The most commonly proposed mechanism for the development of autoimmune disease is molecular mimicry. This is a strong theory advocated by neurologist experts in arguing for the role of flu vaccination in the development of GBS. Molecular mimicry refers to a situation where the pathogen and host (ie. the human body) share nearly identical antigens, which induces an antibody and T cell immune response that is cross reactive, meaning the antibody reacts with similar sites across a wide spectrum of proteins. There are multiple ways in which an immune response can become cross-reactive. The strongest evidence for the molecular mimicry hypothesis has come from discoveries in research with jejuni strains, the most common pathogen associated with GBS.

A neurologist expert in a vaccine causation case will argue that it is substantially probable that the influenza vaccine triggered the immunological reaction that causes GBS or variant Miller Fisher Syndrome by molecular mimicry or non specific activation of the immune system. The immune system could recognize the vaccine and the victim may share nearly identical antigens, which induces an antibody and T cell immune response that is cross reactive. Many Special Masters, who review and decide GBS flu cases filed in the Court of Federal Claims, are aware of molecular mimicry, and the theory is generally widely accepted as a basis for causation. Lately, the Department of Health and Human Services has accepted the link between flu vaccine and GBS provided there is no evidence of an alterative form of causation such as a gastrointestinal or upper respiratory illness. Consequently, GBS flu cases are proceeding much more quickly through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program without the need for neurology experts. Baseluos Law Firm is well versed in the handling of GBS flu vaccine injury cases, and has obtained settlements of several hundred thousand dollars each for individual claimants.

The Miller Fisher variant of GBS is also linked to the flu vaccine. In Miller Fischer, the victim develops ataxia (defined as the presence of abnormal, uncoordinated movements), ascending numbness, and facial palsy shortly after the influenza vaccination. The key distinguishing difference between GBS and the Miller Fischer variant is that while GBS victims experience descending numbness from their upper extremities, Miller Fischer victims experience ascending numbness originating from their lower extremities (legs , toes). Both GBS and the Miller Fischer variant can all develop after an antecedent infection and share a characteristic elevation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) protein. An elevation in CSF proteins is often a tell tale marker of GBS, and lumbar punctures are the primary mechanism to identify the elevation. GBS victims often develop a disabling chronic fatigue syndrome, often manifesting itself as chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). Their conditions are often compatible with the spectrum of acute inflammatory polyneuropathies with vaccination as the triggering factor.

In the course of recovery, the GBS victim will eventually walk without assistance. However, they may still continue to experience residual symptoms, including excessive fatigue, especially when exercising as well as fasciculations, which are brief, spontaneous contractions of the muscles. Michael Baseluos has witnessed GBS clients who even years after their initial vaccine injury, still experience paresthesia in both hands and easily fluctuating blood pressure and heart rate than prior to GBS. Rippling of the muscles under the eyelids and over the cheek along with intermittent diarrhea may also be present. White matter changes on the MRI is another tell tale sign of GBS sequelae, or long term consequences related to Guillain Barre. These findings are suggestive of autonomic dysfunction. There is no cure for the disorder, but several treatments can ease pain and reduce the duration of the illness. Most people recover completely from even the most severe cases of GBS. GBS survivors will return to some normalcy but these type of residual symptoms can still persist, forming a strong basis for compensation for future pain and suffering, income loss, and out of pocket medical costs.

In cases where the client was healthy before a flu shot, the government has a much more difficult time arguing that influenza infection, upper respiratory or gastrointestinal infection are the culprits behind Guillain Barre Syndrome. About two thirds of GBS cases have an antecedent infection within six weeks prior to symptom onset, generally an upper respiratory tract infection or gastroenteritis. Epstein-Barr virus, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Campylobacter jejuni and cytomegalovirus, are some of the non-vaccine infectious agents.

Because vaccines affect the body at a micro level, it is impossible to know the exact mechanism by which they cause injury. We know GBS can be triggered not only by vaccines but also by a respiratory infection or the stomach flu. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which represents the government’s interest will often argue that a person’s GBS was triggered not by a vaccination but by a respiratory or gastrointestinal illness. A GBS lawyer like Mike Baseluos knows how to attack these arguments using strong neurologist experts. The key to success in a GBS vaccine injury case is to demonstrate the client had no antecedent upper respiratory or gastrointestinal infection within six weeks prior to symptom onset. Removing this argument creates a strong case where it becomes substantially probable that the flu vaccine for example is demonstrated to be the triggering factor for GBS similar to the one triggered by upper respiratory or gastrointestinal infection in non vaccination GBS patients. It should be noted that even in cases where the client did have an infection prior to GBS onset, arguments can be made on the timing element to demonstrate the vaccine, not the infection, was the most significant factor in causation.

For a liquor provider, the basic Texas dram shop liability act investigates several factors including whether the provider broke the law in selling or giving the alcohol to the DWI driver; whether such alcohol was the proximate cause of his intoxication (oftentimes, the drunk driver has received alcohol from a number of providers prior to a major accident); whether the provider knew or should have known that the defendant DUI / DWI driver was below the legal age of 21 or heavily intoxicated at the time the alcohol was furnished; whether it was objectively obvious the person was intoxicated or was underage at the time; and finally, whether the intoxication level was the primary driving factor behind a DWI / DUI death or serious injury.

The seminal case that has driven the enactment of dram shop liability laws was a NJ case called Rappaport v. Nichols , which held that a bar could be held legally liable for furnishing alcohol to an underage or visibly intoxicated individual who thereafter commits a DWI / DUI offense that kills or seriously injures pedestrians or other drivers.

The dram shop laws differ from state to state in terms of who is allowed to sue under the statute, who is a potential 3rd party, what type of behavior is considered dram shop liability, and the level of fault required. If you or a loved one have suffered injury at the hands of a drunk driver, you should contact a DWI attorney without delay. Depending on the state or jurisdiction where the DWI / DUI accident occurs, Baseluos Law Firm attorneys can bring a negligence action either under the common law , the specific state dram shop act, or a combination. Providing alcohol to a minor in of itself is considered “negligence per se”, a fancy way of saying it is an automatic violation of the dram shop law.

There are cases in which the injured party is the DWI driver himself, which presents an interesting albeit challenging case. The attorney would have to show the provider was negligent in providing the plaintiff with the alcohol, but a jury is likely to ascribe some percentage of negligence to the DWI driver himself. Percentages tend to run lower if the injured plaintiff was a pedestrian.

One of the most intriguing aspects of DWI accident law is the concept of social host liability, where the DWI injury is the result of a driver who receives his alcohol at an informal party or gathering like a wedding. Some jurisdictions especially in the Northeast, particularly NJ, have recognized social host liability to the extent the courts make no distinction between commercial and private providers of alcohol. Michael Baseluos examines all fact situations involving DWI accidents including situations where the negligent driver obtained his alcohol in an informal setting. Certain exceptions can be carved out for a social host’s liability for a drunk guest’s negligence that injures others even in jurisdictions which might not recognize social host liability.

BLF has fought for many clients who have developed GBS as a result of vaccinations, specifically the flu and TDaP vaccinations. Most if not all vaccinations are capable of producing Guillain Barre Syndrome. Often, the patient develops tingling in their fingers and toes which depending on the type of GBS can progress to upper or lower extremities and even the face. Victims of GBS complain of gait difficulties, generalized weakness and fatigue. Vaccination victims may complain of being off balance and having “spongy” feet.

Clients will often seek assistance from a medical center emergency room when their symptoms become extremely exacerbated and the tingling and numbness have become severe. Some medical doctors misdiagnose GBS as being psychosomatic or a product of anxiety. If this occurs, BLF advises that clients immediately demand a neurological examination as there are clear markers of GBS following vaccination. Blood work may be taken and in the case of respiratory failure due to paralysis, chest CT and chest CT angiograms will be taken to rule out pulmonary embolus. It is not uncommon for a client to be released from a hospital on a misdiagnosis only to return a few days later when symptoms have progressed, and the client now suffers from intermittent double vision, major fatigue and unsteady gait. Numbness and tingling from Guillain Barre can progress to affect the lower, trunk, upper extremities and face including the tongue.

