Product Liability Lawyer Blog

May 31, 2014

Morcellator Use Can Boost Cancer Risks

Uterine fibroids are very common during a woman’s childbearing years, with as many as three out of four women developing fibroids at some point in their lives. Fibroids are often asymptomatic and are benign and almost never develop into cancer. They form from the smooth muscular tissue of the uterus, and they range from tiny seedlings to bulky masses that can cause the uterus to become enlarged. Fibroids are often removed surgically and, for many women, a power morcellator is used to grind down tissue in order to make it possible to remove the fibroids through a very small incision.

Unfortunately, some women who are diagnosed with fibroids actually have an undiagnosed uterine sarcoma within the allegedly-benign growths. When a morcellator is used, it can significantly worsen the patient’s chance of survival if it turns out that she has an undiagnosed uterine sarcoma. Because of these risks, the Food and Drug Administration issued an advisory recently warning against the use of this medical device. Unfortunately, many women already had a procedure using a morcellator and their cancer risk was made much worse as a result. Those who are affected should contact a medical malpractice lawyer for help taking legal action.
Continue reading

May 28, 2014

Boston Lipitor Attorneys Admitted to MDL

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

On February 18, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled that all pending federal Lipitor lawsuits should be consolidated into a multidistrict litigation.

The Boston defective drug lawyers at Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers LLC have filed a Lipitor case for a victim affected by this dangerous drug and our firm has been admitted to the MDL. If you or a loved one took Lipitor and developed Type 2 diabetes or other complications, call to schedule your free consultation to learn how we can help.

Multidistrict litigation (MDL) makes it possible for one judge to hear many similar cases arising from a defective product or dangerous drug. While all individual plaintiffs retain their independent claims, pre-trial motions and decisions affecting all claims can be ruled on just once by the judge who has been assigned to the case. The cases have been consolidated in South Carolina and are being presided over by U.S. District Jude Richard M. Gergel.
Continue reading

May 25, 2014

Older Stryker Pain Pump Lawsuit Will Not Proceed, Eighth Circuit Rules

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has effectively dismissed plaintiff efforts to seek damages against a medical pain pump device implanted post-surgery, finding there was no way at the time of the procedure the manufacturer could have recognized the device’s potential risk.

The case of Mack, et al. v. Stryker Corp., et al. focused on a 2002 surgery.

Boston product liability lawyers know, while this decision may impact some similarly-situated cases that date back that far, newer cases should still have strong standing. The primary issue in this case was what the company knew or should have known regarding the risks at the time the device was implanted in this particular patient. The district court ruled – and the Eighth Circuit affirmed – that such collective knowledge of any long-lasting, detrimental consequences was limited. Literature from the medical community at-large did not indicate any significant problems.
Continue reading

May 21, 2014

Teague, et al v. Johnson & Johnson, et al – TVM Defendant Motion to Transfer Mass Tort Back to Federal Court Denied

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Defendants in a mass tort involving some 702 women claiming harm from transvaginal mesh medical devices were denied a request to have the case moved back to federal court, where they perceive an advantage.

In theory, Boston transvaginal mesh lawyers know that both sides should be able to receive a fair trial regardless of the court in which the case is heard. However, some federal courts have accepted defenses and rulings that are somewhat more favorable to corporate interests. This is why defendants aggressively pursue the option whenever possible.

Here, in Teague, et al v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., they were unsuccessful, at least as far as 650 plaintiff cases were concerned.
Continue reading

May 15, 2014

Consumer Group Seeks Investigation into “Reckless” Johnson & Johnson

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

A nonprofit consumer advocacy group has requested that the U.S. Senate launch an investigation into Johnson & Johnson. The group alleges a pattern of “reckless” conduct. The same consumer group, the Corporate Action Network, has also urged the Department of Justice to look into whether Johnson & Johnson knowingly destroyed documents related to more than 12,000 pending lawsuits brought by women impacted by dangerous vaginal mesh products.

