News Blog

FDA Regulates Approval of Drugs, Not How they are Prescribed

October 27th, 2014

People generally understand that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates drug approval, but many would be surprised to learn that the FDA does not control how approved drugs are really prescribed.

Doctors are given great latitude to prescribe any drug for any reason that they deem medically appropriate, and are not required to tell the patient that the medication is being used for something other than the condition it was approved for. The process, commonly known as “off-label prescribing,” is legal and extremely common. Pharmaceutical companies are not permitted to market medications for off-label uses, however, and this practice has led to several large legal settlements.

What is “Off-Label?”

Off-label generally means that a medication is not being prescribed for a use specified in the FDA’s approved packaging label or insert included with the drug. The label is a written document that gives detailed information about approval uses and dosages, based on the results of clinical studies that the drug maker provided to the FDA to gain approval. According to WebMD, more than one-fifth of the outpatient prescriptions written in the U.S. are for off-label uses.

Doctors who choose to prescribe medications for a use other than what they were approved for have many significant responsibilities, including:

  • To be well informed about all medications they prescribe
  • Base their use on scientific rationale and sound medical evidence
  • Weigh the pros and cons of off-label prescribing
  • Consider the best interest interests of their patients at all times

There are some risks and benefits to off-label prescribing, and it is often helpful when patients have exhausted all other approved medication options. Cancer treatment often includes the use of off-label drugs for chemotherapy, since a drug approval for one specific type of cancer may also target many kinds of tumors. In these circumstances, off-label use of a drug represents the standard of care. Other common off-label uses of prescription medications include:

  • Beta-blockers that are FDA-approved to treat high blood pressure but are widely prescribed by cardiologists to treat heart failure
  • Tricyclic antidepressants used to control chronic pain
  • Antipsychotics prescribed for those suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
  • Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, FDA approved to treat depression, are also routinely prescribed for a wide variety of off-label uses, including borderline personality disorder, stuttering, alcoholism, and premature ejaculation

Because the FDA makes it clear that it does not regulate the practice of medicine, off-label drug use has become common, and occurs in virtually every medical specialty, particularly those in which the patient population is less likely to be included in clinical trials – pregnant women, children, or the elderly. Off-label prescription drug use can be a polarizing term because it is associated with both great benefit as well as great harm to patients, and health care professionals must continually education themselves about OLDU and its risks and benefits to patients.

We encourage all our patients to ask their doctor about the medication they are prescribing. Ask if the medication prescribed is FDA approved for the condition being treated. Ask why they think this medication would be better than another type or some other treatment. Ask what are the material risks of the medication and have they heard of any adverse side effects from it.

Asking these important questions will make you a more informed patient and hopefully keep you and your family safe from a prescription error or injury.

Tags: , ,
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »

DePuy Pinnacle Hip Implant Jury Trial Underway

September 4th, 2014

The first bellwether jury trial began yesterday over the controversial DePuy Pinnacle hip implant that has caused thousands of patients to needlessly suffer as a result of the product’s defective design and questionable marketing practices.

depuy-recallKathleen Herlihy-Paoli, claims the metal hips made by J&J, the world’s largest health-care company, leaked cobalt and chromium material into her bloodstream, causing an infection and other complications that ultimately required the devices to be surgically removed.

This marks the first jury trial over the DePuy Pinnacle Hip Implant device that was first brought to market by Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary DePuy Orthopaedics in 2005. With more than 6,000 cases now pending in the Pinnacle MDL consolidated before the Honorable U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade, allegations of inadequate testing, failure to warn and defective design of the hip implant device will all be discussed and debated. The Pinnacle jury trial is expected to last 6-8 weeks.

J&J’s DePuy unit ignored signs the Pinnacle hips suffered from design flaws and assured doctors the metal devices worked “99.9 percent of the time,” Mark Lanier, a lawyer for a Montana woman who sued after complications forced her to have the device removed, told jurors today in Dallas federal court on the first day of trial of her lawsuit.

Although not recalled like the DePuy ASR hip implants, Bloomberg.com reports that:

J&J stopped selling the metal-on-metal version of the Pinnacle hip in August 2013 after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said it would require device makers to submit new versions of the artificial hips for pre-market approval.

