February 27th, 2015
On Friday, February 20, 2015, DePuy/ Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay approximately $420 million more to resolve approximately 1400 additional DePuy ASR lawsuits. The order came from the Court extending the settlement offer to Plaintiffs who had revision surgery after August 31, 2013 up through January 31, 2015.
From the beginning of this litigation, almost five years ago, our goal at Childers, Schlueter & Smith has been to prosecute cases aggressively until DePuy accepted responsibility for its actions and offered to settle viable cases, or until viable cases were tried before a jury. While we are pleased that DePuy has proposed a second round of settlements now for certain plaintiffs.
There are a number of very important issues we want all ASR patients to be aware of given this recent proposal:
1) This is not a blanket, one-size-fits-all settlement proposal. DePuy’s proposal set outs specific terms which determine the individual settlement amounts for each person’s case (see below). As we have always maintained, all ASR cases are different. Because of the differences in each case, the proposed settlement amounts for all claimants will be different.
2) The settlement proposal is just that – a proposal – which you are not required to accept. Individual claimants in any case can accept or reject any settlement offer. At CSS, we evaluate each case and determine, as precisely as possible, the amount of compensation you would likely receive under the proposed settlement and whether it makes sense to continue under the program. For most it does, for a few select others it may not.
What are the terms of the settlement?
DePuy is offering the proposed settlement to citizens and residents of the United State who: 1) had an ASR hip implanted in the U.S.: and 2) whose ASR hip was revised between August 31, 2013 and January 31, 2015. DePuy is only making the settlement proposal to patients who received an ASR hip. The proposal does not cover any other hip implant device manufactured by DePuy.
DePuy’s settlement proposal lists a number of factors which will determine the value of a settlement offer, such as whether you suffered a loss of income, whether you required another surgery after the revision of the ASR hip, your age, smoking history, and/or obesity. As noted above, we are in the process of determining how these factors apply to our client’s cases right now and can do the same on new cases if you act fast.
Payment of Liens
If you choose to accept DePuy’s proposed settlement, they have also agreed to pay any liens that may be asserted by your medical providers or health insurance companies. Liens are monies owed to repay your insurance company for the funds they paid relating to your ASR hip implant, or monies still owed to your medical providers for services they provided that relate to your ASR hip implant. Ordinarily, such liens would be paid by you out of the settlement proceeds you receive. In light of the fact that you have had revision surgery, the liens associated with your case could be significant. We believe DePuy’s agreement to pay your liens is a benefit to anyone who chooses to accept DePuy’s proposed settlement.
The Broadspire benefits that have been provided so far have been of great benefit to most of our ASR clients that are uninsured. These benefits have been limited. In anticipation of the program potentially stopping, we urge you to provide us with documentation of all out of pocket expenses and lost wages that you have not already provided us, so we can submit them to Broadspire for processing if they were incurred prior to January 31, 2015.
What is the timeframe to decide to accept or reject DePuy’s proposed settlement?
To be eligible, you must register your case with DePuy by the stated deadline. Following that registration period, there will be a final enrollment date for all eligible claims where all the applicable medical records and settlement materials have to be properly submitted. We are currently waiting on the announcement of the enrollment deadline date. Once we have that date and the documents are made available, we will prepare settlement packets for our clients review and signature. We also have the capacity to do this on any new claims submitted to our office in the very near future.
DePuy’s walk away option
DePuy will have a walk away option. The percentage of enrollment is still to be announced. If enrollment is less than the target percentage, DePuy can choose to walk away and not pay you any settlement at this time. DePuy can also choose, however, to continue with the settlement if less than the target percentage of people accept it, but they do not have to do so. If less than target percentage of the eligible people agrees to the proposed settlement, DePuy must decide whether to continue with or withdraw the proposal by a date that will be published shortly.
