DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., announced it is voluntarily recalling the ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System used in hip replacement surgery. According to some reports, 1 in 8 patients with these hips required a replacement surgery, also known as revision surgery, to replace the implants. The risk for revision was higher with ASR head sizes below 50 mm in diameter and among female patients. Many observers expect this already high failure rate to increase dramatically as problems with the DePuy ASR hip systems become more widely publicized.
Depuy issued the following statement: "We regret that this recall will be concerning for patients, their family members and surgeons," said David Floyd, president, DePuy Orthopaedics. "We are committed to assisting patients and health care providers by providing information through multiple channels and paying for the cost of doctor visits, tests and procedures associated with the recall."
Denying that its decision to do so was related to reports of failures of the ASR systems, late last year DePuy ceased sales of the products. By that time, almost 100,000 of the systems had been implanted in patients worldwide. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. is the orthopedic subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.
Unfortunately, DePuy's recall of the ASR systems comes too late for patients that were sold these devices. Unlike most product recalls, this recall is for a product that has been implanted in a person's hip. As a result, the recalled product can only be replaced with the patient going through a painful and debilitating surgery and rehabilitation.
Attorney Chris Hellums and the firm of Pittman Dutton & Hellums has previously represented individuals numerous medical product failure claims. For a free case evaluation, contact Chris Hellums at Chrish@PittmanDutton.com or toll free at 866-515-8880.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
DEADLINE LOOMING FOR FILING CHINESE DRYWALL CLAIMS
SEPTEMBER 3RD DEADLINE FOR KNAUF INTERVENTIONS IN MDL
The Plaintiffs Steering Committee has extended the deadline for accepting additional claims against Knauf to be included on interventions until Friday, September 3, 2010 at 5 ET. It is doubtful that this deadline will be extended. Knauf, one of the largest manufacturers of defective Chinese Drywall, has accepted service for home owners in the MDL litigation out of New Orleans. A majority of the defective drywall was imported into the United States between 2005 and 2007.
Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Eldon Fallon ordered Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd., a committee of attorneys representing plaintiffs and certain drywall installers, suppliers and insurers to participate in mediation in New Orleans. Fallon wanted the parties to discuss the "global resolution of claims," according to an entry in the court record. Fallon "encouraged all parties to consider global settlement rather than individual resolution of claims."
Knauf Gips, a family-owned German company with operations throughout the world, has argued for almost two years that it is not legally responsible for the millions of pounds of defective drywall that one of its subsidiaries in China has admitted exporting to the United States. But documents filed in Germany and in U.S. courts show that Knauf’s German umbrella company is closely involved in the management of its subsidiaries, including overseeing quality control, finding raw materials and dealing with rising concerns over the defective drywall.
If you believe you have defective Chinese drywall in your home and experienced repeated AC coil failures, electrical issues, appliance failures, tarnished fixtures, sulfur odors in your home and/or suffer with respiratory issues, nose bleeds, headaches and or unexplained rashes, please contact me.
FOR A FREE CASE EVALUATION, CONTACT BOOTH SAMUELS AT BOOTHS@PITTMANDUTTON.COM OR CALL TOLL FREE 1-866-515.8880.
The Plaintiffs Steering Committee has extended the deadline for accepting additional claims against Knauf to be included on interventions until Friday, September 3, 2010 at 5 ET. It is doubtful that this deadline will be extended. Knauf, one of the largest manufacturers of defective Chinese Drywall, has accepted service for home owners in the MDL litigation out of New Orleans. A majority of the defective drywall was imported into the United States between 2005 and 2007.
Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Eldon Fallon ordered Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd., a committee of attorneys representing plaintiffs and certain drywall installers, suppliers and insurers to participate in mediation in New Orleans. Fallon wanted the parties to discuss the "global resolution of claims," according to an entry in the court record. Fallon "encouraged all parties to consider global settlement rather than individual resolution of claims."
Knauf Gips, a family-owned German company with operations throughout the world, has argued for almost two years that it is not legally responsible for the millions of pounds of defective drywall that one of its subsidiaries in China has admitted exporting to the United States. But documents filed in Germany and in U.S. courts show that Knauf’s German umbrella company is closely involved in the management of its subsidiaries, including overseeing quality control, finding raw materials and dealing with rising concerns over the defective drywall.
If you believe you have defective Chinese drywall in your home and experienced repeated AC coil failures, electrical issues, appliance failures, tarnished fixtures, sulfur odors in your home and/or suffer with respiratory issues, nose bleeds, headaches and or unexplained rashes, please contact me.
FOR A FREE CASE EVALUATION, CONTACT BOOTH SAMUELS AT BOOTHS@PITTMANDUTTON.COM OR CALL TOLL FREE 1-866-515.8880.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Federal Court Reinstates Claim Redux, commonly known as "Fen-Phen ", Should Have Not Been Offered to American Public
A Ohio Federal Court of Appeals Reaffirms that Diet-Drug Redux, commonly known as "Fen-Phen" Should Never Have Been Marketed to the American Public.
Why? The Court of Appeals indicated that the Plaintiff's death was due in part to Wyeth's pre-approval...
TIME MAGAZINE Cover re: Redux The Court of Appeals reinstated a deceased victim's claim that the recalled diet drug Redux (commonly called fen-phen) linked to her death should never have been marketed to the American people by Wyeth due in part to its pre-approval concerns about potentially lethal side effects.
In the same ruling, the Court held that Federal regulation does not preempt state consumer-protection law
In remanding the case to the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that Federal drug regulations do not preempt state law negligence claims, and indicated that the Supreme Court's 2009 landmark pharmaceutical manufacturer preemption decision (Wyeth v. Levine) may apply beyond inadequate warning-label claims.
Importance? This prevents drug companies being shielded from appropriate state neglignce claims from millions of Americans who get seriously injured taking these prescription medications that do not display adequate warnings due to misrepresentations about these serious lethal side effects to the FDA during the drug approval process.
In its decision, the appeals Court stated, "...we are not persuaded that it is always impossible to comply with both state law duties and FDA regulations in the process leading up to FDA approval." It added, "...we cannot agree with the district court's conclusion as, not only is there a presumption against preemption, but the case law supports the conclusion that Congress did not intend to preempt state tort law claims when it passed the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA)."
Punitive Damages
The Court of Appeals also reinstated and remanded to the trial court Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages.
In reversing key sections of the trial court's finding for the defendant on summary judgment in Wimbush v. Wyeth et.al., 6th Cir. No. 09-3380, the three-judge appeals panel held that the trial judge erred in concluding that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) preempted the Buchanan family's negligence claims that the drug should never have been made available to Americans given Wyeth-Redux's known health risks, particularly Primary Pulmonary Hypertension (PPH).
Redux/ Fen-Phen Causes Primary Pulmonary Hypertension
Although Redux was on the market for a relatively short period, it is estimated that Wyeth has paid thousands of victims of Redux and its predecessor, Pondimin – and/or their survivors – more than $20 billion in damages. In evaluating the potential side effects of Redux, researchers noted that Primary Pulmonary Hypertension (PPH) is a devastating pulmonary disease for which there is still no cure, and the associated heart-valve problems may and often did require high-risk heart surgery. The controversial, high-risk diet drug had previously been evaluated and pulled from pharmacies overseas and it was banned in some individual states before the total recall.
The drug company, which spent more than $50 million marketing the wildly popular and profitable drug after its launch in April 1996, pulled it on September 15, 1997 at the request of the FDA and under mounting criticism by independent researchers and reports in respected medical journals.
Mrs. Buchanan, the Plaintiff, was a dedicated 66- year-old nurse from Maple Heights, Ohio who took the weight-loss drug during 1996 and 1997, who lost her life to PPH in 2003 within a few months after filing her complaint.
See also:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/hazard/fenphen.html
Labels:
diet drug,
dietary supplements,
FDA,
fen-phen,
Fraud,
negligence,
Redux
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Is Miracle Mineral Solution or MMS the next Total Body Formula?
Image via Wikipedia
The F.D.A is warning consumers of "serious harm" from drinking Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS).According to the F.D.A, the product, when used as directed, produces an industrial bleach that can cause serious harm to health. Side effects include severe nausea, vomiting, and life-threatening low blood pressure from dehydration.
MMS is distributed on Internet sites and online auctions by multiple independent distributors. Although the products share the MMS name, the look of the labeling may vary.
The product instructs consumers to mix the 28 percent sodium chlorite solution with an acid such as citrus juice. This mixture produces chlorine dioxide, a potent bleach used for stripping textiles and industrial water treatment.
Unbelieveably, MMS claims to treat multiple unrelated diseases, including HIV, hepatitis, the H1N1 flu virus, common colds, acne, cancer, and other conditions.
The FDA continues to investigate and may pursue civil or criminal enforcement actions as appropriate to protect the public from this potentially dangerous product.
If you have suffered any negative side effects, consult a health care professional as soon as possible and retain the product.
This product recall is similar to the F.D.A recall of Total Body Formula, a vitamin supplement which was recalled after it was found to have toxic levels of selenium.
FOR A FREE CASE EVALUATION, CONTACT CHRIS HELLUMS AT CHRISH@PITTMANDUTTON.COM OR CALL TOLL FREE 1-866-515.8880
.
Related articles by Zemanta
- FDA Warns Consumers of Serious Harm from Drinking Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) (nlm.nih.gov)
- FDA Warns Consumers of Serious Harm from Drinking Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) (prnewswire.com)
- Can it get any worse?: industrial bleach as cancer and HIV cure (sciencebasedmedicine.org)
Avandia Letter Described as "Misleading"
The FDA ordered GlaxoSmithKline to write certain physicians describing the July expert advisory panel discussion regarding the risks of Avandia, their controversial diabetes medicine. However, many are calling the letter misleading. The letter was sent to physician investigators in the Tide trial, a trial the F.D.A ordered GSK to top recruiting new patients.
Dr. David Graham, an F.D.A. medical officer, gave an impassioned presentation at the advisory meeting arguing that the study should be stopped because patients in the trial are being exploited. None of
his arguments were referenced or described in GlaxoSmithKline’s letter.
Other members of the advisory committee complained that the company’s letter was biased.
The dispute is part of an ongoing battle over what the committee actually decided in July. The committee’s most important vote was whether Avandia should remain on the market and, if so, how. Five different options were offered. Three panel members voted for no change; 7 voted to add more warnings to the drug’s label; 10 voted to severely restrict the drug’s marketing; and 12 voted that the drug should be withdrawn. One abstained.
If the drug is withdrawn, this latest dispute will disappear since the Tide trial itself would likely end.
For more on this story, see Glaxo Memo on Avandia Is Questioned (prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com)
Dr. David Graham, an F.D.A. medical officer, gave an impassioned presentation at the advisory meeting arguing that the study should be stopped because patients in the trial are being exploited. None of
his arguments were referenced or described in GlaxoSmithKline’s letter.
Other members of the advisory committee complained that the company’s letter was biased.
The dispute is part of an ongoing battle over what the committee actually decided in July. The committee’s most important vote was whether Avandia should remain on the market and, if so, how. Five different options were offered. Three panel members voted for no change; 7 voted to add more warnings to the drug’s label; 10 voted to severely restrict the drug’s marketing; and 12 voted that the drug should be withdrawn. One abstained.
If the drug is withdrawn, this latest dispute will disappear since the Tide trial itself would likely end.
For more on this story, see Glaxo Memo on Avandia Is Questioned (prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com)
AVANDIA: Lawsuits , FDA Restrictions and continued FDA Investigation
Image by insearchofbalance via Flickr
Avandia, GlaxcoSmith Kline’s blockbuster diabetes drug, has faced intense scrutiny the last three years for links to heart problems. Last Friday, Time magazine reported that deputy FDA commissioner Josh Sharfstein said the agency is investigating whether Glaxo broke the law by holding back data from the FDA indicating the drug carried an increased risk of heart attacks.Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee has been investigating Glaxo and Avandia for over two years, and released dozens of internal Glaxo documents in February, 2010 relating to those potential cardiovascular risks. The committee sent copies of those documents to the FDA.
In July, 2010 GSK received disturbing news from the FDA.
The FDA ordered GlaxoSmithKline to stop enrolling new patients in a clinical trial of its diabetes drug, Avandia.
The clinical trial, called TIDE, was mandated by the FDA to assess safety risks of the drug, which is prescribed to treat type-2 diabetes.
The FDA said the action does not mean the drug will be removed from the market. But the agency is demanding that GlaxoSmithKline update physicians and ethics oversight boards involved in the trial regarding all new safety information about the drug.
The second was the when 21 members of the 33 member Food and Drug Administration advisory committee panel voted to restrict the sales of Avandia due to its potential risk for causing heart attacks.
Twelve voted to completely remove Avandia from the market; 10 voted for allowing sales to continue but with new label revisions and possible restrictions; 7 voted to add more warnings while 3 voted for no change at all. We’ll be watching the final decision from the FDA.
OUR FIRM IS INVESTIGATING AVANDIA CLAIMS.
For further research and investigation read:
• Wall Street Journal Blog: “Another Twist in the Chronicles of Avandia!”
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/08/13/another-twist-in-the-chronicles-of-avandia/%20%20
• 33 Member FDA panel votes to restrict Avandia
o http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/blogging-the-f-d-a-panel-on-avandia/%20
Related articles by Zemanta
- Glaxo Memo on Avandia Is Questioned (prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com)
- Another Twist in the Chronicles of Avandia! (blogs.wsj.com)
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Alabama Supreme Court Justices Deny Improper Contact
Alabama Supreme Court justices deny alleged allegations by Tuscaloosa businessman Stan Pate and others that Governor Riley intervened in the electronic Bingo case. According to reports, Pate and others allege that Riley intervened to get the case assigned to Justice Glenn Murdock. Victoryland issued a statement repeating Pate's allegations. Casino officials also indicated that they were told by Republican insiders that Riley contacted members of the Supreme Court and influenced the assignment of the case.
For further information, see the attached link:
http://http//blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/08/alabama_justices_deny_improper.html
For further information, see the attached link:
http://http//blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/08/alabama_justices_deny_improper.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)