Posts Tagged ‘Honolulu’
Hip Replacement LawsuitsMany of the Hip replacement manufacturers of the metal-on-metal hip implants have recalled their implants for functional defects. There have been settlement offers on hip replacements for victims of a faulty hip implant or cobalt and chromium poisoning to the blood stream.
Hip Replacement Revision Surgery LawsuitsHip replacement or revision surgery is one of the most common orthopedic procedures performed in the United States. There have been numerous defective implants placed on the market resulting in needles pain, suffering and revision surgeries
Get A Hip Replacement Lawyer
Below is a list of cases our hip replacement lawyers will take a look at.
- Stryker Rejuvenate Modular Neck Cases – All
- Stryker ABG II Modular neck Cases – All
- Stryker Accolade (TMZF) Stem cases with Cobalt Chromium modular heads. These stems have the potential for significant head neck corrosion – All cases with Metallosis.
- Wright Medical Conserve Cup (MOM) cases – ALL
- Wright Medical Profemur Stem Cases (this is their modular neck design)- These cases are prone to Fracture (either the titanium or CoCr necks) and Metallosis. ALL.
- Depuy ASR – ALL
- Depuy Pinnacle Metal on Metal (MOM) with modular heads greater than 36 mm.
- Zimmer Durom Cup cases with modular heads greater than 36 mm.
- Zimmer M/L Taper Kinectiv Stem cases (this is their Modular neck design)- All cases with Metallosis.
- Biomet M2A 38mm / Magnum MOM cases. ALL cases with Metallosis.
- DJO / Encore MOM hip cases. All cases revised due to Metallosis.
- Omnilife Apex Arc – This is a smaller manufacturer but this device is a mixed metal modular neck device. ALL
- Smith & Nephew R3 (MOM) cup cases. Only cases that have metallosis and were revised or need a revision.
- Smith & Nephew SMF stem (this is their mixed metal modular neck product). We have not seen many of these yet but, our hip replacement lawyers are interested in them.
- Zimmer’s NexGen Natural Knee System implant lawyers,
- Stryker’s Scorpio implant lawyers,
- Smith & Nephew’s OXINIUM devices lawyer.
Knee Replacement ComplicationsComplications Lawsuits are Being Filed For: Persistent pain, swelling or stiffness, Deep vein thrombosis, Implant failure within five years, Nerve injuries, Fracturing, chipping and migration and Infections.
Brand Knee Replacements Lawsuit FilingsKnee Replacements Causing Problems Include: DePuy knee, Zimmer NexGen LPS, CR and MIS, Natural Knee System, Stryker Scorpio CR and PS components, Duracon Total Knee, Unicompartmental Knee System, Smith & Nephew Oxinium Genesis II and Profix II, Journey Uni Tibial Baseplate, and Biomet Vanguard CR.
Knee Replacement RecallsHas your knee replacement caused debilitating side effects? Have you needed to undergo revision surgery to fix or replace the device or to correct complications caused by the device?
Complications resulting in a knee replacement recall include:Persistent pain of recipient, Infection or drainage, Swelling or inflammation, Damage to surrounding bone, muscle, or nerves
Zimmer NexGen Knee RecallsWhile there has not been a total recall on any Zimmer NexGen knee replacement devices, a number of device components have been recalled. In 2010, Zimmer NexGen MIS Tibial Components were recalled due to high incidences of failure associated with the components. The Zimmer NexGen LPS-Flex GSF Femoral Component was also recalled due to evidence of loosening. Additionally, the Zimmer Natural-Knee II Durasul Patella faces a Class II recall. This component is not part of the Zimmer NexGen product line.
Zimmer RecallsZimmer NexGen knee recalled components include: NexGen MIS Tibial Components,NexGen TM Tibial Trays, NexGen LPS-Flex GSF Femoral Component, NexGen MIS Modular Tibial Plates and Keels.
