ev3, Inc. issues a Class 1 medical recall of Trailblazer Support Catheters

Recently, ev3, Inc. of Plymouth, Minn., announced a Class 1 medical recall of their Trailblazer Support Catheters.

Trailblazer Support Catheters are used provide access through the skin to veins and arteries. From there, the catheter is used to provide a support channel for guide wires during access of blood vessels and to allow wire exchanges. The catheter is also used to provide a passage for the delivery of solutions to diagnose or treat patients.

The catheters were recalled because the medical device may crack near the catheter’s radiopaque marker band. A radiopaque band is a marking on the device used so that the catheter will show up clearly on an X-ray.

If the device were to crack and shards of broken catheter where left inside the patient’s body, it could result in serious medical injury, including insufficient oxygen supply to tissues, damage to blood vessels, heart attack, limb amputation, unplanned surgery or even death.

The recalled medical devices include product manufactured from September 11-29, 2009.

Continue Reading...

Arnold & Itkin announces lawsuits against makers of defective pain pumps

The Houston trial law firm Arnold & Itkin LLP has filed five lawsuits against the makers of defective pain pumps and related medications based on claims that many of the company’s defective medical devices  are causing irreversible shoulder damage among patients. Currently, medical attorneys at Arnold & Itkin LLP represent 28 people who received pain pumps to manage pain following shoulder surgery. The pumps utilize a catheter to deliver continuous doses of medication directly into the shoulder. According to the lawsuits, pain pump manufacturers were denied approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use the pumps to mitigate pain in shoulder joints, but the companies continued to promote their use in that way. Many former pain pump users say the companies were negligent in designing, researching and selling pain pumps that they should have known were dangerous. The legal filings include claims of fraud, breach of warranty and products liability against the defendant manufacturers.

FDA Looking at Ways to Improve Medical Device Safety

Last week, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials held what the New York Times called a “rare” meeting to discuss the many controversies surrounding the agency's device safety record; medical attorneys think the meeting is past due.

The director of the FDA’s Office of Device Evaluation, Dr. Donna-Bea Tillman, called for an “all hands meeting,” to include all scientists in the device evaluation section. Shockingly, a meeting like this has not been held at the FDA in years. Then again, when you consider the agency's medical device safety record, it really is not very surprising.

FDAThe meeting is the most recent in a series of developments surrounding the FDA's record in approving devices. At least 9 scientists this year wrote to Principal Deputy Commissioner, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, alleging that approval procedures in the device section were being "severely distorted." The letter also alleged that scientists at the agency, who were raising their voice against such unethical practices, were facing retaliation by FDA higher-ups. The matter has been serious enough to warrant a Congressional investigation. Soon, the Institute of Medicine could also begin probing these serious concerns about the device section.

Things seem to be heating up at the medical device section of the FDA. Two things are apparent at this point:

  • There are serious failures in the medical device division of the FDA.
  • These problems are not going to be solved by mere patch-up work.  Rather, the section needs a complete overhaul to root out unethical practices, and make approval processes corruption-proof.

Any changes that come about at the medical device division cannot be a day too soon.

Defective Medical Devices

It is the FDA's responsibility to protect American consumers from dangerous medical devices. If they fall down on the job and let corrupt individuals get in the way of important safety evaluations, we are all at risk.

If you or a loved one has been injured by a defective medical device, a medical injury attorney can help you recover physically, emotionally, and financially.

Contact a medical injury lawyer, at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation and to find the answers to any questions you might have.

Medical Device Maker to Pay $302 million to Settle Misleading Marketing Allegations

Quest Diagnostics has agreed to pay $302 million as part of a settlement in a case involving both civil and criminal charges. The Quest settlement is one of the largest involving a medical device.

The agreement also calls for a Quest subsidiary, Nichols Institute Diagnostics, to plead guilty to criminal mis-branding charges. Both New Jersey-based Quest and Nichols will pay $262 million plus interest, to settle charges against them stating they made misleading product claims under the Federal False Claims Act. Nichols will also pay a fine of $40 million. Also, Quest has agreed to compensate state Medicaid programs with $6.2 million to settle claims of misleading marketing. Nichols, as part of the criminal resolution of the case, pled guilty to felony mis-branding and marketing ”unproven advantages” of the Advantage Chemiluminescence Intact Parathyroid Hormone Immunoassay. As part of the settlement, Quest entered into a no prosecution agreement with the government.

Quest Diagnostics Mis-brandingEarlier this year, the company was involved in another medical injury scandal in which defective diagnostic kits used for monitoring vitamin D levels, caused botched test results. Thousands of people were believed to have been impacted by the defective results. A high reading of vitamin D levels could result in patients not taking as high a dose of the vitamin D supplement as they needed, while an erroneous low reading could result in patients taking higher doses of vitamin D supplements than required, ultimately resulting in Vitamin D toxicity. The company issued a massive recall of its lab tests and sent letters to thousands of doctors asking them to get their patients retested. Quest has also faced criticism from medical injury lawyers and patient safety advocates because it waited nearly two years to announce the test recall.

