Latest News: 25 Million Dollar Wrongful Death Truck Verdict

Rock ‘n Play Recall Highlights Systematic Flaws In u.s. Product Safety Oversight

May 21, 2019

This April, Fisher Price announced it was recalling all 4.7 million Rock ‘n Play baby sleepers it had put onto the U.S. marketplace since 2009.[1] The announcement followed the submission of 258 incident reports to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) involving the Rock ‘n Play—including over 30 infant deaths.[2] Pediatricians and safety experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”), argue that the Rock ‘n Play is a fundamentally flawed product and that its very concept directly contradicts years of research and recommendations as to safe infant sleeping practices. When the nation’s preeminent pediatric association strongly condemns a product, and that same product has been linked to more than 30 infant deaths, one must wonder: why was this thing ever allowed on the market in the first place?

This article will explain why pediatricians and safety advocates contend the Rock ‘n Play is fundamentally flawed, proceed to analyze the regulatory history which allowed this inclined infant sleeper to be placed on store shelves and become part of nurseries across the nation, and conclude by examining the lessons which must be learned if we hope to prevent this type of thing from happening in the future.

Pediatricians’ Fundamental Concerns with the Rock ‘N Play

The Rock ‘n Play is essentially a reclined seat with an automatic rocking feature and a harness for the baby, and was marketed to new parents as an “inclined sleeper designed for all-night sleep.”[3] The inclined sleeper proved popular amongst exhausted parents looking for a way to help ensure their babies would peacefully sleep through the night—particularly parents of colicky babies who were otherwise kept awake by frequent coughing.[4] But this relief reportedly came with an unexpected tradeoff, as the New York Times observed “that the risks long associated with the sleeper did not register with many consumers.”[5] The Times further explained: “Fisher-Price’s marketing materials for the product had long included phrases, like ‘baby can sleep at a comfy incline all night long,’ that were at odds with pediatricians’ longstanding recommendation that infants sleep on flat surfaces without restraints.”[6]

Indeed, pediatricians and safety advocates have compellingly argued that the basic concept of the “inclined sleeper” violates the lessons learned from decades of research into Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, also known as “SIDS.”[7] Back in 1994, the AAP and the U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (“NICHD”) unveiled the “Back to Sleep” campaign to combat SIDS.[8] The Back to Sleep campaign “urged” parents to lay their babies down in a supine position to sleep, and was based on extensive research showing that other sleep positions increased the risk of infant death.[9]

Although the precise causes of SIDS are still being investigated, there remains a strong consensus amongst pediatricians that supine sleeping on a flat, firm surface is the safest option. This point has been articulated by the AAP multiple times over the past several decades. In 2005—more than four years before the Rock ‘n Pay debuted—the AAP revised its infant sleeping guidelines, clarifying that “[i]nfants should be placed for sleep in a supine position (wholly on the back),” and that “a firm crib mattress . . . is the recommended sleeping surface.”[10] The AAP expanded its guidelines again in 2011, re-affirming its recommendation in favor of supine sleeping, and specifying that:

Sitting devices, such as car safety seats, strollers, swings, infant carriers, and infant slings, are not recommended for routine sleep in the hospital or at home.

***

If an infant falls asleep in a sitting device, he or she should be removed from the product and moved to a crib or other appropriate flat surface as soon as is practical.[11]

It is unsurprising, then, that the AAP has also been one of the fiercest critics of the Rock ‘n Play. Before the recall, AAP President Dr. Kyle Yasuda urged the CPSC to take action, explaining: “When parents purchase a product for their baby or child, many assume that if it’s being sold in a store, it must be safe to use. Tragically, that is not the case. There is convincing evidence that the Rock ‘n Play inclined sleeper puts infants’ lives at risk . . . .”[12] AAP Task Force on SIDS Chair Dr. Rachel Moon similarly stated: “The Rock ‘n Play inclined sleeper should be removed from the market immediately. It does not meet the AAP’s recommendations for a safe sleep environment for any baby. Infants should always sleep on their back, on a separate, flat and firm sleep surface without any bumpers or bedding.”[13]

