For Cybercriminals, Data Breaches are about Quality over Quantity

When the average data breach victim receives a notification letter about a big company losing their personal information, he or she probably has no clue what the potential consequences actually are. Of course it’s never a good thing when criminals get their hands on your sensitive information, but the severity of the data breach from the victim’s perspective depends on what was actually stolen by the hackers. For example, it may surprise you that your stolen credit card information is some of the least valuable data in the cybercriminal market, due to the banking world’s ability to cancel or change that information quickly.

However, the most valuable information to cybercriminals is your personal information that cannot be changed quickly—such as your address, phone number, social security number, and driver’s license number. Hackers sell this personal information to other cybercriminals that in turn use it for a myriad of illegal activities and cause countless problems for the victim. For cybercriminals, a complete set of personal information for one victim is usually much more valuable than having partial sets of information for dozens of victims.

This is why it is so important for companies that have experienced a data breach to be entirely transparent about exactly what information was taken from them. Many states have adopted laws requiring companies that failed to protect personal information to promptly notify all victims of the breach. 

Unfortunately, in a lot of instances these companies send the notification letters, but they try to downplay the severity of the breach, which gives the victims a false sense of security when they should actually be taking steps to protect themselves from potential identity theft. The victims have to know exactly what information of theirs was lost in order to effectively protect themselves.

To learn more about how personal information from a data breach is valued and exploited in the cybercriminal world, follow this link to a well-written article:

http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/25/valuing-a-data-breach-victim/

If you have been notified that your personal and private sensitive information has been compromised in a data breach, please contact Chris Hellums at 1-866-515-8880 or by email at chrish@pittmandutton.com today to discuss your legal rights. 

Electronic Logging Devices: What are they and will they be approved?

     Electronic Logging Devices or ELDs are essentially electronic log books for truckers.  They capture speed, distance, and driver location.  The U.S. Department of Transportation's Motor Carrier Safety Administration has made a proposal that would required ELDs in commercial trucks and buses.

     Crash data shows that over the road truckers often exceed the limits on work hours. It is not uncommon for drivers and their employers to alter log books or to maintain a separate set of books, to conceal their excessive driving from inspectors.   Driver impairment, which includes fatigue, was a factor in 12 percent of the total crashes involving large trucks or buses in 2012.

     Safety advocates have been pushing for ELDs for some time and it is believed that even if adopted, it may take some time for implementation.

Chrish@PittmanDutton.com

Risperdal: What are these claims about?

We are starting to see more and more Risperdal claims.  What are these claims about?

Risperdal is the brand name for a drug manufactured by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc (a division of Johnson & Johnson) and initially approved to treat schizophrenia.

Use of Risperdal can cause Gynecomastia (enlarged breasts in males) and Galactorrhea (breast milk discharge), Diabetes, and Hyperglycemia.

In 2013, Janssen settled claims brought by the DOJ for $2.2 billion  involving treatment of elderly dementia patients and marketing the drug to children and adolescents.

In 2014, Janssen settled claims brought by the Montana Attorney General..

What are the criteria for claims currently being pursued?

1.  Age:  Born before 12/31/75
2.  Took the brand name drug or generic manufactured by Patriot
3.  Claims where breasts develop either while on the drug or within 2-3 months after taking the drug.


For more information, please feel free to contact me at
Chrish@PittmanDutton.com

John Stewart on the NCAA

Here is an interesting link to John Stewart speaking out about the NCAA:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/bwjj0i/sports-disparity

Stryker Settles Another Hip Case: Says Liability Could Exceed $1B

Five of the Eight Stryker Rejuvenate/ABG II failed hip cases have settled at court ordered mediation early in the litigation process.  Before removing the systems from the market, approximately 20,000 were sold.

To date, in excess of 1200 lawsuits have been filed with more filings daily.  Stryker has reported that its liability could exceed $1B.

Biomet Agrees to Settle Metal Hip Claims

Biomet, Inc. has agreed to pay at least $56 million to settle claims involving their metal on metal hips known as the M2a Magnum.  The lawsuits were consolidated in Indiana, home to Biomet's headquarters.

In order to qualify, you must file suit in Federal Court by April 15, 2014.  The base award is $200,000 and applies to individuals who had the implant installed and removed more than 180 days after it was implanted.

Biomet has denied liability and never recalled the hip system; however, it is doubtful any surgeons are implanting metal on metal hip devices in light of the massive failure rates seen with this class of implants.

If you think you may have a Biomet metal on metal hip, please act immediately.  If you have any questions or would like your claims evaluated, please feel free to contact me at 1.866.515.8880 or email me at ChrisH@PittmanDutton.com

File Your Tax Return Before A Hacker Files For You

If you are not already motivated to file you tax returns, the thought of a hacker filing with your information and obtaining your refund should be motivation enough.

As part of what we are seeing from the unraveling of the Target data breach scandal, it is clear that hackers are fully engaged in tax fraud.  According to a 2013 report from the Treasury Inspector General's office, The IRS issued $4 billion in bogus tax refund checks in 2012.  The money went to sophisticated criminal enterprises who stole social security numbers and filed returns under an alternative address.

If you have been a victim of such a scam, you should contact The Identity Protection Inspection Unit of the IRS at 1-800-908-4490.  If you are the victim of identity theft and think you need to take legal action, you can contact me and I will evaluate your legal claims.

Metal Hip Implant Results in Heart Transplant

A New England Journal of Medicine article recently outlined the tragic facts regarding a Denver woman.  The woman, whose identity was kept secret to protect her privacy, began having symptoms in 2011.  She gained 10 pounds on her 4'10" frame.  He abdomen was swollen, as were her arms and legs.

Doctors ordered a CT scan of her heart.  They drained the fluid, but she still felt ill.  Normally, with these symptoms, you would have an enlarged heart, but her's was normal.  She was seen by a transplant surgeon, who was baffled.  Her work-up revealed nothing.  She was placed on a transplant list and in September of 2011, she received a heart transplant.

Sometime later, orthopedic surgeons who had replaced her metal hips took blood test related to metal hips.  It was at this time that her cobalt level was  more than 300 times the normal rate.  Cobalt poisoning can seriously damage organs, particularly the heart.  The implants were removed and her cobalt level declined.  In an interview, she said "[I] have much of my old energy back."

The link to metal implants leaves many unanswered questions.  Tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of people have these implants and unfortunately these types of problems continue to be reported.

It is for this reason that anyone with a metal implant should have regular blood tests for cobalt and chromium.

Episode of House Results in Diagnosis of Cobalt Poisoning from Metal Hip Implant as Source of Heart Failure, Blindness

Dr. Juergen Schaefer, who specializes in puzzling cases, is a big fan of the t.v. show "House."  In, 2012, in a case of life imitating art, he was presented with a case straight off the pages of the show.

According to The Lancet, a London-based medical journal, a German man presented at this clinic with strange symptoms that continued to worsen.  He had low thyroid levels, inflammation of his esophagus and fever.  His lost so much vision he was almost blind and so much hearing he was almost deaf.   His heart was so weak he could not supply enough blood to his body.  However, he did not have any problems with his arteries.

No one could diagnose the problem.

Remembering an episode of House, he recalled the same problems suffered by a woman played by the actress Candice Bergen.   So, Dr. Schaefer tested the man's cobalt level and determined that it was several times the level considered normal.  He then preformed a scan of the hip and determined that his metal hip had eroded.  The hip implant was removed, cobalt levels fell and his heart function improved; however, his eyesight and hearing barely got better.

Johnson & Johnson fights to keep Risperdal documents under seal.

The FDA has issued warnings that boys and young men who have taken the drug Risperdal are at risk for gynecomastia.  So far, there have been about 450 lawsuits filed and J&J has paid billions to settle federal and state government claims involving the illegal marketing of the drug.

J&J is also trying to keep documents from being made public.  The company has asked a Pennsylvania state judge to keep confidential a series of clinical studies that were put under seal in 2011.

The plaintiffs claims that there is a tremendous public interest in the documents being public, that the documents are not proprietary, and that for the well-being of the public and for full and unfettered review by regulatory authorities and healthcare providers, they should be made public.

Pradaxa Manufacturer hit with Million Dollar fine by Federal Judge for Improperly Withholding Documents

Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH (Boehringer) was hit with almost $1 Million in sanctions for withholding documents requested by Plaintiffs’ attorneys in the Pradaxa MDL.  Boehringer, the German family-owned drugmaker, is the manufacturer of the blood thinner Pradaxa. The allegations against Boehringer over the drug are that Pradaxa® causes excessive internal bleedings which can cause serious complications, including death.

U.S. District Judge David Herndon in East St. Louis, Illinois, who’s overseeing more than 1,700 consolidated lawsuits in the MDL concluded that Boehringer executives acted “in bad faith” by failing to ensure that documents and files about the drug’s development and marketing were preserved. In his 51 page ruling, Judge Herndon stated, “The wrongs here are egregious,” and that he was, “stunned” by their discovery violations. He went on to add that the company’s efforts to safeguard the documents amounted to, “…gross inadequacy”.

In his December 9^th ruling, Herndon wrote that he was forced to deal with claims that Boehringer was improperly withholding documents from the inception of the case consolidation in 2012. He characterized Boehringer as acting in, “bad faith”.

The Plaintiffs argued that Boehringer should have forced employees to preserve documents about the drug’s development and the company’s marketing plan. They also argued that Boehringer failed to order employees to save phone messages, including texts, about their work on Pradaxa® which allowed countless records to be destroyed. Such protocol is often referred to as a “litigation hold”; a routine and regulated aspect of the discovery process in federal and state litigation.

Among other malfeasance, Boehringer could not produce files of a high-level scientist involved in developing Pradaxa® or documents by consultants who worked on the marketing plan. The Court’s Order indicates that the files of Professor Thorsten Lehr may be among the evidence that allegedly was destroyed by Boehringer. Court documents describe Professor Lehr as a prominent scientist who played a key role in developing Pradaxa® and who authored a study that initially concluded that Pradaxa®’s safety was related to the therapeutic range of the drug. The Court’s Order explains that Professor Lehr’s desire to publicly disclose the existence of a therapeutic range for Pradaxa® was highly controversial within the company. The order quotes Boehringer employee, Dr. Andreas Clemens, who stated, “The world is crying for this information – but the tricky part is that we have to tailor the messages smart.” The Order further states that, ultimately, Boehringer required that the study be revised to exclude information about therapeutic range.

Judge Herndon ruled that all of these actions justified sanctions amounting to $931,000.

Along with the fine, Boehringer executives must turn over files that are in their possession or officially inform the court that they cannot. Judge Herndon did not leave out the opportunity to levy additional sanctions against the corporation over the missing files.

Plaintiffs allege that Boehringer executives knew Pradaxa® posed a deadly risk when they brought the drug to the U.S. market in October 2010. Unlike older blood thinners, Pradaxa® has no antidote to reverse its effects, which can lead to so-called bleed-out deaths. FDA officials said they received reports of 542 deaths and 3,781 side-effect incidents tied to the drug in 2011.

This is not the first time in this litigation Boehringer has been sanctioned. In a September 18, 2013 Order, the Court sanctioned Boehringer in the amount of $29,540. The Order stated that the Court was a firm believer in progressive discipline, and that Boehringer was required to abide by the discovery rules.

Pittman, Dutton & Hellums, P.C. is currently investigating claims for patients injured by Pradaxa®.  Contact Chris Hellums at 1-866-515-8880 or at chrish@pittmandutton.com for a free consultation.

Off Label Use of Medical Products Increasing: Is Using a Prostate Product on Your Brain a Good Idea?

English: Logo of the . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As reported by the StarTribune, the use of off label medical products is increasing rapidly.  While the FDA regulates the approved use of medical devices, physicians have complete discretion to use medical devices in any way they think it will help their patients. This discretion comes with risks.  Just ask the women who got surgical mesh for incontinence.  The FDAs oversight only applies to device makers, not physicians.  The FDA repeatedly says its not our place to say how patients should be treated.

So, what gives.  First, progress in technology requires risk.  That's a fact.  However, the rub comes when the risk is not relayed to the to patients, damage occurs, and everyone points their finger at someone else.  In theory, all too often it plays out as follows.  A new use for a product is developed.  Medical device manufacturers improperly market for off label uses--- it just happens---because there is too much money at stake. Physicians are told by the cute sales reps who bring lunch literally every day how great this new off label use is of the product.  The physician, who enjoys those great, all expenses paid educational trips to exotic locations and the nice sales reps, start using the product in a manner not approved.

You know how the story ends.

If you are going to use me a Guinea pig, then tell me that you are going to use me as a test case and let me decide if my condition, my pain, etc is such that I am willing to take the risk.  Is that really too much to ask?

Blue Cross Won't Reinstate Cancelled Alabama Policies---I Wonder Why?

Blue Cross has announced that it won't reinstate cancelled Alabama policies that don't comply with the Affordable Care Act.  According to a statement released by BC/BS, the reason is that it would "increase costs for customers and increase risk for the company."

Let's examine that statement.  It seems absurd to me.  All we have heard is that the ACA will increase costs and, as such, BC/BS jacks our premiums out the roof because of the unknowns of the ACA and because it will not allow for denials based on pre-existing conditions. HMMM.  So, let me get this straight---Blue Cross increase rates due to the ACA, but after the criticism overwhelms the administration and Obama gives insurance companies the right to extend coverage for another year, BC/BS balks?

This is about money.  Blue Cross owns this state.  If you think this is not about money, then you probably believe that college football is not a business but an academic endeavor.

Hang on, it is going to be a bumpy ride from here.

Latest News on Depuy Settlement

The following is the latest article from the Wall Street Journal regarding the Depuy Hip Settlement:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304439804579207761883559166

Depuy Hip Settlement Announcement To Come Tuesday; First Stryker Hearing on Thursday

Terms of the Depuy Hip settlement will be formally announced Tuesday, November 19th in Ohio.  An "open status conference" is scheduled in front of United States District Judge David Katz in Toledo Ohio, who is overseeing the litigation.

Media reports are putting the "average" settlement at $300,000 to $350,000 per case.  I think this number is confusing in that it does not break out simple revisions, double revisions, re-revisions, and "extreme" wage loss cases, etc.  Reported failure rates in the United States are 37 percent and in Australia are 44%.

Two days later, the Judge Frank will hold the first hearing in the Stryker Hip litigation in Minneapolis as those claims begin in earnest.

What Does The Depuy Hip Settlement Mean for Stryker Hip Patients, Biomet Hip Patients, Wright Hip Patients, and Smith & Nephew Hip Patients

Now that Johnson & Johnson has reportedly settled the Depuy ASR Hip litigation, or at least a large portion of if, what does that mean for other manufactures facing claims regarding their products.  Prior to this settlement, the only major recall settlement had been the Sulzer hip settlement.  That settlement was roughly $1B.  In size, this settlement dwarfs that settlement.  Johnson and Johnson paid more in attorneys fees to defend these cases than Sulzer paid in settlement.

What this does do is set some sort of value that Stryker and others can use to quantify its risk and develop a settlement strategy.  It also gives Stryker an idea of its cost to litigate these claims.

Johnson and Johnson has decided not to settle non revised cases at this time.  It will be interesting to see if Stryker and other manufacturers opt for a different tactic in trying to buy peace in the form of future payments based on a sliding scale if the implant fails in the future.

Depuy Reportedly Ready To Pay $4 Billion Dollar Settlement of Defective Hip Claims

Bloomberg is reporting that Depuy will agree to a $4 Billion dollar settlement in the recalled ASR hip litigation.  If accurate, this will be one the largest product liability settlements ever.

Bloomberg says that the "average" claim will be $300,000.  The New York Times is reporting "$350,000.  There are several unknowns in that figure.  First, does that include co-pays, deductibles, and medical subrogation paid by Depuy already to some claimants?  Also, since that is an "average" number, it would seem to include people who had bilateral failures that had to be revised and whose claims arguably worth twice that amount.  There are also those people who are re-revisions in that the revision failed.

In the end, I think you will see a number closer to $250,000.

For months, the leadership of the case and the court has been trying to keep a lid on the terms of the settlement that were being negotiated but it appears as if the lid has been blown off now.

Federal Judge Selects Alabama Lawyer to Plaintiffs Steering Committee in Stryker Hip Litigation

Federal Judge Donovan W. Frank, who is presiding over the Stryker hip implant cases centralized from around the country to Minnesota has made his leadership selections.  Chris Hellums, of Pittman Dutton & Hellums in Birmingham, Alabama has been selected to serve on the Plaintiffs Steering Committee.

The Stryker implant MDL was established in June of 2013 and the number of cases continues to climb rapidly, with many believing that the number could reach or exceed 20,000.

Pittman Dutton & Hellums has been active in representation of individuals harmed by recalled orthopedic devices, representing clients nationwide.  These devices include products manufactured by Stryker, Depuy, Wright, Zimmer, Biomet and Smith & Nephew.

The Stryker hip implants, like other recalled hip products, have the potential to "fret" or corrode at the neck juncture.  Unlike the Depuy ASR implants, which seemed to fail at the junction between the ball and the cup, the failure of the Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II implants occurs in the neck, requiring removal of the stem from the femur in what has been described by one surgeon as "removing rebar from concrete."

When the implant frets, metal debris and tiny particles of cobalt and chromium gets into the surrounding issue and the bloodstream, often resulting in necrosis and pseudotumors in the hip cavity. Once this occurs, it will progressively get worse until the implant is removed.

If you have one of these implants, it is imperative that you consult a physician and insure that you have regular blood test for cobalt and chromium.

You should also consult an attorney before you sign any documents allowing Broadspire, a company hired by Stryker, to obtain confidential medical records to help Stryker build their case against you and speak with your physician.

Styker Agrees to Settlement With U.S. Government

The medical device maker Stryker will pay the federal government $13.3 million to settle allegations that it bribed public health officials overseas to secure business, a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) said Stryker subsidiaries made $2.2 million in illegal payments to government employees in Argentina, Greece, Mexico, Poland and Romania from August 2003 to February 2008. Stryker made the payments to get or retain business, but it recorded them as legitimate consulting and service contracts, travel costs, charitable donations and commissions.

The S.E.C. claims that Stryker made $7.5 million in illicit profits as a result of the illegal payments. Stryker will pay the Treasury $7.5 million, plus $2.3 million in interest. It will also pay a $3.5 million civil penalty.

According to the S.E.C., Stryker had anticorruption corporate policies, but did not do enough to put them in action and legitimately regulate its operations. The company virtually ignored its internal compliance programs.

The Department of Justice and the S.E.C. began investigating the payments in 2007. The government has since closed its investigation into the matter.

Johnson & Johnson Enters Into the Third-Largest Pharmaceutical Settlement EVER

Johnson & Johnson is paying the third-largest pharmaceutical settlement ever to settle civil and criminal fines that it improperly marketed and promoted the antipsychotic drug Risperdal.  Much of the conduct occurred when current Johnson & Johnson CEO Alex Gorsky was vice president for sales and marketing or president of the pharmaceutical unit.

The United States Attorney General said that the company "recklessly put at risk the most vulnerable members of our society."  In response, Johnson & Johnson's vice president and general counsel said "This resolution allows us to move forward and continue to focus on delivering innovative solutions that improve and enhance the well-being of patients.

However, it is hard to understand the extent to which the company could move on given that Mr. Gorsky is now the CEO.  "Stockholders and patients will pay the price for the fraud," said Partick Burns, co-director of Taxpayers Against Fraud, and advocacy group for corporate whistle-blowers.  Gorsky not only keeps his job, and his lavish benefits and bonuses, but ends up as CEO.

Federal officials said the company knew that Risperdal posed serious risks for older adults, like an increased risk of strokes, but played them down.  Johnson and Johnson also knew that children were susceptible to certain health risk from taking the drug, including the possibility that boys could develop breasts through elevated production of the hormone prolactin, federal officials said.  Despite this, J&J told its sales representatives to visit child psychologists and mental health facilities that mainly focused on children and to promote the drug for defecit hyperactivity disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder.