Is that Ruby Real?
Posted by The Brandi Law Firm Blog in Macy's Fake Gem Lawsuit on December 22, 2011
The controversy over selling as real rubies glass filled and treated gem stones is the recent subject not only of recent lawsuits against MACY’S, (SF Superior Court Nos. CGC-09-495171 and CGC-10-495868) but a topic of great concern amongst professionals who strongly resent the practice of falsely portraying rubies as real when they are not. The Roskin Gem News report, a professional trade journal has weighed in on the practice with guidelines and information for professionals to avoid being duped:
Glass Filled Rubies – the Inside Details
Also see articles from the Accredited Gemologist Association:
Put Lipstick on a Rock and Call it a Ruby
Composite “Rubies” Pose Serious Problem for Consumers
Unfortunately consumers generally do not possess the knowledge or the expertise to know when they are buying a “ruby” that is not a real ruby. Real rubies are from the mineral corundum and are magnificent in color, hard, durable, brilliant in color, and command high prices.
How do fake rubies become real? You take a stone that is of poor quality and you add lead glass or treat it with heat to enhance its color and presentation. When pressed some will concede it is not real but insist on calling them rubies. Others will say when pressed the stone is a “treated ruby”, “enhanced ruby”, “composite ruby” or even “hybrid gemstone”. In a “composite ruby” much of the surface is fractured and the fractures are filled with glass.
The Roskin Gem News report quotes Chris Smith, President and CEO of American gemological Laboratories in New York: “After this ruby goes through the process of being cleaned, in an acid bath to clean out foreign material, what’s left is very brittle. You can literally crush it between your thumb and index finger. In the strict sense, it may still be a single piece, but you cannot polish it. So the lead glass is infused into the ruby, stabilizing it in order to be polished. Sometimes there’s more ruby than glass, but sometimes there’s more glass than ruby.”
Few will tell you the truth that what you see is not what you think you see. But isn’t that the essence of a fraud, namely, combining something fake (e.g. treatments or additives) with lies and presenting to the consumer as high value fact something that is a near worthless fiction.
What do glass filed rubies look like?
To the naked eye there is no difference to the ordinary consumer.
But under magnification, the difference is significant.
What are some of the problems with glass filled rubies?
Obviously there is the stability issues referred to by Mr. Smith. The glass filler also cannot stand household acids found in cleaning supplies containing bleach or foods such as lemons, limes, vinegar, etc. The stone below was exposed to fresh lemon juice for 48 hours and then lightly heated with torch.
So keep that ruby ring away from the kitchen or laundry
What about the price differential between glass filled and real rubies? Dramatic.
On this subject, Suzan Flamm, Assistant General Counsel of the Jeweler’s Vigilance Committee, which describes itself as “The Industry’s Guardian of Ethics and Integrity” wrote:
“The Federal Trade Commission regulates the use of many of the words associated with jewelry products, including “ruby,” “gem” and “natural.” Understanding the proper use of these words, as defined in the FTC’s Jewelry Guides, is the first step in determining the exact nature of the disclosure required.
As a starting point, the Guides state that “it is unfair or deceptive to use the unqualified [word] ‘ruby’…to describe any product that is not in fact a natural stone of the type described.” As to the use of the word “natural,” the FTC also provides boundaries, stating: “It is unfair or deceptive to use the word … ‘natural’ … to describe any industry product that is manufactured or produced artificially.”
The word “gem” is also subject to restrictions, as follows: “It is unfair or deceptive to use the word ‘gem’ to describe, identify, or refer to a ruby … product that does not possess the beauty, symmetry, rarity, and value necessary for qualification as a gem.”
Applying these rules, a seller must determine whether or not the stone sold is properly described as either “natural”, a “ruby” or a “gem.” For composite ruby, the words “natural“ or “gem” are probably inappropriate descriptors. Further, the unqualified word “ruby” is not appropriate – it should always be described.”
Sadly, sellers are ignoring the requirements of the law and simply presenting as real that which his fake.
If you purchased fine jewelry, rubies, diamonds, sapphires or other gemstones from Macy’s anywhere in the US since 2006, you may have a claim. To find out more about these issues, whether you are in New York, Los Angeles, Honolulu, Seattle, Miami, or parts between, please visit the Brandi Law Firm Macy’s Lawsuit website or contact the Brandi Law Firm Consumer Fraud Attorneys.
Watch Your Head! Post-Concussive Syndrome and You
Posted by The Brandi Law Firm Blog in General Interest on December 21, 2011
By Mylene Reuvekamp
With the recent injury to quarterback Colt McCoy, there has been a lot of discussion about concussions. Most people assume that a concussion or post-concussive syndrome can’t occur unless there has been a loss of consciousness. In fact, this is not the case and generally no physical swelling or bleeding are seen on scans. A concussion occurs when the head either accelerates rapidly and then is stopped or spun rapidly. Both of these mechanisms can be seen even in seemingly minor automobile accidents.
The severity of the injury has been scientifically shown to have no association with the risk of post-concussion injury. Symptoms usually occur within 7-10 days of the accident and include such things as headache, fatigue, dizziness, emotional changes such as irritability or anxiety, insomnia, loss of concentration and memory, or noise and light sensitivity. Many people ignore these symptoms thinking that they are related to whiplash or a neck injury and not to a concussion. There is no single way to diagnose a post-concussion injury. Your doctor may order a CT scan to determine that there is no visual change in the brain.
If the symptoms persist, neuropsychological testing may be performed to determine the deficits present. In most cases, post-concussion syndrome resolves within a matter of months. It can continue, however, indefinitely in which case cognitive therapy to focus on memory deficits and attention skills may be helpful.
If you are in a car accident and have these symptoms after a few days, seek medical attention immediately for evaluation of post-concussion syndrome. Our attorneys at the Brandi Law Firm have extensive experience handling injury cases involving concussions and post-concussive syndrome. Contact us for a free consultation if you believe you have been injured and suffered a concussion or post-concussive syndrome.
Are the Kids’ Pajamas Safe?
Posted by The Brandi Law Firm Blog in General Interest on December 16, 2011
By Thomas J. Brandi
For a number of years, we have often read of children being badly burned in house fires where their pajamas actually made the fire’s effects worse due to issues of flammability. As a result, consumer advocates fought very hard to toughened standards and remove the market unsafe pajamas, greatly reducing the serious injuries from flammable material in children’s pajamas. (See 16 CFR PARTS 1615 and 1616 of the Flammable Fabrics Act; Children’s Sleepwear)
The standards require that children’s sleep wear must be flame resistant and self extinguish if flame from a candle, match, lighter, or similar item causes them to catch fire and covers children sizes from 9 months to Size 14.
However, this fight continues and vigilance is necessary. Thanks to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) another unsafe product placing children at risk has been was recalled (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12053.html)
On December 8, 2011 The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in cooperation with Bliss Collection LLC dba Bella Bliss of Lexington, Ky. recalled children’s pajamas because “The pajamas fail to meet the federal flammability standards for children’s sleepwear posing a risk of burn injury to children.” The pajamas were sold on line and at specialty retailers from January 2008 through June 2011 and were made in Peru.
Look in the drawer in the kid’s room to see if they have Children’s Henley Pima Cotton Pajamas. The pajamas are a two-piece, cotton sleepwear set sold in sizes 2 to 12 and come in white, blue, pink or red. “Bella Bliss” is written on the neck tag. If you find them in the drawer, in the wash, or under the bed, you should return them to the retailer for a refund, exchange, or store credit.
Earlier this year, Fashionviews recalled 4000 pairs of P.Jamas sleepwear made in Peru and Bolivia. The CPSC cited evidence that they failed to meet standards for flammability, which could be a hazard to children wearing the clothing. The sleepwear included in the recall are nightgowns, as well as two-piece shirts/pant sets in sizes XS-XL. A label on the sleepwear prints the brand-name “P.Jamas” in blue lettering, which is sewn into the back of the garments. The sleepwear is made of 100% cotton and comes in pastel colors in stripes and other patterns. They were distributed to boutique shops we well as on the company’s website between 2006 and 2010.
The Brandi Law Firm has represented numerous families suffering burn injuries and unsafe products. For more information, contact Thomas J. Brandi at www.brandilaw.com.