In 2012, Dr. Natasha Burgert, who is now the AAP’s National Spokesperson, wrote an open letter to Fisher-Price and asked that the “sleeper” be re-categorized as a “portable infant seat,” cautioning that “infants in the ‘sleeper’ may be at risk of asphyxiation or suffocation if [it is] continued to be used as a place for overnight, unobserved infant sleep.”[14] Similarly, in 2013, Dr. Roy Benaroch—who runs the website “The Pediatric Insider”—wrote to Fisher-Price and expressed a number of concerns about the Rock ‘n Play, explaining in part that: “The Newborn Rock ‘n Play Sleeper does not keep a baby wholly on the back, but rather in an inclined position. It is not a safe way for babies to sleep.”[15] Fisher-Price responded with a brief email, acknowledging receipt of Dr. Benaroch’s comments and tersely stating that: “The Rock ‘n Play Sleeper complies with all applicable standards. We encourage consumers who have questions or concerns about providing a safe sleeping environment for their babies to discuss these issues with their doctors or pediatricians.”[16]

The Rock ‘n Play was met with criticism and opposition elsewhere, as well. It was rejected as a “sleeper” by Australian and Canadian regulators in 2011.[17] Fisher-Price responded by selling it as a “soother” in Canada and simply withdrawing it from the Australian marketplace.[18] And while the product was allowed to be sold in the U.K., the Royal College of Midwives sharply criticized the device, warning that: “The lying surface is not suitable as an infant cot—and must not be used as infant cot to sleep next to mother’s bed because babies must always sleep flat on their backs;  Unreservedly—this product must only be used for no more than two hours in a day and for the purpose of play/interaction with parents/siblings . . .”[19]

Moreover, the Rock ‘n Play is similar to the much maligned “sleep positioner” devices—which prop a baby up to sleep at a certain position, often at an incline. The CPSC and the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) have repeatedly condemned and warned against the use of sleep positioners dating back to September 2010.[20] In issuing these warnings, the CPSC and FDA also admonished marketing claims that sleep positioners could ease symptoms of colic, food digestion, acid reflux, and other conditions, pointing out that “both the FDA and CPSC staffs have stated that there is currently no scientific evidence supporting these medical claims.”[21]

So, how is it that a product so fiercely criticized by pediatricians, and so arguably similar to “sleep positioner” devices condemned by multiple federal agencies, was allowed to reach the market? To help answer this question, the next section will explore the pertinent regulatory history.  

Fisher-Price Asks For, and Receives, a Special Carveout for Inclined Sleepers

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 required the CPSC to issue “new mandatory standards” for infant cribs; at the time, “[t]he federal crib standards had not been updated in nearly 30 years.”[22] The CPSC then proposed revisions to the crib standards in April 2010 which, if adopted as originally conceived, would likely have stopped the sale of the Rock ‘n Play for two reasons.[23]  First, those  proposed revisions would have prohibited infant sleep products from having a slope greater than 5 degrees—and impose a “flatness angle” test protocol to ensure compliance with the rule.[24] Second, the initial proposal also sensibly included a ban on the use of restraints, because “[i]nfants lying on a flat surface do not need restraints and the use of restraints could contribute to a possible strangulation hazard.”[25] The proposed restraint ban would have also “clarif[ied] that bassinets should not include any restraint system that requires action on the part of the caregiver to secure the restraint.”[26]

The AAP endorsed the CPSC’s initial proposal, and suggested just a few additional protections to keep infants safe.[27] Fisher-Price, on the other hand, argued for an exception for inclined sleepers like the Rock ‘n Play.[28] Kitty Pilarz, Mattel/Fisher-Price’s Director of Product Safety, observed that, under the proposed rule, “all bassinets and cradles would be barred from providing inclined sleeping surfaces.”[29]  She then conceded that the Rock  ‘n Play’s “key feature” is its “inclined seat” which “exceeds 5 degrees,” and that it also includes a “crotch-and-waist restraint system.”[30] Finally, she speculatively warned that, without a carveout, “[p]arents deprived of any appropriate product for calming their tired, colicky infants will look elsewhere—and substitute dangerous products for that purpose.”[31]

