Deliris Diaz’s infant son suffered burns from Little Tummys® laxative

 A Rochester woman wrongfully charged with child abuse has won a significant victory in New York State Supreme Court. The court ruled unanimously that Deliris Diaz’s lawsuit against the Little Tummys-brand laxative manufacturer should not have been dismissed.

Deliris Diaz had sued on behalf of herself and her infant son, Jose Marquiz-Diaz, who suffered severe burns to his buttocks and genital region after ingesting Little Tummys in December 2007. Jose then had a loose bowel movement in his sleep that remained in his diaper until he woke up the next morning. After discovering the burns, Ms. Diaz took Jose to the hospital, where doctors mistakenly suspected that the burns were caused by scalding the child with hot water. Deliris Diaz was arrested and charged with child abuse.

As a result, Ms. Diaz was separated from Jose and another infant until the court dropped all charges against her following a doctor’s statement that the laxative caused the burns, not any actions of Jose’s mother. Laxatives containing senna had been reported to cause severe burns when mixed with stool and held against a child’s skin by a diaper. Yet the Little Tummys laxative Ms. Diaz purchased contained no warnings or other senna information on its packaging. More…

Julie S. Jordan, an associate at Faraci Lange LLP, has been recognized with the Up and Coming Attorney Award from The Daily Record.

The award is given to attorneys who are active in the community, demonstrate a commitment to the community through activities or pro bono work, and who demonstrate leadership and above-average achievements in day-to-day legal assignments. 

Jordan focuses her practice on medical malpractice, complex tort and toxic tort, premises liability, products liability and automotive negligence cases. She is a resident of Farmington, N.Y.

On March 4, 2009, the Supreme Court decided a case that has profound implications regarding the rights of consumers to sue prescription drug manufacturers for failing to properly warn of dangers of prescription drugs. In Wyeth v. Levine, ___ U.S. ___, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 1774 (U.S. Mar. 4, 2009) the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that FDA approval of a prescription drug warning label does not always pre-empt state tort suits regarding the adequacy of such warnings. The decision comes as somewhat of a surprise because just last year, in Riegel v. Medtronic, 552 U.S. ___ (2008), the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that FDA pre-market approval of Class III medical devices pre-empts state law negligence claims that challenge the safety or effectiveness of FDA-approved devices. The difference in outcome between Wyeth and Riegel is explained by an understanding of the different ways that Congressional actions can pre-empt state law. More…