News Blog
February 23rd, 2013
Johnson & Johnson is now under investigation by federal prosecutors regarding the company’s practices in marketing a line of hip implant replacements recalled in 2010.
According to an article by Linda Johnson from the Associated Press, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Massachusetts and the U.S. Justice Department sent Johnson & Johnson an “informal request” last August for information on its ASR hip replacements.
This investigation comes after many of the hip replacements had to be replaced within a few years and more than 30 products were recalled within the last 3 to 5 years by Johnson & Johnson.
The government’s filing did not specify what exactly they were looking for. However what is known is that J & J has been struggling with legal problems even before problems with the ASR systems arose. Before the ASR systems were recalled, the Food and Drug Administration told DePuy, one of the world’s largest makers of joint replacements and other orthopedic surgery products, to stop marketing the Corail Hip System for two unapproved uses.
In 2007, the company paid $84.7 million in fines in a settlement for alleged kickbacks. From 2002 through 2006, J & J, as well as several other top U.S. makers of replacement knees and hips, were accused of paying kickbacks to surgeons to use their specific product exclusively.
In August 2010 DePuy announced the recall of two artificial joint systems—the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System due to high rates of failure. More than 90,000 of these hip replacement devices were recalled. These failing hip implant devices caused extreme pain and difficulty for patients.
At least one in eight patients who had this recalled hip implant device needed theirs replaced within five years.
Now as a result, J & J faces numerous lawsuits. Attorneys representing the patients claim that J & J knew about the problems with the DePuy hip implant systems back in 2008 and still continued selling them until 2009. J & J claims that they acted properly. The first of these recalled hip implant trials started last month. This is among thousands of lawsuits brought against J & J by those patients affected by the recalled hip implant device.
In addition, J & J very recently recalled a different line of hip implants called the “Adept” brand. “Adept” is an all-metal total hip replacement system and is now recalled because of the higher-than-expected percentage of one part of the system that has to be replaced. This specific hip implant system was manufactured between 2004 through September 2011.
If you or someone you love have fallen victim to the failed DePuy ASR hip implant or an any other Johnson & Johnson recalled hip implant, contact CSS Firm for a free case evaluation and consultation. Our hip implant recall lawyers continue to review claims all over the country in an effort to help those affected by this dangerous product. Our experienced Georgia hip implant lawyers at Childers, Schlueter & Smith will work closely with you to ensure you get the care and justice you deserve.
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »
February 20th, 2013
One of the first transvaginal mesh cases to be tried to a jury is currently being decided by a New Jersey jury of 9. The case of Gross v. Gynecare Inc., Atl-L-6966-10, filed in the Superior Court of Atlantic County, New Jersey (Atlantic City) involves the first lawsuit to go to trial over whether Johnson & Johnson’s (“J & J”) Ethicon unit properly designed a vaginal mesh implant and adequately warned of its risks. A panel of 9 jurors are currently deliberating.
The Plaintiff who is a nurse from South Dakota has sued Ethicon’s design over her Gynecare Prolift mesh saying that the mesh was defective. She says that the mesh caused her to have 18 serious surgeries.
Linda Gross, the lady who suffered from the mesh device, told the jury that J&J failed to warn her and her doctor of the risks and made fraudulent misrepresentations to her. Ms. Gross claims that her chronic pain and other health problems were risks Ethicon knew about before first selling the Prolift in March 2005, and that Ethicon knew the device caused pain and often became exposed through the vaginal skin. The device also hardened in women’s bodies, caused severe pain, sometimes uncontrollable urinary incontinence and was difficult for surgeons to remove. The Prolift, made of a polypropylene mesh, was inserted through an incision in the vagina. Ms. Gross had multiple surgeries following the insertion of the mesh to repair it, yet she is still in pain.
J&J, the world’s largest seller of health-care products, claims Prolift is safe and effective, and Ethicon warned properly of the risks.
As jurors continue into their second day of jury deliberations they are discussing whether Prolift was defectively designed; if J&J failed to provide adequate warnings to Ms. Gross and her first surgeon; and whether J&J made a fraudulent misrepresentation to Ms. Gross? If answering yes to any of those sets of questions, jurors would then consider damages for Gross’s pain, suffering, lost wages and medical expenses, as well as the changed/strained relationship with her husband.
