Published on:

This is the story about the Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Device, the patients harmed by the metal-on-metal artificial hip, the lawsuits that followed, and the massive Master Complaint filed last August against Smith & Nephew.

But First, How Do We Get to a “Master Complaint”?

Smith & Nephew lawsuits moved to MDL
This is how product liability multidistrict litigation begins: a product (like an artificial hip) hits the market. The artificial hip is implanted in thousands of patients. A year passes, then a few more. Patients complain of aches, pains, inflammation, noises, maybe even neurological symptoms. Doctors notify the manufacturer and their patients of these bad outcomes. Post-market studies are done. Problems are discovered with the product (in the case of metal-on-metal artificial hips, those problems included metallosis, loosening, pseudotumors, and many other “bad outcomes”). Injured people file lawsuits in courts around the country. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) eventually realizes it needs to designate one court to handle pretrial issues with the hundreds of cases being filed, so a multidistrict litigation (MDL) site is chosen, and the lawsuits are transferred to that MDL court. From there, the plaintiffs consolidate their efforts, and eventually a Master Complaint is carefully drafted and filed.

Published on:

Leukemia patient is prescribed drug Tasigna
If you have a specific type of leukemia—Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia, or Ph+ CML—you may have been prescribed the chemotherapy drug Tasigna (nilotinib). Tasigna offers promise for some patients and may even be associated with remission of their disease—but it’s not without risks.

What’s more alarming, the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, may have known about those risks and failed to disclose them to you. People who have been harmed or lost loved ones due to Tasigna have sued Novartis. Here’s what you need to know.

What Is Tasigna?

Published on:

Advocating for compensation for DePuy ASR plaintiffs
This is my pitch: People who had to undergo revision surgery because their DePuy ASR artificial hip failed should be compensated for their injuries, even if the revision surgery occurred beyond the ten-year anniversary date of the original implant surgery.

Let me admit the obvious: It’s a bit self-serving for me to argue this point. I am an attorney and I represent individuals injured by the failure of the DePuy ASR device. But I have read a lot about these cases, over many years, and the more I understand the science behind these metal-on-metal (MoM) hips (or the lack of science), I am more convinced that thousands of people have been unfairly injured, even if those injuries did not become obvious for several years. Even ten years.

The DePuy ASR Settlements

Published on:

Are you one of the almost 5 million Americans who have had total knee replacement or arthroplasty? This surgery is intended to resolve chronic knee pain, often due to rheumatoid arthritis, and restore mobility and quality of life. But sometimes, knee replacements go all wrong. One recent example is the Depuy Synthes Attune artificial knee.

The Attune Artificial Knee

The DePuy Synthes Attune artificial knee is marketed as an “innovative, comprehensive, integrated knee system” that provides stability, strength, and a greater range of motion post-surgery. This novel design was created to be a better approach to traditional knee replacements. But many people have experienced complete failure of their Attune knees shockingly soon after surgery.

Published on:

Earlier this month the judge in the most recent Xarelto trial voided a $27.8 million jury verdict. I wrote about that case here and here and here. On January 9, 2018, Judge Michael Erdos in Philadelphia state court held that the jury’s verdict on plaintiff’s inadequate warning claim was not supported by the evidence. Let’s take a look:

Treating Doctor’s (Very Unhelpful) Testimony

Xarelto-259x300One key issue in the case was whether Defendants Bayer AG, Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Johnson & Johnson failed to provide adequate warnings on the Xarelto label regarding the increased risk of internal bleeding. In an important study, bleeding rates for patients taking Xarelto in the United States were much higher than the bleeding rates of patients in other countries. This information was not added to the Xarelto label until September 2015. Plaintiff Lynn Hartman was prescribed and took Xarelto in 2013 and 2014.

Published on:

Surgeon implanting artificial hipIt’s nice to see that I may be out in front of a national publication like The New York Times. For two and a half years I have been writing on the dangers of metal-on-metal artificial hips and the deeply-flawed 510(k) medical device approval process. On Saturday Jeanne Lenzer published a very informative piece in the Times on the potential dangers of hip replacement surgery: Can Your Hip Replacement Kill You? Ms. Lenzer examines the way too many medical devices reach the marketplace without proper clinical testing. It is a subject I have written about often. Most people don’t realize how easy the FDA has made it for companies to release new medical products, but it is important to be aware of this weak regulatory system before you allow any surgeon to implant a device in your body. Federal courts across the country are littered with multidistrict litigation involving dozens of failed medical devices. In my view the 510(k) process is the reason for much of this litigation and misery. With proper testing and analysis, many of these serious injuries from dangerous products could be avoided.

One chilling statistic in the NYT article: medical interventions–including artificial hip and other medical implant surgeries–are the third leading cause of death in the United States.

By the way, Jeanne Lenzer recently published a book that you should read: The Danger Within Us: America’s Untested, Unregulated Medical Device Industry and One Man’s Battle to Survive It. I just bought a copy, have already begun reading it, and will discuss in a later post.

Published on:

Delaying Surgery Can Cost Money in Product Liability Case
In litigation, there are several harsh and punishing deadlines. The worst one is the statute of limitations (“SOL”).  The SOL is a statute in state or federal law that limits the time you are allowed to file a lawsuit. In North Carolina, for example, the SOL for bringing a personal injury claim against a person or company for negligence is three years. This means if a guy runs a red light and “T-bones” your car, causing you to break your leg, you have three years from the date of the car crash to file a lawsuit. This may seem like a reasonable amount of time; as the injured person you certainly have an obligation to pursue valid claims in a timely manner, but it can also lead to unintended and unfair results.

The SOL is just one unforgiving deadline that a person faces in the bumpy wagon ride of civil litigation. There are also discovery deadlines, deadlines to respond to motions, scheduling order deadlines, and others. One deadline may involve a settlement deadline. A settlement deadline is a date negotiated by both sides in a large-scale litigation requiring plaintiffs to take certain actions by a specific date or lose the right to participate in the settlement. In “mass tort” product liability cases, courts want to resolve hundreds or even thousands of cases as efficiently as possible. And settlement deadlines are a valuable tool in getting large numbers of plaintiffs to take quick action. Let’s look at one example:

The DePuy ASR Hip Settlement Deadlines

Published on:

Damages in a Lawsuit Involving Opioids
The opioid epidemic in America is a national crisis. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control recently reported that more than 64,000 people died in 2016 from drug overdoses, with the great majority of those deaths caused by opioids. The numbers for 2017 only look worse.

Last month, I wrote about whether people affected by the opioid epidemic can sue the drug manufacturers and distributors, doctors, pharmacies, and other suppliers who contributed to the addiction that destroyed their lives. But what can victims recover in lawsuits involving dangerously addictive prescription drugs?

You know all too well what you have lost—your financial security, your health, or perhaps even a loved one’s life. Now, let’s review the legal terms we use to discuss these losses.

Published on:

Testosterone Litigation
There have been two major developments in testosterone replacement therapy litigation in the past week. Last Thursday Eli Lilly & Co., the maker of the testosterone product Axiron, announced to Judge Matthew Kennelly in Illinois that an agreement had been reached to settle claims by people injured by Axiron testosterone. In the second development, the same judge tossed a jury verdict awarding $150,000,000.00 in punitive damages to a man who suffered a heart attack while taking Androgel testosterone.

Let’s take a quick look at both litigation developments:

Axiron Testosterone Global Settlement

Published on:

Invokana and Type 2 DiabetesInvokana is a drug prescribed to treat people with Type 2 diabetes. The medication lowers blood sugar levels by preventing the kidneys from reabsorbing blood glucose. I’ve written often about Invokana and the studies that have identified problems with the drug, which you can read about here. I thought it may be useful to give you a history of key dates in the life-cycle of the drug, from its market release through the latest developments in the multidistrict litigation, where currently 1,000 lawsuits have been filed.

May 31, 2012. On this date Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a drug company owned by Johnson & Johnson, submitted an application to the FDA for approval of Invokana.

March 29, 2013.  The FDA approves Invokana for sale. Janssen and J&J begin selling the drug.