Our next steps
As noted above, the law firm of Childers, Schlueter & Smith continues to investigate and take on new DePuy ASR clients that need assistance with their potential claims. We are evaluating all cases under the terms of the proposed settlement, and we will take all steps needed to ensure your rights are protected. As time is limited, you must act now if you want to put our firm’s experience to work for you. As always, if you have any questions, please can contact our office for more information on the Round 2 DePuy ASR Hip Implant Settlement. All calls are confidential and all initial consultations are free of charge.
Tags: Childers Schlueter & Smith, chromium poisoning, chromium toxicity, cobalt kidney, Depuy, DePuy ASR Hip Implant, DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing System, DePuy ASR Settlement, DePuy ASR Settlement Update, feature, featured, Hip Implant Attorney, Hip Implant Recall, MDL 2197, Metal on Metal Hip Implant. DePuy ASR Hip Recall, recalled hip implant, Richard Schlueter
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »
February 20th, 2015
Bayer Healthcare and Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals subsidiary currently face nearly 90 product liability lawsuits over their new-generation coagulant, Xarelto. Late in 2014, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) announced that all nationwide Xarelto lawsuits filed in federal courts would be consolidated in the Eastern District of Louisiana before U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon. Experts estimate that eventually several thousand cases will be transferred into the MDL.
An MDL typically streamlines the litigation process, helps avoid repetitive discovery and conflicting pre-trial motions, and allow bellwether trials to be set to determine the strength of the plaintiffs’ claims.
What is Xarelto?
Xarelto was developed by Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals in 2011 as a new generation anticoagulant meant to be a superior alternative to Coumadin (warfarin) in terms of better prevention of strokes and non-central nervous system embolism and the absence of a requirement for regular blood monitoring, making use more convenient.
Although all blood thinners, including Xarelto and Coumadin, have side effects and increase the risk of bleeding problems, Xarelto has been associated with a high number of adverse reports involving injuries associated with uncontrollable bleeding. While the effects of warfarin can be quickly reversed in case of an emergency through the use of vitamin K and blood transfusions, there is no approved antidote available for those using Xarelto, and side effects from the drug have resulted in catastrophic outcomes when doctors were unable to control the bleeding.
All the Xarelto lawsuits make basically the same allegations: drug manufacturers failed to warn consumers and medical professionals about the potentially dangerous side effects of Xarelto, which include uncontrollable bleeding, the need for blood transfusions, and death in severe cases. According to court documents, severe injuries and deaths could have been avoided had the pharmaceutical companies not provided misleading information about the blood monitoring, and if stronger warnings had been issued concerning the lack of a reversal agent or antidote.
If you or a loved one has suffered serious, uncontrollable bleeding while on Xarelto, you should speak with Childers, Schlueter & Smith today about seeking compensation. It may be the only way to alleviate the financial hardship that has been placed upon you.
Consultations are free and without obligation.
Tags: Uncontrolled Bleeding from Xarelto, Xarelto Injuries, Xarelto Lawsuit, Xarelto Lawyer
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »
February 19th, 2015
At least 762 lawsuits have been filed by U.S. grain farmers and grain exporters such as Cargill Inc. and Archer Daniels Midland Co. against seed maker Syngenta AG over Agrisure Viptera corn, also known as MIR 162. The lawsuits allege damages arising from China’s rejections of U.S. corn exports containing traces of the Viptera corn, but now Reuters reports that Syngenta may be considering counterclaims.
Syngenta released MIR 162 genetically modified corn in 2009, but Chinese regulators did not approve it until five years later. After shipments were found to contain MIR 162, China adopted a zero-tolerance policy regarding genetically modified corn and began halting shipments of American corn in November 2013, barring nearly 1.45 billion tons of corn and resulting in approximately $427 in loss sales. MIR 162 is an insect-resistant strain of GMO corn that was approved in Europe and the U.S. but illegal in China until late 2014.
Although Viptera is estimated to have been planted on only about three percent of U.S. farm acreage, the commingling of corn from various sources at corn distribution centers makes contamination with trace amounts of MIR 162 difficult to predict or control. Chinese officials say their concern for the safety of genetically engineered food precipitated the ban.
