PPI Lawsuit Settlements

Proton pump inhibitor lawsuits are being filed for people who developed kidney problems after taking popular PPI drugs like Nexium, Protonix, Prilosec, Prevacid, and Aciphex. The lawsuits were spurred largely by a study published in 2016 which showed a link between PPIs and chronic kidney disease.

Chronic kidney disease can lead to kidney failure, requiring regular dialysis and possibly a kidney transplant.

In the latest study, researchers used data on self-reported proton pump inhibitor use among more than 10,000 people taking part in a national study on hardening of the arteries. Researchers also evaluated data on outpatient PPI prescriptions among nearly 250,000 patients of a Pennsylvania health care system.

The study noted PPI users in both groups were more likely to have health problems, such as obesity, high blood pressure and heart issues.

In both groups, researchers associated use of the drugs with an increased risk of chronic kidney disease over ten years.

The researchers also compared people using the drugs once a day with those who used them twice daily.  They found the latter linked with a 46 percent increased risk of chronic kidney disease, compared with a 15 percent increased risk in the once-daily users.

No one is sure how PPI drugs might damage the kidneys, though two theories lead the way.  One is that PPIs can cause magnesium levels to decline; a lack of magnesium can damage kidneys. The second theory is that kidneys might suffer damage if patients face repeated bouts of acute kidney inflammation from proton pump inhibitors.

Gastroenterologists are also cautious about using PPIs because they’ve been tied to other health problems such as bone fractures, infections of C. difficile, and pneumonia.

Because many people who take PPIs have other health problems, lawsuits against the makers of these drugs could be difficult to pursue, though several law firms are pursuing them, including Matthews & Associates.  Meanwhile, many makers of proton pump inhibitor drugs have already paid out millions of dollars in lawsuits related to these dubious drugs.  PPI lawsuit settlements reveal that these drugs have a checkered history:

PPI Lawsuit Settlements

2012 – $55 million: Pfizer agreed to settlement with U.S. government for promoting Protonix for unapproved uses.

2014 – Undisclosed amount: Takeda Pharmaceuticals settled a lawsuit claiming Prevacid was responsible for bone fractures.

2015 – $20 million: AstraZeneca agreed to a settlement in a consumer class action lawsuit over its marketing of Prilosec and Nexium.

2015 – $7.9 million: AstraZeneca agreed to settlement with U.S. government over alleged kickback scheme involving Nexium.

2015 – $24 million: Generic drug maker Teva Pharmaceuticals settled lawsuit claiming it took money from AstraZeneca to keep generic Nexium off the market.

Free Legal Case Evaluation
Our law firm is handling proton pump inhibitor lawsuits in which someone took a PPI and developed chronic kidney disease. Contact us for a free legal consultation if you have been diagnosed with kidney problems following use of PPI drugs.

Related

•  Prilosec LawsuitNexium Lawsuit

•  Protonix Kidney Disease Lawsuit

•  Proton Pump Inhibitor Lawsuit

•  Prevacid Kidney Failure Lawsuit

•  Aciphex Lawsuit Lawyer

•  Nexium Lawsuit

•  PPI Lawsuit Settlements

Share

Xarelto Verdict $28M

On December 5, 2017, a Philadelphia jury delivered a Xarelto verdict of nearly $28 million in damages against Johnson & Johnson and Bayer. The jury found the companies had provided inadequate warnings about bleeding risks linked with the blood thinner Xarelto.

The case was filed by an Indiana woman who said she suffered a serious gastrointestinal bleed after using Xarelto. It was the first Xarelto verdict for a plaintiff. Juries in three previous federal multidistrict litigation trials in 2017 sided with the drugmakers.

Related:  Xarelto Lawsuit

The Lynn Hartman case is one of more than 1,500 pending as part of mass tort litigation in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.  Xarelto-related product liability claims were consolidated there, despite defense protests.

U.S. Patient Bleeding Events Misrepresented
Ms. Hartman’s trial centered around claims that J&J’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. failed to include vital information in Xarelto’s warning label.  The companies were charged in the lawsuit with failing to properly report the rate of bleeding events observed in a clinical trial.  The trial showed the rate was significantly higher among U.S. patients compared with patients elsewhere in the world.

According to evidence shown in the trial, the rate of bleeding events among people in the U.S. was 8.1 percent yearly versus 3.6 percent among people globally.

Ms. Hartman’s lawyers also accused the two companies of failing to adequately warn about the higher bleeding risks in using the drug with aspirin.  They also charged that the companies failed to inform doctors that some patients end up with significantly higher levels of the medication in their blood than others.

