North Carolina Product Liability Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Your Settlement Funds

Important Ways You Can Jump Start Your Hernia Mesh Case

Published on: January 27, 2023 | By Clay Hodges

Clients approach their defective product cases in different ways. Some call me with an injury caused by a medical device and say, essentially, “figure it out.” I have no problem with a client taking this position. Others keep detailed notes and meticulous records and send me a package of documents that can be several inches thick. I never require a client to do this initial “leg work,” but it can often jump start a case against the device manufacturer. If you are inclined to be more involved in the process, at least early on, I have noted some important tasks below you can accomplish to launch your hernia mesh case.

Let’s start with two assumptions: (1) you had hernia mesh implanted in your body in the past, and (2) you have suffered injury because of the hernia mesh. Where do you go from there?

Identify Your Product

Camp Lejeune Contaminated Water: Filing an Administrative Claim

Published on: October 20, 2022 | By Clay Hodges

In today’s blog post, we’re going to go dig a little deeper into Camp Lejeune claims arising from the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022 (CLJA). I’ve written about this remarkable legislation on several occasions, from when it was just a bill to after it got signed into law by President Biden in August 2022.

If you read those blog posts, you’ll recall that before you can file a lawsuit to recover damages for your exposure to the contaminated water, you have to first file an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675. Only if this administrative claim gets denied can you sue the federal government. Read on to learn more about this requirement and what it entails.

Where Do I File This Administrative Claim?

Medical Records Can Be Expensive Hard Cost in Product Defect Lawsuits

Published on: October 6, 2020 | By Clay Hodges

Health care is an industry that, for the most part, is pretty quick to make the most of new technology. One such area is medical records.

With the increased capabilities and reduced costs of computers, networks and electronic storage, electronic health records (EHR) are primed to take full advantage of what information technology has to offer the medical field. These advantages can include better cost efficiency and improved patient care.

That’s one reason why Congress passed the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act). This law set out to promote the use and adoption of EHR and medical information technology.

Roundup Settlement News: Be Patient, These Things Take Time

Published on: March 19, 2020 | By Clay Hodges

All you have to do is Google a phrase like “Roundup Settlement” and you will get plenty to read. Some articles suggest a massive settlement agreement may be announced any day, while another post may trumpet: “Parties Still Far Apart on Roundup Settlement.” Who is right? The truth is, aside from a very few people, like chief mediator Kenneth Feinberg, no one can say for sure. But this much is true: multi-billion-dollar settlements in massive product liability cases take a long time to complete.

What We Know

So this is what we know as of today: Bayer AG and Monsanto, the two corporate defendants, have been in negotiations with the plaintiffs’ executive teams for several months to attempt a settlement that is reasonable and fair. Multiple media outlets, including The New York Times, are reporting that both sides are discussing a settlement that could involve tens of thousands of plaintiffs and may reach $10 billion dollars. A few media reports indicate the sides are getting closer to a settlement. And if so, that is good news. Still, even though the Wall Street Journal has recently reported that “draft settlement terms” have been reached between defendants and several larger plaintiffs’ law firms, the article also stated that “[a] formal deal hasn’t been signed and could yet fall apart.” So be very cautious about optimistic reports of settlements. Often the final, smaller details are the hardest to hammer out.

Help! I Don’t Like My Product Liability Settlement Offer!

Published on: October 16, 2019 | By Clay Hodges

I get these calls fairly often. The caller will explain that her lawyer just called out of the blue with an offer to settle an artificial hip or prescription drug case. The person believes the offer is too low. Well, is it? That’s a complex question, and it may be, but there are distinct reasons why the person believes the offer is too low. Let’s take a look at what may be happening:

What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate

Often, the problem starts with the lawyer’s failure to communicate. People will tell me that they never hear from their attorney, and then suddenly, after many months or even years have passed, the lawyer will call and quickly explain the terms of a settlement offer then hurry off the phone. This is a mistake. The lawyer should take as long as necessary to fully explain why the settlement number is what it is. In fact, it is important for the lawyer to keep the client updated on developments throughout the litigation. For example, if another plaintiff in the larger litigation loses an important bellwether case, the lawyer should call and report the loss and what it may mean for the litigation and how it might impact settlement (obviously, it’s not good for all plaintiffs if a bellwether case is lost). If the client understands generally how the multi-district litigation is progressing, the client will be more prepared when a settlement offer finally arrives.

Why Won’t Companies Settle Valid Product Failure Claims?

Published on: September 25, 2019 | By Clay Hodges

Most of us pay our bills on time. If we break a neighbor’s rake, we promptly purchase a replacement. If our child dumps fruit punch on a friend’s carpet, we pay to have it cleaned. In fact, we don’t really think about these unwritten rules often; it’s just the right thing to do, so most of us do it instinctually: if we cause damage, we pay for the damage. But too often companies refuse to pay fair settlements to resolve product failure cases, even in the face of a mountain of evidence that (1) the product clearly failed and (2) the failure physically injured the person. For example, let’s say a sixty-eight year old retired schoolteacher learns her metal-on-metal artificial hip implant has failed; her doctor tells her that, in addition to the pain she feels in her hip and leg, she now suffers from dangerously high cobalt and chromium levels (a condition called “metallosis”). Thousands of other injured people have similar claims, but the manufacturer of the failed hip product simply won’t pay. Why not?

Well, I can’t know all the reasons, but let’s look at a few theories:

Companies Don’t Like to Pay Settlements

Roundup Lawsuits: Conflicting Reports of $8 Billion U.S. Settlement Offer

Published on: August 12, 2019 | By Clay Hodges

Last week news media outlets reported that Bayer AG and Monsanto had offered to settle United States Roundup cases for an amount up to $8,000,000,000. That’s eight billion dollars. If true, it would be welcome news, or at least a good start, as there are currently over 18,000 cases filed against the companies. These lawsuits allege that extended exposure to Roundup caused plaintiffs to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a serious cancer that can spread to lymph nodes throughout the body. For plaintiffs afflicted with a serious illness like NHL, news that a global settlement has been achieved is always welcome, because these plaintiffs need compensation as soon as possible, and years of expensive litigation is not good for anyone (except maybe defense lawyers).

The news reports of settlement flashed across the Internet, as such things do, perhaps encouraged by recent statements made by Bayer’s CEO that the company would consider settling on reasonable terms if all United States cases could resolve. Further, Bayer and Monsanto recently lost a Roundup case where a California jury awarded a couple $2 billion dollars for the non-Hodgkin lymphoma they both contracted after using Roundup for years. You can read about that $2 billion Roundup verdict here.

Despite all that, on Friday Mediator Ken Feinberg issued a statement that “Bayer has not proposed paying $8 billion to settle all the U.S. Roundup cancer claims. Such a statement is pure fiction,” and that “[c]ompensation has not even been discussed in the global mediation discussions.” So there you have it. At this point I would recommend you listen to Mr. Feinberg’s statement, as he is a central figure in the Roundup settlement talks.

How Do I Know What Artificial Hip or Other Device Is Implanted in Me?

Published on: January 25, 2019 | By Clay Hodges

It’s a great question. And I’m glad I asked it for you. Now let me answer it. There are several ways to identify the specific medical device implanted in your body. (A medical device is any manufactured device–like an artificial hip–implanted in the body for the purpose of resolving an injury, curing disease, or improving a person’s health. Medical devices can be artificial joints like hips and knees and shoulders, heart stents and pacemakers, IVC filters, hernia mesh, and hundreds of other examples.) Some ways of identifying exact product components are better than others. Identifying the medical device several different ways is the best of all.

Product Stickers: The Gold Standard

It all sort of starts with “product stickers.” These are the identifying stickers that are attached to the box containing the medical device, and they can be peeled off and affixed to a nurse’s hospital note or to another page in the hospital or surgeon’s record for the implant surgery. It goes something like this: the representative for the device maker shows up with the artificial hip components (or other medical device). The surgical nurse or the surgeon will double check that the components are the precise ones needed for the surgery, scan them into the system and note them in the record. The nurse will then peel off the product stickers and attach them to the hospital record and include them with all the other pages of documents explaining details of the surgery. The image at right is an approximation of what the stickers will look like: a bar code, the name of the manufacturer, the specific product name, the Lot and Reference numbers, and other identifying information.

Settlement Reached in Stryker LFIT V40 Femoral Head Hip Litigation

Published on: November 9, 2018 | By Clay Hodges

Stryker Orthopaedics has announced that it reached a national settlement in the multidistrict litigation focused on the Stryker LFIT V40 femoral head. The LFIT V40 femoral head is one component of Stryker’s artificial hip system. This settlement announcement is a bit surprising, as the MDL was created for the LFIT V40 femoral head in April 2017. As medical device multidistrict litigation goes, this is a very quick path from formation of the MDL to settlement. One reason for the speed is that this MDL is smaller than other artificial hip MDLs based on the number of injured plaintiffs. The LFIT V40 settlement involves approximately 125 cases in the federal court MDL and an additional 140 cases in New Jersey state court.

In any event, for those people hurt by the LFIT V40 femoral head, this is good news. The terms of the settlement have not been released. I will certainly update this website when the settlement agreement is made available. As for now, all discovery and trial preparation have been stayed (or stopped). The first bellwether trial, scheduled for September 2019, will be removed from the trial calendar. The focus now will be on processing individual settlements for plaintiffs.

Remember that each plaintiff in this or any other medical device litigation is not required to accept the settlement. Although it is often reasonable for the plaintiff to accept the terms of settlement, no plaintiff will be compelled to accept any settlement. As with any litigation, it is important for individual plaintiffs and their attorneys to slow down, review all the terms of settlement, and make a careful decision on whether to participate in the settlement.

Injured in Surgery: Is It Product Liability or Medical Malpractice?

Published on: June 2, 2018 | By Clay Hodges

I get calls from people who have been badly injured after surgery. If it’s straightforward surgery to repair a torn ACL, the question is whether the surgeon was negligent; if that turns out to be the case, the caller will have a claim for medical malpractice. But what if the surgeon is implanting a device: an artificial hip or knee or hernia mesh or pacemaker? And then after surgery the patient is worse off than before? If this is the result, the next question is this: was the person the victim of a defective product or medical malpractice? Or both?

So What’s the Difference?

Medical malpractice is the legal term for a doctor who has been negligent. This means that the doctor failed to perform the surgery with an expected degree of care and competence. In a phrase, the doctor simply screwed up the surgery. For a plaintiff to win a medical malpractice claim, he or she must show that the doctor failed to perform his duties with a normal “standard of care” typical of similarly situated doctors. This means that surgeons in small towns will be judged against similar doctors in similar towns, while doctors from major research hospitals in big cities will be judged against their similarly situated peers, and of course will be held to a higher standard. The bottom line is this: medical malpractice is the failure to provide competent medical care, causing the patient unexpected injury.

Initial Consultation919-546-8788

★★★★★

I was involved in a case for the faulty hip replacements. Clay Hodges represented me. I can't say enough about how much he has helped me. Clay was able to win multiple settlements on my behalf with most of them being the maximum amount able to be awarded. Matt J.

Clay, thank you sir for making a disheartening experience at least palatable, you and your staff were honest, caring and understanding through the entire process of my wife’s hip replacements, while monetary settlements never make the pain and suffering end, it sometimes is the only way people can fight back to right a wrong. J. V.

We are absolutely pleased with how Clay Hodges handled my husband’s hip replacement claim. He always kept us informed of the progress. And, his work resulted in a settlement which we are extremely pleased. Thank you, Clay! Carol L. & Norm L.