Syngenta Lawsuit Allegations
The lawsuits filed by farmers and exporters allege that Syngenta attempted to commercialize a genetically modified corn seed product that had not been approved for sale in China by misleading the agriculture industry about China’s timeline for import approval and blame the company for an 11 cents per bushel decline in U.S. corn prices and estimated losses in excess of $1 billion, according to court documents.
Although China, a major U.S. corn buyer, approved imports of Viptera corn in December 2014, the damage had already been done. Cargill claims that the company’s sale of the unapproved seed cost it more than $90 million in losses. The lawsuits against Syngenta have been consolidated in Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, U.S. District Court, District of Kansas.
How Childers, Schlueter & Smith Can Help
The attorneys at Childers, Schlueter & Smith have devoted their careers to helping people who have been harmed financially or physically. We are willing to go up against any company, no matter how large, to seek compensation for our clients.
We understand that you may be hesitant to hire a lawyer. It’s something no one wants to have to do. But you need to know that if you want to seek compensation, Syngenta has a team of highly skilled attorneys who don’t care about you or the financial wellbeing of your business. You need someone on your side who does.
That’s our job as attorneys.
Case Evaluations Are Always Free
If Sygenta’s practices financially damaged your business, we can help get you back on track. Our attorneys offer free consultations. We will get the details of your case and discuss your options. We’ll tell you how we may be able to help, and then you decide. There’s no obligation.
Give us a call today at (404) 419-9500 or fill out the form on this page to get in touch with us.
Tags: China, Corn Farmers, Corn Lawsuit, Depressed Corn Prices, MDL, MIR 162, Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, Viptera
Posted in News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »
December 17th, 2014
A select group of plaintiffs recently asked to consolidate the Xarelto lawsuits as part of a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) to streamline the litigation process, coordinate discovery, and set bellwether trials to determine the strength of the claims.
In response thereto and pursuant to the federal rules, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation recently issued an order sending all federally filed Xarelto cases to the experienced U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon in Eastern District of Louisiana.
What is Xarelto?
Xarelto is a new generation anticoagulant developed by Bayer Healthcare and Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals subsidiary in 2011 as a superior alternative to warfarin (Coumadin), the blood thinner used widely since the 1950s for the prevention of strokes.
Xarelto is prescribed to patients suffering from atrial fibrillation (irregular heart beat) who are at increased risk of formed a blood clot in the heart, which can travel to the brain and cause a stroke. Xarelto thins the blood and lowers the chance of clots forming.
Although all blood thinners may increase the risk of bleeding problems, Xarelto has been linked to an increased number of uncontrollable blood injuries, in part because there is no approved and/or viable antidote available for patients who use Xarelto. Many of the side effects have been severe and even fatal because the bleeding cannot be effectively controlled or stopped when needed. The effects of Coumadin, on the other hand, can be quickly reversed with the use of vitamin K, frozen plasma and/or blood transfusions in the event of an emergency.
There are currently 50 product liability lawsuits pending in the federal system and another 75 in the state court concerning Xarelto, an anticoagulant with hundreds deaths being attributed to its side effects. According to the complaints, the drug’s manufacturers failed to warn consumers about the potential side effects of Xarelto, which include uncontrollable bleeding that can lead to hospitalization, blood transfusions, and in some cases, even death.
Court documents allege that the injuries and deaths would have been avoided had stronger warnings been provided about the lack of a Xarelto reversal agent or antidote.
If you or a loved one has suffered serious, uncontrollable bleeding while on Xarelto, you should speak with Childers, Schlueter & Smith today. Our Xarelto lawyers, headed up by firm partner Andy Childers, will provide a free initial case evaluation and consultation to educate you more about your legal rights and options.
