Insurance Dispute Lawyer Blog

As Johnson & Johnson Posts Profits, Lawsuits Loom for DePuy Hip Implant Failure

Published on: November 4, 2010 | By Berniard Law Firm

For anyone finding themselves with a heavy heart toward DePuy when they think of the mounting litigation sure to take place in response to the company’s recent hip implant recall, this should give them pause. In the third quarter of 2010, Johnson & Johnson, DePuy’s parent company, announced sales of $15 billion in total sales. In fact, Johnson & Johnson credits DePuy’s orthopedic joint reconstruction operations as a critical source of this massive profit.

Standing alone, companies should not be criticized for generating profits. Indeed, that is the inherent purpose behind most corporate charters. On the other hand, when companies generate large profits by marketing defective products because they fail to maintain adequate quality controls, then censure is warranted. Investigations into the DePuy hip implant recall have revealed not only unacceptable quality standards, but have also suggested DePuy knew of the defects in the implants and continued to sell them for years before it finally issued the recall. Such unsavory business practices are inconsistent with traditional notions of accountability and integrity expected of market participants.

One method of restoring accountability to the marketplace is through the court system. Litigation is sometimes criticized by commentators who fail to understand its process or purpose, but lawsuits are often the only remedy available to those harmed by manufacturer irresponsibility. When an individual loses something—a limb, general wellbeing, or wages–as a result of corporate impropriety, it is only equitable to provide the injured party with recompense to restore that person to the place in life they were before the loss.

Lawmakers Look to New Legislation to Curb Instances Like DePuy Hip Implant Recall

Published on: November 2, 2010 | By Berniard Law Firm

In the wake of such medical product failures as the DePuy ASR hip implant, medical doctors are uniting to create the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR). Developed by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the AJRR will help doctors monitor artificial joints throughout a patient’s lifetime and will document the names of the surgeon and the facility where the artificial joint procedure took place. Other data would also be included.

Advocates of the AJRR point to the sheer amount of unnecessary medical costs attributed to medical manufacturer defects in the United States. In 2006, of the nearly 1 million hip and knee replacement procedures conducted throughout the U.S., 7.5% were revision surgeries, those operations performed to remedy injuries caused by an artificial joint defect. The price tag on revision surgeries amounted to more than 3.2 billion dollars in 2006. In an attempt to abate these staggering figures, the AJRR would be adopted in order to prevent revision-related costs, with some analysts estimating $65 million a year in savings. In Canada, Great Britain, Australia and Sweden, countries that have already implemented their own Joint Replacement Registry, incidents of revision surgeries there have already decreased 10%. The same rate of reduction could be expected to occur in the U.S. as well.

Besides reducing medical costs, a primary function of the AJRR would be to aid in the identification of poorly performing medical devices. By documenting the longevity of the device, as well as the fail rate amongst a diverse population of participants, the AJRR would help doctors and patients prevent serious injuries to artificial joint recipients. Furthermore, it would create a uniform reporting standard for each state on a non-profit basis. Currently, local and regional databases exist, but they are unable to provide maximum benefit due to inconsistent reporting techniques and burdensome maintenance fees.

Katrina Victim Denied Benefits Under Lender-Only Flood Insurance Policy

Published on: October 31, 2010 | By Berniard Law Firm

By the terms of most mortgage agreements, homeowners are required to maintain adequate insurance on their houses. In New Orleans and other coastal areas, this requirement can include both a standard homeowner’s policy as well as flood insurance. Mortgage lenders insist on insurance coverage to help protect their financial interest in the properties for which they issue mortgages. If a borrower fails to purchase or maintain adequate coverage, the lender is permitted to “force-place” a policy–that is, to purchase an insurance policy on the property for its own benefit. A force-placed policy allows the lender to protect its exposure on a home up to the then-owed amount of mortgage on the date of issuance.

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, the home of Latisha Williams sustained significant flood damage. Williams had purchased the house with a mortgage issued by Homecomings Financial, the terms of which required her to maintain a flood insurance policy on the property. In June of 2005, Williams let the flood policy lapse, at which point Homecomings Financial force-placed a new policy on the property that was issued by Lloyd’s of London. Following the Katrina disaster, a Lloyd’s adjuster inspected the property and issued a loss estimate that Williams believed was below the true amount of loss on the property. Williams sued Lloyd’s seeking to recover for the full amount of flood damage to the house. At trial in the district court, Lloyd’s filed a motion to dismiss Williams’s claim, arguing that she lacked standing to bring the action. Standing is the right to initiate a lawsuit which arises from the plaintiff’s direct connection with or involvement in a legal dispute. The district court granted Lloyd’s motion, and Williams appealed.

The Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals examined the facts to determine whether Williams had standing to sue Lloyd’s. The issue centered around the question of whether the insurance policy, which was an agreement between Lloyd’s and Homecomings Financial, was intended to benefit Williams in any way. Without this intent to benefit Williams, she would have no standing to bring suit. Under Louisiana law, which the federal court applied, a contract for the benefit of a third party is called a “stipulation pour autrui.” See Paul v. Louisiana State Employees’ Group Benefit Program, 762 So.2d 136, 140 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2000). According to the court, “[t]he most basic requirement of a stipulation pour autrui is that the contract manifests a clear intention to benefit the third party; absent such a clear manifestation, a party claiming to be a third party beneficiary cannot meet his burden of proof.” The court found ample evidence that Homecomings Financial and Lloyd’s did not intend to benefit Williams in any way. The court noted that the policy specifically stated that Homecomings Financial was the “sole insured” under the policy, notwithstanding “the insurable interests of the owner,” (Williams). Furthermore, the policy specified that Homecomings was Lloyd’s “sole insured under this policy” and that benefits paid would be “made directly to [Homecomings].” Thus, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Williams’s action.

The lesson from this case is that a homeowner should always maintain the appropriate level of insurance for his or her property. Because a mortgage issuer is able to force-place a policy only up to the value of the outstanding balance on the mortgage, any equity the homeowner may have in the property is left unprotected in the event of a catastrophe. It is no stretch to imagine that a mortgage issuer would be happy to accept a settlement offer that covers its exposure without regard to any equity loss the homeowner may personally sustain.

DePuy Hip Implant Recall Not an Isolated Incident for Medical Products Manufacturer Johnson & Johnson

Published on: October 29, 2010 | By Berniard Law Firm

The DePuy hip implant recall has received numerous publicity since it was first announced in August. DePuy estimates that at least 13% of the hip implants the company manufactured have failed, causing various injuries for its recipients. The hip plant recall is by no means the first manufacturing error to plague the DePuy corporate family.

On Tuesday, The Christian Science Monitor reported that Johnson & Johnson, DePuy’s parent company, has issued a sixth recall of Tylenol caplets due to a chemical defect in the medication. A telltale sign of the defect is a moldy odor that accompanies the caplets. Johnson & Johnson has not ascertained what additional consequences the recalled Tylenol may present to the consumer, but the corporation has urged purchasers to not ingest any of the recalled caplets. Since November 2009, Johnson & Johnson has issued recalls for Motrin, Tylenol Arthritis Caplets, Benadryl, as well as other forms of Tylenol. The most recent recall pertains to Tylenol 8 Hour Caplets.

Notwithstanding the ultimate harm that may come to users of the defective products, the past recall events by Johnson & Johnson and DePuy showcase a pattern of problematic manufacturing practices within the Johnson & Johnson corporate family. Based on these occurrences, it appears that the DePuy hip implant recall is by no means an isolated occurrence. Indeed, it is plausible that the DePuy report that accompanied the hip implant recall has underestimated the true number of patients affected by its defective hip implants.

Because Johnson & Johnson has issued many recalls in the past, the corporation is likely quite familiar with attempts at limiting its legal responsibility for defective products. For this reason, it is essential that patients who have received a DePuy hip implant retain legal counsel to recover for any injuries sustained. If a patient chooses to deal with DePuy without the assistance of a competent legal representative, they risk losing the right to a full and equitable recovery.

Oftentimes individuals affected by an incident find that offers from the offending party are offered a settlement that prevents future litigation. However, when the case involves matters where future difficulties can emerge, it is important that a proper attorney is hired. In instances like the BP claims in the Gulf, settlements are offered with the caveat that future litigation is prohibited. The future is unclear, though, and without proper calculations and expert testimony/appraisals, one may be left not receiving the proper monetary offer they deserve.

