Our Blog

Triaminic and Theraflu Products Recalled Due to Failure to Meet Child-Resistant Closure Requirement; Risk of Poisoning

February 4, 2013

As a Western New York injury attorney I unfortunately have to deal with inquires to children. Although child safety should be the most important factor in any product, sometimes manufacturers fail at that goal. On January 31, 2013 The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a recall of Triaminic and Theraflu Products as the child proof cap can fail posing a risk of poisoning to children. The commission reported that these products contain acetaminophen and diphenhydramine which are required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act to be sealed with child-resistant packaging.

A complete list of products, lot numbers and National Drug Codes (NDC) can be found at www.novartisOTC.com. Lot numbers are located on the bottom panel of the box and on the left side of the label on the bottle. The NDC number is located on the upper right corner of the front panel of the Triaminic Syrups box and the upper left corner of the Theraflu Warming Relief Syrups bottle.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and contact Novartis for instructions on how to return the product for a full refund.

Request Your Free Consultation

Get the answers and support you need. Our friendly and experienced Buffalo personal injury lawyers will take the time to understand your case, explain your options, and guide you every step of the way.

Our Practice Areas

Read More Articles

Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Amusement Park Must Keep Patrons Safe

As an attorney who has handled many amusement park injury cases against parks like Six Flags and others, I am concerned when employees continue to fail to keep their patrons safe. An employee of the park knows the ride better than the customers and it is that persons

Read Blog
Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Fall Was The Result Of Elevated Related Risk

In, NICOMETI v. THE VINEYARDS OF FREDONIA, LLC (June 2013) the Fourth Department held that contrary to the contention of defendants, the Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiff’s fall was the result of an elevation-related risk for which Labor Law § 240 (1) provides protection.

Read Blog
Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Sovereign Immunity Grounds Do Not Always Apply

In Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving v. Lewiston Golf Course Corporation, (4th Dept. 2013) the court held that “The central question on this appeal is whether defendant Lewiston Golf Course Corporation (LGCC), a corporation formed under the laws of the Seneca Nation of Indians (Nation or SNI), is protected

Read Blog