Tags: Andy Childers, Xarelto, Xarelto Bleeding Risks, Xarelto causing uncontrolled bleeding, Xarelto Lawsuit, Xarelto lawyer in Georgia, Xarelto Lawyers
Posted in News Blog | No Comments »
December 11th, 2014
Our firm is proud to be a part of the Boys and Girls Club’s 2014 holiday gift program. We are helping to ensure that 50 children in need receive gifts this Holiday Season. We are also sponsoring two deserving families in need of help. We hope to spread happiness and cheer in the community, and in a small way make the holidays better for those we are helping. All of us at Childers, Schlueter & Smith value giving back to the community, and we wish everyone a joyous Holiday Season.
You can learn more about the Boys and Girls Club of Atlanta and the good work they are doing by visiting their website: http://www.bgcma.org/
Tags: #GivingBack, Boys & Girls Club, Brookhaven, Childers Schlueter & Smith, Holiday Cheer, http://www.bgcma.org/
Posted in News & Results, News Blog, Uncategorized | No Comments »
December 1st, 2014
Our firm is frequently contacted by patients from all over the country to help determine whether their hip implant has been recalled or is defective. This is currently a very common question following the recent announcement of the proposed settlement of a large number of claims relating to recalled Stryker Rejuvenate and ABGII hip implants for approximately $1.4 Billion.
Trying to determine whether you even have a recalled or defective hip implant can be frustrating, as there is no database a patient can review to make that determination. Additionally, it is often difficult to obtain this information from the hospital where the hip replacement surgery took place or from your implanting surgeon. They are busy and often cannot release that information unless and until you to complete and submit specific forms to obtain your medical records.
The good news is – we can help. Our hip implant recall lawyers at Childers, Schlueter & Smith have been working on these cases for several years, and we know the right questions to ask and how to get the information quickly. With approaching settlement deadlines and statutes of limitation, it is critical that you figure out what type of hip implant you received, and whether your hip device has been recalled.
Please call us at 1-800-641-0098 or email us email@example.com for an immediate and free initial review.
Our hip recall lawyers, led by firm founder Richard Schlueter, have spoken with and assisted thousands of patients all over the country, including patients implanted with the following hip implant devices:
Stryker ABG II Modular-Neck
Stryker Accolade TMZF
DePuy Pinnacle with Ultamet liners
Biomet Magnum M2a and Magnum M2a Taper
Zimmer Durom Cup
Wright Profemur Modular Neck
Wright Conserve Hip Implants
Wright Dynasty Acetabular Cup
If you know the date of your hip replacement surgery, the hospital where the surgery took place, and the name of your implanting surgeon, we can quickly help you determine if you received a recalled implant or a device with a known defect.
Other limited forms of information can also help us determine what type of hip implant device you have. Some patients only have a portion of their records, and do not have the have the “implant stickers” that identify the specific make and model of their implanted device. We frequently receive records via e-mail, fax, or text message, and can review them immediately. We also can review photos or x-rays to narrow down or definitively determine the specific hip implant involved. With the large number of hip implants that have been recalled over the past several years, it is important that you know what type of implant you have. Without this information, a patient may not appreciate the need to follow up with their doctor, and may not discover their injuries until they have progressed to the point of causing long-term and/or permanent health problems.
If you have questions or think you may have a defective or recall hip implant device, call or e-mail us now to get answers: 1-800-641-0098 or firstname.lastname@example.org
There is no obligation and all initial reviews are free of charge.
