone and saline breast implants may be associated with anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), a rare form of cancer. thousands of women who have had their implants for one or two decades now are seeking medical help for symptoms which resemble arthritis, fibromyalgia, scleroderma, connective tissue disorders, and/or immune dysfunction and seem to be associated with their breast implants.
Additonial Silicone breast Implant Complications Include:
- Breast Pain
- Upper and Lower Back Pain
- dry eyes
- joint pain and swelling
- chronic fatigue
- numbness and tingling in extremities
- Chemical Sensitivities
- Muscle Pain, Stiffness, Unusual Fatigue
- Excessive Hair Loss
- Achy or Swollen Joints
- Extreme fatigue
- Skin Rashes
- Rheumatoid Arthritis
- Mixed Connective Tissue Disease
- Sjogren's syndrome
- Sensitivity to Sunlight
- Kidney Problems
- Difficulty Swallowing or Breathing
Breast Implant complications may be serious. You must see a physician immediately.
If you have filed a claim with Dow Corning Trust and need help with the complex settlement system we have lawyers who can help you at no cost to you. To be eligible for help you must be on the Dow Corning Trust settlement list and filed a claim and have a pending Dow Corning Trust Claim. If you have problems with your MDL-926 filing or your Dow Corning Trust Claim contact us immediately for help.
1994, Breast Implants Dow Corning Trust Claims Helpline
If you have filed a Breast implant claim prior to 1994 and need help with the Complexities of the Dow Trust or MDL-926 we can help you.
Our Breast Implant team can help with proof of Manufacturer, Disease determinations, and deficiencey notices. We are your source for making sense of a difficult maize of requirements. Our Breast implant lawyers have helped thousands of women. Contact us for help with your settlement claims;
MDL-926 Breast Implant Revised Settlement Program:
The Revised Settlement Program (RSP) permanently closed on 12/15/10. If your diesease claim was received by Claims Office before the deadline and you receive a deficiency notice you will have one year from the letter date to correct the deficiency.
If you are a registered claimant of the MDL 926 and have filed prior to 12/15/10 and received a deficiency notice contact the Breast Implant Helpline. If yiu have submitted additional supporting documentation and received a denial in 2011 contact the Breast Implant Helpline.
If you are a registered claimant in the MDL 926 Revised Settlement Program, and have the following:
- Already filed a Disease Claim prior to the 12/15/2010 deadline
- Received a deficiency notice
- Submitted additional supporting medical records prior to 12/15/2010
- Received a denial in 2011
You have the right to appeal the Claims Offices' ruling within 45 days of notification of your denial.
Dow Settlement Facility -Dow Corning Trust and Your Silicone Breast Implants
On 09/06/01 The Settlement Facility – Dow Corning Trust (the "SF-DCT") was created to administer silicone gel and implant claims against Dow Corning. You may contact the SF-DCT toll-free at 1-866-874-6099 or (713) 874-6099. SF-DCT and the RSP Claims Office are two separate entities. However, this maize can become extremely confusing very quickly. If you do not have a breast implant lawyer to assist you contact the Breast Implant Helpline Today.
The Settlement Facility for the Dow Corning Trust (SF-DCT) is processing class 5 claims. Class 7 claims have not been completed yet.
11,000 claimants have been approved for either an Expedited Release Payment of $600.00 or a Disease Cash-Out Offer of $3,000.00. Total payments to date from the Class 7 Fund are $15.5 million. The total fund is $57.5 million NPV.
The Settlement Facility is still reviewing Proof of Manufacturer Claims in Class 7 and is expected to complete all Proof of Manufacturer reviews within the next year.
A breast implant Lawyer can help You
- Help you respond to your deficiency notice
- Get help with proof of manufacturer
- Get help with proof of disease diagnosis
- Help you with you Dow Corning Trust and the Dow Corning Trust Settlement Facility requirements and interfacing
- Help You with any of the Settlement trust office communications
- Be your ally and confidant and help you deal with the process of your Breast implant claim
- Offer support and guidance
|10 YEARS||Deadline to file your Explantation Claim
(For implant removals after 12-31-90)
Deadline to file your Disease Claim and Increased Severity Claim
How long you will have from "NOS"
Deadlines from your receipt of "Notification of Status"
Time to provide Acceptable Proof of Manufacturer (POM)
for a Dow Corning implant (Class 5)
Time to provide Acceptable Proof of Manufacturer (POM) for a Bristol, Baxter, Bioplasty, CUI or Mentor implant (Class 7) when submitting a claim under the Silicone Gel Material Claimant Fund.
Deadline to cure "Deficiencies" in an Explant Claim.
Deadline to cure "Deficiencies" in a Disease
Breast Implant Helpline and breast Implant Lawyers are helping women with Breast Implant Claims including the MDL-926, Dow Corning Trust Class Action and other manufacturers. We were curious as to the popularity of Breast Implants in the U.S and found the following statistics. According to research:
Salt Lake City Leads Nation in Breast Implant Popularity for Breast implants
Salt Lake City has the highest interest in breast implants in the nation, according to new RealSelf data. Columbia, South Carolina has the least.
Surprised by the women of Salt Lake City? So were we. Enhanced breasts seem unusual in a conservative city that can pack an arena to watch "clean comics" do standup.
To measure the interest in breast implants, and other cosmetic procedures, our team looked at millions of searches on RealSelf.com by geographic location. This reveals what's trending and trailing for every major city and region.Breast implant research is most intense in Salt Lake City and Fresno
The top 5 cities interested in breast implants are:
- Salt Lake City (+74% vs. National Average)
- Fresno, CA (+63%)
- Honolulu, HI (+54%)
- Oklahoma City (+50%)
- Mobile, AL (+34%)
Where are women less interested in bust enhancement? Much of the East shows fewer searches for breast implants. Led by Columbia, South Carolina (-42% vs. National Average), Westchester/Fairfield Counties (-35%), Baltimore (-30%), Boston (-27%) and Washington, DC (-26%).
FDA and Breast Implants
In January 2011, The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) advised that women who had received breast implants should notify their doctors of any changes in their breasts because of a possible association with a rare type of lymphoma. In breast implant patients, ALCL has occurred in the scar capsule adjacent to the implant. The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new silicone-gel breast implant from Sientra, making it the third company to market the controversial products in the U.S.
Symptoms of breast implant lymphoma include:
- Asymmetry that developed after their initial surgical sites were fully healed