Posts Tagged ‘albany’
Stockert 3T Heater-Cooler Lawyers For Wrongful Death LawsuitsStockert 3T Heater-Cooler System lawyers are filing failure to warn lawsuits due to increased risk of infections caused by the Cooler Systems during cardio thoracic surgery.
Stockert 3T Lawsuits FiledLawsuits are being filed against LivaNova PLC for their 3T heating-cooling system. This system has been found to transmit bacteria into patients during open-chest cardiac surgery. The nontuberculous mycobacteria causes Mycobacterium chimaera which can result in death,
What is The 3T Heater-Cooler System?The 3T heater-cooler units are used during surgery to control body temperature. They have water tanks that move temperature-controlled water to heat exchangers or blankets, which cool or warm the recipients body.
3T Heater-Cooler System IssuesThe water in the 3T systems can become contaminated resulting in bacteria being released into the air through the device’s exhaust vent. This bacteria can infect a patient. It can take several years between the time a patient is exposed to the bacteria and an infection is diagnosed.
Have You Had Surgery Using A 3T Cooler Device?
Up To 4 Years After Surgery Look for signs:
- surgical site infection,
- abscess, bacteremia,
- renal insufficiency,
- fever of undetermined origin,
- night sweats,
- joint pain,
- weight loss,
Contact our Stocker 3T Lawyers
Ethicon Physiomesh Hernia Mesh Recall LawyersOn May 25, 2016, Johnson & Johnson issued an “Urgent Field Safety Notice” to warning of the higher rates of recurring hernia and the need for revision operations after hernia repair using the Ethicon Physiomesh Composite Mesh. This is the same company that is dealing with hundreds of vaginal mesh lawsuits made of the same substance as the physiomesh.
Physiomesh Hernia Mesh Complications
- Hernia Recurrence
- Scar-like tissue that sticks tissues together
- Blockage of the large or small intestine
- Abnormal adhesions between organs, vessels or intestines
- Fluid build-up at the surgical site
- Perforation of nearby tissues or organs
- Migration and shrinkage
- Bowel perforation and obstruction
- Migration of the mesh and erosion resulting in the need for revision or removal
What Is A Physiomesh?
- Ethicon Physiomesh and vaginal mesh are both used to provide additional support to weakened or damaged tissue. It is made from non-absorbable polypropylene (plastic) filaments that are woven into a mesh.
Laparoscopic Hernia Pack
- ELH5 PHY1515
- ELH10 PHY1515Q
Which Manufacturers Are You Accepting IVC Filter Lawsuits For?
Bard IVC Filters Include:
- – Recovery
- – G2
- – G2X
- – Eclipse
- – Meridian
- – Denali’
- – Gunther Tulip
- – Celect
- – OptEase
- – TrapEase
Criteria For The IVC Filter Lawsuit
REASONS FOR IVC FILTER IMPLANTATION:
1. Date of removal2. Symptomatic or asymptomatic at time of removal?3. Percutaneous without complication(s) – Our lawyers are not taking these cases4. Open with or without complication(s) – Our lawyers are taking these cases.A CT Scan will be needed for evaluation of claim even if you are asymptomatic.MANUFACTURERS WE ARE NOT TAKING1. Boston Scientific (Greenfield SS and TI – Permanent) – We need to be careful in turningdown Greenfield filter cases because this is a generic term used to describe all IVCfilters.2. B. Braun Medical (Convertible, Vena Tech and LP)3. ALN4. Rex Medical (Option)5. Rafael Medical (SafeFlo)
Get An IVC Filter Lawyer
Do You Want To File A Talcum Powder Lawsuit?If you have used talcum powder or baby powder products and developed ovarian cancer you may be able to file a Talcum Powder lawsuit Current lawsuits Johnson & Johnson claim that long-term use of talc-based products caused women to develop ovarian cancer. Victims claim that they were not warned of the risks associated with these talc products. Women and their families may be able to seek compensation for ovarian cancer diagnosis with the help of one of our lawyers.
Is There A Risk of Talcum Powder Causing Ovarian Cancer?Talcum powder lawsuits claim Talcum Powder caused ovarian cancer. When used as a feminine hygiene product, talc particles can travel through the vagina and into the ovaries and remain trapped for years. These talc particles can cause inflammation and eventually lead to the growth of ovarian cancer cells.
Studies Claim Dangers Of Talcum PowderAlthough Johnson & Johnson maintains that talcum powder is safe for use, plaintiffs in ovarian cancer lawsuits offer studies that suggest an association between talc and ovarian cancer dating as far back as 1971. In 1994, Johnson & Johnson was put on notice of a link between talc and ovarian cancer. A letter was sent from the Cancer Prevention Coalition to the then-CEO of the company.
Will There Be a Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer Class Action Lawsuit I Can Join ?According to news reports, more than 1,200 women claim talcum powder caused their ovarian cancer. Currently the lawsuits are being filed at the state level.
Talcum Powder Lawsuit SettlementsA $72 million talcum powder verdict is handed down against Johnson & Johnson in favor of a woman who claimed that long-term Shower-to-Shower use for feminine hygiene caused her to develop ovarian cancer. The verdict included a $62 million award of punitive damages against the company. Our talcum powder cancer lawyers are available to discuss your options.
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 Lawsuit lawyers are beginning to file lawsuits for the recalled Stryker Rejuvenate Hip replacement recall. The Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Replacement has been causing serious injury.
First Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Lawsuit Filed Since Recall
Tracy Ray | August 29th, 2012 | Posted in Stryker Hip Lawsuits
On July 5, 2012, Stryker Orthopaedics announced a voluntary recall of the modular-neck hip stems of its Rejuvenate Modular and ABG II hip implants, citing “the potential for fretting and/or corrosion at or about the modular-neck junction, which may result in adverse local tissue reactions manifesting with pain and/or swelling.” Now the first lawsuit has been filed since the Stryker Rejuvenate recall.