Ms. Pilarz and Fisher-Price were ultimately successful in lobbying the CPSC for a carveout to the new infant sleep surface standards.[32] The final rule with the carveout requested by Fisher-Price was ultimately published in October 2013.[33] The CPSC justified the carveout by saying that it would “complement” the inclined sleeper category being developed by ASTM International—a private organization which develops voluntary standards, the membership of which includes executives from Fisher-Price and other manufacturers.[34] Less than two years later, in May 2015, the ASTM adopted a special category and standard to “cover the emergence of infant sleep products with sleeping surfaces of greater than 10 degrees.”[35] Tellingly, the ASTM’s press release goes on to justify the new standard by explaining that, “ASTM member Mike Steinwachs, senior manager, quality engineering, Fisher-Price, notes that use of infant inclined sleep products has become popular as parents sometimes feel that babies sleep better on an inclined rather than flat surface.”[36] The ASTM even gave Mr. Steinwachs an award for his “leadership resulting in a new standard covering Inclined Sleep Products,” noting that: “The ASTM Inclined Sleeper Subcommittee worked quickly to develop a new standard for these products and Mike’s leadership was critical in keeping the group on track and moving forward. We’re glad to recognize him for his outstanding efforts.”[37]

Having secured both a regulatory carveout from the CPSC, and a special ASTM category for “inclined sleepers,” Fisher-Price positioned itself to continue marketing and selling the Rock ‘n Play—regardless of what pediatricians and organizations like the AAP had to say, and despite the FDA and CPSC’s previous warnings against the use of “sleep positioners.” Fisher-Price ran with this carveout, selling approximately 4.7 million units over the past decade.[38]  

Fisher-Price Blames Parents for Infant Deaths—Even After the Recall  

As late as April 5, 2019, Fisher-Price and the CPSC opted to issue a mere warning, rather than a recall, telling consumers to “stop use of the product by three months of age, or as soon as an infant exhibits rollover capabilities.”[39] When announcing the warning, the CPSC reported that it was aware of just 10 infant deaths in Rock ‘n Play Sleepers since 2015.[40] Then, 3 days later, Consumer Reports issued a report showing that the Rock ‘n Play was connected to 32 deaths, and demanded the immediate recall of all of the sleepers.[41] Consumer Report’s senior policy analyst William Wallace explained that the CPSC’s warning was “long overdue and falls far short of what is needed, especially given how long ago the CPSC first received reports of fatal incidents.” And, continued Mr. Wallace:

The [CPSC’s April 5, 2019] statement also risks minimizing Fisher-Price’s responsibility for safety, when in reality the CPSC has confirmed to CR that it’s investigating whether Rock ‘n Play contains a defect. We do hope that this warning means the agency will be giving consumers more protective, timely, and consistent safe sleep advice going forward—but that should be just the start.[42]

Following the Consumer Reports story, the CPSC and Fisher-Price announced the recall of all 4.7 million Rock ‘n Play Sleepers on April 12, 2019, just one week after issuing a mere warning.[43] The April 12, 2019 recall announcement acknowledged that, “[s]ince the 2009 product introduction, over 30 infant fatalities have occurred in Rock ‘n Play Sleepers, after the infants roll over while unrestrained, or under other circumstances.”[44] It’s unclear why the death totals and reported time frames differed so much between the CPSC’s April 5 warning and its April 12 recall announcement. Hopefully, the pending lawsuits and investigative journalism will help shed some light on this glaring discrepancy.

What is clear, however, is that Fisher-Price is, at least at the time of this writing, resolute in its position that it did nothing wrong. Instead, the company contends that the responsibility for more than 30 dead babies lies with their parents or other caregivers, as shown by the following statement appearing under the heading “Child Safety Is Our Priority” on Fisher-Price’s recall website:

For almost 90 years, Fisher-Price has made the safety of children and the quality of our products our highest priority. It’s a commitment without compromise.

In recent days, however, questions have been raised about the Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play Sleeper – that’s why today, we are announcing a voluntary recall of all units of the product.

