Morcellator Lawsuit Settlements

Johnson & Johnson Hysterectomy Sarcoma Attorneyis moving to settle lawsuits filed by women who say J&J’s power morcellators spread undetected uterine cancer, according to The Wall Street Journal. J&J and its Ethicon division pulled the devices in 2014 following reports which said power morcellators spread uterine cancer when used for hysterectomy or fibroid removal.

100 Morcellator Cases

An estimated 100 cases have either been filed or prepared for lawsuits against J&J and Ethicon, which enjoyed the lion’s share of laparoscopic power morcellator sales. Power morcellator cases have been consolidated in Kansas City, Kan., federal court, before Judge Kathryn H. Vratil. Of the roughly 100 claims, J&J has settled nearly 70 over the past few months, according to the Wall Street Journal.

WSJ estimated that settlements so far have ranged from $100,000 to roughly $1 million, according to a WSJ source who claimed knowledge of resolved cases.

Morcellator Lawyer

David Matthews, a plaintiff’s lawyer handling power morcellator cases, said the range of settlement amounts reported by WSJ seems low considering the seriousness of the injuries.

“If the amounts reported are right, many of the cases that have settled must have had significant issues. You would tend to think that women who have died or are dying from morcellator injuries would not settle for the small amounts we have seen reported. But it’s always awfully hard to make any generalizations regarding settlement amounts. We don’t know what problems or issues such and such a case may have had to settle for whatever amount is reported. They call these mass torts, but there is never anything ‘en mass’ about them. Every case is always unique.”

Failure to Warn

Women suing J&J underwent hysterectomies or uterine fibroid removal in which surgeons used power morcellators. The women say J&J and Ethicon failed to warn them about the risk that the devices could antagonize and spread undiagnosed uterine cancer, making it more difficult to treat. Several plaintiffs have died before or after the lawsuits were filed; hence, morcellator attorneys are trying to accelerate the litigation to allow clients their chance to air their case in court.

Power Morcellators

Power morcellators are electric-powered devices with blades that allow surgeons to slice up large pieces of tissue like the uterus or fibroids in order to remove them through small incisions in the abdomen. This “minimally invasive” surgery is supposed to allow for quicker healing time, less blood loss, fewer complications.

Morcellators pulled by J&J

Laparoscopic power morcellators made by Ethicon and several other companies became controversial in 2014 after the FDA released a warning which said 1/350 women had undiagnosed uterine cancer that could be spread by morcellation. One type of cancer, leiomyosarcoma, is especially deadly when morcellated.

After the 2014 FDA warning, J&J, which had the largest percentage of the market, pulled its morcellator devices.

Morcellator Lawsuits

Morcellator lawsuits against J&J and Ethicon claim the devices are defective and that the company knew about the chance of spreading cancer yet failed to warn the public. J&J previously told the Wall Street Journal that its morcellators “have always included cautions in their instructions for use about the potential spread of malignant (or suspected malignant) tissue.”

Morcellator Lawsuit Settlements

Regardless of J&J’s pronouncement that it has always warned of morcellators’ spreading potentially malignant cancer, according to Mr. Matthews, J&J is already in talks to settle more of its morcellator lawsuits, including those it faces in state courts throughout the country.

Free Legal Consultation

If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with uterine cancer or  leiomyosarcoma after undergoing hysterectomy or fibroid removal with a laparoscopic power morcellator, contact  an experienced Morcellator Lawyer for a free legal consultation regarding a potential Morcellator Lawsuit.

Share

IVC Filters not FDA approved

IVC Filters are notIVC Filter FDA approved. They were only cleared for use through the FDA’s 510(k) process. Were IVC blood clot filters formally approved by FDA through the agency’s regular device approval process, the people injured by them would have little to no legal recourse to pursue claims against IVC filter makers C.R. Bard, Cook Medical, Boston Scientific and others.

The 510(k) Approval Process

The popularity of 510(k) clearance among device makers stems from its relative lack of rigor – devices reach the market much more quickly and less expensively under this process than under other FDA avenues of review.

The traditional premarket approval process for a medical device typically involves some 1,200 review hours, as opposed to the 510(k) process, which is completed in an average of 20 hours.

The 510(k) process was not designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a device. A finding of ‘substantial equivalence’ signifies only that the device is similar in certain respects to a previous predicate device. No determination about risks to safety or effectiveness comes as a result of clearance through the 510(k) process.

More

Share

IVC Filter Controversy

IVC filters stir ivc_filtercontroversy despite being implanted in millions of people in the last 30 years or so. Increasingly, learned professionals in the medical community question the safety and efficacy of IVC blood clot filters. As IVC filter lawsuits are being continuously filed across the country, more and more people seem to be paying attention to the IVC Filter Controversy.

More

Share

DePuy Hip Verdict $498 Million

Johnson & Johnson DePuy was hit with a DePuy Hip Verdict of $498 Million Thursday, March 16, 2016, in Dallas, Texas, in the second bellwether trial in the multidistrict litigation over Pinnacle hip prosthesis  made by DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. Plaintiffs had presented the consolidated claims of five patients who testified that the Pinnacle hip replacement devices were defective and gave them problems.

Law 360 announced that after a two-month trial and several days of deliberations, a Dallas jury found in favor of all five plaintiffs, delivering a verdict that included $360 million in punitive damages.

More

Share

Cook IVC Filter Consolidated Complaint Filed

Matthews & Associates hasLogo Box 2012 downsized filed a Cook IVC Filter Consolidated complaint. The firm filed a “Master Consolidated Complaint for Individual Claims”  in the Cook Medical federal multi-district litigation (MDL) court in Indianapolis, Indiana. The Master Complaint serves the administrative functions of efficiency and economy and presents certain common claims and questions of fact and law in the MDL Court.

The master complaint consolidates charges that are shared by all of the cases filed against Cook Medical. The master saves money and time for the courts, plaintiffs, their attorneys and the defense. Though each case presented to a jury will eventually be decided by its own individual facts and merits, any cases filed with the consolidated complaint also shares basic charges brought forth by plaintiffs.

More

Share

Colonoscopy Patient Beware

Colonoscopies are colonoscopypromoted and priced for profit in America. Are they necessary? Do they help people, or do they help doctors and medical facilities pad their bottom line? In a word, or 14, is the colonoscopy profit motive so strong as to negatively impact a patient’s health?

Dr. Don Ardell, among many, believes the Western medicine profit motive compromises patient care. Dr. Ardell advises that you be wary and ready to verify anything you hear from your doctor. He believes you should obtain qualified opinions from others as well.

Doctors and other medical providers are not your enemies, says Ardell; but neither are they your friends. Though they may be highly trained professionals, they function in a dysfunctional system designed for profit. Most want to do the right thing, Ardell asserts, but financial and other pressures can lead even ethical practitioners to justify actions not in a patient’s best interest.

More

Share

Laparoscopic Morcellator Lawsuit | Lawyer

Matthews & Associates morcellatorLaw Firm is reviewing Laparoscopic Morcellator Lawsuits nationwide for women who were diagnosed with uterine cancer, including leimyosarcoma (LMS) or other types of cancer following a hysterectomy or fibroid removal which employed a power morcellator.

An estimated one of every 350 women undergoing a hysterectomy for removal of the uterus or uterine fibroids may have an undiagnosed sarcoma, which doctors cannot detect prior to the surgery. Additionally, they estimate that one in 500 women has an aggressive form of cancer called leiomyosarcoma (LMS). Laparoscopic power morcellators used in such cases can lead to serious problems.

More

Share

Doctors decry FDA Morcellator Warning

Some doctors morcellator uterine cancerdecry the latest FDA morcellator warning. At least 48 doctors decry an FDA morcellator warning for laparoscopic surgeries. The doctors  – the self-described ‘Leiomyoma Morcellation Review Group’ – have proclaimed that the FDA  erred in its warnings over power morcellators. In April 2014, the FDA first discouraged the use of power morcellators for minimally invasive surgery in women with uterine leiomyomas. The agency then wrote:

“Based on currently available information, the FDA discourages the use of laparoscopic power morcellation during hysterectomy or myomectomy for uterine fibroids.”

Then FDA strengthened its power morcellator position to a warning on Nov. 24, 2014, writing:

“The FDA is warning against using laparoscopic power morcellators in the majority of women undergoing hysterectomy or myomectomy for uterine fibroids. Health care providers and patients should carefully consider available alternative treatment options for the removal of symptomatic uterine fibroids.”

More

Share

Mississippi IVC Filter Case Filed

A Mississippi womanBard Blood Clot Filter filed a Bard IVC filter case in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford Division. Tonya Munson’s case against C.R. Bard was originally filed Dec. 31, 2014. (See: Munson v. Bard.) The plaintiff is from Sara, Mississippi, in Tate County.

More

Share