Insurance Dispute Lawyer Blog

Longterm treatment and care can oftentimes be difficult and emotionally taxing for all involved. What's more, when an already arduous process is muddled by improper actions by the medical staff, legal resolutions do exist but are unlikely to remedy the problems caused.

After what seemed like a never-ending nap, an individual who will not be named was transferred to Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center in Lafayette, Louisiana, where she spent the last nineteen days of her life. Her family, including her husband and three children, brought a medical malpractice case against her treating and diagnosing physicians as well as their insurance carrier. After a grant of summary judgment and a denied motion to continue, the decedent's family followed with an appeal against the treating neurologist, Dr. Steven Snatic, and his medical malpractice insurance provider, Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter "LAMMICO"), claiming the denial of appropriate care, misdiagnosis and resultant death. Upon further analysis of the underlying issues, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment and the matter was remanded to the trial court.

An expert witness testified to the medical review panel that the decedent was properly diagnosed and treated, despite the fact that she was treated for a condition she did not have. The basis for this argument was that the treatment for the misdiagnosis of cryptococcal meningitis was supportive for her true condition, cerebritis. Simply stated, this is a bit like saying if you have a headache and take an aspirin, which happens to also cure the pain in your back, then you're covered. While this seems to be a difficult legal argument, the expert explained that because the decedent had lupus, it was difficult to make an accurate diagnosis.

The appellate court reviews appeals of summary judgments de novo, basically starting from scratch, with an eye toward determining three issues: (1) whether the decision of the lower court was appropriate; (2) whether there was a genuine issue of material fact; and (3) whether the appellant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Verbatim, the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 966(C)(2) states: "the movant's burden on the motion [for summary judgment] does not require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party's claim, action or defense, but rather to point out to the court that there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party's claim, action, or defense." Additionally, in a medical malpractice case, a plaintiff is required under Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2794(A) to prove the three following elements: "(1) the standard of care applicable to the defendant; (2) that the defendant breached the standard of care; and (3) that there was a causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury."

The real questions that remained included if there a genuine issue as to material fact and is the family entitled to judgment as a matter of law? It is safe to speculate that a person without an advanced degree in medicine can see a problem with a patient being misdiagnosed and treated for an ailment she did not have. Under these details, it is probably safe to go one step further and conclude that summary judgment was not rightfully granted. Doubt and questions as to material fact are dripping all over this case.

So, why was the summary judgment motion granted? In this case the decedent's family had the burden to prove that there was a breach in the standard of care administered by the physician. In order to accomplish this task, it was necessary to present an affidavit from an expert. It turns out the decedent's family was not able to obtain an expert neurologist in time to draft an opinion. After two failed attempts with motions to continue, the decedents engaged a cardiologist, who was also a board certified internist, for a supporting affidavit. However, the court looked right through the substance of the documents, or lack thereof, and granted the summary judgment motion, which brings us to the present.

Basically, by the structure of law, the defendants had to show that factual evidence exists to adequately establish there is no genuine issue of material fact in order to be successful with the motion. Here, it is not readily apparent that the healthcare and insurance providers were able to complete such a weighty task. The defendants argued that the expert's opinion failed to identity his training or experience, as required under the statute, since he did not specialize in the desired field of neurology. However, Hebert v. Podiatry Ins. Co. of America determined that the particular field of specialty is not the crucial point, but instead the knowledge of the subject matter, such that the individual possesses the capacity to testify as to the matter at hand in satisfying the plaintiff's burdens. Due to the fact that the cardiologist was not a neurologist, the lower court determined that he was not credible. However, it was strictly stated in the doctor's opinion that "the standards of care 'are common to both the specialties and are equivalent and known' to him." The doctor also discussed how it was obvious that the misdiagnosis combined with the complications of lupus dramatically reduced the decedent's chance of survival.

Accordingly, it was determined that the lower court got it wrong. The cardiologist was in fact capable of testifying as to the standard of care that should have been given to the decedent. This leads to the conclusion that an expert witness need not have the exact same training or specialty in order to testify as to the burdens a plaintiff must meet in a medical malpractice case, so long as they are equipped with the knowledge and experience to competently answer the questions. The grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Snatic and LAMMICO was reversed.

Continue reading "Longterm Treatment for Terminally Ill Patient Called into Question" »

The Berniard Law Firm would like to wish everyone a Happy Holiday.

Regular posting will resume in 2012! Have a happy, and SAFE, holiday season!

In order to avoid extreme costs incurred from accidents, some businesses purchase two types of insurance policies. The first and most common type of insurance is primary insurance. Under this policy, business assets and liabilities are covered in exchange for the payment of a premium. This coverage, however, is capped in order to protect the insurance company from excessive claims. For this reason, many businesses, especially those dealing with expensive equipment and goods, will carry a second insurance policy that provides coverage beyond what is offered through the primary insurer. These policies are known as excess insurance. Premiums for these excess policies are often lower and provide a much higher cap on claim amounts. Excess insurers are able to provide such cheap, yet extensive coverage because the chance of such a catastrophic accident occurring that exhausts the primary insurance cap is minimal. However, as is evident in Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. American Commercial Lines, L.L.C., where multiple boats collided on the Mississippi River, maritime accident costs sometimes extend beyond primary insurance coverage, bringing questions of how excess insurance money should be handled by courts.

When insurance disputes arise, many times the insurance company will concede the full policy amount, deposit it with the court, withdraw from the proceedings, and leave the claiming parties to battle out their rights to the money in court. Statutory provisions guide the timeline for when primary insurance policies must be deposited with the court, but what is the protocol for an excess insurer that wants to follow the primary insurer's footsteps? This was the main question in the American Commercial Lines case. The plaintiffs sued the excess insurers claiming that the excess insurers deposited the policy amount with the court too late, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest that could have been distributed amongst the victims. In deciding the case the court had to analyze a couple different issues.

The first issue dealt with determining what law applies to the case. Since the case involves maritime insurance, the court had to decide between maritime law and state law. Statutes provide that if no federal maritime law controls the issue, then state law applies. Because no specific maritime provision covers when an excess insurer should deposit policy amounts with the court, Louisiana court applies. This means, as mentioned above, that excess insurance will not kick in until after all primary insurance funds have been exhausted. This essentially answers the question the second issue poses: when does the excess insurer need to deposit policy amounts with the court?