Fake Rubies, Fake Diamonds, Macy’s and You
Posted by The Brandi Law Firm Blog in Macy's Fake Gem Lawsuit on December 8, 2011
As we approach Christmas, many people will stroll though Macy’s stores and pass by the beautifully displayed gemstones. Sitting under glass with lots of reflecting light you will find rubies, diamonds, sapphires and other prized stones. Stuck way out of the way in some stores is a little card that tells you that what you see is not really the real thing.
In some stores you may see a card that tells you the “diamonds may be…treated.”, or that “this ruby has been heavily treated using a high refractive index lead glass to fill fractures and cavities…”
What does this mean?
That you are not buying a natural product but likely paying for the real thing.
Stated another way, what you may be buying is not a natural ruby but a composite filled with lead glass or a diamond that has been treated. Be careful, ask if it is the real thing and make sure you don’t pay a price based on the item being the real thing — no matter how steep the discount or “how good the deal”.
This year in San Francisco Superior Court there were two cases against Macy’s dealing with this issue (SF Superior Court Nos CGC-09-495171 and CGC-10-495868). At their heart the cases dealt with allegations that Macy’s knowingly sold:
- Rubies that were composites or filled with glass or lead filled glass;
- Stones were being passed as untreated “green amethyst” when in fact this stone is in reality Praseolite (a heated form of quartz) while only purple amethyst is in fact real amethyst, natural and therefore of a much higher value;
- Sapphires were fracture filled with glass;
- Black sapphires were being passed off as “black diamonds”;
- Many diamonds were enhanced by laser drilling or filling of surface cavities and fractures with a hardened substance;
- Diamonds were irradiated or heated to induce color and then represented to be natural black diamonds.
On two separate occasions on each coast of our country television crews have gone into Macy’s and found significant instances where Macy’s was not quite telling the whole truth about their jewelry. The first was Good Morning America. (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/ConsumerNews/rubies-real-deal/story?id=8988951).
As the Good Moring America piece points out “to the naked eye, there’s no difference, but examined under a microscope, gas bubbles that form as the glass cools can be seen in the composite rubies. Experts say composite rubies are fragile, and that they’re only worth a fraction of the value of natural rubies.” The crew from Good Morning America bought four ruby rings and brought them to a gemologist Christopher Smith for testing. All were supposed to be real rubies. The result;
“We identified the presence of lead within the glass, which is conclusive proof of this material,” Smith said. The three rings in question were from three different Macy’s stores in the New York area.
The second neutral inspection was from Channel 5 KPIX in San Francisco who aired a program showing the same thing in Macy’s Stores in the Bay Area on Super Bowl Sunday 2011.
If you purchased fine jewelry, rubies, diamonds, sapphires or other gemstones from Macy’s anywhere in the US since 2006, you may have a claim. To find out more about these issues, whether you are in New York, Los Angeles, Honolulu, Seattle, Miami, or parts between, please visit the Brandi Law Firm Macy’s Lawsuit website or contact the Brandi Law Firm Consumer Fraud Attorneys.
We are representing a group of people who bought what they were told were the real things, natural rubies, diamonds, etc., paid real prices, only to later learn their jewelry was not real and worth only a fraction of their purchase price.
Yaz, Bayer, and the Whole Truth
Posted by The Brandi Law Firm Blog in Drug and Medical Device Litigation, Yaz Birth Control on December 6, 2011
According to documents unsealed in litigation involving the YAZ birth control product made by Bayer, former FDA head David Kessler stated Bayer didn’t include an analysis “that demonstrated an increase in the U.S. reporting rate” for venous thromboembolism, or clots, in a 2004 review of Yasmin’s safety provided to the agency.
According to Kessler “Bayer presented a selective view of the data, and that presentation obscured the potential risks associated with Yasmin.” Kessler also indicated that the company also promoted the oral contraceptive for unapproved uses, particularly for treatment of premenstrual syndrome. Kessler’s 196-page report was one of several such expert opinions that were released by a federal court in Illinois, where some thousands of lawsuits are pending over alleged injuries and deaths relating to Yaz and Yasmin, as well as generics. Kessler’s report was submitted on behalf of women suing the manufacturer, and he was compensated for his time.
Read the entire article here: Former FDA Commish: Bayer Hid Yasmin Data
Dr. Kessler wrote: “In my opinion, had I, or a medical review officer, known these facts prior to approval, further investigation would be warranted before a decision on Yasmin’s NDA could be made. These facts would impact the Agency’s risk-benefit equation about the drug and whether it could be approved”.
Women who used YAZ for birth control and who later suffered clots from YAZ obviously were not advised of the increased risk thereby enabling the company to maintain its competitive edge in the market. If the truth were told, sales would have decreased, doctors would have made fewer recommendations for YAZ, and more and more women would not have been exposed to costly life changing risks.
But the whole truth was not told and women and their families suffered needlessly while profits continued to roll in.
Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm have long been involved in drug and device litigation, from the Dalkon Shield, Fen-Phen, Vioxx, Avandia, YAZ, to POP (pelvic organ prolapse) surgeries from Transvaginal mesh, bladder cancer from Actos, femur fractures from Fosamax, to toxic poisoning and revisions from De Puy ASR metal on metal hip implants. For more information contact Thomas Brandi or the Brandi Law Firm Pharmaceutical Attorneys.
Read This Before You Take Your Vitamins!
Posted by The Brandi Law Firm Blog in Drug and Medical Device Litigation on November 28, 2011
Many people do not realize that the vitamins or other supplement they take on a daily basis are not subject to FDA control, approval, or oversight. “Dietary supplements”, defined by Congress as a product taken by mouth that contains an ingredient intended to supplement the diet, are considered to be “foods” not “drugs” are not subject to pre-market testing requirements or other oversight provided by the FDA for drugs. Instead, manufacturers and/or distributors are responsible for determining that their product is safe and that any representations made about them are supported by adequate evidence to show that they are not false or misleading.
Put simply, the FDA does not need to approve any dietary supplement prior to or after the time it is sold. In fact, a manufacturer or distributor of these products is not even required to provide the FDA with the evidence it relies on to substantiate its safety or effectiveness claims either before or after bringing the supplement to market. The supplement manufacturer is also responsible for determining the appropriate serving size or the amount of a nutrient in any form of dietary supplements without FDA review or approval. The FDA does not analyze dietary supplement ingredients before they are sold to consumers, but rather relies on the manufacturers themselves to ensure that the label and ingredient list are accurate. In order for a dietary supplement to be removed from the market, the FDA and not the manufacturer must show that a supplement is unsafe before it can take action to restrict the product’s use.
What can a consumer do to get information about a specific dietary supplement? To obtain more information than is provided by the label, you may contact the manufacturer directly for information. If you believe that you have a problem or illness caused by the use of a supplement, see your healthcare provider and report this problem to the FDA. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can also be contacted to complain about false advertising. The most important protection the consumer has is their common sense: if a product makes claims that seem too good to be true, they probably are.
Click here for more information about the Brandi Law Firm Pharmaceutical Attorneys.
Another Blockbuster Fine, Consumers Shut Out Again
Posted by The Brandi Law Firm Blog in Drug and Medical Device Litigation, Fosamax Osteoporosis Drug on November 22, 2011
Merck, makers of VIOXX and FOSAMAX among other drugs, agreed to pay $950 million to settle criminal and civil claims that it illegally promoted the drug VIOXX. Merck will plead guilty to a misdemeanor offense and pay $321,636, 000 criminal fines. According to the Justice Department, Merck also entered into a civil settlement and will pay $628 million to resolve additional allegations regarding off label marketing of VIOXX and false statements about the drug’s cardiovascular safety. Click here to read the Department of Justice release: U.S. Pharmaceutical Company Merck Sharp & Dohme to Pay Nearly One Billion Dollars Over Promotion of Vioxx
$424,389,000 goes to the US government and $201,975,000 to participating MEDICAID States. According to the Justice Department, “The settlement resolves allegations that Merck representatives made inaccurate, unsupported, or misleading statements about Vioxx’s cardiovascular safety in order to increase sales of the drug, resulting in payments by the federal government. It also resolves allegations that Merck made false statements to state Medicaid agencies about the cardiovascular safety of Vioxx, and that those agencies relied on Merck’s false claims in making payment decisions about the drug.”
