Resource Center

Free Case Review

Injured by a prescription drug or medical device? you may be entitled to compensation.

BD Scores a Victory in Bard’s Hernia Mesh Case

Becton Dickinson, which acquired C.R.
Bard at the end of 2017, scored a victory in New Jersey Superior Court this week.
The court’s appellate division refused to reinstate a product liability lawsuit involving Bard’s 3DMax polypropylene mesh, which is used for hernia repair.
Plaintiff Kemuel Goodson was implanted with the product in 2006 and alleged that the mesh caused multiple complications that required extensive medical care, including several additional operations.
Goodson claimed in his original complaint that defective design, negligence, and fraud and misrepresentation were to blame for the complications he suffered after receiving the mesh implant.
The three-judge appellate panel noted in their decision that the company has continued to be in compliance with FDA requirements, and has never had to recall the 3DMax product from the market.
Middleton also said he discussed the risks of numbness and chronic pain with Goodson before the surgery, but did not read the instructions for use.
“In the instant case, none of the experts specifically opined that 3DMax is defective and that this defective design caused the medical complications complained of by the plaintiff.
This is not enough to overcome the summary judgment standard,” the judges wrote.
Regarding the negligence claims, the judges said that although Middleton did not read the manufacturer’s warnings, that decision did not alter his role as a learned intermediary, nor does it impose liability on the company for failure to warn.

Piggie Park Enterprises Inc. Issues Allergy Alert on Undeclared Wheat and Soy in Maurice’s Southern Gold Honey Sauce

Piggie Park Enterprises Inc. is recalling Maurice’s Southern Gold Honey Sauce manufactured in the past two years (March 11, 2016 thru March 11, 2018), because it contains undeclared wheat and soy.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to wheat or soy run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
Maurice’s Southern Gold Honey Sauce was distributed Nationwide through our Flying Pig shipping service; in GA, NC, and SC through our retail partners; and also at our retail stores in SC.
The product comes in an 18oz, clear plastic bottle with an expiration date before 3/12/18.
The expiration date is located on the bottom of the bottle.
If the bottle doesn’t contain an expiration date, then the bottle is included in this recall.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.
The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the powdered honey used in making the Maurice’s Southern Gold Honey Sauce contains wheat and soy, and it was not properly disclosed on the ingredients labels.
Consumers who have purchased the 18oz bottles of Maurice’s Southern Gold Honey Sauce are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-628-4273 M-F 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.

Patients in Two States Can Sue Brand-Name Drugmakers Over Generics

But recent court rulings may allow generic drug users to sue makers of the brand-name versions.
Generic drugs must carry the same label as the brand-name versions.
The U.S. Supreme Court says courts may not order generic drugmakers to violate the law by changing their labels.
So, federal law bars lawsuits that accuse generic drugmakers of failing to warn of dangerous side effects.
This is called preemption.
But two state supreme courts said brand-name drugmakers may be responsible for problems caused by generic drug labels.
The court ruled patients who take generics may sue brand-name drugmakers when they intentionally fail to warn of dangers.
Patients can also sue if a maker of a brand-name drug fails to warn when it should have known of serious danger.
The decision comes months after a California Supreme Court ruling.
The court said California lawsuits could sue brand-name drugmakers when they are negligent.

Growing Litigation Alleges Bair Hugger MSSA Infection

The woman alleges she developed a Bair Hugger MSSA infection not long after her hip replacement surgery, which further compounded her medical condition.
Plaintiff Kathryn H. opted to file legal action against the pharmaceutical companies, alleging that they either knew or should have known of the risk of Bair Hugger MSSA infection.
According to the Bair Hugger lawsuit, Kathryn underwent left hip replacement surgery with the Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming system used during the procedure.
The Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming system is a temperature control device that consists of a disposable blanket and a connecting hose that forcefully filtered warm air onto the patient.
This was allegedly not the case with Kathryn, as she allegedly developed a deep joint infection soon after her procedure.
Kathryn says she is currently contending with the Bair Hugger MSSA infection, and chose to file legal action against Arizant and 3M Company for compensation.
According to the study authors, this allows the bacterial cells to come into contact with the surgical site, potentially resulting in a Bair Hugger MSSA infection.
Patients who undergo surgery using this warming system should be wary of any signs or symptoms of Bair Hugger MSSA infection including: Chills Fever Night Sweats Fatigue Swelling around Implant Site Pain or Stiffness in Implant Area Drainage of Surgical Site Kathryn’s Bair Hugger lawsuit is joining MDL No.
Kathryn states she would not have agreed to use the device, if she had known the risk of Bair Hugger MSSA infection.
This Bair Hugger Lawsuit is Case No.

iBalance TKA System Component Recalled for Surface Variances

In a total knee arthroplaasty (TKA), a surgical technique is performed that essentially removes damaged bone tissue existing on the ends of the femur and tibia—upper and lower leg bone, respectively—and replaces it with metal and polypropylene prosthetic components that allow for smoother articulation of the bones at the knee joint.
This surgery is used in cases of severe arthritis or traumatic injury.
The Arthrex Co. applied for U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the iBalance TKA system through the 510(k) application process—a shortcut which has sometimes been referred to as a loophole.
The 510(k) process allows for a medical device to bypass several safety studies and enter the market by piggybacking onto a similar device that has already been approved.
Three years later, the Arthrex Co. issued a voluntary recall of the iBalance TKA system component known as the tibial tray.
The reason for the action was because of variances in texture on the outer surface of the tibial tray.
TKR surgery has been known to subject patients to serious risks such as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE).
Both DVT and PE involve blood clots which can travel in the circulatory system after during and after such an invasive surgery and cause respiratory arrest, cardiac arrest, or even stroke.
Did you or a loved one have to endure chronic pain and other side effects after having an Arthrex iBalance TKA system implanted?
If you or a loved one suffered from complications caused by an Attune knee implant, an Arthrex knee implant, or an Exactech knee implant, you may have a legal claim.

Invokana Adverse Effects Included Toe and Leg Amputations, Patient Says

A diabetes patient has filed an Invokana lawsuit against drug company Janssen Pharmaceuticals, alleging his Invokana adverse effects included a series of lower extremity amputations.
The Invokana adverse effects lawsuit was filed joining a growing multidistrict litigation against the company in New Jersey federal court.
Plaintiff Leon S. filed the lawsuit on Feb. 28, 2018.
According to the lawsuit, his “injuries [were] preventable and resulted directly from [Janssen’s] failure and refusal to conduct proper safety studies, failure to properly assess and publicize alarming safety signals, suppression of information revealing serious and life-threatening risks, willful and wanton failure to provide adequate instructions, and willful misrepresentations concerning the nature and safety of Invokana,” the lawsuit states.
The Invokana adverse effects lawsuit was filed on multiple counts including manufacturing defect, defective design, failure to warn, breach of express warranty, breach of warranty of fitness for ordinary use, negligence, breach of implied warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, fraud, and punitive damages.
Soon after its introduction to the drug market in 2013, it quickly saw a rise in popularity, partly due to an aggressive marketing campaign led by its manufacturers.
Invokana is grouped into a class of medications known as sodium-glucose co transporter 2 medications (SGLT-2).
Side effects linked to Invokana have included some of the following: • Amputation Risks • Diabetic Ketoacidosis (DKA) • Lactic Acidosis • Kidney and Blood Infections • Acute Kidney Injury Warning Though the filing of an Invokana adverse effects lawsuit cannot necessarily remove severe complications suffered with taking Invokana, filing a claim may help individuals with damages such as increased medical expenses, financial compensation, and lost wages.
The Invokana Adverse Effects Lawsuit is Case No.
Hurry — statutes of limitations may apply.

Taxotere Breast Cancer Treatment Lawsuit Prompted by Irreversible Alopecia

She began taking Taxotere, a chemotherapy drug manufactured by Sanofi Aventis, at that time.
A common side effect of cancer treatments like chemotherapy includes hair loss.
Katherine says that when she began undergoing Taxotere breast cancer treatment, she believed that her hair would eventually return.
With nearly all chemotherapy cancer treatments, the hair of the patient begins to grow back when they stop treatment.
According to her Taxotere breast cancer treatment lawsuit, she was “aware of the potential side effect of temporary hair loss, but moved forward with the treatment with the understanding that the side effect was only temporary in nature.” In fact, Katherine believed that her hair would grow back within a reasonable amount of time.
She claims that she did not receive any warning from Sanofi or her doctor that she might not expect to have her hair regrow.
She claims that since she stopped using Taxotere, she has not experienced any hair regrowth at all and is suffering from permanent and irreversible hair loss.
Additionally, it should be noted that her Taxotere breast cancer treatment lawsuit claims that she did not suffer from any hair loss or balding previous to taking Taxotere.
Taxotere is a chemotherapy drug primarily used in conjunction with other treatments to treat breast cancer.
However, after reports of women not being able to regrow hair after Taxotere use and experiencing irreversible alopecia, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered Sanofi Aventis to change their drug label outlining the possibility of permanent hair loss.

FDA Warns of Link Between Gout Drug Uloric and Heart Disease

Uloric is a popular medication option for treating gout, but the FDA has warned about a potentially dangerous link between Uloric and heart disease risk.
If you or someone you love takes or has taken Uloric and has suffered from cardiovascular side effects, you may be able to file a lawsuit and pursue compensation.
Uloric is intended to treat gout by reducing the amount of uric acid in a gout patient’s body.
Uloric is also sold under its generic name, febuxostat.
However, a growing number of gout patients are coming forward with allegations that they have suffered because of the connection between Uloric and heart disease, but were not given adequate warning about this risk.
Recent studies, including a clinical safety trial from Takeda, have found that side effects of Uloric may include substantial risk of Uloric heart-related death, as well as non-fatal heart problems.
The FDA required that Takeda conduct a clinical safety trial for the drug.
Takeda was hit with a whistleblower lawsuit in 2012 by a former safety consultant for the company, who claimed that Takeda had hidden essential information about Uloric and major side effects from the federal government—including fatal complications, especially when combined with the use of other drugs.
If you or someone you love has suffered from Uloric cardiovascular problems or other side effects, you may be able to file a lawsuit.
In general, Uloric lawsuits are filed individually by each plaintiff and are not class actions.

New DePuy ASR Hip Lawsuit Joins Growing MDL

A new DePuy ASR hip lawsuit has joined a growing multidistrict litigation (MDL) against DePuy Orthopaedics and parent company Johnson & Johnson, alleging the companies failed to warn the claimant against the allegedly defective nature of the hip replacement system.
The DePuy ASR hip lawsuit has been filed by a woman who allegedly had her medical condition compounded after being forced to undergo revision surgery from metal hip implant complications.
Plaintiff Angela W. filed this DePuy ASR hip lawsuit, after discovering problems with the prosthetic system when the FDA recalled the device in August 2010.
However, Angela discovered the allegedly defective nature of the DePuy ASR hip implant when she reportedly developed metallosis and had to undergo revision surgery on Feb. 15, 2018.
The device was explanted at this time, with Angela having to contend with the intense recovery process.
Angela opted to file legal action against the companies after discovering the DePuy ASR hip implants were previously recalled, and that a settlement was formed for patients who had to undergo revision surgery due to the DePuy ASR hip implant complications.
The company reportedly issued the recall after data was released from the United Kingdom registry, which found 13% of DePuy ASR hip implant patients had to undergo revision surgery due to debilitating device complications.
Angela alleges the company failed to warn her and her physician against metallosis or potential need for revision surgery, and would not have agreed to have the device implanted if she had known.
2197, where it will stand alongside other claims alleging similar injuries.
1:18-dp-20015-JJH, in the U.S. District Court of Northern Ohio, Western Division.

Have You Suffered from Zimmer Persona Knee Problems?

Many patients report experiencing Zimmer Persona knee problems after implantation with the device.
If you have suffered from inflammation, device loosening, radiolucent lines, or other Zimmer Persona knee problems, you may be able to file a lawsuit and pursue compensation.
Zimmer issued a voluntary recall of its Persona device over these complications.
The component has pegs that are supposed to stabilize the implant by growing into the bone.
Zimmer issued a voluntary recall of its Persona Trabecular Metal Tibial Plate device after reports of the risk of device loosening and other major Zimmer Persona knee problems.
Patients have reported suffering from a number of Zimmer Persona knee problems, including: Radiolucent lines Device loosening Persistent pain Loss of mobility Inflammation In some cases, Zimmer persona knee problems have been serious enough to necessitate revision surgery.
The recall, issued in March 2015, affects nearly 12,000 units that had already been distributed.
A growing number of patients are coming forward with allegations that they have suffered from major Zimmer Persona knee problems because of device defects.
Patients who have suffered from Zimmer persona knee problems after implantation with one of these devices between 2012 and 2015 may be able to pursue litigation.
While filing a lawsuit cannot undo the physical pain and emotional suffering caused by Zimmer persona knee complications, it can help to compensate for medical expenses, lost wages, and other costs associated with these injuries.