The case is the first of 1,800 such lawsuits to go to trial. Ms. Gross is asking the jury to award $3.38 million for her lost earnings and her past and future medical expenses. She also seeks damages for pain and suffering. Jury deliberations are expected to last for two to three days.
Jurors will consider the testimony from the surgeon who performed the surgery. He previously testified that he no longer uses mesh for the type of condition that Ms. Gross had in 2006. He also said that while his conversation with Ms. Gross over the risks probably took 15 or 20 minutes, it now would probably consist of two one-hour discussions.
In the event the jury awards damages to Ms. Gross, the judge presiding over the case, Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee, will decide whether Ms. Gross can seek punitive damages from J &J. States vary on how they treat punitive damages; in New Jersey, punitive damages can be awarded up to five times compensatory damages or $350,000, whichever is higher.
Regardless of what the jury decides, the fact is that in in August, J&J stopped selling four mesh devices in the U.S., including the Prolift. The company, based in New Brunswick, New Jersey, said in June that it would end sales worldwide.
If you have questions about any mesh product or have had problems since having a mesh insert, you may wish to contact our Georgia Transvaginal Mesh Lawyers based in Atlanta, Georgia. We can further explain why we think the surgeons are not the source of your problems and pains and why Johnson and Johnson and other mesh manufacturers are responsible. You can also reach us at 800-641-0098.
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »
February 7th, 2013
In answering the questions, “How many DePuy ASR cases are currently pending against the JNJ subsidiary DePuy Orthopedics?” and “When and where are the next DePuy Bellwether trials?”, you have to look to the court dockets in California, Illinois, New Jersey and consolidated actions in federal court in MDL 2197. (Though there are several other cases pending in state court proceedings in other states, the number of these cases are few due to the jurisdictional requirements regarding who can bring the suit and where it can be filed. Some cases have multiple plaintiffs added in the single action.)
According to the most recent count of the docket of the DePuy ASR litigation, and based on a review of Court Orders for trial, the latest information of court filings are as follows:
California:
2,200 cases JCCP before Judge Kramer in consolidated action 10-004649. (Filing February 5, 2013)
“Bellwether trials” to commence in June, 2013 in San Francisco and September, 2013 in Los Angeles. The Kransky case that started on January 22nd is expected to take 3 to 5 weeks. Additional preference motions are pending for non-Bellwether trials, but the Court has yet to rule. (Continue reading to learn more about a “Bellwether trial” and what it means.)
Illinois:
308 cases before Judge Dooling in consolidated action 10- L -10506. (Status report January 28, 2013)
Strum vs. DePuy et al originally scheduled for February 25, 2013 moved to commence March 4, 2013; Schlecker vs Depuy et al May 28, 2013; Cerney v. DePuy et al August 19 2013; Pick vs DePuy et al September 25, 2013; Weber vs DePuy et al October 28, 2013; Larson vs DePuy et al November 19 , 2013; Wheeler v. DePuy et al December 9, 2013; Sherwood vs DePuy et al January 7, 2014.
New Jersey:
637 cases before Judge Martinotti in consolidated action Case No. 293. (Case list as of Jan. 4, 2013)
Bellwether trials set for September 9, 2013 and October 21, 2013. (Designated cases to be selected from 6 cases on, or, before February 15, 2013) Case management conference scheduled for February 27, 2013
Federal Cases: MDL 2197
7,398 cases before Judge Katz in the consolidated Multi District Litigation in Federal Ccourt MDL 2197. (Filings as of February 13, 2013)
Bellwether Trials Dorney–Madgitz vs. DePuy et al May 6, 2013; Mckracken vs. DePuy et al July 8, 2013
In multi-party consolidated actions, efficiency is sought to promote the handling of common questions of both law and facts that are present for the consolidated litigation. In the above consolidated proceedings, the state proceedings, though separate, are coordinated and intertwined with one another. However, the possible danger of consolidation is that it can limit a plaintiff’s access to court by delaying a plaintiff’s access to trial. The use of the Bellwether selection process in choosing a few cases for trial that are representative of the average case is thought to be an effective tool of the consolidated actions to bring the parties closer together to discuss settlement of claims that are common to one another. This trade-off in consolidating cases can work as a substantial delay to the courtroom if the Bellwether process does not result in settlement discussions that are meaningful. Fortunately for Plaintiffs and for the litigation system, in the event cases are not resolved through the settlement process, it is believed that the courts will remand cases to trial judges. If that were to happen, it is sure to make for a very busy 2014 and beyond.
