North Carolina Product Liability Lawyer Blog

Depuy ASR Hip Failure: Nine-Year Window For Revision Surgery

Published on: June 10, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Many people still have the Depuy ASR hip components implanted in their bodies. I get calls from them. Some have elevated metal levels in their blood; others are telling me about pain in the hip area, popping sounds, and other problems. They are preparing to schedule revision surgery, and they want to know if they may qualify for compensation based on the settlements that have been reached with Depuy, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, the parent company.

These are good questions. I want to make sure you are aware of a nine-year window for undergoing revision surgery.

Two Settlement Agreements So Far

As I have explained in this blog, there have been two Depuy ASR settlement agreements, mostly identical in material terms. The major difference is that the first settlement agreement covered those who had undergone revision surgery prior to August 31, 2013. The second settlement covered those people who had revision surgery between August 31, 2013 and January 31, 2015.

Depuy Pinnacle Artificial Hip Litigation: Defendants Seek Delay of New Trials

Published on: June 8, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

A request by Depuy Orthopaedics Inc. to delay more trials concerning its Depuy Pinnacle hip implants is pending in the federal court in charge of thousands of cases against the company. The request came from Depuy on May 24. Depuy asks the Court to hold off on further trials until an appeal of one large case tried in March is resolved. That case, which I wrote about here and here, resulted in a stunning $502 million verdict for five people injured by the defective artificial hip components. So Depuy is plainly motivated to delay, if not overturn, the award. If the request is granted it will take much longer for other plaintiffs to have their cases tried, as complex appeals like this one can take years to resolve. As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. I hope federal judge Ed Kinkeade in Texas denies Depuy’s motion. These remaining cases deserve their day in court.

Depuy and the other defendants claim their planned appeal could have “far-reaching implications” on how future cases are tried. Defendants claim the “grounds for appeal are strong” and that they “acted appropriately and responsibly in the design and testing” of the devices.

Transvaginal Mesh: Chilling Allegations in State Lawsuits Against Johnson & Johnson

Published on: June 2, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

So maybe you’ve heard the news that Washington and California recently sued Johnson & Johnson for misrepresenting the safety of its transvaginal mesh (or “pelvic mesh”) products. I pulled the Washington lawsuit and read it. It is alarming. If Washington can prove the allegations in the complaint, it will be a damning indictment of Johnson & Johnson and the pelvic mesh industry generally.

The Washington Lawsuit

States can sue companies on behalf of their injured citizens. If the state’s attorney general decides that a “bad act” is harmful to enough citizens, her office can file a lawsuit on behalf of the state and the group of people who were injured. It is an important consumer protection function provided by the states. This is what happened in Washington and California a few days ago. The Washington Attorney General reported that 11,728 transvaginal mesh products were sold (and implanted) in women in the state. The attorneys general in those states filed suit against Johnson & Johnson and made a series of chilling allegations against the company for its marketing of transvaginal mesh.

Let’s look at some of the key allegations in the Washington State lawsuit. When I refer to “Defendants,” I mean Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, Inc., and their related companies, who made and marketed several types of transvaginal mesh.

Zofran Lawsuits: Use During Pregnancy Alleged to Cause Birth Defects

Published on: May 27, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Pregnancy brings with it many physical challenges, including nausea and vomiting which impact about 80% of pregnant women. It can range from being a minor issue to a potentially serious health risk, depending on the severity of the nausea and health of the mother. The drug Zofran is designed to limit nausea but it was not approved for use by pregnant women and it may cause birth defects. Although medical causation is not settled on the issue, many women who took Zofran during pregnancy gave birth to children with birth defects. Because of that potential link hundreds of lawsuits have been brought against the maker of Zofran, seeking compensation for the harm possibly done by the drug.

Intended Uses

Zofran (or ondansetron hydrochloride) helps prevent nausea and vomiting by blocking the effects of serotonin, a chemical in the body that can trigger nausea and vomiting. It was originally designed to help cancer patients dealing with the side effects of chemotherapy but is also approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for those suffering nausea due to radiation therapy, anesthesia and surgery.

My Depuy ASR Hip Is Still Implanted: Do I Have a Claim for Compensation?

Published on: May 24, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

I have been getting a few calls recently from people who still have the Depuy ASR hip implanted in one or both hips. They are asking the right questions: Are the metal levels in my blood too high? How will metallosis affect my long-term health? Will the component slip on me now and cause all kinds of new pain? Should I schedule surgery and have the Depuy ASR components removed? Plainly, these are questions for a doctor, not a lawyer. I can’t answer any questions specific to your health. Eventually, however, these callers ask an intriguing question: I have the Depuy ASR hip implanted in my body and I have not yet scheduled revision surgery: Do I have a valid claim against Depuy and Johnson & Johnson? It’s a good question.

People with Depuy ASR hip components implanted in their bodies who did not undergo revision surgery did not “qualify” for the two settlements that have been reached in the Depuy ASR multidistrict litigation (DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2197). But this does not mean they are not injured or that they do not have a valid claim. All it means is that they did not qualify to participate in the settlement based on the timelines in the settlement agreements. Let’s take a step back.

Cook IVC Filter Litigation: “Discovery” Allowed on Cook’s Failure to Report Risks

Published on: May 19, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

In every lawsuit the court issues key rulings which will impact the outcome of the case. By “court” I mean the presiding judge. Some court decisions end the lawsuit (e.g., a judge granting a defendant’s summary judgment motion). Some decisions kick a leg of the stool out from under one party (granting a motion to exclude one side’s key expert witness). As I have written about in this blog, a judge has great power and influence over every court case. One decision has the power to make or break the lawsuit.

