North Carolina Product Liability Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Multidistrict Litigation

Judge Threatens Sanctions Against Transvaginal Mesh Plaintiffs’ Lawyers

Published on: September 16, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Let me get right to it: Judge Clay Land has a point. On September 7, 2016, Judge Land issued a blistering Order in the Mentor Corporation ObTape Transobturator Sling Mesh multi-district litigation. In a nutshell, he wrote that he was fed up with frivolous claims. Judge Land stated that he will consider money sanctions against plaintiffs’ lawyers who file and pursue lawsuits in the MDL that they know have no merit or which suffer from some fatal flaw. A fatal flaw could be the passing of the statute of limitations, or the failure to find an expert who can testify that the transvaginal mesh product caused the specific injuries to the plaintiff. In those cases, Judge Land writes, the plaintiffs’ lawyers ought to know better, and should not bring the claim in the first place, or should at the very least dismiss the action when the lawyer discovers a flaw in the case which is fatal to gaining a recovery.

The worst transgression identified by Judge Land is when the product manufacturer seeks “summary judgment” in a particular case and the plaintiff’s attorney simply throws in the towel on the case and does not even bother to show up for the court hearing. In those cases, even though the plaintiff is inevitably going to lose the case, the judge and the law clerks and court personnel and defense attorneys still have to show up and do the work of handling and deciding the motion.

Six Steps You Should Take If Diagnosed With Melanoma After Taking Viagra

Published on: September 8, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

1. Stop Taking Viagra.

This is the safe and correct call. If you are diagnosed with melanoma, you need to focus on getting back to health. I suggest you stop taking the drug and schedule an immediate appointment with your dermatologist. In fact, I would say that even without a diagnosis of any skin cancer, you should ask your doctor (or a second doctor) if you should stop taking Viagra (or Cialis or Levitra). If a doctor you trust reviews your patient history and encourages you to remain on Viagra, fine.

2. Get Healthy

Go West Plavix Plaintiffs! California Opens Door to More Product Liability Lawsuits

Published on: September 2, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

California is a beautiful, diverse state. It has everything from wide, sandy beaches to snow-capped mountains, deserts, thick forests, wide open spaces and massive cities. It also has laws and a court system that’s seen as friendly to those injured by prescription medications. And after a recent court decision, more people in other states may be heading there to try their product liability cases.

The California Supreme Court issued a decision in August which may encourage people harmed by prescription medications and medical devices from all over the country to file legal actions in the state. At issue is whether the state’s court system has jurisdiction over legal claims by people who’ve never been in California. In cases involving the drug Plavix, the answer was yes.

The eight lawsuits in question have 86 California residents and 592 people from 33 other states as plaintiffs. The defendant, Bristol-Myers Squibb, sought the dismissal of the claims by the 592 non-Californian plaintiffs.

Cook IVC Filter: “Bellwether” Cases Selected for 2017 Trials

Published on: August 3, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

A “bellwether” is someone or something that leads others or shows what will happen in the future or is an indicator of trends. In the legal world a bellwether case is very important because it leads the way in how a large number of lawsuits may be litigated or settled.

Too Many Cases, Not Enough Resources

If there are many plaintiffs suing the same defendant for the same reason with similar facts there are different ways all these cases could be handled. They could,

Zimmer NexGen Knee Lawsuits: “Lone Pine” Order Requires Loosening Evidence, More

Published on: July 18, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

The Zimmer NexGen artificial knee has been causing patients much pain and suffering over the past decade. Zimmer first instituted a recall of one group of NexGen components in 2010, and there have been other recalls in the years following. Many patients with the NexGen knees have suffered pain and an inability to maintain normal physical activity. The lawsuits of course followed.

In August 2011, to handle the growing number of lawsuits over the NexGen knee, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) site was formed in Chicago, Illinois and assigned to federal district court judge Rebecca Pallmeyer. The MDL is titled: In Re: Zimmer NexGen Knee Implant Products Liability Litigation, No. 2272 (1:11-cv-5468).

Do You Qualify for the Zimmer NexGen MDL?