Currently the first DePuy ASR trial underway is the Loren Kransky vs. DePuy et al BC45086. It is a trial with a 12 member jury. The case is not a Bellwether case, but rather an expedited trial based on the Plaintiff’s health. The first Bellwether case is scheduled to start in Illinois on March 4, 2013.
By the time of the conclusion of these trials, in our estimation there will be more than 11,000 cases pending as more victims of this defective device continue to learn of the risks and are better educated as to the symptoms that may still be undiagnosed.
If you have questions or just want to become more informed, call us toll free at 1-800-641-0098 or 404-419-9500. You can also find out more information by visiting our website: www.cssfirm.com. The lawyers at Childers, Schlueter and Smith, LLC are available to answer your questions and explain your legal options.
Tags: Childers Schlueter & Smith, chromium poisoning, chromium toxicity, cobalt cancer, cobalt kidney, cobalt level, cobalt poisoning, cobalt toxicity, cobalt urine test, cobaltism, css firm, Depuy, DePuy ASR Hip Implant, DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing System, DePuy ASR Jury Trials, DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System, depuy recall lawsuit, Hip Implant Attorney, hip pain, hip replacement, MDL 2197, Metal on Metal Hip Implant. DePuy ASR Hip Recall, Product Liability Lawsuits, recalled hip implant
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News Blog | No Comments »
February 4th, 2013
Fresenius Medical Care, the manufacturer of GranuFlo (and similar product NaturaLyte), has agreed to multidistrict litigation (MDL) consolidation for all federal Granuflo and NaturaLyte lawsuits. The plaintiffs allege that the products distributed by Fresenius Medical Care administered during dialysis procedures caused patients to suffer heart attacks, cardiac arrest and in some cases, sudden death.
NaturaLyte and GranuFlo are dialysis treatments used in clinics across the U.S. Both products have sodium acetate that converts to bicarbonate at higher levels. When the blood bicarbonate level or blood alkalosis becomes too high, it can cause cardiac arrest and sudden death. The FDA issued a Class I recall of NaturaLyte and GranuFlo in March 2012. A Class I recall is issued only when there is “reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to the product will cause serious negative health consequences or death.” These types of recalls are the most serious.
Evidence shows that Fresenius Medical Care sent out an internal memo advising that those patients who underwent GranuFlo treatment were 6 to 8 times more likely to suffer sudden cardiac death or heart attack. The internal memo was created on November 4, 2011. It also stated that patients could suffer heart attacks from the moment they were hooked up to the dialysis treatment machine all the way up to 48 hours after undergoing the treatment. This memo was not disclosed to the FDA until a whistleblower leaked it.
Given this non-disclosure, patients affected by the treatments have filed lawsuits against Fresenius Medical Care on the grounds that the company failed to provide warnings to doctors and patients. Many patients claim that the company should have known or knew about the risk of problems with GranuFlo and NaturaLyte dialysis treatments.
In December 2011 a request was submitted to the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) that all GranuFlo and NaturaLyte federal lawsuits to be consolidated for pretrial proceedings as part of an MDL. There have been some objections to centralizing the cases in Massachusetts. There are currently 37 Fresenius dialysis lawsuits filed in federal courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Mississippi, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, California, and Alabama.
If you have suffered a heart attack or if you have lost a family member to sudden cardiac event after undergoing dialysis, we can help. Contact the attorneys of Childers, Schlueter & Smith for a free case evaluation and consultation. Our experienced attorneys will work closely with you and fight for the maximum compensation on your behalf.
