North Carolina Product Liability Lawyer Blog

Jury Awards Androgel User and Heart Attack Victim $140 Million

Published on: October 10, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

Last Thursday a jury in Chicago found that AbbVie, Inc., the manufacturers of the testosterone product Androgel, must pay the plaintiff, Jeffrey Konrad, over $140,000,000.00 for injuries he suffered after using the company’s testosterone product. The jury found that AbbVie did not adequately test the testosterone roll-on gel product and misrepresented its safety to patients and doctors.

The Second Testosterone Bellwether Trial

Mr. Konrad was in his late forties when he began using Androgel in 2010. He was prescribed testosterone to treat a decrease in his testosterone levels. Two months later he suffered a heart attack. He filed suit years later, alleging that AbbVie knew about the link between testosterone use and heart attacks but sold the product anyway, and without sufficient warnings. The jury did not find that Mr. Konrad proved the connection between his use of Androgel and his heart attack. Other factors, such as Mr. Konrad’s obesity, high blood pressure, and family history, could have caused his heart attack. Nevertheless, the jury found that AbbVie was liable for damages based on AbbVie’s negligence and misrepresentation.

Opioid Lawsuits Heading to Centralized Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2804)

Published on: October 4, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

I blogged previously about the United States opioid crisis and how many local and state governments were looking to the courts to help deal with it. Specifically, these governments have brought lawsuits against manufacturers and distributors of opioids.

When we last wrote about the opioid crisis, I explained how these lawsuits had only just begun. The following post is an update on how these lawsuits are progressing. But before we get to that, let’s discuss why opioids are generating these lawsuits.

The Legal Basis for Suing Opioid Manufacturers and Distributors

Depuy ASR Artificial Hip: Plaintiff Carol Strum Gets New Trial

Published on: October 2, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

A woman who lost her case involving injuries from the Depuy ASR metal-on-metal artificial hip has been awarded a new trial.

In 2013, a Chicago jury found that Depuy was not responsible for Carol Strum’s injuries following the failure of the ASR hip. The jury found that the hip components manufactured by Depuy Orthopaedics did not cause the injuries to the plaintiff. Ms. Strum had sued DePuy in Chicago in 2011, alleging that the DePuy ASR implanted in January 2008 failed and required painful revision surgery. She also claimed that she suffered from metallosis.

On September 19, 2017, Judge Mary Dooling in Chicago granted Ms. Strum a new trial on the grounds that a surgeon and joint replacement scientist was unfairly prevented from testifying on behalf of the plaintiff in the original trial.

With Third Depuy ASR Settlement Deadline Past, Do I Still Have a Viable Claim?

Published on: September 28, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

I get calls from people all over the country worried that they may have missed a deadline for participation in the Depuy ASR Artificial Hip Settlement. I understand the alarm. It would be dreadful to have the ASR metal-on-metal hip implanted, suffer mysterious pains and then elevated metal levels in the blood, discover the artificial hip components failed, go through a painful revision surgery, and then find that the settlement deadlines have all passed. The reality is this: at the moment, all the deadlines have passed. But many viable ASR claims against Depuy and Johnson & Johnson are still out there, and they should be fairly compensated like all the injured people that have come before.

Third Settlement (Second Extension)

In the most recent extension of the ASR Master Settlement Agreement, the deadline to enroll in the settlement was July 19, 2017. This second extension of the Master Settlement applied to individuals who had the ASR hip removed in revision surgery between between January 31, 2015 and February 15, 2017. The reason for this specific set of dates is that the settlement committees for plaintiffs and defendants wanted to include victims who had revision surgery somewhat late in the game. Recall that the Depuy ASR hip was first sold in 2005, twelve years ago. It was sold aggressively for five years, until it was finally recalled on August 24, 2010. Thousands of people were implanted with the ASR hip in that five-year period. Most of them were forced to undergo revision surgery before August 31, 2013, the deadline for participation in the first settlement. But hundreds of people did not undergo revision surgery until after August 31, 2013. Therefore, a first and then a second extension of the original agreement was established.

After Noisy August, Fourth Depuy Pinnacle Hip Bellwether Trial Underway

Published on: September 22, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

Some of my clients have been asking me what is going on with the fourth Depuy Pinnacle bellwether trial. Non-clients have also been calling to inquire about the status of the trial. Did it start this week? Was it postponed? What is the deal with Depuy and Johnson & Johnson trying to stop the trial? Let’s take a quick look:

Fourth Bellwether Trial Underway

The short answer is yes, the fourth bellwether trial began on Monday (September 18, 2017). Six plaintiffs injured by the Depuy Pinnacle hip (and four spouses) are bringing their claims against defendants in Dallas, Texas before Judge Kinkeade. You can read about previous Pinnacle bellwether trials and their huge jury awards here and here.