In its own statement Merck stated “The civil settlement does not constitute any admission by Merck of any liability or wrongdoing.”
Who loses?
Consumers. Those who were injured by VIOXX, who were led to believe it was safe, and were killed or seriously injured.
Who else?
The medical profession who was taken advantage of in a system that relies on drug companies telling the truth. And our entire society, where a drug company can do this, and simply pay a fine to walk away.
Who Wins? Merck’s management and employees who engaged in improper conduct and face no criminal penalties and keep their jobs. And don’t forget Merck itself. In spite of the amount of the fine, look at what Merck earned versus what they paid.
Our office represented a number of VIOXX users and tried a VIOXX case in California in Los Angeles Superior Court (Arrigale vs. Merck). What a shame that so many people were not told the truth and suffered life changing heart attacks and strokes. Where would they be today if the truth was simply told to consumers, doctors, and the public. Merck also makes FOSAMAX, a drug associated with atypical femur fractures.
The Brandi Law Firm represents a number of women and men who suffered femur fractures while taking FOSAMAX. Only time will tell if Merck told the truth about FOSAMAX. For information about FOSAMAX, or other drug or device cases, contact the attorneys at the Brandi Law Firm www.brandilaw.com Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm have long been involved in drug and device litigation, from the Dalkon Shield, Phen fen, VIOXX, AVANDIA, YAZ, to POP ( pelvic organ prolapse) surgeries from Transvaginal mesh, bladder cancer from Actos, femur fractures from Fosamax, to toxic poisoning and revisions from De Puy ASR metal on metal hip implants. For more information contact Drug Litigation Attorneys a the Brandi Law Firm.
Recent Studies Highlight Increased Yaz Risks
Posted by The Brandi Law Firm Blog in Yaz Birth Control on November 21, 2011
In an October 2011 British Medical Journal article entitled “Risk of venous thromboembolism from use of oral contraceptives containing different progestogens and oestrogen doses: Danish cohort study, 2001-2009.”, the authors found that birth control pills like YAZ, YASMIN or OCELLA which contain drospirenone or oral contraceptives containing a third generation progestins put women at two times the risk of developing venous thromboembolism when compared to women using birth control pills containing levonorgstrel, a second generation progestin. The study drew upon data from four registries in Denmark and studied non pregnant women ages 15-49 from January 2001 to December 2009 containing 8,010,290 women years of observation.
In a November 7, 2011 Canadian Medical Association Journal, (www.cmaj.ca) Dr. Naomi Gronich reported the findings of her study of drospirenone containing second and third generation oral contraceptives and its relationship to risks of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, concluding: “Use of drospirenone containing oral contraceptives was associated with an increased risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism but not transient ischemic attack or cerebrovascular attack.” This study examined women in Israel from ages 12 to 50 for whom combined oral contraceptives had been dispensed between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2008.
If you are a YAZ, YASMIN or OCELLA user containing drospirenone you may wish to talk with your doctor. If you or a loved one has suffered a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis (DVT) you may wish to consult one of the YAZ lawyers at the Brandi Law Firm.
Off Label Drug Promotions: Who Wins and Who Loses
Posted by The Brandi Law Firm Blog in Drug and Medical Device Litigation on November 15, 2011
In drug litigation, one of the common claims is that drug or device manufacturers failed to adequately warn of risks of the drug or device, and that the manufacturer simply failed to tell the whole truth. By simply turning on your television you are subjected to a seemingly nonstop onslaught of advertizing for drugs and devices that will end your pain, restore your energy, enable you to do activities you have not done in years, and give you a fantastic sex life. If the ads work, the consumers are “asking your doctor about” whatever new drug is the subject of the current slick campaign.
When the drug or device use results in injuries, one of the standard defenses relied on by the drug and device manufacturers is the Learned Intermediary Doctrine, which in simplest terms says, we warned the doctor who possesses superior knowledge and we don’t have to warn the consumer.
But a typically overworked doctor with a limited time to see patients, visit the hospital, attend conferences, fight with insurers over payments, and keep abreast of literature, etc., MUST rely on the drug and device manufactures with their vastly superior knowledge and resources to simply truthfully tell them the risks as well as the benefits.