While we continue to stand by the safety of all of our products, given the reported incidents in which the product was used contrary to safety warnings and instructions, we’ve decided in partnership with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), that this voluntary recall is the best course of action.[45] 

Lessons Which Must be Learned

The AAP and safety advocates have demanded that the CPSC and ASTM eliminate the special inclined sleeper category.[46] But these demands have been rejected so far. The CPSC and ASTM have instead promised to “reevaluate” and “investigate” the product category.[47] So, as we wait for the conclusion of the CPSC’s reevaluation and the ASTM’s investigation, manufacturers are free to continue selling inclined infant sleepers. In the meantime, discovery documents recently reported on by Safety Research and Strategies (“SRS”) make it appear as though far less “investigation” and “evaluation” went into determining the safety of these products before they were unleashed on the marketplace.[48]

Specifically, the discovery materials reportedly show that Fisher-Price lacked any data on inclined sleepers to support the safety of the device—after all, this type of product simply did not exist in the marketplace at the time.[49] Fisher-Price instead reportedly relied on the advice of Dr. Gary Deegear, a family physician in San Antonio, Texas with a background as a litigation consultant.[50]

The CPSC likewise reportedly lacked any data to support the safety of the devices before creating the special category for them.[51] The CPSC’s Chair during the time when the Rock ‘n Play was first placed on the market, and later given the special regulatory carveout, was Inez Tenanbaum.[52] Ms. Tenanbaum is a lawyer from South Carolina with a history of political appointments at the state and federal level.[53] Her bio on the CPSC website boasts that she “advocated for” the “establishment of the strongest crib safety standards in the world.”[54] Following her tenure with the CPSC, she has returned to the private sector, serving as an expert witness in at least one products liability case brought against Fisher-Price over the Rock ‘n Play—offering expert testimony against a family whose child was allegedly injured by one of the products she allowed to flood the market.[55] And, according to the SRS report, she charged Fisher-Price $1,000 per hour for her expertise and testimony.[56]

Viewed together, the regulatory history and discovery materials described in the SRS report paint a troubling picture of our nation’s consumer product safety system.  One in which the CPSC appears overly willing to create special categories for products at the request of a financially-interested manufacturer, even when doing so contradicts the recommendations of medical experts and lacks supporting safety data. It also appears as though the CPSC is entirely too willing to rely upon a forthcoming standard from a private association whose leadership on the issue includes an executive from the very same financially-motivated manufacturer, as opposed to the longstanding advice of financially-disinterested experts. This picture becomes all the more troubling when further considering that the head of that agency went on to charge Fisher-Price $1,000 per hour for expert testimony in litigation involving the product she allowed to enter the market.   

To those who find this picture troubling, it should appear clear that the system must be reworked from the ground up. As things stand, it looks like we are stuck in a dangerous cycle of “agency capture” by private industry interests; a cycle which prevents meaningful and effective safety oversight and allows hazardous products to be sold. There are several obvious things we must do if we want to prevent this from recurring over and over again.

As an initial matter, it seems clear that safety agencies like the CPSC should require rigorous testing and other demonstrated safety benchmarks before allowing new products to be placed on the market—particularly when those products contradict longstanding recommendations from financially-disinterested experts in the field. Moreover, in creating a special carveout, the CPSC and other safety agencies must not be allowed to simply defer to a forthcoming private association standard which is being written by a membership which includes the very same manufacturers lobbying for a regulatory carveout to sell a lucrative product. Agencies must instead be required to consult with, and listen to, financially-disinterested experts and obtain meaningful data on the new proposal before giving it the greenlight. In other words, agencies like the CPSC should conduct the same type of “investigation” the CPSC is apparently only now doing when deciding whether to take inclined sleepers off the market.   

Finally, much like judges are required to avoid even the appearance of partiality towards litigants appearing before them, regulators should avoid even the appearance of partiality towards the private industry actors they regulate. To achieve this result, agency officials must be subject to some type of long-term restriction on private-sector employment in the field they oversaw. They must also be subject to permanent bans against serving as expert witnesses in litigation involving products they allowed to enter the market.   

Conclusion

The Rock ‘n Play recall highlights fundamental, systematic concerns with our nation’s approach to consumer product safety. Thirty-two dead babies should be a powerful wakeup call. It’s time to stop hitting the snooze button and finally confront the deadly, longstanding problem of agency capture.