J&J touted the metal-on-metal implants, first sold in the U.S. in 2005, as a design that would last 20 years and offer greater range of motion.

pinnaclePatents all over the world, and doctors alike, now know these claims are simply inaccurate and completely misleading. It is yet another prime example of Big Pharma putting profits over people.

The case is Herlihy-Paoli v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., 12-cv-3590, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).

As more develops in this trial it will be updated here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »

Childers, Schlueter & Smith Files 25 More Stryker Hip Lawsuits

September 4th, 2014

Atlanta, Georgia based law firm Childers, Schlueter & Smith, LLC recently filed another 25 Stryker hip replacement lawsuits, joining nearly 1,800 other Stryker lawsuits pending in U.S. District Court. Stryker lawsuits have been consolidated into multicounty litigation (MCL) in the Superior Court in Bergen County, New Jersey, and into multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U. S. District Court of Minnesota. The MDL is being overseen by U.S. District Judge Donovan W. Frank, and is expected to grow by hundreds of new hip implant recall cases in the next few months alone.

Many of the new plaintiffs in the MDL proceedings have undergone surgery to have their hip stems removed, but some are still in the medical monitoring phase to determine if a hip implant revision surgery will be necessary in the future. These lawsuits, like the others, claim that Stryker did not adequately test the artificial hip stems to ascertain that they would not fret, corrode, or otherwise deteriorate and lead to severe metal toxicity in those receiving the implants. The lawsuits also allege that:

  • Stryker’s representation that the hips stems would not fret or corrode were misleading to both physicians and consumers
  • Stryker marketed the device as a perfect fit for younger patients, leading doctors and patients to believe that it was superior to other hip implants available
  • The hip stems contain design and manufacturing defects that can cause serious or even permanent damage to patients
  • Stryker aggressively marketed the hip implants without informing consumers about the risks when safer alternatives were available

Stryker Recall

The Rejuvenate and ABG II hip stems were voluntarily recalled by Stryker in June 2012 after reports of corrosion and fretting at the modular neck-junction were received. At the time of the recall, Stryker issued a report stating that the neck components of Rejuvenate and ABG II are made of chromium and cobalt, the stems are coated with titanium, and the two parts wearing against each other will generate metallic debris released into the patient’s bloodstream or surrounding body tissue.

The metallic debris can cause patients to experience negative side effects, including local tissue reactions, swelling, anddepuy-recall pain. It can also require the removal of the lower portion of the modular stem due to design failures in the human body. Stryker advised that hip implant recipients should have their blood tested for metal ions and imaging screening, even if they are not experiencing any problems with their hips.

CSS is experienced in handling the legal matters faced by claimants that have recalled Stryker hip device(s) and ensures its clients are well informed on the monitoring process of their claims. In addition to these services, the challenges of reimbursement for past and future medical expenses, mileage and lost wages through the Broadspire process are handled for free to CSS clients while the Firm pursues the product liability claim on a contingent fee basis. (no fee until your claim is settled or tried to verdict in favor of a client).

For more information of the Top 10 Things All Stryker Hip Implant Patients Need To Know check out our previous blog on the hip implant recall.

news_CBS_SchlueterChilders Schlueter & Smith, LLC is taking a leading role in the National litigation by appointment of its partner, Richard Schlueter, by Federal Judge Donovan Frank to the Plaintiff Steering Committee ( PSC)  in MDL  13-2441 IN Re: Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II hip implants products liability litigation.

If you have questions about your potential Stryker hip implant recall case and want answers, please contact us today. Our hip implant lawyers are standing by to help and will discuss your claim with you in detail. All inquiries are kept completely confidential.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »

3 More Stryker Hip Lawsuits Settled After Mediation

September 2nd, 2014

Three Stryker lawsuits filed on behalf of those who suffered serious complications caused by the Rejuvenate Hip Stem and the ABG II Modular Hip Stem have completed mediation and two have been settled, according to the Long Island News. This brings the number of New Jersey Multicounty Litigation (MCL) cases mediated up to 21 and the number of mediated cases resolved to 19. Others are still pending in the Stryker Hip Implant MDL and have been set for trial in the Summer of 2015. It is expected these cases will help expose the inadequate pre-marketing testing and derive top dollar for those affected by these defective implants.

The lawsuits allege that Stryker’s metal on metal hip implant products cause serious side effects including metal toxicity and device failure, according to court documents. In December 2013, Stryker agreed to settle four other hip lawsuits filed in New Jersey state court for undisclosed sums. Stryker has reportedly set aside between &700 million and $1.1 billion for litigation expenses, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Stryker Hip Implant Recallstryker

Stryker decided to voluntarily recall its Rejuvenate and ABG II hip stems in June 2012 due to prospective fretting and corrosion at the modular-neck junction that could potentially result in adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR) as well as pain and/or swelling at or around the hip.

After the recall, Stryker recommended that surgeons consider performing blood work and cross section imaging on all patients who received a Rejuvenate or ABG II modular-neck hip stem, even in the presence of normal findings and regardless of whether the patient is experiencing pain and/or swelling.

Costs to Stryker

According to Stryker, the ultimate total cost to resolve the entire matter is still uncertain and will depend on the number of and actual costs of patients seeking testing and treatment services, the number of and actual costs of patients requiring revision surgeries, the number of and actual costs to settle lawsuits, and the amount of third-party insurance recoveries. Stryker is reimbursing patients for testing, treatment, revision surgery if necessary, and other costs related to the recall via a company called Broadspire. Read our previous post on Broadspire before you reach out to them as there are some important things you need to know about them.

Patients-Suing-Over-Recalled-Stryker-Hip-Implant Approximately 20,000 of the Stryker devices have been implanted in the U.S., and more than 3,000 lawsuits have been filed over damages caused by the hip implants. Stryker hip implant recall lawsuits continue to be filed by those affected by these dangerous products and the law firm of Childers, Schlueter & Smith continue to review and file the same. If you have questions about your potential hip implant claim, give us a call to learn how we can help.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »

Ortho Implant Recall Site Seeks To Register Implants And Promote Patient Safety

August 28th, 2014

We are pleased to inform everyone there is now an organized and physician backed Joint Registry for those with hip, knee and shoulder implants: www.orthoimplantsite.com

Ortho Implant Site

The registry site is the first of its kind to promote awareness and information on joint recalls, issues and potential solutions for patients. It is also designed to help track all hip, knee and shoulder implants which, unbeknownst to most, is currently not required of implant manufacturers by the FDA.

Per the Ortho Implant Recall Site:

If you or a loved one has had hip, knee, shoulder or any kind of joint replacement surgery, the Ortho Implant Recall website is your resource to find out whether or not your implant has been recalled for any reason. Please join our registry and you can rest easy knowing that if the FDA issues a recall or if there is an industry recall on your replacement joint, you will be notified quickly. Your physician has no obligation to notify you so please take advantage of the Ortho Implant Recall registry and join today.

Ortho Implant Site-Why Join

Given all the medical device recalls and claims we have seen over the years, we are happy to see a caring group organize this needed joint registry. We hope it will promote a more informed patient experience and lead to more timely treatment regime if and when needed.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »

Why Parking Lots are Fertile Ground for Accidents

August 27th, 2014

Parking lots are unique places where those frequenting them have likely been both a hurried driver and a distracted pedestrian at one time or another. There’s a lot going on in a parking lot: cars coming and going, drivers pulling in and out of parking spaces, pedestrians walking to and from business establishments, sometimes in the path of oncoming vehicles.

Although cars typically move more slowly in parking lots, drivers are also distracted (looking for that perfect spot, no doubt), traveling unpredictably in all directions, weaving back and forth, and generally putting other motorists and pedestrians at risk. Not surprisingly, the Washington Post reports that more than one in five motor vehicle accidents occur in parking lots.

Parking Lot Accident Procedure

If you’re involved in a parking lot accident, either as a motorist or pedestrian, there are certain steps you should take as soon as possible:

  • Remove the cars from the accident scene into a safer location, or if they cannot be moved, turn on your emergency flashers and exit the vehicle.
  • Check for injuries, and call for medical assistance if necessary.
  • Call the police and your insurance company to report the accident.
  • Exchange contact and insurance information with the other party involved.
  • Note the time, date, location, weather conditions, parking lot conditions, and another other important details.
  • Take pictures of the scene, the damage, and the injuries sustained if possible.
  • Get the names and phone numbers of any witnesses to the accident.
  • If you or someone else has been seriously injured, consider speaking with an accident attorney.

Fault in Parking Lot Accidents

Establishing fault in a parking lot accident can be extremely challenging, and for this reason, if you are injured, calling an attorney might be advisable. Because parking lots are typically on private property where the rules of the road don’t apply, the police might not investigate or complete a report on a parking lot accident. It generally comes down to one person’s word against the other, and insurance companies usually split the fault equally, regardless of who may have actually been to blame.

Tags: ,
Posted in News Blog, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Johnson & Johnson Wants Baby Powder Lawsuit Dismissed

August 26th, 2014

Johnson & Johnson is requesting that a federal judge dismiss a class action lawsuit that alleges that the talcum-based product may increase the risk of ovarian cancer in those who use it in their genital areas.

The suit, filed by Barbara Mihalich, is seeking class action status for all consumers in Illinois who purchased Johnson’s Baby Powder, and alleges that the company failed to disclose that the talc may put women at a 33 percent increased risk for ovarian cancer. According to J&J, the plaintiff does not have ovarian cancer, did not use the product on her genitals, and shows no damages in her claim.

The Link between Talc and Ovarian Cancer

Several studies have found that the use of talcum powder on a woman’s genital area may significantly increase their risk of ovarian cancer because it may migrate from the vagina into the fallopian tubes, uterus, and ovaries. One study, published in the medical journal Cancer Prevention Research in 2013, found that women who use talc on their genital areas may have a 20 – 30 percent higher risk of ovarian cancer than those who do not.

According to cancer.org, it is not clear if talcum powder use increases cancer risk, but until more information becomes available, the American Cancer Society is recommending that women who are concerned might want to limit their use and consider cornstarch-based products instead.

In October 2013, a South Dakota jury determined that J&J failed to adequately warn consumers about the risk of ovarian cancer from talcum powder in a product liability lawsuit brought by a woman who developed ovarian cancer in 2006 after using Shower to Shower body powder for 30 years. Harvard University doctor Daniel Cramer, who has been studying the link between talc and ovarian cancer for three decades, testified in the case that talcum powder “probably caused 10,000 cases of ovarian cancer every year.”

New cases and causes of action are being investigated now on an individual basis for those who have developed ovarian cancer after prolonged use of Talc. If you have questions about your legal rights we are here to help.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »

More Oversight Is Needed To Hold Careless Drugmakers Accountable

August 19th, 2014

At long last, the Food and Drug Administration and our nation’s Congress are beginning to see how important quality control in drug manufacturing facilities is to public health and safety, something we’ve understood at Childers, Schlueter & Smith for quite some time. The FDA is launching a new regimen of quality-control initiatives aimed at overseas drug manufacturing, potentially empowering former and current victims of drug companies with sloppy production techniques.

Because the U.S. imports so many drugs and pharmaceutical ingredients at this point, the FDA now realizes that the demanding standards they place on U.S. production facilities are going to have to be employed elsewhere as well in order to truly protect the American public. About 40 percent of drugs consumed in the U.S. are shipped from abroad, and 80 percent of active ingredient makers are located outside the U.S., according to FDA reports. You can imagine what that means for the scope of the new policies.

FDA officials just launched a pilot project that loosens import restrictions for those drugmakers that the agency respects, freeing up inspectors to focus on less reliable companies. The FDA said its India drug inspection workforce will grow to from 3 positions to 10. There are also plans to create a central U.S. office dedicated to pharmaceutical quality.

Concerns that U.S. regulators were ill-equipped to police globalized drug manufacturing have been simmering for some time. A wake-up call came in 2008 when more than 50 people died after using Baxter Healthcare Corp.’s blood thinner heparin which the FDA found had been contaminated with ingredients made in China.

The flood of new initiatives goes hand in hand with an intense interest from the U.S. Department of Justice in pursuing civil and criminal cases against messy manufacturers. Early last year, one official from the department vowed to take an especially hard look at breaches of good manufacturing practices and bring those companies not up to par to justice. The FDA and Congress have begun to hold drugmakers liable for every step of the supply chain, where multiple companies often play a role in creating a single product. Last year, an important guidance document about contract manufacturing made clear that both drugmakers and their contractors are responsible for ensuring quality.

There is no question that Congress is pushing both the FDA and the Department of Justice to criminally prosecute people in the pharmaceutical industry who do not follow the law. Congress has come to the conclusion that civil fines are no longer effective when up against a massive drug conglomerate.

It’s possible that the additional FDA inspections will lead to more recalls, which can fuel investor suits as well as personal injury suits. Last year, for example, Johnson & Johnson paid $23 million to end a shareholder complaint over an alleged cover-up of production errors linked to a massive recall of medicine.

Tags: ,
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »

M. Brandon Smith Listed In 2015 Best Lawyers® Edition

August 18th, 2014

Childers, Schlueter & Smith L.L.C. is proud to announce that firm partner M. Brandon Smith has been listed in the  2015 Edition of  Best Lawyers® In America. Best Lawyers® is the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. A listing in Best Lawyers® is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor, conferred on a lawyer by his or her peers. For more than three decades, Best Lawyers® lists have earned the respect of the profession, the media, and the public, as the most reliable, unbiased source of legal referrals anywhere. Its lists of outstanding attorneys are compiled by conducting exhaustive peer-review surveys in which tens of thousands of leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers.

Smith-Best Lawyers 2015

“It is a great honor just to be nominated in Best Lawyers®, much less make the final selection list. I am very fortunate to have such a great office and family-without them both, none of this would be possible. I am therefore very humbled by this recognition,” says M. Brandon Smith.

Although very appreciative, Mr. Smith is not alone in terms of awards and honors bestowed upon him. The lawyers and team members at Childers, Schlueter & Smith L.L.C. continue to be recognized for their tireless work and efforts on behalf of consumers all over the Country.  With other designations and recognitions in 2014 such as: Super Lawyers, Top 100 Lawyers, Top Lawyers 40 Under 40, Elite Lawyers of America; CSS Firm continues to strive for the highest level of client satisfaction and results. With over $300,000,000 recovered in verdicts and settlements thus far, they certainly appear to be on the right track for both.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »

Xarelto Lawsuit Filed Over Bleeding Risks And Injuries

August 13th, 2014

Virginia Stuntebeck sued Johnson & Johnson and Bayer AG in Pennsylvania Court earlier this year, alleging that she suffered severe internal bleeding stemming from use of the blood-thinning drug Xarelto. In the Xarelto lawsuit, which appears to be the first tort suit filed over the medication in Philadelphia, Stuntebeck said the drug should not be sold because of the high risks surrounding its use.

Xarelto-pill_MainStuntebeck confessed that she was hospitalized in February 2013 for severe internal and gastrointestinal bleeding as a result of using the drug. As the manufacturers and distributors of Xarelto, Johnson & Johnson knew or should have known that Xarelto use was associated with irreversible bleeds. Stuntebeck’s lawsuit claims the warning label on Xarelto fails to properly convey the true risks of the drug as it relates to uncontrolled bleeding events and other serious injuries including death.

Xarelto is now being likened to its competitor Pradaxa which is the subject of more than 2,000 injury lawsuits in a multidistrict litigation and occasionally referred to as “the most complained about drug” in the U.S.

Both Pradaxa and Xarelto claim in their marketing that you don’t need to monitor a patient taking the drug to prevent blood clots and stroke. This is supposedly an advantage of these blood thinners since the more well-established anticoagulant warfarin (Coumadin) frequently requires medical monitoring and doctor supervision.

28367The U.S. Food and Drug Administration originally approved Xarelto in July 2011 to reduce the risk of blood clots and pulmonary embolism. They extended the recommendation to include the treatment of abnormal heart rhythm or a-Fib which leads to strokes later that same year. But the subsequent approval was against the recommendation of FDA staff who noted serious safety concerns with Xarelto. Recently, the FDA has refused a third expansion of the Xarelto’s use.

At Childers, Schlueter and Smith LLC, we feel that drug manufacturers and medical professionals should be at fault when their treatments cause serious side effects and put people in danger. If you suffered internal bleeding event or some other injury as a result of Xarelto, you may have a legal claim.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »

Call us toll-free at (800) 641-0098