The attorneys at Berniard Law Firm have an extensive track record dealing with large multinational corporations such as Johnson & Johnson and DePuy. They are aware of DePuy’s likely legal defenses and have developed tried and true legal strategies that can maximize their clients’ chances at receiving a full recovery. Moreover, they are conscious of DePuy/Johnson & Johnson’s flawed track record when it comes to releasing unsafe and unreliable medical products into the marketplace.

DePuy Litigation Looks At Previous Cases For Potential Settlement or Cash Award Estimates

Published on: October 27, 2010 | By Berniard Law Firm

The forthcoming DePuy Hip Replacement litigation will become ever more intricate as victims rapidly continue to seek legal counsel. Reports released by DePuy show that as many as 1 in 8 patients who have received a hip replacement device manufactured by the company since 2003 have experienced injuries ranging from loss of movement and flexibility to metallosis and disfigurement. Furthermore, DePuy, a division of Johnson & Johnson, has been quick to limit its responsibility towards those harmed by its defective hip parts.

For these reasons, Berniard Law Firm has regularly urged potential clients with DePuy hip replacements to retain counsel so that they can effectively navigate the legal claims process. Now, a recent ruling from the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals further supports this suggestion. In re: Medtronic, Inc. is a case that involved defective heart defibrillators. Due to defects in the defibrillator, several heart patients experienced unnecessary electrical shocks. Even after being informed of the defects by medical investigators, Medtronic, the manufacturer, sat on the information for several years before finally issuing a recall in 2007. After the recall, affected heart patients filed suit against Medtronic for the injuries caused by the shocks.

The plaintiffs in the Medtronic litigation made the “state law claims” of manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, breach of express warranty, and negligence. These types of claims are known as state law claims because their legal force originates by state statute or state judicial opinion, as opposed to federal legislation or regulation. Typically, there are no issues when filing state law claims. Because each of the fifty states are sovereign legal entities, each state’s respective law usually has as much force as federal law. However, sometimes state law and federal law conflict. When such a conflict arises, the courts must determine whether the Constitution has vested control over the conflicted legal area to the states or, instead, to the federal government. This jurisdictional question is known as preemption.

In the case of Medtronic, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the state law claims filed by the plaintiffs conflicted with a Congressional statute called the MDA, and were therefore preempted by federal law. The MDA (Medical Devices Act) declared that state laws could not impose legal restrictions on medical device manufacturers that were different or more burdensome than legal restrictions already promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a federal agency.

While the plaintiffs’ state law claims asserted that the defibrillators were “unreasonably dangerous,” the FDA had already approved the devices for sale and concluded they were safe. According to the Eighth Circuit, because Medtronic had already met the FDA safety standards, it would be a contradiction of the MDA for the Medtronic defibrillator to also be simultaneously “unreasonably dangerous” under state law. As such, the Eighth Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Although the Eighth Circuit may have ruled in favor of the manufacturer in the Medtronic case, the court still left open the possibility for a plaintiff’s state law claims to prevail in qualified circumstances. One such circumstance is when a state law claim neither conflicts nor adds to a federal law, but instead runs “parallel” with federal legislation. Although the appellate courts have not yet defined what “parallel” means, it is understood by many commentators to include any claim that does not run afoul of the FDA’s regulatory scheme nor interfere with the FDA’s discretionary powers.

The attorneys at Berniard Law Firm are well aware of the limitations presented when pursuing a medical products liability claim. In terms of the forthcoming DePuy hip replacement litigation, the Berniard Law Firm is fully prepared to present a DePuy recall case in a viable and sustainable manner, so as to avoid the preemption result that occurred in the Medtronic case. Indeed, Berniard attorneys have been closely following legal developments in this area, and they are well aware of which legal arguments are likely to withstand judicial muster.

Firm’s Lead Attorney Educates Area Attorneys on DePuy Hip Implant Legal Situation

Published on: October 25, 2010 | By Berniard Law Firm

As part of our firm’s efforts to educate the public at large about their legal rights in matters, lead attorney Jeffrey Berniard will be informing his peers about the Johnson & Johnson/DePuy ASR hip implant replacement legal issue. Having already been an active part of CLE (Continuing Legal Education) courses, as well as serving as an educator to law students on legal matters, Jeffrey Berniard is transferring his experience with product defect and company liability matters to the classroom.