Medical Injury Prevention

Medical companies have a responsibility to keep consumers safe by informing them when there has been a mistake or if they find a defect in one of their products. Failure to do this can result in the company being fine great amounts of money and, more importantly, injuries to innocent patients.

If you or a loved one has been injured due to the neglect of a medical company, a medical injury attorney can help you find the resources you need.

Contact an experienced medical injury attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation.

Zoll AED Plus Defibrillators Recalled After Reports of Death

Zoll Medical Corporation recalled its AED Plus Defibrillators because of battery defects in some of the units, and malfunction of self testing software that fails to detect faulty batteries. Approximately, 180,000 units have been included in the recall.

The company sent a letter to customers in February warning them that the defibrillators were prone to a malfunction that has already been linked to the deaths of two people.

Defective Medical DeviceThe Zoll AED Plus Defibrillator is used by emergency personal, medical personnel, and those who have received CPR AED training. The device is used to treat patients having a cardiac arrest. It works by analyzing the heartbeat of an unconscious patient and instructing the user to press a button that can deliver an electrical shock to the heart, and restore a normal cardiac rhythm. The recalled defibrillators failed to deliver an electrical shock to patients' heart.

In the letter it sent to customers in February, the company asked customers to get their batteries replaced every three years. In March, the company sent a follow up letter asking customers to download new testing software to test the devices. According to that letter, the defibrillators could be prone to failure because of defective battery test software that does not detect flawed batteries.

The recalled devices were manufactured from May 2004 to February 2009, and distributed during the same period. The company asked customers not to stop at changing the batteries, as that will not correct the problem, also, the device software must be downloaded for the defect to be corrected. The company also confirmed that it received two reports of death from the failure of the device. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has classified this as a Class I recall, meaning there is a ‘’reasonable probability’’ that using the product could cause injury or death.

Medical Injury Attorney

Complex medical devices like defibrillators have been responsible for saving thousands of lives, but when these are sent out into the market with a defect, the resulting injuries can be extremely serious. Medical injury lawyers can help victims, who have been injured because of these defects, recover compensation.

If you have been injured by the use of a defective medical device, contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation.

FDA To Ask Medical Device Makers to Prove Safety

In a step long awaited by medical injury lawyers, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced it will ask makers of external defibrillators, pacemakers, and other medical devices to prove the safety and effectiveness of their products.

These devices, among others, were allowed into the market with very little testing in 1976, before the medical device law was passed. After the law was enacted, the FDA was supposed to determine which of the older devices needed retesting before the agency could give approval for new versions. The agency, however, failed to do so and, for years since, has continued to approve such devices without requiring rigorous safety testing. The agency recently began a review of two of its older device categories and will be sending notices to the makers of at least 25 other device types, asking them to submit product safety information to the agency within 120 days.

Medical Injury AttorneyThe device categories include several high risk devices like external defibrillators, pacemaker parts, and others that have been in the news for various medical injury lawsuits. With this, the theory that the FDA has stringent monitoring processes and should, therefore, be the sole arbiter of a device's safety, has been debunked.

Meanwhile, patients across the country who have been implanted with Medtronic's Sprint Fidelis Defibrillator leads, just one example of the FDA's failure to monitor the safety of devices, are living in anxiety that their devices could malfunction, leading to severe injuries. For these patients, every day that goes by could mean further deterioration of the lead that connects the defibrillator to the heart, and even more anxiety. The extraction process is high risk and not recommended; these patients are caught between a rock and a hard place. They cannot undergo surgery because it is risky, and they cannot sue the company because of the Riegel vs. Medtronic Supreme Court ruling, in which the court held that a device maker could not be sued for injuries caused by an FDA-approved medical device.

The FDA and Defective Medical Devices

For those of use who have never fallen for the theory that the FDA's "stringent" review processes can be relied on, and that device makers, therefore, deserve immunity from lawsuits relating to agency-approved devices, this move by the FDA is a welcome first step. However, thousands of patients who have been injured by the use of these minimally tested devices continue their wait to seek justice for their injuries.  

The medical injury attorneys at Arnold & Itkin LLP have extensive experience representing victims of injuries. If you have been injured by the use of a defective medical device, contact a medical injury attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your case.

 
Continue Reading...

FDA Issues Class-I Recall of Medtronic Brain Catheters

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a Class I recall of a brain catheter manufactured by Medtronic Inc. due to failures in the device that may result in serious medical injuries.

In February, Medtronic recalled the BioGlide Ventricular Snap Shunt Catheters that are used to drain excess brain fluid into another part of the body. The catheter is often used in the treatment of hydrocephalus, a condition in which excessive fluid forms in the brain. The company received reports that the catheters are prone to disconnecting. According to Medtronic, such failures could cause:

  • Vomiting
  • Nausea
  • Fatigue
  • Headache
  • Seizures
  • Visual problems

Medical Injury AttorneyAlthough the company says it has not received reports of death or serious injuries connected to the use of the catheters, the FDA has classified the recall a Class I. Generally, such a recall is issued when there is “a reasonable probability” that the use of a product can result in serious injuries or death. 3,000 catheters, distributed between 2000 & 2009 are affected by the recall.

