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...

Posts Tagged ‘Long Island Westchester’

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.

 

 

Metronic Infuse Bone Graft Lawyers, Metronic Bone Graft Complications

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Medical Device Lawsuits

Lawyers for Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft reviewing cases for major complications for metronic Bone Graft Victims.The Medtronic Infuse bone graft  has been used off-label,  resulting in  serious and potentially life-threatening side effects. and injury to patients.

Medtronic has promoted theri Infuse BMP (Bone Morphogenic Protein) for surgical procedures that have not been properly tested and resulted in inflammatory reactions, breathing problems, severe nerve damage, sterility in men, cancer and wrongful death.The Medtronic Infuse is a new type of bone graft, which uses recombinant human Bone Morphogenetic Protein (rhBMP-2) to stimulate bone growth. It was approved by the FDA in 2002 for the limited use during single-level anterior lumbar fusion surgery, as well treatment of tibia fractures and some oral or dental procedures.
If you or a loved one has had life altering complications from an off label use of this Infunes Bone Graft speak to one of our infuse Bone Graft lawyers today.

Medtronic Infuse Lawyers

TheInfuse Bone graft  lawyers are reviewing  Medtronic Infuse bone graft lawsuits for patients throughout the United States who have experienced inflammatory reactions, nerve damage or other complications following spinal surgery with this bone graft.

Get Your case reviewed by a Metronic infuse bone graft lawyer.

During spine surgery, the Medtronic Infuse bone graft consists of an absorbable collagen sponge that is treated with rhBMP-2, and then placed in a small “cage”, known as the LT-CAGE, to keep the two vertebrae in place and provide the frame for the Infuse BMP.

It was developed as an alternative to traditional bone graft procedures, which involve either the use of bone harvested from the hip or another part of the body, or bone extracted from dead bodies.

The Medtronic Infuse BMP bone graft was promoted as a superior alternative, because it helps avoid pain and problems associated with harvesting bone and removes the risk of the cadaver bone being rejected by the body.

Serious side effects from the Infuse Bone Graft.

  •     Severe Inflammatory Reaction
  •     Airway Compression or Breathing Problems
  •     Nerve Impingement Resulting in Severe Back or Neck Pain
  •     Hospitalization with Treatment in ICU
  •     Need for a Feeding Tube or Tracheotomy
  •     Additional Surgery to Remove Excessive Bone from the Spinal Canal
  •     Death

 Use of  the Medtronic Infuse BMP  has been shown to increase risk of cancer, as well as  sterility.

You must contact us immediately for a case review by Infuse Bone graft lawyers.

Pradaxa Lawyers Filing Lawsuits for Brain Bleeds, Doctors Concerned as Well

Written by Class Action Lawyer on . Posted in Class Action Articles

Pradaxa Class Action Lawyers for Pradaxa are filing brain hemmorhage lawsuits for Pradaxa death. Concern is for seniors on Pradaxa. Children should be monitoring and contacting a Pradaxa lawyer if there is a Pradaxa wrongful death;

see article below

For millions of heart patients, a pair of new blood thinners have been heralded as the first replacements in 60 years for warfarin, a pill whose hardships and risks have deterred many from using the stroke-prevention medicine.

But growing complaints of risks and deaths tied to the new crop of drugs have made some top U.S. cardiologists hesitant to prescribe them. Some are proposing a more rigorous monitoring regimen for when they are used.

Most concerns revolve around Pradaxa, a twice daily pill from Boehringer Ingelheim that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in October 2010 to prevent strokes in patients with an irregular heartbeat called atrial fibrillation. It was the first new oral treatment for that use since warfarin was introduced in the 1950s.

"The good news is you now have an alternative to warfarin," said Dr. Alan Jacobson, director of anti-coagulation services at the Veterans Administration (VA) healthcare system in Loma Linda, California. "The bad news is you can kill a patient as easily with the new drug as you could with the old drug" if it is not handled properly.