One of the dirty little secrets is off label use, where someone uses the drug for a potential condition that is not stated on the label. Drug companies seek to expand their market through these procedures which are clearly improper. It is profitable to do this as market share expands, by doctors being urged to expand prescriptions to currently non-labeled uses but for which marketers ensure doctors are supported by research and experience.
But what happens to the manufacturers when they are caught? Here are some recent examples;
On October 19, 2011 Abbott Laboratories ($ABT) has set aside $1.5 billion for a potential off-label marketing settlement with the U.S. Justice Department. According to reports Abbott pushed Depakote (approved for treatment of seizures) for autism, sexual compulsions, agitated and aggressive patients amongst other conditions.
Read more: Abbott Earmarks $1.5B for Off-Label Depakote Settlement
Other recent settlements include Johnson and Johnson paying $81 million for claims regarding Risperadal (J&J, feds reach deal on one Risperdal charge) and, Pfizer’s $2.3 billion settlement of claims of improper promotion of Bextra and other drugs for unapproved uses.
Who loses?
Consumers, who used the drugs, were injured, and receive nothing of these settlements. Instead they are going through the court processes to hold companies liable for their conduct, and where the company likely will claim if any fault exists, it was that of the doctor, who has superior knowledge, and to whom warnings were given, or it is the fault of the consumer who has some pre existing or unique anatomical condition that caused their injury.
Amazingly, the manufacturers contend, based on the Learned Intermediary Doctrine, they have no obligation to tell the consumers the whole truth.
Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm have long been involved in drug and device litigation, from the Dalkon Shield, Phen fen, Vioxx, Avandia, Yaz, to POP ( pelvic organ prolapse) surgeries from Transvaginal mesh, bladder cancer from Actos, femur fractures from Fosamax, to toxic poisoning and revisions from De Puy ASR metal on metal hip implants. For more information contact Thomas Brandi at The Brandi Law Firm Website.
TOYOTA RECALL: Have We had this Dream Before??
Posted by The Brandi Law Firm Blog in Automobile Defects on November 9, 2011
From sudden acceleration to Intelligent Power Modules resulting in loss of power to defects in power steering system resulting in loss of control, Toyota has set new lows in the automobile league this year in safety recalls. What in the world is happening with their cars?
No need to discuss the issues about sudden acceleration. They are well publicized.
On June 29, 2011 Toyota recalled 45,500 Highlanders and 36,700 Lexus Rx400h vehicles sold in the United States because “The Intelligent Power Module (IPM) located inside the Hybrid System Inverter contains a control board with transistors. Certain transistors on the control boards in some of the subject vehicles were inadequately soldered and could be damaged from heat caused by a large current flow during high-load driving.”
What would be the result?
A blown fuse resulting in loss of power leaving drivers in a coasting mode searching for a safe place.
On November 9, 2011 Toyota announced the recall of 420,000 cars in the United States because of a problem with the power steering system. Involved are some 2004 Toyota Avalons as well as 2004 and 2005 Camrys, Highlander SUVs, Sienna Minivans, Solara convertibles, Lexus ES330 sedans and RX330 SUVs. The 2006 Lexus RX400h hybrid SUV is also included in the recall. All the vehicles affected by the recall are powered by V6 engines.
Apparently a belt in the cars power steering pump can be separated from a pulley causing the power steering system to fail. According to the recall, Toyota has asked its drivers to listen for any unusual noise from their car’s engine compartment and if they hear it, contact Toyota. Not exactly reassuring. By the way, can you describe with confidence an “unusual noise”
Read the Toyota Press Release here: Toyota Announces Voluntary Safety Recall of Certain 2006 and 2007 Model Year Highlander Hybrid and RX 400h Vehicles
Read the CNN Article: Toyota Recalls 420,000 Cars in the U.S.
Americans rely on their car manufactures to provide a safe well designed vehicle. Sadly that is not often the case. The Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers. Often time’s people involved in accidents don’t examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy- does it contain the appropriate crash protection. If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys are available to consult with you. www.brandilaw.com
