Archive for the 'Product Liability' Category
July 11th, 2011 by Admin
De Puy Hip Implant Lawsuit
The next big famous class action lawsuit could well be the hip joint class action. The recalled hip replacement is the next big thing after the BP oil spill litigation and before that, the Toyota acceleration class action. De Puy and Johnson & Johnson are targets of the class action lawsuit involving metal-on-metal hip replacements that fail.
The hip joints fail at a higher rate than is acceptable in medical circles, causing patients severe pain and increased medical bills, as failed hip joints often have to be replaced by new surgery. Already 1,000 lawsuits have been filed in the United States alone. The hip joint class action revolves around the idea that Johnson & Johnson and their medical device unit, DePuy Orthopaedics, knew about potential problems with metal-on-metal hip joints. They allegedly knew about the problems before they stopped making the ASR model in 2009 and then recalled existing units in 201o.
Johnson & Johnson stands to lose $1 billion in liability and has therefore already started beefing up its liability reserves. The drug and medical device company is also setting aside millions of dollars to cover medical expenses of people with De Puy hip replacements and who suffered problems with the device.
May 17th, 2011 by Admin
Procter & Gamble, makers of popular diaper brand Pampers has been named in a Pampers Drymax lawsuit after several parents claimed the product caused diaper rash. The class action seeks reimbursement to parents who incurred medical expenses after their babies suffered diaper rash ostensibly from wearing Drymax diapers.
Procter and Gamble, also known as P&G, claims that Pampers Cruisers with Drymax technology are safe for babies. The Pampers Dry Max lawsuit, however, claims that Procter and Gamble should have known that their product caused diaper rash, chemical burns and more.
Dry Max technology was introduced to Pampers diapers this past March, with claims that since the diapers are thinner, they take up less space in landfills and therefore are better for the environment.
Procter and Gamble says it has sympathy for any parents with babies who suffer diaper rash, but on the same token says one in four babies suffer this condition, which can sometimes be serious.
The Pampers Dry Max lawsuit has prompted an investigation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and in a few months the results will be made public. It will also be a number of months before a judge will pass down a ruling on whether or not the Pampers Dry Max lawsuit will become a class action lawsuit.
February 20th, 2011 by Admin
The FDA has issued a Class I recall for an implantable infusion pump that had been associated with at least eight deaths since 1996. The Medtronic pump recall affects the SynchroMed II and SynchroMed EL units, sold for dissemination of pain medication and treatment for neurological disorders.
The problem with the Medtronic pumps is that in the action of refilling the device. If the doctor inserts the refill needle into the pump but doesn’t push it all the way in so that it hits the needle stop, problems occur. The needle can actually fill the medicine into pockets around the reservoir instead of into the reservoir. The pump refill error will cause the medicine to go into the subcutaneous layer of the patient’s skin. This can cause overdose.
The FDA issued the Medtronic pump recall as a Class I, meaning the most serious form of recall. These recalls involve serious injury or death, as stated above. The Medtronic pump recall was issued after such facts as a 1 in 10,000 problem with the drug refills, and the fact that eight people have died from this problem since 1996.
There already was a warning on the label of the SynchroMed II and SynchroMed EL models, but new labeling will include information about the FDA warning and its advice on patient management in case of a drug refill error. Medtronic has always included reminders on both the pump and the refill kit about being careful when refilling the pump. The FDA sent what’s called a correction letter, which is to designate that are ordering a product label correction, which in this case with the severity of outcome should a pump refill error occur, is a Class I recall.
Medtronic isn’t pulling the implant infusion pumps from the shelves, but rather relabeling them to warn doctors to be careful not to miss the proper target when using a needle to refill the pumps.
January 31st, 2011 by Admin
The Dow Corning class action settlement its entering the final stages as deadlines for claims come due. This past December 2010 was deadline for new breast implant lawsuit cases against the company who made silicone breast implants in the 1970s and 1980s. In a class action lawsuit that grabbed the public’s eye for years, one company went bankrupt, billions of dollars were handed out, and medical experts have given no less than two hundred different opinions on whether the silicone-filled breast implants of the 70s and 80s caused medical problems for women.
The settlement coast Dow Corning a bankruptcy, plus billions of dollars. The FDA forced Dow to withdraw silicone-filled implants from the market in 1992 after multiple cases of leakage occurred, and were widely publicized in the national media. The alarming leakage cases finally culminated in a breast implant class action, filed in 1998. That led to the Dow Corning class action settlement, whose deadline was December 15, 2010 for new cases.
