Header image

Johnson & Johnson and its division, DePuy Orthopedics, was hit with a $498 million dollar verdict today in federal court in Dallas Texas, for its defective Pinnacle hip implant. The case involved 5 plaintiffs, all Texas residents, who were implanted with the Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip device.

DePuy Debris.jpg

Verdict was for approximately $130 million in compensatory damages and almost $360 million in punitive damages.

The trial team was led by Mark Lanier. Our office has been happy to place a small roll in this case and continues to accept additional victims of this truly awful product.

For a consult, please call.

A report titled Another Reason Why You Should Ban Smart Phones from the OR raise, at least for me, this question: What’s the first reason? Is there any reason why a surgeon, anesthesiologist, nurse or surgical tech should be using a smart phone in the OR? Granted, some hospitals may utilize tablets to record patient vitals, but what reason is there to be surfing the ‘net during a procedure?

iPad.jpg

And as for the anesthesiologist posting to Facebook during a procedure? Seems to me this doctor needs to have his license revoked.

Johnson & Johnson hit with $8.3 million dollar verdict in the first case to go to trial over the defective Depuy ASR hip implants, reports Bloomberg.

The verdict was for more than the $5.3 million in compensatory damages requested by plaintiff, but did not include any punitive damages. Apparently the issue of punitive damages was hotly debated by jurors. The jury deliberated for five days.

DePuy Recall.jpeg

A New Jersey Jury has awarded a South Dakota woman $3.35 million dollars in the first vaginal mesh case to go to trial against Johnson & Johnson regarding the Ethicon mesh, reports Reuters.

As reported by the New York Times, Johnson & Johnson/DePuy was aware of massive failures of its ASR metal-on-metal hip replacement system by 2011.

DePuy Debris.jpg

This information is coming from internal J&J documents as part of a trial expected to begin to today in Los Angeles. The internal analysis showed that nearly 40% of the ASR hips failed within five years of implant. The analysis also suggests that the implant is likely to fail prematurely in thousands of more patients in the next few years. Those patients will have to undergo costly and pain revision surgery.

If you or a loved one have a DePuy ASR hip implant, please call us at 1-800-557-8176 or contact us through our website at hendricksonlaw.com. You may be entitled to a substantial damages award.

For more information on the DePuy implants, see here, here and here.

As reported here, the Missouri Supreme Court, in Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers declared that caps on medical malpractice cases are unconstitutional. So, if you have a medical malpractice case in Missouri, what does that mean for you?

Mo S.Ct.jpg

First, if your case involves a death, it is not clear whether the limitation on damages is still in effect in those cases. In April, 2012, the same Court upheld caps applied in a medical malpractice wrongful death case. That case, /Sanders v. Ahmed was actually decided based on the pre-2005 law on medical malpractice caps. However, that decision may be read as standing separate from the Watts decision. In short, whether caps apply in wrongful death medical malpractice cases is still an open question.

Second, in cases involving injuries, but not death, the Watts decision is unequivocal. Caps on the amount of damages that a jury can award on cases that existed under the common law, such as medical malpractice claims for injuries, are unconstitutional. Without an amendment to the Missouri Constitution, legislation seeking to impose such limits will not be upheld.

Third, for active cases, and cases yet to be filed, a Court cannot impose a limit on the damages awarded for non-economic injuries, such as pain and suffering. Under the law declared unconstitutional, the amount of those damages was limited to $350,000. While that may seem like a lot of money, in situations involving life long injury and disability, it is readily apparent that the limitation was crippling. Children injured a birth, who would deal with life-long disability, were not fully compensated. Now, that restriction is lifted.

Fourth, if you have had a medical malpractice case resolved under the old law, whether it resulted in a judgment or a settlement, you won’t be able to go back and re-open those cases to achieve a bigger settlement or verdict. If the decision wasn’t appealed, then the case is final and you won’t be able to reopen it.

Obviously, the actual monetary affect on a particular case is going to vary. If you have a current medical malpractice case you should consult with your attorney about the impact. If you believe that you or a loved one was injured as a result of medical malpractice and would like to discuss your case, please call 1-800-567-8176 for a consultation.

On July 31, 2012, the Missouri Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Watts v Lester E. Cox Medical Centers. In a well-reasoned and detailed opinion by Chief Justice Richard B. Teitleman, the Court found unconstitutional the legislatively imposed limitations on damages that a jury can award in medical malpractice case found in §538.210 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.

The law, passed as a component of sweeping changes to tort law in 2005, placed a limit of $350,000 on non-economic damages that could be awarded in a medical malpractice case.

The Missouri Supreme Court found that the limitation infringed on a jury’s duty, under the Missouri Constitution, to determine the facts in a medical malpractice case. One of the facts that a jury is charged with determining is the amount of the damages. Because the Missouri Constitution declares that the right a jury shall remain inviolate, the Supreme Court looked to whether the right to a jury, as it existed at the time the Missouri Constitution was adopted, included the right to have a jury determine damages. The Court held that it did and, therefore, §538.220 infringed on that right and was, therefore, unconstitutional.

The result is that a jury is not artificially limited in the amount of damages it can award. Of course, the jury’s judgment is still subject to review and revision by the Courts, both at the trial and appellate level. Either can chose to reduce an award based on the judicial power of remittitur.

Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy division may be facing more than $3 billion in damages for its ASR and Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip implants, reports Reuters. Not a surprise to those of us involved in the metal-on-metal implant litigation.

DePuy recalled the ASR metal-on-metal implant in 2010, years after evidence in Europe and Australia showed that these implants were being revised at a rate drastically hirer than traditional ceramic or poly implants. DePuy was forced to recall its ASR implants here in the U.S. after it became clear that a significant percentage of patients with these implants were experiencing metal debris reaction, which included pseudo tumors, infection-like reactions, loss of bone and muscle due to metallosis, early loosening and early failure.

DePuy Debris.jpg

Shortly after the ASR was recalled, it became clear to many that DePuy’s Pinnacle line was having similar problems. As calls poured in to attorneys around the country regarding the recalled ASR, a significant percentage of the calls were for DePuy Pinnacle implants with nearly identical problems.

Multi-district litigation cases are on-going for both the ASR and Pinnacle implants. MDL cases are contemplated regarding other metal-on-metal implants from other manufacturers. In recent weeks, Stryker has issued a recall on its modular stem system, the first non-bearing surface recall. (The DePuy and Pinnacle cases involve the weight-bearing implant surfaces, namely the artificial ball and cup joint that replaces the natural hip mechanism–Stryker’s implant is a modular femoral stem system that appears to be causing similar reactions as the bearing surface metal-on-metal implants, but due to corrosion at the connection of the modular components, rather than wear due to use of the bearing surfaces.) You can read about the Stryker recall here.

It is clear that there is trouble brewing for many, if not all, metal-on-metal hip implants. If you have experienced any of the following problems as a result of your metal-on-metal implant, please call our office at 1-800-557-8176:
Early Revision
Loosening
Pseudotumor
Metallosis
Implant Failure
Loss of Surrounding Muscle
Continuing Pain

AVVO 10.0.pngAVVO Clients Choice.png

CNN reports that a popular inflatable pool slide, sold by Wal-Mart and Toys R Us, has been recalled due to deaths and severe injuries.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has order the recall of the Banzai Splash inflatable pool slide. The slide can partially deflate, causing serious injuries. At least one death and one incident of paralysis have been reported. Additionally, the slide is unstable and carries inadequate warnings and instructions.

120510073354-banzai-falls-slide-recall-story-top.jpg

If you or a family member has been injured as a result of using one of these slides, please call our office immediately for a consultation. You must act quickly to protect your rights. Contact us at 1-800-557-8176 or click here.

The Missouri Supreme Court has unanimously abolished the last vestiges of contributory negligence in the recently decided Children’s Wish Foundation International, Inc. v. Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C.. So what is contributory negligence and why should you care?

First, what is it? In 1983 the Missouri Supreme Court adopted comparative fault. Under comparative fault a jury will decide the relative levels of fault of the various parties involved in any kind of negligence case. The issue arises most often in personal injury and medical malpractice cases. Take your basic auto accident case. In an intersectional accident, you may have one driver who failed to yield and the other driver may have been speeding. Both are at fault. Under comparative fault the jury decides how much each party is at fault. For example, if one driver is injured and the jury finds that he was 10% at fault, the jury would decide the value of that drivers injuries and then the judge would enter a judgment for 90% of the damages. The system is inherently fair and equitable.

Before Missouri adopted comparative fault it operated under the contributory negligence standard. Under contributory negligence if the injured driver was even 1% at fault, he could not recover anything for his injuries. An inherently unfair system. But as I said, it was abolished in 1983, right? Well, not entirely. And that leads to why it might matter to you.

In the intervening years, various appellate courts have determined that contributory negligence was still the standard in negligence cases that involve only monetary damages, as opposed to physical injuries. Mostly this was cases of legal malpractice and accounting malpractice. The result? Attorneys and accountants sued for malpractice have been able to show even slight negligence on the part of their clients and walk away without paying a dime for the damages they caused by their negligence.

Well, not anymore. The Children’s Wish Foundation case has clearly and finally abolished contributory negligence in Missouri. From now on a jury will be instructed to determine the relative fault of all parties in any negligence case.

And that is a good thing for all Missouri citizens.

Todd N. Hendrickson concentrates his practice in the areas of medical malpractice, personal injury, and legal malpractice. You can contact him by clicking here or calling 314-721-8833.