Often, a GBS victim of vaccination will consult with their primary care physician with several complaints including diffuse numbness and bobbling head. Neurological assessment is often significant for slurred speech, difficulty with walking, hyporeflexic deep tendon reflexes and unsteady gait. The primary care doctor may refer the patient for a neurological consultation which may indicate tingling progression, weakness and unbalance following influenza vaccination (or other types of vaccines). The accepted timeline to prove that the vaccinations caused GBS is approximately 2-6 weeks following injection, although it is not unheard of to contract GBS earlier or later than this time frame. For example, Michael Baseluos has obtained compensation for GBS following only 1 week after vaccination and as high as 8 weeks after vaccination. The Court of Federal Claims which oversees vaccine claims generally has not found causation in cases where the person immediately developed GBS 24-48 hours after vaccination or more than 2 months after vaccination. That being said, each case is different and you should not assume you are not entitled to compensation. Immediately contact a GBS vaccine injury attorney to assess your rights.

Nerve conduction studies are an excellent way to gauge damages from GBS injuries in order to maximize a damage award with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. EMG studies can demonstrate demyelination or amplitude drop that suggest variations on GBS including a more severe form of acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP). Abnormal electrodiagnostic studies are an excellent tool used by Baseluos Law Firm for Guillain Barre Clients.

In reality, if pharmaceutical manufacturers can show that they adequately informed the doctor of the risks of their drugs, then the manufacturers can shield themselves from product liability suits, even if ultimately patients do not receive any warnings. In reviewing manufacturer warnings, it is tempting to analyze the FDA Black Box Warnings and the Medication guide, both of which the FDA approves. A Black box warning appears on a prescription drug label and highlights life threatening or serious adverse effects for the consumer. Medication Guides are paper copies that accompany prescription medicines which deal with both general and specific information on harmful or threatening drug effects. However, a Xarelto lawsuit lawyer is more interested in the FDA approved prescribing information ie. Determining what manufacturers provided to the prescribing doctors.

Xarelto / Rivaroxaban belongs to a class of drugs known as NOACs – Non Vitamin K Dependent Anticoagulants. Other drugs in this class include Pradaxa and Eliquis. These specific NOACs were all evaluated against warfarin, a traditional anticoagulant, and underwent clinical trials and obtained FDA approval. Moreover, Xarelto defendants like Bayer AG and Janssen Pharmaceuticals touted NOACs and being more effective and safer than Warfarin, employing direct to consumer advertising (DTC). Interestingly, only the USA and New Zealand permit DTC advertising of prescription drugs.

To successfully succeed on a pharmaceutical liability suit, it is critical that a xarelto attorney prove the prescribing physician did not have enough information as to the risks and benefits of xarelto upon drafting the prescription. As Xarelto litigation develops, the key component for a xarelto law firm is to prove the doctor would never have prescribed rivaroxaban (the official medical term for xarelto) had they had a complete picture of the risks of xarelto bleeding problems. A xarelto lawsuit based on inadequate or misinformation communicated to physicians focuses on three (3) major areas. The first area is whether the manufacturer sufficient communicated risks of xarelto as a blood thinner or whether doctors commonly knew the risks of rivararoxaban. The second area is whether rivaroxaban manufacturers accurately communicated the benefits of the blood thinner without exaggeration. The final area is whether the manufacturer in any way misled the prescribing doctor about the risks or benefits of xarelto.

Xarelto in particular was tested against Warfarin to obtain FDA approval, and marketed as being more effective and safer than Warfarin. Despite no antidote for uncontrolled bleeding caused by Xarelto (as opposed to warfarin which uncontrolled bleeding could be controlled by Vitamin K), Janssen and Bayer heavily marketed Xarelto. It should be noted that the pharmaceutical manufacturers did include a warning in the FDA approved prescribing information that a specific antidote for rivaroxaban was not available. An argument can be made that such warnings were inadequate.

However, the most damning aspects of the prescribing information were inadequate representations of the benefits and safety of Xarelto over warfarin. Specifically, scientific research now reflects xarelto is not as effective as warfarin. The manufacturers exaggerated the benefits to push greater prescriptions. Nor is xarelto safer than warfarin given the major risk of unsafe bleeding events. It should also be noted that the xarelto dosage of 1x per day leaves Xarelto users with diminished protection against coagulant protection for extended periods of time. If you are considering a lawsuit from xarelto side effects, please contact Baseluos Law Firm immediately.