Product Liability Lawyer Blog

January 5, 2014

Plaintiffs Seek Creation of Seventh MDL For Vaginal Mesh Complications

Throughout the federal court system in the United States, there are currently more than 35,000 lawsuits pending related to complications associated with transvaginal mesh products. Transvaginal mesh, or TVM, was marketed as an alternative to traditional surgical procedures to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Unfortunately, thousands of women who had vaginal mesh surgically implanted began to experience erosion of the mesh, resulting in significant pain and serious complications, including perforation of the pelvic organs and recurrent POP.

Women who have experienced these side effects have filed lawsuits against vaginal mesh manufacturers seeking compensation for the tremendous losses they have faced. Those harmed by defective medical devices should be compensated for any medical costs that they incur to treat their injuries, such as surgical removal of the mesh. Individuals harmed by TVM products are also entitled to compensation for lost income, pain and suffering and emotional distress associated with injuries caused by the defective mesh products. Taking legal action to recover compensation for these losses is necessary, and the more than 35,000 lawsuits show that many women are exercising their legal rights.

When so many cases are filed by injured victims, Boston transvaginal mesh lawyers know that the formation of multi-district litigations is a common and effective way to resolve patient complaints. There are currently six MDLs pending and a group of plaintiffs is now calling for the creating of a seventh.
Continue reading

January 1, 2014

Stem Cell Research Reduces Need for Knee Replacement Devices

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Americans routinely suffer from cartilage damage, either from a single injury or because of age, requiring them to turn to dangerous alternatives, including Stryker knee replacements. Knee implants manufactured by Stryker have been linked to serious injury caused by the dangerous medical implants.

According to reports, researchers at UCLA have published the first study to track origin cells and the early development of articular cartilage. The research has led to a kind of “roadmap” for new treatments and therapies to repair cartilage damage caused by osteoarthritis. Advocates for the new therapy claim it can repair cartilage damage so that patients do not have to turn to dangerous medical devices, including Stryker products. Our Stryker hip attorneys are experienced in protecting victims and preventing future injuries. We are experienced in cases involving defective medical devices and can effectively protect your rights if you or someone you love has suffered medical malpractice as a result of a defective medical device.

Stryker has been the subject of litigation for injuries called by the defective knee replacements. In April 2013, a recall of the product was issued to prevent additional injuries caused by poorly-fitting, loose knee implants. The Stryker knee system is a brand developed by Stryker Orthopedics and approved by the FDA in 2005. Older models of knee implants used a single hinge, where the newer Stryker implant model pivoted to maintain a single radius design.
Continue reading

December 31, 2013

Tips for Determining If You Have a Topamax Claim

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Johnson & Johnson pharmaceuticals has been in the news recently, as the company’s subsidiaries have resolved pending claims against them… and not in the company’s favor. One subsidiary, Ethicon, may pay as much as $4 billion in damages to settle lawsuits from defective hip implants. Another, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, has had two multi-million jury verdicts against the company based on Topamax birth defects, and will be required to provide compensation of around $11 million to one family and just over $4 million to another.

For those who were taking Topamax during pregnancy and whose child was born with a birth injury such as a cleft palate, a heart or lung defect, a penile defect called hypospadias, malformed limbs or spina bifida, it is important to have claims evaluated to determine if you too have a legal right to damages. Our personal injury lawyers in Massachusetts can conduct case evaluations for families who may be affected by Topamax.
Continue reading

December 26, 2013

Transvaginal Mesh Injuries Tracked by FDA Since 2005

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

As a patient, you trust that your doctor is well-informed of medical advancements, including developments and products that could be dangerous to your health. Patients who have been a victim of transvaginal mesh injuries may be surprised to discover that doctors were informed of the dangers in 2008. According to a public health notification published in 2008, there are serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mess to repair pelvic organ prolapse and to treat urinary incontinence.

In an FDA warning issued on October 20, 2008, physicians were warned that complications associated with transvaginal mesh can have adverse effects and serious health consequences. Despite this initial warning and continued reports of injuries, the product has still not been recalled. Our medical malpractice attorneys in Massachusetts continue to advocate for the victims of Transvaginal Mesh injuries. We are dedicated to keeping our clients, the medical community, and patients aware of the dangerous of medical devices to protect future injuries.
Continue reading

December 24, 2013

Topamax Birth Defect Lawsuits and Cleft Palate Treatment Costs

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The anti-seizure medication Topamax is one of the top selling medications in its class, and by 2008, had U.S. sales in excess of $10 billion. The medication, however, may be very dangerous for pregnant women and infants. Medical studies have shown that the risk of a child being born with a cleft palette increases drastically if a baby is exposed to Topamax in the womb during fetal development. The FDA also recognizes the link between Topamax and birth defects and, on March 4, 2011, informed the public of data showing that Topamax was linked to cleft palates.

