Product Liability Lawyer Blog

June 7, 2014

Takeda Sanctioned for Misconduct in Actos Litigation

Takeda Pharmaceuticals is facing pending legal action in a multidistrict litigation because the company’s drug, Actos, significantly increases the risk of patients developing bladder cancer. Plaintiffs have been successful in past cases in taking legal action against the pharmaceutical company, with one jury awarding $9 million in damages. However, some plaintiffs harmed by Actos have been having difficulties building their cases because Takeda Pharmaceuticals has been engaged in behavior designed to prevent them from getting documents and information they need.

In a product liability case or any personal injury action, defendants have to turn over certain evidence during the discovery period. If they fail to provide information as required, the attorneys for the plaintiffs can make a motion to the judge and the judge may sanction the defendant. Victims should speak with a defective drug lawyer for help taking legal action, understanding their rights during discovery, and asking the court for sanctions when a defendant does not comply with rules of civil litigation.
Continue reading

June 4, 2014

Removal of Vaginal Mesh Can Have Long-Term Consequences

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Vaginal mesh has been clearly demonstrated to cause serious side effects for many patients. Unfortunately, mesh products can cause significant pain, especially during intercourse. Vaginal mesh can also result in organ perforation, infection, mesh erosion and recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP) among the other serious symptoms and complications.

At the annual meting of the American Urological Association in Orlando, doctors discussed the impact of the removal of vaginal mesh. Unfortunately, while removal may help to relieve patient symptoms, it may not solve the health problems that the mesh has caused. An experienced transvaginal mesh lawyer should be consulted by patients who need to undergo corrective surgery because of mesh or who experience lingering problems after they have had vaginal mesh implanted.
Continue reading

May 31, 2014

Morcellator Use Can Boost Cancer Risks

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Uterine fibroids are very common during a woman’s childbearing years, with as many as three out of four women developing fibroids at some point in their lives. Fibroids are often asymptomatic and are benign and almost never develop into cancer. They form from the smooth muscular tissue of the uterus, and they range from tiny seedlings to bulky masses that can cause the uterus to become enlarged. Fibroids are often removed surgically and, for many women, a power morcellator is used to grind down tissue in order to make it possible to remove the fibroids through a very small incision.

Unfortunately, some women who are diagnosed with fibroids actually have an undiagnosed uterine sarcoma within the allegedly-benign growths. When a morcellator is used, it can significantly worsen the patient’s chance of survival if it turns out that she has an undiagnosed uterine sarcoma. Because of these risks, the Food and Drug Administration issued an advisory recently warning against the use of this medical device. Unfortunately, many women already had a procedure using a morcellator and their cancer risk was made much worse as a result. Those who are affected should contact a medical malpractice lawyer for help taking legal action.
Continue reading

May 28, 2014

Boston Lipitor Attorneys Admitted to MDL

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

On February 18, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled that all pending federal Lipitor lawsuits should be consolidated into a multidistrict litigation.

The Boston defective drug lawyers at Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers LLC have filed a Lipitor case for a victim affected by this dangerous drug and our firm has been admitted to the MDL. If you or a loved one took Lipitor and developed Type 2 diabetes or other complications, call to schedule your free consultation to learn how we can help.

Multidistrict litigation (MDL) makes it possible for one judge to hear many similar cases arising from a defective product or dangerous drug. While all individual plaintiffs retain their independent claims, pre-trial motions and decisions affecting all claims can be ruled on just once by the judge who has been assigned to the case. The cases have been consolidated in South Carolina and are being presided over by U.S. District Jude Richard M. Gergel.
Continue reading

May 25, 2014

Older Stryker Pain Pump Lawsuit Will Not Proceed, Eighth Circuit Rules

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has effectively dismissed plaintiff efforts to seek damages against a medical pain pump device implanted post-surgery, finding there was no way at the time of the procedure the manufacturer could have recognized the device’s potential risk.

The case of Mack, et al. v. Stryker Corp., et al. focused on a 2002 surgery.

