GP IN TW FB HOME
Share

Defective Medical Devices

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Texas Woman Suit Over Injuries for Defective IVC Blood Clot Filter


When can a patient sue a manufacturer over faulty medical devices or failure to warn of the risks of an implant?


A Texas woman has filed a lawsuit against Cook Medical in connection with a defective medical device implanted in her at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas in 2007. Her suit also accuses the company of a "failure to warn" of the risks of the implant, the Cook Gunther Vena Cava Filter. She is just the latest of a number of plaintiffs in Texas and other states who have sued over the ill-effects of such filters implanted years ago.

Cook Gunther Vena Cava Filter Created Serious Health Problems

The inferior vena cava (IVC) filters were supposed to protect patients from life-threatening blood clots that can travel to the lungs and cause a pulmonary embolism or other health problems.


Read more . . .


Friday, May 6, 2016

Johnson & Johnson to Pay $502 Million Over Flawed Pinnacle Hips

What is the latest news over J&J's hip replacement failures?

Medical device maker Johnson & Johnson was recently ordered to pay $502 million in damages to 5 patients over flawed artificial hip devices sold under the Pinnacle brand name. The defective devices were sold by J&J's Depuy unit, and a federal-court jury in Dallas found that company officials were aware of the flaws but failed to warn patients and doctors. In a product liability case, failure to warn is a key element in a successful lawsuit.



Read more . . .


Sunday, February 21, 2016

Legislating Reduction of Health Risks from Tainted Medical Devices

Can new warning system help track negligence regarding medical products?

Tragically, many serious infections and deaths have been spread in hospital settings because of tainted medical scopes. This shocking finding, recently reported by members of Congress, federal officials and health-policy experts, has prompted intense dissatisfaction with the FDA's surveillance system for such devices, a system which is clearly inadequate, relying too heavily on manufacturer's reportage of problems with their own products.

 Being aware of the serious problem is the easy part; remedying the federal warning system to warn doctors and patients of the risk of scopes, implants and surgical tools is much more challenging, involving as it does overcoming partisan Congressional divides and involving increased government funding. Many foresee years before a more effective system can be put into place.

Patient advocates and federal auditors are not the only ones with doubts about the FDA's commitment and ability to reform the system, since there has been criticism of agency oversight of medical devices since the 1990s. As recently as January 13th of this year, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) presented evidence of an antibiotic-resistant strain of bacteria, originating from defective duodenoscopes (used for gastrointestinal examinations and procedures) that had spread throughout the country. In addition, Senators investigating the problem cited 19 superbug outbreaks that had sickened nearly 200 patients for 2012 to 2015. Amidst concern that these outbreaks were occurring, no substantive action was taken, and 68 more patients developed serious infection.

Sen. Murray has proposed a new system for tracking medical devices that would make use of insurance claims to supplement injury forms. Such a system would be similar to the method now used to monitor prescription drugs which works in a much more timely fashion. Robert M. Califf, President Obama’s nominee for FDA commissioner, has endorsed this data-driven approach.

One aspect of the new proposal, putting bar codes on every instrument, is already underway, being phased in over the next few years. Unless such bar codes are included on insurance claim forms, however, they are unlikely to be of much help. The hope is that tracking device IDs will work as car ID numbers do, enabling patients across the country to be notified promptly in regard to a defect device so that they could be checked for signs of possible infection immediately at the nearest hospital.

If you have suffered an infection or injury as a result of a defective medical device, you should contact personal injury attorneys with specific knowledge of the law surrounding defective medical devices so that you can be appropriately compensated for your pain, suffering, and/or resulting disability.


Monday, January 25, 2016

Pelvic Mesh Case Heads to TX Supreme Court

In November 2015, a Dallas appellate court reversed a $1.2 million jury verdict against Johnson & Johnson for allegedly designing a defective pelvic mesh product. The plaintiff subsequently filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. The overarching issue the Court will consider is what evidence is necessary to satisfy the "causation standard" in a product liability lawsuit related to an implanted medical device.

What are the facts in the pelvic mesh case in Texas?


It has been reported that the plaintiff has a "complex" medical history. She had claimed that the defendant, along with its subsidiary, Dallas-based Ethicon, manufactured a polypropylene mesh which caused her to be injured. The trial jury agreed and found that the medical product was defectively designed and awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million.

Johnson & Johnson appealed the judgment, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erroneously excluded all FDA evidence as well as evidence from independent physician organizations that contradicted the plaintiff’s theories of injury. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and ruled that the plaintiff must show that a specific defect in the product caused her injuries.

What is the history of pelvic mesh medical devices?


Pelvic mesh products were initially viewed as a significant technological improvement over traditional surgical methods. Those methods involved the use of stitches and a patient's own body tissue and had the potential for postsurgical complications. Mesh devices had already been widely used in other types of surgery for decades, particularly for repairing hernias.

Based on the successful history of other mesh devices, The Food and Drug Administration "fast-tracked" approval of pelvic mesh devices -- without conducting tests the agency normally requires for new devices. In 2002, the FDA cleared these soft, lightweight porous plastic devices for pelvic organ prolapse. The agency subsequently said in a 2008 public notice that problems were rare. In 2011 the agency reversed itself and said that most common problems occurred in 10 percent of women within one year of surgery.

In light of this finding, about a year ago, the FDA finally ordered a number of medical device manufacturers to conduct "rigorous" studies to determine the complication rates, over time, of surgical mesh.

What impact will the pelvic mesh case in Texas have on product liability?
In her petition, the plaintiff is asking the Supreme Court to clarify whether the appeals court accurately interpreted state common law to hold that a product liability plaintiff must isolate the cause of her injuries to a “specific defect” in a medical device case. The Supreme Court's decision will have a far- reaching impact on pelvic mesh product liability cases.

If you have been injured by a medical device, you should consult with a qualified attorney who can determine if you have grounds for a lawsuit.


Archived Posts

2017
2016
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2015
2014
2013


Chandler, Mathis & Zivley, PC has offices located in Houston and Lufkin Texas and serves clients throughout East Texas as well as many other states.
*Principal office in Lufkin, Texas



© 2017 Chandler, Mathis & Zivley, PC | Disclaimer
601 Sawyer, Suite 600, Houston, TX 77007
| Phone: 877.739.7744
207 E. Frank St., Suite 105, Lufkin, TX 75901
| Phone: 800.657.2230
1329 N. University Drive, Suite D-5, Nacogdoches, TX 75961
| Phone: 936.305.5155

Personal Injury | Commercial Litigation | Consumer Law | Defective Drugs & Medical Devices | Probate Litigation | About Us

Law Firm Website Design by
Amicus Creative


877.739.7744 Houston 800.657.2230 Lufkin