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News Blog | No Comments »
January 18th, 2013
Today, it was reported that five people close to the DePuy ASR MDL 2197 litigation confirmed settlement discussions. You should know that last night the leadership of the Executive Committee, emailed the following statement to the reporters:
“The lawyers and leadership in the cooperating jurisdictions are working for the benefit of the 35,000 United States patients who have this recalled medical device. We have reviewed some 50 million pages of documents that have been produced and have taken over 50 depositions. At this time we have a significant number of trials set with the company and we are primarily focusing our efforts on trial preparation. Any comment relating to settlement that does not come from leadership, the Court, or from the company itself, is speculative and uninformed.”
The first jury trial will start in Los Angeles on Tuesday, January 22, 2012. While it is part of the California proceedings (not the DePuy MDL), California leadership and the MDL leadership have been working cooperatively to develop evidence, witnesses and experts for this case as well as all cases across the country. Next month, another DePuy ASR trial is set to start in Illinois which is also part of the cooperating jurisdictions. Judge Katz, who presides over the MDL, selected two plaintiffs’ cases for trial. The first will occur in May in Toledo and the second will be in July of 2013.
We just wanted our clients and others to know the correct version of events and have a better understanding what really is going on in the DePuy ASR litigation.
Tags: ASR Settlements, Childers Schlueter & Smith, cobaltism, css, css firm, Depuy, DePuy ASR, Depuy ASR Hip, DePuy ASR Hip Implant, DePuy ASR Hip Recall, DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing System, DePuy ASR Jury Trials, depuy hip, depuy hip recall, depuy hip recall attorney, depuy orthopaedics, ethics, FDA Website on Hip Implants, georgia attorney, Hip Implant Attorney, Hip Implant Lawyer, Hip Implant Lawyers, Hip Implant Recall, hip pain, hip replacement, Hip Replacement Device, hip revision, Johnson & Johnson, MDL 2197, Medical Devices, Metal on Metal Hip Implant, Metal-on-Metal hip implants, New York Times recall, recalled hip implant, recalled medical devices, solicitation, surgery on hip
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »
January 17th, 2013
For the last several years clinicians and patients have been operating in uncharted waters in attempting to figure out who is most at risk for health problems associated with recalled and non-recalled Metal-on-Metal hip implant devices. According to the latest update from the FDA on January 17, 2013:
Patients with bilateral implants (hip replacements on both the right and left sides)
- Patients with resurfacing systems with small femoral heads (device sizes less than or equal to 44mm)
- Female patients
- Patients receiving high doses of corticosteroids
- Patients with evidence of renal insufficiency (kidney problems)
- Patients with suppressed immune systems
- Patients with suboptimal alignment of device components (device components not placed in the ideal positions)
- Patients with suspected metal sensitivity (e.g. cobalt, chromium, nickel)
- Patients who are severely overweight
- Patients with high levels of physical activity
The links to this question and others may be found here: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/MetalonMetalHipImplants/ucm241766.htm
Other specific questions of interest:
How do I know if I have a metal-on-metal hip implant?
How often should I follow-up with my orthopaedic surgeon?
What should I discuss with my orthopaedic surgeon at each follow-up appointment?
What symptoms might a metal-on-metal hip implant cause?
Are there other medical effects that can occur with my metal-on-metal hip implant?
What are my chances of developing a reaction to my metal-on-metal hip implant and having these types of medical problems?
What should I do if I am experiencing adverse events associated with my metal-on-metal hip implant?
What should I do if I am not experiencing adverse events associated with my metal-on-metal hip implant?
What should I discuss with my other health care providers including my general internist or family practice doctor?
When would a hip revision surgery be needed?
What are the risks of revision surgery?
If I have a revision, what happens to the original implant?
What does it mean when I see that a hip implant has been “recalled?”
Where can I get additional information regarding metal-on-metal hip implants?
The harms associated with cobaltism and metallosis are significant. Many of the known harms associated with the following devices have resulted in many patients being seriously harmed and led thousands of lawsuits across the country:
- Depuy’s ASR device [Recalled in August of 2010-but claims are still being filed]
- Depuy’s Pinnacle Cup (metal Insert)
- Stryker Corporation’ Rejuvenate modular hip
- Zimmer Holdings, Inc.’s Durom Cup
- Wright Medical Technologies Conserve Cup
- Biomet Inc.’s M2A Magnum Hip Replacement
Some recommendations were made after two days of hearings back in June 2012 with thousands of pages of supporting documentary evidence questioning the metal on metal hip systems. The material is archived and may be found here: 2012 Meeting Materials of the Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel
For those metal-on-metal him implant patients that are still unrepresented we encourage them to speak to a lawyer about their legal rights and if warranted, file a claim before their statute of limitation expires.
