Injured by recalled DePuy ASR and Pinnacle Hips? Metallosis, pain and suffering, hip replacement? Read More Here >>
Injured by recalled Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Hips? Metallosis, pain and suffering, hip replacement?Read More Here >>
Injured by Metal on Metal Hips, Biomet M2A Magnum, Smith and Nephew, Wright Conserve? Metallosis, pain and suffering, hip replacement? Read More Here >>
Injured by Trans Vaginal Mesh complications following Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Urinary Incontinence surgery? Pain and suffering, redo surgery, urinary incontinence? Read More Here >>
Injured by Mirena IUD complications? Mirena uterus perforation and uterus imbedment requiring surgery? We can help, Read More Here >>
Injured by Actos Bladder Cancer? We can help, Read More Here >>
Injured by Pradaxa Hemorrhage or Stroke?We can help, Read More Here >>
Injured by NuvaRing Deep Vein Thrombosis, Pulmonary Embolism, Stroke? We can help, Read More Here >>
Injured by Januvia/Byetta/Victoza Pancreatic Cancer?We can help, Read More Here >>
Birth Defects by Zoloft/
SSRI Antidepressants?
We can help, Read More Here >>

Dr Shezad Malik Law Firm has offices based in Fort Worth and Dallas and represents people who have suffered catastrophic and serious personal injuries including wrongful death, caused by the negligence or recklessness of others. We specialize in Personal Injury trial litigation and focus our energy and efforts on those we represent.

Published on:

Takeda Knew in 2004 of Cancer Link

According to court documents, Takeda knew by 2004 that studies found links between Actos and cancer, and didn’t issue a warning until seven years later to protect billions of dollars in Actos sales.

Takeda Put “Profits Before People”

“Takeda chose to protect profits rather than patients,” Miller, the plaintiff’s attorney, said in closing arguments in Wisniewski’s trial. The company’s main goal was “to protect the product,” Miller added.

4,000 Actos Bladder Cancer Lawsuits in Federal Court

There are more than 4,000 product liability lawsuits filed against Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly, which allege that Actos diabetic medication caused patients to develop bladder cancer. These Actos suits have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty in Lafayette, Louisiana, for pretrial discovery, in what is known as Multidistrict Litigation (MDL).

Actos: Blockbuster Drug Huge Profits

According to Bloomberg, sales of Actos maxed out in March 2011 at $4.5 billion for Takeda and accounted for 27 percent of the company’s revenue. Actos has raked in more than $16 billion in sales since its 1999 release.

Wisniewski and other users allege that Takeda researchers ignored or downplayed concerns about the Actos bladder cancer links before it went on sale in the U.S. and misled U.S. regulators about the diabetic medication risks.

Key Documents Destroyed

The jury found that the Takeda officials intentionally destroyed documents about the development, marketing and sales of Actos. The company ditched files of 46 former and current employees, including those of top executives in Japan and U.S. sales representatives. “We’ll never know what was in those documents,” Miller said.

Actos Verdicts

Of eight lawsuits to go to trial, five have resulted in awards to the plaintiffs. These have included $2 million in damages to Wisniewski, and $6.5 million to a man and his wife (Cooper v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc., et al, case number CGC-12-518535).

In 2013, juries in California and Maryland ordered Takeda to pay a combined $8.2 million in damages. But those verdicts later were tossed out by judges. The company also won defense verdicts recently in two cases in state court in Las Vegas.

The Pennsylvania case is Wisniewski v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc., 120702272, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The consolidated Actos case in Louisiana is In Re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, 11-md-02299, U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana (Lafayette).

Published on:

There are many product liability lawsuits being filed against the manufacturers of power morcellators. The injured women claim that patients and doctors should have been warned about the risks associated with use of the medical devices during minimally invasive, laparoscopic hysterectomies.

Ethicon Morcellator Cancer AttorneyWhat Are Power Morcellators?

Power morcellators are medical devices that are used during laparoscopic hysterectomy and myomectomy procedures. The device allows the surgeon to grind up the uterus or uterine fibroids and remove the tissue through a small incision in the abdomen. The medical device is used during minimally invasive surgery, and reduces recovery time, scarring and speeds up recovery time.

Morcellators Uterine Cancer Dissemination RiskAccording to medical experts and the FDA, about one out of every 350 women undergoing a laparoscopic hysterectomy with morcellation may have unsuspected sarcoma, which doctors are unable to detect before the surgery.

There is no bullet proof way for doctors to diagnose the uterine cancer before using the morcellator devices to grind up the uterus or remove the uterine fibroids, which is also known as myomectomy procedure. Accordingly, the FDA strongly urged doctors to avoid using the devices for laparoscopic hysterectomy or myomectomy procedures in April 2014.

Power morcellators spread this cancer throughout the pelvis and abdomen during the grinding process, leading to rapid upstaging of the cancer and reducing the risk of long-term survival. As this risk becomes known, many doctors have stopped the use of power morcellators over the past year.

Ethicon Morcellator Recall

All Ethicon power morcellators were recalled by the manufacturer, earlier this summer. J&J, acknowledged that the devices pose an unreasonable risk of disseminating uterine cancer. Ethicon, a J&J subsidiary requested that hospitals voluntarily return all laparoscopic surgery morcellators. The company, noted that it will no longer sell the devices since there is no way to make them safe.

Morcellator Black Box Warning

The FDA announced November 24 that it is adding a black box warning to uterine morcellator devices that remain on the market. A BLACK BOX WARNING, is the strongest warning that can be placed on any medical device. Patients, doctors and hospitals are now on notice of the potential danger of increased uterine cancer spread risk associated with the use of these devices.

Furthermore, the FDA announced that power morcellators should not be used with women near menopause or post-menopausal, or in women who could have tissue removed through the vagina or via a small incision.

This contraindication prohibits the use of the devices in the vast majority of women who undergo laparoscopic or vaginal uterine morcellation procedures.

Power Morcellator Cancer Litigation

Recently, complaints were filed in the federal court system, bringing the total to about twenty hysterectomy morcellator lawsuits filed nationally. These women were diagnosed with the spread of leiomyosarcoma, endometrial stromal sarcoma or other cancers following uterine fibroid surgery.

Romona and Randolph Gourdine filed a morcellator lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina against morcellator manufacturer Karl Storz.

Gourdine alleges that she underwent a laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy involving the Rotocut morcellator in 2011, to remove a fibroid and her uterus. Then she found out that the fibroid was a leiomyosarcoma, an aggressive form of uterine cancer that is much more difficult to treat once it is spread outside the uterus.

Jennifer and Randall Sanders, filed a similar morcellator lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Johnson & Johnson and it’s Ethicon subsidiary.

Sanders underwent a hysterectomy with morcellation to remove uterine fibroids, fallopian tube and ovary in 2012, during which surgeons used an Ethicon Gynecare Tissue Morcellator. Sanders soon discovered that her fibroid contained cancer, which was spread during the morcellator surgery to advanced stage metastatic serous carcinoma. Sanders had to undergo several chemotherapy treatments.

Timothy Schroeder filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennsessee for wife, Cynthia, who died in December 2013. Cynthia underwent laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy morcellator surgery in 2008, and an Ethicon Gynecare Morcellex was used to remove her uterus, fibroids and ovaries.

Cynthia Schroeder was diagnosed with the metastatic spread of leiomyosarcoma cancer in 2010. After three years of aggressive chemo therapy, she died of the metastatic cancer.

All of the lawsuits filed against manufacturers of these devices claim that hysterectomy morcellators are unreasonably dangerous and that information about the risk of uterine cancer being spread was withheld from the patients and doctors.

Published on:

The Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II artificial hip metal implant global settlement which was announced in November 2014, appears to finally be gaining some traction as the policy and settlement procedures are being set down.

Defective_Hip_Recall_AttorneyStryker Corp. agreed in November to pay more than $1 billion to settle lawsuits over thousands of hip implants recalled in 2012 after patients complained of early hip implant failure, pain, and metal debris causing metallosis from the devices.

Stryker Hip Implant Settlement Details

Stryker will pay a base amount of $300,000 per case to patients who had the devices surgically removed. The hip implant device manufacturer is exposed to more than 4,000 suits consolidated in New Jersey state court and federal court in Minnesota.

To qualify for the settlement, Stryker patients must show they had their hip implant removed prior to November 3, according to the terms of the settlement.

The settlement only applies to cases that have required revision surgery by November 2, and given the high failure rate with Stryker Rejuvenate hips, it is expected that new cases will continue to be filed over the next few years, and it is possible that additional settlements will be reached.

Patients who suffered extraordinary injuries associated with the hip’s removal, such as multiple surgeries, may qualify for more than $300,000 in compensation.

Stryker Metal Hip Recall July 2012

Stryker recalled their Rejuvenate and ABG II devices in July 2012 after warning surgeons that the implants could damage tissue around the hip and cause other significant health problems. There were more than 20,000 of Rejuvenate and ABG II implants sold before a Stryker recall was announced.

Stryker settled before facing multiple trials over allegations that their hips had fundamental design defects and that the company failed to warn patients about the devices’ risks.

Stryker Metallosis Study

According to a report in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (May 15, 2013), that studied 12 hips in 11 patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty with a modular femoral stem design by Stryker Rejuvenate, there are problems with metallosis with the hip design. Upon revision surgery, all 11 patients showed local soft tissue destruction with visible corrosion at the femoral neck-body junction. There was increased levels of chromium, cobalt and titanium in their blood, which indicates metallosis.

This new research indicates that patients implanted with the recalled Rejuvenate and ABG II Modular-Neck Hip Stems should be evaluated for local tissue reactions and blood testing to ensure their hips are functioning properly and to prevent further complications such as metallosis.

What is Stryker Rejuvenate Hip?

The Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II hip implant consists of a titanium-molybdenum-zirconium-iron alloy body connected to a modular cobalt-chromium alloy neck. The Stryker Rejuvenate is subject to fretting, corroding and finally failing shortly after it is implanted.

The Stryker Rejuvenate has two components that fit inside of each other to allow the surgeon to adjust the length of the femoral component based on the patient’s size. This design has been associated to an increased risk of metallosis that occurs from the release of metal debris as the chromium-cobalt neck grinds against the titanium femoral stem.

Catastrophic hip failure and the need for early replacement is not a question of if, but a question of when.

Stryker Lawsuit Metallosis Allegations

The lawsuits in the state and federal court litigation have similar claims, alleging that the Stryker Rejuvenate hip implant was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, causing patients to develop early hip failure, pseudotumors in the hip joint, pain and suffering and metallosis side effects that resulted in the need for risky revision surgery.

Metallosis is an adverse tissue reaction to heavy metals in the body. It can cause pain, limited mobility, failure of the hip joint, pseudo-tumors, dissolution of the bone, DNA changes and chromosomal aberrations.

Federal Multidistrict Litigation

Almost 2,000 cases are pending in the federal court system, and consolidated as part of an MDL, or multidistrict litigation. The federal case is In Re Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, 13-mdl-2441, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (St. Paul).

New Jersey State Multidistrict Litigation

Consolidated pretrial proceedings have been established in New Jersey state court, since is the corporate state for the hip manufacturer, Howmedica Osteonics. The New Jersey litigation has been centralized before Superior Court Judge Brian R. Martinotti in Bergen County as part of a Multi-County Litigation (MCL). Here also almost 2,000 cases are pending.

The New Jersey case is In Re Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Modular Hip Implant Litigation, 296 BER-L-936-13, Bergen County Superior Court (Hackensack).

Published on:

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation announced consolidation and centralization of all nationwide Xarelto lawsuits filed in federal courts before U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

1-Xarelto Bleeding Hemorrhage AttorneyOver 50 Federal Xarelto Lawsuits

Bayer Healthcare and Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals subsidiary are exposed to at least 50 product liability lawsuits over their new-generation anticoagulant. These personal injury and wrongful death claims are pending in 24 different federal courts.

According to experts, as Xarelto injury cases mount involving patients who experienced uncontrollable bleeding, it is anticipated that eventually several thousand cases will be transferred into the MDL.

Xarelto Uncontrollable Bleeding Allegations

The complaints allege that the drug manufacturers failed to warn about the potential side effects of Xarelto, which caused patients to develop uncontrollable bleeding that resulted in hospitalizations, the need for blood transfusions and in severe cases death.

According to the claims, severe injuries and deaths were avoidable if the pharmaceutical companies had not provided misleading information about the blood monitoring, and if stronger warnings had been provided about the lack of a Xarelto reversal agent or antidote.

MDL Centralized in Eastern District of Louisiana

The Xarelto litigation has been centralized before Judge Fallon, who oversaw the MDL proceedings for thousands of Avandia lawsuits, Chineses drywall lawsuits and several other complex product liability claims.

In complex pharmaceutical claims coordinated pretrial proceedings are established where a large number of lawsuits are filed over personal injuries. The MDL has an important role in streamlining the litigation process, as all plaintiffs and defendants are under one roof, coordinate discovery and the bellwether trials can be set to determine the strength of the claims.

If the parties fail to negotiate a settlement or resolve the litigation following pretrial proceedings, Judge Fallon may remand cases back to the U.S. Districts where they were originally filed for separate trial dates in the future.

What is Xarelto?

Xarelto (rivaroxoaban) was developed by Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals in 2011, a new generation anticoagulant touted as a superior alternative to Coumadin (warfarin).

Coumadin has been the go-to blood thinner for prevention of strokes among patients with atrial fibrillation for the past 60 years. While all blood thinners have side effects and increased risk of bleeding problems, Xarelto has been associated with an increasing number of adverse event reports involving uncontrollable bleeding injuries.

Xarelto: No Antidote

Warfarin, can be quickly reversed in the case of an emergency, with vitamin K and blood transfusions. There is no approved antidote available for patients using Xarelto, and many of the bleeding side effects have resulted in catastrophic outcomes, after doctors were unable to control the bleeds.

Xarelto drug makers claim that it is easier to use, since it does not require regular blood monitoring. Some medical experts however suggest that Xarelto blood monitoring may actually help doctors identify patients at the greatest risk of bleeding.

Recent Xarelto Complaints

Recently Harriet Ibanez, filed a claim in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. According to Ibanez, she was prescribed Xarelto to prevent strokes from atrial fibrillation in October 2013, and required hospitalization for severe bleeding and blood transfusions.

Also Ann Hartman, filed a claim in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. According to Hartman, she suffered severe rectal bleeding after being prescribed Xarelto for treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, also requiring hospitalization and blood transfusions.

Published on:

A Missouri family has recently filed an uterine cancer lawsuit over power morcellators. The deceased woman’s family alleged that the morcellator device manufactured by Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon subsidiary caused cancer to be widely spread during a robotic hysterectomy.

Ethicon Morcellator Cancer AttorneyEthicon Morcellator Wrongful Death Claim

The wrongful death lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri in early December, following the death of Carl Cecilia Merrill from a rare, malignant cancer called leiomyosarcoma.

Merrill underwent a robot-assisted hysterectomy and uterine fibroid removal surgery in December 2012. Her doctors used an Ethicon Gynecare morcellator to remove the uterus and fibroid laparoscopically.

According to the complaint, the device allegedly caused undiagnosed uterine cancer to be spread throughout her peritoneal cavity, turning the cancer from its earliest, and most treatable stage, to its most deadly metastatic form.

The wrongful death lawsuit  alleges that Ethicon knew or should have known about the significant metastatic uterine cancer risks associated with their power morcellators, but failed to provide adequate warnings for patients or the doctors.

Morcellators Uterine Cancer Dissemination Risk

According to FDA estimates, there are about 1 in 350 women undergoing laparoscopic uterine fibroid removal that may have unsuspected sarcoma cells in the fibroids.

There is no bullet proof way for doctors to diagnose the uterine cancer before using the morcellator devices to grind up the uterus or remove the uterine fibroids, which is also known as myomectomy procedure. Accordingly, the FDA strongly urged doctors to avoid using the devices for laparoscopic hysterectomy or myomectomy procedures in April 2014.

Ethicon Morcellator Recall

All Ethicon power morcellators were recalled by the manufacturer, earlier this summer. J&J, acknowledged that the devices pose an unreasonable risk of disseminating uterine cancer. Ethicon, a J&J subsidiary requested that hospitals voluntarily return all laparoscopic surgery morcellators. The company, noted that it will no longer sell the devices since there is no way to make them safe.

Morcellator Black Box Warning

The FDA announced November 24 that it is adding a black box warning to uterine morcellator devices that remain on the market. A BLACK BOX WARNING, is the strongest warning that can be placed on any medical device. Patients, doctors and hospitals are now on notice of the potential danger of increased uterine cancer spread risk associated with the use of these devices.

Furthermore, the FDA announced that power morcellators should not be used with women near menopause or post-menopausal, or in women who could have tissue removed through the vagina or via a small incision.

This contraindication prohibits the use of the devices in the vast majority of women who undergo laparoscopic or vaginal uterine morcellation procedures.

Power Morcellator Cancer Litigation

This lawsuit is the latest in similar uterine cancer lawsuits that are now being litigated on behalf of women nationwide diagnosed with disseminated uterine cancer following a minimally invasive, laparoscopic surgery.

The women plaintiffs allege that the rapid spread of leiomyosarcoma, endometrial stromal sarcoma or other uterine cancers may have been prevented if any other  alternative treatment options available for women with symptomatic uterine fibroids had been used instead of morcellation.

Published on:

Today, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) heard oral arguments to consolidate all federal Xarelto lawsuits before one judge, in one centralized U.S. District Court.

xarelto side effects attorneyIt is widely anticipated that the U.S. JPML will establish centralized proceedings for coordinated discovery and a series of bellwether trials.
Patients who took Xarelto accuse the drug manufacturers of downplaying Xarelto’s bleeding risks and asked that the cases be sent to U.S District Judge David Herndon in East St. Louis, Illinois. An order maybe granted before the upcoming holiday season.

Over 50 Federal Xarelto Lawsuits

Bayer Healthcare and Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals subsidiary are exposed to at least 50 product liability lawsuits over their new-generation anticoagulant. These personal injury and wrongful death claims are pending in 24 different federal courts. According to sources there are 65 deaths attributable to the drug side effects.

Xarelto Uncontrollable Bleeding Allegations

The complaints allege that the drug manufacturers failed to warn about the potential side effects of Xarelto, which caused patients to develop uncontrollable bleeding that resulted in hospitalizations, the need for blood transfusions and in severe cases death.

According to the claims, severe injuries and deaths were avoidable if the pharmaceutical companies had not provided misleading information about the blood monitoring, and if stronger warnings had been provided about the lack of a Xarelto reversal agent or antidote.

MDL Panel Hearing

A group of plaintiffs are seeking to centralize the complaints as part of a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL). In complex pharmaceutical claims coordinated pretrial proceedings are established where a large number of lawsuits are filed over personal injuries. The MDL has an important role in streamlining the litigation process, as all plaintiffs and defendants are under one roof, coordinate discovery and the bellwether trials can be set to determine the strength of the claims.

The number of active cases is expected to increase significantly if and when the panel decides to establish a Xarelto MDL.

Recent Xarelto Complaints

Recently Harriet Ibanez, filed a claim in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. According to Ibanez, she was prescribed Xarelto to prevent strokes from atrial fibrillation in October 2013, and required hospitalization for severe bleeding and blood transfusions.

Also Ann Hartman, filed a claim in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. According to Hartman, she suffered severe rectal bleeding after being prescribed Xarelto for treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, also requiring hospitalization and blood transfusions.

What is Xarelto?

Xarelto (rivaroxoaban) was developed by Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals in 2011, a new generation anticoagulant touted as a superior alternative to Coumadin (warfarin).

Coumadin has been the go-to blood thinner for prevention of strokes among patients with atrial fibrillation for the past 60 years. All blood thinners have a side effect and increased risk of bleeding problems. Xarelto has been linked to an increasing number of adverse event reports involving uncontrollable bleeding injuries.

Xarelto: No Antidote

Warfarin, can be quickly reversed in the case of an emergency, with vitamin K and blood transfusions. There is no approved antidote available for patients using Xarelto, and many of the bleeding side effects have resulted in catastrophic outcomes, after doctors were unable to control the bleeds.

Xarelto drug makers claim that it is easier to use, since it does not require regular blood monitoring. Some medical experts however suggest that Xarelto blood monitoring may actually help doctors identify patients at the greatest risk of bleeding.

Published on:

In the first federal trial involving Boston Scientific Corp., the vaginal mesh manufacturer was ordered by the jury to pay $26.7 million to a group of four women who blamed the company’s vaginal mesh inserts for their personal injuries.

Trans Vaginal Mesh AttorneyJurors in federal court in Miami found that Boston Scientific officials defectively designed their Pinnacle pelvic-organ implants and failed to properly warn doctors and their patients about the device’s risks.

The verdict is the first in a federal case against Boston Scientific over the Pinnacle inserts and the first to combine more than one plaintiff’s claims.

Combined Trial Four Awards

In a first for a federal transvaginal trial, 4 claims were grouped together and tried collectively. Jurors awarded Amal Eghnayem, Margarita Dotres and Mania Nunez more than $6.7 million, and Juana Betancourt, was awarded more than $6.5 million. The panel awarded only compensatory damages.

Boston Scientific company denied that the Pinnacle inserts suffered from design flaws and claimed company officials provided adequate warnings about the implants’ risks.

Allegations: Boston Scientific Did Not Test Vaginal Mesh Products

The women’s lawyers argued that Boston Scientific officials ignored calls for more testing of the pelvic-organ implant and rushed the production of the devices to market without adequate testing.

Thousands of Women Affected with Organ Damage

Doctors inserted more than 70,000 mesh devices in the U.S. in 2010, threading them through incisions in the vagina to strengthen pelvic muscles that failed to support internal organs or to treat urinary incontinence.

Over thirty thousand women nationwide are pursuing Boston Scientific mesh lawsuits after experiencing painful and debilitating complications associated with the use of bladder sling and transvaginal mesh products for repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or female stress urinary incontinence (SUI), including erosion of the mesh through the vagina, infections and other problems.

Boston Scientific Trial Verdicts

In September, a state court jury in Texas ordered Boston Scientific to pay $73 million in damages to a woman who blamed one of its incontinence implants for her constant pain. That verdict was cut to $34.6 million by the trial judge. The company has won other cases that have gone to trial in state court in Massachusetts.

The Massachusetts-based company, is exposed to more than 14,000 suits over its vaginal implants in U.S. federal courts, according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Boston Scientific pulled Pinnacle from the U.S. market in 2011.

Many of the cases against Boston Scientific have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston, West Virginia. Others have been filed in state courts in Delaware, New Jersey, Missouri, Texas and California. Goodwin, who’s overseeing all the vaginal-mesh suits filed in federal courts against Boston Scientific, presided over the trial of the four women’s claims.

Mesh Materials Not Approved

Women allege that the mesh inserts are made of substandard plastic materials  that erode once they are implanted, causing pain and organ damage, and making sex uncomfortable or impossible. According to evidence presented in the trial, the mesh used in the Pinnacle insert hadn’t been approved for use within the human body by the company that made it.

Vaginal Mesh and Bladder Sling MDL Update

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin is overseeing coordinated discovery and a series of bellwether trials involving seven different manufacturers, which have all be centralized in the Southern District of West Virginia as part of multidistrict litigation.

There are about 70,000 mesh/sling lawsuits in the MDL, as of the latest figures provided by the JPML, with 14,250 Boston Scientific, 10,117 Bard Avaulta, 22,077 Ethicon, 19,170 American Medical Systems (AMS), 1,813 Coloplast, 293 Cook Medical and 84 Neomedic mesh lawsuits.

As part of the coordinated management of the litigation, there are early trial dates set, known as “bellwether” case. The outcome of these trials are only binding on the claims that go before a jury, and they may facilitate vaginal mesh settlement negotiations with the manufacturers.

Boston Scientific is expected to face closing arguments November 17 in another multi-plaintiff trial in federal court in West Virginia.

The Florida case is Eghnayem v. Boston Scientific Corp., 14-cv-24061, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami).

Published on:

According to Wisniewski’s attorney, Mike Miller, the jury found Takeda “clearly failed to warn, and it clearly caused her damage. She’s got a life of bladder cancer; it’s a fair verdict,” he added.

Takeda Knew in 2004 of Cancer Link

According to Miller, Takeda knew by 2004 that studies found links between Actos and cancer, and didn’t issue a warning until seven years later to protect billions of dollars in Actos sales.

Takeda Put “Profits Before People”

“Takeda chose to protect profits rather than patients,” Miller said in closing arguments in Wisniewski’s trial. The company’s main goal was “to protect the product,” Miller added.

Actos 7th Bladder Cancer Trial

Wisniewski, a retired accountant who has bladder cancer, is the seventh Actos patient to take her product liability, personal injury claim to trial. In the 6th Actos trial earlier in the year, there was a massive $9 billion verdict handed down in Louisiana against Takeda and Eli Lilly & Co. for hiding the diabetes medicine’s cancer risks. The punitive damage award was reduced by the judge to $37 million, the highest allowable by law. Under the judge’s ruling, Takeda is responsible for paying $27.6 million in punitive damages and Lilly must pay $9.2 million. The jury also awarded Allen $1.5 million in compensatory damages. The case is on appeal.

3,500 Actos Bladder Cancer Lawsuits in Federal Court

More than 3,500 Actos suits have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty in Lafayette, Louisiana, for pretrial discovery, in what is known as Multidistrict Litigation (MDL).

4,500 Actos Bladder Cancer Lawsuits in State Court

The company is exposed to another 4,500 cases in state courts in Illinois, West Virginia, California and Pennsylvania. Can over 8,000 plaintiffs be wrong, with more injured folks waiting the wings?

Actos: Blockbuster Drug Huge Profits
According to Bloomberg, sales of Actos maxed out in March 2011 at $4.5 billion for Takeda and accounted for 27 percent of the company’s revenue. Actos has pumped out more than $16 billion in sales since its 1999 release.

Wisniewski and other users allege that Takeda researchers ignored or downplayed concerns about the Actos bladder cancer links before it went on sale in the U.S. and misled U.S. regulators about the diabetic medication risks.

Key Documents Destroyed

The jury found that the Takeda officials intentionally destroyed documents about the development, marketing and sales of Actos. The company ditched files of 46 former and current employees, including those of top executives in Japan and U.S. sales representatives. “We’ll never know what was in those documents,” Miller said.

Actos Verdicts

In 2013, juries in California and Maryland ordered Takeda to pay a combined $8.2 million in damages. But those verdicts later were tossed out by judges. The company also won defense verdicts recently in two cases in state court in Las Vegas. Takeda faces its next Actos trial in state court in West Virginia starting October 15.

The Pennsylvania case is Wisniewski v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc., 120702272, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The consolidated Actos case in Louisiana is In Re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, 11-md-02299, U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana (Lafayette).

Published on:

Stryker Corp. agreed recently this month to pay more than $1 billion to settle lawsuits over thousands of hip implants recalled in 2012 after patients complained of early hip implant failure, pain, and metal debris causing metallosis from the devices.

Stryker Rejuvenate metal hip injury attorney Stryker Settlement Details

Stryker will pay a base amount of $300,000 per case to patients who had the devices surgically removed. The hip implant device manufacturer is exposed to more than 4,000 suits consolidated in New Jersey state court and federal court in Minnesota.

To qualify for the settlement, Stryker patients must show they had their hip implant removed prior to November 3, according to the terms of the settlement.

Patients who suffered extraordinary injuries associated with the hip’s removal, such as multiple surgeries, may qualify for more than $300,000 in compensation.

Stryker Recall July 2012

Stryker recalled their Rejuvenate and ABG II devices in July 2012 after warning surgeons that the implants could damage tissue around the hip and cause other significant health problems.

Stryker settled before facing multiple trials over allegations that their hips had fundamental design defects and that the company failed to warn patients about the devices’ risks.

What is Stryker Rejuvenate Hip?

The Stryker Rejuvenate is a modular metal based hip replacement, and it is subject to fretting, corroding and finally failing shortly after it is implanted.

The Stryker Rejuvenate has two components that fit inside of each other to allow the surgeon to adjust the length of the femoral component based on the patient’s size. This design has been associated to an increased risk of metallosis that occurs from the release of metal debris as the chromium-cobalt neck grinds against the titanium femoral stem.

Usually metal hip implants consist of one component of the metal head and stem. According to experts, approximately 20,000 patients received the metal hip implants. Unfortunately, according to experts it is expected that the Stryker Rejuvenate side effects are going to cause patients to suffer catastrophic failure of their hip replacements the longer the device remains.

Catastrophic hip failure and the need for early replacement is not a question of if, but a question of when.

Stryker Lawsuit Allegations

The lawsuits in the state and federal court litigation have similar claims, alleging that the Stryker Rejuvenate hip implant was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, causing patients to develop early hip failure, pseudotumors in the hip joint, pain and suffering and metallosis side effects that resulted in the need for risky revision surgery.

Federal Multidistrict Litigation

Almost 2,000 cases are pending in the federal court system, and consolidated as part of an MDL, or multidistrict litigation. The federal case is In Re Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, 13-mdl-2441, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (St. Paul).

New Jersey State Multidistrict Litigation

Consolidated pretrial proceedings have been established in New Jersey state court, since is the corporate state for the hip manufacturer, Howmedica Osteonics. The New Jersey litigation has been centralized before Superior Court Judge Brian R. Martinotti in Bergen County as part of a Multi-County Litigation (MCL). Here also almost 2,000 cases are pending.

The New Jersey case is In Re Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Modular Hip Implant Litigation, 296 BER-L-936-13, Bergen County Superior Court (Hackensack).

Published on:

Johnson & Johnson was found not liable for personal injuries and product liability by a Texas jury in the first case to go to trial.

DePuy ASR Metallosis Injury AttorneyJury Found For Johnson & Johnson DePuy

The Dallas federal jury ruled unanimously against the plaintiff Kathleen Herlihy-Paoli, who said the two metal-on-metal Pinnacle hips she received in 2009 were defective and that the company failed to warn patients and doctors about the device’s risks.

DePuy had said the implants were improperly positioned, and not to blame for her injuries. Jurors deliberated for two days, after a eight-week trial. The jury found that the ULTAMET artificial hips sold by J&J’s DePuy Orthopaedics unit as part of its Pinnacle line of implants had no design defects and the company properly warned patients and doctors about the devices’ risks.

There are more than 6,000 lawsuit cases over the allegedly defective Pinnacle hip implants that have been consolidated in the Dallas, Northern District of Texas federal court.

Metal on Metal Hip Manufacturers On the Hit Parade

J&J set aside $2.5 billion last year to settle claims that 8,000 of its DePuy ASR hips were defective. The pharmaceutical and medical device giant company  is now exposed to similar allegations that its Pinnacle line of hip implants also were failing prematurely and causing metallosis or metal poisoning.

J&J, the world’s largest health-care company, issued a worldwide recall of 93,000 ASR hip implants in August 2010, saying 12 percent failed within five years. But, according to internal J&J documents unearthed during litigation, 37 percent of ASR hips failed after 4.6 years. In 2012, the failure rate in Australia was 44 percent within seven years.

J&J stopped selling the metal-on-metal version of the Pinnacle hip in August 2013 after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration required device makers to submit new versions of the artificial hips for pre-market approval.

J&J bragged that the Pinnacle metal-on-metal implants, which were approved for sale in the U.S. in 2000, as a design that would last 20 years and offer greater range of motion.

All metal on metal (MoM) hip manufacturers are exposed to similar allegation of premature hip failure and metallosis. In February of this year, Biomet agreed to settle over 1,000 lawsuits over its  MoM M2A Magnum implants. Zimmer has also faced litigation over its Durom MoM device, as has Stryker’s Trident, Rejuvenate and ABG II MoM devices. Smith & Nephew, which started the MoM craze with its Birmingham line of MoM devices is also under the gun as well as Wright’s line of Conserve MoM hip implants.

There are currently more than 4,000 product liability personal injury lawsuits pending nationwide involving the recalled Stryker Rejuvenate or ABG II implants, which were removed from the market in 2012, amid reports that the modular femoral components may be prone to fret, corrode and ultimately fail within a few years.

Metallosis Caused by MoM Implants

In many cases, chromium and cobalt debris from the metal-on-metal grinding between the cup and the ball components of the MoM hips caused local muscle, bone, tissue death and increased Cobalt and Chromium blood levels.

According to medical experts the long term side effects of heavy metal poisoning is unclear, with some stating that it can cause bladder and kidney cancer many years down the road.

The case is Herlihy-Paoli v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., 11-cv-3590, U.S. District Court; Northern District of Texas (Dallas).