Biomet Hip Lawsuits near 500 Cases in Federal Litigation

Categories:

Lawsuits continue to mount in a multidistrict litigation currently underway in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, involving claims against the Biomet M2a Hip Replacement System. The Biomet hip replacement litigation was established by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) in October 2012, when six federal lawsuits involving the M2a Magnum hip implant were transferred to the Northern District of Indiana. The JPML issued an update on July 10, stating that 493 Biomet hip replacement claims are presently pending in the proceeding. The lawsuits all allege that the metal-on-metal design of the Biomet M2a Magnum’s implant is capable of dispersing dangerous amounts of toxic metal debris as a result of wear, which can lead to premature device failure and adverse tissue reactions, such as metallosis. Metal-on-metal hip implants, such as the Biomet M2a magnum, have raised safety concerns in recent years. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned in January, that patients who have received such implants have an increased risk of tissue and bone damage, pain, implant loosening and premature device failure due to their tendency to disperse dangerous amounts of metal shavings into the bloodstream and surrounding tissue. The agency warned that patients who have received all-metal hip implants, who are experiencing device failure, should undergo metal ion testing. The FDA will no longer allow all-metal hip implants to be eligible for 510(k) approvals, a process by which devices were allowed to come to market without human clinical trials. Patients who have allegedly been harmed as a result of the Biomet M2a Magnum metal-on-metal hip implant, may be eligible for compensation for their medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering. In addition to Biomet, several other metal-on-metal hip implant manufacturers are under fire, including DePuy, Stryker, Smith and Nephew, and Wright.

Biomet Hip Recall Lawsuit Attorneys

At Phillips Law Firm, our national defective device attorneys understand the complexities surrounding multi-district litigation cases and defective medical products. We also know the pain and suffering that these devices have caused and will fight aggressively to ensure that all of our clients receive the compensation to which they are entitled. If you have been injured by a metal-on-metal hip implant, contact our offices to see if you qualify to file a lawsuit. Call us today at 1-800-708-6000.

by

When Do You Need a Personal Injury Lawyer?

Categories:

Immediately after an accident, the last thing you may be considering is hiring a lawyer. Often times, families are busy trying to pay bills, take care of their love ones, and attend to the daily tasks of recovering after a devastating accident. It is during these times that an experienced Washington personal injury lawyer can help. The following types of injuries and accidents are situations where the assistance of a lawyer will almost definitely be required. Long-Term or Permanently Disabling Injuries- It can be difficult determining the monetary value of an injury that will significantly alter your physical capabilities or appearance for the next year, or even longer. An experienced Seattle personal injury lawyer can help you determine how much your claim is worth, so you can relax knowing you have enough to pay for future medical expenses and additional surgeries. Severe Injuries– Compensation amounts for severe injuries can cover a wide range. Amounts are determined by the severity of your injuries, which are determined by the expense of medical bills, type of injuries you have and your recovery time.  It may be well worth the expense of hiring a lawyer to handle your claim to ensure you receive the highest amount of compensation possible. Medical Malpractice- The help of an experienced medical malpractice lawyer will almost certainly be required to handle the complex medical questions and legal rules involved when you have been injured due to the carelessness or incompetency of a medical provider. Toxic Exposure- Claims based on exposure to contaminants in the air, soil, water, food or other products require expert help. These claims, which sometimes require complicated scientific data, are hard to prove because the chemical companies and huge industries have skilled legal help that make acquiring the necessary evidence difficult. When Insurance Companies Refuse to Pay- There will always be situations where an insurance company or government agency simply refuses to make a fair settlement. Regardless of the amount of your bills and lost income, if an insurance company gives you the run around, then you will definitely need an experienced Seattle personal injury lawyer on your side. To find a good personal injury lawyer ask acquaintances, friends and other lawyers for referrals. Interview the candidates, asking about each lawyer’s experience, education and fees. Perhaps, most importantly, ask about the lawyer’s general philosophy of practicing law, so that you can find someone who you can trust and work with.