[1] CPSC, Fisher Price Recalls Rock ‘n Play Sleepers Due to Reports of Death, available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2019/fisher-price-recalls-rock-n-play-sleepers-due-to-reports-of-deaths (April 12, 2019) (last accessed May 13, 2019).

[2] Id.

[3] Tyko, Kelly, Consumer Reports and Doctors Urge Recall of Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play After 32 Babies Died, USA Today, available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/04/08/fisher-price-rock-n-play-consumer-reports-calls-immediate-recall/3402268002/ (April 8, 2019) (last accessed May 13, 2019) (includes a picture of a Fisher Price “Auto Rock ‘n Play Sleeper” package, with the description: “Inclined sleeper designed for all-night sleep.”)

[4] Hsu, Tiffany, Before Fisher-Price’s Rock ‘n Play  Recall, Safety Fears and Dubious Marketing, New York Times, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/business/fisher-price-recall.html (April 19, 2019) (last accessed May 13, 2019).

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Peachman, Rachel Rabkin, Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play Sleeper Should be Recalled, Consumer Reports Says, Consumer Reports, available at https://www.consumerreports.org/recalls/fisher-price-rock-n-play-sleeper-should-be-recalled-consumer-reports-says/ (April 26, 2019) (last accessed May 13, 2019).

[8] Id.; NICHD, Explore the Campaign, available at https://safetosleep.nichd.nih.gov/activities/campaign (last accessed May 13, 2019).

[9] AAP, Many Infants Still Not Placed on Their Backs to Sleep, available at https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/Many-Infants-Still-Not-Placed-on-Their-Backs-to-Sleep-.aspx (May 3, 2014) (last accessed May 13, 2019).

[10] AAP Policy Statement, The Changing Concept of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: Diagnostic Coding Shifts, Controversies Regarding the Sleeping Environment, and New Variables to Consider in Reducing Risk, available at https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/116/5/1245.full.pdf (2005) (last accessed May 13, 2019). 

[11] AAP Policy Statement, SIDS and Other Sleep-Related Infant Deaths: Expansion of Recommendations for a Safe Infant Sleeping Environment, available at https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/128/5/1030.full.pdf (2012) (last accessed May 13, 2019). 

[12] AAP Urges U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to Recall Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play Sleeper, available at https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/AAP-Urges-U-S-Consumer-Product-Safety-Commission-to-Recall-Fisher-Price-Rock-n-Play-Sleeper.aspx (April 9, 2019) (last accessed May 13, 2019).

[13] Id.

[14] Dr. Burgert, Dear Fisher-Price . . ., available at https://www.kckidsdoc.com/kc-kids-doc/dear-fisher-price (first published 2012) (last accessed May 15, 2019).

[15] Dr. Benaroch, The Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play Sleeper is NOT for Sleeping, available at https://pediatricinsider.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/the-fisher-price-rock-n-play-sleeper-is-not-for-sleeping/ (2013) (last accessed May 15, 2019).

[16] Id.

[17] Safety Research and Strategies, Who Does the CPSC Protect?, available at http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/who-does-cpsc-protect (May 15, 2019) (last accessed May 15, 2019).

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Deaths Prompt CPSC, FDA Warning on Infant Sleep Positioners, available at https://www.cpsc.gov/content/deaths-prompt-cpsc-fda-warning-on-infant-sleep-positioners (Sep. 29, 2010) (last accessed May 14, 2019).

[21] Id.

[22] CPSC, Full-Size Cribs, available at https://www.cpsc.gov/Regulations-Laws–Standards/Rulemaking/Final-and-Proposed-Rules/Full-Size-Cribs/ (last accessed May 14, 2019).

[23] Peachman, Rachel Rabkin, Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play Sleeper Should be Recalled, Consumer Reports Says, Consumer Reports, available at https://www.consumerreports.org/recalls/fisher-price-rock-n-play-sleeper-should-be-recalled-consumer-reports-says/ (April 26, 2019) (last accessed May 14, 2019).

[24] 75 .F.R 22303, 22307 (April 28, 2010)

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] July 7, 2010 Letter from Dr. Judith S. Palfrey (President of the AAP) to The Chairman of the CPSC, available at https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=50&so=DESC&sb=postedDate&po=0&dct=PS&D=CPSC-2010-0028.

[28] July 12, 2010 Letter from Kitty Pilarz, Senior Director, Mattel Product Safety to the Chairman of the CPSC, available at https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=50&so=DESC&sb=postedDate&po=0&dct=PS&D=CPSC-2010-0028.

[29] Id.

[30] Id.

[31] Id.

[32] 16 C.F.R. § 1218.2 (“A sleep product that only has inclined sleeping surfaces (intended to be greater than 10° from horizontal while in the rest (non-rocking) position) does not fall under the scope of this standard.”); see also 78 FR 63019-01 (“An inclined product intended for sleeping would fall under the inclined sleep product standard currently under development by ASTM. The Commission’s intent is that the scope of the bassinet standard exclude all inclined products when the incline is more than 10 degrees from horizontal.”).

[33] Id.

[34] Id.

[35] ASTM, New ASTM Standard Addressed Increased Use of Infant Inclined Sleep Products, available at https://www.astm.org/cms/drupal-7.51/newsroom/new-astm-standard-addresses-increased-use-infant-inclined-sleep-products (May 26, 2015) (last accessed May 15, 2019).

[36] Id.

[37] Chaplick, Kathleen, News & Press: JPMA members and Partners in the News—ASTM Recognizes JPMA Member, available at https://www.jpma.org/news/286489/ASTM-Recognizes-JPMA-Member-.htm (April 26, 2016) (last accessed May 16, 2019).

[38] Safety Research and Strategies, Who Does the CPSC Protect?, available at http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/who-does-cpsc-protect (May 15, 2019) (last accessed May 15, 2019).

[39] CPSC Alert: CPSC and Fisher-Price Warn Consumer About Fisher-Price Rock ‘N Play  Due to Reports of Death When Infants Roll Over in the Product, available at https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2019/CPSC-ALERT-CPSC-and-Fisher-Price-Warn-Consumers-About-Fisher-Price-Rock-N-Play-Due-to-Reports-of-Death-When-Infants-Roll-Over-in-the-Product (April 5, 2019) (last accessed May 14, 2019).

[40] Id.

[41] Consumer Reports: Fisher-Price Must Recall the Rock ‘n Play Sleeper Immediately, available at https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/press_release/consumer-reports-fisher-price-must-recall-the-rock-n-play-sleeper-immediately/ (April 8, 2019) (last accessed May 14, 2019).

[42] Id.

[43] Fisher-Price Recalls Rock ‘n Play Sleepers Due to Reports of Deaths, CPSC, available at https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2019/fisher-price-recalls-rock-n-play-sleepers-due-to-reports-of-deaths (April 12, 2019) (last accessed May 14, 2019).

[44] Id.

[45] Fisher-Price, Child Safety Is Our Priority, available at https://fisher-pricesafety.com/ (last accessed May 15, 2019).

[46] Peachman, Rachel Rabkin, What is the Future of the Inclined Sleeper?, Consumer Reports, last accessed https://www.consumerreports.org/product-safety/what-is-the-future-of-inclined-sleeper/ (May 8, 2019) (last accessed May 15, 2019).

[47] Id.

[48] Safety Research and Strategies, Who Does the CPSC Protect?, available at http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/who-does-cpsc-protect (May 15, 2019) (last accessed May 15, 2019).

[49] Id.

[50] Id.

[51] Id.

[52] Inez Moore Tenanbaum bio, CPSC, available at https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC/Chairman/Tenenbaum-Biography (last accessed May 16, 2019).

[53] Inez Tenenabaum bio, see https://wyche.com/what/attorneys/lawyer/inez-tenenbaum/ (last accessed May 15, 2019).

[54] Inez Moore Tenanbaum bio, CPSC, available at https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC/Chairman/Tenenbaum-Biography (last accessed May 16, 2019).

[55] Id.

[56] Id.

x
OVER $500,000,000 recovered
Newsome Melton has recovered over half a billion dollars for their clients.
Product Liability Lawyer - Newsome Melton

Please do not navigate away from this page until you receive a success notification.
Product Liability Lawyer - Newsome Melton