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

  • Get A Hernia Mesh Lawyer | Hernia Mesh Lawsuits Filed: The hernia mesh lawyers of Class Action Lawyer Network are filing hernia mesh lawsuits for victims of a failed hernia mesh. We have Ethicon, Bard and Cook hernia mesh lawyers. Hernia Mesh Lawsuits Filed  For: Ethicon: Physiomesh Pro...

Posts Tagged ‘Direct General’

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.

First Stryker Rejuvenate Lawsuite Filed, Stryker Hip Replacement Helpline

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Medical Device Lawsuits

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.

Coloplast Vaginal Mesh Lawyers, Coloplast Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Alabama 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, Idaho Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Illinois Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Indiana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Iowa Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maryland Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Massachusetts Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Michigan 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 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, South Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Texas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Utah Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Virginia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington DC Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers

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.

Vaginal Mesh Helpline, Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit Lawyers

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Alabama Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Alaska Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Arizona Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Arkansas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, California Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Colorado Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Connecticut Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Delaware Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Florida Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Georgia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Hawaii Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Idaho Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Illinois Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Indiana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, 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, 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, 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 Vaginal Mesh Helpline 1 877 522-2123 has launched a nationwide campaign to help women with a vaginal mesh locate doctors for mesh removal and vaginal mesh lawsuit lawyers. The Vaginal Mesh Helpline is also offering lawyers an opportunity for referral to lead lawyers and help with a medical doctor. Many lawyers call the helpline for basic information about the mesh and it's relationship to various female related medical conditions. The Vaginal Mesh Helpline gets calls from lawyers nationwide with questions regarding the mesh lawsuits. Our multi  district litigation lawyers are filing vaginal mesh lawsuits.

The Vaginal  Mesh Helpline is a Resource  For Women With Complications From Mesh Implants
The Vaginal Mesh Helpline and support group is here  for women who are victims of malfunctioning Prolapse, Surgical Mesh for uterine Prolapse.

(PRWEB) September 24, 2011

The meetings continue today, but the FDA panel already appears to be heavily in support of an FDA plan to reclassify all vaginal mesh as Class III devices. If this is done, Medical device makers who fast-track approval of the devices will have to do detailed clinical trials before being allowed to put them on the market. Existing products will be allowed to remain on the market.

The pelvic organ prolapse surgical mesh products, which are implanted through the vagina, are currently considered a Class II medical device. This means that manufacturers can apply for approval through the FDA’s 510(k) approval process. That process requires that a manufacturer show that the device is substantially equivalent to an existing device on the market, without requiring increased clinical testing.

The various vaginal mesh products have been in the news the past few weeks due to the current FDA meetings with clinicians and manufacturers.

Because of the many Horror Stories,  the Vaginal Mesh Helpline  has an online support group for women to share their stories and get support from other women. According to Lisa Spitzer MSW,, "The vaginal surgical mesh complications have taken their toll on women not just physically but, psychologically." Spitzer says, "These side effects have added stress to marriages and changed the quality of life of women effected. I have listened to so many horror stories. Women need a support group to share their feelings and experiences. They should not be left to feel helpless and alone. The approval the FDA gave these companies was inadequate. These women have suffered severely."

One woman who called today said, "This is effecting entire families. When mommy does not feel good the entire family suffers."

Spitzer continues, "women call in tears, lives completely turned around. They are in constant pain. Many have lost faith in their doctors and do not know where to turn or what doctor to trust. Men are being effected as well when the mesh erodes thru the vaginal wall. The stories are endless. The pain, suffering and tears is a daily occurrence on the helpline."

An FDA advisory panel considering the use of trans vaginal mesh leans toward reclassifying the products as high-risk without issuing a recall. "It is Important that women involved be updated," says Spitzer MSW and spokes person for Injury Lawyer Network. Over 3000 Vaginal mesh patch, Vaginal Mesh lawsuits have been filed Nationwide. Over 300,000 women have been treated for uterine prolapse. According to Spitzer, "this is a worldwide problem. We have had calls fro Canada and the UK."

The Vaginal Mesh Helpline Vaginal Mesh Lawyer Network is not just lawyers interested in cases. They offer support and help to women going thru this traumatic experience. The helpline is not only a means of connecting with an experienced physician, but also support and information. Women are encouraged to leave their stories on line for other women to read and know they are not alone. According to Spitzer, spokes person for Injury Lawyer Network, "women should see a physician immediately to know where they stand and make available all avenues for financial compensation." Spitzer continues, "For the stories I hear ,there is no compensation large enough that will justify this kind of pain and suffering."

the Vaginal Mesh legal team is accepting claims against the various manufacturers for the women who are victims. Spitzer says, "the FDA must hear these suffering voices and act." The helpline suggests the every woman file an adverse indident report with the FDA.

Call the Vaginal Mesh Helpline 1 877 522-2123

DePuy Metal on Metal Hip Replacement Lawyers, DePuy Recall

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Alabama Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Arizona Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, California Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Colorado Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Connecticut Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Florida Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Idaho Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Illinois Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Indiana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Iowa Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Kansas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maine Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maryland Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Medical Device Lawsuits, Michigan Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Minnesota 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, North Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Ohio Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oklahoma Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oregon Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Pennsylvania Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, South Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Utah Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Virginia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington DC Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers

DePuy Metal on Metal

DePuy ASR Metal on Metal Hip Replacement Settlements  Have Begun. DePuy Hip Replacement Lawyers Take Notice As Lawsuit Filing

Increases At a Rapid Rate.

J&J’s DePuy unit recalled its 93,000 ASR hips worldwide in 2010, including 37,000 in the U.S., after finding that more than 12 percent of the devices failed within five years.

According to the allegations in filed lawsuits, both in federal and state courts, many patients are in pain and immobilized by joint dislocations, infections and bone fractures and have to undergo painful and expensive hip replacement surgeries.

Over 90,000 people were fitted with the following DePuy devices. Many  have become part of an MDL litigation for the:

    ASR Hip Resurfacing Systems
    ASR XL Acetubular Systems

. Problems with the ASR systems include:

    Devices becoming loose or dislocated
    Small metal particles flaking off and getting into surrounding tissues, causing pain and inflammation
 

Patients suing J&J, allege that metal debris is released by the grinding of artificial metal hips, and causes local tissue death around the joint and may increase metal cobalt and chromium ions in the bloodstream.

New Settlement News

Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), which faces about 8,000 lawsuits over hip implants it recalled in 2010, agreed to pay about $600,000 to resolve three cases in the first settlements of the litigation, people familiar with the accords said.

Contact our DePuy Hip Replacement Multi District Litigation department Today

Time is running our for DePuy lawsuit lawyers to file your hip replacement lawsuit. Filings depend on the statute of limitations for each state.DePuy Metal on Metal DePuy Hip Replacement lawsuit lawyers

Metal On Metal Hip Replacement Trials Continue, DePuy Hip Replacement Lawyers

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Medical Device Lawsuits

The metal on Metal hip replacement lawyers are still filing DePuy Hip Replacement lawsuits and Stryker lawyers are filing lawsutis for the latest Stryker Hip Replacement recall.

 Court Discusses Scheduling of First Bellwether Trial, and DePuy Hip Replacement lawyers continue to file lawsuits. The latest Stryker Hip replacement recall is getting notice by hip replacement lawyers
.The DePuy Pinnacle hip lawsuits are progressing in the multidistrict litigation (“MDL”). A status conference was held today in In re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (“MDL No. 2244”), currently underway in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas before the Honorable James E. Kinkeade. According to court documents, the Court discussed scheduling and issues relating to preserving important evidence in the hip implant cases. Over 1800 lawsuits have been filed in the Pinnacle hip MDL, alleging that the metal-on-metal hip implants were defectively designed.*

DePuy Pinnacle Hip Replacement And Other Metal-On-Metal Hip Replacement Lawsuits Continue, The latest is the Stryker Recall

Stryker Hip replacement lawyers are investigating cases concerning the Wright Profemur and Conserve hip replacements and the recalled Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II hip implants. Those who have experienced complications or underwent revision surgery due to a metal hip implant may be entitled to compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages and other injuries. Learn more about filing a metal hip replacement lawsuit. See DePuyHipreplacementHelpline.com.

Stryker Voluntary Recall of Hip Replacement, Stryker Lawyers Take Notice

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Class MDL Class Action News

The Stryker ABG II modular-neck stem used for total hip replacement surgery and The Stryker Rejuvinate modular-neck stem hip implant lawyers filing lawsuits for Stryker Hip Replacement recall.

Stryker recalled both of these products on July 4, 2012 because the metal of the neck and stem can corrode, releasing toxic metal ions that can damage tissue and bones around the hip implant.  This can cause severe pain, inflammation, metal poisoning (metallosis from chromium and cobalt), tissue death (necrosis), bone damage, pseudotumers, gait issues, and other serious problems. Revision surgery (to remove and replace the recalled Stryker hip product) may be required.

In July 2012, Stryker Orthopaedics voluntarily recalled its Rejuvenate Modular Hip System. The recall includes both Stryker’s Rejuvenate Modular and ABG II modular-neck hip stems.
Risks

Stryker initiated this voluntary recall due to potential risk associated with modular-neck stems.
 

  •     Fretting and/or corrosion at the modular-neck junction,
  •     Pain and/or swelling.
  •     Need For Revision Surgery
  •     Joint loosening/dislocation
  •     Device wear and tear, such as corrosion and fretting
  •     Excessive metal debris leading to metal ion generation
  •     Inflammation of tissue
  •     Hypersensitivity/allergic response
  •     Broken devices
     

All recipients of these two hip replacements must see their doctor immediately and retain a Stryker Hip replacement lawyer. Do not wait. It is only a matter of time before a new Mutli District Litigation for the Stryker hip Implant becomes T,V news. Lawyers are accepting cases for both of these implants. Contact Class Action Lawyer Network Stryker Hip replacement lawyers today.

Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Implant Lawyers,

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Class MDL Class Action News

Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Implant lawyers accepting cases for stryker Hip replacement
The Stryker Rejuvenate hip replacement device has been linked to an increased risk of metallosis. Although the Stryker Rejuvenate is not a metal-on-metal hip device, it has metal-on-metal components, which are believed to be responsible for the development of metallosis in some patients. According to reports, the Stryker Rejuvenate hip implant device is linked to a high early failure rate, resulting in some patients having revision surgery to replace their hip replacement device. Lawyers are now qccepting cases for the failure of the Syryker Rejuvenate Hip replacement.

Call the new  Stryker Orthopedics Rejuvenate Hip replacement Helplineand speak to a Hip Replacement Lawyer.
Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Implant

The Stryker Rejuvenate hip implant is different from other hip replacement devices in the news recently because it is not a metal-on-metal hip replacement device. Instead, the Rejuvenate hip replacement device, which uses a ceramic component, was meant as an alternative to the metal-on-metal devices. It was marketed to younger patients as a modular hip replacement, meaning the components were custom-made to fit patients better, which was supposed to result in longer-lasting hip replacement devices that offered a better range of motion.

Some patients reportedly developed metallosis after having the Stryker Rejuvenate hip device implanted. Although it was initially believed that such a condition was not possible—because the Stryker Rejuvenate does not have a metal-on-metal ball and socket design—the Stryker hip device has a metal neck piece that can, under some conditions, rub against a metal stem, causing metallic debris to come loose.

Stryker has responded to concerns about the Rejuvenate failure rate by alleging patients did not properly undergo rehabilitation following surgery, or by blaming doctors' implantation techniques. In a Product Correction Bulletin (04/25/12), Stryker officials noted, "Factors such as diabetes and infection may play a role in potential corrosion of an implant as these conditions may affect the pH of the tissue surrounding the implant."

