Depuy ASR hip replacements, part of the Johnson & Johnson’s implant division, has recently been recalled due to problems with its placement during surgeries and general issues relating to the product. Along with metal shavings slowly being cast into the soft tissue of patients, the following are problems patients have noted as experiencing as a result of the implant and procedure:
Pain in the Hip Region
Problems While or Inability to Walk
Johnson and Johnson’s orthopedic division, DePuy Orthopedics, Inc., has issued a recall for two of their hip implant products, the ASR XL Acetabular System and the DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing System. An estimated 93,000 individual’s received this implant surgery before the recall, and this has prompted many indvidual’s to file lawsuits against Johnson and Johnson as well as DePuy.
Specifically, a lawsuit was recently filed against DePuy and Johnson and Johnson for strict liability. The plaintiffs say that DePuy and Johnson and Johnson caused to be manufactured, marketed, and distributed the DePuy ASR Hip System, which has been recently recalled due to serious problems with the product’s safety. In particular, DePuy released data indicating that a greater number of patients than expected required revision surgery. DePuy’s report shows that five years after the hip implant surgery, approximately 1 in 8 individuals who received the ASR resurfacing device and 1 in 8 who had received the ASR total hip replacement, needed revision surgery. This second corrective surgery is necessary in many cases to completely remove the DePuy ASR Hip System and replace it with a different implant. This is deeply troubling, having hip replacement surgery is already a traumatic event, but having to undergo a second surgery only complicates and endangers individual’s health.
Further, plaintiff’s are claiming that the corrective surgery is necessary due to the defects of DePuy’s metal on metal hip implants. Medical problems associated with the DePuy ASR Hip System include the component device loosening, component malalignment, fracture, and dislocation. Due to these product design defects, plaintiff’s claim pain, swelling, and difficulty in walking for years after the DePuy ASR Hip System is implanted. But the implant also causes a condition called metallosis. Metallosis is a failure of the device and, in essence, occurs when the metallic ball and socket components of the DePuy ASR Hip System rub together and metal shavings are deposited in the socket and surrounding tissue. The recall notice acknowledges the issue of metallosis, recognizing that it can cause soft tissue damage that may complicate the results of the revision surgery. The plaintiff’s claim that everyday activities pose a significant challenge and pain discomfort are experienced regularly as a result of the DePuy hip implant. These issues are likely to be common for many people across the country who have received the implant as, again, the company’s own reports cite 13% failure rate and this is, most likely, a low count compared to the incidences that go unreported or unrecorded.
Also, the DePuy ASR Hip System is alleged to be defective and thus, unreasonably dangerous for ordinary use. This is important given the fact DePuy may have been aware of the problem and yet manufactured, distributed, and sold the product worldwide. Plaintiff’s further contend that the product was so dangerous that a reasonable consumer would not have contemplated receiving the implant had the dangers been known. However, again, the dangers of the product were not disclosed by DePuy, even though they have received product complaints dating back to 2005. Furthermore, the product lacked any adequate warnings or even instructions and left consumers at a complete disadvantage in dealing with their physical safety. It is important to note that DePuy, as a manufacturer, had a duty to the plaintiff/consumer to manufacture, distribute, and/or sell a reasonably safe product that would be fit for consumers, and this duty was breached by manufacturing and selling a product that resulted in thousands of individual’s experiencing pain and discomfort on a daily basis.
Financial compensation for those who have been effected by the DePuy recalled products is available. Legal representation can and will help to protect and enforce individual’s legal rights. If you have experienced pain and suffering or have had to have revision surgery after receiving one of the two recalled DePuy products, contact the Berniard Law Firm.
Johnson and Johnson’s orthopedic division, DePuy Orthopedics, Inc., has issued a recall for two of their hip implant products, the ASR XL Acetabular System and the DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing System. The recall was triggered by the exceptionally high number of individuals experiencing severe pain and discomfort after having the hip implant surgery. In fact, DePuy released a report that shows that five years after the hip implant surgery, approximately 1 in 8 individuals who received the ASR resurfacing device and 1 in 8 who had received the ASR total hip replacement, needed a second surgery called a revision surgery in order to correct the first implantation.