Though there is some precedent for not allowing an insurer to unreasonably delay depositing with a court and creating unjust enrichment as a result of such delay, the court must still adhere to the contract created between the excess insurers and the policy holders. Through these contracts, policy holders have agreed that excess insurance will not be paid until all primary policy amounts have been exhausted. The court in American Commercial Lines held that policy holders cannot place undue burdens upon excess insurers that were not bargained for in the contract. For this reason, excess insurers are not required to deposit policy amounts with the court at the time of initial court actions. Excess insurers can instead wait until all primary policy money has been paid out before taking action.

Insurance law is complicated and, though this single aspect seems straightforward, it is best left to a licensed attorney. If you have any questions regarding an insurance dispute, please contact the Berniard Law Firm for a consultation.

Class actions are a common and popular legal tool for cases involving a large group of people who share the same grievance against a defendant. Specifically, the plaintiffs have to have a real and actual interest in order to join a class action. An issue may arise however, if a plaintiff's interest is called into question. In particular, whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted against a defendant. Essentially, the plaintiff's have to share the same type of complaint and injury in order to form a proper class action. Many times, defendants will allege that the class action was improperly certified (allowed) in order to invalidate any complaints against them.

In a recent Second Circuit Court of Appeal Case in Louisiana, the court explored the certification of a class action in order to determine whether or not it was proper. The facts of the case include the plaintiff, representing a class of individuals, who all share a grievance against a funeral home, owners of the funeral home, and numerous banks. The gist of their complaint is that the funeral home sold prepaid funeral expenses to the plaintiffs and other putative class members. The owner of the funeral home then deposited their payments into certificates of deposit (COD) with one or more of the banks named as defendants. The bulk of COD's were under names which included the Funeral Home, followed by either "payable on death," or "for the benefit of" followed by the name of the individual whose prepaid funeral funds were being held on deposit. The issue became that without presentation of a death certificate as required by Louisiana statute, the law governing prepaid funeral services, and in breach of the banks' contracts, namely, the certificates of deposit, the funeral home was allowed by the banks to withdraw the funds which they converted and appropriated for their own use. The plaintiffs argue that by accepting the deposits, the defendant banks became commonly liable with the funeral home. Yet, the appellate court is charged with the responsibility to determine whether the class action should be certified, despite the fact the trial court denied the class's certification.

A class action must have certain definite characteristics. First, the class must be so large as to make individual suits impractical. Second, there must be a legal or factual claim in common between all the plaintiffs involved. Third, the claims or defenses must be typical of the plaintiffs or defendants. Fourth, the representative parties must adequately protect the interest of the class. Further, in many cases, the party seeking certification of a class must also show that common issues between the class and the defendants will predominate the proceedings, as opposed to individual fact-specific conflicts between class members and the defendants and that the class action, instead of individual litigation, is a superior vehicle for resolution of the disputes at hand. Here, the class certification, the plaintiffs sought to certify a class defined as "all individuals from whom the funeral home appropriated and converted funds collected by them for prepayment of funeral expenses." Additionally, the motion asserted common questions of law and fact including:

1. whether the funeral home appropriated and converted funds of the class members in violation of La. R.S. 37:861; 2. whether the defendant banks released the class members' funds in violation of La. R.S. 37:861 and the banks' contracts; and 3. whether the defendant banks released funds belonging to the class members without obtaining death certificates.

The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for certification of a class action as a result of a weighing and balancing determination. The trial court found that the plaintiff's did not satisfy the class action requirements, stating that the evidence was insufficient to show that the class was so numerous and geographically dispersed that joinder would be impracticable, that the class representatives would adequately represent the putative class members, or that their claims are typical of those of the putative class members. Essentially, the trial court felt that each claim was too individual, and that it would be difficult to consolidate the claims and form one basic legal grievance against the defendant funeral home. The appellate court analyzed each of the trial court findings in order to determine whether or not the plaintiffs actually had a class action, concluding that they indeed did not have a proper class action.

The appellate court concluded after exploring all of the factors that the plaintiffs failed to fulfill all of the requirements to have a proper class action. Specifically, the plaintiffs never alleged a relationship with the banks involved with the funeral home. Absent any connection of dealings with the banks, the plaintiffs do not have a real and actual interest in a suit against the banks. Only those persons whose prepaid funeral funds had been deposited by the funeral home with a specific bank would have a real and actual interest in a suit against such bank. Further, the appellate court denies class certification based on the plaintiffs argument that a plaintiff may have standing to sue a defendant with whom he has had no business contact or dealing, if the defendant's conduct is part of a conspiracy. Yet, no conspiracy was alleged among the defendants named in the action. In conclusion, the appellate court, as did the trial court, found that the plaintiffs did not belong to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted against the banks in the suit. Thus, the class action was denied. Class actions are a great tool for many cases, however, they must be properly formed and fulfill all of the legal requirements in order to move forward.

Nearly ten years ago, consumers sued Sulzer Medica for producing defective hip and knee implants. The company ultimately settled with the affected parties. Although the underlying facts of the Sulzer Medica litigation are technically different from those of DePuy, the Sulzer Medica outcome is nevertheless instructive. If anything, the outcome of the Sulzer Medica recall may reflect the outcomes that will emerge in forthcoming DePuy litigation.

For those unfamiliar with the Sulzer Medica situation, here is a brief synopsis:

Sulzer Medica is a Swiss company that produces artificial joint replacements. It has since changed its name to Centerpulse. In December 2000, the company discovered that machinery oil had contaminated some of its knee and hip implant parts. Consequently, affected joint replacement units failed to adhere to the bone of recipients. Sometime in 2000, the company recalled the defective units. affecting approximately 32,000 people in the United States. Many had to undergo revision surgeries to remedy the problem.

After several years of litigation, Sulzer Medica agreed to settle for a collective $1 billion. Depending on the severity and class of each affected patient's injury, the company doled out as much as $206,000 to impacted individuals. The settlement amounts offered to recipients decreased as the level of associated injury lessened in severity. In some instances, spouses of recipients received payments. Ultimately, Sulzer Medica obtained the settlement funds through a combination of stock sales, bank borrowing, and insurance.

While there is no guarantee that pending DePuy lawsuits will yield similar settlement results, Sulzer Medica may be a useful guide because the situation in Sulzer Medica was very similar to that of DePuy. In both instances, medical manufacturers failed to safeguard their products, and consumers suffered as a consequence. Because strict liability is the governing standard in both situations, the courts will likely hold DePuy to a much higher level of care as they did in Sulzer Medica. Accordingly, settlement amounts comparable to Sulzer Medica will probably be necessary to make recipients whole for the harms they have suffered at the hands of DePuy.

Certainly, in regard to pending DePuy lawsuits, there is much left to be fleshed out. Plaintiffs' attorneys are still in the process of subpoenaing records and deposing DePuy officials on what level of knowledge they had pertaining to faulty manufacturing processes and whether they could have feasibly implemented a safer alternative design. Moreover, DePuy attorneys are still busy researching and mounting defenses. Only until all facts are revealed can the likelihood of DePuy settlement amounts be adequately estimated.

Stay tuned to this blog for more developments relating to the nationwide DePuy ASR hip implant recall. Additionally, if you believe you have been affected by the DePuy recall, please contact Berniard Law Firm for a free consultation.

Reuters News Service reports that Johnson & Johnson has blamed "lax cleaning procedures" for its massive recalls of over the counter medicines and artificial joint replacements. "Insufficient equipment cleaning procedures and instances where people failed to adequately document cleaning procedures" are among some of the identified cleaning issues. The company has cited to "label irregularit(ies)" as well.

Johnson & Johnson has recalled nearly 200 million bottles of over the counter medicine products in the past year. Benadryl, Tylenol, and Rolaids are among the brands affected. Some batches of Softchews Rolaids were found to have wood and metal bits in the tablets. What's more, odors have been reported in some of the other products. In light of Johnson & Johnson's lack cleaning procedures, one may wonder what sort of research went into the DePuy ASR hip implants. DePuy, a division of Johnson & Johnson, announced in August 2010 a nationwide recall of the ASR hip replacement systems. The artificial hips contain design flaws stemming from too-shallow cups that don't properly house the ball associated with the joint replacements. Complications of this design flaw include metallosis caused by microscopic metal shavings and substantial loss of mobility, to name a few symptoms. Moreover, pseudotumors have been reported in some recipients of DePuy's ASR joint replacement products.

In light of Johnson & Johnson's quality control flaws, and resulting defects, the federal government is beginning to pay attention. The Justice Department is considering potential charges against the corporation. The F.D.A. has initiated an investigation. Congressman Darrell Issa has expressed concern, too. At least one shareholder has filed suit against Johnson & Johnson's board of directors in response to the manufacturing errors the company have committed recently.

It is not yet fully clear how consumers will react once news of the various recalls become more publicized and well known. U.S. sales of Johnson & Johnson consumer brands diminished by as much as 25 percent in the third quarter, and it can be expected that this trend will continue into the future so long as the company's faulty practices continue to endanger consumers. And with a flurry of private lawsuits currently being filed against the company for the August 2010 DePuy recall, the total financial impact upon Johnson & Johnson remains to be seen. Although, legal experts estimate billions of dollars worth of damage will be charged against the manufacturer.
Because of Johnson & Johnson's pervasive influence upon worldwide markets, it may seem impossible to hold a manufacturer of such size responsible for the harms it causes the public. Contrary to this initial belief, private lawsuits are one way to hold Johnson & Johnson and DePuy responsible.

The Berniard Law Firm is busy filing suits on behalf of injured consumers everyday. If you feel you have been adversely affected by one of Johnson & Johnson's defective products, call Berniard Law Firm for a free consultation.

In August 2010, DePuy recalled thousands of its ASR hip implant units after medical watchdogs discovered the product was structually unsafe and caused many recipients metallosis, substantial loss of mobility in joints, and other symptoms. Thousands of lawsuits immediately followed, with most still pending.

Hip implants aren't the only product produced by DePuy, and its parent division, Johnson & Johnson, that have contained flaws. According to a January 2011 New York Times story, 288 million Johnson & Johnson products, including 136 million bottles of liquid Tylenol, Motrin, Zyrtec and Benadryl, have been pulled from store shelves. Foreign bits of metal and moldy odors are among some of the chief reasons behind removal of these items. And in December 2010, 13 million packages of Rolaids, another Johnson & Johnson product, were pulled from shelves after they were contaminated with metal and wood particles.

Johnson & Johnson's manufacturing errors have led government regulators to more closely scrutinize the company and its subdivisions. The F.D.A., for instance, has expressed that it is baffled as to why company executives have not been able to identify, prevent, or explain the recent emergence of problems that plague the medical manufacturer's products. Even the State of Oregon has filed a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, claiming the company has misrepresented the quality and efficacy of its products. A shareholder's lawsuit was filed against the company's board of directors in December 2010 in response to the billions of dollars lost in damages payments to victims of Johnson & Johnson's defective products.

While one might attribute the failure of just one Johnson & Johnson product as an isolated incident, such defenses lose merit once the other failed products are added to the picture. Indeed, the company has produced faulty over-the-counter medicines, hygiene products, and joint replacement devices--products that cover the entire spectrum of medical retail. Based on such observations, Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries, such as DePuy, appear to have a pattern of producing low-quality, high-risk products as of late.

In light of the above developments, it is clear that current safeguards have failed to protect the consumer against Johnson & Johnson's mistakes. Government regulations have had nominal effect. And Johnson & Johnson's self-regulations have certainly failed as well. Accordingly, the legal system remains the only method by which consumers can seek to hold Johnson & Johnson and its subdivisions responsible for the harm its faulty products have caused various people.

Keep checking this blog daily for more information on how law firms like Berniard Law Firm have been using the courts to help consumers achieve recovery against Johnson & Johnson and DePuy. Additionally, don't hesitate to contact Berniard Law Firm for a free legal consultation relating to injuries you may have suffered as the result of a failed Johnson & Johnson product, such as the DePuy ASR hip implant.

In January 2011 the Washington Post reported on the recent trend of younger patients opting for joint replacement surgery. In 2008, of the 277,000 hip replacements performed in the United States, 27 percent were conducted on patients ages 45 to 64. That represents an increase of 78 percent for that age group.
One orthopaedic surgeon believes the trend stems from younger peoples' proactive approach to pain and aging. "Younger people are less willing to accept physical disability than older generations," Dr. Mary O'Connor, president of the American Association of Knee and Hip Surgeons, said. "[Younger people] don't want to hear that they should use a cane or they can't walk or play golf..."

