Defective Medical Devices

Many of today’s medical devices have evolved from where they were decades ago. Such changes come with risks. Based on those potential risks, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) may issue warnings about possible dangers to your health and may order medical devices removed from the market.(1)
Speak to an Attorney Now

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, sales for 102 medical device companies in the United States increased 43% between 2005 and 2014.(2) Those numbers may give medical device manufacturers a reason to cheer.  A good profit margin always boosts the morale of CEOs.

However, if you have been injured by a medical device, someone else’s profit margin may be the last thing on your mind. What you need right now is for someone to listen to you and take you seriously. You need someone who can provide you with dependable legal guidance and assistance. That is where Weitz & Luxenberg comes in.

Defective Medical Device Lawsuits

If you have been injured by a faulty medical device, Weitz & Luxenberg may be able to help. Our firm has 30 years of experience in complex, large-scale, medical-related litigation. Over the years, we have represented hundreds of thousands of people. Our Weitz & Luxenberg lawyers are prepared to guide you through the legal process.

Weitz & Luxenberg is a national law firm. No matter where you live in the U.S. or which manufacturer made the medical device that harmed you, we are prepared to represent you and stand up to corporations or medical manufacturers of any size.

We do not back down from global medical manufacturers that have produced and distributed faulty, harmful medical devices. We stand by our clients, and we guarantee you can depend on us for solid, experienced guidance and legal counsel.

Defective medical device lawyers handshake

Defective Medical Device Lawyers

Not all medical devices are required to undergo comprehensive scientific and regulatory review before being marketed and sold in the United States. This is because a medical device manufacturer who believe that its device is “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device (one that has been cleared by the FDA or marketed before 1976) can apply to enter the U.S. market under the FDA 510(k) process. The 510(k) process bypasses the rigorous FDA Premarket Approval (PMA) process to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of new Class III medical devices. The purpose of a FDA 510(k) submission is to demonstrate that a device is “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device. Unlike the PMA process, which requires a manufacturer to present scientific evidence to assure that the device is safe and effective for its intended use(s), the 510(k) application submitter merely compares and contrasts its device with one or more predicate devices, explaining why any differences between the new and predicate device should not affect functioning. Clinical studies are usually not required for a 510(k) submission. Depending on the type of 510(k), the law gives the FDA either 30 or 90 days to decide “whether the device is equivalent to a device already” approved for distribution, ask further questions, or reject the application.(3)

For a free consultation and more information about your legal options, please contact us today.

Get a Free Case Review

Although the FDA continues to monitor 510(k) medical devices after approval, such as through the FDA’s MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience) database,(4) manufacturers are primarily responsible for tracking, following-up on, and reporting adverse events occurring in patients using their products.

Sometimes, FDA approves a medical device and then growing clinical evidence demonstrates the serious harm the device causes when brought to market without being adequately tested by manufacturers for human safety.(5) (6)

If you have suffered medical complications linked to a faulty medical device, you have a right to seek compensation from the device manufacturer. At Weitz & Luxenberg, our defective medical device lawyers are here to help.

Currently, we are accepting clients who have been harmed by certain types of:

If you have been injured by a defective medical device, Weitz & Luxenberg wants to hear from you. We offer a free consultation.  One of our attorneys can help you review and understand your legal options. 

Medical Device Recalls

Although many of the medical devices we use at home, buy in stores, or see in a medical facility have been approved by the FDA, that does not necessarily mean they are safe. Manufacturers frequently issue medical device recalls for products that were approved by the FDA.

You may hear about defective medical device recalls by watching or reading the news. In addition, you can search the FDA’s database for the most updated information.

According to the FDA, the agency “posts summaries of information about the most serious medical device recalls.” Devices are included in those posts when the FDA believes that there is the possibility “they could cause serious health problems or death.”(7)

Whether or not a manufacturer has recalled a medical device, you still have the right to look into taking legal action if you have been injured by a faulty medical device. At Weitz & Luxenberg, we stay on top of all significant FDA medical device safety announcements and remain informed about all related legal proceedings.

If you believe you have suffered medical complications due to any kind of medical device, we encourage you to call us for a free consultation. We will be happy to discuss the legal options available to you.

Medical Device Complications: Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants

Total hip replacement (arthroplasty) is an orthopedic intervention. Some hip systems have been made out of all-metal materials.(8) It is estimated that more than one million people around the world have metal-on-metal (MoM) hip implants.(9)

Several models of all-metal hip implants have shown a higher-than-anticipated failure rate, leading to serious injuries or medical complications for patients. In response, the FDA has issued a number of safety communications and several recalls have been initiated.(10) (11)

Corrosion or wear between metal-on-metal parts can release chromium, cobalt, and titanium ions into the body. Metal debris can damage tissue and lead to a condition called metallosis – which can starve tissue of oxygen and lead to cell death, potentially causing a host of problems.(12) (13) Other complications from defective metal-on-metal hip implants may include:

  • Adverse local tissue reaction
  • Pain
  • Swelling of the hip
  • Limping or a change in ability to walk
  • Loosening of the implant
  • Nerve, muscle, and bone damage
  • Pseudotumors or other types of aseptic lymphocytic vasculitis associated lesions (ALVAL)
  • High levels of metal ions in the blood(14) (15) (16)

Correcting these issues often requires revision surgery, which subjects a patient to further risks and possible complications.

In recent years, a number of patients have experienced severe complications following metal-on-metal hip replacement surgery. In response, Weitz & Luxenberg has taken legal action against hip implant manufacturers.

cash and steth-o-scope

DePuy Orthopaedics, Subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, Ordered to Pay Out Big

In 2014, Weitz & Luxenberg Practice Group Co-Chair Ellen Relkin served a key role in multidistrict litigation against DePuy Orthopaedics, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, regarding its defective articular surface replacement (ASR) metal-on-metal hip implant. Ms. Relkin helped secure a $2.5 billion settlement against DePuy on behalf of patients who had received the faulty implant.

More recently, in 2016, juries in separate trials sided against DePuy regarding its Pinnacle hip implant when it was used in a metal-on-metal configuration. They have awarded more than one billion dollars across multiple suits to plaintiffs related to defective Pinnacle hip implants. DePuy faces thousands of additional lawsuits pending nationwide regarding its defective Pinnacle hip.(17)  

Smith & Nephew Hip Implant Components

A growing body of medical literature is linking the Smith & Nephew EMPERION hip implant system to sudden fractures of the implant. In addition to discussing high rates of failure due to implant fracture, the Australian Joint Registry has identified the Emperion as having a significantly higher percentage of revisions than other primary total hip replacements, with more than two times the risk of revision occurring with the Emperion.(18) (19) (20) (21)

Weitz & Luxenberg continues to accept cases involving faulty Smith & Nephew EMPERION hips along with Modular SMF and Modular REDAPT models, the latter of which have been recalled due to potential for higher risk of revision.(22) If you suffered complications after receiving one of these Smith & Nephew hip implants, we encourage you to contact us.

Smith & nephew hip implant complications

Stryker Expected to Compensate Implant Recipients

In November 2014, and then extended in December 2016, Stryker Orthopaedics agreed to a $1 billion settlement with patients implanted with its Rejuvenate and ABG II modular neck stems. Stryker “expects the majority of the payments under the expanded settlement agreement will be made by the close of 2017.”(23)

Weitz & Luxenberg’s Ellen Relkin is credited with playing a key role in this settlement.

Stryker Recalls LFIT V40 Femoral Head

In August 2016, Stryker recalled certain lots and sizes of its LFIT Anatomic Cobalt Chromium V40 Femoral Heads (LFIT V40 femoral heads) due to the company receiving complaints of taper lock failure.(24) Taper locks are located at the junction where the femoral head attaches to the stem of the hip implant.

In April 2017, Panel on Multidistrict Litigation agreed to consolidate more than two dozen lawsuits pending against Stryker into a multidistrict litigation in the District of Massachusetts.(25)

Plaintiffs claim the LFIT V40 femoral heads can release toxic and corrosive cobalt into people implanted with the devices, potentially necessitating revision surgery. The complaints state the corrosive effects can be severe enough to cause the femoral heads to break off and become separated from the rest of the implant.(26)

Wright Medical Agrees to Pay $240 Million

In 2016, Wright Medical Group agreed to settle more than 1,200 lawsuits over its metal-on-metal Conserve, Lineage, and Dynasty hip implants.(27) As co-lead counsel, Weitz & Luxenberg’s Ellen Relkin again played a role in crafting the $240 million settlement agreement.

A Class 1 recall is the most serious. The FDA issues a Class 1 recall in situations “in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.”(30)

In 2015, MicroPort’s Profemur Neck Varus/Valgus CoCr 8 Degree modular neck was voluntarily recalled, with the FDA classifying this as a Class 1 recall. Originally, Wright Medical designed and manufactured this modular neck, but Wright’s OrthoRecon Business was acquired by MicroPort Scientific Corporation in June, 2013.(28) (29)

A Class 1 recall is the most serious. The FDA issues a Class 1 recall in situations “in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.”(30)

The FDA’s safety alert warned that the modular neck could fracture, requiring emergency revision surgery. The FDA said a sudden fracture “could lead to neurovascular damage, hematoma, hemorrhage, and even death.”(31)

If you have been injured by a Wright Medical Conserve, Lineage, or Dynasty hip implant or by a Profemur Neck Varus/Valgus CoCr 8 Degree modular neck requiring revision surgery, you may want to consult an experienced attorney. The attorneys at Weitz & Luxenberg offer a free consultation. We can help you consider your legal options.

You May Have Medical Device Complications with Knee Implants

Following knee implant surgery, some pain is to be expected. However, some problems and complications may be serious.(32)

Infection
If your implant has become infected, you may need to have a revision, or corrective, surgery to replace the infected joint and clear the infection.
Dislocation
Suffering from a dislocation “can cause sudden pain and inability to walk.” If this occurs, you may need to visit the emergency room.
Loosening
Whether shortly after surgery or over time, loosening of the implant may cause pain. A revision surgery may be necessary.
Knee implant complications

Zimmer Facing Lawsuits Over Knee Implants

In 2010, Zimmer recalled components for several versions of the company’s NexGen Complete Knee Solution.(33) (34) As of June 2017, cases are still pending in a multidistrict litigation in Illinois.(35) Weitz & Luxenberg’s Chief Trial Attorney Robert Gordon serves on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in that multidistrict litigation.

More recently, in 2015, Zimmer Biomet voluntarily recalled more than 11,000 components used in the Zimmer Persona Knee Personalized Knee System after complaints of loosening and radiolucent lines. The FDA categorized the recall as Class 2.(36)

If you had a Zimmer Persona Knee Personalized Knee System implanted and required revision surgery, we encourage you to call Weitz & Luxenberg. We offer a free consultation and can offer guidance about your legal options. Call us if you have had any of these complications:

  • Loosening of the implant
  • Pain
  • Early implant failure
  • Revision of the knee

Smith & Nephew Could Face BCS Knee System Lawsuits

The Smith & Nephew Journey Bi-cruciate Stabilized (BCS) Knee replacement system (Journey I BCS Knee System) received 510(k) approval from the FDA in 2005. However, in June 2018, the manufacturer issued an Urgent Field Safety Notice announcing the voluntary removal of the system’s femoral component from the market due to a higher than expected risk of revision in patients implanted with the knee replacement. (37)

This action was followed by the FDA classifying the recall as a Class II device recall for the Journey BCS Knee System on October 1, 2018. (38) The FDA’s recall was based upon device failure data.

Device failures were noted during the postmarket tracking and follow-up process, with data indicating revision surgery rates with the first generation Journey BCS Knee over 1.5 times higher than other knee replacement devices. These high revision rates were found in the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland and the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. (39)

The most common reason for device failure was component loosening. (40) According to the Hospital for Special Surgery, indications of total knee replacement component loosening include:

  • Pain.
  • Changes in alignment.
  • Instability. (41)

When components in knee devices loosen, revision surgery is often required. Revision surgeries are expensive, are longer and more complex surgeries than initial knee replacement surgery, and have greater risk for complications. (42)

Follow-up care and physical therapy are typically needed. You may lose additional time from work or have complications, which can cost you even more money.

So, if you or a loved one had a Smith & Nephew Journey BCS Knee replacement system implanted that required revision surgery, or have been advised by your doctor that you need revision surgery due to femoral component loosening, we encourage you to contact Weitz & Luxenberg. The initial consultation is free, and we would be happy to provide guidance about your legal options.

Shoulder Implants May Suffer from Medical Device Complications

The complications you may suffer from after undergoing shoulder implant surgery with a defective shoulder device are similar to those of defective knee implants.  These complications include:(43)

  • Instability
  • Fracture of the bone around the various implant components
  • Loosening

If you experience unexpected or severe complications, let your health care provider know right away. Sometimes complications may require a revision, or corrective, surgery, or additional treatment.

Retrievable IVC Filters Defective Medical Device Lawsuits Filed

IVC filters are tiny medical implants inserted into the primary vein (the inferior vena cava)(44) that returns blood to the heart from the lower half of the body. The goal is to trap a blood clot so that it cannot travel to the lungs, where it could lead to a pulmonary embolism (PE).(45) A PE “is a blockage in one of the pulmonary arteries” in the lungs.(46)

According to the FDA, retrievable IVC filters should be removed after the threat of a clot has passed, given that these devices can potentially lead to serious, even life-threatening, complications:(47)

  • Fracturing of the device
  • Migration of broken parts or the entire device
  • Perforation of blood vessels
  • Embolization (movement of the device or fractured pieces) to other organs
  • Organ damage
  • Difficulty removing device

Plaintiffs have filed hundreds of lawsuits against two manufacturers – Cook Medical and C.R. Bard (now Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.) – over failures of their retrievable IVC filters.(48) (49)

We would feel privileged to assist you. For a free consultation and more information about your legal options, please contact us today.

(855) 274-5624

Cook Medical retrievable IVC filters include the Cook Celect and Cook Gunther Tulip.

Bard models include the Recovery, G2, G2 Express (G2X), Eclipse, Denali, and Meridian.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has combined the lawsuits against each company into separate multidistrict litigation suits(50). Weitz & Luxenberg is serving on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for the Cook Medical IVC Filters MDL, in the Southern District of Indiana.(51) (52)

Hernia mesh complications

Medical Device Complications: Surgical Hernia Mesh

According to the FDA, one million hernia repair procedures are performed each year in the United States.(53) Although the FDA has approved the surgical hernia mesh devices on the market today, the agency has issued warnings about possible complications, and notes that several meshes have been recalled.(54)

Complications of surgical mesh used in hernia repair include:(55)

  • Adverse reactions to the mesh itself including pain, infection, and hernia recurrence
  • Adhesions — when parts of the intestines stick to the mesh or each other
  • Bowel obstruction
  • Tissue perforation
  • Damage to organs, blood vessels, and nerves near the mesh
  • Mesh migration
  • Mesh shrinkage (contraction)

Weitz & Luxenberg is accepting cases of complications occurring with these surgical meshes used in hernia repair:

Some complications reported with these brands include:(56) (57) (58) (59)

  • Loss of coating on mesh after implantation
  • Failure of mesh to incorporate/adhere to tissues
  • Bowel obstructions
  • Mesh failure
  • Perforation of the intestines
  • Migration from the surgical site
  • Seromas – pockets of fluid that build up under the skin
  • Revision, or corrective, surgery
  • Infection
  • Chronic pain
  • Hernia recurrence

If you have suffered medical device complications requiring hospitalization or corrective surgery due to problems with the mesh used in your hernia repair, you may be entitled to compensation for medical costs and other expenses. Weitz & Luxenberg invites you to contact the firm for a free consultation to help you understand your legal options.

Defective 3M Dual-Ended Combat Arms Earplugs Lawsuits

3M Dual-Ended Combat Arms earplugs were originally created by Aearo Technologies, which was acquired by 3M in 2008. The earplugs were marketed to block all noise when inserted on the olive-colored end. When inserted on the yellow-colored end it was marketed to allegedly allow hearing lower-volume sounds delivered in close proximity, such as verbal communications or commands. (60) (61)

However, a possible design defect seems to have resulted in the earplugs unknowingly loosening while in wearer’s ears. The manufacturers were aware of this defect but misled the U.S. government. (62) (63)

While there was no admission of problems with the devices by 3M, 3M agreed to settle with the U.S. Department of Justice for $9.1 million in 2018. The 3M Company continues to deny any liability. (64)

3M Dual-Ended Combat Arms earplugs were used by the U.S. military between 2003 and 2015. (65) If you served in the military during that time and used 3M Dual-Ended Combat Arms earplugs, you may be eligible to pursue a lawsuit against 3M if you have been diagnosed with either:

  • Hearing loss.
  • Tinnitus (ringing or noise in the ears).

If you used these earplugs and are suffering from hearing issues, Weitz & Luxenberg is happy to help guide you through the process of evaluating your legal options. Our initial consultation is free.

Hear From Our Clients

"You have helped me to close a very difficult chapter in my life, both emotionally and financially, and I am incredibly grateful to you. About a day after I received my check and had deposited it, the reality of what you and your firm accomplished on my behalf finally sunk in -- I cried. I feel victorious and that in some small way justice has prevailed for the little guy (gal) over the corporate giant. Thanks for leveling the playing field."

Leslie H.

Defective Medical Device Lawyers: How Weitz & Luxenberg Can Help

We have represented thousands of clients across the country, winning more than $17 billion on their behalf.

As a national law firm with more than 30 years of experience winning complex, large-scale, defective medical device lawsuits, Weitz & Luxenberg is prepared to take on the challenging cases. We have represented thousands of clients across the country, winning more than $17 billion on their behalf.

If you have been injured by a medical device, we urge you to call us now. We offer a free consultation and can help you consider your legal options.

You can reach us by phone at (855) 274-5624 or fill out the form on this page. One of our representatives will contact you shortly. 

Although a past record does not guarantee future success, Weitz & Luxenberg has the experience and resources necessary to stand up to the large manufacturers of defective medical devices.

  1. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2017, August 25). Medical Devices. Recalls, Corrections and Removals (Devices) Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/PostmarketRequirements/RecallsCorrectionsAndRemovals/default.htm
  2. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2015, June 30). Medical Device Companies: Trends in Reported Net Sales and Profits Before and After Implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-635R
  3. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2017, January 25). Medical Devices. 510(k) Clearances. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/510kClearances/
  4. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2017, June 30). MAUDE – Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/search.cfm
  5. The Wall Street Journal. (2014). How Morcellation, a Common Procedure, Spread Cancer in Hysterectomy Patients. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/morcellation
  6. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2017, February). Medical Devices. Cancer Risk Led FDA to Warn Against Certain Uses of Power Morcellators and Recommend New Labeling. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/682573.pdf
  7. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2017, January 25). Medical Devices. List of Device Recalls. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/listofrecalls/
  8. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2017, February 2). Medical Devices. Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Systems. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/ucm241601.htm
  9. Berber, R., et al. (2016, May 18). Management of metal-on-metal hip implant patients: Who, when and how to revise? Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4865716/
  10. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2016, November 25). Medical Devices. Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants: FDA Activities. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/MetalonMetalHipImplants/ucm241769.htm
  11. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2017, February 8). Information for Patients Who Have Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/MetalonMetalHipImplants/ucm241766.htm#13
  12. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2015, April 10). Medical Devices. Concerns about Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/MetalonMetalHipImplants/ucm241604.htm
  13. Oliveira, C.A., et al. (2014, November 28). Metallosis: A diagnosis not only in patients with metal-on-metal prostheses. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26937430
  14. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2015, April 10). Medical Devices. Concerns about Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/MetalonMetalHipImplants/ucm241604.htm
  15. Matharu, G.S. (2017). The Investigation and Management of Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty Patients. Retrieved from https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GyCrbtitgHwJ:https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:842f7ea5-19a6-44b6-bc03-23a9e836a036/datastreams/content01+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
  16. Drummond, J., et al. (2015, June 26). Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty: A Review of Adverse Reactions and Patient Management. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4598667/
  17. Krochtengel, J. (2016, December 2). Huge Verdicts Won’t Spur Settlement Talks in J&J Hip MDL. Retrieved from https://www.law360.com/articles/868311/huge-verdicts-won-t-spur-settlement-talks-in-j-j-hip-mdl
  18. Koch, C.N., et al. (2016, October). Spontaneous Fractures of a Modern Modular Uncemented Femoral Stem. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27703419
  19. Stronach, B.M., et al. (2016, March). Failure of Emperion modular femoral stem with implant analysis. Retrieved from http://www.arthroplastytoday.org/article/S2352-3441(15)00080-1/fulltext
  20. Shah, R.R., et al. (2017, October). Alarmingly High Rate of Implant Fractures in One Modular Femoral Stem Design: A Comparison of Two Implants. Retrieved from http://www.arthroplastyjournal.org/article/S0883-5403(17)30470-9/fulltext
  21. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute Ltd. (2016, September). Emperion Total Conventional Hip Investigation. Retrieved from https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/documents/10180/277147/Emperion%20Femoral%20Stem
  22. Smith & Nephew Inc. (2016, November 15). Urgent Field Safety Notice: Medical Device Field Safety Corrective Action/Recall. Retrieved from http://www.bfarm.de/SharedDocs/Kundeninfos/EN/11/2016/09832-16_Kundeninfo_en.pdf;jsessionid=A90BEC524676E62D9943FE20B8C99B1C.1_cid350?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
  23. O’Sullivan, J. (2016, December 19). Stryker Adds Patients To $1B Hip Implant Settlement. Retrieved from https://www.law360.com/articles/874540/stryker-adds-patients-to-1b-hip-implant-settlement
  24. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2017, July 19). Class 2 Device Recall. Stryker LFIT Anatomic V40 Femoral Head. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRes/res.cfm?ID=149782
  25. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2017, April 5). In Re: Stryker Orthopaedics LFIT V40 Femoral Head Products Liability Litigation. MDL No. 2768. Retrieved from http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2768-Initial_Transfer-03-17.pdf
  26. Ibid.
  27. Field, E. (2016, November 2). Wright Medical Technology Agrees to $240M Hip Implant Deal. Retrieved from https://www.law360.com/articles/858934
  28. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2015, October 2). Safety. Profemur Neck Varus/Valgus CoCr 8 Degree, Part number PHAC 1254 by MicroPort Orthopedics: Class I Recall - Unexpected Rate of Fractures After Surgery. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch/safetyinformation/safetyalertsforhumanmedicalproducts/ucm465529.htm
  29. MicroPort. (2013, June 25). MicroPort Scientific Corporation and Wright Medical Group, Inc. Enter Into Definitive Agreement Under Which MicroPort Will Acquire Wright's OrthoRecon Business. Retrieved from http://www.microport.com.cn/en/media.php?curr_page=news_details&id=199
  30. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2009, June 24). Safety. Background and Definitions. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm165546.htm
  31. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2015, October 2). Safety. Profemur Neck Varus/Valgus CoCr 8 Degree, Part Number PHAC 1254 by MicroPort Orthopedics: Class I Recall – Unexpected Rate of Fractures After Surgery. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm465529.htm
  32. U.S. National Library of Medicine. MedlinePlus. (2015, July 13). Risks of hip and knee replacement. Retrieved from https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000375.htm
  33. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2017, July 19). Medical Device Recalls. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfres/res.cfm?start_search=1&event_id=55876
  34. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2017, July 19). Medical Device Recalls. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfres/res.cfm?start_search=1&event_id=57178
  35. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2017, June 15). MDL Statistics Report – Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District (ILN). MDL-2272. Retrieved from http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-June-15-2017.pdf
  36. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2017, July 19). Class 2 Device Recall. Persona Trabecular Metal Tibial Plate/Persona TM Tibia. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRes/res.cfm?ID=133978
  37. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (2018, June 13). Urgent Field Safety Notice. Retrieved from https://www.mcgartland.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Smith-Nephew-Field-Safety-Notice-Journey-BCS-Knee.pdf
  38. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2018, October 1). Class 2 Device Recall. Journey BCS Knee System. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/SCRIPTs/cdrh/cfdocs/cfres/res.cfm?id=165170
  39. Ibid.
  40. Eisner, W. (2018, August 8). Orthopedics This Week. Safety Notice for S&N Journey BSC (sic) Knee. Retrieved from https://ryortho.com/breaking/safety-notice-for-sn-journey-bsc-knee/
  41. Ranawat, A. S. (2010, April 14). Revision Total Knee Replacement: Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from https://www.hss.edu/conditions_revision-total-knee-replacement-faqs.asp
  42. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. (2015, May). Revision Total Knee Replacement. Retrieved from https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/en/treatment/revision-total-knee-replacement/
  43. Bohsali, K., et al. (2017, February 1). Complications of Shoulder Arthroplasty. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190903052402/http://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/Abstract/2017/02010/Complications_of_Shoulder_Arthroplasty.10.aspx
  44. Endovascular Today. (2014, May 7). FDA Updates Safety Communication on IVC Filter Retrieval. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190903052402/http://evtoday.com/2014/05/07/fda-updates-safety-communication-on-ivc-filter-retrieval
  45. Ibid. (2016, December 16). Inferior vena cava filters are overused. What’s the harm? Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190903052402/http://pulmccm.org/main/2016/review-articles/ivc-filters-benefits-risks-remain-unclear-overused-anyway/
  46. Mayo Clinic Staff. (2016, August 18). Pulmonary embolism. Overview. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190903052402/http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pulmonary-embolism/home/ovc-20234736
  47. Endovascular Today. (2014, May 7). FDA Updates Safety Communication on IVC Filter Retrieval. Retrieved from http://evtoday.com/2014/05/07/fda-updates-safety-communication-on-ivc-filter-retrieval
  48. Gosk, S., & Sandler, T. (2015, December 31). Why Did Firm Keep Selling Problem Blood-Clot Filters? Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190903052402/http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/why-did-firm-keep-selling-problem-blood-clot-filters-n488166
  49. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2017, September 15). MDL Statistics Report –Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190903052402/http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-September-15-2017.pdf
  50. U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. (2016, June 8). In Re: Cook Medical, Inc., IVC Filters Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation. Case Management Order #17. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190903052402/http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/sites/insd/files/MDL%202570%20Case%20Mgmt%20Order%2017.pdf
  51. U.S. District Court. District of Arizona. (n.d.). In Re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190903052402/http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/case-info/bard
  52. U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. (2016, June 8). In Re: Cook Medical, Inc., IVC Filters Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation. Case Management Order #17. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190903052402/http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/sites/insd/files/MDL%202570%20Case%20Mgmt%20Order%2017.pdf
  53. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2017, April 4). Medical Devices. Hernia Surgical Mesh Implants. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190903052402/https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/HerniaSurgicalMesh/default.htm
  54. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (n.d.). Medical Devices. Surgical Mesh: FDA Safety Communication. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190903052402/https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm142636.htm
  55. Ibid.
  56. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2011, July 5). MAUDE Adverse Event Report: Atrium Medical Corporation Atrium C-QUR 4” x 6” Hernia Mesh. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190903052402/https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=2650980
  57. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2017, June 28). MAUDE Adverse Event Report: Davol Inc., Sub. C.R. Bard, Inc. Mesh-Ventralex Surgical Mesh. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190903052402/https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=6675252&pc=FTL
  58. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2017, May 22). MAUDE Adverse Event Report: Johnson & Johnson International Physiomesh Mesh, Surgical. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190903052402/https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=6642940&pc=FTL
  59. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2017, June 15). MAUDE Adverse Event Report: Covidien/Medtronic Parietex Progrip Mesh. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190903052402/https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=5774864&pc=KDD
  60. Docketbird. (2016, May 12). In the United States District Court of South Carolina Columbia Division. United States of America ex rel. Moldex-Metric, Inc., Plaintiff/Relator, vs 3M Company. Retrieved from https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/United-States-of-America-et-al-v-3m-Company/COMPLAINT-against-3M-Company-Filinng-fee-400-receipt-number-0420-6549-filed-by-Moldex-Metric-Inc/scd-3:2016-cv-01533-00001
  61. Rempfer, K. (2018, July 26). Company to pay $9 million after allegedly selling defective combat earplugs to US military. Retrieved from https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/07/26/company-to-pay-9-million-after-allegedly-selling-defective-combat-earplugs-to-us-military/
  62. U.S. Department of Justice. (2018, July 26). 3M Company Agrees to Pay $9.1 Million to Resolve Allegations That it Supplied the United States With Defective Dual-End Combat Arms Earplugs. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/3m-company-agrees-pay-91-million-resolve-allegations-it-supplied-united-states-defective-dual
  63. Rempfer, K. (2018, July 26). Company to pay $9 million after allegedly selling defective combat earplugs to US military. Retrieved from https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/07/26/company-to-pay-9-million-after-allegedly-selling-defective-combat-earplugs-to-us-military/
  64. Ibid.
  65. Docketbird. (2018, July 26). United States of America ex rel. Moldex-Metric, Inc., Plaintiff/Relator, vs 3M Company. In the United States District Court of South Carolina Columbia Division. Retrieved from https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/United-States-of-America-et-al-v-3m-Company/COMPLAINT-against-3M-Company-Filinng-fee-400-receipt-number-0420-6549-filed-by-Moldex-Metric-Inc/scd-3:2016-cv-01533-00001

Get the Help You Need Today

Free Case Review