North Carolina Product Liability Lawyer Blog

Handling Your Product Liability Case Without a Lawyer: Good Idea?

Published on: January 20, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

Now and then I get calls from people who are representing themselves in product liability litigation. (An individual who represents himself in litigation is called a pro se litigant.) Usually these callers have worked their cases to a point and have questions. Sometimes the questions are rather modest: “I’ve been offered this amount of money to settle? Is that fair?” Other times the questions are ominous: “The judge now says I need an expert witness. What is an expert witness?” The first question is a mere judgment call. Is $150,000.00 enough to compensate you for the pain and suffering of a failed artificial hip? That is mostly for the injured person to decide (though lawyers have plenty of insight into the value of such a claim). The second question poses a serious threat to your case. If an expert witness is required to prove your case, and you don’t have an expert witness (or worse, you don’t even know what an expert witness is) your lawsuit will be lost. And quickly. (You can read about expert witnesses here.)

I get the impulse to “do it yourself.” Prior to attending law school, I sued my landlord in small claims court for the return of my security deposit (I won). I also tried to replace the steering box in my 1974 Ford Bronco (that didn’t turn out so well).

These phone calls from pro se litigants are often interesting. Plainly some people have developed a distrust of lawyers. For others, the thought of paying legal fees for a good attorney seems unpleasant and undesirable, even overwhelming. Some may be trying to litigate their claim “on the cheap.” But the real question is: does it work? Can a person represent himself or herself successfully in a product liability injury case?

Physiomesh and C-Qur: Hernia Mesh Litigation Ramping Up

Published on: January 17, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

Even if you’ve never needed a surgical mesh implant, you’ve probably heard about a number of lawsuits due to problems patients are having with them. One type in particular has been the transvaginal mesh (TVM) implants in women. These TVM lawsuits are well underway, with tens of thousands of lawsuits currently pending. However, it appears another influx of lawsuits involving more surgical mesh implants are appearing on the horizon: surgical mesh used to treat hernias.

Treating Hernias with Surgical Mesh

First off, let’s briefly explain what a hernia is. A hernia appears when an internal organ protrudes through a wall of tissue (often a muscle) into another area of the body where it doesn’t belong. Depending on how bad the hernia is, surgery may be required to fix it.

Because hernias involve a hole in a muscle or other tissue, additional reinforcement is usually needed to close the opening and keep it from reopening. This is where surgical mesh comes in. The mesh often takes the form of a plug or sheet of biological or synthetic mesh and is surgically implanted over the hole.

Clinical studies have shown that using surgical mesh to treat hernias reduces the chances of the hernia returning. Each year hundreds of thousands of hernia surgeries are performed. Given their proven effectiveness, it’s no wonder that many of these surgeries use a surgical mesh. Unfortunately, a significant number of the meshes have serious flaws.

Risperdal: Two Recent (and Very Different) Case Results

Published on: January 13, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

Causation is usually simple: this happened because of that. The wheel fell off my bicycle, causing me to fall and break my arm. Legal causation is not so simple, and it can be very difficult to prove in a civil case. Legal causation or “proximate cause” involves an event (or thing) which is sufficiently related to an injury such that the cause of the event or thing is held legally liable for injuries sustained. It may not sound all that complicated, but millions of attorney hours are spent each year fighting over proximate cause. In fact, it’s one of the main reasons we have courthouses.

Of all the bad drug results you read about, you would think proving legal causation in a Risperdal case would be straightforward: a boy with autism or psychological issues is prescribed Risperdal; after a period of months or years on the drug, he begins to grow female breasts, a condition known as gynecomastia. Boys should not grow female breasts. It is extremely rare for an adolescent boy not taking Risperdal to grow female breasts. And studies have shown that Risperdal can cause gynecomastia. Ergo (sorry, I’ve been wanting to get that word in a post), if a boy is taking Risperdal, and fifteen months later grows female breasts, it should follow that the Risperdal caused the gynecomastia. And that the manufacturers of the drug should pay for the physical injury, the emotional trauma, and any other suffering.

But it doesn’t always work that way. Two recent court cases involving boys injured after taking Risperdal yielded two very different results, and the takeaway is the importance of medical experts who can testify to the connection of the injury (gynecomastia) to the cause (taking Risperdal).

Depuy Pinnacle Hip Trial: Judge Slashes Jury Award by $500 Million

Published on: January 5, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

Imagine going to sleep the night after making the decision to strip five hundred million dollars from six families. I imagine it would be unsettling. On Tuesday, Judge Ed Kinkeade, a federal judge in Texas overseeing the Depuy Pinnacle MDL, made the decision to cut $500,000,000.00 from a jury award presented to six families after a grueling ten-week trial last fall. You can read about the trial and the jury’s verdict here. In that post I wrote that the jury’s verdict was “staggering,” and it was. It may be more staggering that a judge, less than a month later, would wipe out half a billion dollars of the jury’s award.

“Single-Digit Multipliers”

On January 3, 2017, Judge Kinkeade issued his post-trial court order reducing the amount of punitive damages awarded to the six families, writing that “constitutional considerations limit the amount a plaintiff may recover in punitive damages.” The relevant portion of the Order states:

Smoking Can Harm Your Product Liability or Personal Injury Case

Published on: December 21, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

First, let me make the case for smoking:

You enjoy it. It tastes good (I guess). It makes you alert (I hear); but also, oddly, it can calm you as well (from what I’ve read). You also look cool doing it (I confess; this last part is often true). And it’s legal. But perhaps the strongest argument I hear from smokers is this: no one is going to tell me I can’t smoke. This is a free country after all.