Tags: Broadspire, C. Andrew Childers, Childers Schlueter & Smith, chromium toxicity, cobalt toxicity, DePuy ASR Settlement, DePuy ASR Settlement Update, depuy recall lawsuit, Dr. Todd Schdmit, Dr. Todd Schmidt; Dr. Michael Behr, FDA Website on Hip Implants, featured, georgia attorney, Georgia Hip Lawyers, Hip Implant Attorney, Hip Implant Lawyer, Hip Implant Lawyers, Hip Implant Recall, Hip Implant Recall Letter, Hip Implant Settlements, M. Brandon Smith, MDL, OrthoAtlanta Hip Recall;, OrthoAtlanta Recall Letter; Dr. Behr, OrthoAtlanta; OrthoAtlanta Stryker; OrthoAtlanta Recall Letter, Product Liability Lawsuits, recalled hip implant, Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck stems, Richard, Richard R. Schlueter, Richard Schlueter, Stryker, Stryker Global Deal, Stryker Global Settlement, Stryker Hip Implant Settlement, Stryker Hip Implants, stryker Hip Recall, Stryker Hip Recall Trials, Stryker Hip Settement, Stryker Hip Settlement, Stryker MDL, Stryker Mediation, Stryker Recall, Stryker Settlement, Wright Hip Settlement, Zimmer Durom Settlement;
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog, Uncategorized | No Comments »
November 3rd, 2014
Just over two years since the Stryker Rejuvenate and ABGII hip implant products were recalled from the market in June 2012, national leadership in the multi-district litigation (MDL) today announced a global settlement proposal for all Stryker Rejuvenate and ABGII hip implant victims who have undergone revision surgery to remove and replace their recalled Stryker hip implant on or before November 2, 2014. The settlement proposal includes a base award amount of $300,000.00 to each claimant who has undergone revision surgery on or before to November 2, 2014, and otherwise qualifies for the settlement. There are certain limited potential reductions to the base award for age, prior hip revisions, and other relevant factors. Claimants may also receive additional compensation, referred to in the proposed settlement as “Enhancements,” at a later date if they can demonstrate that they meet the eligibility requirements for the categories set forth in the settlement agreement.
Although participation is voluntary, it is expected that many of those that qualify (those who have had their recalled Stryker hip removed and replaced on or before November 2, 2014) will benefit from the settlement program, and may ultimately decide to participate in the settlement. Any such decision should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis.
The following is a basic summary highlighting key aspects of the Master Settlement Agreement:
The settlement program applies to patients who are U.S. citizens and residents who had either an ABG II Modular Neck System or a Rejuvenate Modular Neck System implanted in their bodies in the United States, and who had a qualified surgery to remove and replace the recalled device on or before November 2, 2014. The settlement program is also open to certain patients who have been deemed to be too sick or medically unstable to undergo a necessary revision surgery.
At Childers, Schlueter & Smith, our attorneys will immediately undertake to determine how the proposed settlement will affect each of our clients, and will work with each client individually to carefully consider the benefits of the proposed settlement so that they can make an informed personal decision on whether or not to participate. As a nationally appointed leader in this litigation, founding partner Richard R. Schlueter will ensure each and every one of our clients has all of the information he/she needs to make the best choice for his/her unique situation. Richard Schlueter has been involved in the various hip implant litigations (including DePuy ASR/Pinnacle, Zimmer Durom Cups, Biomet M2a Magnum and Wright Conserve Plus among many others) for several years, and has unique knowledge relating to hip implant failures and the injuries caused by those failures. Our current and future clients will be continue to be very well represented and informed during the entire process.
Attorneys representing those interested in participating in the Stryker hip implant settlement will have to register their clients in the program on or before the initial reporting deadline of December 14, 2014. After that, the next deadline will be the formal enrollment of each individual patient who chooses to participate into the Settlement Program. Those qualified claimants who would like to participate in the settlement program must enroll by March 2, 2015. If less than 95% of the qualified claimants elect to participate in the settlement, Stryker has the ability to walk away and cancel the settlement program. Stryker must make that decision on or before June 15, 2015. Assuming the participation threshold is met and the settlement continues after June 15, 2015, the deadline to file claims for Enhanced benefits is September 30, 2015. Additional compensation through the Enhanced benefits portion of the settlement will relate to damage to the femur, soft tissue damage, additional procedures and infection. There is a cap on the Enhanced damages so that most total claims (Base award and Enhanced benefits) will be no more than $550,000.00 per claimant.
Based on the timing of the deadlines in the proposed settlement, it is unlikely that any settlement payments will be made prior to late summer or early fall 2015.