Seattle Personal Injury Attorneys

If you are injured in an accident in Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma, or anywhere in the State of Washington, the personal injury attorneys at Phillips Law Firm are here to help. We will do everything we can to ensure that your interests are protected and that you receive the maximum compensation. Contact the experienced Seattle personal injury attorneys at the Phillips Law Firm today for a free consultation and review of your case. Call us at 1-800-708-6000 today.

by

Baby’s Heart Defects Linked to Mother’s Zoloft Use

Categories:

On June 25, 2013, a new Zoloft birth defect lawsuit was filed, and it has been added to the multidistrict litigation (MDL) currently proceeding in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated all federal Zoloft lawsuits in Pennsylvania on April 27, 2012, creating MDL No. 2342. In the new lawsuit, the parents allege that the heart defects suffered by their child were caused by the mother’s ingestion of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant. According to court documents, the mother took Zoloft during her pregnancy, and the child was born suffering from Tetralogy of Fallot and Pulmonary Atresia. Tetralogy of Fallot is a rare heart defect caused by a combination of four issues present at birth. A hole exists between the heart’s two lower chambers, the main artery is in the wrong place, the right ventricle muscle is thicker than usual, and the pulmonary valve is narrowed. This condition often causes babies to have bluish skin, lips and fingernails due to low oxygen in the blood. Open-heart surgery is the only treatment and often occurs shortly after birth. With surgery, children usually survive to adulthood, but will need lifelong medical care. In Pulmonary Atresia, a defect that occurs during the first eight weeks of pregnancy, the pulmonary valve is completely closed, blocking blood flow from the heart to the lungs. The New England Journal of Medicine published a study in 1996, linking exposure to SSRI antidepressants late in pregnancy to babies with higher rates of prematurity, poor neonatal adaption, significantly lower birth weight and length and persistent pulmonary hypertension of a newborn (PPHN). In September 2009, the British Medical Journal published a study indicating mothers who took SSRIs early in pregnancy were at a higher risk of giving birth to children with heart defects. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology reported on a study in 2010 indicating women who used a particular antidepressant during pregnancy had more than twice the risk of women who had not used that drug, of delivering children with heart defects called “left outflow tract defects.” The plaintiffs in the lawsuit claim that Pfizer, the manufacturer of Zoloft, knew about the risks associated with the medication, but failed to warn doctors and expectant mothers. They are seeking punitive and compensatory damages for defective design, failure to warn, negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment.

Zoloft Lawsuit Attorneys

If your child was diagnosed with a heart defect and you took the dangerous drug Zoloft during your pregnancy, it is important to speak with a Zoloft lawsuit attorney immediately. The national Zoloft lawsuit attorneys at Phillips Law Firm can help. If you are interested in learning more about your legal options, call us at 1-800-708-6000. Our national Zoloft lawsuit attorneys are waiting to assist you 24/7, offering a free case evaluation. Remember our no fee promise. If we do not recover anything for you, you do not owe us an attorney fee.

by

Growing Concerns Continue Concerning Januvia

Categories:

A recent study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) is one of three studies to renew concerns about the association of pancreatic cancer and Januvia. The data indicates that Januvia might be even more dangerous than first believed and has triggered mounting concerns for patient safety. Insurance claims, reviewed by the study, showed an increased risk of hospitalization for acute pancreatitis in patients taking Januvia as compared to other diabetes medications. The study also revealed FDA data showing an increased risk of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in patients taking incretin mimetics such as Januvia. In regulatory documents obtained by the BMJ under the Freedom of Information Act, the Journal discovered unpublished data indicating “unwanted proliferative or inflammatory pancreatic effects.” In her report, Deborah Cohen, Investigative Editor for BMJ said, “On their own, the individual pieces of unpublished evidence may seem inconclusive, but when considered alongside other emerging and long-standing evidence, a worrying picture emerges, posing serious questions about the safety of this class of drug.” In her report, Cohen goes on to indicate that drug makers did not conduct proper safety studies and that regulators have not even questioned them about these critical studies. Dr. Fiona Godlee, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of BMJ, states that the manufacturers have not been forthcoming about sharing their data, thus keeping doctors and patients inadequately informed about the risks associated with these drugs. She said that lives could be saved if this information were made public, so that patients and doctors could make informed decisions.

Recent Januvia Lawsuit News

Merck, the manufacturer, reports that there have been forty-three Januvia pancreatic cancer lawsuits filed as of July 14, 2013. According to court documents, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) is considering consolidation of all federal Januvia lawsuits into a single federal court for pretrial proceedings. This would include claims involving other diabetes medications in the same incretin mimetics class.   According to court documents, including Januvia pancreatic cancer lawsuits, over fifty product liability claims involving incretin mimetics have been filed in federal courts throughout the U.S. On July 25, the JPML will hear oral arguments on the potential consolidation of those claims. Patients who have been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer after using the diabetic Januvia may be able to file a lawsuit. To learn more about your rights and legal options, call the Phillips Law Firm today. Our experienced Januvia lawsuit lawyers have represented families across the country in their quest for justice. For a free consultation visit the Phillips Law Firm website http://www.justiceforyou.com or call 1-800-708-6000.

by

Changes in Pain Treatment for Injured Washington Workers

Categories:

The Washington Department of Labor and Industries has changed the amount of time doctors are allowed to prescribe narcotics (opioids) for injured workers without agency authorization, from twelve to six weeks. L&I insurance coverage for opioids after six weeks, will depend on doctors’ use of best practices. The required best practices include screening patients for risks of side effects or addiction and monitoring whether workers are recovering their ability to perform normal activities. Physicians should track function and pain on a regular basis to determine the effect of opioid therapy. L&I said the change is intended to improve the safety and effectiveness of treatment for pain among injured workers in the state, but also noted that opioid-related deaths have exceeded accidental deaths due to motor-vehicles and firearms every year since 2007. Washington has had one of the highest rates of prescription opioid-related deaths among the states. “These changes will improve pain treatment for injured workers as well as their safety during recovery,” commented Jaymie Mai, L&I Pharmacy Director, “for some doctors, measuring physical function and screening for risk may be new practices.” Physicians can find everything they need to implement the new treatment guideline atwww.opioids.lni.wa.gov . Although doctors are expected to be familiar with the guidelines and follow the recommendations, L&I also understands that guidelines are not hard-and-fast rules. Good medical judgment is important in deciding how to use and interpret this information. To develop the new L&I opioid treatment guideline, practicing physicians who specialize in pain management and in treating injured workers worked with L&I. The medical treatment guidelines are written from a clinical perspective, to guide clinical care and the changes are consistent with the Department of Health’s pain management rules and are part of L&I’s ongoing efforts to improve pain treatment for injured workers. According to Mai, “We are pleased that high dosage levels have been coming down and we are seeing fewer deaths among workers due to pain medication.”

A Washington Worker’s Compensation Lawyer on Your Side

If you have a question about employee rights or worker’s compensation, it is important to contact an experienced Seattle worker’s compensation lawyer immediately. At the Phillips Law Firm, our worker’s compensation attorneys have represented workers in Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma, and throughout the State of Washington with their worker’s compensation questions and claims. Call us today at 1-800-708-6000 or visit us on the web.

by

Seattle Joins Growing List of Cities to “Ban the Box”

Categories:

On November 1, 2013 Seattle will officially join the list of cities which have decided to restrict the use of arrest and conviction records when looking for potential employees. The city joins Buffalo, Philadelphia and Newark, as well as the states of Massachusetts, Minnesota and Hawaii in “banning the box” for private employers. Some jurisdictions have “banned the box” for public employers and contractors and the U.S. Congress even has a type of “ban the box” legislation pending. The new policy is extensive, as the term “employer” refers to any person with one or more employees, or any person acting in the interest of the employer. The term also applies to job placement, referral and employment agencies. The new ordinance refers to an “employee” as anyone who performs any services for an employer, when the physical location of those services is 50% or more of the time, within the City. The ordinance also protects “job applicants”, defined as anyone who is in any way a prospect as an “employee.” The primary goal of the ordinance is to prevent employers from automatically excluding a prospective employee based solely on the basis of his or her arrest or conviction record, if their job is to be performed, at least 50% of the time, within the City of Seattle. Employers are allowed to perform a criminal background check or require a job applicant to disclose their criminal history after an initial screening of applications or resumes has been conducted by the employer. Employers must also refrain from asking questions concerning arrests, pending criminal charges and/or convictions in the initial application process. Even after a screening of applications or resumes, employers must offer a “legitimate business reason” before taking an adverse action based on an applicant’s criminal history. Employers who violate the ordinance are subject to a notice of the infraction and an offer of assistance from the Seattle Office for Civil Rights (the “Agency”). For the second infraction, the employer is required to pay a penalty up to $750 to the aggrieved employee, and the penalty increases to $1000 for the third violation. Employers in Seattle and other “ban the box” locations should determine whether conviction records are considered in a manner that is job-related, train hiring managers on the appropriate use of criminal history in hiring and keep all information about applicant’s and employee’s criminal records confidential.

Seattle Employee Rights Lawyer

Employee rights are constantly in danger. If you or someone you love has experienced employee discrimination, wrongful termination, or any violation of their employee rights in Seattle, Bellevue, or anywhere in the State of Washington, call Phillips Law Firm at 1-800-708-6000. Our Washington employee rights lawyers are waiting to assist you 24/7, offering a free case evaluation. Remember our no fee promise. If we do not recover anything for you, you do not owe us an attorney fee.

by

Higher Risk of Stroke after TBI

Categories:

Research by a University of Michigan Health System team suggests that people who have suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) may be at a somewhat higher risk of sustaining a stroke in the future. There are two major types of TBI; penetrating injuries and closed head injuries. In a penetrating head injury, a foreign object enters the brain and causes damage along the path which it travels, this could include a bullet wound, a nail, or other sharp object. The other main type of TBI is a closed head injury. A closed head injury results from a blow to the head consistent with car accidents, such as when the head strikes the windshield or dashboard. In fact, car accidents are a leading cause of TBI, and the most common type of closed head injury from a car accident is a concussion. For the study at U-M, researchers looked at the medical records of adults who visited the emergency room or who were admitted to a hospital for TBI or other trauma without brain injury over a five year period. 435,630 people with TBI and 736,723 people with trauma without brain injury were studied. On average, 28 months following their injuries, 1.1 percent of subjects with TBI suffered a stroke, as compared with .09 percent of those with trauma without brain injury. Ischemic strokes, where blood flow to part of the brain is blocked, account for eighty percent of all strokes. After adjusting for factors that can influence stroke risk, such as high blood pressure and cholesterol, age, heart disease and the severity of the trauma, researchers found that people with traumatic brain injury were more likely to suffer a stroke than those with trauma without brain injury. James F. Burke, M.D., a clinical lecturer in the U-M Medical School’s department of Neurology says that although the stroke risk for one person with TBI is relatively unsubstantial, the overall correlation between TBI and stroke was significant, as great as the link between stroke and high blood pressure, the strongest stroke risk factor. Dr. Burke says, “If further research establishes TBI as a new risk factor for stroke that would stimulate research to help us understand what causes stroke after TBI and help us learn how to prevent these strokes.”

Seattle Car Accident Lawyers

At Phillips Law Firm, our Washington personal injury attorneys have extensive experience representing individuals who have sustained a traumatic brain injury in accidents in Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma, and throughout the State of Washington. We understand that TBI victims can have a lifetime of disabilities, pain, and suffering, and as such, we fight aggressively to obtain the maximum compensation. Call us today for a free case evaluation at 1-800-708-6000. Our Seattle personal injury attorneys spend one-on-one time with our clients and we work diligently to achieve extraordinary results for all of our clients.

by

Supreme Court Delivers Devastating Blow to U.S. Consumers with Generic Ruling

Categories:

The Supreme Court delivered a crippling blow to the American consumer with its decision in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett. The Justices have again shown their allegiance to the large pharmaceutical corporations, deciding that federal law preempts defect design claims for generic drug manufacturers. In the Bartlett case, a legal battle has been ongoing whether generic drug manufacturers can be held responsible for injuries caused by the use of their product. Because the composition and warning labels of generic drugs are required to be identical to those of their name brand counterparts, generic drug manufacturers, in the past, were granted immunity to civil action resulting from the use of their drugs. The plaintiff in the original case and the respondent to Mutual’s petition, Karen Bartlett, was given a prescription for Clinoril, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). Her pharmacist gave her the generic version, sundilac. Ms. Bartlett suffered from toxic epidermal necrolysis, a rare, life threatening skin condition. The condition left Ms. Bartlett disfigured, disabled and nearly blind. At the time Ms. Bartlett took the drug, its label did not carry a warning for toxic epidermal necrolysis and the lower courts decided with her. A jury awarded Ms. Bartlett $21 million for her pain and suffering caused by the wrong-doing of Mutual, a decision which now has been reversed by the Supreme Court’s ruling. The ruling of the Supreme Court essentially effaces the generic drug companies of all liability by protecting them from litigation from defective drug designs. Residual effects of the decision will be felt across many areas of the law and leave the injured American consumer with no means of recourse. In the case of Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, in 2011, the Supreme Court determined that federal law protects generic drug manufacturers from facing litigation over injuries suffered by patients as a result of misinformation on the drug label. The Court held that because the generic drug manufacturer must distribute the same warning label as the brand name manufacturer, it cannot be held responsible for failing to warn patients of associated risks with its product. If you or someone you love was injured after taking a dangerous and defective drug, it is important to contact an experienced dangerous drug lawsuit attorney immediately. The Phillips Law Firm can assist you with all of your legal needs. Our caring and professional national dangerous drug lawsuit attorneys will provide you with a free case evaluation and help you determine your rights to compensation for your injuries. Call us at 1-800-708-6000 today to schedule your appointment.

by

Doctor Discovers Dangers of Januvia

Categories:

In early 2008, Dr. Peter C. Butler, chief of the division of endocrinology at the University of California, Los Angeles, made a discovery that could drastically alter the way the medical community views one of its top-selling diabetes medications. After repeated requests from Merck, the manufacturer of Januvia, a Type 2 diabetes medication with annual sales in excess of $9 billion, Dr. Butler conceded to study the drug and came up with some alarming results. Dr. Butler studied the pancreases of thirty-four human organ donors who had died from reasons unrelated to pancreatic cancer. Of the donors, 7 had taken Januvia and one had taken Byetta. The pancreases of the eight incretin drug users had more precancerous lesions, were heavier and had a faster growth of certain cells than the organs of those who had not taken the drugs. One even had a neuroendocrine tumor, a type of pancreatic cancer. Results of Dr. Butler’s most recent study have prompted the FDA and the European Medicines Agency to begin investigations that could result in new label warnings on the drugs, their removal from the market, or other serious consequences. The makers of the drug and many diabetes specialists say the results of Dr. Butler’s tests are inconclusive and that if there is any increased risk it would be minimal. Concerns about whether the drugs increase the risk of pancreatitis, a painful and possibly lethal swelling of the pancreas, surfaced shortly after the first one, Byetta, now sold by Bristol-Meyers Squibb and AstraZeneca, was approved in 2005. The drugs’ labels already contain warnings about pancreatitis, but what is new, is a possible risk of pancreatic cancer which is virtually untreatable and kills most patients within a year. Still, there are some experts who agree that while Dr. Butler’s findings raise some red flags, safety concerns have not yet had a noticeable impact on the sale of the drugs. Additional information may come out this month at a two-day meeting of the National Institutes of Health where Dr. Butler will be a speaker.

National Januvia Lawsuit Lawyers

Patients who have been diagnosed with pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, or thyroid cancer after using the diabetic drugs Byetta and Januvia may be able to file a lawsuit. To learn more about your rights and legal options, call the Phillips Law Firm today. Our experienced national dangerous drug lawsuit lawyers have represented families across the country in their quest for justice. For a free consultation visit the Phillips Law Firm website http://www.justiceforyou.com or call 1-800-708-6000.

by

Fatal Car Accident Cited in GranuFlo Heart Attack Lawsuit

Categories:

On June 3rd, 2013, an Iowa man filed a lawsuit seeking damages from Fresenius Medical Care, makers of the dialysate GranuFlo. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa (Davenport Division), alleges that the man suffered a heart attack as a result of using GranuFlo. The heart attack led to a fatal car accident. The plaintiff receives kidney dialysis treatments three times a week at the University of Iowa Hospital. Shortly after his visit on March 7, 2011, he reported feeling sick and light-headed. Later that day while driving to work, the plaintiff suffered a heart attack and lost consciousness. The truck he was driving swerved into oncoming traffic and collided with a passenger van containing a family of three. As a result of the accident, the driver of the van died. His wife and small child required hospital treatment. The plaintiff suffered a broken femur, a broken hip, and a shattered pelvis. According to the lawsuit, Fresenius is accused of negligence and failure to provide adequate warnings about GranuFlo side effects and is liable for the suffering caused to all parties as a result of the accident.

Thousands of Patients at Risk

Approximately 3,300 dialysis centers in the United States have used GranuFlo. Some are operated directly by Fresenius and many others buy the company’s dialysates. GranuFlo is used during hemodialysis to offset the acid produced by kidney malfunction. The recent GranuFlo lawsuit states that the sodium acetate in the dialysate converts to sodium bicarbonate at an unusually high level. As a result of receiving the treatment, thousands of patients may have been unwittingly overdosed with sodium bicarbonate. Before the FDA issued a Class 1 recall of the product on March 29th, 2012, it is estimated that a quarter of a million patients were treated with GranuFlo. The FDA recalled the product after a memo surfaced clearly warning that the risk of cardiac arrest was up to eight times higher with GranuFlo compared to other dialysates. The internal memo, dated November 2011, was sent only to Fresenius-owned clinics and not issued to non-Fresenius clinics which constitute nearly half of all clinics that used GranuFlo. Multiple GranuFlo lawsuits are pending against Fresenius, and due to the large number of patients who have been treated with GranuFlo, that number is expected to rise. The lawsuits have been consolidated into a Multidistrict Litigation in the District of Massachusetts.

GranuFlo Lawsuit Attorneys

If you or someone you love has been injured by Fresenius Medical Care’s GranuFlo or NaturaLyte dialysis products, please contact one of our skilled national GranuFlo lawsuit lawyers today to protect your rights. To learn more about your rights and legal options, call the Phillips Law Firm today. Our experienced GranuFlo lawsuit lawyers have represented families across the country in their quest for justice. You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries. For a free consultation fill out the form on the right or call 1-800-708-6000.

by