Boston vaginal mesh lawyers know that lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson related to mesh products have largely resulted in plaintiffs obtaining compensation for losses. Juries are clearly finding in many cases that the company acted wrongfully, and that these actions had real consequences for patients affected by the bad products that Johnson & Johnson sold to the public.
Continue reading

May 14, 2014

Has AMS Put Aside Enough to Resolve TVM Cases?

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Bellwether cases in transvaginal mesh litigation are moving forward against American Medical Systems (AMS). A December 12, 2013 pretrial order set the first of four bellwether cases, Serrano v. AMS to start April 7, 2014. The company is currently facing as many as 16,534 lawsuits that have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in West Virginia. Additional state law claims are also pending against the company, brought by women experiencing serious problems with vaginal mesh products manufactured by AMS.

AMS has put aside millions of dollars to try to resolve the pending vaginal mesh litigation, but it remains to be seen whether the company’s costs will be greater than expected. Victims affected by dangerous AMS products can pursue a claim for compensation with the help of a Boston transvaginal mesh lawyer.
Continue reading

May 13, 2014

Covidien Vaginal Mesh Litigation

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Covidien is a spinoff of Tyco Healthcare that dates back to 2007. Covidien, like many medical devices manufacturers, has produced and sold transvaginal mesh products to women as a method of treating stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Covidien products including the IVS Tunneller, the Duo, Surgipro Mesh, Parietene Mesh and Pelvicol mesh implants.

Unfortunately, the Covidien vaginal mesh products are no safer than those made by other major manufacturers including C.R. Bard, Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific and American Medical Systems. As such, Covidien is facing lawsuits from women experiencing complications, and these claims have become part of centralized multidistrict litigation (MDL). Victims who had a Covidien product implanted should speak with a Boston transvaginal mesh lawyer about how they can pursue legal action to obtain compensation with losses.
Continue reading

May 12, 2014

Stryker Prepares for Thousands of Pending Cases

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Stryker has set aside $133 million in order to defend or settle cases arising from defective hip implant products. Problem products include the Stryker Rejuvenate and the Stryker ABG II. Both products contain metal components, although they are not traditional metal-on-metal hip implant systems.

Unlike most hip replacement products, which have a metal acetabular cup and a metal femoral head, Stryker products have four parts including a femoral stem, metal neck, ball and cup. This creative design does not make Stryker products any safer than other metal-on-metal devices and Stryker faces accusations that the company is responsible for serious damage that patients experienced after hip replacement procedures. Victims affected by Stryker products can pursue their own claim for compensation and should speak with a defective hip implant lawyer in Massachusetts for legal help.
Continue reading

May 11, 2014

C.R. Bard’s Long History With Vaginal Mesh Litigation

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

C.R. Bard has the distinction of having lost the first vaginal mesh implant case that a jury decided in the United States. The company is one of several major manufacturers with thousands of pending lawsuits claiming that design defects in transvaginal mesh products are responsible for causing serious injuries and complications for women.

Women with C.R. Bard vaginal mesh products should consult with a transvaginal mesh trial attorney for assistance in taking legal action and pursuing a damage claim. C.R. Bard’s pattern of losing cases has continued mostly unabated from the first major claim against the company and it seems clear that juries are generally finding that the company should bear the blame when women experience harm due to vaginal mesh.
Continue reading

May 9, 2014

DePuy & Wright Medical Have Similar Products & Similar Failure Rates

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

DePuy is one of the leading manufacturers of hip replacement devices, but unfortunately is also the manufacturer with the highest failure rates. DePuy products including the Pinnacle Hip Replacement System and the ASR XL System were both designed for younger people undergoing hip replacements and were both made of all metal-components.

Wright Medical, which controls around two percent of the market for knee and hip resurfacing devices in the U.S., also made a metal-on-metal product that was very similar to the DePuy ASR. The Wright Medical product was called the Conserve Plus, and was part of a larger line of Conserve metal-on-metal hip implants.

Both Wright Medical and DePuy are facing thousands of lawsuits related to these metal-on-metal devices. Patients who had a hip implant and who are now experiencing problems should consult with a defective hip implant lawyer help pursuing a damage claim.
Continue reading