Class Action Article

  • File A Talcum Powder Lawsuit: Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuits Talcum Powder Fallopian Tube Cancer Lawsuits Baby  Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuits Filed If you or a loved one used talcum powder products and were diagnosed with ovarian cancer, or fallopian tube can...

Class Action News

Drug Class Actions

  • Taxotere Lawyers for Permanent Hair Loss: Taxotere Baldness Lawyers For  Permanent Hair Loss Lawsuits Have you received Taxotere for breast cancer? Taxotere can result in hair loss or baldness  that is permanent. Taxotere  is a chemotherapy drug used for the treatment of breas...

Medical Device Lawsuits

  • Zimmer Hip Replacement Lawyers: Network Zimmer Hip Replacement  Lawyer Win $2 Million Against Zimmer Hip Replacement Do You Have A Faulty Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prothesis With Connective Technology and Cobalt Chromium Head? Do You Have Have Metallosis or Chromium Cobalt T...

Current Important Class Action, Dangerous Drugs and Devices Multi District Litigations In the News

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in ABG II Lawyers, ABG Modular Stem lawyers, Alabama Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Alaska Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, APG II Recall Lawyers, Colorado Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Delaware Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, GranuFlo Dialysis Medication Lawyers, Hawaii Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Idaho Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Illinois Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Infuse Bone Graft Lawywrs, Iowa Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Kansas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maine Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maryland Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Massachusetts Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Michigan Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Minnesota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Mississippi Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Missouri Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Montana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nebraska Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nevada Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Hampshire Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Jersey Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Mexico Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, North Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Ohio Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oklahoma Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oregon Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Pennsylvania Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Product Recall News, Rhode Island Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, South Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, South Dakota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Stryker Hip replacement recall lawyer, Stryker Rejuvinate Hip replacement recall lawyers, Texas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Transvaginal mesh, Utah Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Vermont Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Virginia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington DC Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, West Virginia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Wisconsin Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Wyoming Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers

The following dangrous drugs and devices are appearing in lawyer ads and email blasts across the country.: Vaginal Mesh, Transvaginal Mesh, Pelvic mesh, Surgical mesh,  Bladder sling, Stryker Rejuvinate hip replacement, Stryker ABG Modular II Stems, Yaz, and Mesothelioma. The following dangrous drugs and devices are appearing in lawyer ads and email blasts across the country.:

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits

Women nationwide in the thousands are filing vaginal mesh lawsuits for severe mesh complications. The vaginal mesh lawsuits have been consolidated and the bellwether trials are moving ahead.

Vaginal Mesh Multi District Lawsuit List Consolidated Under Judge Goodwin in West Virginia

    MDL – 2325, IN RE: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation
    MDL – 2326 IN RE: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation
    MDL – 2327 IN RE: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation
    MDL – 2387 IN RE: Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation

TransVaginal Mesh Lawsuits

These are still the same Prolene mesh which is causing severe complication, just unsder another name

Pelvic Mesh Lawsuits

Still the same Prolene mesh and vaginal mesh lawyers, transvaginal mesh lawyers, and pelvic mesh lawyers are filing vaginal mesh lawsuits for all of these

Surgical Mesh Lawsuit, Bladder Sling Lawsuits

Still the same vaginal mesh lawsuit products

Stryker Rejuvinate and ABG Modular II Stems Hip Replacement

Class action Stryker lawsuit lawyers are filing lawsuit for the failed Stryker hip replacement where revision surgery is needed. We suggest you see an orthpedic doctor immediately.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is considering  forming an MDL to handle the growing number of Stryker lawsuits. Both the Rejuvenate and the ABG II hip implants were recalled in July 2012. This was done due to  reports that  the implants were  causing  complications including loosening of the joint, corrosion, and increased risk of inflammation as well as metal toxicity.  Many  victims of these  failed devices have had to undergo revision surgery to remove and replace them long before they reached the end of their expected 15-20 year lifespan. On March 18, 2013, Stryker filed a brief with the JPML, agreeing that coordination of lawsuits involving the recalled devices was appropriate.

Yaz Lawsuit

Yaz class action lawyers  are accepting Yaz cases for blood clots, stroke, pulmonary embolism and untimely death of young women.