That’s about it, really. That’s all I’ve got. And I’m not here to nag you. By all means, smoke if you must. But let me present a different perspective: setting aside the many health problems smoking causes, it can also destroy or damage your product liability or personal injury case.

21st Century Cures Act: Faster Approval of Devices and Drugs a Public Health Threat?

Published on: December 14, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

If you’ve kept up with politics even a little bit, you know how much gridlock exists in Congress. It’s amazing that anything can get done in Washington. However, a new law called the 21^st Century Cures Act just passed with tremendous bipartisan support; this law must be really good, right?

21^st Century Cures Act: The Good

The 21^st Century Cures Act has the potential to save lives. For instance, it will provide funding for cancer research, fight painkiller drug abuse, advance Alzheimer’s research and improve mental health treatments.

Product Liability Law: Litigation, Settlement, and Wellness

Published on: December 12, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

I will publish a new book this week: Product Liability Law: Litigation, Settlement, and Wellness.

The book offers concise chapters on issues you need to be aware of when you first discover that a medical device may have failed in your body, or when a prescription medication is beginning to cause dreadful side effects. Beyond that, I discuss issues that arise when you are involved in product liability litigation, as well as concerns about money: before a product liability lawsuit is filed, during product litigation, and after a product lawsuit is resolved.

If you would like a free copy of Product Liability Law, I ask that you subscribe to the website. It takes twenty seconds to sign up. You will receive a copy of Product Liability Law, and you will receive emails only when I post new articles to the site. Two emails a week, tops.

Depuy Pinnacle Hip Trial: Jury Awards ONE BILLION DOLLARS

Published on: December 2, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Staggering. It’s really the only word for it. Yesterday a Texas jury awarded six plaintiffs over one billion dollars for injuries sustained following the failure of the Depuy Pinnacle metal-on-metal artificial hip. And that comes out to more than $170,000,000.00 per plaintiff. The verdict was handed down last night following ten weeks of punishing trial.

This trial was the third “bellwether” case in the Depuy Pinnacle MDL (multidistrict litigation). The first Pinnacle bellwether trial ended in a defense verdict, which means the jury did not find negligence on the part of the defendants, Depuy Orthopaedics and Johnson & Johnson, and therefore the plaintiffs received no compensation. The second bellwether trial resulted in a huge $502 million dollar verdict for five plaintiffs, which I wrote about here. In fact, much of the speculation about this third bellwether trial was whether the plaintiffs’ team could put on the same powerful case that they did in the second bellwether trial, or whether the $500 million verdict in March was simply a bizarre outlier, one of those remarkable unicorn verdicts that come along once and never again.

Today, the $500 million dollar verdict seems modest compared to yesterday’s jury verdict. Plainly, juries are sending a huge message to Depuy and J&J that they hurt many people when they marketed and sold the Depuy Pinnacle Hip.

Wright Medical Artificial Hip Settlement: Wrong for Plaintiffs?

Published on: November 22, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Do you long for the days when you could move your legs and hips with complete freedom of motion in total silence, without pain? If the answer is “yes,” there’s a good chance you are the recipient of a hip replacement implant – and you wouldn’t be alone. Over the past few decades, millions of individuals have received hip replacement surgeries, many of which have been successful. But in recent years, there have been a large number of hip replacement recipients who have suffered problems with their hip implants, especially those receiving metal-on-metal hip replacements.

Lawsuits have been filed, resulting in large, eye-catching verdicts and settlements for plaintiffs. One recent settlement applies to approximately 1,300 lawsuits involving hip implant products made by Wright Medical Technology (“Wright”).

Wright Hip Background

The Expert Witness: The Linchpin of Your Product Liability Case

Published on: November 16, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Let’s say you are a woman in your forties, and the mother of three children. After the birth of your third child you began to suffer from pelvic organ prolapse. This condition occurs when an organ like the bladder drops from its normal position and presses against the walls of the vagina. You go to your gynecologist, who recommends implantation of transvaginal mesh (TVM), the net-like plastic product that was marketed and sold as a solution to the problem of pelvic organ prolapse. You have the surgery. Soon you begin to suffer new and different pain and new health problems. You undergo three revision surgeries to remove all the pieces of the mesh. But after the revision surgeries you still suffer from pain and incontinence. You call an attorney, who files a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the TVM product. A few months into the litigation, your attorney explains that you now need an expert witness.

Your attorney is absolutely correct: you will need an expert witness in virtually all product liability cases. And a good one. And fast. If you do not have a qualified expert witness who can make the connection between your injuries and the failed product, then in the eyes of the court you do not have a case.

Your Most Important Witness

Expert witnesses are critical members of the team that is built to win your product liability case. In fact, other than your choice of attorney, the selection of the expert witness will be the most important decision you will make to help you win your case.

Expert witnesses are common in all kinds of litigation. In a simple car crash case, a treating doctor is almost always called to testify about the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries after the crash. In some car crash cases, a second expert witness will be called to explain why a car’s brakes failed, or why the car’s airbag did not deploy. Usually this testimony ends by showing causation, “and if the brakes did not fail, the driver would not have crashed into that oak tree and broken his arm.”

In a product liability case, the expert must be able to show causation, to make the connection between the failure of the product and the injuries the person suffered. If the injured person cannot show this causation through the testimony of a qualified expert witness, she cannot win her case. In the example at the top of this post, the expert will have to be able to testify that the new pains and the new health problems were medically caused by the failure of the mesh and the need for multiple revision surgeries.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.