In October 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Public Health Notification warning that it had received over 1,000 complaints during a three year period involving transvaginal mesh products. In July 2011, the FDA reported receiving a total of 2,864 additional reports of complications associated with these devices.

 

In addition, the agency noted that transvaginal mesh implants do not offer any greater  relief from problems associated with pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence than traditional non-mesh repair. Quite the contrary, in fact 10 percent of women will experience serious complications with their transvaginal mesh device that will require additional surgeries and possibly removal of the device.

Sadly, the FDA also reported that seven women have died from post-operative complications and other problems stemming from their transvaginal mesh implants.

The problems and complications cited in the FDA’s Public health notification include:

• Mesh erosion through vaginal lining and other internal tissue
• Vaginal scarring
• Urinary pain and problems
• Painful sexual intercourse (dyspareunia)
• Perforation of blood vessels
• Perforation of bladder or bowel
• Recurrence of Pelvic Organ Prolapse
• Recurrence of Stress Urinary Incontinence
• Infections
• Overall negative effect on patient’s quality of life

Thousands of lawsuits have been filed against the manufactures of transvaginal devices. Currently, five transvaginal mesh litigations are underway in the Southern District of West Virginia:

• In re: C.R. Bard, Inc. Pelvic Repair Systems Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2187
• In re: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair Systems Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2325
• In re: Boston Scientific Corp., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2326
• In re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2327
• In re: Coloplast Corp., Pelvic Support System Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2387

Trials are set to begin on June 11, 2013 to hear four cases filed against C.R. Bard Inc.’s Avaulta products. These lawsuits have been selected as the litigation’s first Bellwether trials and may set the precedent for how juries will weigh claims in similar transvaginal mesh lawsuits against this company.

In February 2013, a jury awarded Linda Gross over $11.1 million for the injuries and suffering she endured after she was implanted with Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon transvaginal mesh product.

National Transvaginal Mesh Attorneys

The transvaginal mesh lawsuit lawyers at Phillips Law Firm are currently representing women across the United States that have been injured after being implanted with a transvaginal mesh product, such as C.R. Bard’s Avaulta. If you have experienced complications after receiving a transvaginal mesh product, it is important to contact an experienced national TVM lawyer immediately to determine if you may be qualified to take part in the multi-district litigation that is currently underway. Call us today at 1-800-708-6000.

In June 2012, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration declared a Class I recall of Fresenius Medical Care’s GranuFlo and NaturaLyte dialysis products. According to the manufacturer’s own records, use of these products increases a dialysis patients’ risk of potentially fatal cardiac arrest by 6 to 8 times.  Fresenius Medical Care is the largest maker of dialysis products and treats more than a third of the estimated 400,000 Americans receiving dialysis.

GranuFlo & NaturaLyte Could Cause Potentially Fatal Cardiac Arrest

Compared to other dialysates, GranuFlo and NaturaLyte contain more of an ingredient that could lead to higher levels of bicarbonate in the body. Recent studies have linked elevated bicarbonate levels to an increased risk of cardiac arrest. Elevated bicarbonate levels can also cause:

• Death
• Heart attack
• Stroke
• Low blood pressure
• Hypokalemia (low potassium in the blood)
• Hypoxemia (low oxygen levels in the blood)
• Hypercapnia (excessive carbon dioxide in the blood)
• Cardiac arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat)

Company’s Failure to Warn of Risks

In 2011, Fresenius sent an internal memo to doctors in its own clinics, warning them that the elevated bicarbonate levels had caused 941 heart attacks in its clinics in 2010. But, Fresenius hid this information from doctors in other clinics and the FDA. It was not until March 2012 when Fresenius’ internal memo was leaked to the FDA that other dialysis clinics learned about the heart attack risks that GranuFlo and NaturaLyte pose.

Experienced Personal Injury Lawyer

Claimants in several states have filed suits against Fresenius including Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts and New York. So many lawsuits have been filed that on March 29, 2013, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the forming of the MDL. An MDL is different from a class-action, in particular, because class-action plaintiffs share a monetary award, if there is one. With an MDL, each lawsuit, once it is deemed worthwhile, gets its own trial.

This approach results in better individual representation and consequently, can result in larger settlements. If you or someone you love has been injured by Fresenius Medical Care’s GranuFlo or NaturaLyte dialysis products, please contact one of our experienced national dangerous drug lawyers today to protect your rights. To learn more about your rights and legal options, call the Phillips Law Firm today. Our experienced Granuflo lawsuit lawyers have represented families across the country in their quest for justice. You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries. For a free consultation visit the Phillips Law Firm websitehttp://www.justiceforyou.com or call 1-800-708-6000.

 

In 2002, the FDA approved Medtronic’s Infuse Bone Graft for use in the lumbar spine and for some oral and dental procedures. Medtronic’s product was also approved for treatment of degenerative disc disease and open fractures on the tibia, as well as treatment of localized alveolar ridge augmentation and in sinus augmentation. It was not, however, approved for use in cervical spine treatment.

According to Complaints, Medtronic allegedly encouraged physicians to use the Infuse product off-label in the cervical spine, subsequently boosting sales and causing a number of serious medical complications. This had led to numerous lawsuits across the country and has landed Medtronic in serious legal trouble.

If you or a loved one have received a Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft for an off-label use and have suffered illness or injury because of it, you may be eligible to file a claim.

Complications with Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft Cervical Spine Use

As noted by the FDA, most Medtronic Infuse complications begin two to fourteen days after surgery. Complications can require the need for respiratory support, insertion of feeding tubes, anti-inflammatory medications, tracheotomies and additional surgeries.

Use of the Medtronic Infuse bone growth stimulator in the cervical spine has been associated with many problems, including:

• Nerve damage
• Sterility
• Respiratory depression
• Compression of the airway
• Difficulty breathing, swallowing or speaking
• Death

Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft Investigation

In June 2011, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee launched an investigation of surgeons who were paid consultants for Medtronic. The Committee announced that those surgeons may have failed to report complications with the Infuse Bone Graft that were discovered during clinical trials. Swelling of the neck and throat, abnormal bone growth and sterility were among those complications.

In July 2011, a number of articles were published regarding risks associated with Medtronic’s Infuse Bone Graft. These articles include:

• Medtronic’s failure to report that many of the authors who promoted its product had financial ties to the company;
• Medtronic’s failure to disclose the side effects from its clinical trials;
• That Infuse Bone Graft can cause severe problems with nerves and the spinal cord;
• And that off-label use of Infuse Bone Graft can lead to serious side effects.

National Medtronic Lawsuit Attorneys

If you or someone you love has suffered a major medical complication because of Medtronic’s off-label use of Infuse bone graft, it is important to know that you are not alone. The litigation process will require a competent and aggressive attorney to secure your rights and get you the compensation you deserve. To learn more about filing a Medtronic lawsuit call the experienced Medtronic lawsuit lawyers at Phillips Law Firm today. Call us at 1-800-708-6000. Our national Medtronic lawsuit attorneys are waiting to assist you 24/7, offering a free case evaluation.

 

In December 2008, a Texas woman received the Mirena IUD and tolerated the procedure well. By June 2011, however, she was forced to undergo laparoscopic surgery to remove the Mirena IUD after it was discovered that the device had migrated and embedded itself in her anterior abdominal wall. As a result, she suffered severe pain, permanent physical injury, and substantial economic loss due to lost earnings and hefty medical expenses. On February 15, 2013 she filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. According to the Complaint, she alleges that Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. failed to warn her about the risks of using their Mirena IUD, and as a result, she suffered significant injury and damages.

According to the lawsuit, Bayer has already had a history of misrepresenting the safety of Mirena IUD. The Department of Health and Human Services Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications contacted Bayer in 2009 about what they considered to be unsubstantiated claims regarding their Mirena IUD.

Mirena Side Effects and Complications
Mirena has been known to cause numerous side effects and complications, including:

• Device migration
• Perforation of the uterine wall
• Pelvic inflammatory disease
• Ectopic pregnancy
• Device expulsion
• Vaginal hemorrhaging
• Group A streptococcal sepsis

There are numerous lawsuits cropping up all over the country and are currently pending in federal courts. All of these Mirena IUD lawsuits allege that the label for Mirena failed to provide adequate warnings of the device’s risks. As such, Mirena plaintiffs have requested that these lawsuits be consolidated into a multi-district litigation.

National Mirena Lawsuit Lawyers
If you or someone you love has been injured after using the IUD Mirena, it is important to consult with a Mirena lawsuit lawyer immediately. Call the national Mirena lawsuit lawyers at Phillips Law Firm today at 1-800-708-6000. Our Mirena lawsuit attorneys represent patients and victims, across the country, which have been injured after using a defective product or taking a dangerous drug. We are waiting to assist you 24/7, offering a free case evaluation. Remember our no fee promise. If we do not recover anything for you, you do not owe us an attorney fee.

The controversy continues over whether legislation should be enacted requiring employers to offer paid sick leave to their employees. From employees’ perspective, without paid sick leave, they put themselves at financial risk when they stay home from work due to illness or when caring for sick children. Low-income workers are particularly vulnerable to financial hardship from loss of income due to lack of paid sick leave. On the other side, many employers and business lobbyist are concerned about whether American businesses can afford to provide sick time to all employees.

Many cities already have mandatory paid sick leave ordinances including Seattle, San Francisco, and Washington D.C., as well as the state of Connecticut. In Seattle, the sick leave ordinance, which went into effect in September 2012, covers employees working full-time, part-time, or doing temporary work within the city limit of Seattle.

Those opposed to mandatory paid sick leave for workers assert that paid sick leave is bad for the American economy. Business lobbyists and other opponents to mandatory sick leave fear that many American businesses would be unable to remain in business or continue to create new jobs if required to offer a minimum number of earned sick leave to workers. Additionally, they are concerned about employee abuse of sick leave days.

Proponents of mandatory paid sick leave argue that job loss and financial hardship suffered by employees without paid sick leave weakens our economy and costs taxpayers in the form of increased health and social services. In addition, sick employees who go into work may spread illness to other employees, thereby reducing overall company productivity.

While some opponents feel that mandatory paid sick leave will result in employees abusing this privilege by taking days off when they are not sick, a study of the paid sick leave ordinance in San Francisco contradicts this claim. This study on San Francisco’s paid sick leave policy, which went into effect in 2007, concluded that employees rarely misused their sick leave. In fact, most employees did not even use all of their sick days. In addition, the majority of San Francisco employers report they experienced little if any negative effects from the sick leave ordinance. A similar study in Connecticut showed that the state’s policy requiring employers to provide five paid sick days only cost employers 0.4% of their annual sales revenues on average.

In light of the evidence pointing to the advantages of paid sick leave to both employees and employers, many other states, including Washington and Maryland, are considering mandatory paid sick leave legislation as well as several cities including Philadelphia and Portland.

Even if your employer does not provide paid sick leave, if you have suffered an injury on the job, you may be eligible to paid sick leave and financial compensation for your injuries through a worker’s compensation claim or lawsuit. Before filing a workers’ compensation claim, it is important to consult with an attorney who is experienced in workers’ compensation cases. The Washington workers’ compensation attorneys at Phillips Law Firm have helped countless injured employees receive the compensation they deserved. Call us today at 1-800-708-6000 for a free workers’ compensation case evaluation.