Tag Archives: Exceed

DePuy Pinnacle Lawsuits Continue to Mount, as Federal Claims Exceed 4,400, Bernstein Liebhard LLP Reports

Posted on by


New York, NY (PRWEB) July 03, 2013

DePuy Pinnacle lawsuit claims involving an all-metal version of the DePuy Pinnacle Hip Replacement Program continue to mount in the federal multidistrict litigation underway in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Bernstein Liebhard LLP reports. According to a Master Case List issued by the Court on July 1, 2013, 4,445 DePuy Pinnacle hip replacement lawsuits were pending in the proceeding as of June 30th. (In re: DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. Pinnacle Hip Implant Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2244 N.D. Texas)

&#13

Our Firm continues to receive inquiries from individuals who have suffered metallosis, premature device failure and other serious complications allegedly related with the metal-on-metal DePuy Pinnacle hip replacement. We anticipate that filings in this litigation will continue to increase in the coming months, says Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing the victims of defective drugs and health-related devices. Jeffrey S. Grand, a companion with Bernstein Liebhard LLP, serves on the Plaintiffs Steering Committee for the federal litigation, while the Firms DePuy Pinnacle lawyers continue to offer you cost-free legal evaluations to alleged victims of severe complications connected with the all-metal DePuy Pinnacle Hip Replacement Method.

&#13

DePuy Pinnacle Hip Replacement Lawsuits&#13

All of the DePuy Pinnacle hip replacement lawsuits pending in the Northern District of Texas involve a version of the Pinnacle hip method that utilized the Ultamet liner. According to court documents, plaintiffs allege that they have suffered premature implant failure, metallosis and other serious complications due to the propensity of the device to shed dangerous amounts of metal ions into the tissue surrounding the implant, as effectively as the blood stream. The lawsuits further allege that the all-metal Pinnacle shares some of the same style flaws that prompted DePuy Orthopaedics to recall its ASR line of metal hip implants in 2010, and question no matter whether this version of Pinnacle program must have been recalled as properly.

&#13

Even though it does not seem that a DePuy Pinnacle recall is imminent, DePuy Orthopaedics did announce in May possibly that it would be ending sales of all-metal hips, which includes the metal-on-metal Pinnacle. While the firm did not cite the increasing number of DePuy Pinnacle hip replacement lawsuits as a contributing issue to this selection, it did note that demand for metal-on-metal hips has slipped in recent years. According to a May 17th report from The New York Occasions, DePuy also cited a proposed regulation from the U.S. Food &amp Drug Administration (FDA) that would demand the producers of metal-on-metal hips at the moment on the industry to conduct post-marketplace safety research in order to preserve promoting the goods.*

&#13

Victims of significant complications allegedly associated with the metal-on-metal DePuy Pinnacle hip implant may possibly be entitled to compensation for their healthcare care, discomfort and suffering, and other damages. Added details about filing a DePuy Pinnacle hip replacement lawsuit is offered at Bernstein Liebhards site. For a free, no obligation legal consultation with a DePuy Pinnacle lawyer, please call 800-511-5092 today.

&#13

*nytimes.com/2013/05/17/company/jj-is-phasing-out-metal-replacement-hips.html?ref=health&amp_r=

&#13

About Bernstein Liebhard LLP &#13

Bernstein Liebhard LLP is a New York-primarily based law firm exclusively representing injured persons in complex person and class action lawsuits nationwide since 1993, which includes these who have been harmed by dangerous drugs, defective health-related devices and customer goods. The firm has been named by The National Law Journal to the Plaintiffs Hot List, recognizing the best plaintiffs firms in the nation, for the past ten consecutive years.

&#13

Bernstein Liebhard LLP &#13

10 East 40th Street &#13

New York, New York 10016 &#13

800-511-5092

&#13

Lawyer Advertising.

Ethicon Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits Continue, as Claims in New Jersey Litigation Exceed 3,000, Bernstein Liebhard LLP Reports

Posted on by


New York, NY (PRWEB) June 21, 2013

Vaginal mesh lawsuit filings involving Ethicon Inc.s Gynecare pelvic mesh items continue to mount in a consolidated litigation underway in New Jerseys Atlantic County Superior Court, Bernstein Liebhard LLP reports. According to the most recent Case List issued by the Court, 3,017 claims have been filed in the New Jersey Ethicon litigation on behalf of alleged victims of vaginal mesh complications. Firm partner, Jeffrey S. Grand, is serving as Co-Liaison Counsel for this litigation. (In re: Pelvic Mesh/Gynecare Litigation, No. 6341-ten).

&#13

It is not at all surprising that the vaginal mesh lawsuits filed in the New Jersey Ethicon litigation have reached this milestone. Practically two years following the FDA issued its final public overall health notification with regards to the risks linked with transvaginal mesh, we continue to hear from alleged victims of vaginal mesh complications on a standard basis, says Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing victims of defective drugs and healthcare devices. The Firm continues to evaluate transvaginal mesh lawsuits on behalf of women allegedly injured by pelvic mesh products marketed by Ethicon, Inc. and other companies.

&#13

Vaginal Mesh Complications&#13

Concerns over complications related with transvaginal mesh devices have been mounting considering that October 2008, when the U.S. Meals and Drug Administration (FDA) alerted the public that it had received much more than 1,000 adverse occasion reports involving individuals who had received the implants to treat pelvic organ prolapse and anxiety urinary incontinence. In July 2011, the FDA issued a second alert after such reports improved by five-fold, with the regulator now warning that the frequency of complications related with transvaginal prolapse repair was not rare. According to the agency, the most frequently reported vaginal mesh complications contain mesh erosion via the vaginal epithelium, pain, urinary difficulties and infection.*

&#13

In March, the Plaintiff in the initial Ethicon mesh lawsuit to head to trial in the U.S. was awarded more than $ 11 million, like $ 7.76 million in punitive damages, after a jury in New Jersey Superior Court discovered that patients were not properly warned about the risks associated with the Gynecare Prolift device. Jeffrey S. Grand also served on the Plaintiffs trial group for this case. (Gross v. Gynecare Inc., Atl-L-6966-ten, Superior Court of Atlantic County, New Jersey)

&#13

Mr. Grand is also serving as Co-Liaison Counsel for a consolidated litigation underway in Atlantic County Superior Court for lawsuits involving pelvic mesh manufactured by C.R. Bard Inc. (In re: Pelvic Mesh Litigation/Bard, No. L-6339-ten), and is a member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committees in four federal transvaginal mesh multi-district litigations underway in U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia. These proceedings incorporate: In re: Boston Scientific Corp., Pelvic Repair Systems Goods Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2326) In re: C.R. Bard, Inc., In Re: American Healthcare Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair Systems Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2325) In re: C.R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair Systems Items Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2187) and In re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair Systems Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2327). The 1st trial in that litigation, involving a C.R. Bard vaginal mesh lawsuit, is scheduled to begin on July 8, 2013.

&#13

Alleged victims of vaginal mesh injuries might be eligible to seek compensation for health-related costs, discomfort and suffering and other damages. Learn a lot more about how to file a vaginal mesh lawsuit by going to Bernstein Liebhard’s internet site, or by contacting one particular of the Firms attorneys straight at 800-511-5092.

&#13

*fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/UroGynSurgicalMesh/default.htm

&#13

About Bernstein Liebhard LLP &#13

Bernstein Liebhard LLP is a New York-primarily based law firm exclusively representing injured persons in complex person and class action lawsuits nationwide given that 1993, including those who have been harmed by dangerous drugs, defective medical devices and customer products. The firm has been named by The National Law Journal to the Plaintiffs Hot List, recognizing the prime plaintiffs firms in the nation, for the past ten consecutive years.

&#13

Bernstein Liebhard LLP &#13

10 East 40th Street &#13

New York, New York 10016 &#13

(800) 511-5092

&#13

Attorney Advertising.

Pradaxa Lawsuits Mount, as Filings in Federal Pradaxa Side Effect Litigation Exceed 800, Bernstein Liebhard LLP Reports

Posted on by


New York, New York (PRWEB) May 25, 2013

Pradaxa lawsuits filed on behalf of patients who allegedly suffered serious, life-threatening episodes of internal bleeding while using the blood thinner continue to mount in a federal litigation underway in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, Bernstein Liebhard LLP reports. According to a posting on the Courts website, 818 Pradaxa side effect claims had been filed in the litigation as of May 24, 2013. Thats up from 705 claims reported by the Court on May 15th. ( In Re: Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2385)

We are not surprised that the Pradaxa lawsuits filed in this litigation are increasing at such a rapid rate. Our Firm receives inquiries on a regular basis from Pradaxa patients who have allegedly suffered serious instances of internal bleeding, says Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing victims of defective drugs and medical devices. The Firm is offering free Pradaxa side effect lawsuit evaluations to anyone who suffered internal bleeding while using the blood thinner.

Pradaxa Side Effects

Plaintiffs with claims pending in the Pradaxa side effect litigation allege that Boehringer Ingelheim failed to adequately warn that there is no readily-available antidote for internal bleeding that is sometimes associated with use of the blood thinner. According to a Bloomberg.com report published in December 2012, regulators in several countries have issued alerts regarding Pradaxas potential to cause dangerous internal bleeding in some patients.* Pradaxa was supposed to be an improvement over warfarin, a decades old blood thinner. However, warfarin bleeding can be stopped via the administration of vitamin K, while dialysis is the only available treatment for this Pradaxa side effect.