Boston product liability lawyers know, while this decision may impact some similarly-situated cases that date back that far, newer cases should still have strong standing. The primary issue in this case was what the company knew or should have known regarding the risks at the time the device was implanted in this particular patient. The district court ruled – and the Eighth Circuit affirmed – that such collective knowledge of any long-lasting, detrimental consequences was limited. Literature from the medical community at-large did not indicate any significant problems.
Continue reading

May 21, 2014

Teague, et al v. Johnson & Johnson, et al – TVM Defendant Motion to Transfer Mass Tort Back to Federal Court Denied

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Defendants in a mass tort involving some 702 women claiming harm from transvaginal mesh medical devices were denied a request to have the case moved back to federal court, where they perceive an advantage.

In theory, Boston transvaginal mesh lawyers know that both sides should be able to receive a fair trial regardless of the court in which the case is heard. However, some federal courts have accepted defenses and rulings that are somewhat more favorable to corporate interests. This is why defendants aggressively pursue the option whenever possible.

Here, in Teague, et al v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., they were unsuccessful, at least as far as 650 plaintiff cases were concerned.
Continue reading

May 15, 2014

Consumer Group Seeks Investigation into “Reckless” Johnson & Johnson

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

A nonprofit consumer advocacy group has requested that the U.S. Senate launch an investigation into Johnson & Johnson. The group alleges a pattern of “reckless” conduct. The same consumer group, the Corporate Action Network, has also urged the Department of Justice to look into whether Johnson & Johnson knowingly destroyed documents related to more than 12,000 pending lawsuits brought by women impacted by dangerous vaginal mesh products.

Boston vaginal mesh lawyers know that lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson related to mesh products have largely resulted in plaintiffs obtaining compensation for losses. Juries are clearly finding in many cases that the company acted wrongfully, and that these actions had real consequences for patients affected by the bad products that Johnson & Johnson sold to the public.
Continue reading

May 14, 2014

Has AMS Put Aside Enough to Resolve TVM Cases?

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Bellwether cases in transvaginal mesh litigation are moving forward against American Medical Systems (AMS). A December 12, 2013 pretrial order set the first of four bellwether cases, Serrano v. AMS to start April 7, 2014. The company is currently facing as many as 16,534 lawsuits that have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in West Virginia. Additional state law claims are also pending against the company, brought by women experiencing serious problems with vaginal mesh products manufactured by AMS.

AMS has put aside millions of dollars to try to resolve the pending vaginal mesh litigation, but it remains to be seen whether the company’s costs will be greater than expected. Victims affected by dangerous AMS products can pursue a claim for compensation with the help of a Boston transvaginal mesh lawyer.
Continue reading

May 13, 2014

Covidien Vaginal Mesh Litigation

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Covidien is a spinoff of Tyco Healthcare that dates back to 2007. Covidien, like many medical devices manufacturers, has produced and sold transvaginal mesh products to women as a method of treating stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Covidien products including the IVS Tunneller, the Duo, Surgipro Mesh, Parietene Mesh and Pelvicol mesh implants.

Unfortunately, the Covidien vaginal mesh products are no safer than those made by other major manufacturers including C.R. Bard, Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific and American Medical Systems. As such, Covidien is facing lawsuits from women experiencing complications, and these claims have become part of centralized multidistrict litigation (MDL). Victims who had a Covidien product implanted should speak with a Boston transvaginal mesh lawyer about how they can pursue legal action to obtain compensation with losses.
Continue reading

May 12, 2014

Stryker Prepares for Thousands of Pending Cases

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Stryker has set aside $133 million in order to defend or settle cases arising from defective hip implant products. Problem products include the Stryker Rejuvenate and the Stryker ABG II. Both products contain metal components, although they are not traditional metal-on-metal hip implant systems.

Unlike most hip replacement products, which have a metal acetabular cup and a metal femoral head, Stryker products have four parts including a femoral stem, metal neck, ball and cup. This creative design does not make Stryker products any safer than other metal-on-metal devices and Stryker faces accusations that the company is responsible for serious damage that patients experienced after hip replacement procedures. Victims affected by Stryker products can pursue their own claim for compensation and should speak with a defective hip implant lawyer in Massachusetts for legal help.
Continue reading