"The average patient doesn't understand anything about the new drug, or what the risks are, or what other medicines he can or can't take," said Jacobson, citing interactions with common painkillers and other drugs that can alter Pradaxa blood levels.

Xarelto, a once daily pill that Johnson & Johnson developed with Bayer AG, was approved last November for atrial fibrillation. The condition affects about 3 million Americans, causing blood to pool in a storage chamber of the heart, where it can clot and travel to the brain.

Both new drugs were designed to sidestep risks of warfarin, including brain hemorrhages and other dangerous bleeding, and become mainstays of a new therapeutic market worth at least $10 billion a year. Patients taking warfarin require close monitoring and regular blood tests as well as dietary and lifestyle changes.

Doctors have less data and familiarity with Xarelto, which is still being rolled out.

But Jacobson and another dozen physicians interviewed by Reuters expressed similar concerns about both Pradaxa and Xarelto.

They say that real world use of Pradaxa and Xarelto, which do not require regular blood monitoring or frequent doctor follow-up, raises concerns about the risk of stroke, serious bleeding and blood clots if not taken properly, particularly in patients with poor kidney function.

The nonprofit Institute for Safe Medication Practices estimated last month that 542 reports of deaths associated with Pradaxa were reported to the FDA in 2011, topping all other medicines, including warfarin, with 72 deaths. Adverse event reports on Xarelto were not available.

A case study published in March raised alarm in particular, showing an elderly Utah patient on Pradaxa developed a massive brain hemorrhage and died after a minor fall.

European regulators have instructed Boehringer Ingelheim to add warnings about the bleeding risk to Pradaxa's package insert. Almost two dozen U.S. federal lawsuits have been filed against Boehringer Ingelheim alleging harm from Pradaxa.

Boehringer declined to comment on the lawsuits. The German company also declined to comment about the deaths, but said the number of reports of bleeding with Pradaxa were within Boehringer's expectations, given the incidence of bleeding seen in the drug's largest study.

"Research has shown that the number of reported adverse events for a drug peaks during its first few years on the market," when doctors are most likely to file voluntary reports to regulators and drugmakers, company spokeswoman Emily Baier said.

Dr. Robert Temple, a top official in the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said few doctors notify the agency about incidents from warfarin because its risks are already well known. So the lopsided number of Pradaxa reports compared with warfarin may not indicate an elevated risk, he said.

"We don't necessarily believe it is real," he said. "But we're watching it. We can't help but notice it."

A SHIFT IN PRACTICE

The makers of Pradaxa and Xarelto say it takes time for doctors to get up to speed on new types of treatments and how to best administer them outside the controls of clinical trials.

"This is a shift in medical practice," said Dr. John Smith, senior vice president for clinical development at Boehringer. "Individual physicians have to determine what the follow-up plan will be, to use common medical-sense judgment."

Dr. Peter Wildgoose, a senior director of clinical development at J&J, said the company has not provided special advice on follow-up care for patients on Xarelto.

"There's nothing more than for any other drug that people regularly take," he said, adding that most atrial fibrillation patients probably see their doctors on a regular basis. "These drugs have been tested long term, for several years at a time, with very good outcomes."

Boehringer Ingelheim and Johnson & Johnson officials stressed there was far less evidence in trials of brain bleeding – the most worrisome side effect of anti-coagulants – in patients taking Pradaxa and Xarelto than those taking warfarin.

In the meantime, warfarin is holding its own, with 33 million U.S. prescriptions filled for atrial fibrillation and other uses last year, according to IMS Health, a healthcare information and services company. Some 2.2 million prescriptions were filled for Pradaxa.

About 130,000 U.S. prescriptions were written for Xarelto in the first three months of 2012. Pradaxa and Xarelto each cost about $3,000 a year, versus just $200 for generic warfarin.

Prominent U.S. heart doctors stress that neither new drug has a known antidote for a bleeding emergency, as warfarin does.

