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.

Articles Posted in Toxic Injury

Betty Ruth Rhodes, from Illinois, has filed a lawsuit against 65 different companies, alleging that she contracted lung cancer from asbestos exposure.


The asbestos lawsuit was filed in January, in St. Clair County Circuit Court in Illinois. Rhodes, worked as a laborer for several companies from 1958 until 1990, including Borg Warner, Speedway Manufacturing and Rhodes Camper Sale.

Direct and Indirect Asbestos Exposure

A group of medical researchers and scientists have determined that the potential risks from metal-on-metal hip implants may outweigh any health benefits provided by these devices.


This is because of higher revision rates are linked to the newer hip replacement designs and the mounting and growing concerns about metal ion blood poisoning, known as metallosis.

The California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF) has released an assessment of the benefits and effectiveness of using metal on metal hip replacements as an alternative to total hip arthroplasty, and they concluded that the relatively new metal hip implants may not be worth the risk.

As a Plavix Dangerous Drug attorney and Texas medical doctor, I am providing this Plavix litigation update.


Plavix manufacturers Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis are calling for the centralization and consolidation of all Plavix lawsuits filed in federal courts throughout the United States on behalf of users of their blockbuster blood thinner who allege that side effects of Plavix resulted in serious personal injuries and even death.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will hold a hearing On December 1, to determine whether at least 13 lawsuits over Plavix filed in New Jersey, New York and Arizona should be centralized before one judge for coordinated handling during pretrial proceedings.

Merck said today that a federal court jury in New York found in its favor in the Secrest v. Merck case, rejecting the claim of a Florida woman who blamed her dental and jaw-related problems on her FOSAMAX use.


Chilton Varner of King & Spalding LLP, outside counsel for Merck said, “Unfortunately, the plaintiff had medical problems that cause people to develop the jaw and dental problems that the plaintiff has, regardless of whether they were taking FOSAMAX. She has a long history of invasive dental procedures and suffers from medical conditions that inhibit the body’s ability to heal.”

Today’s verdict marks the fourth time a jury has found in Merck’s favor on a plaintiff’s product liability claim in the litigation regarding FOSAMAX. The plaintiff in this case alleged she used FOSAMAX and suffered various jaw problems and complications following multiple tooth extractions and failed dental implants.

As a DePuy ASR and Pinnacle Replacement and Recall attorney I am providing this blog update.


As readers to my blog will note, I am a licensed Texas medical doctor as well as a product liability attorney. We are currently fielding many phone calls from concerned hip replacement patients and the biggest concern for them is residual hip pain post procedure.”Is that normal?” they ask. “How do we know if we are suffering from metallosis?” “My doctor is not concerned but I still feel that something is wrong?”

The answers to these questions remain elusive for several reasons. Firstly and foremost is the lack of research, disclosure and transparency from the hip manufacturers who knew or should have known about these problems and concerns.

As a Texas Medical Doctor and DePuy ASR Failure Attorney, I am providing this update and commentary on a recent British database study.


According to a British database, the National Joint Registry for England and Wales, which tracks hip replacement problems, a number of recalled DePuy ASR metal hip implants are failing within six years. Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales indicates that 29% of patients who received the DePuy metal-on-metal hip replacement have reported that they failed after only six years of use.

DePuy Orthopaedics, a division of Johnson & Johnson, issued a DePuy ASR hip recall last year, indicating that about 12% to 13% of these hips mail fail within five years. More than 90,000 DePuy ASR XL Acetabular Systems and DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing Systems were sold worldwide before the metal-on-metal hip implants were recalled in August 2010. About 40,000 of those were sold in the United States.

As a Texas medical doctor and DePuy Hip Recall and Replacement Attorney, I am fielding many calls from concerned plaintiffs regarding their implanted DePuy ASR and DePuy Pinnacle Metal on Metal Hip prosthesis.


The Food and Drug Administration has received many complaints recently about failed hip replacements. The FDA has received more than 5,000 reports since January concerning metal-on-metal hips. The majority of complaints involve patients who have had an all-metal hip removed, or will soon undergo such a procedure because a device failed after only a few years. Metal-on-metal hip replacement systems are a widely used type of artificial hip, which are designed to last about 15 years. However, complaints suggest that thousands of people are experiencing early failure of the hip implants within a few years of surgery, often leading to additional surgery to replace the hip.

The complaints confirm that all-metal replacement hips are becoming the biggest and most costly medical implant problem since Medtronic recalled a widely used heart device component in 2007.

Some patients have suffered crippling injuries caused by tiny particles of cobalt and chromium that the metal devices shed as they wear. This is known as metallosis. This may result in soft tissue damage, inflammatory reactions, bone loss, genetic damage, asceptic fibrosis, local necrosis or other problems that may lead to the need for a risky hip revision surgery.

Hip replacement is one of the most common procedures in the United States and all-metal implants accounted for nearly one-third of the estimated 250,000 replacements performed each year. According to one estimate, some 500,000 patients have received an all-metal replacement hip.

One of the artificial hip devices, the A.S.R., or Articular Surface Replacement, was recalled last year by Johnson & Johnson and accounted for 75 percent of the complaints. Under F.D.A. rules, many all-metal devices were sold without testing in patients or without a requirement that producers track their performance. The F.D.A. in May ordered producers to study how frequently the devices were failing and to examine the threat to patients.

In August 2010, a DePuy ASR hip recall was issued for more than 90,000 of the metal hip implants, after it was discovered that a higher-than-expected number were failing within a few years of surgery. Similar problems have been reported in connection with other metal-on-metal hip implants sold by other companies.

In February 2011, the FDA launched a new website in February 2011, which was designed to provide information about the risks associated with metal-on-metal hip replacements.

The FDA has now asked device manufacturers to obtain more information about the level at which the metal particles shed by hip replacements becomes dangerous, how much metal they actually shed and what the potential side effects of metallosis are.

As problems and questions grow, some surgeons are abandoning the all-metal hips, saying they are unwilling to expose new patients to potential dangers when safer alternatives — mainly replacements that combine metal and plastic components — are available.

For many patients, it is too late. The number of complaints filed with the F.D.A. about a product understates a problem because while companies must file reports, doctors and patients do not have to. The filing volume for the DePuy A.S.R. and the Zimmer Durom cup probably reflects a surge of lawsuits filed against their makers.

According the recent New York Times review, there were 7,500 complaints about the A.S.R., nearly 5,000 of them coming since January. In the case of the Durom cup, about 1,600 complaints were filed with the regulator from 2007 to this June.

It is impossible to say how many adverse reports about all-metal hips have been submitted. The Times analysis found some 200 complaints about an all-metal version of another DePuy device called the Pinnacle as well as 400 additional complaints that noted metal-related problems in Pinnacle patients. But the Pinnacle is sold in several versions, so it was not clear how many of the metal-related complaints were linked to the all-metal device.

Many individuals throughout the United States have already filed metal-on-metal hip replacement lawsuits over problems allegedly caused by metallosis or metal poisoning. All DePuy ASR hip lawsuits have been consolidated in federal court as part of an MDL, or multidistrict litigation, in Northern District of Ohio. Lawsuits over DePuy Pinnacle hip metal-on-metal implant replacements, which is another has been consolidated in the Northern District of Texas in Dallas.

Continue reading

As a DePuy Pinnacle Hip Replacement attorney and Texas Medical doctor I am providing this important update, regarding the first MDL hearing held in my home town of Dallas, Texas.


Attorneys from throughout the United States who represent DePuy Pinnacle hip replacement plaintiffs, met today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. This hearing was held in Dallas, and was the first status conference with the judge presiding over the recently formed multi-district litigation (MDL). The meeting between the plaintiff and defense attorneys was quite cordial and the hearing with Judge Kinkeade, lasted over 2 hours. This was an informal, esssentially a meet and greet type of hearing, much different from other types of contentious hearings.

It was interesting to stand at the back of the courtroom and observe the proceedings, the court room was jam packed, standing room only.

As a Texas medical doctor and Fracking water contamination attorney, I want to pose this rhetorical question; What happens when the foxes are guarding the hen house? Consider that as you savor your morning coffee, which may be contaminated with benzene, from a contaminated water aquifer.


Oil and gas industry as well as government regulators have maintained for many decades that a drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, that is used for natural gas wells has never contaminated underground drinking water. The fracking process, involves water and toxic chemicals being injected at high pressure into the ground to break up rocks and release the gas trapped there. This process according to industry officials, occurs thousands of feet below drinking-water aquifers and because of that distance, the drilling chemicals allegedly pose no risk.

According to ExxonMobil at a Congressional hearing on drilling…“There have been over a million wells hydraulically fractured …and there is not one, not one, reported case of a freshwater aquifer having ever been contaminated from hydraulic fracturing…”
But there is in fact a documented case, and the E.P.A. report suggests there may be more. Researchers, were unable to investigate many suspected cases because their details were sealed from the public when energy companies settled lawsuits with landowners. E.P.A. says this practice continues to prevent them from fully assessing the risks of certain types of gas drilling.

The American Petroleum Institute, dismissed the assertion that sealed settlements have hidden problems with gas drilling, and according to their data, they have found that drinking water contamination from fracking is highly improbable.

The documented E.P.A. case, and the report was published in 1987, and the contamination was discovered in 1984. The report concluded that hydraulic fracturing fluids or gel used by the Kaiser Exploration and Mining Company contaminated a well roughly 600 feet away on the property of James Parsons in Jackson County, W.Va., referring to it as “Mr. Parson’s water well.”
“When fracturing the Kaiser gas well on Mr. James Parson’s property, fractures were created allowing migration of fracture fluid from the gas well to Mr. Parson’s water well,” according to the agency’s summary of the case. “This fracture fluid, along with natural gas was present in Mr. Parson’s water, rendering it unusable.”
In their report, E.P.A. officials also wrote that Mr. Parsons’ case was highlighted as an “illustrative” example of the hazards created by this type of drilling, and that legal settlements and nondisclosure agreements prevented access to scientific documentation of other incidents. “This is typical practice, for instance, in Texas,” the report stated. “In some cases, the records of well-publicized damage incidents are almost entirely unavailable for review.”
Industry officials emphasize that all forms of drilling involve some degree of risk. The question, they say, is what represents an acceptable level. Once chemicals contaminate underground drinking-water sources, they are very difficult to remove, according to federal and industry studies.

A 2004 study by the E.P.A. agency concluded that hydraulic fracturing of one kind of natural gas well — coal-bed methane wells — posed “little or no threat” to underground drinking water supplies. The study was later criticized by some within the agency as being unscientific and unduly influenced by industry.

Instances of gas bubbling from fracked sites into nearby water wells have been extensively documented. The industry has also acknowledged that fracking liquids can end up in aquifers because of failures in the casing of wells, spills that occur above ground or through other factors.

Both types of contamination can render the water unusable. However, contamination from fracking fluids is widely considered more worrisome because the fluids can contain carcinogens like benzene.

The risk of abandoned wells serving as conduits for contamination is one that the E.P.A. is currently researching as part of its national study on fracking. Many states lack complete records with the number or location of these abandoned wells and they lack the resources to ensure that abandoned and active wells are inspected regularly.

A 1999 report by the Department of Energy said there were about 2.5 million abandoned oil and natural gas wells in the United States at the time.

Short answer, carbon based energy is not the answer, in this current heat wave that most of the country is withering under, think of the amount of solar energy that can be harvested?
Studies have shown that a solar array set up, in Nevada can supply all of the energy needs of the USA, for the next century.

Continue reading

As a Texas medical doctor and Transvaginal Mesh Attorney I am providing this information and commentary.


11.6% of women who undergo surgery with transvaginal placement of Ethicon Gynecare Prolift Mesh for repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) have to undergo additional operations due to post operative complications.

This complication rate was found as a result of a new study, published by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Most of the re-operations were due to urinary incontinence that occurred after the mesh was implanted, with other problems including transvaginal mesh complications and prolapse recurrence.

Researchers reviewed the outcomes for 524 patients who received the Ethicon Gynecare Prolift vaginal mesh over a 4 year period. At a follow up of 38 months, 11.6% had to undergo reoperation after receiving the Prolift Mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Over 50% of those reoperations were due to urinary incontinence, More than 25% due to mesh-related complications and more than 25% due to recurring prolapse. The researchers found that the number of mesh-related complications and POP decreased when experienced medical teams implanted the mesh.

The Gyncare Prolift Total, Anterior and Posterior Pelvic Floor Repair Systems was first introduced in September 2005, and Gynecare Prolift+M variations were introduced in May 2008. The vaginal mesh or bladder sling is designed reinforce weakened or damaged tissue on the pelvic floor that hold organs in place, such as the bladder, the uterus and the rectum.

Recently, the FDA issued a warning about the risk of problems with Ethicon Gynecare vaginal mesh and other similar products used for pelvic organ prolapse. The agency declared that transvaginal surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse does not provide any benefit over other means of treatment, and has been associated with hundreds of reports of serious problems.

Between 2008 and 2010, the FDA received more than 1,500 reports of transvaginal mesh problems after pelvic organ prolapse repair surgery, including erosion of the mesh into the vagina, contraction or shrinkage of the mesh, infection, pelvic pain, urinary problems, vaginal scarring among other complications.

A number of Gynecare Prolift mesh lawsuits have been filed against Ethicon, Inc., which is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. At least 400 complaints have been filed in New Jersey state court over the Prolift mesh and other similar vaginal bladder sling products made by Ethicon, such as Gynemesh, Prolene Mesh and TVT slings.

In addition to Ethicon vaginal mesh products, problems have also been associated with slings sold by American Medical Systems (AMS), Boston Scientific, C.R. Bard and other companies. Transvaginal mesh lawyers are also reviewing potential claims against manufacturers of these products for women who experienced problems with surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair.

Continue reading

Contact Information