But with increased joint replacement surgeries comes increased risk. Because most replacement joints are expected to last 15 to 20 years, many younger patients will outlive their artificial knees and hips. And when the usefulness of those joints diminishes, a second surgery, known as a revision, is necessary to replace the failing artificial joint with a new one. Revision surgery carries with it increased complications. "If you need a [revision surgery], that surgery is a little more difficult," Dr. Mary O'Connor explained. Usually when [the implant] fails, it fails because one of the parts loosens...every time you have to revise it, there's a higher risk of complications."

The perils of revision surgery were reported firsthand when this blog posted the story of Eugene O'Neal, a relatively younger client of the Berniard Law Firm, and a recipient of a defective DePuy ASR hip implant. On the eve of his revision surgery to extract and replace his failed DePuy ASR hip implant with a functional unit, Eugene shared with readers his fears regarding the revision operation. Denied the usual 15 to 20 years of expected durability, Eugene's hip lasted only a couple of years before it began to fail as a result of a design flaw in the DePuy manufacturing system. Had Eugene known his DePuy ASR hip implant was going to fail so soon, it is doubtful he and the thousands like him would have opted for hip replacement surgery to begin with.

Because there has been such an increase of younger patients receiving joint implants in the last decade, it is likely that an increased number of younger patients have been adversely affected by the defective Depuy ASR hip implant units and subsequent recall. For these younger patients, DePuy's suspect manufacturing processes are especially troubling because such patients are often still working jobs and remain active in extracurricular sporting activities. A failure of the DePuy hip implant for these younger patients translates into an entire lifestyle change, since work and sporting activities have to be replaced with necessary revision surgery and physical rehabilitation.

As the Washington Post article shows, DePuy's nationwide recall affects patients of all ages. If you would like a free consultation regarding your legal right to recover against DePuy, please contact Berniard Law Firm today.

Medical literature has showcased several problems with metal-on-metal hip implants, such as the DePuy ASR line that was recalled in August 2010. Among the various problems, soft tissue reactions and high risks associated with metal-on-metal implant materials emerge to the top. For example, some hip implant recipients are especially sensitive to cobalt and chromium, two metal alloys commonly found in metal-on-metal hip implants. Doctors have observed "soft tissue breakdown and pseudo-tumors" in patients who exhibit these types of sensitivities, as well as other symptoms. Further discussion of these symptoms can be found here.

Additionally, physicians are beginning to balk at the use of metal-on-metal implants due to the newly uncovered information on the devices just now bubbling to the surface. As a result of recent lawsuits against DePuy in relation to the company's flawed manufacturing processes, physicians are just now realizing some of the inherent risks associated with the metal-based units. Some medical observers predict the popularity of metal-on-metal implants could decrease as a result. Not only are physicians worried about personal liability for implanting a faulty metal-on-metal product, they are increasingly concerned with the proper maintenance of their patients' wellbeing and health as well. Certainly, the use of metal-based devices in patients can run counter to such goals.

As metal-on-metal implants have been subjected to much scrutiny, physicians are turning to alternative joint implant materials, such as ceramics or plastic. One plastic model, known as the ADM X3 Mobile Bearing Acetabular System, has a ninety-four percent reduction in wear compared to metal-on-metal implants. Although the potential risks associated with plastic hip devices are not entirely known, they do not seem to carry the same risks of metallosis or soft-tissue poisoning that occurred in the DePuy metal-on-metal implants.

While the future of metal-on-metal implants is not entirely certain, physicians' newfound lack of faith in metal-based medical products are surely attributable to the discoveries attorneys involved in the DePuy ASR recall litigation have made in the course of their lawsuits. Without these lawyers' efforts, it is likely physicians would continue to remain in the dark when it comes to metal-on-metal implants. Indeed, attorneys are uncovering new truths everyday in the course of handling lawsuits against DePuy for their clients.

Keep following this blog for new details on the problems associated with the DePuy ASR hip implant, as well as other metal-on-metal implant devices. Furthermore, if you believe you have been harmed by a metal-on-metal implant, contact Berniard Law Firm for a free consultation on the matter.

Lead Attorney Jeffrey Berniard of the Berniard Law Firm participated in a recent status conference called by U.S. District Judge David A. Katz of Ohio. The conference was a coordination hearing, and it was the first of several that will be held to determine the strategic direction of DePuy litigation. At the conference, Judge Katz listened to several attorneys argue for a position on the Plaintiffs Steering Committee. Berniard previously submitted his application for a position on the Plaintiff's Steering Committee, and even if he is not picked as a member, he looks forward to being an active participant in the litigation on the Plaintiffs' behalf. Judge Katz will consider all applicants, and he will announce the committee selection at a later time.

Jeffrey Berniad is pleased that Judge Katz was ultimately chosen by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation to preside over the DePuy pretrial matters. Because the Berniard Law Firm represents clients nationwide, Jeffrey Berniard is accustomed to practicing in front of judges located throughout the country. Indeed, Berniard has indicated that Judge Katz is a remarkable judge with a great reputation and that he is happy to be working with him.

As Judge Katz considers the various DePuy matters pending in front of him, including applications to the Steering Committee, Berniard continues to work diligently to achieve justice for those clients who have been harmed by defective DePuy hip implants. In August 2010, DePuy announced a nationwide recall of hundreds of thousands of its ASR hip implant devices due to abnormally high failure rates and structural breakdowns. Hundreds of thousands of patients who received the implants have experienced serious injuries, such as pain and suffering, as a result. Since day one of the recall, Berniard, along with other attorneys, have been seeking recovery on their behalf through the filing of lawsuits with various district courts on a near daily basis.

Along with Berniard's proactive response to the DePuy recall on behalf of his clients, his participation in the status conference is likewise consistent with his emergence as an expert in the DePuy product litigation. For example, Berniard has taught various continuing legal education (CLE) classes on the matter to other attorneys. Additionally, he has taken an active role consulting clients throughout not only the United States, but in foreign nations as well. Not to mention, he maintains this blog, a web publication with the purpose of informing the general public about the dangers and harms associated with the defective DePuy ASR hip units.

Feel free to contact The Berniard Law Firm today for more information about the DePuy recall and its harmful consequences. Additionally, stay tuned to this blog for continuing updates about the Depuy Hip Recall hearings Jeffrey Berniard will participate in.

The New Haven Independent reported in December 2010 that DePuy, the company responsible for manufacturing thousands of defective hip implants, spent millions of dollars in attempts to woo doctors toward the use of its products on patients. DePuy, a division of Johnson & Johnson, recalled hundreds of thousands of the hip implant devices it had manufactured after a serious design defect was discovered in August 2010. Just as many patients are currently faced with potential complications or the prospect of revision surgery. Some question whether patients could have been saved from these consequences had doctors not been prompted, via kickbacks, to surgically implant DePuy devices into hip replacement patients.

DePuy discloses payments to doctors on its website, but it categorizes such pay as "product royalty payments, "compensation for research," "meals," "airfare," and other expenses. DePuy paid nearly $50 million to surgeons in 2009, with some physicians receiving as much as $1 million from the company. Even if doctors in good faith believe that payments from DePuy do not compromise their medical judgment, health consumer advocates disagree. "...[T]he reality is, it's human beings," Jean Rexford, executive director of the Connecticut Center for Patient Safety, said. "We are influenced. If somebody does something nice for me, I'm nicer to them than someone who hasn't done something nice to me."

Another expert, Gregory E. Demske, an assistant inspector general, testified before the Senate that "...[I]n an environment where physicians routinely receive substantial compensation from medical device companies through stock options, royalty agreements, consulting agreements, research grants and fellowships, evidence suggests that there is a significant risk that such payments will improperly influence medical decision-making."

In response to calls by watchdogs for greater transparency, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons mandated a disclosure system meant to shed light on potential conflicts of interest between doctors and medical manufacturers in 2010. According to the academy's website, such disclosure was necessary because of "increasing public and governmental scrutiny of the relationships between orthopaedic surgeons and industry." By exposing potentially dangerous relationships between doctors and manufacturers, the disclosure system can aid medical overseers in ensuring that doctors are not unduly influenced into giving patients faulty products, such as the recalled DePuy ASR hip implants.

While some payments exchanged between DePuy and physicians may have been for legitimate research purposes, the sheer amount of dollars spent by the company is nevertheless troubling. Given that DePuy had received reports about above-average failure rates in its hip implants for years leading up to the recall, one might speculate whether physician compensation was nothing more than a ploy by DePuy to encourage doctors to look the other way. As the discovery proceedings in DePuy lawsuits unfold, the answer to this question may eventually emerge.

Keep checking in with this blog for updates on the level of knowledge DePuy officials had while they continued to manufacture defective hip implants.

In parts 1 and 2 of a three-part interview with client Eugene O'Neal (name changed to protect attorney-client privilege), Eugene communicated to readers the menacing effects a failed DePuy ASR hip implant can impose on a person. Not only is the required revision surgery physically taxing, but it generates emotional uncertainty and psychological anxiety as well. For Eugene and the thousands like him, the fallout from the nationwide recall of DePuy ASR hip implants carries with it very real, very human consequences.

When Eugene realized his defective hip had been recalled, he turned to the Berniard Law Firm for guidance. Immediately, attorney Jeffrey Berniard and his staff gave Eugene vital legal advice and connected him to medical professionals who could explain in plain language how the defective hip implants were adversely affecting his body and causing pain.

As previously reported by this blog, Mr. Berniard is using his legal expertise to assist those like Eugene everyday. As he has for years before, Berniard is filing lawsuits for those affected by the inappropriate actions of a large company; in this case, our firm has filed on behalf of patients who have suffered before the recall. Lead attorney Jeffrey Berniard has sought to centralize DePuy litigation to Lousiana and, although his motion was not granted, he is very happy with the selection of the Northern District of Ohio as the transferee forum. Mr. Berniard has also applied to the Honorable Judge Katz in the transferee court for a leadership position with the Plaintiff's Steering Committee. If granted the position, he would be responsible for directing the strategic direction of national DePuy litigation. However, even if Mr. Berniard is not selected as a member of the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee he will continue to be a part of the litigation as a valuable member of one of the junior committees.

Mr. Berniard continues to accept new clients for the DePuy matter, and he maintains this blog which informs the public about the legal consequences of the DePuy ASR Hip Implant Recall. Mr. Berniard is a sought out expert in this matter and has educated other attorneys on the complexities of the Hip Recall litigation and will continue to lecture on this topic. Ultimately, Mr. Berniard and his legal team are concerned with achieving the best possible recovery for each and every one of their clients. At the time of this writing, Eugene's case against DePuy is moving steadily forward due to the resources provided to him by Berniard Law Firm. The same can be said for all of the clients the firm is serving.

If you or someone you know has been affected by the defective hip implants manufactured by DePuy, please contact the Berniard Law Firm today for a free consultation. As Eugene's story showcases, the human toll of the DePuy recall can be staggering without an advocate fighting for you.

This is the second installment of Berniard Law Firm's interview with client Eugene O'Neal (name changed to protect attorney-client privilege). In the first installment, it was revealed that Eugene's DePuy hip implant had failed and he now requires revision surgery to remedy the problem. Below, Eugene shares his thoughts on having to endure hip replacement surgery for a second time as a direct result of DePuy's faulty manufacturing techniques.

In addition to fear, Eugene possesses frustration at the weeks upon weeks of rehabilitation he will be forced to undertake in order to recover from his upcoming revision surgery. Following the original implantation of his ASR hip implant in 2008, Eugene endured sixteen weeks of physical therapy before he got to the point where he could adequately walk again. "After they saw your femur off, your body takes a lot of pounding," Eugene explains. "During the first week of rehab, you have to learn to use your leg all over again. You just stare at your leg and tell it to move. But it won't move. Your toes move, but your leg doesn't." When asked for his thoughts at the prospect of enduring a similar round of rigorous rehabilitation within the next few weeks, Eugene puts it tersely: "It will be a major disruption."

Eugene makes no secret of his antipathy toward DePuy and its faulty manufacturing practices. "I can't understand how they’d put a medical product on the market that deteriorates or comes apart in such a short amount of time. To have to get a replacement is just crazy." Because of the company's mistake, Eugene believes he's paying the largest price. "I'm putting my life on the line," he says, referring to the serious risks of revision surgery. When asked what DePuy owes him, Eugene explains that his ability to earn an income for his family is likely ruined. What's more, the possible consequences of surgery make him worry about his family. He notes "you can't put a price on my life, but if something happens to my family because of what DePuy did, they are responsible. I want my wife and kids to be taken care of if something happens to me because of this."

Despite the ongoing struggles produced by DePuy's suspect manufacturing processes, Eugene manages to maintain his resolve. "My mother told me that God doesn't give a person more than they can handle." He mentions that his wife supports him and has helped make efforts to return Eugene to a normal life. When expounding on whether he ever thought he’d be in his current situation following the original implantation of the DePuy unit, Eugene summons a chuckle. "I thought I’d have a pretty nice golf game by now," he muses.

Stay tuned to this blog for information on how the Berniard Law Firm has assisted Eugene, and those like him, in attempts to reclaim a normal life following the massive August 2010 DePuy ASR hip implant recall.

To document the struggles of those encountering difficulties with defective DePuy hip implants, the Berniard Law Firm presents an interview with one of its clients. While the client's name in the following article has been changed to protect attorney-client privilege, his story is true and, unfortunately, all too common for many others suffering from undue pain and hardship due to defects recently identified in recalled DePuy ASR hip implant units.

"Eugene O'Neil" never envisioned he'd once again face the pain and anxiety associated with hip replacement surgery. Only two years ago, Eugene was fitted with a DePuy ASR Hip Implant. At the time, his surgeon maintained the artificial joint would last 15 to 20 years before showing any signs of deterioration. For Eugene, his DePuy-manufactured hip implant lasted just a little over two years before completely failing. The warehouse worker from Georgia must now undergo revision surgery to replace his failed hip unit with a functional one.

Eugene's story is not unique. After DePuy, a division of Johnson & Johnson, announced in August 2010 that it was recalling hundreds of thousands of its defective ASR hip implants from the American marketplace, swarms of patients suddenly realized that the intense pain and lack of mobility they had experienced following their own hip replacement surgeries were not an isolated phenomenon. At the moment, thousands of lawsuits are pending against the manufacturer for billions in dollars of pain, suffering, lost wages, and medical expenses. Revision surgery remains the only viable medical remedy for the alleviation of pain in those patients who have experienced complications from the recalled units. Like most other major surgeries, revision surgery carries with it an inherent risk of serious complications including further injury, or even death.

Coaching and participating in athletics in his free time, Eugene was healthy and active throughout much of his early life. Once he began to suffer from arthritis, however, he opted for hip replacement surgery to regain his lost mobility and mitigate resulting pain. But several months after the operation Eugene continued to experience pain in his hip region, although it was a vastly different sensation than he had ever felt before. "It felt like little toothpicks poking me," he recalls. "It was sharper than the pain from the arthritis, and it kept getting worse." As Eugene's artificial hip joint continued to deteriorate, he steadily continued to lose much of his mobility. At one point, he was relegated to using the local malls' hand railing in order to remain upright, even though he was walking on a flat surface.

In August 2010, Eugene's surgeon informed him that his hip implant had been recalled. Yet when Eugene went to the doctor for an evaluation, the surgeon did not notice any correlation between the recalled implant and the pain Eugene reported. It was only after Eugene sought the second opinion of another surgeon that the source of Eugene’s pain was identified as a direct consequence of a failed DePuy hip implant. Accordingly, the second surgeon ordered a revision surgery as soon as possible to prevent further symptoms.

With the date for his revision surgery imminent, Eugene expresses apprehension at the thought of going under the knife a second time. The potential for surgical mistakes and other medical hazards scares him to say the least. "Two friends of mine have died following knee surgery," he says. "Hip replacement surgery is higher risk than knee surgery." Eugene confesses, "It puts me on edge to think that once I go under for this second surgery I may never wake up... I'm numb thinking about it..."

The second part of this interview will appear in the next few days.

This blog has noted several times that DePuy knew of the likely failure rates of its ASR hip implants several years before the medical device manufacturer issued its 2010 recall of the product. In light of this knowledge, DePuy nevertheless waited years before it decided to remedy the dangerous situation caused by its defective hip implants. Instead, it chose to shift the blame for reported problems elsewhere before finally initiating the recall.

New evidence has been uncovered showing that DePuy had received credible notification of its ASR hip implant failure rates as far back as 2007. According to The Independent, the Australian joint registry, the second largest registry of its kind in the world, informed DePuy of identified problems in seven separate reports. One of the most striking findings made by the registry was the higher than usual amount of revision surgeries needed to replace previously-implanted ASR hip units. DePuy sat on this knowledge until 2009, when the company finally withdrew the ASR hip implants from the Australian marketplace, citing "commercial reasons." DePuy initially blamed the Australian joint registry findings on "imprecise surgical techniques" by doctors, but was forced to retreat from that position in response to the multiple reports of problems sent the company's way.

Director of the Australian joint registry, Stephen Graves, has since stated DePuy behaved "irresponsibly and very badly." Graves warns, "This is why regulators should not rely so heavily on manufacturer data. It is a complete untruth that DePuy did not have reason to withdraw the ASR before now; we have been telling them since 2007, but they allowed it to be used on thousands of people."

British officials have also noted that the ASR hip implant recall is not the first time DePuy has recalled one of its products. In 2003, the company had to issue a recall for its Hylamer hip and shoulder components in British markets. Similarly, during the summer of 2009, DePuy-manufactured knee components were withdrawn because of aluminum leakage into the bodily tissue of British patients.

In the United States, DePuy began issuing letters to physicians in March 2010, notifying them of the high failure rate of its hip implants. Nevertheless, the implants remained in the American marketplace for nearly half a year until the American recall was announced in August 2010. Moreover, by March 2010, DePuy was aware that patients with smaller bones were the highest at risk for failures, yet the company continued to market the hip implants to those very patients until the recall.

Based on the reports cited above, it is apparent DePuy had scientifically-backed data illustrating the propensity of its ASR hip implants to fail. Furthermore, the company's track record of recalling other implant products elsewhere shows DePuy has a tendency to forego consumer safety in exchange for maintaining its profit margins. Had DePuy acted responsibly in 2007, and removed the defective hip implants from the marketplace, thousands of patients would have been spared the pain, suffering, and economic damages they've experienced as a result of the medical problems the ASR implants create.

The attorneys at Berniard Law Firm will continue to make efforts to uncover reports DePuy ignored when it continued to market the hip implants to the American public. If you have received a hip implant since 2003 and are interested in knowing whether your legal rights have been impacted, feel free to contact Berniard Law Firm today.

The A.S.R., or Aritcular Surface Replacement, artificial hip was promoted by Johnson and Johnson as a breakthrough in design that would last 15 years or more and provide patients with more natural movement. Now, the device has been recalled due to patients developing inexplicable pain and surgeons discovering mysterious masses of dead tissue in patients who are having the device replaced. DePuy Orthopedics, the Johnson and Johnson unit responsible for the hip and the largest maker of replacement hips worldwide, maintained that the hip was working for a long time despite warnings that it was a failure.

As pointed out in a recent New York Times article, the trouble with the hip is an indicator of a bigger problem: a piecemeal, broken medical implant system. Critical implants are sold without going through medical trials and testing or gaining FDA approval if the device resembles an implant that has already been approved. Theoretically, this allows manufacturers to make small changes to devices without having to jump through approval hoops; however, according to experts, it has also created a loophole that allows manufacturers to bundle an unapproved component into an existing design and sell it with minimal testing.

This is what happened with the A.S.R. as DePuy announced late last year that it was phasing the device out. However, the company blamed lagging sales rather than safety issues. In a recent statement an official stated that, "We believe we made the appropriate decision to recall at the appropriate time given the available information."
DePuy does not know how many patients received the faulty device but estimated that about one third of 93,000 patients worldwide who received the implant were in the United States. This lack of exact numbers or documentation brings up another problem: the lack of an independent monitoring system in this country to track implant failures. If the U.S. had a database like those used elsewhere, doctors may have been clued into the problem a lot sooner.

Some doctors did try to get the word out about the problem but were rebuffed by DePuy. In fact, according to the director of Austrailia's orthopedic database, data showed that the A.S.R. was failing earlier and at a higher rate than other devices all the way back in 2008.

Patients who have a defective A.S.R. require additional painful surgery to replace the device. Worse yet, some are permanently disabled due to damage to their bone, muscles, and nerves. Suffering patients often do not even know that the hip component that caused their disability is part of another device the FDA never approved.

DePuy initially developed the A.S.R as a "resurfacing implant," composed of a cup and thigh component, used in a procedure where less of a patient's thigh bone is removed compared to a standard hip replacement. However, because the resurfacing was a new procedure, the FDA required that implant be tested in a clinical trial before it could be sold in the US. So, in 2005, the FDA allowed DePuy to sell another version of the same device, a modified standard hip replacement containing the same cup found in the resurfacing device, thus, getting around the clinical trial requirement. Current rules do not even require producers to notify the FDA when they bundle components from approved and unapproved devices.

According to British doctor Antoni Nargol, in 2007 his A.S.R. patients started complaining of groin pain. Nargol claims he told DePuy officials that he found an explanation for why the device was failing. However, the company did not stop selling it, or even issue a warning. Instead, the company blamed the failures on the doctor's surgical technique. At first, Dr. Nargol thought surgical technique could have been the problem. However, another orthopedic resident, Dr. Langton was not so sure so he began taking blood samples of patients using the A.S.R. and a competing device who were not experiencing pain. The tests showed elevated levels of cobalt and chromium in A.S.R. patients (used in the device) and soon proved that placement error was not the problem. As doctors in Britain and other countries operated on patients to remove the device, they found metallic debris shed by the device was causing a chemical reaction that destroyed muscle and bone. By early 2009, more testing revealed that the cup that the FDA had allowed to be sold without testing was the heart of the problem due to an interior surface that was too shallow.

This case is not the first time that problems with orthopedic implants emerged in registries outside the U.S. well before doctors here stopped using defective devices. Device companies, rather than doctors, patients, or regulators determine when safety alerts are issued or products are withdrawn from the market. DePuy actually did issue a safety alert about the A.S.R., a year after data revealed it was dangerous, and even then it was still on the market.

This episode has led to a wave of litigation around the world. In addition, officials have renewed there efforts to begin an orthopedic registry in the US. Many believe that such a system will only be effective if the federal government mandates reporting of data as a condition of payment of taxpayer funded programs like Medicare. The FDA has recently proposed rules that could require implanted devices to undergo more thorough testing before they are approved for sale, however, the fate of the proposals is unclear and receiving opposition from the device industry.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge David A. Katz issued an order calling for applications from attorneys interested in serving in leadership roles for the DePuy Orthopaedics hip recall case. On December 7, 2010, Jeff Berniard, the sole principal of Berniard Law Firm in New Orleans, Louisiana, answered Judge Katz's call by submitting a letter seeking a spot on the integral Plaintiffs' Steering Committee for the DePuy case. A Plaintiff's Steering Committee is responsible for making strategic decisions that affect the execution and administration of large scale class action lawsuits. Mr. Berniard will find out if he has been selected for this leadership post sometime soon.

Despite establishing his own law firm only five years ago, Berniard has quickly emerged as a foreperson in complex litigation. The Louisiana attorney, who already has extensive experience representing claimants in complex product liability litigation, has been recognized as an expert in the DePuy Hip Recall lawsuits. He has taught continuing legal education courses on the DePuy Hip Recall lawsuits for Thomson Reuters and he plans on continuing in his role as a lecturer on the topic for as long as the DePuy legal situation continues to unfold. Additionally, Berniard maintains this blog, a website devoted to regularly informing the general public of various issues surrounding the DePuy Hip Recall litigation.

In support of his application to the Plaintiff's Steering Committee, Berniard pointed to his professional history as class counsel for lawsuits involving toxic torts, Sherman Antitrust, and first party insurance litigation in his letter to Judge Katz. Consistent with Berniard's varied experience, at least one court overseeing some of his cases praised the Louisiana attorney saying, "This Court finds that Class Counsel are highly skilled attorneys with experience in class action litigation. The substantial settlement amount negotiated by Class Counsel further evidences their competence." The court further noted that Berniard and his colleagues had devoted "an exorbinant [sic] amount of time [to the lawsuit while] assuming substantial risk that they might not be compensated for their efforts" during the case in question. Combined with his varied experiences in class action lawsuits similar to DePuy, these complimentary observations of Berniard's past professional successes by the judiciary buttress his assertion that he is a suitable candidate for the DePuy Hip Litigation Plaintiff's Steering Committee.

Whether or not Berniard is appointed to the Plaintiff's Steering Committee by Judge Katz, Berniard says he will remain tirelessly committed to guiding victims of DePuy's defective hip implants to the verdicts and settlements they are entitled to. In fact, Berniard continues to accept new clients who have experienced damage from DePuy's faulty medical products, and he has filed many suits against the manufacturer already. And like the past cases he has previously been complimented for, Berniard intends on representing his clients with the same selflessness and tireless vigor he has been credited with doing before.

Continue to check this blog periodically for updates on attorney Jeff Berniard's efforts in representing plaintiffs in their ongoing class action against DePuy Orthopaedics.

Joint replacement surgery is just what it sounds like: it is the removal of a damaged joint and the subsequent replacing of it with a new, artificial one by an orthopaedic surgeon. Depending on the severity of damage, a surgeon won't always replace the entire joint. Instead, she may replace or reconstruct only the damaged parts. In either case, the purpose of joint replacement surgery is to improve a patient's quality of life by relieving pain and increasing mobility.

Allured by the promised benefits of joint replacement surgery, as many as 773,000 Americans have their hips or knees replaced each year. But like any surgery, joint replacement operations carry with it certain inherent risks. Such risks are unique, depending on the patient-type, which is why every doctor should be sure to inform every patient of the risks unique to that individual. If the patient fully understands these risks and is comfortable with them, the patient can consent to the replacement surgery and the operation can move forward.

While some risk is inherent to any surgery, there are certain dangers that are simply uncalled for. A prime example is the product defect manifest in the recalled DePuy ASR hip implants. Unlike medical issues which doctors spend many years studying and training to spot, physicians do not have the engineering expertise necessary to identify latent product defect issues that may exist in a manufactured medical device. Therefore, manufacturers are on the hook when their medical products cause harm to a patient.

One system that may assist doctors in spotting problematic medical devices is a National Joint Replacement Registry. While Sweden, Finland, Norway, Australia and Denmark all have national joint replacement device registries, the United States does not. In a study published in the November issue of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, researchers examined 80,000 total knee and hip joint replacements and 5,000 ACL reconstruction surgeries in a preexisting registry. During the study, the registries effectively tracked and red flagged eight recalls and advisories, allowing doctors to quickly identify affected patients and to respond accordingly. One of the researchers even concluded that a national registry could greatly improve patient safety and provide a basis for future registry research projects that would supply even better outcomes.

Had such a registry been in place, it seems likely that doctors would have been able to realize the danger contained in the DePuy ASR hip implants much sooner, thus preventing implantation in tens of thousands of patients. Unfortunately, such a warning system was not in place, meaning thousands of patients are experiencing complications arising from being fitted with one of DePuy's defective ASR hip implant units.

Continue reading "In wake of DePuy recall, study shows need for National Joint Replacement Registry in the U.S." »

The Honorable David Katz has scheduled a status conference to be held January 20, 2011 at the Paul G. Rogers Federal Building in West Palm Beach, Florida. The purpose of this status conference is to allow applicants for the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the DePuy hip recall litigation an opportunity to speak for a few moments in support of their application. As this blog recently reported, New Orleans attorney, Jeffrey Berniard, recently submitted a request for one of these leadership positions.
Berniard says he plans on using the two minutes allocated to him for oral argument to remind the court of his past successes leading other complex litigation, including, but not limited to, suits filed against Cox Communications, Iovate Health Sciences, and Dow Chemical Company. Additionally, Berniard has established his expertise in the DePuy ASR Hip Implant recall matter by lecturing other attorneys in ongoing continuing legal education (CLE) classes held in the Greater New Orleans area, and he wishes to remind the court of this as well.

Since the nationwide recall of DePuy's ASR hip implants was announced in August 2010, Berniard has continuously accepted new clients to represent in this matter. Moreover, he has maintained this blog, which has effectively informed the general public of the risks associated with the faulty manufacturing techniques of DePuy Orthopaedics. These actions showcase Berniard's willingness to lead and share his skills with those most affected by the defective medical products.

Regardless of whether Berniard is granted a position on the DePuy Plaintiff's Steering Committee, the Louisiana attorney is committed to assisting new and current clients in any way he can. In terms of the DePuy ASR hip recall litigation, he remains focused on using all resources at his disposal to achieve the greatest recovery possible for each of his clients injured by the medical device manufacturer. Berniard says he will continue to represent clients against DePuy whether he holds a leadership post or not.

This blog will continue to keep its readers posted on attorney Jeffrey Berniard's efforts to guide the direction of the pending lawsuits against DePuy. In the meantime, if you feel you have been adversely affected by one of the recalled DePuy ASR hip implants, please do not hesitate to call Jeffrey Berniard and his staff at Berniard Law Firm for a free consultation. Berniard and his team are standing by, and are happy to field any questions you may have.

It was recently announced that the pretrial filings for DePuy ASR hip replacement lawsuits have been consolidated to the Northern District of Ohio. The lawsuits have been assigned to the Honorable David A. Katz for supervision during the early stages of the litigation. Judge Katz is based in Toledo, Ohio, and he will be responsible for overseeing discovery efforts and pretrial motions made by DePuy ASR hip implant litigants.

With over 150 federal lawsuits pending against DePuy, it was necessary to consolidate the DePuy ASR hip replacement pretrial actions to just one judicial district in the interests of simplicity and judicial economy. According to the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, these numerous federal lawsuits all contain common issues of fact and law. Therefore, the pretrial actions only need to be considered in one consolidated court proceeding.

Once the pretrial phases of these lawsuits are completed, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will transfer the actions back to the federal court districts they originated from for further litigation in the plaintiffs' respective home districts.
The consolidation of DePuy hip implant pretrial litigation will streamline the exchange of evidence between the multiple plaintiffs and DePuy. Because some commentators predict that thousands of plaintiffs may end up filing suits against DePuy for complications experienced as a result of receiving a defective DePuy ASR hip implant unit, it is critical that redundancies and duplications of evidence and motions are avoided in the earliest phases. Consolidation to the Northern District of Ohio should facilitate this goal.

DePuy, a division of Johnson & Johnson, announced a nationwide recall of its ASR hip implants in August 2010 after a significant number of patients were forced to endure revision surgery to correct complications suffered from defective ASR units, including metallosis and loss of mobility. As many as 12-13% of patients were adversely affected. Experts estimate that billions of dollars in damages are at stake. Consequently, complex litigation and negotiations are expected in order to justly compensate plaintiffs' claims for the pain and suffering they've experienced. And because product liability litigation is only just beginning against DePuy, the recent consolidation action will set the foundation for future litigants and forthcoming litigation.

This blog will continue to keep you posted on legal developments surrounding the DePuy hip implant recall as they materialize.

Continue reading "DePuy Pretrial Actions Consolidated to Ohio Court" »