As of February 12, 2013, Bayer had reached agreements, without admission of liability, to settle the claims of approximately 4,800 Yaz victims  in the U.S. for a total amount of about US$1 billion," according to the annual report.

Bayer also said that it, "is only settling claims in the U.S. for venous clot injuries (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) after a case-specific analysis of medical records on a rolling basis. Such injuries are alleged by about 3,200 of the pending unsettled claimants. Bayer will continue to consider the option of settling individual lawsuits in the U.S. on a case-by-case basis.

 

Mesothelioma Lawsuit

1000's of hard working citizens are starting to show signs of mesothelioma from asbestos exposure on the job. Class action lawyers for Mesothwlioma victims and their families are here to help you.

 

 

 

DePuy Recalls Custom Joint Implants, DePuy Recall Lawyers

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Alabama Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Arizona Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Arkansas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, California Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Class MDL Class Action News, Colorado Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Connecticut Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Delaware Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Florida Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Georgia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Idaho Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Illinois Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Indiana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Iowa Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maine Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maryland Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Massachusetts Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Medical Device Lawsuits, Minnesota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Missouri Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Montana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nebraska Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nevada Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Jersey Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Mexico Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Ohio Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oklahoma Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oregon Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Pennsylvania Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Product Recall News, South Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, South Dakota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Texas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Utah Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Vermont Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, West Virginia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers

Class action lawyers announce another DePuy recall: DePuy Hip replacement and custom joint implants

DePuy has been forced to recall another product. FDA Forces DePuy Recall of Custom Joint Implants
September 5, 2012 by: Linda Grayling

DePuy Orthopaedics is being forced to recall yet another line of hip and other artificial joint implants. This time, the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary is pulling back its custom orthopedic devices because of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety concerns. The recall notice was issued on August 24 — two years after its ASR hip-implant recall.

DePuy agreed in January 2012 to stop manufacturing the custom devices after a warning letter from the FDA. In it, the agency said the implants were being sold without federal approval, which requires an application with the FDA and clinical trials. DePuy argued that the devices were exempt because they were already approved by the FDA and modified only by doctors’ prescriptions, which is permitted by law.

But the FDA disagreed: “Although the devices’ size and shape may vary with each patient’s anatomy, the standardized design characteristics do not vary among the devices manufactured. The fact that final specifications are tailored to match a patient’s anatomy does not preclude a clinical study or submission of a marketing application for the devices.”

The FDA also said DePuy used poor quality-control systems in the production of the 14 types of custom implants. It ordered the company to recall any implants that had been delivered to surgeons prior to the halt in manufacturing earlier this year. More than 8,300 customized DePuy implants have been sold since 1999, but the number of unused devices in the recall is unknown.

DePuy already is dealing with a massive global recall of 93,000 ASR hip-replacement and hip-resurfacing devices that was announced in August 2010. The defective metal-on-metal hip implants have been shown to fail within a few years, resulting in painful revision surgeries. Typically, all-metal hip implants are expected to last about 15 years.

In addition, the DePuy artificial hips produce metal shavings when the ball and socket components grind against each other, causing metallosis, or metal poisoning of the blood. One British study found that when the metal debris becomes embedded in surrounding tissues, it increases the patient’s risk of bladder and kidney cancers.

In the United States, more than 8,000 patients have filed lawsuits against DePuy over their dangerous hip implants. Of those, 6,000 federal cases are part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) that is being overseen by Judge David A. Katz in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The first case in the MDL is expected to go to trial in March or April 2013.

The remaining state cases are winding their way through the courts. The first three DePuy ASR lawsuits, which were scheduled to be tried together in Las Vegas, Nevada, were settled out of court recently. Bloomberg reported the plaintiffs each received about $200,000.

Stryker Hip Replacement Lawyers, Stryker Hip Replacement Recall News

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Connecticut Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Delaware Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Florida Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Georgia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Illinois Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Indiana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Iowa Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Kansas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maine Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Michigan Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Minnesota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Mississippi Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nevada Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Jersey Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New York Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Ohio Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oklahoma Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oregon Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Pennsylvania Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Product Recall News, Texas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Utah Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington DC Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, West Virginia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Wisconsin Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Wyoming Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers

The Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Recall for metal toxicity was a surprise to many patients and doctors because it is not a metal on metal hip. In fact, many patients selected this hip to avoid the metallosis problem that has been in the news for the last two years since the DePuy ASR metal on metal recall in August of 2010.

The Stryker Rejuvenate hip is made with a ceramic ball and a polyethylene liner in the acetabular cup. The recalled DePuy ASR and the recalled Smith & Nephew R3 hips both have a metal ball and a metal cup which is called a metal on metal articulation. The problem with the metal on metal hips is that the metal on metal interface generates metallic debris that is toxic to the tissues in the hip compartment causing fluid buildup, tissue damage, and failure of the implant.

A lawsuit claiming that Stryker Corporation was negligent and did not adequately warn patients about the risks associated with its Trident hip replacement system was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Indiana for the County of Marion by plaintiff Darlene A. Gray. On the 5th of September, 2012, the suit was removed under federal diversity jurisdiction. The lawsuit claims that plaintiff Gray had the Trident hip system implanted after suffering from avascular necrosis of the right hip for a number of years, however, the device failed much earlier than what would be reasonably expected, she was forced to undergo Stryker revision surgery in order to correct complications she was experiencing as a result of her implant.
Recall issued over parts

Stryker issued a recall of two component hip parts related to their Trident hip replacement system in 2008, as a number of patients came forward with assertions of pain related to their Trident hip implants. In addition, squeaking and popping sounds and sensations were reported by a number of patients, which could be embarrassing as well as indicative of other complications associated with the products. Some patients reported even more serious complications, including implant failure and bone fractures. A number of these patients had to undergo revision surgery in order to correct them.

The plaintiff is seeking compensation based on damages associated with medical expenses and pain and suffering that she has experienced as a result of her use of the allegedly defective product. She is making claims of negligence and defective product claims against Stryker Orthopedics.
Lawsuits consolidated in New Jersey

A number of patients have chosen to go ahead with Stryker hip litigation after experiencing serious complications linked to the devices, and a consolidation of a number of lawsuits has taken place. Some lawsuits have been consolidated in the New Jersey Superior Court of Atlantic County and are being presided over by Judge Carol Higbee.

Stryker Hip Replacement Lawsuits, Stryker Lawyers

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Alabama Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Arizona Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Arkansas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, California Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Class MDL Class Action News, Colorado Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Connecticut Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Delaware Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Florida Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Georgia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Idaho Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Illinois Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Indiana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Iowa Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Kansas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Kentucky Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Louisiana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maine Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maryland Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Massachusetts Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Michigan Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Minnesota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Mississippi Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Missouri Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Montana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nebraska Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nevada Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Hampshire Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Jersey Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Mexico Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New York Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, North Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, North Dakota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Ohio Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oklahoma Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oregon Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Pennsylvania Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Product Recall News, Rhode Island Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, South Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, South Dakota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Tennessee Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Texas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Utah Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Vermont Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Virginia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington DC Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, West Virginia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Wisconsin Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Wyoming Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers

The lawsuits are beginning for the Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Replacemants. This is another failed implant just like the DePuy Hip Replacement. Both are metal component or metal on metal. If you have a faile Stryker Hip Replacment you must see a doctor as they have been recalled. Contact our Stryker Hip Replacement lawyers immediately. The news regarding the Stryker hip replacement is out. Stryker is faced with mounting lawsuits

New Jersey Stryker Hip Replacement Claims

many new nationwide  lawsuits were filed in New Jersey Superior Court, claiming that each of the plaintiffs received a Stryker Rejuvenate hip replacement, involving a modular femoral neck stem designed to allow the surgeon to customize the length of the component.

The lawsuits claim that the Stryker  design defects caused the hip replacements to loosen and move out of position, requiring people to undergo revision surgery.

What is The  Problem with Stryker Rejuvenate?

The Stryker Rejuvenate consists of a metal neck that fits inside of a metal stem to allow the implant to be customized for certain aspects of a patient’s anatomy and hip biomechanics.

In July 2012, a Stryker Rejuvenate recall was issued for the modular-neck hip stem components, due to a risk of corrosion at the modular neck junction. The design has been associated with metallosis problems where metal debris may be released into the body as the metal parts grind against each other, leading to hip pain, swelling, local tissue reactions and early failure of the entire hip replacement.

Stryker Lawyers Filing Stryker Rejuvenate Lawsuits

These lawsuits claim that  Stryker is liable for negligent design and manufacturing of the Stryker Rejuvenate system. Stryker has confirmed that the modular neck stem suffered from loosening, corrosion and fretting, similar to problems seen with metal-on-metal hip replacement systems.

The Stryker Hip Replacements Cause:

  • pseudotumors, tissue necrosis,
  • muscle loss,
  • bone loss around the implants,
  • metal poisoning or metallosis.

Understanding Product Recalls and FDA Warnings, Lawyers for Drugs and Devices

Written by Class Action Lawyer on . Posted in Product Recall News

The FDA is the  decision making  body in the United States for all product recalls and warnings. Dangerous drugs and medical and surgical devices are approved and recalled by the FDA.

Product Recall Classifications:

    CLASS I – Involves a health hazard situation where there is reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.

    CLASS II – Involves a potential health hazard situation where there is a remote probability of adverse health consequences from the use of the product.

    CLASS III – Involves a situation where the use of the product is not likely to cause adverse health consequences.

Class I, Class II, and Class III. Class I recalls involve products deemed to be dangerous enough to cause serious adverse health consequences or death. Class II recalls are used for products that might cause a temporary or medically reversible health problem.

With Class III recalls, consumers are not likely to experience an adverse health reaction when exposed to the recalled products. So why does the FDA recall them?

In most cases, it’s because they violate FDA labeling or manufacturing regulations. They may be products shipped in defective containers, products imported without a label in English, or products with incorrect content descriptions.

Examples of Class I Recalls

CooperVision AVAIRA Toric and Sphere Soft Contact Lenses

Recall Class: Class I

Date Recall Initiated: August 19, 2011; expanded on November 15, 2011

Product(s): AVAIRA (enfilcon A) TORIC and SPHERE soft (Hydrophilic) Contact Lenses

The Avaira Sphere Contact Lenses recall is an expansion of the Class I recall of CooperVision’s Avaira Toric Contact Lenses.

Stryker Leibinger USA., Stryker Custom Cranial Implant Kits

Class 1 Recall

Class II Recalls

FDA Recalls DePuy ASR Hip Implants

On July 17, 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a nationwide recall for the DePuy ASR Hip System.  This was a Class 2 Recall which are issued on products that have a lesser chance of causing major injuries or death, but  there is still the possibility of serious enough adverse effects to have irreversible consequences.

If you were injured by an FDA recalled dangerous drug or medical implant contact class action lawyer Network

 

CooperVision Contact Lense Torn Corneas, Torn Retinas, CooperVision Lawyers

Written by Class Action Lawyer on . Posted in Product Recall News

The QMN Weekly Bulletin
Feb. 17, 2012  | Vol. 4 No. 7

Lens Recall Spurs Cooper Class Action Suit, Focus on Poor Quality Controls

Class Action Lawyer Network Avaira Toric Cooper Vision Lawyers accepting cases for CooperVision Contact lenses.

Cooper Companies failed to warn stockholders about quality problems leading up to its massive recall of Avaira Toric and Sphere lenses, and is now facing a class action lawsuit.

According to the complaint, Cooper and its officers and directors violated the law by misleading investors about the state of the company’s quality controls, manufacturing processes and other business fundamentals, leading to inflated stock prices.

Cooper voluntarily recalled 6.6 million CooperVision contact lenses between August and November because of silicone oil residue that could cause blurry vision, severe eye injury or loss of vision.

About 93 percent of FDA device warning letters fall into 5 categories: risk management, design control, supplier quality, QSR compliance and postmarket surveillance. We call them the “big five.”

CooperVision lawyers At Class Action Lawyer Network are accepting cases for CooperVision Avaira Toric and Sphere Contact lenses.

If you, your child or a loved one has been injured by the CooperVision Avaira Toric or CooperVision Sphere contact lenses contact our CooperVision Legal team today.

 

Johnson and Johnson Motrin Recall

Written by Class Action Lawyer on . Posted in Product Recall News

Motrin Recall: Johnson & Johnson Recalls 12 Million Bottles From Stores
Motrin Recall

Posted: 12/22/11 12:59 PM ET
 

Johnson & Johnson has recalled 12 million bottles of its Motrin pain-reliever medicine from stores in the U.S., according to news reports.

The recall was not prompted by safety concerns, but rather that "there may be a delay in experiencing relief," according to a statement from Motrin.

The statement explained:

    McNeil is recalling these products because testing of product samples showed that some caplets may not dissolve as quickly as intended when nearing their expiration date. Out of an abundance of caution, we are recalling all the listed products since there is a chance they could experience a similar problem as they approach expiration.

Johnson and Johnson the never ending story of warnings and recalls

  • DePuy Hip replacement  voluntary recall
  • Transvaginal Mesh Warnings amd lawsuits
  • Tylenol warnings for Liver damage
  • leaky insulin cartridges
  • Motrin
  • Levaquin
  • And even Johnson and Johnsons epic baby Shampoo for carcinogens

Bill Would Require More Monitering of Implants

Written by Class Action Lawyer on . Posted in Product Recall News

Bill Would Require More Monitoring of Implants
By BARRY MEIER
Published: December 14, 2011

  

Amid growing problems with artificial hips and other medical implants, bipartisan legislation was introduced in the Senate on Wednesday that would force manufacturers to track the performance of such products after they were approved for sale.

The bill would allow the Food and Drug Administration to compel companies to track implants, such as replacement hips, that belong to a category of products that do not require human testing for approval.

The proposal is an effort to address longstanding complaints by patient advocates and others like the Institute of Medicine about a system known as the 510(k) process that the F.D.A. uses to clear the sale of certain implants like artificial joints. To sell a new product under that system, a producer need only show that it is “substantially similar” to a product already on the market.

Thousands of the all-metal hips that are now failing prematurely in patients were approved through the 510(k) system. The new proposal would not require added premarket testing of such implants but would broaden the F.D.A’s postapproval oversight by giving it the authority to mandate that companies collect data on device performance. The bill, if adopted, would also tighten federal scrutiny of product recalls.

The bill was sponsored by two Democrats, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and a Republican, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa. In a telephone interview, Mr. Blumenthal said that the legislation would enhance patient safety without slowing device approval. He called the all-metal hips a “classic example” of why such monitoring was needed.

“There is clearly a need for scrutiny once products are implanted or used on patients,” he said.

A wave of recently introduced bills backed by the medical device industry would “streamline” F.D.A. rules to allow new products to reach market more quickly. And while the bill introduced Wednesday most likely faces an uphill fight, it may serve as a negotiating chip in a Congressional debate next year over F.D.A. device regulation.

A spokeswoman for the F.D.A., Karen Riley, said that the Obama administration had not taken a position on the bill. Wanda Moebius, a spokeswoman for a device industry trade group, the Advanced Medical Technology Association, said the group had not seen the bill but added that studies had shown that the current 510(k) approval process was “remarkably safe.”

Along with introducing the bill, the three senators sent letters Wednesday to five major producers of medical devices seeking documents about how they track product safety and recall devices.

The companies were Johnson & Johnson, an artificial joint maker; Zimmer Holdings, another producer of artificial joints; Medtronic, a heart and spinal implant producer; Boston Scientific, a heart device maker, and C. R. Bard, a surgical implant maker.

Specifically, in the case of Johnson & Johnson, Congressional investigators want to know when the company was warned that one of its all-metal hips — the A.S.R., or Articular Surface Replacement — was failing and how it tracked those problems. Last year the DePuy division of Johnson & Johnson recalled the device after it had been implanted in some 93,000 patients worldwide, including 40,000 in this country.

As of early October, about 3,500 lawsuits have been filed against Johnson & Johnson in connection with the A.S.R., and studies here and abroad suggest that the A.S.R. may have already failed a few years after implant in more than twice that number of patients here. Artificial hips are supposed to last 15 years or more before requiring replacement.

Last month, a legislative panel in Australia issued a report that concluded that Johnson & Johnson was probably aware of serious problems with the A.S.R well before recalling it. The panel also characterized the company’s responses to its questions as “decidedly opaque.”

“Many people could have avoided considerable pain, suffering and diminished quality of life if the company had acted in a responsible manner to known problems with these devices,” the Australian report stated.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for DePuy, Mindy Tinsley, said, “We believe we made the appropriate decision to recall at the appropriate time given the available information.”

Coopvision Avaira Toric Contact Lense Lawyers, Lawsuits on the rise

Written by Class Action Lawyer on . Posted in Product Recall News

Class Action lawyer Network announces a new helpline for Avaira Toric Contact Lense Complications. CooperVision is  recalling  the Avaira Toric brand contact lenses because they were manufactured and distributed with unintended silicone residue. This harmful adulteration has led to serious  eye complications including eye pain, blurring, haziness of vision, and even total vision loss. There are increasing reports of serious eye injuries including corneal ulcers, corneal lesions, corneal abrasions, corneal edema, corneal erosion, and keratitis. Other complaints include blurry or hazy vision often described as a white or opaque film over the eye, severe eye pain, burning, redness, dryness, light sensitivity, and vision impairment. While some users may suffer only temporary side effects, others may require urgent medical care or experience permanent vision loss.The CooperVision Avaira Toric contact lens recall has been classified by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) as a Class I Recall, which means that using the product can potentially lead to severe side effects and complications. There can be sever damage to the eyes. If you or a loved one is useing the Coopervision Avaira Contact lenses and showing side effects see you eye doctor immediately and call Class Action Lawyer network for an immediate case review.

Anyone who used Avaira Toric contact lenses or Avaira Sphere contact lenses who has suffered adverse side effects or whose contact lenses are affected by the Avaira contact lens recall should contact a medical device or contact lens Class Action Lawyer Network attorney who will evaluate your case. It is also very important to keep the contact lenses and all original packaging because this is evidence that will be important in a lawsuit.

Call Class Action lawyer Network for a free CooperVision Avaira Toric Contact Lens Recall Lawsuit Evaluation: If you or a loved one has been injured by CooperVision Avaira Toric contact lense recall contact  the Class Action lawyer Network. You may be entitled to compensation by filing a lawsuit against CooperVision.

 

 

Anyone who used Avaira Toric contact lenses or Avaira Sphere contact lenses who has suffered adverse side effects or whose contact lenses are affected by the Avaira contact lens recall should contact a medical device or contact lens Class Action Lawyer Network attorney who will evaluate your case. It is also very important to keep the contact lenses and all original packaging because this is evidence that will be important in a lawsuit.

Call Class Action lawyer Network for a free CooperVision Avaira Toric Contact Lens Recall Lawsuit Evaluation: If you or a loved one has been injured by CooperVision Avaira Toric contact lense recall contact  the Class Action lawyer Network. You may be entitled to compensation by filing a lawsuit against CooperVision.

FDA Issues CooperVision Avaira Class I Serious Recall

Written by Class Action Lawyer on . Posted in Product Recall News

FDA Issues Second Contact Lens Recall
By Cole Petrochko, Associate Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Published: December 08, 2011
 

WASHINGTON — The FDA has issued a class I recall — the agency's most serious — for a second brand of CooperVision's AVAIRA Aquaform contact lenses that may cause serious eye injury.

The AVAIRA Aquaform Sphere Soft Contact Lenses may have unintended silicone oil residue on the lens, which may cause symptoms that range from hazy/blurry vision, to discomfort, to eye injuries that require medical treatment, an FDA statement said.

The lenses are indicated to correct myopia or hyperopia in aphakic and nonaphakic patients with nondiseased eyes. The lenses may be worn by people with astigmatism of 2.00 diopters or less that does not interfere with visual acuity, the statement said.

The company issued a recall notice to distributors and healthcare professionals on Nov. 19, 2011.

CooperVision's AVAIRA Tonic Soft Contact Lenses faced a similar class I recall in October due to the presence of silicone residue.

The company has set up a website for patients to check their lens package lot number to see if their contacts have been recalled.

Patients should cease use of the affected lenses and contact a healthcare professional immediately, the FDA said in the statement.

Class I recalls are reserved for products with a reasonable risk of causing serious adverse events or death with use.

Class Action Lawyer Network attorneys accepting clients for Avaira Class I recall with complications. If you have been injured by Avaira Coopervision Contact lenses call now.