Matthews & Associates has 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.
A Mississippi woman filed a Cook Select Filter Lawsuit in Mississippi against Cook Medical Inc. 21 January, 2015 in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division. She is represented by Matthews & Associates, a nationwide law firm headquartered in Houston, Texas.
Colonoscopies are promoted 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.
Matthews & Associates Law 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.
Some doctors decry 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.”
A Mississippi woman 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.
Unlike the U.S., where industry calls the shots and regulators mostly abide with business, the Scottish government has moved to regulate transvaginal or pelvic mesh treatment options offered to women with pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.
The UK Daily Record reported this week that three of four mesh procedures used routinely in Scottish hospitals will no longer be recommended by doctors. Scotland seems truly interested in protecting women at the expense of mesh makers, rather than the other way around, U.S. style.
DALLAS – Mesh News Desk reported that plaintiff’s expert Dr. M (name withheld to avoid red herring arguments from defense counsel) continued to testify for a second day, September 29, 2015. It would be the final day of the Plaintiff’s case in Cavness v. Ethicon (Cavness v. Kowalczyk et al., case # DC-14-04220).
A California urogynecologist and mesh removal expert, Dr. M continued his testimony about the pelvic mesh implanted in the plaintiff. He opined that the pain she continues to experience three years after her April 2012 implant is the same chronic pain felt by thousands of other women with pelvic mesh implants.
Day 6 – Sept. 28, 2015 – of the latest trial against Ethicon in Dallas brought testimony from Dr. M (name withheld to prevent defense lawyers’ red herring arguments), a urogynecologist from the San Francisco bay area, double board certified in Ob-Gyn and Urogynecology. Dr. M testified that he has done more than 25,000 surgical procedures, including 5,000 to 6,000 for stress urinary incontinence and the rest – some 14,000 – related to POP (pelvic organ prolapse). He also performs about six surgeries a week to remove plastic mesh from women.
Note: Much of this story comes from Mesh News Desk.