The overarching requirement to participate in the MDL is (1) to prove implantation of the Zimmer NexGen knee components (with product stickers from the original surgery), and (2) to show through the medical records clear evidence of loosening. Loosening is when the artificial knee components begin to move in the patient’s leg and separate from the bone. This is not good. Loosening can be very painful. A loose artificial knee will cause major complications and eventually require replacement and revision surgery. When a patient complains to an orthopedic surgeon about knee pain after a total knee arthroplasty, the doctor will order an X-ray. The doctor will look for radiolucent lines, which are spaces between the artificial knee component and the patient’s bone. Essentially, small gaps occur because the medical device is not implanted tightly or securely to the bone. These spaces can cause serious problems for a patient with an artificial knee, and can be the first signs of an artificial knee failure. The spaces often fill with fluid or tissue which can cause additional loosening of the medical device.

Depuy Pinnacle Artificial Hip Litigation: Defendants Seek Delay of New Trials

Published on: June 8, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

A request by Depuy Orthopaedics Inc. to delay more trials concerning its Depuy Pinnacle hip implants is pending in the federal court in charge of thousands of cases against the company. The request came from Depuy on May 24. Depuy asks the Court to hold off on further trials until an appeal of one large case tried in March is resolved. That case, which I wrote about here and here, resulted in a stunning $502 million verdict for five people injured by the defective artificial hip components. So Depuy is plainly motivated to delay, if not overturn, the award. If the request is granted it will take much longer for other plaintiffs to have their cases tried, as complex appeals like this one can take years to resolve. As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. I hope federal judge Ed Kinkeade in Texas denies Depuy’s motion. These remaining cases deserve their day in court.

Depuy and the other defendants claim their planned appeal could have “far-reaching implications” on how future cases are tried. Defendants claim the “grounds for appeal are strong” and that they “acted appropriately and responsibly in the design and testing” of the devices.

Bard IVC Filter Statute of Limitations Court Order a Victory for Injured

Published on: May 3, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

I would chalk up this court decision as a victory for any injured person dealing with the C.R. Bard IVC filter. I would also chalk up the decision as yet another example of the complexities of handling statutes of limitations in defective product cases.

As always, let’s take a step back. I have written about C.R. Bard’s potentially dangerous IVC filters, which you can read about here and here. In 2015 a multidistrict litigation (MDL) site was selected for lawsuits arising from injuries relating to Bard’s G2 Series and Recovery IVC filters. The primary complaints have been that the Bard IVC filters moved out of position and/or broke apart. Lawsuits mounted, and the MDL was formed.

Lurking in virtually every personal injury case is a statute of limitations defense. I wrote about statutes of limitations here. To recap, a statute of limitations is a law which limits the time when an injured person may bring a lawsuit for money damages. You miss the deadline, you lose your right to bring a lawsuit forever.

But as I have discussed before, determining when the clock starts running on your injury case is far from easy.

Bard Lawyers Sought Rigid Framework For Statute of Limitations Analysis

In the Bard IVC filter MDL, C.R. Bard lawyers filed a motion seeking a bright-line test to identify the running of the statutes of limitation. The defense lawyers asked Judge David Campbell to adopt a strict procedure for this analysis similar to the procedure used in the Mirena IUD MDL. (Yes, there is an MDL for women injured by Mirena IUDs made by Bayer Pharmaceuticals.) The Mirena procedure was determined in the case titled Truitt v. Bayer.

$8.9 Million Stripped by Judge From Plaintiff in Wright Conserve Hip Case

Published on: April 19, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

A lawsuit can be a minefield. For one, it can go on for years. And in that time opposing counsel can (and will) challenge a person’s lawsuit in large and small ways. By large I mean bringing “dispositive motions,” which are motions that “dispose” of a case, like a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. These motions are defensive attempts to kick a lawsuit out of court before it reaches a jury. By small I mean opposing counsel may refuse to produce certain documents or information in the “discovery” process, or may simply use motions or other tools to slow down and delay the plaintiff’s opportunity to have her case reach a jury.

But the fight is not over when the jury reaches a verdict in a product liability case. If a plaintiff wins her lawsuit, the defense will typically file “post-trial motions,” and after those motions are heard will likely appeal to a higher court. Merely getting a good jury verdict is by no means the end of the story.