Stryker Knee Replacement RecallsIn April 2013, the FDA issued a Class I recall of Stryker’s ShapeMatch Cutting Guide. The Guides help to position knee replacement components and guide the marking of the patient’s bone prior to cutting. In November 2012, Stryker acknowledged manufacturing defects in the ShapeMatch Cutting Guide and instructed surgeons to discontinue use. This knee replacement recall was because the software has a defect that causes wider cutting ranges. As a result, knee replacement patients may experience severe complications such as instability of the joint, fracture, chronic pain, and mobility limitations. Patients may also require the need for revision surgery.
Other Knee Replacement RecallsStrykerDuracon Total Knee, Unicompartmental Knee System, Scorpio PS and CR components, BiometVanguard CR, Smith & Nephew Journey Uni Tibial Baseplate, Oxinium Genesis II and Profix II
Get a Knee Replacement Lawyer
Bard IVC Filter DangersBard IVC Filters have certain dangers. The filters can fracture and pieces can migrate and perforate various organs in the body. Inferior Vena Cava filters are implanted to capture blood clots before they can settle in the brain or lungs resulting in a pulmonary embolism or stroke.
Bard IVC Filter Lawyers Filing Inferior Vena Cava Lawsuits For a Failed
- Bard Recovery filter;
- Bard G2 filter;
- Bard G2 Express filter;
- Cook Gunther Tulip
Vena Cava Filter Lawsuits Filed
What are the Complications Of The Bard IVC Filters?Fracture of the Cook IVC Filter, Bard IVC Filter Migration, Perforation, Puncture or Serious Damage to the Heart, Lungs or Vena Cava, Internal Bleeding, Hematoma or Nerve Injury at the Puncture Site of the Bard IVC Filter, Inferior Vena Cava Filter related Pulmonary Embolism, Respiratory Distress From the IVC Filter, Infection from the IVC Filter, Shortness of Breath, Death
Get a Bard Inferior Vena Cava Filter Lawyer File Your Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit
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.
The vaginal mesh lawsuits may well be one of the largest ligigations of a hrmful device hurting women we have seen to date.
If is currently thought that over 300,000 women are implanted with various vaginal mesh devices for uterus, bladder and bowel prolapse as well as urinary incontinence. The mesh has caused very serious complications and the numbers of filings continue to grow.
Transvaginal mesh side effects are so common, in fact, that hundreds of lawsuits have been filed by women seeking compensation for their pain and suffering, medical bills, and lost wages due to vaginal mesh complications. The number of vaginal mesh lawsuits being filed is so large that five MDLs have been created to quickly and effectively deal with them. Four vaginal mesh MDLs have been centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, while a fifth MDL has been created in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
There are a number of vaginal mesh MDL's currently
Vaginal mesh lawyers representing Plaintiffs argue that even with five vaginal mesh lawsuit MDLs, there is still a need to create a sixth MDL. Federal judges will meet later this month to hear oral arguments regarding whether a new vaginal mesh lawsuit MDL should be created in West Virginia, where U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin is overseeing five transvaginal mesh MDLs.
Discovery to begin for vaginal mesh lawsuits
Unsurprisingly, discovery is the process of “discovering” information or evidence to support a case. For the vaginal mesh multidistrict litigation, the pretrial discovery process will include interrogatories (fact-finding questionnaires), depositions, and the collection of other paperwork and information to support the plaintiffs’ cases. Judge Goodwin’s issuance of this order is an important step to moving forward with the MDL’s, as it signals the next step toward the first transvaginal mesh lawsuit trials.
The multi district litigation department of Class Action Lawyer Network has authorized an expanded division to continue to help women file vaginal mesh lawsuits for the pain and suffering they have undegone from these failed mesh devices.
This division is headed up by a female medical social worker who is is felt is best equipped to deal with women in crisis from the vaginal mesh. Women need support as well as help finding a doctor and is felt this is best handled by our social work team.
