The human hip is a marvel of bioengineering. It allows for a 360-degree range of motion due to its “ball-in-socket” design. But as we age, this hip joint can sometimes fail. When it does, it may require a total hip replacement.
Hip replacements often use a variety of exotic metal alloys or ceramics to recreate the ball-in-socket mechanism of the human hip. A total hip replacement will typically consist of four parts:
These days the e-cigarette headlines mostly involve people who have suffered serious and even mysterious illnesses as a result of vaping devices. And maybe that is as it should be. But for me, one of the more devastating aspects of this e-cigarette nightmare is that today millions of school-age children have become addicted to nicotine, an addiction most of them would have never suffered if e-cigarettes were not marketed to children.
Childhood Nicotine Addiction is No Accident
JUUL Labs, Inc. targeted children in its marketing campaigns. The company spent millions promoting kid-friendly fruit-flavored vape pods. JUUL paid for and developed social media campaigns on Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, and other platforms. Although the main JUUL Instagram account is now inactive, many other JUUL or vape-related sites feature young people exhaling clouds of the white vapor while sitting on a beach, on the bleachers of a school football field, or driving around town. Congress developed evidence last year that JUUL created an “influencer program” with more than 25,000 social media personalities paid to market the JUUL device to teens. And it worked. As the graph at right shows, seven in ten teens were exposed in some form to e-cigarette advertising.
Many of us suffer from heartburn, and one of the most popular ways to treat it is by taking Zantac. Until recently, Zantac was considered a very safe medication and was available without a prescription.
Given how well it worked, along with its affordable price and the perception of safety, hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, took Zantac. In the fall of last year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that this popular drug might contain N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a likely cancer-causing substance.
The past few months have resulted in mass voluntary recalls and a rush of FDA updates and reports about the possible dangers of taking Zantac and what it means for consumers. This blog post will attempt to summarize what’s going on and briefly discuss what happens next.
Here is a strange cause and effect: if you don’t keep your weight at healthy levels, you may unwittingly become a victim to a negligent manufacturer selling a defective medical device. Which ultimately means your weight gain may one day lead you to me and to becoming a plaintiff in defective product litigation.
It Works This Way:
Let’s say your job is intense and over the years you begin to neglect your physical fitness. As you get a little older, in this sedentary state, you begin to gain weight. Gaining weight makes you less willing or able to exercise and you gain even more weight. Soon you start to feel aches in your hip or maybe your knees. This pain, over time, gets worse. Finally you consult an orthopedic surgeon, who recommends a total hip or knee replacement. Because you are a trusting soul, and because the hip pain is getting worse, you schedule hip replacement surgery. At this surgery your doctor implants the latest metal-on-metal (MoM) artificial hip components. A year or two later a new kind of hip pain develops, and this hip pain gets severe quickly. Your surgeon does blood work and tells you that your metal levels have spiked in your body and–of yeah, one other thing–you also have a “recalled” artificial hip implanted and that it needs to come out. So you are now forced to undergo revision surgery, and you eventually find your way to me to file a lawsuit over the injuries you sustained from this defective medical device.
I get this question fairly often, and it’s a good one. It usually goes something like this: a person had a total hip replacement several years ago. A few years pass. Then out of the blue the individual receives a letter from the artificial hip manufacturer or from the implanting surgeon explaining that a recall has been issued for the artificial hip components implanted. (And these are the lucky patients; many people who receive an artificial hip that was later recalled never get notification from their doctor, the manufacturer, or anyone. They don’t discover they have a defective artificial hip until the pain, metallosis, or other injury develops.) If I were in this position, and I received a recalled artificial hip, I would want to know: Should I have the recalled hip removed? And should I have the hip removed immediately?
As with most things in life, the answer is not simple.
I have been a product liability lawyer for many years now, and in that time I have spoken with hundreds of people suffering from defective products. I have heard dozens of variations on a similar narrative. While this is neither medical nor legal advice, here are my suggestions:
Judge Catherine Blake, who is overseeing the Smith & Nephew Birmingham hip multi-district litigation in Baltimore, Maryland, recently issued an order setting out the bellwether trial schedule for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) cases.
Just to recap: there are two tracks of cases in the Smith & Nephew Birmingham hip litigation: BHR and THA. BHR refers to cases involving injured people who received Smith & Nephew Birmingham hip components as part of a resurfacing procedure. The BHR resurfacing system is a metal-on-metal (MoM) artificial hip, but in resurfacing procedures the hip “ball” bone is resurfaced with a metal covering and a metal acetabular shell is implanted into the hip socket, thus creating a MoM articulation. Smith & Nephew used cobalt and chromium to construct both of these resurfacing components. As with all metal-on-metal artificial hips, the Smith & Nephew BHR has been shown to wear down and leach metals into the blood and tissue of the patient, a condition called metallosis.
The second track of cases involves total hip arthroplasties (THA) using Smith & Nephew Birmingham components. These total hip replacements are constructed with Smith & Nephew BHR components and non-BHR components, but instead of resurfacing the “ball-bone” with a metal covering the bone is removed and replaced with a metal ball component (a femoral head).
I get these calls fairly often. The caller will explain that her lawyer just called out of the blue with an offer to settle an artificial hip or prescription drug case. The person believes the offer is too low. Well, is it? That’s a complex question, and it may be, but there are distinct reasons why the person believes the offer is too low. Let’s take a look at what may be happening:
What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate
Often, the problem starts with the lawyer’s failure to communicate. People will tell me that they never hear from their attorney, and then suddenly, after many months or even years have passed, the lawyer will call and quickly explain the terms of a settlement offer then hurry off the phone. This is a mistake. The lawyer should take as long as necessary to fully explain why the settlement number is what it is. In fact, it is important for the lawyer to keep the client updated on developments throughout the litigation. For example, if another plaintiff in the larger litigation loses an important bellwether case, the lawyer should call and report the loss and what it may mean for the litigation and how it might impact settlement (obviously, it’s not good for all plaintiffs if a bellwether case is lost). If the client understands generally how the multi-district litigation is progressing, the client will be more prepared when a settlement offer finally arrives.
Most of us pay our bills on time. If we break a neighbor’s rake, we promptly purchase a replacement. If our child dumps fruit punch on a friend’s carpet, we pay to have it cleaned. In fact, we don’t really think about these unwritten rules often; it’s just the right thing to do, so most of us do it instinctually: if we cause damage, we pay for the damage. But too often companies refuse to pay fair settlements to resolve product failure cases, even in the face of a mountain of evidence that (1) the product clearly failed and (2) the failure physically injured the person. For example, let’s say a sixty-eight year old retired schoolteacher learns her metal-on-metal artificial hip implant has failed; her doctor tells her that, in addition to the pain she feels in her hip and leg, she now suffers from dangerously high cobalt and chromium levels (a condition called “metallosis”). Thousands of other injured people have similar claims, but the manufacturer of the failed hip product simply won’t pay. Why not?
Well, I can’t know all the reasons, but let’s look at a few theories:
Companies Don’t Like to Pay Settlements
Like many parents, vaping and e-cigarettes caught my wife and me by complete surprise. Two years ago we asked our oldest child how many kids he knew in his high school who were vaping. He said, “it will be much faster to list the kids who aren’t vaping.” We were stunned. We knew very little about vaping, and at the time I assumed it was some kind of fringe product used by adults already addicted to nicotine.
Unfortunately, studies indicate that one in five high school kids have tried vaping, but in my unscientific observation I believe the number is higher. Still, there are more than fifteen million kids in enrolled in public high schools in this country, so even if the number is “only” one in five, this means over three million public high school children have either tried or are currently using vaping products like JUUL.
What we do know is that e-cigarettes are extremely popular and profitable for the companies selling the devices. The primary manufacturer, marketer, and seller of these vaping devices is a company called JUUL Labs, Inc.
Last week news media outlets reported that Bayer AG and Monsanto had offered to settle United States Roundup cases for an amount up to $8,000,000,000. That’s eight billion dollars. If true, it would be welcome news, or at least a good start, as there are currently over 18,000 cases filed against the companies. These lawsuits allege that extended exposure to Roundup caused plaintiffs to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a serious cancer that can spread to lymph nodes throughout the body. For plaintiffs afflicted with a serious illness like NHL, news that a global settlement has been achieved is always welcome, because these plaintiffs need compensation as soon as possible, and years of expensive litigation is not good for anyone (except maybe defense lawyers).
The news reports of settlement flashed across the Internet, as such things do, perhaps encouraged by recent statements made by Bayer’s CEO that the company would consider settling on reasonable terms if all United States cases could resolve. Further, Bayer and Monsanto recently lost a Roundup case where a California jury awarded a couple $2 billion dollars for the non-Hodgkin lymphoma they both contracted after using Roundup for years. You can read about that $2 billion Roundup verdict here.
Despite all that, on Friday Mediator Ken Feinberg issued a statement that “Bayer has not proposed paying $8 billion to settle all the U.S. Roundup cancer claims. Such a statement is pure fiction,” and that “[c]ompensation has not even been discussed in the global mediation discussions.” So there you have it. At this point I would recommend you listen to Mr. Feinberg’s statement, as he is a central figure in the Roundup settlement talks.
North Carolina Product Liability Lawyer Blog
