Tag

Georgia Archives - Carey Danis & Lowe

Transvaginal Mesh Settlement Urged by Judge

By | Defective Medical Device litigation, Transvaginal Mesh, Uncategorized

transvaginal_mesh_lawsuitsThe federal judge who is overseeing the pretrial proceedings in the 7 transvaginal mesh multidistrict litigations (MDLs) urged the defendants in each of the MDLs to settle the tens of thousands of vaginal mesh lawsuits that they face. U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin expressed his belief that without a transvaginal mesh settlement, decades would pass before finally resolving these cases.

According to a Reuters report, Judge Goodwin pointed to the American Medical Systems settlement as a praiseworthy example of what should be done.

Though Judge Goodwin has been pushing for settlement, a few of the vaginal mesh makers, among them C.R. Bard, Ethicon, and Boston Scientific, have been averse to the judge’s recommendation, as they continue to adhere to the belief that their vaginal mesh products are not defective. Still, the increasing amount of pressure that these vaginal mesh makers face may play a major role in ultimately influencing the manufacturers to work out a settlement.

Carey Danis & Lowe Represents Mesh Victims

The dedicated team of defective medical device lawyers at Carey Danis & Lowe represent women who have been injured by transvaginal mesh products manufactured by C.R. Bard, Ethicon, Boston Scientific, American Medical Systems, Coloplast, and Cook Medical.

If you have been injured by a transvaginal mesh product manufactured by one of the makers named above, you may be entitled to receive compensation. One of our attorneys can discuss your compensation eligibility during a free, no obligation case evaluation.

Contact Carey Danis & Lowe by phone at 800.721.2519, or by completing a confidential personal injury claim form.

Stay up-to-date on the latest transvaginal mesh lawsuit updates by reading the Carey Danis & Lowe law blog. Find out about Johnson & Johnson’s allegation of fraud, or about Obtape vaginal mesh lawsuits being settled in Georgia.

Obtape Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits Settled in Georgia

By | Defective Medical Device litigation, Transvaginal Mesh, Uncategorized

obtape_lawsuit_settlementsOver 100 Obtape vaginal mesh lawsuits have been settled in the Obtape multidistrict litigation (MDL) in Georgia. The mesh lawsuit settlement covers 111 cases involving the Mentor Obtape Transobturator Sling.

Women who filed Obtape lawsuits targeted at Mentor, a unit of Johnson & Johnson, claimed to have suffered tremendous, life-changing injuries. These women received an Obtape implant to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI). As the Obtape is made from a defective sling material, one that has been described as too dense to be effective, the women in these cases often report that their health was better before receiving the Obtape implant.

As a result of the Obtape’s defective nature, these women experienced chronic pain, excessive discharge, and organ and tissue damage. Most, if not all, of these women had to undergo surgery to remove the Obtape implant.

The defective medical device lawyers at Carey Danis & Lowe are pleased by the news of the Optape mesh lawsuit settlement. It is welcome news that so many women who have suffered will soon receive compensation for their injuries.

Legal Assistance for Mesh Victims

Carey Danis & Lowe is a St. Louis law firm specializing in defective medical device litigation. Our attorneys represent women and their families in vaginal mesh lawsuits.

If you or someone you love has been injured by vaginal mesh, we encourage you to reach out to one of our attorneys today to explore your legal options and compensation eligibility. Carey Danis & Lowe offers free, no-obligation case evaluations.

Share your vaginal mesh story with us. We are available to listen.

 

Report Examines Defective Transvaginal Mesh

By | Defective Medical Device litigation, Transvaginal Mesh, Uncategorized

transvaginal_mesh_lawsuit_settlements_mdl_multidistrict_litigation_class_action_lawsuit_vaginal_mesh_fda_lawsuitsThe Corporate Action Network published a report in August 2014 examining transvaginal mesh products, a mesh manufacturer, and the women affected by defective medical products. The report provides a brief overview of transvaginal mesh side effects, including erosion, infection, pain, urinary tract complications, and the return of symptoms of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or pelvic organ prolapse (POP), symptoms the transvaginal mesh implant was intended to eliminate.

The report also reveals that Johnson & Johnson, the parent company of mesh manufacturer Ethicon, was aware of the defective nature of their transvaginal mesh products, but neglected to warn patients and health care providers about known health risks.