The company has received nine reports of the catheter disconnecting. In these instances, the catheters disconnected from the snap base assembly, resulting in the need for emergency revision surgery.

The recall involves the following models of the catheter:

  • Inner Vision Snap Shunt Ventricular Catheter BioGlide (R: 25.44, 1.15, 4.73%) Catalog Number 27782
  • Snap Shunt Ventricular BioGlide(R: 25.44, 1.15,  4.73%) Catalog Number 27802
  • Snap Shunt Ventricular Catheter BioGlide (R: 25.44, 1.15, 4.73%) Catalog Number 27708

Patents who have questions have been asked to contact their doctors or the company.

Defective Medical Devices Can Cause Serious Injuries

By the time a medical device is found to have a serious defect, it is often too late for patients who have been injured, sometimes fatally, by their use. It is the job of the FDA and medical device companies to keep patients informed and to protect consumers from dangerous medical products. 

If you or a loved one has been injured by the use of a defective medical device, a medical injury lawyer can help you recover compensation for your injuries. Contact an experienced medical injury attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your case.

Patients March for Right to Sue Medical Device Makers

Across the country, support for the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 is growing as medical injury lawyers, patients' rights groups, and the New England Journal of Medicine throw their combined weight behind it. The Act, which was introduced in March, aims to overturn the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that granted device makers immunity for injuries caused by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved devices.

The Act was introduced by U.S. Representatives Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) and Henry Waxman (D- CA), together with a similar bill, introduced by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Medical Injury AttorneyIt seeks to nullify the Supreme Court's ruling in Riegel v. Medtronic. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that patients could not file medical injury lawsuits against device makers under state laws, if the device had been approved by federal regulating authorities.

The new Act has spurred action from health and consumer groups, and has received backing from the American Bar Association. The Center of Justice and Democracy released a report, Hazardous Heart Devices and the Importance of Litigation, that offers a chilling look at the way heart device makers have used blatant cover ups to avoid liability for defective products. Even the venerable New England Journal of Medicine has thrown its support behind the bill, arguing in favor of patients' rights to full disclosure of the benefits and risks of a device and their right to hold a company accountable if it fails to disclose all risks associated with a device.

Medical Injury Lawsuits

Medtronic, the company responsible for setting off the preemption debate, is standing firm in its belief that the FDA should be the sole arbiter of a device's safety. Determining safety of a device is the responsibility of the FDA and should not be left to "juries of laypersons," company representatives say. The company has managed to duck numerous medical injury lawsuits related to its defective Sprint Fidelis leads and judges around the country have used the Supreme Court ruling to dismiss many other medical injury lawsuits.

As things currently stand, patients can sue pharmaceutical drug companies for their failure to warn of risks that cause medical injuries, but cannot sue device makers. It is a strange and entirely incompatible state of affairs and the bill's supporters hope patients' right will be soon be reinstated.

If you've been injured by the use of a defective medical device, contact a medical injury attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation.

Boston Scientific Issues Warning About Malfunctioning Defibrillators

Boston Scientific Corp. recently announced, a malfunctioning wire in Cognis and Teligen defibrillators may result in an abnormal or unnecessary shock, causing serious medical injuries to patients.

Defective Medical DevicesBoston Scientific introduced the defibrillators last year in an attempt to grab market share from other device makers. The company expected sales from the two defibrillators to fast track growth this year. The safety warning, sent to cardiologists, seems to have put a halt on the company's plans, in addition to causing concern to thousands of patients who are implanted with the Cognis and Teligen defibrillators. The company says about 34,000 units have been sold since their introduction. The problem, however, is restricted to about 8,000 of these devices that come with respiratory sensors. The wires that connect the defibrillator to the heart are prone to malfunction which can result in one of two situations:

  • The device may fail to operate properly, resulting in failure to emit a lifesaving electrical jolt to the heart when an abnormal cardiac rhythm is detected.
  • The device may deliver an unnecessary electrical shock to the heart, resulting in severe pain and cardiac injuries.  

Wire problems with defibrillators tend to increase as the device gets older. The Cognis and Teligen defibrillators however are a relatively new entrant into the $11 billion defibrillator market. This is why the announcement, which warns of the device's susceptibility to early malfunction, surprised so many defibrillator experts. If these warnings seem all too familiar, it is because medical injury lawyers and patients who suffer from cardiac arrhythmia remember the thousands of injuries and 13 deaths caused by Medtronic’s malfunctioning defibrillators in 2007.

Defective Defibrillators

Considering the number of problems linked to these devices, it is fair to assume that there could potentially be malfunctions in defibrillators manufactured by other companies also. Cardiac defibrillator devices have been a blessing for thousands of patients who suffer from heart problems. However, manufacturing companies have been reluctant to inform the public about problems with the devices. To make matters worse, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is supposed to screen devices thoroughly before approving them for marketing, has been slow to warn patients.

If you've been injured by the use of a defective defibrillator or other medical device, contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your case.

FDA Issues Class I Recall for Baxter Colleague Infusion Pumps

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a Class I recall for Baxter International's Colleague infusion pumps, but a prominent consumer advocacy group is criticizing the agency for its delay in issuing the recall.

The recall was made concerning Single and Triple Channel Volumetric Infusion Pumps, which are used to deliver fluids and drugs to patients. There is a malfunction in the battery and software of the device that can cause an interruption in the infusion. This defect is serious enough to cause injury or death, therefore, the recall assigned is a Class I.

Medical Injury AttorneyIn January, Baxter sent a letter to customers informing them of the failures in the pumps. The warning included an alert that the pump could overheat, resulting in fire and smoke if not properly cleaned. The letter also underscored the importance of proper battery care, pointing out that failure to do so could cause the device to malfunction.

Baxter issued a press release announcing the recall on March 11th; the FDA posted a recall notice on its website the same day, a full seven weeks after Baxter sent the letter to customers. The FDA has come under fire by Public Citizen for its delay in issuing the recall of the drug pump. The criticism is not new – medical injury lawyers have insisted that the FDA issue recall notices quickly and on its own, rather than waiting for companies to act first.

Colleague infusion pumps have been linked to safety issues for years. The FDA, in fact, has issued at least 7 Class I recalls for the pumps. The company stopped sales of the pump in the U.S. in 2005, but at least 200,000 of the pumps are currently in use in hospitals and nursing homes across the country. The malfunctioning, which can cause the pumps to stop pumping and overheat, has been blamed for at least 19 deaths. Sidney Wolfe, the director of the Health Research Group of Public Citizen has demanded that all existing Colleague Infusion pumps be removed from the facilities that continue to use them to deliver fluids and medication to patients. Baxter, however, insists that a full withdrawal, including removal of pumps currently in use, would lead to a shortage in the market.

Delayed Recalls Increase Risk of Medical Injuries

Thousands of patients in hospitals and nursing homes around the country are at risk due to defective medical devices like Colleague Infusion pumps that they depend on to receive lifesaving drugs and fluids. It is outrageous that these pumps continue to be used, even after the manufacturer admitted the device has serious flaws.

If you've suffered injuries due to the use of a defective medical device, contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your claim.

Possible FDA Split Could Mean Safer Drugs, Fewer Medical Injuries

Critics of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have long believed that the agency should be split into two parts to ensure adequate safety processes for drug approvals and, in turn, fewer medical injuries. If President Obama’s recent actions are any indication of whats to come, these critics will soon have their wish.

Last month, President Obama appointed two health experts to top positions at the FDA. Former New York City health commissioner, Margaret Hamper, is the President's choice for the agency's commissioner; while pediatrician and child safety expert, Joshua Sharfstein, is the President's choice for deputy commissioner. Experts believe that the President's choice of two experts is an indication that he is in favor of splitting the FDA into two separate units.

Medical Injury AttorneyFDA critics have long argued that the agency is overworked and simply unable to monitor the safety of the vast amounts of pharmaceutical drugs, medical products, and medical devices that come through its doors. The agency suffers from under staffing and a shortage of resources necessary to ensure drug safety. FDA officials, themselves, admit that the agency is unable to meet the changing demands of a globalized world, where pharmaceutical drugs are frequently sourced from foreign plants. In 2005, the FDA approved close to 3,200 applications for marketing of new medical devices. Yet, the agency has only a fraction of the scientist and researchers necessary to process so many applications. Because of this the FDA often has no other option, but to rely on the device makers themselves to disclose the risks of their products.

FDA Division Supporters

The drug industry has been quietly supporting a possible division of the agency, because it could result in faster approvals of pharmaceutical drugs. The FDA experiences frequent delays in its approval and review processes for pharmaceutical drugs due to its shortage of staff. However, medical injury lawyers would welcome an FDA split due to the possibility of more stringent monitoring of review processes and, therefore, enhanced safety of drugs and devices approved for promotion.  

Medical Injury AttorneyIn recent years the FDA has battled several food safety crises. Every time there is a contaminated batch of peanut butter or pistachios, the agency is forced to turn its attention to food safety. It has become increasingly clear that we cannot continue to expect the agency, responsible for making sure tomatoes and peppers are free of pathogens, to also be responsible for monitoring the safety of bone graft products, implantable cardioverter defibrillators and drug eluting stents.

If you've been injured through use of a defective drug, medical device, contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation.

Medical Device Maker Lobbied for FDA Approval

Supporters of the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that granted device makers immunity from medical injury lawsuits brought on by FDA approved devices, should rethink their position. According to the Wall Street Journal, a knee device maker engaged in unethical lobbying to obtain U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for its new device.

The approval for Menaflex implants, which are used to help knee injury patients, was given overriding objections by FDA scientists. According to FDA correspondents, several senior staff members of the agency complained that ReGen Biologics Inc., the company that manufactures Menaflex, pressured the agency to approve the device. Lawmakers have since gotten involved in the controversy with Senator Chuck Grassley sending letters to the agency as well as the device maker, calling for more information about interactions between the two. According to Senator Grassley, his investigation is based on emails that suggest the agency was overenthusiastic in its readiness to ‘’accommodate the company.’’ Menaflex received approval under the agency's fast track rules, in which clinical trials are not necessary.

Medical Injury LawyerIt is not only ReGen Biologics Inc. and the safety, or lack of it, of Menaflex in question here. At the crux of the matter are the reliability and integrity of FDA approval processes. Email correspondence between staff members at the agency indicate that they removed certain lines from emails that could indicate ‘’special treatment for the device maker.’’ FDA critics are concerned about what they call the agency’s tendency to bow to device companies. The fast track process, in particular, has come under intense scrutiny. The process allows scientists to bypass clinical trials only when reviewing devices similar to existing ones. There is no explanation forthcoming about why Menaflex was approved under the fast track process considering it is the only device of its kind in the market. With the FDA behaving more like a corrupt government than the country's premier drug safety agency, it is fair to assume that medical injury lawyers will be kept busy for a while.

Defective Medical Device Lawsuits

Medical devices that are rushed through approval processes or approved through lobbying efforts may come with risks that can pose potential dangers to patients. These devices may not have had stringent review guidelines applied to them, which means their safety may not be thoroughly verified.

If you've been injured by the use of a defective medical device, and want to know if you are eligible for compensation, contact an experienced medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP.

Possible Conflict of Interest Could Reverse Dismissal of Medtronic Injury Cases

Earlier this year, a Minnesota judge dismissed hundreds of Medtronic injury cases, citing federal preemption over state law in medical injury lawsuits. It now appears that the judge failed to disclose that Medtronic has been a longstanding client of the law firm his son works for.

This provides a shocking and controversial twist to the litigation and offers a spark of hope to plaintiffs who's cases were dismissed. Judge Richard H. Kyle was appointed to preside over the lawsuit that included nearly 700 Medtronic injury lawsuits, brought by patients who suffered injuries from Medtronic Sprint Fidelis defibrillator leads. Defective Medtronic LeadsIn January, Judge Kyle dismissed all Sprint Fidelis injury lawsuits citing a Supreme Court opinion that establishes the preemption of federal regulations over state law. Now, attorneys for the plaintiffs intend to cite potential conflict of interest because Kyle's son works for the law firm Frederickson & Byron, which has represented Medtronic for years. Judge Kyle insists that he did not see the need to reveal that fact, because his son's work involves criminal law and would, likely, not have had much to do with Medtronic. Plaintiffs' medical injury lawyers have made clear their intention to have Kyle disqualified from the case for his failure to reveal the relationship his son's law firm had with Medtronic. Meanwhile Medtronic, in an effort at damage control, has released a statement claiming that Judge Kyle’s son has never represented Medtronic, the world's largest medical device maker. It seams like this is not the last we will hear of the Minnesota Medtronic lawsuits.

Medtronic Sprint Fidelis Lead Injuries

Medtronic Sprint Fidelis defibrillator leads were the subject of a recall in 2007 when it became apparent that the defective leads could fracture, causing an electric shock to the heart. These lead fractures could also result in the failure of the defibrillator device to function properly and administer a life saving shock to the heart in case of an abnormal heart rhythm. At least 5 people have died from these injuries and hundreds have been injured.

If you have been injured by the Medtronic defibrillator leads or any other defective medical device, contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your claim. 

Georgia Set to Limit Liability for Pharmaceutical Drug and Medical Device Companies

Georgia has introduced legislation aimed at protecting manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices from injury liability in a misplaced effort to attract these companies to the state.  If it becomes a law, the bill may have dangerous implications for Georgia residents who could have their options for liability claims severely limited.

Senate Bill 101 was introduced last week by Senator Bill Cowsert (R- Athens). The bill, which has the approval of Governor Sonny Perdue, aims to amend existing liability codes. Promoters are hoping Defective Medical Products to pass it before Atlanta becomes the venue for the world's largest biotechnology conference in May. Earlier this year, Governor Perdue unveiled the legislation at a meeting of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, outlining his intention of making it harder for victims to pursue civil liability claims against pharmaceutical companies. Basically, the bill grants immunity to drug and medical device manufacturers from any medical injury lawsuits if the drug or device has already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is no secret that the legislation is aimed at making the state's investment climate attractive to pharmaceutical companies who may consider setting up business there. As a spokesman for the governor confirms, the state wishes to pursue these companies aggressively to set up base in Georgia, and so, has dangled the civil liability immunity carrot in front of them.

Not surprisingly, civil justice proponents, patients' rights advocates and medical injury lawyers have been vocal in opposing any bill that grants immunity to pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers based purely on FDA approval of drugs or devices. As we have seen in recent years, many drugs and devices have been hastily pulled off the market after the dangers of using them came to light. All of these products had FDA approval. There are critics both within the FDA and outside the organization who claim its inspection standards and oversight procedures are far from adequate. In a scenario like this, passing legislation that relies purely on FDA approval to decide the validity of medical injury lawsuits is extremely harsh and unfair to patients. Beside, dangling the immunity carrot in front of pharmaceutical companies may actually prove counterproductive. The only other state that grants immunity to these companies is Michigan, which, contrary to being flooded with investment after the immunity law was passed, has actually found thousands of pharmaceutical jobs leaving the state.

Medical Injury Lawyers

Any time a state attempts to interfere with patients' rights to hold companies responsible for their injuries is a bad sign for civil justice in the country. Granting these companies immunity at the cost of patients' rights to protect themselves is a serious mistake, and one we hope Georgia won't make.

If you have been injured by the use of a defective pharmaceutical drug or medical device, contact a medical injury attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your claim.

Congress Report Slams Shoddy FDA Approval of Medical Drugs and Devices

Under scrutiny for its failure to prevent unsafe pharmaceutical and medical devices from entering the American market, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been criticized by a government body in a report filed this week.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) expressed doubts that Americans can expect adequate protection “from unsafe and ineffective medical products” from the FDA.  The GAO submitted its list of federal government agencies that are in need of improvement and the FDA made the list, which also includes the Treasury Department and Medicare. According to the report, FDA efforts to ensure the safety of the American consumer have been deterred not only by increasing globalization that has led to a large number of drugs and devices being made in overseas plants, but also because newer and more complex devices are being developed. Already bogged down by a lack of resources to handle such complex and technologically advanced products, the FDA also lacks access to databases that allow thorough and regular inspections of all plants, including the many overseas.  Other groups have also criticized the FDA's record in keeping dangerous drugs and devices out of the American market. The FDA acknowledges that there are holes in the system that need to be plugged if the agency is to be able to carry on its task of protecting American consumers.

Meanwhile, with a new administration in power there are signs that a beefing up of FDA may be in the works. According to another report, House Energy and Commerce Democrats are planning to introduce new laws that give the country's premier drug safety agency greater powers to oversee pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices. Disapproval for the FDA's conduct has spilled over into criticism for just about anything the beleaguered agency does. Earlier in January, a slideshow that attempted to boost morale by comparing the FDA chief Janet Woodcock to Gandhi had lawmakers furious about the $1.5 million contract awarded to the consultant responsible for the creation of the slide show. Another point of criticism was that the slideshow contract was handed to a firm known for its contact with pharmaceutical companies. The FDA has, in recent years, also come under fire for its links to the pharmaceutical industry.

The agency's failure to guarantee the quality of pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices introduced into the market has left dozens of people dead and hundreds injured in recent pharmaceutical scandals. Some of these include Avandia heart injuries, contaminated Heparin and Paxil side effects.  

Medical Injury Lawyer

If you have been injured by the use of a defective pharmaceutical drug or medical device, you will need the representation of an expert medical injury lawyer to recover compensation. 

Contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation.

 

 

Minnesota Judge Dismisses Medtronic Defibrillator Lawsuits

A judge in St. Paul, Minnesota has dismissed dozens of lawsuits related to heart injuries caused by Medtronic's Sprint Fidelis defibrillator leads, citing federal preemption of state laws on the matter. 

In October of 2007, Medtronic Inc., stopped sales of its Sprint Fidelis defibrillator lead wires after reports that they failed to function properly in the event of heart attacks. The leads are wires that connect the defibrillator to the heart. When the lead is fractured the defibrillator cannot send a life saving shock to the heart in the event of an impending heart failure. The broken wire can also cause a massive and painful shock to the heart. After reports of patient injuries and deaths resulting from defective leads, Medtronic was forced to withdraw them from the market. At the time of the recall, approximately 257,000 patients had been implanted with the Sprint Fidelis defibrillator lead. Since then the company has faced multiple medical injury lawsuits filed by patients across the nation who sustained injuries caused by the defective leads.

In a separate case in February 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled under a controversial doctrine known as "preemption" that FDA approval of a medical device would supersede any lawsuit filed against a medical device maker under state laws. The Bush administration has pushed for preemption of federal regulations over state laws which has been criticized by consumer rights advocates and medical attorneys for the unwarranted protection it offers makers of medical devices. Under preemption, an injured patient would not be able to file a personal injury lawsuit against a medical device maker if the FDA had already approved the device. This doctrine works on the assumption that the FDA can never be wrong in all its approvals and that patients should have blind faith in the agency's ability to ensure that only the safest products enter the market. Unfortunately, the FDA's record on maintaining safety in drugs and devices introduced into the American market give little cause for comfort. The agency has battled allegations from its own scientists that approval for medical devices is obtained through coercive techniques.

Medtronic Sprint Fidelis Lead Lawsuits

Thousands of people around the country who have been injured as a result of the malfunctioning leads have filed lawsuits against Medtronic Inc.  For the remaining who have yet to suffer injuries from the malfunctioning lead, the prospects for replacing the lead are bleak, as it involves an invasive and potentially dangerous surgery.

As is evident from this lawsuit dismissal in St. Paul, taking on major pharmaceutical companies who enjoy the protection of the government is not an easy task. The medical injury lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP have the solid expertise and experience, as well as the considerable resources that pursuing Medtronic defibrillator lawsuits requires. We can answer your questions and help you evaluate your options for possible compensation.

If you have been inured by the Medtronic defibrillator leads, contact a medical injury attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP. 

 

Medtronic Faces Medical Injury Lawsuit Over Off-Label Use of Infuse

Medtronic Inc. is facing a lawsuit over the death of a California woman after a surgery during which the company's Infuse bone growth medical product was inserted into the neck. The lawsuit is the first for the company stemming from allegations that Medtronic indulges in promotion of off-label use of its bone growth product, a liquid protein sealed in a casing and inserted between the vertebrae.

The lawsuit is unusual in that it doesn't blame the doctor for the complications that resulted after 74-year-old Shirley Nesbit underwent the surgery to insert the bestselling bone growth protein in her neck. The FDA had recently warned doctors against use of the product in the neck, because of the possibility of respiratory difficulties. Nesbit underwent the surgery in August, a few weeks after the FDA's warning. She developed serious respiratory problems because of the pressure on her neck and throat.   Attempts to insert a breathing tube lost precious minutes for Nesbit, and she slipped into a coma, dying 9 days later.

Her family alleges in the lawsuit that Medtronic's representative who was present during the surgery, pressured the doctor to use Infuse in her neck, although the FDA approves it for use only in the lower back, and for certain dental applications. Doctors are not prohibited from using any medical product for applications that are not approved by the FDA, but companies are not allowed to push for off label use of the product, which is what Medtronic is accused of doing. Both Medtronic and the surgeon in question, deny any pressure to use Infuse. The company, no stranger to medical injury lawsuits because of its earlier problems with its defective Medtronic defibrillator devices, claims that representatives are sometimes present at procedures for support and advice to the surgeon. Making things worse for Medtronic are two whistleblower lawsuits by former employees that charge the company with paying doctors to use Infuse in ways not approved by the FDA.

Medtronic Encouraging Unapproved Use of Infuse

There have been several complaints about off-label use of Infuse, and patients have suffered obstruction of the airways leading to breathing problems after insertion. Lack of oxygen can cause brain damage in a patient. Patients often need tracheotomies to relieve pressure on their airways, and require respiratory and feeding support.

Infuse Medical Device Lawsuits

Medtronic is facing a Department of Justice probe into allegations of promotion of off-label use. However, for patients who have been injured because of such unapproved use, there is a way to obtain justice – through a defective medical device or product lawsuit against the company with the help of a medical injury lawyer. If you or a loved one has been injured by an off-label use of Infuse - meaning use of the product anywhere, except on the lower back or in oral treatments – then you may be entitled to compensation for your suffering. Contact the experienced medical injury lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your case.

 

Probe Launched Into Shady Medical Device Approvals at FDA

Pharmalot has a report that's bound to be of special interest not just to medical injury lawyers around the country, but also to millions of Americans who have been implanted with a medical device. According to the report, a group of scientists at the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health division have, in a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, made dramatic charges about the "coercions" and "force" that they have been subjected to in order to speed up or bypass normal procedures before approval of medical devices.

The charges have been shocking enough to galvanize John Dingell, chairman of the Committee and Bart Stupak, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Regulations to launch a probe into these allegations. According to the report, scientists were "ordered, intimidated and coerced" by higher-ups into modifying their recommendations for approvals in violation of standard FDA procedural practices. These coercion techniques included, the experts say, being forced to use unreliable evaluation processes, and accept data that was not procured through correct scientific means. All this was done, the letter alleges, to allow the faster approval of certain medical devices and products.

These allegations are deeply concerning to all citizens, but the tragedy is that this isn’t the first time frustrated scientists at CDRH have tried to bring this to the attention of FDA authorities. In May of this year, a similar letter with the same charge was sent to FDA officials, and in response, recommendations were made for the removal of some senior managers at CDRH. In that instance, investigating officers found "compelling evidence" that these charges were true. The fact that such allegations have been made again, this time in a letter sent to the ECC, indicates that the problem is more deep rooted than we think.

Corrupt FDA Practices and the Potential for Medical Injuries

Let's look at the implications of how this coercion of employees to rush through device safety approval procedures affects the ordinary citizen. Depending of course, on whether these latest charges are 100 percent true, and the number of years these unethical practices have been going on at the FDA, it's conceivable that thousands of people are walking around with unsafe, ineffective, or defective medical devices ranging from pacemakers and stents, to breast implants and intraocular lenses. The potential for injury through these devices is staggering, and the consequences for public safety are enormous.  As long as the FDA continues to play with the health of ordinary Americans, we can hope that pharmaceutical companies that benefited from these unethical practices will be kept in check by medical injury lawsuits and other actions brought on the part of injured consumers.

Building a Medical Injury Lawsuit

Medical devices can cause serious injuries not just through faulty design and manufacture, but also because of failure to test these devices properly, or to provide proper instructions for their use. Injuries from a defective product can include adverse reactions to the product and life threatening complications. 

Medical device litigation can be a complex and intensive process. If you have been injured by a defective device, you will need the help of an experienced medical injury lawyer to build your lawsuit. Contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your case.

 

Terumo Cardiovascular Systems Pediatric Arterial Cannulae recalled for complications that could lead to aortic damage, blood loss and/or death

Terumo Cardiovascular Systems (Terumo CVS) has issued an urgent worldwide recall of its Tenderflow™ Pediatric Arterial Cannulae, a defective medical device, involving 21 lot codes (see information below). Terumo received five reports of difficulty retracting the introducer from the cannula. When the introducer cannot be retracted from the cannula, the cannula must be removed and replaced, a process that may lead to aortic damage, blood loss and/or death.

Tenderflow™ Pediatric Arterial Cannula Catalog and Lot Numbers Affected

Catalog Number

Lot Number

813568

0501639, 0512002

813567

0501557, 0512008

813570

0502200, 0513069

813569

0502199, 0513068, 0517852

813572

0507121, 0512918

813571

0507120, 0512919, 0518680

813574

0509240

813573

0509238, 0517874

813576

0509241

813575

0500759, 0513331

813578

0500760

813577

0502878

When and how is the device used?

An arterial cannula is a disposable tube inserted in the aorta during many cardiac bypass surgery procedures and is used to perfuse the ascending aorta. The cannula is inserted using an introducer, which stabilizes the cannula during insertion and is then removed.

Where was the defective device distributed?

Terumo Cardiovascular Systems Corporation is a global manufacturer and marketer of medical devices for cardiac and vascular surgery. Terumo CVS distributed this product directly to 68 U.S. hospitals, and has notified all of the hospitals of the voluntary recall in a letter dated Oct. 16, 2008. The product was also distributed from distribution centers in Australia, Canada and Europe.

Terumo recalls the defective medical device

Terumo informed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of this recall. The notification letter recommended that customers not use the product unless it is medically necessary.

Injured by the Terumo Arterial Cannula?

If you or a loved one have been injured by this dangerous medical device, you may be entitled to compensation from those responsible. Medical device manufacturers have an obligation to manufacture and distribute safe products. When they fail to do this, a medical injury lawyer can hold them accountable. If you have questions, contact a medical injury lawyer today for a free initial consultation. We can help you understand your options for claiming compensation.

FDA warns of fire, explosion, toxic exposure risk with Battery Operated Lavage System (BOLS)

Today the FDA issued a safety alert to notify healthcare professionals about the potential for sparks, fires, toxic fumes, and explosions when disposable battery operated lavage systems’ (BOLS) cables are cut. BOLS are used in the OR, ER, burn units, and nursing units. The cutting of the battery pack's cable can lead to a short circuit, causing the batteries to discharge rapidly, producing intense heat and flammable gases with a resulting explosion that expels flammable gases and toxic chemicals endangering both patients and staff.

Read the complete MedWatch 2008 Safety summary, including a link to the Medical Device Safety alert at FDA.gov.

Study links drug eluting stents (DES) to fatal complications

Findings of a study published in November 2006 by The American Journal of Medicine indicate that patients with drug eluting stents were 4 or 5 times more likely to suffer from stent thrombosis, which can lead to heart attack or death.

On November 14, 2006, a statement by the FDA confirmed that it was aware of recent data suggesting a significant increase in the rate of death and myocardial infarction (heart attack) possibly due to stent thrombosis (a blood clot in the stent) in patients treated with drug eluting stents.

More information on the risks of injury from drug eluting stents and options for persons injured by drug eluting stents can be found at the Medical Injury Lawyer website of Houston, Texas based Arnold & Itkin LLP.

Device malfunction in Guidant Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators has potentially fatal consequences

Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators (ICD) marketed by Guidant Corp. have been recalled because of a device malfunction that can lead to potentially fatal consequences.  On June 17, 2005, in the first of multiple recalls, the FDA issued a nationwide notification of recall of certain Guident implantable defibrillators because of short circuiting issues that could lead to a failure of the device to deliver a life-saving shock when it was supposed to.

A later recall issued on April 5, 2007 recalled defective defibrillators and pacemakers marketed by Boston Scientific/Guidant claiming the devices were subject to rapid battery depletion and premature device failure.

Because defibrillators and pacemakers are used to preserve the lives of persons who depend on them, the failure of these devices can lead to very serious injuries and death.

More information on the defective Guidant Defibrilltor recalls can be found on our Medical Injury Lawyer website.