In coincidental timing, Federal health officials announced last week that they are studying 60 cases of a rare cancer that may have been caused by breast implants. The cancer is very rare, so occurrence in 60 women with implants is significant and they are monitoring those cases closely. However, there is not enough evidence to withdraw implants from the market again, and it will take at least a decade for follow-through data and the study to be complete.
In the meantime, the FDA will work together with manufacturers of today’s breast implants, Allergan Inc. and Johnson & Johnson’s Mentor Corp., to put warnings on the labels of all implants. The group of women who got cancer had both silicone and saline-filled breast implants, so the warning will cover both types. Failure to put warnings on the implants at this stage could result in another round of the breast implant lawsuit environment that pervaded the 1990s.
The rare cancer that is now possibly linked to implants is anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Women with the cancer reported symptoms of pain and swelling around the area of surgery after implants. The cancer is rare and aggressive, so women should monitor their implants carefully for anything unusual and go to the doctor immediately if any symptoms arise. Treatment is chemotherapy, which hopefully leads to remission and high survival rates. In patients whose cancer comes back after chemotherapy, a bone marrow transplant is the next step. Survival rates for this type of cancer vary with different forms of the disease.
December 18th, 2010 by Admin
The De Puy artificial hip was designed to last 15 years and more. Recently, patients who had the hip implants put in just few years ago are showing up in emergency rooms nationwide, after the implants failed and caused major damage and or pain. The hip implant lawsuit has gained national attention outside medical circles, as the nation scrutinizes the FDA approval process that allowed the De Puy hip implants to slip through the cracks.
Major newspapers are picking up the story, where patients who received a De Puy hip implant as recently as one or two years ago, are suddenly faced with having to replace the practically new implant. At a surprising and high rate of around 13 percent failure rate, the De Puy hip implant type Articular Surface Replacement is now considered a bad product and has been recalled. As a result of this and requirements of new implants and medical costs, there are several large groups of people filing a hip implant lawsuit in just about every region of the country and some internationally as well.
Originally touted as the breakthrough product in hip implants, the ASR product made by De Puy was supposed to give the patient more natural movement and would last longer. Now, doctors are finding shredded parts inside patients’ hip area when they operate to replace the faulty implants. Large masses of dead tissue around the hip implant signify serious problems and severe pain for the patient. And each one wants retribution in a hip implant lawsuit.
The makers of the recalled hip implants are DePuy Orthopaedics, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. They are the largest makers of hip implants in the world. The hip implant lawsuits allege that doctors were already abandoning the ASR unit because of high rate of failure, but Johnson & Johnson continued to maintain that the ASR hip implant was fine.
October 21st, 2010 by Admin
The Quattro Tour Graco Stroller
Graco stollers and Graco stroller car seat combinations were recalled today, after injuries and even some deaths since 2003 were reported. The Graco stroller recall affects strollers manufactured before 2007. Many of these older strollers are still in use especially now with the poor economy with more parents buying used strollers. The risk is strangulation but bruises, breathing difficulty and cuts have also resulted from the strollers.
Graco is urging parents to stop using the strollers, but the Graco stroller recall is technically a repair kit which stroller owners can obtain for free. Four deaths and five instances of infants or toddlers becoming entrapped in the stroller have been linked to this particular model. The models included in the Graco stroller recall are the Quattro Tour and the MetroLite.
The danger is when left unharnessed, infants can get trapped if they crawl through the space between the seat and the tray. Four deaths were attributed to this between 2003 and 2005 A spokesperson for Graco said that at the time, there was no Graco stroller recall because when used properly, there should be no danger. That is, when the harness is used, there is no safety issue.
October 17th, 2010 by Admin
Diet Drug Lawsuits filed over False Advertising Claims
Diet drugs are regulated by the FDA if they are indeed drugs. However, diet supplements like Hydroxycut are not regulated by the FDA and are therefore more difficult to assign to class action lawsuits. There have been several diet drug lawsuits over the last decade, most notably Phen-Fen and recently Meridia.
This week, another diet drug lawsuit was given class action status: Relacore. The makers of Relacore, The Carter Reed Company, are named as defendants in a false advertising case which has been formulating in the lower courts for years before gaining class action status.
A New Jersey woman who took Relacore for four weeks claims to actually have gained weight on the diet pill. She claims false advertising in this diet drug lawsuit. Relacore’s makers claim that this diet drug attacks the cycle in the body which causes stress to produce belly fat. These claims are unproven and misleading, say the plaintiffs.
October 16th, 2010 by Admin
The Lawn Mower Lawsuit Settlement Covered Push and Rider Mowers
Recently the lawn mower lawsuit settlement was reached regarding units sold at Sears, Home Depot and other major retailers. Mowers sold between 1994 and 2001 with gas-powered engines under 30 hp are covered, and members of the lawnmower class action can file for their claims now.
The lawn mower class action alleged that certain units were misleadingly advertised regarding their horsepower. Consumers were apparently mislead when shopping for lawn mowers, and purchased units thinking they would be getting a certain power but in actuality was weaker than advertised. There were no safety issues involved in the lawn mower lawsuit settlement, however.
Both rider mowers and push mowers purchased between January 1, 1994 and April 12, 2001 are covered, and just about every model is included in the lawn mower class action lawsuit. Only mowers sold in the United States and Puerto Rico are part of the lawn mower lawsuit settlement, and to be eligible, members of the suit must have a manufacturer’s warranty for the mower as well.
Lawn mowers manufactured by Sears, Toro, Husqvarna, Deere, EHP, Honda and MTD are included in the lawsuit and settlelment. Engines manufactured by Kohler, Honda, Kawasaki, Tecumseh, Briggs & Stratton, and Toro are also covered. Even mowers not covered in this lawn mower lawsuit settlement may be covered in future suits, coming in the next couple of years.
Members of the lawnmower class action lawsuit will receive an extra year of extended warranty as part of the settlement. The other portion of the lawn mower lawsuit settlement is money: up to $35 for those who had purchased a push-style lawn mower, and up to $75 for a riding mower. The deadline for the cash benefit was August 31, 2010. The deadline for the warranty claim is June 22, 2011.
The lawn mower lawsuit settlement represents about $65 million for the defendants, in cash and the cost of the extended warranties.
October 6th, 2010 by Admin
BARD IVC Filter Lawsuits
BARD IVC filter lawsuits are forming after the medical device failed, fractured, or migrated within the body of patients who had received the implant. IVC filters are used in patients who are at risk of pulmonary embolism, or a blood clot that reaches the lungs. Usually, doctors will try anticoagulents but some patients cannot receive these, or they don’t work. The BARD IVC filter traps blood clots from the lower parts of the body before they reach the lungs. The filter is meant to be temporary, and is made so that doctors can remove the filter when the risk of pulmonary embolism is over.
The trouble alleged in Bard IVC filter lawsuits is that these devices fracture. In some cases they fail, and in others they move or migrate to places in the body where removal becomes difficult or dangerous. Splinters of the medical device travel through the bloodstream and can travel toward the heart or lungs or anywhere else and cause interior punctures. Migration can result in the filter becoming lodged in parts of the body where removal is dangerous.
The Bard IVC Recovery Filter was approved in 2002 and released by C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. onto the market in 2003. Just two years after, in 2005, the companies released the Bard G2 IVC filter. They did not recall the original filter after problems with fracturing and failure were reported but simply introduced the G2 which was less prone to fracturing. However, the second type was also prone to fracturing…12% as compared with the 25% of cases with the original filter.
Bard IVC filter lawsuits are based on cases reported by individuals with the filters and who have experienced problems. There is no class action yet.
October 3rd, 2010 by Admin
The Similac Recall Lawsuit Covers the Powdered Version
A Similace recall lawsuit was filed in Federal Court this week, after cans of the baby formula were found to be contaminated with beetles. The similac class action comes shortly after the voluntary Similac recall, which affects the powdered version of the baby formula that is sold worldwide and in the US. Plaintiff is Kathleen A. Bradner, who filed on behalf of herself and her child.
The Similac recall lawsuit claims that the makers of the baby formula, marketed their product deceptively, stating that it was safe when in fact it was not. The ingestion of formula contaminated with beetles may cause stomach discomfort and an unwillingness to eat but poses no health risks, according to the FDA. The Similac class action is seeking punituve, compensatory, and special damages. The lawsuit is also seeking to cover attorney fees, and refunds for people who bought the product named in the suit.
The liquid form of Similac baby formula was not affected by the recall, as it was not contaminated. About five million units of the powdered version were recalled after bugs were introduced into the supply at a Similac plant in Michigan.
Defendant in the Similac recall lawsuit is Abbott Laboratories, makers of Similac. The class action lawsuit is asking the company to stop representing Similac in a deceptive way. The class action lawsuit also alleges Abbott Laboratories failed to maintain quality standards. They are charged with negligence and breach of contract, among other charges.