One of the risks that the mesh manufacturer was aware of is nerve injury.

One woman quoted in the report, Terri White of Georgia, claims to have suffered from transvaginal mesh side effects for nine years now. In the report, she states that her life has been changed forever by urinary tract infections, pain, and emotional suffering.

Another woman quoted in the Corporate Action Network report, Kristine Monje of California, states that mesh has taken her life away.

From these two accounts, and the thousands of transvaginal mesh lawsuits pending in courts across the U.S., it is clear that transvaginal mesh has had a negative impact in the lives of so many women.

Carey Danis & Lowe Provides the Legal Support You Need

Carey Danis & Lowe is a defective medical device law firm with headquarters in St. Louis. Our team of dedicated attorneys represents women in transvaginal mesh lawsuits across the country. Hearing our clients’ devastating mesh stories motivates our attorneys every day in working towards manufacturer accountability and victim compensation.

If you or someone you love has been injured by transvaginal mesh, we encourage you to seek justice. Our attorneys are currently investigating transvaginal mesh cases, and invite you to explore your legal options during a free initial case evaluation.

Carey Danis & Lowe is here to listen to your transvaginal mesh story. Contact our law firm today by calling 800.721.2519, or by submitting one of our confidential personal injury claim forms.

 

Pradaxa’s Manufacturer Presents New Data about Anticoagulant Drug

By | Pharmaceutical litigation, Pradaxa, Uncategorized

Pradaxa's Manufacturer Presents New Data about Anticoagulant DrugOn December 8, 2012, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. delivered a presentation at the 54th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Hematology in Atlanta, Georgia. Boehringer Ingelheim presented new findings pertaining to Pradaxa bleeding risks.

Pradaxa is an anticoagulant medicine prescribed to patients suffering from non-valvular atrial fibrillation. According to researchers involved in Boehringer Ingelheim’s RE-LY trial, observations were made demonstrating that in serious bleeding episodes, patients taking Pradaxa fared better than those patients taking warfarin.

Data from these sub-analyses indicate that patients prescribed with Pradaxa, at least in Boehringer Ingelheim’s studies, exhibit a need for approximately one day less of hospitalization in the intensive care unit (ICU) following a serious bleeding event when compared to those patients prescribed with warfarin. Though, it still remains, and Boehringer Ingelheim recognizes this fact, that to date Pradaxa still does not have a reversal agent to stop excessive bleeding like warfarin does in Vitamin K.

However, in these sub-analyses, the data shows that there is no difference between patients taking Pradaxa and those taking warfarin as regards total length of hospitalization. Though patients using Pradaxa may not need to remain in the ICU longer, these individuals involved in the sub-analyses remained hospitalized for as long as patients using warfarin.

In conducting this study and providing a detailed analysis of the released data, Boehringer Ingelheim has publicly recognized the problems linked to the use of Pradaxa, specifically the serious risk of severe bleeding in patients. Their optimistic comparisons of Pradaxa over warfarin do not make their anticoagulant medicine any less harmful or lethal simply because it represents newer technology when placed alongside warfarin, a drug developed and released onto the market in the 1950s.

Attorneys at Carey Danis & Lowe recognize the risks associated with the use of Pradaxa, and unlike Boehringer Ingelheim, seek to help people who have been injured by Pradaxa use.

For a free legal consultation about your Pradaxa case and more information about filing a Pradaxa lawsuit, contact an experienced pharmaceutical product liability lawyer at Carey Danis & Lowe today by calling 800.721.2519.

Most DePuy ASR Lawsuits Must Be Filed Before August 2012

By | Defective Medical Device litigation, Hip/Knee Replacement, Uncategorized

Published May 18, 2012 on InjuryBoard

DePuy ASR hip implant patients in most states who do not file lawsuits before August 23, 2012 may lose their rights to compensation or to file a lawsuit. Every state has a law called the statute of limitations that sets a limited time period in which a lawsuit for compensation can be filed.

If a person with a legal claim or legal case fails to have a lawsuit filed on their behalf within this time period their claim can be forever barred. In summary, people who do not assert their rights in court within a limited time lose those rights and can never thereafter bring that claim.

Why is the Statute of Limitations for Most ASR Hip Implant Patients This August?

Every state has its own time limit for filing lawsuits called the Statute of Limitations. DePuy and Johnson and Johnson, the manufacturers of the ASR Hip Implant, have a right to have lawsuits dismissed or decided in their favor regardless of the injuries if the lawsuit is not filed in time to comply with the statute of limitations.

Most states in the United States use a two year time period for the statute of limitations. Other states may have a 1 year up to a six year time period for the statute of limitations. Different states use different rules to calculate when these time periods start running and when it is too late to bring a lawsuit. These calculations can be difficult to make and there have been many lawsuits over the running of the statutes of limitations in different types of cases.

Each person’s case should be carefully evaluated individually by an experienced lawyer because individual circumstances can affect calculating this time period. This blog is for general information and awareness and you should not use this information to make your own calculation to rely on for your case for the statutes of limitations.

This two year statute of limitations will run for many DePuy ASR hip implant cases because the official DePuy Recall Notice that received widespread publicity was issued on August 24, 2010. The two year period from that Recall Notice will expire on August 23, 2012. Thus, lawsuits for injured ASR patients must be filed in those states with a two year statute of limitations or it may be too late for those patients to make a claim.

Which States Have a Two Year Statute of Limitations

Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia are the states with a two year statute of limitations for injury cases.

However, the calculations used to measure the two year time periods are different in different states and it is important to have each case calculated by an experience attorney to be sure that the time period does not run out before the lawsuit is filed.

For example, the two year statute of limitations in Virginia is unusual in that the two year time period in that state runs from when the person first has pain or is aware of an injury even if that was before the recall of before they had any idea that DePuy might be responsible. So in Virginia it is likely that the statute of limitations may have already run on some cases where the person had pain from their hip implant before the recall date. It is possible that someone reading this blog could have a statute of limitations that will run tomorrow or next week!

Immediate individual legal advice is critical to making sure that the Statute of Limitation is not missed.

There are many states other than those listed above that have a statute of limitations of two years from the date of death if the implant caused a death. Some states have longer statutes of limitations for injury cases than for death cases.

Are There Exceptions to the Statute of Limitations?

There are few exceptions to the Statute of Limitations. One of the clearest is the Sailors and Soldiers Relief Act which can toll the statute of limitations for some active members of the military while they are in the service of our country. Tolling of the Statute of Limitations means that the time period is stopped from running. That means that some active military people could wait many years before having to file their cases. Our firm has had other types of cases where the statute of limitations has been tolled for decades while a military person is in active service.

Many states have what is called a “Discovery Rule” which means that the Statute of Limitations does not start until a person would reasonably know that they might have a liability claim. I believe many judges would rule that the widespread public dissemination of the DePuy Recall Notice of August 24, 2010 would start the clock running on the statute of limitations even if an individual person did not hear about it or know about it because the test is usually an objective test about what a reasonably informed person would know.

There is another highly complex legal rule called the “American Pipe Rule” that may be applied in some states if a class action is pending to toll the time period for an individual lawsuit for a person who would be a member of that class action. This theory should not be relied on for DePuy ASR cases because there is no viable class action that I know of. The ASR cases are coordinated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict proceeding called an MDL but this is not a class action and will not toll or stop the statute of limitations from running in an individual case unless an individual case is filed for that person.

Mental incompetence can be an exception in some states that could extend the statute of limitations. For example, someone with severe Alzheimers disease might qualify in some states for an extension to the statute of limitations.

Final Advice on the Statute of Limitations for ASR Lawsuits

Every person with a DePuy ASR Hip Implant should have a detailed review of the statute of limitations done by an attorney experienced in medical product liability cases. This review should be done immediately because once the statute of limitations has run there is no way to reopen or restart it. Once the statute of limitations has run it is too late to ever bring a lawsuit for harms and injuries from the defective ASR metal on metal hip implants.

Do Not Rely on this blog as a substitute for an individual legal review of your individual case facts. This blog is to increase general knowledge and awareness of these issues and not to give any legal opinion on any individual case.

I am happy to give individual case opinions at no charge if I can review the specific facts of your case and compare them to the laws of the statute of limitations applicable to your specific case. If you have retained a lawyer to represent you then you should contact that lawyer for an opinion on the statute of limitations.

Every person who has not already filed a lawsuit should obtain a legal opinion on the statute of limitations from me or any other experienced medical device product liability attorney as soon as possible to protect their legal rights .