Over the years, post-Katrina, the Berniard Law Firm has been an active part of helping Louisiana and other Gulf Coast residents recover in the wake of storm damage and insurance company delays. What’s more, our firm has actively pursued legal accountability against refineries in Louisiana and elsewhere for chemical leaks in Chalmette and Hahnville. In the wake of the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Jeffrey Berniard and his firm immediately began representing families for their losses as well as assisting in the difficult and confusing claims process that ensued once the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) took over the payment process.

For more information about your legal rights in the DePuy issue, or other matters relating to injuries, personal or property, contact our offices today. In a variety of matters, your legal rights can be limited by how long you take to consult an attorney to discuss what options are available to you. By speaking with Jeffrey Berniard, you will not only have the ability to speak with a rising attorney with significant peer respect and extensive experience in his fields, you will also be limiting the potential of losing the financial award you deserve.

Allegations Allstate Defrauded Government, Policy Holders Emerge in Court

Published on: October 22, 2010 | By Berniard Law Firm

The Gulf Coast has seen its share of hurricanes and tropical storms, unfortunately, and nearly everyone who lives in our region knows someone who has been adversely affected by the damage these acts of nature cause. Whether a home, car, business or other form of property, many suffered devastating losses that left the future unclear. While those with insurance may have felt more relieved than those without, the fact remains that a wide variety of uphill battles exist.

If you are a Louisiana resident who suffered any type of injury relating to a storm, whether it was to your person or property, the courts have held a mixture of results that both reinforced and hindered claimants. Just a few weeks ago, a lawsuit was filed in Louisiana against Allstate Insurance in conjunction with a whistle blower alleging improper actions by the company.

The case, which is still pending in the courts, claims that Allstate cheated the federal government by creating false data that steered the majority of costs toward the National Flood Insurance Program. The lawsuit accuses Allstate, a major participant in the government’s Write Your Own Program, of fabricating damage documents. Allegedly, Allstate “substantially inflated” the flood portion of damages while “substantially deflating” the homeowners insurance claims. This means that the company may have also been shifting numbers away from the claims of homeowners, forcing them to either settle for the offer substantially less than they deserved or hire attorneys to get them proper compensation.

DePuy Hip Replacement Failure Worries Many

Published on: October 20, 2010 | By Berniard Law Firm

A hip replacement surgery is a very serious, very invasive surgical procedure that many people, unfortunately, have to undergo. A hip replacement surgery is not just a procedure for older people: Louisiana residents of all ages have undergone hip replacement surgeries over the last decade. In that time, great progress has been made on developing durable, workable hips so that area residents, and elsewhere, can continue to live their lives unaffected and unhindered by the hip prosthesis. However, it has recently come to the public’s attention that DePuy, the orthopedic division of Johnson & Johnson, manufactured a defective hip implant that went unchecked for years until its recall this year. In fact, DePuy knowingly marketed a defective product and as a result, over the last few years, almost 100,000 patients have received a defective hip. If you are a Louisiana resident who received a DePuy hip, the law is on your side.

A hip replacement failure can result in very serious injuries for the patient, in addition to the revision surgery that the patient will very likely face. Patients receiving DePuy hips have experienced failure in the unit in as short as five years or less, as opposed to the regular 10 to 15 years that similar devices tend to last. However, if you received one of these defective hips the law has favorable for allowing those who have received a defective product to recover personal injury damages.

Louisiana patients should be on the look-out for certain signs that their hip replacement device is failing. Signs of failure include swelling of the hip area, popping or clicking, pain, loosening or implant dislocation, and fractures. Don’t forget that a failed device can cause even more serious injuries than just a fractured hip, as there are several different implications that can arise. In the DePuy case, doctors are also concerned about toxins from the metal implant seeping into patients’ bloodstream, potentially poisoning their bodies. It is in the best interest of individuals who suspect a failing DePuy hip replacement has been used in their corrective surgery to get a blood test immediately.