Taxotere and Permanent Hair Loss: Is There a Cure?

Published on: September 13, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

Hair loss, or alopecia, is a common condition for many people, especially when they age. The exact reason for the hair loss can vary, but one particularly unpleasant cause is chemotherapy. However, not all patients will be affected the same way during chemotherapy, even when taking the same chemotherapy drug to fight the same type of cancer.

For example, some patients may only experience a slight change in hair color, while others will have thinning hair. Others may have hair loss, although the amount and areas of hair loss can differ among patients. For some unlucky patients, the hair loss is permanent. One such chemotherapy drug that causes permanent hair loss is Taxotere.

What Is Taxotere?

The Taper Lock Failure in the Stryker LFIT V40 Artificial Hip

Published on: September 8, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

The vast majority of artificial hip failures over the past decade involved metal-on-metal (MoM) hip components. These medical devices were meant to revolutionize the artificial hip market. Specifically, the all-metal hip components were intended to last a long time, and much longer than older generation artificial hips using materials like ceramics and plastics, which had a tendency to wear down and “fail” after twelve or fifteen years. Beyond that, the metal-on-metal artificial hips were touted to withstand the rigors of active, athletic patients. It sounded like a terrific advancement in the development of artificial hips. The problem is, the metal-on-metal design did not work, in many cases because the metal acetabular cup and the metal femoral head would grind together day after day, month after month, releasing harmful metal debris (metallosis) into the patient’s body. Far too many people were forced to get revision surgeries a few years after the implant surgery to remove the metal hips.

It turned out to be a disaster for thousands of patients and for several large medical device manufacturers. Depuy and Zimmer, to name just two companies, faced thousands of lawsuits from people injured by the metal-on-metal artificial hips. Many of those cases are resolved or resolving, but many more await settlement or jury trials.

The LFIT V40 Is a Metal-on-Polyethylene Artificial Hip

Health Insurance Subrogation and Your Medical Device or Drug Settlement

Published on: September 6, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

If you are injured by a defective or faulty medical device or medication, you may be able to recover damages from the responsible manufacturer. Depending on the facts of your case, these damages can compensate you for things such as medical bills, pain and suffering and lost wages. In cases where the manufacturer acted in particular nasty ways, such as burying a product study which showed an increased risk of injury, punitive damages may even be possible.

For plaintiffs who are able to obtain a damage award from the responsible medical device or pharmaceutical company, they understand they will not be able to keep every penny received. For example, some of it will go to their attorney (if they have one) and some of it may be subject to taxes. But sometimes, an unexpected “bill” comes from their health insurance company.

Why Do I Have to Pay My Health Insurance Company?

The Pros and Cons of Hiring An Out of State Product Liability Attorney

Published on: August 29, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

So should you hire an out of state attorney? This is a question many people must answer, including those injured by a failed medical device or a prescription drug. I have had several clients who were initially skeptical about hiring an attorney who practiced 500 or 2,000 miles away. And I get it.

For many types of cases, choosing an attorney in your hometown or in your state is best. Do you need to set up a will with powers of attorney? Ask around and call the good lawyer who lives down the street or across town. Going through a divorce? Have a traffic ticket? Did someone breach a contract? Find someone in your city who comes highly recommended.

But what about product liability? Specifically, what about medical device or prescription drug cases? You need to find the right person to represent you, even if that person practices law in another state or across the country. Let’s look at some pros and cons of hiring an out of state product liability lawyer:

Note From a Reader and Plaintiff in the Artificial Hip Litigation

Published on: August 20, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

Recently I received an encouraging message from a plaintiff in one of the metal-on-metal artificial hip MDLs. “G.S.” is not my client, but a regular reader of this website. I would like to share it:

Plaintiffs in metal-on-metal hip (MoM) cases around the country owe thanks to Clay Hodges for his tireless advocacy on their behalf. Early on, Clay posted an on-line brochure that served as a virtual guidebook for explaining the nature of the cases on how both attorneys and plaintiffs should think about it. Since then, his articles and posts have provided timely and accurate updates about the litigation when often it was difficult to get reliable news for other sources. And he has done this not just for his clients but all MoM plaintiffs who have agonized to understand this case and what options they might have. For all of us, he has provided far more than just information, but a genuine sense that someone really cares and is in our corner.

G.S.

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.