For patients who are not eligible for the settlement program, Stryker’s existing program for reimbursement of eligible out of pocket costs, administered by Broadspire, remains available. The decision to undergo a revision surgery is a medical decision, not a legal decision, and should be made only by patients in consultation with their surgeons. If you were implanted with a recalled Stryker Rejuvenate or ABGII hip implant product but are not eligible for the settlement program, all of your legal rights and claims are preserved and you will not be affected so long as you have a filed legal claim with the Court. Patients who have been implanted with a recalled Stryker hip in both hips (referred to as “bilateral” hip implants), in whom only one hip has been revised, will retain all of their claims and legal rights in regard to the unrevised hip, even if they participate in the settlement for their revised hip.
Childers, Schlueter & Smith is committed to continue litigating all claims for our clients who don’t qualify, who are arbitrarily penalized so as to not receive an offer under this proposal, who have not had revision surgery by today’s date, and those who choose not to participate in the proposed settlement. If you have a recalled Stryker Rejuvenate or ABGII, please call us for a free consultation regarding your legal options.
For those looking for answers and guidance on these and/or any other Stryker hip implant related issues, we welcome you to contact our office for more information.
Tags: Broadspire, Childers Schlueter & Smith, chromium toxicity, cobalt toxicity, depuy recall lawsuit, FDA Website on Hip Implants, featured, georgia attorney, Hip Implant Attorney, Hip Implant Lawyer, Hip Implant Lawyers, Hip Implant Recall, MDL, Product Liability Lawsuits, recalled hip implant, Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck stems, Richard, Richard R. Schlueter, Richard Schlueter, Stryker, Stryker Global Deal, Stryker Global Settlement, Stryker Hip Implant Settlement, Stryker Hip Implants, stryker Hip Recall, Stryker Hip Recall Trials, Stryker Hip Settlement, Stryker MDL, Stryker Mediation, Stryker Recall, Stryker Settlement
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog, Uncategorized | No Comments »
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: FDA, Off Label Prescriptions, Off- Label Medications
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »
September 16th, 2014
Marijuana, now legal in several American states, is more dangerous than people think, according to a chief researcher at the United Nations.
Many people think of marijuana as a relatively low-risk drug, but according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime’s annual report, its use, particularly at young ages, can be extremely to health. Some of the adverse health effects associated with marijuana use include:
- Lung problems
- Memory impairment
- Respiratory problems
- Increased risk of heart attack
- Impaired judgment and motor coordination
Although the perception is that marijuana is the least harmful of illicit drugs, the UNODC cautions that there has been a visible increase in the number of people seeking treatment for disorders caused by marijuana use over the past decade.
Nearly two-thirds of the nations surveyed for the report reported that cannabis was the main drug used in their countries in 2012. The UNODC estimates that nearly 180 million people worldwide consumed marijuana that year, much more than the 34.4 million that used the next most popular drug, amphetamines. Although global cannabis use dropped between 2011 and 2012, U.S. consumption continues to rise, at least in part affected by the 2012 votes to legalize recreational marijuana use in Colorado and Wisconsin.
Hard Habit to Break
Contrary to popular belief, marijuana is additive, according to DrugAbuse.gov. Experts estimate that approximately nine percent of marijuana users become addicted to the drug. The number increases to 17 percent, or one in six among those who start young, and to 25-50 percent for those who use marijuana daily.
Long term marijuana users trying to quit often experience some of the same withdrawal symptoms associated with other illicit drugs, including irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and an intense craving for the drug. Although not currently available, developments have been made in medications designed to block the intoxicating effects of marijuana, ease withdrawal symptoms, and prevent individuals from relapsing.
Research indicates that marijuana also may cause problems in daily life, or at least make someone’s existing problems worse. Heavy marijuana users commonly report lower life satisfaction, poorer mental and physical health, relationship problems, and a lower level of academic and career success than those who don’t use the drug.
Posted in News Blog | No Comments »
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.
Kathleen 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.
Patents 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: Artificial Hip, ASR, Bellwether, Depuy, Hip Implant Lawyers, Johnson and Johnson, Lawsuit, MDL, Pinnacle, Pinnacle Jury Trial, Trial
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »