Articles Tagged with 510(k)

Published on:

FDA Considering Changes to 510(k) Process
At some point in your life, a medical device will likely become a necessary part of your medical care. You may need external items such as hearing aids, blood glucose meters, insulin pumps, or feeding tubes. You may also need the help of  surgically implanted medical devices like artificial hips, heart pacemakers, breast implants, spine screws, rods, artificial discs, intrauterine devices, metal screws, pins, plates and rods, artificial knees, or coronary stents. No matter what type of medical device you need, you deserve safe devices of only the best quality that are responsive to technological updates. As a patient, you should have the right to make a fully informed decision about whether you want to use a newer or older version of a particular medical device. The FDA is now considering making changes to its (infamous) 510(k) medical device approval process.

FDA Pressures Medical Device Manufacturers to Utilize Newer Technologies 

You only have to look at the evolution of cell phone technology to appreciate the abundance of technological changes that have occurred over the past decade. So, why should you be provided with the medical device equivalents of flip phones? That’s one of the key focuses of the proposed new changes to the 510(k) Approval Program the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which would be incorporated in 2019. The 510(k) Approval Program, put in place originally in 1976, has provided an approval “short-cut” for medical devices which are based on medical devices currently on the market. I have written about the 510(k) process often on this site. The medical device currently on  the market, upon which the new product is based, is known as a “predicate device.” Historically, there have been no restrictions concerning the age of the predicate device. This is about to change.

Published on:

For more than three years I have been writing about the dangers of certain implanted medical devices. These devices include artificial hips, hernia mesh, IUDs, IVC filters, and others. And some have caused massive human suffering: neurological problems, sexual dysfunction, immobility, infertility, headaches, pain, even death. If you are reading this sentence then you discovered my site because of your interest in medical devices and the problems they can cause. And if you are interested in this subject, you must see the new Netflix documentary The Bleeding Edge.

The Bleeding EdgeThe Bleeding Edge is a remarkable film investigating the public health crisis caused by our current medical device industry. It examines the two main causes permitting the manufacture and sale of defective medical devices: corporate greed and inadequate FDA oversight. It is a tragic story, particularly when the film takes a close look at many of the actual victims of these harmful medical devices. It’s one thing to hear that the Essure birth control device has injured thousands of women; it’s quite another when you see a woman on screen explain how she has given up on her hope to find love because she can no longer have intercourse due to permanent internal injuries. It is deeply sad to hear these stories. And it may have you writing your member of congress. Which you should.

I urge you to check out the film. Here are a few key takeaways:

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:

Physiomesh Hernia Mesh
Hernia mesh is causing problems. People who have been implanted with hernia mesh have suffered adhesions (scar tissue that sticks together), inflammation, pain, allergic reactions, internal bleeding, infections, and many other injuries.

One of the hernia mesh products sold for years, Ethicon’s Physiomesh, has caused many of these health problems in patients. In revision or removal surgeries, the Physiomesh has been discovered to have shrunk, folded, or curled. Surgeons have found scar tissue surrounding the mesh. This scar tissue can cause severe pain and discomfort. In many cases, by the time the mesh is removed, the damage has been done and long-term problems remain.

What Is Hernia Mesh?

Published on:

Transvaginal Mesh Appeal
I have written about the maddening ways a product liability case can go on (seemingly) forever. An injured person may wait years to get to a jury trial. And then, if the individual wins the trial and the jury awards a substantial amount of money for the plaintiff’s injuries, the product manufacturer will appeal. You can read about appeals here. But the appellate courts are not there solely to protect big business. When the injured person loses her jury trial, she also has the opportunity to appeal. Often this is more difficult for the individual than it is for the large corporation, which has much more money and time, but appeals courts are there, in theory, for all of us, the powerful and the less-powerful. A week ago, an injured woman won her appeal and was granted a second opportunity to try her transvaginal mesh (TVM) case against Boston Scientific Corporation, which she had lost in 2014.

Let’s back up.

Boston Scientific’s Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit transvaginal mesh was implanted in Diane Albright in 2010 to treat her pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Rather than make her well, the TVM caused her many other problems and serious injuries. In 2012 Ms. Albright sued Boston Scientific Corporation in Massachusetts over its failure to warn of the risks of the Pinnacle mesh product, as well as the defective design of the mesh.

Published on:

Last week I wrote about the dreaded post-trial life of a product liability lawsuit. If an injured person wins the jury trial, and particularly if the jury awards a large amount of money, the plaintiff should expect to face an onslaught of post-trial motions and the inevitable appeal to the next highest appellate court.

That is exactly what happened in one of the first important Depuy ASR Hip trials in California.

The Jury Trial

Depuy ASR Jury TrialOn March 8, 2013, a jury in Los Angeles Superior Court awarded $8,338,236.12 for a man injured by the failure of the Depuy ASR Hip. Loren Kransky alleged that the Depuy ASR hip components were negligently designed, that the components had a design defect, and that Depuy failed to warn him and his doctors about the potential risks involved in implanting the device.

After a five-week trial in 2013, the jury in the California case awarded Mr. Kransky $338,236.12 in “economic damages” and $8,000,000.00 in “pain and suffering” damages. Jurors in the case found that the device was defective at the time of sale, and that it injured the plaintiff. The jury found in favor of Mr. Kransky and awarded damages for medical costs and for emotional suffering and distress.

The jury did not award punitive damages to Mr. Kransky. The jury did not find that Depuy acted with fraud or malice, which prevented an award of punitive damages. Which was good for Depuy, as Mr. Kransky’s legal team aggressively argued for punitive damages in amounts that could have exceeded $100,000,000.00.

Continue reading →