847-797-8000. " /> Defective device attorney

121 S. Wilke Road, Suite 301, Arlington Heights, IL 60005

Home and Hospital Visits for Your Convenience

Call for a FREE Consultation

847-797-8000

Subscribe to this list via RSS Blog posts tagged in Defective device attorney

Defective medical devices are not limited to those implanted in a patient's body. Patients who must use canes, wheelchairs, or other devices to get around are susceptible to a whole array of device warnings and risks that other Americans are not. According to The Baltimore Sun, it is imperative to maintain wheelchairs and walkers as you would a car, as a lack of proper maintenance can result in unsafe conditions such as broken or bent parts. If the device is broken, it can result in the requirement of extra energy to get around, more pain, or—worst-case scenario—a devastating accident that can result in hospitalization.

The onus of maintaining these devices is not, however, solely the responsibility of the patient. Sometimes these devices, and machinery used in conjunction with them, are not properly built or vetted before it is put on the market. One such incident occurred earlier this year, when a California-based manufacturer was ordered to pay a $1.75 million civil penalty for continuing to sell faulty wheelchair lifts. The lifts were recalled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), according to an agency report, as they had been labeled as potential fire hazards. Even after the recall was announced, the manufacturer, Rincon Corporation, continued selling the lifts to the public.

More than 4,000 Rincon lifts had been sold to manufacturers of buses and vans to help meet the transportation needs of wheelchair-bound patients. The recall was first announced in September 2012 because the lifts contained a defective cable determined to increase the risk of starting a fire. When the NHTSA followed up with the van and bus companies in 2013 to make sure that Rincon had informed them of the recall, the administration found that though Rincon had stopped producing the defective lifts it had not stopped selling them. Rincon later reported that it had sold 356 defective lifts after the recall had been issued.

...

When most patients go in for surgery—especially serious surgeries like knee replacements—they are not concerned with the materials that doctors use. Most patients trust that their doctor is the expert, and will do what is necessary to ensure that the patient can recover quickly and well. Yet sometimes shady business deals are at fault for surgeries gone wrong, and doctors are helpless to remedy them. Such is the case with a device that until very recently was used to aid with knee replacement surgery, the OtisKnee, distributed by OtisMed Corporation.

In December, according to The New York Times, the former CEO of OtisMed pled guilty in a New Jersey federal court to criminal charges of distributing adulterated medical devices. The OtisKnee was not cleared by the Food and Drug Administration before OtisMed began to distribute and sell the device to American hospitals, and 18,000 of the adulterated devices were sold and distributed between 2006 and 2009. The device was marketed as one that would speed knee surgery and aid in patient recovery, but many patients experienced the exact opposite. In one case, a woman experienced intense and lasting pain after the surgery, and ended up having to have a second knee replacement. Another patient said that the revelation that the device that had been used was likely at fault for her persisting knee problems made her feel like she “had been a guinea pig.”

The Times reports that had it not been for a whistleblower, presumably at OtisMed, the public may never have been made aware that this device was being distributed without FDA approval. Knee replacements are the most common elective surgery performed in the U.S.—roughly 700,000 such operations are performed annually. The FDA medical device approval process is long and arduous, and can cost thousands of dollars for the company attempting to have a single device approved. According to the Times, OtisMed, a California-based start-up, saw an opening in a crowded market. While doctors and other experts say that the device is a good idea, because it was not fully vetted by the FDA, it was never decided if the device was actually able to perform the function it purported to do.

...

It has been several years since Michigan-based medical device manufacturer Stryker issued a voluntary recall of their Rejuvenate and ABH II modular-neck stem metal hip replacements, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The recall was made after many patients complained that the hip replacement was defective, causing them more pain and suffering than before the implant was surgically inserted. The main issue with the device is that it was found to be subject to a high rate of corrosion at the neck junction.

In November of last year, an agreement was reached in New Jersey that determined that the manufacturer would pay an average of $300,000 per implant in individual lawsuits brought against it. In some cases, depending if the patient is deceased, the payout may be less. In other cases, in which the pain and suffering is determined to be extreme, the payout may be more. The company, in total, would payout $1.4 billion in settlement claims, though the claim must be filed by an individual patient, even in this mass tort case.

If you have experienced pain or suffering because of a Stryker hip implant, the first step is to seek legal counsel. The next is to enroll in the Settlement Program. Enrollment opened on January 16 of this year, and is open until March 2. If you do not enroll in the Settlement Program before March 2, you will not be eligible to receive compensation. The fact that you enrolled in the claims process, however, does not guarantee that you will receive payment either. If you did not register for the settlement by December of last year, it is possible that you are not eligible to enroll. If this is the case for you, it is imperative that you speak with an attorney right away.

...

In mid-January the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a first-of-its-kind device to treat obesity, according to a FDA press release. The device, known as the Maestro Rechargeable System, realigns nerve pathways between the brain and the stomach. It's the first FDA-approved device to fight obesity since 2007, and is approved for patients who have a body mass index of 35 to 45, with at least one other obesity-related condition. One such condition would be Type 2 diabetes. The system consists of a rechargeable electrical pulse generator, leads, and electrodes that are implanted surgically into the abdomen. Safety trials consisted of 233 patients, in which 157 received the device and 76 in a control group who did not. Though there were some adverse effects observed, the FDA sponsored a survey that found that patients with severe obesity would be willing to accept the dangers for the weight loss it promised.

There are several devices to help fight obesity that have been on the market for years, including those that tie off the passageways to the stomach. Some of these devices require that the patient eat very slowly, or that he takes very small bites. Many of these devices came under fire by the FDA for safety concerns. One well-publicized event was the discontinuation of the manufacture of one of these devices for teenagers after two percent of patients who were using them experienced severe side effects. According to the National Institutes of Health, a significant number of patients surveyed in a trial of obesity-reducing devices experienced negative side effects.

Only time will tell if the recently approved device will have a similarly bad track record. If you or someone you know has experienced negative side effects or long-term health problems because of an obesity device, you may be eligible for compensation. Do not go through it alone. Contact an experienced Chicago defective medical device attorney today.

In what will likely be the first of many settlements to come, Johnson & Johnson has agreed to resolve claims from four Missouri women that its Ethicon Prolift vaginal mesh implant caused serious injuries.

The settlements came almost literally at the courthouse door, as jury selection was scheduled to begin in late January 2015. Since the controversy over these devices began in 2012, J&J consistently denied that these devices are dangerous. Nevertheless, it currently faces about 23,000 liability lawsuits. One observer noted that “it's only four cases, but it's a start. There's still a long way to go to get the whole thing resolved.” A J&J spokesperson emphasized that the company did not admit or deny liability as part of the settlement terms and that “the company may consider whether settlement is appropriate” in individual cases.

Johnson and Johnson voluntarily recalled the Ethicon Prolift in June 2012, along with three other vaginal mesh implants. Other manufacturers include Boston Scientific, American Medical Systems and Coloplast.

...
Elite Lawyer Badge Illinois State Bar Association Illinois Trial Lawyers Asscociation NACBA Manta Member BBB North western suburban bar association 10 Best Personal Injury Law Firms
Back to Top