In the estimation of Childers Schlueter and Smith, LLC the harms and value of each timely prosecuted hip implant claim will include future considerations. The average claimant of a defective MoM hip implant device will have been exposed to high levels of Chromium and Cobalt that will require years of monitoring and treatment. Questions will persist into the future: Will there be long term affects from exposure, such as impaired renal function, impaired hearing, adverse neurologic effects, unwanted conditions effecting the heart, and/or a potential impact to the thyroid gland or lymphoma? These are all questions that must be addressed and considered.
Individual considerations of particular circumstances are evaluated including the possible uncertainty of the longstanding effects of metallosis, cobalt and chromium. Each represented client has claims that are different and are evaluated individually on a case by case basis. (Ie. We are representing single individuals and not participating in a Class Action with our clients. Our experience in handling these claims show the injuries and harms are just too great to handle them in any other way)
If you have questions or just want to be more informed, call our hip implant lawyers toll free at 1-800-641-0098 or 404-419-9500. You can also find out more information by visiting our website: www.cssfirm.com The lawyers at Childers Schlueter and Smith LLC are available to answer your questions and explain your legal options.
Tags: Childers Schlueter & Smith, cobaltism, css, css firm, Depuy, DePuy ASR, Depuy ASR Hip, DePuy ASR Hip Implant, DePuy ASR Hip Recall, DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing System, depuy hip, depuy hip recall, depuy hip recall attorney, depuy orthopaedics, ethics, FDA Website on Hip Implants, georgia attorney, Hip Implant Attorney, Hip Implant Lawyer, Hip Implant Lawyers, Hip Implant Recall, hip pain, hip replacement, Hip Replacement Device, hip revision, Johnson & Johnson, MDL 2197, Medical Devices, Metal on Metal Hip Implant, Metal-on-Metal hip implants, New York Times recall, recalled hip implant, recalled medical devices, solicitation, surgery on hip
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »
January 7th, 2013
On January 3, 2013, Stryker announced two important developments concerning their voluntary recall of the Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck femoral hip systems back in June 2012.
Stryker says that surgeons should consider performing a clinical examination on all patients who had the Rejuvenate or ABG II modular-neck hip stem implanted. This should occur whether or not the patient has experienced swelling or pain. In the letter Stryker sent to surgeons, the company says that surgeons should have follow-up examinations on these patients as well, including blood work and cross section imaging.
Stryker has also announced that the company is reimbursing patients for testing, revision surgery, treatment, and any other costs relating to the voluntary recall of the ABG II modular-neck hip stems and the Rejuvenate. Stryker is partnering with Broadspire Services, Inc. to help manage requests for reimbursement of costs relating to the recall. Broaspire Serves, Inc. is a third party claims administrator.
The potential hazards associated with the ABG II modular-neck hip stems and the Rejuvenate systems include the excessive metal debris and/or ion generation; corrosion and/or fretting about the modular neck junction which may lead to an increased metal ion generation in the surrounding joint space.
Patients may experience hypersensitivity and or an allergic reaction which can result in the need for revision surgery. An Adverse Local Tissue Reaction (ALTR) can occur when there is contact between metal ion and tissues and structures during an implant’s service life. ALTR is the inflammation of associated tissues experiencing metallosis, pain, and/or necrosis. Fretting may lead to increased metal debris in the joint space. This can then lead to osteolysis and then can result in the necessity for revision surgery.
Our firm continues to review these cases. If you have questions or would like help, feel free to contact our experienced attorneys at (800) 641-0098.
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News Blog | No Comments »
August 23rd, 2012
It is being reported by Harris Martin that the plaintiffs’ involved in the first three DePuy ASR Hip Implant settlement cases that were previously set for trial in Nevada are now disputing the news reports of the confidential settlement for only $600,000 and/or $200,000 per claim. Because of the confidential settlement terms required by DePuy Orthopedics and Johnson & Johnson in these three cases, the attorneys involved essentially cannot comment on or give the stated the terms of the DePuy ASR settlement unless the confidential terms in the agreement are voided out. In order to set the record straight, according to reports, and in an effort to void the confidential terms pertaining to the settlement amount specifically, the Plaintiffs are asking a Nevada judge for permission to counter what they say are inaccurate details of the settlement amount on each case recently leaked to a media outlet by the defendants or some related party/affiliation to the defendants. It would be very interesting to learn for certain, and an unprecedented action taken, if this turns out to be an intentional act by the DePuy ASR defendants (or someone tangentially related to them or the ASR litigation) to mislead victims about the perceived value of their filed claims. It is too early to form any real opinions just yet on the topic but this will certainly be a carefully watched development and Motion over the next few weeks.
Tags: ASR Hip Jury Trial, ASR Settlement, ASR update, Childers Schlueter & Smith, chromium cobalt, chromium poisoning, chromium toxicity, cobalt kidney, cobalt level, cobalt poisoning, cobalt renal, cobalt test, cobalt toxicity, cobalt urine test, cobaltism, Depuy, DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing System, DePuy ASR Settlement, DePuy ASR Settlement Update, DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System, depuy faq, depuy hip, Depuy recall, depuy recall lawsuit, DePuy Settlement Letter, faq depuy, FDA Website on Hip Implants, featured, hip faq, Hip Implant Attorney, Hip Implant Lawyer, Hip Implant Lawyers, Hip Implant Recall, hip replacement, hip revision, hip surgeon, hip surgery, lab corp, Metal on Metal Hip Implant. DePuy ASR Hip Recall, orthopedist, Product Liability Lawsuits, second opinion hip surgeon, Statute of Limitations, surgery on hip
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »
August 19th, 2012
The first ever DePuy ASR hip implant cases set for a jury trial inNevada has recently settled. It was supposed to be the first courtroom battle in the country of patients with the defective ASR hip replacement against Johnson & Johnson subsidiary DePuy Orthopaedics, manufacturer of said hip implant. In December later this year, a Las Vegas Nevada state court judge was scheduled to preside over a jury trial of three plaintiffs against DePuy Orthopaedics for problems that the DePuy ASR hip replacement caused. All three of the patients had their ASR hip devices removed and replaced (revised). However, in what is breaking news, that Nevada trial is no longer going to go forward as originally scheduled because the parties have recently agreed to a confidential settlement. December 2012 was to be the first time that Johnson & Johnson subsidiary DePuy Orthopaedics was going to appear in court and explain what caused their hip product to create so many problems for patients who had their product implanted. This DePuy ASR hip implant settlement ends any showdown that was supposed to occur inLas Vegas. Like many settlements involving larger corporations like Johnson & Johnson, the terms of this settlement remain confidential. It is unfortunate that without the threat of a trial, the defendants DePuy and J&J has not compensated harmed patients that have had to undergo surgery to replace the defective device that they manufactured.
While the December 2012 trial is no longer moving forward given the settlement, there is another jury trial set by a Maryland state court judge set to begin in January 2013. The Maryland trial is also on behalf of three patients with recalled DePuy ASR hip implant that had to be replaced. In the event that a settlement is not reached prior to January 2013, Johnson & Johnson subsidiary DePuy Orthopaedics will have to explain what caused the defective hip product.
Both the December 2012 lawsuit and the January 2013 lawsuits were filed because Johnson & Johnson subsidiary DePuy, led thousands of patients with damaged hips to believe that their now recalled ASR Hip Replacement System, which uses a metal-on-metal device, would improve the pain and mobility of their hip. However, the danger of a metal-on-metal device has proven to be just as harmful as a damaged hip, if not more so in many cases based on our investigations. The implant contains the elements cobalt and chromium, which can be hazardous, and promote an inflammatory response that damages the surrounding tissue and bone. Shards of this metal have been known to grind off of the ASR hip implant damaging surrounding tissues and muscles, resulting in an increased level of these dangerous metal ions in the body. This can cause intense leg, hip, or groin pains, and in many cases patients have reported pain to the point of immobility.