topamax plaintiff lawyers know that a cleft palate can have serious implications for a child. A cleft palate occurs when the baby’s natural body structures do not fuse correctly during gestation, resulting in a fissure or opening in the lip and palate. Children with a cleft palate can experience speech difficulties; hearing loss; dental problems; nasal problems and difficulty feeding. Multiple surgeries are often required to correct the cleft, which can be very costly. As a parent of a child with a cleft palate, it is important to take action to get money for cleft palate treatment. Many parents already have, and hundreds of Topamax lawsuits are pending.
Continue reading

December 22, 2013

FDA Expands Control Over Compounding Pharmacies

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

In previous posts, we have discussed the dangerous nature of compounding pharmacies, including the lack of federal regulation, the risk of counterfeit, and the general threat to consumers in Massachusetts and nationwide. Last year a meningitis outbreak and other events involving compounded drugs lead to serious infection and in many cases resulted in death. Since the outbreak, Congress has been working to pass comprehensive legislation to give authority to the FDA to properly regulate compounded drugs. According to an official statement from the FDA, a new law may help to properly regulate the industry and keep consumers safe.

The risk of dangerous or defective drugs produced by compounding pharmacies is significant. Our Boston injury attorneys are dedicated to protecting the rights of individual clients as well as consumers nationwide. We will take necessary action against compounding pharmacies and are committed to staying abreast of legal developments that may have a positive impact on the health of our nation. The Drug Quality and Security Act is a positive step in this direction.
Continue reading

December 19, 2013

Families Affected by Topamax Birth Defects Awarded Millions in Damages

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Topamax and a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, is facing more than 134 pending cases in a single court, as well as other claims nationwide, because of birth defects linked to the anti-seizure medication.

The company has had bad news in recent weeks as two claims that were brought to trial resulted in multi-million dollar jury verdicts for the plaintiff. The verdicts provide hope for plaintiffs with pending claims, but likely make Janssen Pharmaceuticals very nervous about the extent of liability that the company faces.

Our Topamax attorneys in Boston know that the FDA has warned of the increased risk of an oral cleft palate in infants whose mothers take Topamax during pregnancy. The outcomes of the recent claims against Janssen Pharmaceuticals suggest that juries recognize the link between and expectant mother’s dosage and facial defects in newborn infants land seek to provide sufficient compensation for families to cover medical costs and other losses caused by the dangerous drug.
Continue reading

December 13, 2013

Topamax Lawsuit Ends in $11 Million Verdict for the Plaintiff

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

A woman whose infant was born with facial deformations has successfully sued the maker of an anti-seizure drug she was prescribed while pregnant.

The case, Gurley v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceutical is part of a larger mass tort action in the Philadelphia district courts against the makers of Topamax, a drug used to treat epilepsy and migraines. The master case is In re Topamax Litigation.

The bellwether cases here involved a stay-at-home mother who was prescribed the drug Topamax for treatment of epilepsy. She continued to take the drug through her pregnancy, as she had been told by doctors was safe. However, what she didn’t know was that the manufacturer, Janssen Pharmeceuticals, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, had long known that the drug caused serious birth defects. The plaintiffs would later argue that this was information that Janssen intentionally kept from both doctors and patients.
Continue reading

December 10, 2013

Transvaginal Mesh Defendant Accused of Destroying Evidence

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Bloomberg news service reports that court documents filed recently In Re Ethicon Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, a U.S. District Court Case in the Southern District of West Virginia, allege that a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary destroyed or misplaced documents related to its vaginal mesh implants.

As a result, transvaginal mesh plaintiff attorneys are requesting that the the subsidiary, Ethicon, be barred from launching certain types of defenses in a series of upcoming trials.

If you aren’t familiar, Ethicon was responsible for the manufacture of a type of implant known as the Gynecare Prolift. It was one of the four types of mesh products, used to treat urinary incontinence, that Johnson & Johnson decided to stop selling back in June of 2012. That decision came after two large groups of lawsuits were filed by women who claimed that implantation of the devices had caused them serious injury.
Continue reading

December 5, 2013

Atwell v. Boston Scientific Corp. Addresses Jurisdiction in Large Transvaginal Mesh Claims

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

For anyone involved in a civil lawsuit, the question of whether the case should be removed from state to federal court is an important one.

Technically, both parties should be able to expect a fair legal proceeding no matter the venue in which the case is heard. However, civil case defendants in large tort actions, such as transvaginal mesh claims, tend to view a federal court venue as a strategic advantage. They will often fight very hard to have a case removed from state court to federal court if there is an opportunity to do so.

When transvaginal mesh claims are filed as a class action or a mass action, it can improve the defendant’s odds of having the case removed to federal court, per the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The law expanded the criteria under which such claims must be removed to federal court.
Continue reading