Recently, in the Cook IVC filter multidistrict litigation, a federal judge has refused to bar discovery involving an allegation that Cook failed to report to the FDA bad results with the Cook IVC filters.

What Is Discovery?

After a lawsuit is filed, the defendants have the chance to “answer” the complaint (“yes, we admit that happened” or “no, we deny the truth of that statement”). After these “pleadings” are filed, the parties engage in formal discovery. In civil litigation, discovery is the exchange of documents and information between the parties. It is required by the Rules of Civil Procedure. It goes like this: one side will write out questions (Interrogatories) or requests for documents (Requests for Production of Documents). Unless there is a compelling reason to withhold the information, the other side must then prepare written answers and make all requested documents available to the requesting party. From there, the parties can build their cases for trial.

Cook IVC Filter: Injuring Patients, Lawsuits Mounting

Published on: May 17, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

When medical devices work as intended they are wonderful things. They can extend lives and improve the quality of life for patients and ease the stress on patients’ families. When they don’t work as intended medical devices can do more harm than good, possibly killing the patient. One example is the Cook IVC filter.

What is an IVC Filter?

The inferior vena cava (or IVC) is a large vein carrying blood from the lower and middle body into the heart where the blood is pumped into the lungs in order to have oxygen added to it. An IVC filter is a device that’s surgically implanted into the IVC just below the kidneys in cases where there is fear a blood clot from the legs (deep vein thrombosis) may travel from the body into the heart or lungs (pulmonary embolism). If that happens the results can be a serious, if not fatal, injury for the patient.

Loss of Consortium in Transvaginal Mesh, Artificial Hip, IVC Filter Cases

Published on: May 13, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Most people have heard of the claim “loss of consortium.” It comes from the root word consort meaning to associate, to spend time, to hang out with. The definition of the legal claim goes like this: loss of consortium is a claim for (money) damages by the spouse or close family member of a person who has been injured or killed as a result of the negligence or wrongful act of another person. It is a derivative claim, which means it derives or flows from the primary injury to the spouse or family member. Essentially, it creates a separate plaintiff (usually a spouse) and “piggybacks” off the injury to the injured person. A loss of consortium claim cannot exist without the recognized injury to the spouse or family member.

The Lost Sex Claim

People sometimes think of loss of consortium as the “loss of sex” claim. And in fact, one important injury under loss of consortium is that the primary injury prevented a loving married couple from enjoying intimacy and sexual intercourse in the same manner they enjoyed before the accident. Let’s face it, when intimacy is lost or diminished based on the negligence of others, people should be compensated. It’s one big reason we have the derivative claim.

But loss of consortium extends beyond married sexual relations. Suppose a married couple were passionate about sailing and took sailing trips most weekends, but the failure of an artificial hip placed a married woman in a wheelchair and made it impossible for her to climb onto the sailboat. In most states a loss of consortium claim could be made that the loss of this treasured activity deeply damaged the quality of life of the husband. Similar claims can be made for couples who actively garden together, play tennis, travel, or even cook.

Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits: $4.4 Million Jury Verdict, Appeal of $11.1 Million Award

Published on: May 6, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

(Part 6)

Let’s get back to a look at recent developments with transvaginal mesh lawsuits. In two big victories recently, a Georgia jury awarded $4.4 million to a woman injured by transvaginal mesh, and a New Jersey appeals court upheld an $11.11 million dollar jury verdict.

Transvaginal mesh (TVM) is a plastic mesh product that has been implanted in women for many years to support weakened vaginal walls. Many women suffer from pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence, and makers of TVM have insisted that TVM could repair these medical problems. Unfortunately, not long after TVM was marketed and sold, women began complaining of serious health problems, including erosion of the vaginal wall, infections, painful sex, and bladder perforation. The lawsuits followed.

Now let’s take a look at a recent jury trial and an appeal decision of an earlier jury verdict.

Bard IVC Filter Statute of Limitations Court Order a Victory for Injured

Published on: May 3, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

I would chalk up this court decision as a victory for any injured person dealing with the C.R. Bard IVC filter. I would also chalk up the decision as yet another example of the complexities of handling statutes of limitations in defective product cases.

As always, let’s take a step back. I have written about C.R. Bard’s potentially dangerous IVC filters, which you can read about here and here. In 2015 a multidistrict litigation (MDL) site was selected for lawsuits arising from injuries relating to Bard’s G2 Series and Recovery IVC filters. The primary complaints have been that the Bard IVC filters moved out of position and/or broke apart. Lawsuits mounted, and the MDL was formed.

Lurking in virtually every personal injury case is a statute of limitations defense. I wrote about statutes of limitations here. To recap, a statute of limitations is a law which limits the time when an injured person may bring a lawsuit for money damages. You miss the deadline, you lose your right to bring a lawsuit forever.

But as I have discussed before, determining when the clock starts running on your injury case is far from easy.

Bard Lawyers Sought Rigid Framework For Statute of Limitations Analysis

In the Bard IVC filter MDL, C.R. Bard lawyers filed a motion seeking a bright-line test to identify the running of the statutes of limitation. The defense lawyers asked Judge David Campbell to adopt a strict procedure for this analysis similar to the procedure used in the Mirena IUD MDL. (Yes, there is an MDL for women injured by Mirena IUDs made by Bayer Pharmaceuticals.) The Mirena procedure was determined in the case titled Truitt v. Bayer.