Thus many are left wondering: what do you do if you have a DePuy hip? For those with the ASR Hip Resurfacing System, it is imperative that you talk to a lawyer to discuss your legal rights. In cases like this there is a statute of limitations which says that even if you have a valid claim, waiting too long or delays in bringing your case can lead to a failure in recovering monetary damages for your case. If you have suffered pain, lost wages, or been forced to spend less time with your family as a result of your defective hip, you could be eligible for money damages.

An experienced attorney can work with you in bringing a lawsuit against DePuy, the manufacturer of the defective hip implants. The law protects you, the consumer, from deceptive marketing and manufacturing. If you have a DePuy hip, or another other hip implant that is causing you problems, reach out to the Berniard Law Firm today.

DePuy Asking Patients to Sign Consent Forms Endangers Rights

Published on: October 18, 2010 | By Berniard Law Firm

Recently, Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy Orthopaedics unit recalled their ASR Total Hip System due to serious issues that have caused thousands of individuals serious problems. The company said it will pay any medical expenses related to having the hip implant device; however, the patients have had to agree to certain conditions in order to receive such compensation. Many analysts warn that agreeing to such conditions may hurt individual’s legal rights and that the company is attempting to protect themselves from further legal trouble instead of protecting the people they have hurt.

The DePuy ASR hip implant became available initially in July 2003, and, from 2003-2010, over 95,000 individuals worldwide have received the implant. However, serious complications have been found after having such implantation. First, the device has been found to become loose, causing bone fractures and even bones breakage. Further, the metal on metal piece creates friction when the individual simply walks, causing soft tissue damage surrounding the device. One out of 8 individuals had to receive a second corrective surgery in order to completely remove the DePuy device, however, many remain in pain and discomfort, unable to do daily tasks that were once second nature.

The company has listed on their website a list of steps individuals should take if they have had such an operation. First, the individual is asked to, if they have had any hip implant since 2003, go to their doctor and/or hospital and receive documentation of such procedure, with proof they have had a DePuy implant. This alone is not problematic; however, the company continues to say that they will, “cover all reasonable and customary costs of testing and treatment, including revision surgery if it is necessary, and associated with the ASR recall.” This single phrase alone has a lot of indefinite terms — they “may” cover, and “reasonable,” what do they consider reasonable? How are they defining such terms? What is more troubling is the fact that patients are required to provide DePuy with their medical records, as well as the faulty hip implant. This is in addition to signing a consent form, without such signature the company stipulates that “it is unlikely that we will be able to consider the patient’s claims for reimbursement and prompt resolution of their claim may not be possible.” Thus, this forces individual’s to sign a consent form, without legal representation, and places them in a vulnerable position that may hurt their chances at receiving just compensation in the future.

DePuy Hip System Recall and the Steps to Take for Financial Compensation/Damages

Published on: October 16, 2010 | By Berniard Law Firm

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., has voluntarily recalled the DePuy ASR(TM) XL Acetabular System and Depuy ASR(TM) Hip Resurfacing System used in hip replacement surgery. Serious complications with these two devices caused many individuals to experience severe pain, discomfort, and for many, a second corrective surgery. In fact, DePuy has acknowledged that symptoms of the DePuy Hip System may include:

– Loosening, when the implant does not stay attached to the bone in the correct position
– Fracture, where the bone around the implant may have broken; and
– Dislocation, where the two parts of the implant that move against each other are no longer aligned.

Further, if you have had hip surgery after July 2003, the hip replacement device you received may be included in this recall. However, DePuy does not maintain a master list of patients who received their product. Therefore, if you have had hip surgery and received an implant after July 2003, contact your orthopedic surgeon or the hospital where your surgery took place to determine whether you received a DePuy ASR Hip System device. This step may take time and therefore, should be looked into as soon as possible.

Also, visiting your doctor for medical testing will help determine whether your hip is functioning well and reacting appropriately to the implant device. Tests may include X-Rays of your hip, simple physical reaction test, as well as blood test to indicate the level of microscopic metal particles around your hip that may cause serious health problems. In addition, other test may be done including an ultrasound or MRI to evaluate if you are having a reaction to the metal particles. This is a critical factor to explore since many patients who had the DePuy implant are later diagnosed with metallosis, which occurs when friction of a metal on metal device produces metal shavings that become deposited in the socket of the device and in the surrounding soft tissue. This damage may complicate the corrective surgery many need in order to remove the DePuy device completely from their hip.