They also say that patients using them should undergo testing ahead of time to ensure good kidney function, be carefully taught potential pitfalls of the drugs and be seen by doctors periodically, especially after a switch is made.

"I have received a dozen phone calls from local colleagues in the last couple of months about bleeding on Pradaxa and have yet to find a single case where that bleeding was not related to improper use of the drug," said Dr. Sanjay Kaul, a cardiologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

Kaul found that many of the doctors failed to test patient kidney function before prescribing Pradaxa, though 80 percent of the drug is excreted in that organ. Weak kidneys allow the medicine to build to unsafe levels in the bloodstream. About two thirds of Xarelto is eliminated by the kidneys. Other doctors failed to ask patients whether they had a history of gastrointestinal bleeding, which raises the risk for Pradaxa.

"What really compounds the matter is the lack of a specific antidote to reverse life-threatening bleeding" from Pradaxa, said Kaul, who served on independent panels that advised the FDA on both new medications. Kaul said he had written only one prescription for Pradaxa and none for Xarelto.

Boehringer Ingelheim said it is working on an antidote, but declined to elaborate. Johnson & Johnson said it is not developing an antidote, but is monitoring early efforts by other drugmakers to come up with one. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, which is developing a blood clot drug called Eliquis that is similar to Xarelto, declined to comment on the antidote issue.

HOPES FOR A THIRD NEW DRUG

Warfarin thins the blood by blocking Vitamin K, while Pradaxa directly inhibits thrombin – a protein involved in clotting. Xarelto and Eliquis – which Bristol-Myers is developing with Pfizer Inc – interferes with a protein called Factor Xa.

Richard Purkiss, an analyst with Atlantic Equities, sees the new blood clot drugs reaching combined global annual sales of $10 billion for stroke prevention and other uses, with Eliquis commanding up to a 60 percent market share, based on data showing it was more effective and safer than warfarin, including less bleeding and risk of death from all causes.

Neither Pradaxa nor Xarelto were able to claim both superiority and better safety than warfarin, or reduced risk of death.

Eliquis is eliminated mainly by the liver, which some doctors say could make it more appropriate than Pradaxa or Xarelto for older patients and those with kidney problems. The FDA is expected to make a decision on Eliquis by June 28.

Michael Liss, portfolio manager at American Century Investments, predicts Eliquis will overtake Pradaxa and Xarelto within six months after it is introduced. He expects it to capture peak annual sales of up to $4 billion, with Pradaxa and Xarelto dividing up another $3 billion.

Dr. Kenneth Bauer, head of hematology for the Veterans Administration health system in Boston, said the FDA should never have approved Pradaxa and Xarelto for patients with severe kidney dysfunction, since such patients were excluded from large studies. Nor should the agency have approved an untested 75-milligram half dose of Pradaxa for such patients, he said.

"These are people whose kidneys are already damaged … and even at the smaller dose (of Pradaxa), you risk overdosing yourself," Bauer said.

The FDA said it routinely approves adjusted doses of medicines, and noted that patients with severe liver dysfunction were included in smaller studies of Xarelto and Pradaxa.

Boehringer Ingelheim's Smith said the FDA cleared the lower dose of Pradaxa after conducting its own analysis of how it performs in the bloodstream.

FRAIL ELDERLY 'CANARY IN COAL MINE'

Almost 15 percent of Americans over the age of 80 are believed to have atrial fibrillation and face a fivefold higher risk of stroke if untreated.

Dr. Richard Besdine, director of the Center for Gerontology at Brown University, said he had switched only two of his approximately 100 elderly patients from warfarin. He is unlikely to switch many others for at least a few years.

"If there's an adverse event lurking in the closet for a new drug, it's most likely to come out in patients that are old and frail and taking multiple medications. They're the canary in the coal mine," he said.

