Articles Posted in Bausch & Lomb ReNu Recall

According to regulatory disclosures recently filed by the company, Bausch & Lomb has now been named as a Defendant in 573 product liability lawsuits involving the now permanently withdrawn ReNu® with MoistureLoc® Multi-Purpose Solution. Most of these cases were filed in various state and federal courts throughout the United States by individual contact lens-wearers who suffered eye infections after using the defective ReNu with MoistureLoc product. Reportedly, 308 of these lawsuits are now consolidated before one judge, the Honorable Shirley Kornreich, with the Supreme Court of New York, New York County. Most of the state court cases were filed in New York because that is where the office headquarters of Bausch & Lomb is located. More than 200 federal cases have now been consolidated before one federal court in Charleston, S.C. as part of a federal procedure known as “Multi-District Litigation” (MDL). The presiding judge currently handling all federal cases with the MDL is the Honorable David C. Norton, District of South Carolina, Charleston Division. Judge Norton will oversee all discovery and other pretrial matters of the federal cases which, as of August 14, 2006, are consolidated as In Re Bausch & Lomb, Inc. Contact Solution Products Liability Litigation, MDL 1785. In part, the federal cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court in South Carolina because the manufacturing facilities where the ReNu with MoistureLoc product was made and distributed are located in Greenville, S.C. Some analysts have estimated that Bausch & Lomb could face potential liabilities in the ReNu product liability cases of $1 billion or more. In May 2006, Bausch & Lomb permanently withdrew its ReNu with Moisture Loc product from all U.S. and global markets.

Products liability attorney Daniel Ragland is currently handling one of the federal cases which was consolidated within the MDL located in Charleston, South Carolina. That lawsuit, Patricia Fuller v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc, was initially filed in the U.S. District Court, N.D. Ga, Atlanta Division, on July 16, 2007.

Ragland Law Firm, LLP announces that it has filed a lawsuit in an Atlanta federal court against Bausch & Lomb, Inc. alleging that a North Carolina woman suffered a Fusarium Keratitis infection after using the company’s “ReNu® with Moisture Loc® Multi-Purpose Solution” between March and May 2006. The Plaintiff was living in DeKalb County, Georgia at the time, and she purchased the defective Bausch & Lomb ReNu with Moisture Loc product, along with new prescription soft contact lenses, from a “Pearl Vision” store in Lithonia, Georgia. Fusarium Kerotitis is a serious fungal eye infection that can develop through the whole depth of the cornea. In her lawsuit, the Plaintiff alleges that the Fusarium fungal infection led to redness, swelling, light sensitivity, pain and discharge from her eyes and that despite immediate medical attention, she now suffers permanent corneal scarring, blurred vision and frequent eye discharge. The Plaintiff seeks to recover special damages for her medical expenses and loss of income, as well as general damages for her physical pain & suffering and emotional injuries. In addition, the lawsuit seeks punitive damages on grounds that Bausch & Lomb allegedly was reckless in continuing to market a product it “knew or should have known was defective and posed unreasonable risks to consumers,” and “purposefully concealing and withholding information from the FDA and consuming public about such hazards.” The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on July 16, 2007. Please click here to read our other Bausch & Lomb entries: Holding Bausch & Lomb Legally Liable for Fusarium Fungal Eye Infections Caused by Use of Its Defective ReNu® with MoistureLoc® Multi-Purpose Contact Lens Solution, Nearly 600 Product Liability Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Bausch & Lomb Due to Its Defective ReNu® with MoistureLoc® Multi- Purpose Contact Lens Solution

Overwhelming evidence now proves that ReNu with MoistureLoc Multi-Purpose Solution is defective and has caused more than 100 confirmed cases of Fusarium Keratitis, a rare but serious fungal infection of the cornea that can lead to vision loss, the need for corneal transplants and, in some cases, even complete blindness. According to the CDC, some of these confirmed cases of Fusarium Keratitis involve citizens of Georgia and numerous other states who used the Bausch & Lomb ReNu with MoistureLoc product. After getting FDA approval in May 2004, Bausch & Lomb first introduced its ReNu with MoistureLoc product in September 2004. However, after an outbreak of Fusarium fungal eye infections beginning sometime in the middle part of 2005, the company recalled the product in mid-April 2006. A month later, on May 15, 2006, Bausch & Lomb announced that it would no longer sell its ReNu with MoistureLoc product and permanently withdraw it from all U.S. and global markets. At that time, Bausch & Lomb finally admitted that the “unique characteristics of the formulation of the ReNu with Moisture Loc product in certain unusual circumstances can increase the risk of Fusarium infection.”

There are over 30 million users of contact lenses in the United States, and by 2006, about 2.3 million of them reportedly used the ReNu with MoistureLoc product to clean, sterilize and/or store their lenses. Beginning in April 2006, with a case filed in federal court in Miami, dozens of meritorious product liability lawsuits have already been filed by consumers claiming that Bausch & Lomb failed to adequately test the product prior to starting sales in 2004. More importantly, these lawsuits claim that the ReNu with MoistureLoc product is defective and that Bausch & Lomb failed to timely warn U.S. consumers of the risks of Fusarium Keratitis despite significant evidence of a link between use of ReNu with MoistureLoc and a dramatic rise in the incidence of these fungal eye infections. Punitive damages are sought in many of these cases on grounds that Bausch & Lomb acted recklessly in concealing information from the FDA and consuming public, and acting much too slowly to protect consumers by delaying in its initial recall and subsequent withdrawal of the product.
Continue reading →