For nationwide mesh lawsuit representation contact us today.
Vaginal mesh lawyers are filing lawsuits the vaginal mesh and bladder sling. These prolene mesh devices have been used and surgically implanted in over 300,000 women and severe complications are being reported. The vaginal mesh lawyers demand justice and are filing lawsuits on behalf of these thousands of injured women nationwide. We are filing mesh lawsuits in L.A, Houston, Dallas, NYC, Phiiadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, San Fransisco, Miami, Jacksonville, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Indianapolis, Austin, Columbus, Fort Worth, Charlotte, El Paso, Memphis, Boston, Seattle, D.C. Nashville, Denver, Milwaukee, Portland, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, Albuquerque, Tucson, Fresno,Sacramento,Long Beach,Kansas City, Mesa, Virginia Beach,Colorado Springs, Omaha, Cleveland, Tulsa, Oakland, Minneapoplis, Wichita, Arlington and just about every city in the United States; even Alaska and Hawaii.
Women are suffering and husbands and families are suffering along with them, The vaginal mesh lawsuits being filed by our mesh lawyers are multi-deistrct litigations, not class actions. That means that the cases are assigned to certain jurisdictions in the country. The current largest mesh lawsuit filings are in West Virginia and New Jersey.
There are approximately 11 manufacturers involved in the vaginal mesh lawsuits. The primary ones are: Johnson and Johnson, Bard, Boston Scientific and American medical Systems. To start the mesh lawsuit process contact our vaginal mesh lawyers today. Our mesh hotline is open 24hr, 7days.
If you have a vaginal mesh implant with complications from these manufacturers call us to learn your rights in the vaginal mesh lawsuit.
- AMS Elevate Prolapse Repair System
- AMS Apogee Vault Suspension System
- AMS Perigee System
- AMS Monarc Sling System
- AMS Sparc Sling System
- Bard Avaulta Support System
- Boston Scientific Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit
- Boston Scientific Uphold Vaginal Support System
- Ethicon Gynecare Gynemesh
- Ethicon Gynecare Prolene Soft Mesh
- Ethicon Gynecare Prolift Pelvic Floor Repair System
- Ethicon Gynecare TVT Transvaginal Sling
- UGYTEX Dual Knit Mesh
- Coviden IVS Tunneler Sling
Call now, Vaginal Mesh representatives are here to take your call and foward it to a mesh lawyer for respone.
Time to File Depends on the Date of Injury
Statutes of limitations are state laws that require plaintiffs to file their cases within set time periods. Because all defective medical device lawsuits are tort claims, they are covered by state law and not federal law. Any medical device lawsuits before U.S. District Courts are claims brought under state law by plaintiffs from states other than the ones in which the manufacturers are located. The purpose of statutes of limitations is to encourage injured parties to bring their claims in a timely manner to prevent courts from dealing with old records and hazy memories.
The amount of time a statute of limitations gives someone to file a claim depends on the type of claim the plaintiff is filing. Commonly, the limitations period for products liability cases is two or three years from the date of injury. When the injury occurred matters significantly from a legal standpoint. Sometimes, the injury “occurs” the day the vaginal mesh was implanted; other times it “occurs” when the plaintiff first knew or could have reasonably found out about the injury. This can be troubling for vaginal mesh recipients because the pain and symptoms of mesh erosion might not occur until long after the initial procedure. Because some women might have already had their vaginal mesh problems resolved years ago and didn’t meet with a Vaginal mesh lawyer, the statute of limitations might have already expired for them, and they will be unable to obtain compensation via a transvaginal mesh lawsuit. If you are having complications ffrom a vaginal mesh it is in your best interests not to wait and file with a lawyer immediately. You must not run the risk of losing your rights to file a lawsuit. The vaginal mesh complications are sever and the mesh implants are ruining lives. You Must send a message and contact a lawyer today. 1 877 522-2123