Corso Law Group Reviews Tell The Story of Dedicated Arizona Attorneys Fighting for Their Clients

Scottsdale, Ariz. – The experienced lawyers at Corso Law Group work hard every day to represent their clients in the courtroom and with sensitive legal matters.

“They truly care and are here to help you no matter what your case is,” said Shawn from Glendale, California. “There is no need to look anywhere else.”

There are many Corso Law Group reviews that echo these statements. Founding partner Christopher Corso said his firm won’t rest until each case receives the personal attention it deserves and he attributes the many positive Corso Law Group reviews that he receives each week as proof that his firm is looking out for its clients.

“I’m constantly receiving Corso Law Group reviews in my inbox,” he said. “It makes us proud that we are able to help so many people on a daily basis and see the results of those efforts help people make their lives better for them and their families.”

Another Corso Law Group review echoed this statement.

“By far the best decision I ever made for me and my family,” said Mike of Peoria, Arizona. “I never knew a law firm could care the way they do. I could never imagine using anyone else.”

Said Sandra of Peoria, Arizona: “They work hard at what they do. My attorney sat with me for over an hour – no consultation fee at all.”

The experienced attorneys at Corso Law Group handle all types of Arizona family law cases, including Arizona divorce issues such as child custody, child support, alimony disputes, divorce mediation, spousal support issues and visitation rights.

They also are experts in criminal law, handling all criminal defense cases, including DUI defense, domestic violence defense, possession of drugs, felony drug charges, photo radar, criminal speeding, disorderly conduct and marijuana possession.

The experienced attorneys at Corso Law Group serve clients throughout Arizona, including the cities of Ahwatukee, Avondale, Buckeye, Chandler, El Mirage, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Sun City, Surprise, Tempe, Tolleson and Youngtown.

To schedule a free consultation, please visit www.corsolawgroup.com or call (480) 471-4616. Corso Law Group, PLLC is located at 14500 N. Northsight Blvd., Suite 116 in Scottsdale, Arizona, 85260.

Spousal Support in an Arizona Divorce Takes Experience, Says Divorce Attorneys at Family Law Firm Corso Law Group

Scottsdale, Ariz. – Understanding the scope of alimony or spousal support is important when it comes to the divorce process, according to the experienced Arizona family law attorneys at Corso Law Group, who know that having an attorney well-versed in family law is essential in any Arizona divorce case.

In Arizona, alimony is often referred to as spousal support and spousal maintenance. Spousal support is an area of family law which uses complex calculations to determine need (if any), the amount to be paid and the duration of support to either spouse.

“The question of spousal support is often one of the most difficult issues people face when they are involved in divorce or legal separation proceedings,” said Christopher P. Corso, founding partner of Corso Law Group. “It’s important to arm yourself with a divorce lawyer who will fight for your rights.”

Spousal support is the amount of money one spouse pays to the other spouse to support them – usually for a determined length of time. Spousal support is intended to assist a spouse in meeting his or her reasonable needs when those needs cannot be met through employment or property.

When seeking spousal support, the family law attorneys at Corso Law Group are available to put their experience to work to ensure their clients’ interests are represented in court.

“Spousal support may be awarded to a husband or wife in Arizona for any of a number of reasons,” Corso said. “The amount and duration of support is usually determined by the court and is assessed on a case-by-case basis, which makes having an experienced lawyer on your side very important.”

There are several factors considered when determining the amount of spousal support to award:

– The ability of the spouse to provide for his or her reasonable needs through employment or property.

– The age or condition of children for whom the spouse is the caregiver.

– The length of time needed to re-educate for the workforce.

– The duration of the marriage.

– The standard of living during the marriage.

– The age of the spouse and his or her ability to become gainfully employed due to age.

Regardless of the situation, the family law attorneys at Corso Law Group pride themselves on being both professional and caring advocates for their clients. They recognize the importance of not only professional representation, but also the need for compassion and understanding with their clients, stressing honesty and communication throughout the process.

“As a rule, we stress both a personal touch with all of our clients and a commitment to delivering the fairest results,” Corso said. “Our approach to practicing law begins and ends with making sure each and every client receives the most professional representation possible.”