Even so, Besdine – like many other doctors now on the sidelines – believes the new drugs may eventually displace warfarin as doctors become familiar with them.

Others note that warfarin's disadvantages have led as many as 70 percent of prospective patients to refuse to take it, leaving plenty of room for the new drugs.

Dr. Robert Califf, a Duke University cardiologist who headed the largest study of Xarelto, noted warfarin is still one of the biggest causes of U.S. emergency room fatalities.

"We shouldn't lose sight of what warfarin is like in the real world," he said.

Mirena IUD and A Perforated Uterus

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

The Mirena IUD along with the vaginal mesh, Yaz, Yasmin are devices and Drugs harming women. Mirena IUD Class Action lawyers are currently reviewing cases for a Mirena IUD Class Action, MDL Lawsuit. If you have a perforated uterus from the Mirena IUD contact us today for a case review.

Birth control drugs and devices  have been the central focus  of lawsuits. Yaz, Yasmin, Beyaz, NuvaRing and the related Vaginal Mesh are just some of the birth control medications, devices and related women problem devices that are causing  injuries, death and destroying lives.
The Mirena IUD is being currently reviewed by our Mirena IUD lawyers. Mirena is manufactured by Bayer ,which also manufacturers Yaz and Beyaz. It is a flexible silicone  intrauterine device that is placed into the uterus through the vagina by a physician. Mirena releases a continuous dose of the hormone levonorgestrel to prevent pregnancy for up to five years.

The first-generation IUD Dalkon Shield was well known for its complications, including :infection, sepsis, miscarriage and even death. Ther Over 300,000 IUD  Dalkon Shield lawsuits were filed.

The problems Mirena IUD  lawyers are accepting  Mirena Silicone  IUD  cases for include puncture of the uterus or the device becoming firmly embedded in the uterus. This can cause bleeding and other serious complications. The device must have moved or gravitated, and can not be located. If you have had the device surgically removed we want to hear from you.

The vaginal mesh lawsuit trials are underway. Lawyers are beginning the depositions of key players. The clock is ticking File you vaginal mesh lawsuit now.

 

Insurance Fraud Lawyers, What is Insurance Fraud, Class Action Lawyer

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

Class action lawyers filing class action insurance Fraud lawsuits. Insurance Fraud, Scam lawyers protect citizens from insurance Fraud.

What is Insurance Fraud?
Fraud occurs when someone knowingly lies to obtain some benefit or advantage to which they are not otherwise entitled or someone knowingly denies some benefit that is due and to which someone is entitled. Depending on the specific issues involved. Insurance Fraud can be handled both civil and criminal. Class action lawyers filer civil negligence suiots against insurance companies for scams.

What is Insurance Fraud?

Any action taken by an individual with the intent to fraudulently obtain payment from an insurer is considered insurance fraud.
Insurance Consumer Tips

Use Caution!

    When receiving phone calls after an accident. It could be someone trying to involve you in a fraud scheme.
    If a life insurance sales pitch comes at a time when there is no apparent need to change insurance coverage, such as a marriage, a new child, or similar life change.
    If an agent offers to replace your old life insurance policy, which has a high cash value, with a new better one. Carefully review the premium schedule, benefits and restrictions on benefits, such as pre-existing conditions

Always!

    Make sure you receive a written policy within sixty (60) days after you have paid your first premium.
    Compare prices and options before purchasing insurance, especially if a price being offered is substantially lower than others.
    Make sure you receive and review your detailed billings for all services.
    When buying or renewing insurance coverage, check with the Office of Insurance Regulation to make sure you are dealing with a licensed agent and a licensed insurance company.
    Protect your insurance identification numbers as you would a credit card number.

Never!

    Write a premium check to an agent. Checks should be written to the insurance company or insurance agency.
    Never sign blank insurance forms.

If you feel you are a victim of insurance fraud you may be able to hire an insurance fraud lawyer and sue for damages as part of a class action lawsuit.