Higher Risk than Elizuis, Pradaxa
The woman’s lawyers argued that adverse event risks linked with Xarelto were significantly higher than that of Xarelto’s competitors, Eliquis and Pradaxa.

“Xarelto is the worst in class of the new blood thinners,” argued Ms. Hartman’s lawyer.  “The serious health complications suffered by thousands of patients could have been avoided if physicians were properly instructed about the risks, and if patients were given the choice to switch to Eliquis and Pradaxa, which are safer and far more effective.”

Ms. Hartman’s case was supported by testimony from former FDA head David Kessler.  He told the jury he believed that Xarelto’s warning label lacked key information concerning the severity of the drug’s potential bleeding risks.

Xarelto Defense Respose
The drugmakers’ lawyers focused Xarelto’s defense on the language included in the Xarelto label, which warned that Xarelto “can cause serious and fatal bleeding.”

The defense also pointed to testimony from Ms. Hartman’s doctor that she would not have changed her decision to prescribe Xarelto even with the additional information that she agreed (with the plaintiff) should have been included on the label.

Xarelto Verdict $28M

The case is Hartman v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., case number 160503416, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

A Janssen spokeswoman said the company will appeal the verdict, which was not a shock to anyone, as no drug company has ever accepted any verdict against it without appealing to have it thrown out of court.  Hence the importance of corporations lobbying and bankrolling state and D.C. beltway politicians who then work endlessly to stack the appeals courts against citizens and their rights.

According to court records, a second Xarelto case is scheduled for a trial in Philadelphia in January 2018.

Stay tuned. . .

Related

•  Xarelto Lawsuit

•  Xarelto Dangers Rival Pradaxa

•  Xarelto Maker, Marketer fight MDL

•  Xarelto Makers win First Trial

•  Pradaxa Lawsuit

•  Stay tuned. . .

 

Share

IVC Filter use decreases after FDA Advisory

Science Daily hasCook Blood Clot Filter Lawsuits noted IVC filter use has decreased following an FDA advisory.  IVC filter use began declining last year after the National Institutes of Health noted in June 2016 that IVC filters carry real risks.  IVC filter injury lawsuits may also be slowing down the sale and use of these blood clot filters.

The NIH paper which appears to have slowed the use of IVC filters was titled: “Permanent versus Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Rethinking the “One-Filter-for-All” Approach to Mechanical Thromboembolic Prophylaxis.”

IVC Filter Dangers Soft Played
IVC filter dangers have been soft played by their manufacturers. The paper’s opening abstract notes: “Deciding which IVC filters to use, when to use them, and for how long they should remain in place remains a highly complex process with many variables to consider. At a minimum, it is important to recognize that mechanical thromboembolic prophylaxis is not entirely benign.” That’s fancy language for admitting that IVC filters can be dangerous.

IVC Filter Dangers Increase over Time
The NIH noted that the use of IVC filters, especially retrievable filters, “is associated with morbidity risks that increase over time.” In plain language, that means the longer an IVC filters remains in the human body, the more likely it is to cause problems. Pieces of the delicate little thimble-sized devices can break off and migrate throughout the circulatory system, including into the lungs or heart. The entire IVC filter can also tilt sideways or embed into a blood vein wall, causing other serious problems, including death.

NIH: Remove Filter after PE Risk Resolves
NIH cautions that IVC “filters should be removed when the patient’s risk for PE has resolved.” The problem is that many temporary filters are being left inside of a person far longer than they should be. To further complicate matters, many IVC filter patients are not told by their doctors that their temporary filters should be removed after a given time. In addition, as many IVC filter lawsuits charge, IVC filter makers such as Bard and Cook Medical have not given their doctor customers clear instructions for when the filters should be removed.

The NIH saysIVC Filters fail to improve Anticoagulant Therapythat, “Postplacement clinical follow-up is critical to optimizing retrieval rates. Given the increased adverse effects and cost difference when using IVCF in a permanent manner, an important goal for appropriate IVC filter selection should be selecting those patients best served with a permanent filter due to the patient’s unique clinical conditions. . .” That statement is as close as the NIH gets to criticizing IVC filter makers for promoting their filters for too many people, for not properly screening potential filter implantees.

NIH also recommends further development and validation of nuanced, large-scale mathematical modeling tools to determine how best to use IVC filters. The NIH never directly criticizes any medical device manufacturer, but the language makes it clear that current practices fail IVC filter implantees, or are at least inadequate.

The paper also notes that IVC filter implantation rates remain high compared to rates in Europe.

IVC Filter Background
IVC filters are used to prevent deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a medical condition in which blood clots develop in the deep veins of the body, often in the legs, thigh, or pelvis. These clots can break loose and travel to the lungs and can cause a life-threatening condition called pulmonary embolism (PE).  IVC filters are implanted in people at risk for PE when anticoagulant therapy is ineffective or cannot be used.  They are supposed to be use only in those for whom anticoagulant therapy is contraindicated.

IVC Filter Safety, Efficacy Questioned
IVC filter use has increased rapidly over the years, despite no real evidence that the filters are necessary or effective.   In 2010, the U.S. FDA issued a device safety communication after reviewing more than 900 adverse filter events over a five-year period.  Those problems include device migration, embolizations, perforation of the IVC, filter fractures.  Some led to adverse clinical outcomes, often with the filter remaining in the body long after the risk of PE had subsided.  The FDA safety communication recommended filter removal as soon as protection from PE was no longer needed.

Related

•  No Evidence Blood Clot Filters HelpBard IVC Filter Lawsuit | Blood Clot Filter Lawyer

•  Texas IVC Filter Lawsuit Filed

•  Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit

•  Cook IVC Filter Attorney

•  IVC Filters poor choice for Trauma Victims

•  IVC Filter use decreases after FDA Advisory

Share

Third Hip Implant Verdict against Johnson & Johnson: $247 Million

(Nov. 17, 2017)  Johnson & Johnson was ordered by a Dallas jury to pay $247 million to six people who claimed J&J hid defects in its Pinnacle artificial hips.  It was the third multi-million-dollar verdict against J&J over its defective metal-on-metal hip implants.

The jury ruled yesterday that J&J’s DePuy unit officials knew the hip devices they made were defective, yet failed to warn doctors and patients about the risk that they would prematurely fail. The jury awarded $79 million in actual damages, plus $168 million in punitive damages to a group of six New Yorkers whose hips required surgical removal.

Nearly 10,000 lawsuits have now been filed against J&J and DePuy over the company’s mishandling of the metal-on-metal hips. J&J stopped selling the hip replacement devices in 2013 after the U.S. FDA toughened artificial-hip regulations.

A lawyer handling the cases called the medical device companies’ behavior “so reprehensible” as to demand “repeated punishment.”

In an emailed statement, J&J spokesmodel Stella Meirelles claimed the company acted “appropriately and responsibly” in developing and marketing the Pinnacle hips.  She said the company would “immediately begin the appeal process and remain committed to the long-term defense of the allegations in these lawsuits.”

J&J 1-3 Record in Pinnacle Hip Cases
In October 2014, Johnson & Johnson won the first Pinnacle hip case to go to trial, when a federal court jury in Dallas rejected a Montana woman’s claims that the devices were defective and gave her metal poisoning.

$502 Million Verdict
In 2016, another Dallas jury ordered J&J to pay $498 million to a group of five people who accused the company of hiding defects in the artificial hips. In July 2017, a judge slashed that verdict to about $150 million.

$1 Billion Verdict
Earlier in 2017, a third Dallas jury ordered J&J and DePuy to pay more than $1 billion to six California residents whose hips had to be removed after failing. That award was later slashed by nearly half.

$2.5 Billion Settlement
The Pinnacle hip devices were not covered by J&J’s $2.5 billion settlement of claims over its ASR line of artificial hips. Johnson & Johnson recalled 93,000 of those implants worldwide in August 2010, admitting that 12 percent failed within five years.

The metal-on-metal Pinnacle hip cases have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade in Dallas for pretrial information exchanges and test (or bellwether) trials. Judge Kinkeade agreed to combine the six cases in the most recent trial.

The six New York plaintiffs in the latest Dallas trial are a physician (88 years old); an elementary school teacher (67); a chauffeur (61); a housing official (60); a health-care aide (53); a financial analyst (52).

Plaintiffs in the latest trial argued that DePuy officials rushed the Pinnacle hips to market with little testing, and misled doctors about the product’s safety profile. They erroneously assured doctors that there was little risk of metal poisoning and tissue damage from the metal-on-metal hip device.

Metal on Metal Problem for Johnson & Johnson

The plaintiffs’ attorney in closing argument told the jury that the company “ran a grand seduction.”  He said, “Surgeons were seduced into using metal-on-metal” by DePuy executives’ false claim that the company had “solved the metal-on-metal problem.”

J&J’s lawyers argued that the hip devices failed because of routine wear-and-tear.  They denied that the hip device design was  flawed.  They argued that the company marketed the product properly.

Hip Implant Verdict against Johnson & Johnson: $247 Million

Jurors found that J&J and DePuy relied on “intentional misrepresentations” about the hip device’s safety profile to bolster sales. According to a verdict form, the jury found that J&J and DePuy engaged in “deceptive business practices” when they marketed the defective devices.

Hip Implant Lawsuit

If you or someone you love was implanted with a metal-on-metal hip implant that failed, contact our experienced medical device lawyers today for a free legal consultation.

Related

 

Share

Proton Pump Inhibitor – Kidney Injury Lawsuits Consolidated

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) centralized all federally-filed proton pump inhibitor (PPI) – kidney injury lawsuits on August 2, 2017. All the suits involve kidney failure, chronic kidney disease, and other kidney injuries. U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey will host the JPML.

The JPML’s Transfer Order affected 166 lawsuits filed against the makers of Nexium, Prilosec, PrevAcid, Protonix, and Dexilant. Any similar PPI lawsuits filed in federal courts in future will be eligible for transfer to the District of New Jersey.

Creating a multidistrict litigation court can help both plaintiffs and defendants. This one will allow all federal proton pump inhibitor – kidney injury claims to follow coordinated pretrial proceedings, including discovery and motion practice. The JPML process is designed to improve judicial efficiency, prevent inconsistent court rulings and duplicative discovery. It is also meant to preserve court resources and lighten loads on witnesses and others in the litigation.

Individual Cases Must Stand on Own Merits
Though pretrial proceedings will be coordinated, each proton pump inhibitor lawsuit in the multidistrict litigation will maintain its own identity and be decided on its own merits. All plaintiffs will continue to maintain control over important decisions affecting their own individual claims. That control includes whether or not to accept any future settlement offers.

Proton Pump Inhibitor – Kidney Injury Claim
The nationwide law firm of Matthews & Associates is handling lawsuits for people who took a proton pump inhibitor and then developed kidney problems. Chronic kidney disease, kidney failure, acute interstitial nephritis, or acute kidney injury have all been linked with popular PPI drugs: Nexium, Prilosec, Protonix, PrevAcid, Dexilant.

PPPI-Lawsuit | Lawyer

If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with any kidney issues that could be related to proton pump inhibitors, contact our office today. Protect your legal rights.  Email us for a free legal case review, fill out our short form or call us at (888) 520-5202.

What are proton pump inhibitors?
Proton pump inhibitors are a class of heartburn medications that include the prescription drugs Nexium, Prilosec, Protonix, and PrevAcid, as well as various over-the-counter (OTC) brands and generics. Those sold via prescription are approved to treat symptoms associated with GERD, ulcers and other problems linked with the overproduction of stomach acid. OTC proton pump inhibitors are often recommended for people who suffer from frequent heartburn (two or more episodes per week.)

An estimated 15 million Americans used proton pump inhibitors in 2013. Research suggests these drugs are often overused, and that many people use them far too long. Proton pump inhibitors are thought to be generally safe for short-term use, but long-term use has been linked to several serious side effects, including C. diff infections, certain bone fractures, low magnesium levels, B12 deficiency, and more. Research also suggests extended PPI use may increase one’s risk for dementia, heart attacks, chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, kidney failure.

What causes kidney failure?
Kidney failure is the final stage of chronic kidney disease. Also known as end stage renal disease, the condition occurs when the kidneys no longer function in a way that would allow a patient to survive, resulting in the need for dialysis or kidney transplantation.

Diabetes and high blood pressure are the leading causes of kidney failure. Other causes include:

•  Toxic exposure
•  Certain acute and chronic diseases
•  Severe dehydration
•  Kidney trauma

Other recent studies also suggest proton pump inhibitors may harm kidneys.

•  April 2015: A study published by Canadian researchers found older people who used PPIs were more likely to suffer acute kidney injury, a form of sudden renal failure.
•  April 2016: A paper appearing in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology linked extended use of proton pump inhibitors to a 96% increased risk of renal failure compared to alternative medications.
•  January 2016: Research that appeared in JAMA Internal Medicine reported that proton pump inhibitors might increase the risk of chronic kidney disease by as much as 50%. The Journal of the American Society of Nephrology study also suggested PPI use was associated with a 28% increase in the risk for chronic kidney disease , compared to another class of heartburn drugs.

What is acute interstitial nephritis (AIN)?
Acute interstitial nephritis is a sudden inflammation of the kidney tubules often caused by a hypersensitivity reaction to a medication. AIN symptoms include:

•  Fever
•  Blood in the urine
•  Exhaustion, fatigue
•  Confusion
•  Nausea, vomiting
•  Rash
•  Water retention and weight gain
•  Swelling
•  Feeling bloated
•  Elevated blood pressure

When acute interstitial nephritis is caused by a drug, most doctors would cease treatment of that medication. If not recognized swiftly, the condition can progress to chronic kidney disease and renal failure.

FDA Label Warning Update
In 2014, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration ordered the makers of all prescription proton pump inhibitors to add information about acute interstitial nephritis to their product labels.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Settlements
Parties involved in the proton pump inhibitor litigation have not announced any settlements in kidney-related cases. The first such lawsuits were just filed in 2016. Pharmaceutical drug cases can take several years to come to fruition for plaintiffs, if they ever do. Anfyone suffering kidney injury after taking a protom pump inhibitor is encouraged to call our offices to discuss a potential case against the PPI maker.

Free Legal Consultation
Matthews & Associated drug injury lawyers offer free legal reviews to people who may have suffered chronic kidney disease, kidney failure, or other renal complications linked with Nexium, Prilosec, Protonix, or Prevacid.  Email for a free legal consultation or call us at (888) 520–5202.

Related

Share

Hernia Mesh vs. Suture Repair

Most people considering surgery for hernia repair will find themselves facing a difficult choice.  Of course, one can always “wait and see” in the event of a hernia (more on that below).  And it is sometimes possible to use belts or trusses to help manage or simply live with a hernia.  Most people suffering from a hernia, however, will likely face a choice of surgical options.  Most will decide whether it is best to choose a plastic hernia mesh to repair a hernia, or to find a surgeon who can perform a more traditional hernia repair using sutures and/or natural tissues.

What is a Hernia?
A hernia occurs when an organ, intestine or fatty tissue breaches a weak spot or a hole in muscle or connective tissue.  Hernias often occur at the abdominal wall.  Sometimes a hernia can be visible as an external bulge, particularly when one strains or bears down.  There are many types of hernias, but inguinal hernias – in the groin area – are by far the most common.

Hernia Types
•  Inguinal: inner groin
•  Femoral: upper thigh/outer groin
•  Incisional: incision or scar breach in the abdomen
•  Ventral: general abdominal/ventral wall
•  Umbilical: belly button
•  Hiatal: inner abdominal, along the upper stomach/diaphragm

Hernia Causes
Most hernias are caused by a combination of pressure and an opening or weakness of muscle or connective tissue.  Pressure pushes an organ or tissue through the opening or weak spot.  The muscle weakness can be present at birth, but it usually occurs later in life.  Anything that increases abdominal pressure can cause a hernia.  Risk factors include obesity, heavy lifting, diarrhea, constipation, persistent coughing, sneezing.  The FDA web site notes that poor nutrition, smoking, and overexertion can also weaken muscles and contribute to hernia risk.

Hernia Treatment Options
The FDA reports that more than one million hernia repairs are performed each year in the U.S. About 80% involve inguinal hernias.  Treatment options are myriad.

1. Non-Surgical
Watchful Waiting – One can watch a hernia to see that it is not getting larger or causing problems. Though surgery is the only treatment that can repair hernias, many surgical procedures are elective for adult inguinal hernias.  Watchful waiting is an option for people who do not have complications or symptoms with their hernias, and if recommended by their surgeon.

2. Surgical
a. Laparoscopic – A surgeon makes several small incisions in the abdomen that allow surgical tools in for repair.  Laparoscopic surgery can be performed with or without surgical mesh.

b. Open Repair – A surgeon incises near the hernia and repairs the weak muscle area. Open repair can be done with or without mesh. Open repair using sutures without mesh is referred to as primary closure.  Primary closure, says FDA, is used primarily to repair inguinal hernias in infants, small hernias, strangulated or infected hernias.  But one can use primary closure for other reasons, as well (such as fear of hernia mesh and its “side effects”), though the FDA does not say so.

The Problems of Surgical Mesh for Hernia Repair
The FDA on its web site seems solidly in favor of surgical mesh for hernia repair.  At the same time, it is worth noting that the agency also backed – at least in the beginning – the use of plastic mesh on women suffering from pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The agency’s confidence in mesh appears to have been misplaced for many women.  More than 100,000 have filed lawsuits alleging they were injured by the plastic mesh used on them.  Many thousands of those lawsuits were settled, while many of them remain in the courts.  Just a few weeks ago, a jury awarded a woman several million dollars for a Johnson & Johnson mesh product that she testified badly injured her.  Several mesh trials resulted in large jury verdicts, including a recent $73 million award in Dallas.  The material used in the mesh on that injured Texas woman – along with thousands of others for POP or SUI – is the same material used in hernia meshes.

The FDA reports on its web site that mesh-based hernia repairs have increased since the 1980s.  By 2000, non-mesh repairs made up less than 10% of groin hernia repair techniques.  Does that mean that hernia mesh is safe?  Not according to at least one surgeon, who says that 10-20% of hernia mesh patients suffer complications.

FDA also says “the use of surgical mesh may also improve patient outcomes through decreased operative time and minimized recovery time.”  But FDA also cautions that recovery time depends on the type of hernia, the surgical approach, the patient’s condition before and after surgery.

The agency also says that the medical literature has “consistently demonstrated a reduced hernia recurrence rate when surgical mesh is used to repair the hernia compared to hernia repair without surgical mesh.  For example, inguinal hernia recurrence is higher with open repair using sutures (primary closure) than with mesh repair.”  But does that mean hernia mesh is safer than suturing, or superior to suturing?

FDA Cautions on Hernia Mesh
The FDA also admits that despite reduced rates of recurrence with hernia mesh vs. suture repairs, situations arise in which surgical mesh for hernia repair “may not be recommended. Patients should talk to their surgeons about their specific circumstances and their best options and alternatives for hernia repair.”

Hernia Mesh vs. Suture Repair

While the literature may indicate that using mesh for hernia repairs does have its advantages, the FDA categorically fails to state one glaring fact for those whom the mesh fails.  At least one prominent hernia surgeon says that the complication rate for hernia mesh surgery is a shocking 10-20%.   The FDA also fails to state, in its hernia mesh literature, what we saw with plastic mesh used on women for POP or SUI.  Namely, if the mesh fails the patient, for whatever reason, it can be difficult or impossible to remove it.  That unfortunate situation can lead to permanent pain for the person meshed.  This is one more instance, among an endless list of examples, where the FDA tends to err on the side of industry rather than on the side of the consumer, and safety.  In this instance and in many, many others, the FDA downplays the serious risks of a medical device (or drug), while promoting its alleged benefits.  Buyer beware!

Related

Share

Hernia Mesh 10-20% Complication Rate, says Surgeon

Hernia mesh has a 10-20% complication rate, says a surgeon who has performed dozens of hernia mesh removals.  That’s much higher than the 1-2% complication rate that has been reported by mainstream doctors who parrot mesh makers’ claims.

Doctor will speak to UK Parliament

On Oct. 18, 2017, Dr. Robert Bendavid will tell the UK Parliament just how troublesome plastic mesh can be for hernia repair.  Dr. Bendavid works out of Shouldice Hospital in Toronto, Canada.  Jane Akre of Mesh News Desk reports that the surgeon is frustrated with the way plastic hernia mesh makers have downplayed the number of catastrophic events triggered by hernia repair that inserts plastic mesh into the human abdomen.

20% Hernia Mesh Failure Rate
Dr. Bendavid says 20% is likely a closer complication rate for the meshes used in hernia repair. He laments that, for about 20 years, synthetic meshes have become the mainstay of hernia surgery. The reason, he says, is not for efficacy.  Like plastic mesh put into women for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI), hernia mesh surgery has exploded in popularity primarily because mesh makers have so assiduously promoted it.  Mesh makers have doled out millions promoting mesh conferences, societies, and free surgical training sessions.  Those promotions have even formed a whole new generation of surgeons who were taught to favor mesh over traditional suture repair for hernias.  Meanwhile, the drawbacks of meshes, says Dr. Bendavid, “were always vague and nebulous.”

Today, mesh-based repairs are touted as the ideal in the guidelines of the European, Danish and Swedish Hernia Societies.  The American Hernia Society has gone right along with the mesh program.  Dr. Bendavid has not.

Shouldice Repair for failed Plastic Mesh Repair
The doctor notes: “Shouldice repair, a pure tissue repair, rated a mention only when infected mesh was removed!”  He adds that Shouldice repair was considered the “gold standard” 20 years ago, but today no one performs or knows how to perform it outside Thornhill. (editor’s note: We believe there are some American doctors and others in other countries who do perform Shouldice repair.)

Plastic Mesh spawns New Injury
Dr. Bendavid further notes that, “The world literature is now replete with publications on chronic postherniorrhaphy inguinodynia, a condition unknown before the introduction of mesh.  In 1964, in Nyhus’ classic hernia, postherniorrhaphy pain did not rate a mention in its index.  In Ponka’s equally excellent book, pain is mentioned in half a column as ‘uncommon’ and due to ‘scar tissue’ (1980).”

Hernia Mesh Complications
Many publications are now providing more up-to-date statistics on postoperative complications of mesh. Dr. Bendavid says that 11% of patients will have a “history of severe chronic postoperative inguinodynia severe enough to be detrimental to their quality of life.”

Mesh Pain Irreversible
Another group of patients (3%–4%) will suffer irreversible dysejaculation, which 20 years ago, sans mesh, had an incidence of 1 in 2500 cases and was reversible.  That is a hundred-fold (or 10,000%) increase.  Another 10% of patients will suffer severe testicular pain secondary to mesh erosion of the vas. This in some cases requires an orchidectomy. Additionally, transmigration of mesh into adjacent organs is commonly reported but not systematically quantified with any accuracy through industrial surveillance. Dr. Bendavid asks: “With such evidence, would a ‘duly informed’ patient consent to mesh-based surgery?

Mesh is now used in 90-97% of hernia surgeries around the world, but in just 3% of the cases at the Shouldice Hospital.

Professor Volcker Schumpelick, Editor in Chief of the Hernia, in his address to the American Hernia Society (2005) stated: “[D]espite the introduction of mesh and laparoscopy, there has been no reduction in the incidence of hernia recurrences in the last 30 years. That incidence worldwide is 14%.”  So Dr. Bendavid fairly asks: “Why are the European guidelines rushing to be launched as World guidelines?”

Dr. Bendavid has helped launch a study to pin down the percentages of complications resulting from hernia meshes used in hernia surgery.  He says the current hernia mesh surgery complication rate, “estimated at 10-20%, could be brought to a mere 5% with simple emphasis of anatomy. The Shouldice Hospital already demonstrated, 20 years ago, that 1%–5% is the magic number depending on the type of hernia.”

The doctor also notes that it takes surgeons 4-6 years to learn the necessary skills to safely and successfully perform hernia mesh surgery, while plastic mesh industry representatives, who are not always doctors, train doctors to perform plastic mesh surgery in minutes.  How many hernia sufferers would rather their hernia surgeon have trained for 4-6 years rather than for just a few minutes?

Hernia Mesh 10-20% Complication Rate, says Surgeon

How many people would rather have hernia surgery with a product (pure tissue) that can be safely and fully removed, rather than with a product that may be impossible to fully remove (plastic hernia mesh) and that could cause permanent, debilitating pain?

Ralph Nader, for one – who tends to do his research – chose to forego plastic mesh for his own hernia repair.  Mr. Nader chose Dr. Bendavid to perform his recent hernia surgery.  The man who started Consumer Reports may know a thing or two when it comes to safe products.

Related

Share

Cook IVC Filter Lawyers can depose ex-Cook President, says Judge

Cook IVC filterCook Blood Clot Filter Lawsuits lawyers can depose an ex-Cook president, a judge ruled on September 13, 2017.  Cook defense lawyers had moved to block the deposition.  Attorney David Matthews of Matthews & Associates Law Firm will handle the deposition for the plaintiff in the case.  Mr. Matthews represents the plaintiff in the first Cook IVC filter case scheduled for trial this fall.

U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young issued an order that overruled Cook’s appeal from the denial of a Motion for Protective Order Barring Proposed Deposition of former Cook Group, Inc. president Kem Hawkins.  The Court ordered that Cook must produce its former executive for a deposition by September 27, 2017.

In early 2017, Matthews & Associates requested the deposition of Kem Hawkins to question him over IVC filter documents that included emails from his personal email account.  Plaintiffs contend those documents reveal Mr. Hawkins was intimately involved in the decision-making process and strategy regarding critical issues in the case.  The issues included decisions regarding the testing, design, marketing, and production of the Gunther Tulip and Celect IVC filters.

Defendants had filed a Motion April 27, 2017 for a Protective Order to prevent the Plaintiffs from deposing Mr. Hawkins.  However, on June 30, 2017, the Magistrate Judge denied Cook’s request. He stated: “Hawkins was involved in the decision-making process and strategy regarding the testing, design, marketing, and production of the [Gunther Tulip and Celect] filters.”

The judge rejected Cook’s attempt to thwart potentially damaging discovery:
“… Hawkins is the better source for information related to this litigation because he was the president of Cook during the time the Gunther Tulip and Celect IVC filters were manufactured and sold in the United States. Moreover, Hawkins regularly communicated on a personal email account, which Plaintiffs suspect the Cook Defendants did not search when producing responsive documents to their discovery requests. This all suggests that Hawkins has relevant knowledge that is not already available to Plaintiffs.”

The District judge agreed, adding that a review of the sealed documents shows Mr. Hawkins was involved in “strategic decisions regarding the enhancement of the Tulip filter and the development of the Celect filter to increase market share. He was aware of the timetable for the Celect clinical trials and sought to speed up the process to get Celect on the market. Most importantly, the documents reflect that he was aware of the risk that both IVC filters could perforate the wall of the vena cava.”

Cook IVC Filter Lawyers can depose ex-Cook President, says Judge
The Cook Defendants in the case must produce Mr. Hawkins for deposition within two weeks of the Court’s September 13, 2017 Order.  The ruling means Plaintiffs are entitled to seek relevant documents from Mr. Hawkins and ask him questions about his personal email account.

The first Cook IVC Filter trial is scheduled for an Indiana courtroom in November, 2017.

RELATED

Share

Illinois Man files Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit

An Illinois man filed a Bard IVC filter lawsuit August 25, 2017, in the multi-district litigation (MDL) court set in Arizona.  The man was implanted with the Meridian® Inferior Vena Cava Filter (IVC Filter) made by C.R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc.

Related:  Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit

Bard Meridian® IVC Filter
The IVC Filter was surgically implanted in the man on March 19, 2014 at an Illinois  hospital. The blood clot filter was supposed to prevent a pulmonary embolism (blood clot in the lungs), but instead caused the man severe side effects.

Bard Filter not FDA Approved

The Meridian IVC Filter is one of the newer IVC Filters on the U.S.  market.  It was not approved by the FDA through normal channels.  It was, rather, “cleared” by the agency in 2011 under the auspices of its controversial 510(k) process.  An accepted 510(k) application allows a medical device maker to put a product on the market if it is judged by FDA to be “substantially equivalent” to other, similar medical devices.  This market route, however, also leaves a given device maker vulnerable to potential civil litigation.  By contrast, devices approved under regular channels are given “pre-emption” (via the Draconian 1976 Medical Device Act), which allows a given device maker to injure people at will without fear of civil liability. (See Wyeth v. Levine)

Defective Medical Device
The Illinois man’s lawyers accuse C.R. Bard of selling a defective medical device and inadequately testing the Meridian IVC Filter for safety.

C.R. Bard faces 13 charges in the lawsuit:

1.  strict products liability – manufacturing defect
2.  strict products liability – information defect (failure to warn)
3.  strict products liability – design defect
4.  negligence – design
5.  negligence – manufacture
6.  negligence – failure to warn
7.  negligence per se
8.  breach of express warranty
9.  breach of implied warranty
10. fraudulent misrepresentation
11. fraudulent concealment
12. violations of applicable law prohibiting consumer fraud, unfair & deceptive trade practices
13. punitive damages

Illinois Man files Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit
The lawsuit was filed on August 25, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona — Case No. 2:17-cv-02875-DGC.

This lawsuit will be centralized with more than 2,200 other IVC filter lawsuits now pending against C.R. Bard in Multi-District Litigation (MDL No. 2641) – In Re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation.

RELATED

 

Share

Alabama Man files IVC Filter Lawsuit

An Alabama man who required open-heart surgery when an IVC Filter migrated to his heart six days after being implanted has filed a lawsuit against Cordis Corporation and Johnson & Johnson. The IVC filter makers stand accused of selling a defective medical device and failing to adequately warn of its dangers.  Cordis is a subsidiary of J&J.

Related:  IVC Filter Lawsuit | Lawyer

The lawsuit was filed by an Alabama man injured by the OptEase® Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter (“IVC Filter”) made by Cordis and J&J.

The man was implanted with the Cordis IVC Filter on April 20, 2016 in LaGrange, Georgia by Dr. William E. Behm at West Georgia Medical Center. He was discharged from the hospital in good health.

Cordis OptEase® Retrievable IVC Filter
Six days later, the man was readmitted to the hospital after feeling severe chest pains. An emergency cardiac catheterization revealed that the Cordis IVC Filter had migrated to his heart. The wayward filter was obstructing his right ventricle and right atrium.

The man was then transferred to Piedmont Atlanta Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. On April 29, 2016, he underwent emergency open-heart surgery. Doctors removed the OptEase IVC Filter and repaired damage which the filter had caused to his heart’s atrium, ventricle, and tricuspid valve.

The man’s physicians said, “Surgery was necessary to treat and prevent imminent death or life-threatening deterioration and failure of his circulatory system.”

One-Month Recovery from Surgery
Following open-heart surgery, the man spent one month recovering in hospital. On May 23, 2016, he was transferred to an inpatient rehabilitation facility.  There he spent nearly four months recovering from his life-threatening injuries.

Cordis Corporation and Johnson & Johnson stand accused, in the lawsuit petition, of selling defective medical devices and failing to warn the man about dangerous risks.

The lawsuit is Case No. 60565803.  It was filed August 17, 2017 in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

4,000 IVC Filter Lawsuits Pending

Roughly 4,000 other IVC filter lawsuits are now pending against B. Braun, Cook Medical, C.R. Bard, Johnson & Johnson, Rex Medical, and other medical device makers in state and federal courtrooms nationwide.

RELATED

Share