North Carolina Product Liability Lawyer Blog

2017 Depuy ASR Hip Settlement Extension: The Latest Information

Published on: April 24, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

We are getting more clarity on the recent extension of the Settlement Agreement in the Depuy ASR artificial hip litigation. As I wrote about in a previous post, the ASR Settlement has now been extended to cover people implanted with the Depuy ASR hip who received a revision surgery between January 31, 2015 and February 15, 2017. This is an important development because up to this point the Settlement did not include any injured people who had undergone revision surgery after January 31, 2015. And this represented a lot of people.

Last week the Depuy ASR MDL executive committees sent correspondence with more clarification of the extension agreement. To make things easy, I am going to refer to this Depuy ASR extension agreement as the “Third Settlement” (because it follows two prior Settlement Agreements which had clearly defined terms and clearly defined deadlines).

Third Settlement Enrollment Deadlines

Stryker LFIT V40 Artificial Hip Lawsuits Get Multidistrict Litigation Site

Published on: April 13, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

We’ve previously blogged about Stryker LFIT V40 artificial hip problems, discussing a recall made back in August 2016 and how to tell if you have an artificial hip that’s part of that recall. Since those posts a lot has been going on in courthouses across the country, with dozens of lawsuits popping up from individuals who received affected artificial hips made by Striker Orthopaedics and its subsidiary, Howmedica Osteonics Corporation (HOC).

Just recently, approximately 33 pending lawsuits against HOC were consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL). In a way, you can think of this consolidation as a “things just got real” moment for HOC. But what’s the big deal about the Stryker LFIT V40 litigation now being in MDL status? Let’s begin by discussing the underlying lawsuits.

Why Are the Plaintiffs Suing?

Depuy Pinnacle Plaintiffs Fight to Restore Full Punitive Damages Award

Published on: April 5, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

Now it’s the plaintiffs’ turn. The five victims of the Depuy Pinnacle artificial hip have answered the appeal of Depuy Orthopaedics and Johnson & Johnson in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. And as they did at trial, the plaintiffs have come out fighting.

Recap of Depuy’s Appeal

A few weeks ago I wrote about the appeal brought by Depuy and Johnson & Johnson after a Texas jury awarded $502 million dollars to five plaintiffs. You can read about the Defendants’ appeal here. But to recap, Depuy and J&J argue that they were unfairly prejudiced by the plaintiffs’ team aggressive tactics at trial. They argue that Defendants are entitled to a new trial because the plaintiffs’ team had “a strategy” to “inflame the jury through highly prejudicial evidence and wholly inappropriate argument.”

Fosamax Users With Femur Breaks Win Appeal, Lawsuits Restored

Published on: March 24, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

Osteoporosis is a disease where the human body’s bones become weaker. It is a common issue with women who have gone through menopause. The drug company Merck developed a drug called Fosamax (alendronate) hoping to prevent and treat osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

As with all other drugs, Fosamax had side effects, one of which was actually increasing the risk of femoral (thigh) bone fractures. Thousands of users of Fosamax suffered this side effect and sued Merck.

Even though there were a lot of plaintiffs suing, many of their cases became consolidated into a multi-district litigation, or MDL, in New Jersey.

Depuy Files Appeal of $502 Million Depuy Pinnacle Verdict

Published on: March 21, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

I will not forget my first jury trial. It was many years ago, not long after I graduated from law school, and let’s just say I was in over my head a bit. It was a simple car crash case. I represented a driver who was rear-ended and injured (but not seriously). I walked my client through his direct examination, and I thought it was going well. Then the insurance defense lawyer was given the opportunity to cross-examine my client. He asked simple questions about the severity of the injuries (“were you able to return to work a week later?”) and after eight or ten of these questions, I objected. The judge peered down at me over his reading glasses:

“Counselor?”
“Yes your honor, I object.”
“On what grounds?”
“This line of questioning is prejudicial.”
“Prejudicial?”
“Yes, your honor. I move to strike the testimony as prejudicial.”

The judge sat back in his chair. “Mr. Hodges, wouldn’t every question on cross-examination be prejudicial to your case?” This query reminded me of the complete language of Rule of Evidence 403: The court may “exclude relevant evidence if its value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.” I had remembered most of the rule, but not the key word: unfair. All evidence presented in any court case is supposed to be prejudicial to the other side’s case. To exclude evidence under Rule 403, the testimony must be unfairly prejudicial.

But the judge was still waiting for my answer. The jury waited too. I tried my best:
“Well, yes, your honor. But this testimony is unfairly prejudicial.” At least I had finally wedged in the key word.
“I don’t think so, counselor, objection overruled.”

Depuy ASR Artificial Hip Settlement Deadlines Extended

Published on: March 15, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

Some late-breaking news: The Depuy ASR Settlement Agreement has been extended to cover injured people who received a revision surgery after January 31, 2015. The extension was announced yesterday. Here’s how it works: if you received a Depuy ASR artificial hip, and then had revision surgery to remove the component between January 31, 2015 and February 15, 2017, you now may qualify to participate in the Settlement Agreement negotiated between plaintiffs and the defendants.

Let’s back up.

Before Yesterday, Where Were We?

Viagra Lawsuit Sets Out Plaintiffs’ Claims For Increased Melanoma Risk

Published on: March 10, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

The Viagra litigation is ramping up. Last April the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) created a multidistrict litigation site in the Northern District of California for lawsuits alleging injury against Pfizer from the use of Viagra. Since then, the Viagra lawsuits have piled up in California federal court.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Viagra (sildenafil citrate) for sale in 1998. It set out to fix an intimate and unhappy problem: erectile dysfunction. One study indicated that thirty million men may suffer from erectile dysfunction. And it worked (I’ve heard). Millions of men standing on the sidelines were back in the game.

The reason I know it worked is because Viagra’s manufacturer, Pfizer, Inc., sold $1.8 billion dollars worth of the drug in 2013. Pfizer has self-reported that it has prescribed Viagra to 35 million men. All over the country and all over the world, those 30th wedding anniversary weekends were suddenly a lot more fun. And that’s a wonderful thing.

Smith & Nephew Artificial Hip Problems: What’s Going On?

Published on: March 7, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

I recently blogged about artificial hip failures. Fortunately, these hip failures are not common when you look at the total number of patients receiving hip implants every year. However, when there is a failure, it can be extremely unpleasant, to put it lightly.

And it’s not just one medical device manufacturer with implants that are causing problems. Stryker, DePuy, Zimmer, and Wright are just some of the companies who have had issues with their artificial hip implants. If you’re curious, you can read more about some of them in my other blog post.

One such company that’s been in the news lately is Smith & Nephew. Over the course of the past few years, Smith & Nephew has instituted a string of recalls and is now at the beginning of a potentially expensive legal fight, with even more lawsuits expected. So what exactly is going on with Smith & Nephew’s artificial hip implants?

Zimmer Biomet Reverse Shoulder Product Recall: What You Should Know

Published on: February 21, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

Shoulder replacement surgeries are common and provide relief to thousands. But some conventional shoulder replacement surgeries don’t work, requiring a different type of shoulder replacement surgery.

In a typical shoulder replacement, artificial components replace natural ones, such that an artificial cup is placed into the shoulder while an artificial ball is placed at the top of the humerus, or arm bone. For individuals with rotator cuff tears and arthropathy, which is a complex type of shoulder arthritis, this type of shoulder replacement surgery doesn’t work.

Instead, patients must obtain a reverse shoulder replacement, which places the ball in the shoulder and the cup at the top of the humerus. One such reverse shoulder replacement medical device is Zimmer Biomet’s Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder System. However, this product has recently been recalled by Zimmer Biomet.

The Reverse Shoulder Recall

On December 15, 2016, Zimmer Biomet recalled its Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder System, noting that it was fracturing far more often than expected and could lead to serious problems, such as infection, inability to use the shoulder and even death. Fracturing is an unusual problem, since most shoulder replacement complications do not involve fracturing, but instead deal with excessive wear, dislocating and loosening of joint components.

Due to the severity of the problem with the Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder System, the U.S. Food Drug and Administration (FDA) classified this recall as a Class I recall, which is the most serious type of recall available.

“Off-Label” Drug Use: Pursuing Profits at the Expense of Safety?

Published on: February 17, 2017 | By Clay Hodges

Let me state the obvious: companies sell you stuff with one purpose in mind, to make money. McDonald’s doesn’t sell you quarter pounders because the company believes what you need to live a better life is to eat more quarter pounders. The NRA doesn’t advocate gun ownership because it believes you need to own five Glock 9s (you don’t), but rather so the gun makers can sell more guns. Mercedes doesn’t make expensive cars because its board of directors hope to improve the world by selling you cars with heated leather seats. Every company sets out first to last to make money. And the more money the better.

So it goes with pharmaceutical companies. The general public may sleepwalk through the concept and lazily presume that the primary motivation for drug companies is to develop medications which cure diseases or which minimize the suffering from diseases. But in fact the motivation for pharmaceutical companies is to make money, and a lot of it. This is rather obvious and not a controversial point, and I’d like to believe that every “BigPharma” corporate board would agree with me. But it helps to keep this profit motive in mind when doing research on drugs you have been prescribed or which you are currently taking. And to be hyper-vigilant about assessing any new “wonder drugs” which hit the market.

“Off-Label” Drug Promotion

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.