Two weeks ago, a federal judge in Georgia stepped in after a jury verdict and stripped almost nine million dollars of punitive damages from the amount of money the jury awarded to the injured plaintiff.

But I need to back up.

In Re: Wright Medical Technology Inc. Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2329); Christiansen, No. 13-00297 (N.D. Ga.)

IVC Filter Injuries and Lawsuits: C.R. Bard’s “Recovery” and “G2” Filters

Published on: April 14, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

In this post we look at the history of C.R. Bard’s problematic IVC filters, which sadly have caused many injuries and several deaths. In May 2015 a multidistrict litigation site (MDL) was selected for claims across the country arising from injuries relating to C.R. Bard’s “G2 Series” and “Recovery” IVC filters. But before we get to the Bard MDL, however, we have to ask, “well, how did we get here?”

Bard Recovery IVC Filter

In 2002 C.R. Bard received approval from the FDA to market the Recovery IVC filter. The Recovery received approval for marketing under the dreaded 510(k) approval process, which I have written about often. Soon after the release of the Recovery filter, reports of injuries and deaths began to occur. The primary issues were that the Recovery filter moved (doctors call it “migration”) and broke apart much more often than other IVC filters on the market. After many of these alarming results, C.R. Bard arranged for a study to be performed on the Recovery filter, and this study, published in December 2004, concluded that the Recovery filter created a significantly higher risk of injury and death in patients compared to other IVC filters available to physicians and patients. The report qualified its findings by noting that given the “flaws in the data” (whatever that is) it cannot say conclusively that the Recovery filter presents an “excess risk”; the report nevertheless concluded that further investigation is “urgently warranted.”

Despite this dire warning, C.R. Bard continued to sell the Recovery filter. It finally discontinued the Recovery in 2005. But this action was too late: as many as 20,000 people still have the Recovery IVC filter implanted in their bodies to this day.

Bard G2 and G2 Express IVC Filters

In 2005 C. R. Bard introduced the G2 IVC filter. That same year C.R. Bard circulated an internal memo in December 2005 expressing concerns with the safety and functionality of the G2 filter. The Bard Memorandum noted that the G2, much like the Recovery filter, had problems with perforation, tilting, and moving. Despite this information, C.R. Bard kept selling the G2 filter. In 2008, as part of the G2 Series, Bard introduced the G2 Express, which has also been found to move, tilt, migrate, and break apart.

IVC Filter: The Problems It Solved and the Problems It Caused

Published on: April 6, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

I have to say, this one looks a little terrifying. Check out the photo to the right. This is an IVC filter. As with most things, when you first learn what the object is and what it is intended to be used for, you should think “Brilliant! What took so long to invent this thing?” The problem is, the IVC filter can move, turn, or break apart inside a blood vessel, causing all kinds of problems, including death of the patient. So let’s take a look at the product and the lawsuits that have resulted from the medical device.

What Is IVC?

IVC is the acronym for “inferior vena cava,” which is the primary vein running from your lower body to your heart and which carries deoxygenated blood. (And just for completeness, the superior vena cava is the large vein carrying deoxygenated blood from the upper body to the heart.) The vena cava veins move this deoxygenated blood into the right atrium of the heart, where it can be oxygenated and sent back out into the body. Obviously the IVC is a vitally important vein inside the body, and when problems occur they can become serious and even life-threatening.

Initial Consultation919-546-8788

★★★★★

I was involved in a case for the faulty hip replacements. Clay Hodges represented me. I can't say enough about how much he has helped me. Clay was able to win multiple settlements on my behalf with most of them being the maximum amount able to be awarded. Matt J.

Clay, thank you sir for making a disheartening experience at least palatable, you and your staff were honest, caring and understanding through the entire process of my wife’s hip replacements, while monetary settlements never make the pain and suffering end, it sometimes is the only way people can fight back to right a wrong. J. V.

We are absolutely pleased with how Clay Hodges handled my husband’s hip replacement claim. He always kept us informed of the progress. And, his work resulted in a settlement which we are extremely pleased. Thank you, Clay! Carol L. & Norm L.