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. Patients who have had their Stryker Rejuvenate hip implant device fail may have undergone revision surgery. Typically, hip implants are expected to last 15 to 20 years. In some cases, the Stryker Rejuvenate hips are failing in less than five years. It seems we once again have a failed hip replacement. If you or a loved one has a failed Stryker hip implant or Cobalt or Chromium poisoning call the Stryker Rejuvente Hip Replacement Helpline  today.

New Dangerous Medical Devices, Medical Device Lawsuits

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Medical Device Lawsuits

The Following dangerous medical devices have been added to the list of dangerous devices our lawyers are accepting clients for. These include:

  •     AlloDerm Lawyers,
  •     Bard IVC Filter Lawyers,
  •     Charite Artificial Disc Lawyers,
  •     Metronic Injuse Bone Graft Lawyers,
  •     Mirena IUD lawyers for uterus perforation
  •     Stryker Rejuvenate Lawyers.,
  •     ABG II modular-neck stem Lawyers
  •     Depuy ASR Hip Implant Lawyers, statute of limitations up in many states
  •     Modular-Neck Hip Stems by Stryker Orthopedics Lawyers,
  •     R3 Acetabular System Hip Replacement Lawyers,
  •     Vaginal Mesh Lawyers.
  •     Dow Corning Breast Implant Lawyers

Manufacturers of medical devices are also liable for harm caused by their products. Sometimes these products contain design flaws, were not tested adequately, or were marketed to doctors and patients for uses other than those approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Examples of medical devices include: defibrillators, breast and other cosmetic implants, orthopedic screws, hip implants, knee implants, heart valves and many other items.

 

Metronic Infuse Bone Graft Lawyers, Infuse Bone Graft Lawsuits

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Class MDL Class Action News

Lawyers for the victims of the Metronic Infuse Bone Graft are filing lawsuits for victims of off label use of the bone graft.Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft lawsuits  are increasing as more victims come forward
 

Infuse is a bio-engineered bone graft device that is marketed by Medtronic for lumbar surgery. It is intended as a substitute for the traditional surgical procedure involving the taking of a bone graft from the patients hip. The advantage of this product is that no surgery is needed to remove bone from the patient's hip reducing pain and shortening recovery times. However, the introduction of foreign material into the body creates other risks.

The lawsuits allege that Medtronic failed to reveal side effects which Medtronic knew were likely in order to increase sales of the product. These side effects include uncontrolled bone growth called ectopic bone growth that resulted in failures of many surgeries. The active fusion ingredient in the Infuse product is rhBMP-2. The letters BMP stand for Bone Morphogenetic Protein. This ingredient is designed to stimulate bone growth in the spine so that the vertebra will fuse together to relieve back pain.

Injured back surgery patients allege that Medtronic understated the risk of uncontrolled bone growth, inflamatory reactions, retrograde ejaculation, urinary retention, bone reabsorption, implant displacement, sterility, and cancer.

The lawsuits also allege that Medtronic illegally marketed the Infuse product "off-label". Off label marketing means that the company promoted the product for medical uses for which it was not approved by the FDA. Off label use of drugs and medical devices is permissable by medical professionals and can be beneficial to patients but a pharmaceutical drug or device manufacturer is prohibited by the FDA regulations from promoting or marketing products for uses that were not approved by the FDA.

The primary off label use of the products allegedly promoted by Medtronic was for posterior lumbar fusion surgery. Infuse was only approved by the FDA for anterior approach lumbar fusions. This means that Infuse was approved for for spine surgeries with a surgical approach through the abdomen or the front of a person rather than a surgical approach to the spine through the back. It is alleged that Medtronic paid highly respected surgeons it calls "opinion leaders" to influence surgeons to increase off label use of Infuse in posterior spine surgical procedures.

It appears that the Medtronic Infuse bone graft marketing campaign may be yet another incident of a medical device company putting its profits over people.