To date there are more than 8,000 claims pending in the federal court and state courts. Childers, Schlueter & Smith, LLC is a leading firm in Georgia handling and litigating DePuy ASR hip implant claims. To date, our office has filed more than 160 individual claims on behalf of Georgians and other ASR victims from around the Country. It is unclear how many trials will have to be tried before DePuy and J&J will step up to do the right thing and acknowledge the harms and misery created by there ASR hip implant products and further agree to compensate the victims for the past, present and future harms expected from this recalled device.
For more information or assistance please visit CSSfirm.com or call us at 404-419-9500 for assistance or any questions in preserving a claim before any potential statute of limitations may run.
Tags: ASR Hip Jury Trial, ASR Settlement, Childers Schlueter & Smith, chromium cobalt, chromium poisoning, chromium toxicity, cobalt kidney, cobalt level, cobalt poisoning, cobalt renal, cobalt test, cobalt toxicity, cobalt urine test, cobaltism, Depuy, DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing System, DePuy ASR Settlement, DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System, depuy faq, depuy hip, Depuy recall, depuy recall lawsuit, DePuy Settlement Letter, faq depuy, FDA Website on Hip Implants, featured, hip faq, Hip Implant Attorney, Hip Implant Lawyer, Hip Implant Lawyers, Hip Implant Recall, hip replacement, hip revision, hip surgeon, hip surgery, lab corp, Metal on Metal Hip Implant. DePuy ASR Hip Recall, orthopedist, Product Liability Lawsuits, second opinion hip surgeon, Statute of Limitations, surgery on hip
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog, Uncategorized | No Comments »
August 17th, 2012
Having filed more DePuy ASR hip implant claims that any other firm in Georgia, all on an individual basis (No Class Action), Childers Schlueter and Smith LLC is seeking to give guidance concerning the rapidly impending Statute of Limitations expiration that will bar the claims of ASR hip implant patients. Many ASR patients erroneously believe that DePuy Orthopaedics and Johnson & Johnson will settle with them. To our knowledge, no such offers have been made, or likely will be made before the statute of limitation expires in the immediate months ahead. Some patients that have had revision as a result of the failed implant received the letter below. Read the letter in the context of understanding the statute of limitation and decide for yourself.
The FDA posted on its website the recall of Depuy ASR acetabular components in the United States on July 17th 2010.
Following July 17, 2010 FDA recall notice, DePuy Orthopedics issued a worldwide recall of all the ASR components on August 24, 2010.
The two year anniversary date of the recall is approaching and may serve as a bar to claimants that have statutes of limitations that expire prior to filing a civil claim with a Court of competent jurisdiction. A quick look at the statute of limitations that are at issue reveal approximately 28 States have statutes of limitation that are 2 years or less.
Many patients that have the Depuy ASR device have not been told of the significance of the statute of limitation. The unwary client is usually unaware of the level of sophistication of the risk management or hired legal defense firms that a company such as Johnson and Johnson employs to minimize or bar a harmed patient in pursuing a legal claim that has not been timely filed within their statute of limitations.
Some of our clients have received the letter below before hiring our law firm. The letter has the effect of lulling the hip implant victim into the belief that their cooperation will result in “additional compensation” and that “payment will be made within 30 days, avoiding the complex and lengthy lawsuit process”. This letter is a shameful example of victimizing an already harmed patient by setting up a false expectation that may result if the patient does not fully comply with their orders and directives. Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Childers Schlueter & Smith, chromium cobalt, chromium poisoning, chromium toxicity, cobalt kidney, cobalt level, cobalt poisoning, cobalt renal, cobalt test, cobalt toxicity, cobalt urine test, cobaltism, Depuy, DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing System, DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System, depuy faq, depuy hip, Depuy recall, depuy recall lawsuit, DePuy Settlement Letter, faq depuy, FDA Website on Hip Implants, featured, hip faq, Hip Implant Attorney, Hip Implant Lawyer, Hip Implant Lawyers, Hip Implant Recall, hip replacement, hip revision, hip surgeon, hip surgery, lab corp, Metal on Metal Hip Implant. DePuy ASR Hip Recall, orthopedist, Product Liability Lawsuits, second opinion hip surgeon, Statute of Limitations, surgery on hip
Posted in FDA Alerts Blog, News & Results, News Blog | No Comments »
