United States of America

The promise of robotic surgery is exciting.

A recent study has raised additional questions about the need for robotic-assisted surgery in many cases. The research suggests that the da Vinci surgical robot should be reserved for much more complicated procedures that cannot be easily handled by laparoscopic surgery.

At the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists annual meeting, researchers from St. Lukes-Roosevelt Hospital Center reported that 10% of patients operated on through robotic surgery for pelvic lesions suffered significant postoperative complications, compared to 7% of those who underwent laparoscopy. Patients are more likely to suffer complications, pay more, and are under the knife longer than patients treated through laparoscopic surgery.

Last week, the Court of Appeals of Missouri decided a subsequent remedial measures case that I think is of interest to all personal injury lawyers no matter where you practice.

The subsequent remedial measures rule is one of those law school standards that any second-year student can explain in about two minutes. Despite its seeming simplicity, as we see in Emerson v. Garvin Group, the rule is more complicated to apply.

A Louisville, Kentucky jury awarded an eleven-year-old girl and her family $7.25 million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages as the result of a defective cochlear ear device.

Born deaf, the little girl had a cochlear ear device implanted in her head when she was four years old. Four years later, an electrical short from the device shocked her horrifically; she was thrown to the ground, vomiting and convulsing.

Before the device was removed and replaced 13 months later, she was shocked two more times. The open-head surgery to remove the device from her skull took more than seven hours.

Vaginal prolapse is incredibly common, with approximately 30-50% of women having some sort of prolapse during their lives. Our lawyers are investigating vaginal mesh lawsuits involving Cook Medical, in addition to other manufacturers of vaginal mesh systems.

vaginal mesh lawsuits

Cook Medical Transvaginal Mesh Cases

Cook Medical held its products out as breakthrough technology

Pelvic organ prolapse is a condition in which structures such as the uterus, rectum, bladder, urethra, small bowel, or the vagina itself may begin to fall or “prolapse” out of their normal positions. These structures may eventually prolapse farther and farther into the vagina, or even through the vaginal opening, without medical treatment or surgery. Enter synthetic mesh devices. No doubt a great idea.

According to the FDA, between January 2008 and December 2010, there were nearly 3,000 adverse event reports involving transvaginal mesh devices. Side effects reported with vaginal mesh can include:

  • Infections
  • Internal bleeding
  • Vaginal scar tissue
  • Vaginal wall narrowing
  • Painful urination
  • Fistulas
  • Mesh shrinkage
  • Mesh migration
  • Urinary problems
  • Punctures to the bladder, blood vessels, bowels, or other organs in the lower abdomen
  • Mesh erosion into the vagina, bladder, intestines, and uterus
  • Pain
  • Painful sexual intercourse for both partners
  • Recurrence of incontinence
  • Recurrence of both pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence, or both

Cook Medical held its product out as breakthrough technology, resistant to infection, and “unlike synthetic mesh, nothing is left permanently in the body to cause problems down the road.” On the contrary, Cook Medical transvaginal mesh products have had more than their fair share of problems. (In fairness, they have all put out awful products. Cook Medical is no exception.).

Continue reading

I’m amazed at how many smart, well-informed people are under the impression that if an accident occurs on a business’ property, the business is automatically liable for any and all damage. In the real world, slip and fall cases present much bigger hurdles to climb.

slip fall cases

Georgia Slip and Fall Cases Never Sees Courtroom

Last week, the Georgia Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s summary judgment order denying a plaintiff relief in the case of Warner v. Hobby Lobby, a case illustrative of these challenges, even in a comparative negligence state like Georgia.

Fresenius Granuflo and NaturaLyte lawsuits filed throughout the federal court system will now be consolidated before one Massachusetts’ judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

granuflo naturalyte lawsuitsThis affects all product liability lawsuits filed over heart attacks or sudden deaths allegedly caused by the use of GranuFlo or NaturaLyte dialysate products during hemodialysis – including at least 119 complaints filed throughout 16 different U.S. District Courts. These complaints all involve similar allegations that plaintiffs’ hearts suddenly stop during or shortly after dialysis treatment involving the use of Granuflo Acid Concentrate or NaturaLyte Liquid Acid Concentrate manufactured and sold by Fresenius Medical Care.

The lawsuits allege that Fresenius failed to adequately research the side effects of their dialysate products or warn about the potential risks including the importance of monitoring bicarbonate levels of patients receiving the products to avoid sudden cardiac arrest and death.

A federal judge in Georgia recently dismissed a slip-and-fall case against Walmart finding that the company owed the woman no duty to keep its store safe from water hazards.

In Chapman v. Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart’s Customer Service Manager began instituting rainy-day procedures. Employees were instructed to place carpeted mats in the inside vestibule, inspect the vestibule and front store area throughout the morning for dampness, dry off shopping carts, hand out umbrella bags, and use brightly colored cones to warn customers of possible water on the floor.

When the plaintiff entered the store, the rain had ceased, but the weather remained damp. She entered the vestibule to grab a shopping cart, not looking down at the ground while doing so. On her way to the carts, she slipped and fell.  Upon falling, she noticed a puddle on the ground. Plaintiff brought a slip-and-fall case in federal district court, alleging Wal-Mart acted negligently by failing to keep the store free of puddles and for failing to adequately warn her of puddles.

In medical malpractice cases, form triumphs over substance way too often. Tennessee has been largely immune from this problem because, for years, Tennessee malpractice law did not require plaintiffs’ lawyers to jump through the hoops required by many states. Now, Tennessee has added a certificate of merit requirement and other technical obligations to filing a medical malpractice case.

tennessee medical malpracticeYou know, I’m fine with these requirements. What I don’t like is when potentially worthy plaintiffs are denied justice permanently because their lawyers screw up the details.

This is what happened in Williams v. Mountain States Health Alliance. In Williams, a 68-year-old female patient was undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging (a nuclear stress test) when she fell off the table to which she had been strapped. During the procedure, the patient made a sudden movement, broke free of the table straps, and fell onto the floor hitting her right side. Prior to the fall, the patient had suffered a stroke and paralysis to the right side of her body. Additionally, she was morbidly obese. The technicians who strapped the patient to the table allegedly knew (or should have known) this.

Continue reading

You get a big verdict. Defendant’s big bone of contention on appeal is an evidentiary issue. When this happens, and it has happened to me a number of times, you are feeling pretty good about your chances. Particularly when the standard is – as it is for most evidentiary issues – an abuse of discretion.

There were some Virginia lawyers probably feeling the same way. That is until last week when the Virginia high court flipped their $18 million verdict against Exxon.

Plaintiff got a wrongful death verdict against Exxon in a lawsuit involving a man who developed mesothelioma while working on Exxon ships. Suffice to say, the jury was not happy with Exxon, awarding $12 million in compensatory damages, $12.5 million in punitive damages and nearly a half a million in medical damages. The punitive damage award was knocked back to $5 million, still leaving the plaintiff with a nearly $18 million verdict.

We’ve known for some time that Pradaxa has problems—this drug, intended to replace the time-tested blood thinner Warfarin (Coumadin), has been shown to cause internal bleeding and hemorrhaging. Unlike Warfarin, the bleeding cannot be quickly countered, which can cause death in serious cases. There were at least 260 deaths of people on Pradaxa between October 2010 and November 2011, which were confirmed by the drug’s manufacturer.

But when a drug is not properly tested and evaluated for safety before it comes on the market, you often see more than one problem with the drug. Now, new information has come out showing that patients with artificial heart valves are particularly at risk for Pradaxa injuries.

The warning comes from the FDA, which advises that a European clinical trial called RE-ALIGN was stopped mid-study because people with mechanical heart valves were more likely to experience strokes, blood clots and heart attacks, as compared to Warfarin users. The FDA is going so far as to require a labeling change warning doctors and patients that Pradaxa is contraindicated for patients with prosthetic heart valves.

Importantly, the FDA is not recommending Pradaxa use in patients with other types of heart valves called bioprosthetic valves. Those are made with natural biological tissue, but the effects of Pradaxa have not been specifically studied for those patients.

Continue reading

Contact Information