The plaintiff, Dianne Pingel, filed her lawsuit on August 7, 2012 in the Bergen County Superior Court of New Jersey, naming as defendants Howmedica Osteonics Corp., et al.
Plaintiff suffered a pseudotumor, necrosis, and metal poisoning
According to her lawsuit, Pingel had hip replacement surgery in October 2011, during which she was implanted with her second Stryker Rejuvenate hip. (Several months earlier, she had had a Rejuvenate implanted in her other hip.) Shortly after this second Rejuvenate was surgically implanted, Pingel began to experience pain and discomfort around the surgical site. Her doctor performed tests, but did not turn up any evidence of implant loosening or infection.
The plaintiff tried to continue going about her daily life and performing normal tasks, but her pain and discomfort did not abate. Further testing showed that a pseudotumor and possible fluid buildup had developed near the implant.
Pingel’s physician told her that Stryker hip revision surgery was necessary to alleviate her problem. But during the surgery, her surgeon found that not only did she have a pseudotumor, but she also had developed soft tissue necrosis, bony tissue necrosis, and metallosis (metal poisoning).
During that first revision surgery, Pingel’s femur fractured. Four weeks after the surgery, she suffered a second femur fracture as well as a hip dislocation, which required two additional revision surgeries to repair.
Lawsuit brings counts of negligence and failure to warn
Stryker issued its recall in July 2012. But according to Pingel’s Stryker hip lawyer, “It is believed that with respect to the Rejuvenate System, Defendant failed to timely report adverse events … [and] any and all information concerning product failures and corrections … [They also] sold a misbranded and adulterated product.”
Pingel’s lawsuit brings counts of negligence, failure to warn, breach of express warranty, and manufacturing defect. Her husband, a co-plaintiff, claims loss of consortium. The Pingels are seeking compensatory, punitive and other damages.
If you have a Stryker recalled hip replacement and have complications you must contact our Stryker helpline immediately to begin taking th steps to file a stryker lawsuit.
The trials for the vaginal mesh lawsuits are going to begin in 2013. Thousands of women have been severely injured by the vaginal mesh devices.
Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit Update: Federal Judge Issues New Rulings In Pelvic Mesh MDLs
New York, NY (PRWEB) August 27, 2012
Vaginal mesh lawsuits included in four related pelvic mesh multidistrict litigations are subject to newly issued discovery orders, Bernstein Liebhard LLP reports. On August 22 and August 23, 2012, the Honorable Joseph R. Goodwin, who is overseeing the pelvic mesh multidistrict litigations currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, issued four pretrial orders in the following actions: In re: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair Systems Products Liability Litigation (“MDL No. 2325”); In re: Boston Scientific Corp., Pelvic Repair Systems Products Liability Litigation (“MDL No. 2326”); In re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (“MDL No. 2327”); and In re: C.R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (“MDL No. 2187”).* The first three pretrial orders deal with the filing of complaints in the American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific Corp., and Ethicon MDLs. The fourth pretrial order sets forth deadlines for bellwether trial selection and related discovery in the C.R. Bard MDL.
Orders Standardize Complaint Forms For Plaintiffs To File Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits
The first three orders allow each plaintiff to utilize and complete a standardized complaint form in order to file a lawsuit against American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific Corp, and Ethicon, respectively. The standardized complaint promotes efficiency and expedites the litigation process. The form complaint allows plaintiffs to make claims against the pelvic mesh manufacturers for multiple causes of action, including: negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty. Additionally, the form complaints permit plaintiffs to seek damages, including: personal injury, wrongful death, economic loss, loss of services, and loss of consortium. Similarly, defendants must file a master answer in response to each complaint.
Discovery Scheduling Order Issued In C.R. Bard MDL
Judge Goodwin also issued a pretrial order that will govern the course of the multidistrict litigation against C.R. Bard for the second group of lawsuits pending against the manufacturer. Previously, Judge Goodwin set a trial date of February 5, 2013 for the first federal vaginal mesh lawsuit against C.R. Bard. According to this latest order, trials for the second group of lawsuits against C.R. Bard will begin on June 24, 2013.
As the lawsuits keep mounting up a new vaginal mesh manufacturer has been added. It seems as if there is no end to companies that have jumped on the golden mesh band wagon. Over 300,000 women have been implanted with vaginal mesh devices. Despite the warnings, and T.V lawyer ads, doctors are still putting mesh in to this date. It never ceases to amaze me to see doctors sugggesting a brand new mesh over the old failed one. The vaginal mesh MDL lawyers are now filing lawsuits for a new mesh manufacturer that has been added to the West Virginia MDL, Coloplast. See the vaginal mesh news update below:
Coloplast Vaginal Mesh Products Have Been Named in Mesh Lawsuits
According to their website, Coloplast develops products and services “to make life easier for people with deeply personal and private medical conditions.” The company has a special focus on surgical urology, developing surgical devices for both men and women. For women, Coloplast markets products to treat pelvic organ prolapse and to control urinary incontinence.
The August 6 order by the JPML centralized 13 Coloplast pelvic mesh lawsuits into West Virginia. All plaintiffs allege that the company’s products caused serious injuries. The products at issue in these lawsuits, Novasilk, Exair, Suspend, and Axis, are used to treat pelvic organ prolapse by supporting weakened pelvic muscles.
Consolidation into one court helps conserve resources, increase efficiency, and reduce the risk of duplicative discovery or conflicting rulings from other courts. Each lawsuit retains its individual nature, however, and will be returned to its original court for trial after pre-trial proceedings are complete.
This is part of the huge multi district litigations being filed by vaginal mesh lawyers for 1000's of women nationwide.