Product Liability Lawyer Blog

May 25, 2014

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

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

May 6, 2014

Spinal Implants Causing Paralysis, According to Recent Lawsuits

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Spinal implants, like those manufactured by Boston Scientific Corp., Medtronic and St. Jude Medical Inc., are geared toward helping patients cope with chronic back pain or nerve damage.

But a recent Wall Street Journal report reveals that in far too many cases, patients are emerging from the procedure unable to feel at all. Some suffer from partial paralysis. Others have reported experiencing progressive quadriparesis, which is a gradual weakening of each of the four limbs. Other patients report total paraplegia, and are now confined to a wheelchair.

Boston product liability attorneys know that while manufacturers are staunchly defending these devices, pointing to the fact that some 50,000 spinal implants are conducted annually, no one is eager to slow down and reevaluate the safety of a product that has become an increasingly lucrative aspect of these firms’ business.
Continue reading

May 3, 2014

How Boston Scientific Helped Start the Transvaginal Mesh Mess

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

By February 2013, the Food and Drug Administration had issued 95 post-market study orders to 34 manufacturers of vaginal mesh products designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse and another 13 post-market study orders to seven manufacturers of mini-slings. The FDA was prompted to issue these orders by thousands of women experiencing very serious complications from vaginal mesh.

Many of the women affected by mesh products have had to undergo multiple revision surgeries. Many have also begun to take legal action against major mesh manufacturers including Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon Division, American Medical Systems, and C.R. Bard. Lawsuits have largely resulted in verdicts or settlements for the plaintiffs, including an Atlantic City case awarding a vaginal mesh patient $11.1 million in damages from Johnson & Johnson as well as a West Virginia case in which the plaintiff received $2 million.
Continue reading