In addition to spousal support cases, the experienced attorneys at Corso Law Group handle all types of Arizona family law cases, including Arizona divorce issues such as child custody, child support, alimony disputes, divorce mediation, hidden asset issues and visitation rights.

The experienced family law attorneys at Corso Law Group serve clients throughout Arizona, including the cities of Ahwatukee, Avondale, Buckeye, Chandler, El Mirage, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Sun City, Surprise, Tempe, Tolleson and Youngtown.

To schedule a free consultation, please visit www.corsolawgroup.com or call (480) 471-4616. Corso Law Group, PLLC is located at 14500 N. Northsight Blvd., Suite 116 in Scottsdale, Arizona, 85260.

What Does Record New Hampshire Design Defect Judgment Mean for Personal Injury Lawyers?

Shoulder pain for a New Hampshire woman almost a decade ago has resulted in her being awarded the single largest damages amount in New Hampshire history, raising the stakes for product liability cases across the country and raising questions about whether the $26 million compensatory damages award and the case attached to it is headed for the United States Supreme Court.

Karen Bartlett’s record 2009 damages award was upheld this May after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reaffirmed the decision that the woman’s injuries had been a direct result of design defect claims caused by the use of a generic substitute for the drug Clinoril.

Philadelphia-based Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., manufactured the generic drug Suldinac and marketed it in the state of New Hampshire, thereby making the state’s design defect law applicable.

According to Bartlett and her legal counsel, the generic equivalent for Clinoril caused toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) and Stevens John Syndrome (SJS), which caused the top layer of Bartlett’s skin to detach from lower layers of skin. Bartlett reported suffering the external burns over 60 percent of her body. She also suffered damage to her mucus membranes.

The end result for Bartlett was months in the hospital where, according to news reports, she was placed in a medically-induced coma. Bartlett’s injuries included damaged lungs, a difficulty breathing, inability to eat and an almost complete loss of her sight. Not surprisingly, the New Hampshire woman’s injuries have also kept her from working.

Examining the Design Defect Case

According to federal law, generic drug manufacturers must essentially duplicate the design of the brand name drug the company is copying. Because the brand name drug, in this case Clinoril, had been approved and had met requirements set by regulatory officials, the generic equivalent should have been just that – an equivalent of the the brand name drug.

In Bartlett’s case, the generic drug, Sulidinac, resulted in her injuries. Bartlett’s attorneys proceeded with the case based on a New Hampshire law that states a finding of product liability against the manufacturer if a drug is considered defective. Defective drugs can be classified as such if the risks outweigh the benefits to the user.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reaffirmed the decision that awarded Bartlett the record sum. The court concluded that the case Wyeth v. Levine was applicable in Bartlett’s case. The Wyeth v. Levine decision held that pharmaceutical manufacturers of brand name drugs could be held liable for failing to provide sufficient warnings to consumers.

Given the known side effects, the First Circuit ruled that while Mutual Pharmaceutical could not alter the composition of Suldinac, the company could have chosen not to produce the drug.

Mutual Pharmaceutical had argued that design defect issues were immaterial given amendments to the Federal, Drug and Cosmetic Act after the 2011 Supreme Court decision in the case of PLVIA v. Mensing.

What Does the Design Defect Decision Mean?

Not surprisingly, Mutual Pharmaceutical is expected to appeal the decision, setting the stage for a possible review before the Supreme Court. At issue for many legal experts is that the judgment is at odds with previous product liability cases.

In upholding the judgment, the First Circuit pointed to the conflicting rulings in PLVIA v. Mensing and Wyeth v. Levine as evidence that the high court should clear up the discrepancy.

According to the Alliance for Justice, more than 75 percent of pharmaceutical drugs prescribed by physicians in the United States are generic equivalents of name brand drugs. These statistics, along with the introduction of legislation to allow generic drug manufacturers to revise labeling to reflect new side effects, will certain weigh in the Supreme Court’s decision whether or not to hear the case. While Bartlett’s injuries are permanent, only time will tell if her $26 million award will withstand Supreme Court scrutiny.