North Carolina Product Liability Lawyer Blog

Metallosis: Serious Condition Caused By Metal-on-Metal Artificial Hips

Published on: August 11, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Over the years I have worked with many people who had hip replacement surgery. Many of these clients discovered high metal levels in their bodies from metal-on-metal (MoM) hip components. Often the person would let me know that she had her metal levels checked and that the blood work came back with abnormally high readings of cobalt, chromium, or other metals. Still, the treating physician would occasionally dismiss the blood work results. At least one doctor told a patient, “no one knows the effects of higher metal levels on the body. We haven’t studied the impact of metallosis sufficiently. It is nothing to be worried about at this point.”

Sadly, this isn’t true. And it’s not the best medical advice. There have been several studies over the years that looked at metallosis in the body derived from metal-on-metal hip components. The first incident of metallosis from MoM hip implants was reported in 1971. Since then, doctors have been reporting the higher incidence of metallosis in patients who received MoM artificial hip implants. Several scholarly studies have been conducted, including a recent one whose results were published this month examining the impact of metallosis on the cells of patients.

What Is Metallosis?

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,

Depuy Loses Appeal; $8.3 Million Jury Verdict For Failed ASR Hip Stands

Published on: July 28, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Last week I wrote about the dreaded post-trial life of a product liability lawsuit. If an injured person wins the jury trial, and particularly if the jury awards a large amount of money, the plaintiff should expect to face an onslaught of post-trial motions and the inevitable appeal to the next highest appellate court.

That is exactly what happened in one of the first important Depuy ASR Hip trials in California.

The Jury Trial

On March 8, 2013, a jury in Los Angeles Superior Court awarded $8,338,236.12 for a man injured by the failure of the Depuy ASR Hip. Loren Kransky alleged that the Depuy ASR hip components were negligently designed, that the components had a design defect, and that Depuy failed to warn him and his doctors about the potential risks involved in implanting the device.

After a five-week trial in 2013, the jury in the California case awarded Mr. Kransky $338,236.12 in “economic damages” and $8,000,000.00 in “pain and suffering” damages. Jurors in the case found that the device was defective at the time of sale, and that it injured the plaintiff. The jury found in favor of Mr. Kransky and awarded damages for medical costs and for emotional suffering and distress.

The jury did not award punitive damages to Mr. Kransky. The jury did not find that Depuy acted with fraud or malice, which prevented an award of punitive damages. Which was good for Depuy, as Mr. Kransky’s legal team aggressively argued for punitive damages in amounts that could have exceeded $100,000,000.00.

I Won My Product Liability Trial, Now Manufacturer Has Filed an Appeal!

Published on: July 22, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

To paraphrase Yogi Berra, your lawsuit ain’t over till it’s over.

In a product liability case, most lawsuits end in a settlement. The plaintiff and the defendants work the case for a period of time, and eventually they sit down and hammer out a resolution to end the case. However, some product liability cases make it all the way to trial. I have written about jury verdicts in medical device and drug cases often on this site. Recently, for example, a young boy and his family won a whopping $70,000,000.00 verdict against Johnson & Johnson based on the boy’s disfigurement caused by the drug Risperdal. In that case, as in so many others, you may think that after years of litigation and after winning a complex jury trial that the plaintiff can finally leave the court system behind and get on with his life. But the case, sadly, may just be getting started. When medical device manufacturers and drug makers lose a big case with a large money award, expect them to throw the kitchen sink at you after the jury reaches its verdict. Let’s look a few things a defense team could do if it loses a big product liability case.

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.

Risperdal Trial Ends in $70 Million Award for Boy Who Grew Breasts

Published on: July 14, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

On July 1, 2016 a jury in Philadelphia sent a very loud and angry message to Johnson & Johnson. After a lengthy trial, the jury awarded a young boy who grew breasts after taking the drug Risperdal a staggering $70,000,000.00. This verdict is far and away the largest money judgment awarded (yet) to a victim of the drug Risperdal. As one of the attorneys representing the disfigured child stated, “this verdict is a game-changer.” I think he is right.

But let’s back up.

What is Risperdal?

Tarceva Whistleblower Lawsuit Costs Genentech $67 Million Settlement

Published on: July 8, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

You see ads for them all the time. Supplements, creams and pills that will help you lose weight, clear up your skin, improve your sex life or maybe do all of these things at the same time. Whether they’re in late night cable TV infomercials or spam email, you might think this kind of medical scam is perpetrated by small time operators making a fast buck. But scams can also be done by multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies (but in much more sophisticated ways), sometimes with potentially deadly results.

California based Genentech and its marketing partner OSI Pharmaceuticals will pay $67 million to settle claims that they misled doctors into prescribing a drug to lung cancer patients that the defendants knew would not work. Due to this highly corporate hucksterism some of these patients may have precious time robbed from them, dying earlier than they would have if they had taken more effective drugs. These allegations are in the settled lawsuit filed by a former Genentech employee. Federal prosecutors joined the lawsuit, reports the Los Angeles Times.

FMLA: Protected Time Away From Work For Artificial Hip Surgery

Published on: July 5, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

My second guest post was published today on the employment law website, The Spiggle Law Firm. Tom Spiggle runs a robust employment law practice in Virginia, and now and then he asks me to write posts dealing with legal issues that arise when a medical device or drug fails and threatens a person’s job or livelihood. In today’s post, I examine the protections an employee might receive under the Family Medical Leave Act when taking time off for hip replacement surgery or artificial hip revision surgery. You can read my article here: Will I Qualify for FMLA Leave If I Need an Artificial Hip?

With FMLA, certain companies have obligations to provide protected time away from work while an employee undergoes, and recovers from, surgery. The last thing you need when dealing with an artificial hip or knee surgery is that you may not have your job when you are fully recovered and ready to return to work. Under certain conditions, such as the size of the company, the FMLA may serve to protect your job while you undergo surgery and rehabilitation. There are several limitations and exceptions to the protections under the FMLA, but it is important for you to understand your rights and determine if your job is protected by the federal statute while you recover from hip surgery.

Check out my guest post, and good luck.

Failed Medical Devices Deprive People of Vitally Important Exercise

Published on: June 30, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

I was reading an article about the latest study touting the benefits of exercise. It was stunning. The study involved analyzing the brains of two groups of mice: one group in a cage with an exercise wheel; the other in a cage without the wheel. Researchers watched the mice for four weeks. Predictably, the mice with the exercise wheel exercised; the mice without the wheel did not. After a month the scientists measured brain activity in both groups.

Turns out, running and other forms of exercise produce a protein in the brain called “brain-derived neurotropic factor” or BDNF (I feel smarter just writing that name). This stuff is very good for your brain. BDNF promotes the growth and vigor of neurons. BDNF has also been shown to strengthen the synapses that connect neurons, which allows the brain to function better. Low levels of BDNF has caused cognitive decline in people and animals. Exercise increases levels of BDNF in the brain.

Exercise Promotes BDNF and Ketones

In the study scientists discovered that in the brains of mice who exercised regularly, a molecule which blocked the growth of BDNF was less effective. As a result, much more BDNF was produced in the mice who exercised. Sadly but predictably, less BDNF was produced in the sedentary mice. Researchers also found that the exercising mice produced ketones which make their way to the brain and fight off the bad molecules and further promote the growth of BDNF. The guy who directed the study, NYU professor Moses Chao, said: “It’s incredible just how pervasive and complex the effects of exercise are on the brain.”

You can check out the new study here. It’s the latest in a long line of studies which prove time and again that exercise is vital to your health. Seriously, people have to exercise. Not exercising causes all kinds of physical and mental problems.

Study: Cook IVC Filter May Not Do You Any Good, and May Cause Harm

Published on: June 28, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

People who get medical implants don’t do so out of boredom. They get the surgery because they have a serious medical problem or they want to prevent one. Many of these implants have benefits for patients while some, in addition to doing some good, also can do great harm. The Cook IVC filter may be a medical implant that not only may do you no good but can also do great harm, according to a recent study published in the medical journal Annals of Surgery.

What is a Cook IVC filter?

The Cook IVC filter is a wire device that looks like a cone shaped net. It is manufactured by Cook Group, Inc. The IVC filters are surgically inserted into a major vein, the inferior vena cava (IVC), of a patient who is at risk for a pulmonary embolism (or PE, a blood clot that passes into a lung, which can be fatal). The filter is supposed to trap or break up blood clots coming from the lower or middle part of the body. On first look it appears to be a great idea. But many medical emergencies have resulted from implantation of these IVC filters.

Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed by those injured by Cook IVC filters and by the families of people who died because of them. The filters are often in patients too long; they can break up (with pieces going into the heart or lungs) or the entire filter can be pushed up near or into the heart, causing death or injuries.

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.