This is, of course, a disturbing report. Having hip replacement surgery is traumatic to begin with, but to require a second surgery to correct a problem that should not have existed, only further endangers the individual’s health and makes the healing process more difficult. To date, over 93,000 individuals have undergone hip replacement surgery and received one of the two recalled DePuy products.
Moreover, the recalled products have resulted in serious physical issues. Some of the physical issues the products have caused include the product itself wearing out after five years and leading to fractures of the artificial hip, loosening of the device itself causing bones breaking around the hip socket area, and swelling and difficulty walking. The recalled products have resulted in thousands of individual’s experiencing pain on a daily basis, these two products were supposed to help individuals, not hurt them.
Significantly, the DePuy ASR Hip resurfacing System was not approved for use inside the United States, and thus, did not go through the necessary testing and treatments to ensure that the hip implant was safe for individuals to receive. Questions surround whether or not Johnson and Johnson knew about the dangers of the two hip implant products years before they recently recalled them. In fact, these two products have had complaints dating back to 2005 from Canadians, Americans, British, and Welsh. Further, this is not the first product that Johnson and Johnson has had recalled in recent months, these two hip implants products will be the 11th recall for the company in the past 11 months.
It took Johnson and Johnson five years to recall the hip implants, even though they had a report stating the high number of people who were experiencing severe pain and discomfort, not to mention the need for a second corrective surgery. For a wide variety of issues relating to this unfortunate matter, financial compensation for those who have been effected by these two recalled products is available. Legal representation can and will help to protect and enforce individual’s legal rights.
If you have experienced pain and suffering or even have had to undergo a second corrective surgery after receiving one of the two recalled DePuy products, contact the Berniard Law Firm. Providing the best advice and guidance our law firm is fully capable of meeting your litigation needs.
Individuals who have entrusted the DePuy company with their physical well being after requiring hip replacements are finding significant problems with their prosthetic. Though implants like this often last more than a decade, at times as long as 15 or more years, the ASR hip implant cup has seen failure after only a couple years after being installed. DePuy Orthopedics, a division of Johnson & Johnson, has begun notifying doctors of the implants failure and is drawing attention now for how the hip implant can be falling so significantly short of the advertised longevity.
Operating as a metal on metal replacement in the event an individual requires a hip implant, the ASR cup requires a significant amount of skill and care in its installation. Should the implant not be installed properly, or the bone does not properly fit into the implant, significant wear and tear can develop that leads to implant failure. When this device fails, a surgical fix is required that can be extremely painful for the recipient. What’s more, as there is inherent danger involved in any surgical procedure, and hip replacements are often carried out for the elderly, this is an unacceptable development for the product.
Product defect suits can often be difficult because there are a wide variety of factors. One issue that will come into question in legal action against DePuy will be how long the company was aware that the implant had a high failure rate. Should it be provable that DePuy was slow to take action about notifying doctors, and subsequently their patients, about problems related to the ASR hip replacement, real responsibility consequences will be issued against the division of Johnson & Johnson that will mean monetary damages paid out to patients.
Drinking and driving is a problematic issue, one which has been aggressively confronted in order to prohibit repeat offenders from getting back on the road. On August 15, 2010, House Bill by Republican representative from LaPlace, Nickie Monica, went into effect and will cause substantial changes for second time DWI offenders in the state of Louisiana. This bill is specifically directed at repeat offenders for drinking and driving or vehicular negligent injury.
Previously, a second time offender would still drive legally if they obtain permission from the Department of Motor Vehicles, who would grant an offender upon being petitioned, a restricted license (also known as a hardship license). This type of license allows the offender to drive a vehicle only to certain destinations, such as work, school, a medical emergency, or church. The Louisiana Department of Motor Vehicles declares such a license as a “means to earn a livelihood or to maintain the necessities of life.” However, the restricted license requires the individual to have an ignition Interlock device installed into the vehicle they will be driving. The ignition interlock device is connected to the vehicle’s ignition, and once the person blows into a tube which screens for the presence of alcohol, the car may or may not turn on depending on the result. This device has been criticized because the offender may have another person who has not been drinking breathe into the tube, thus, allowing the vehicle to start, despite the fact that the offender may have been drinking. Thus, drinking and driving has continued to plague the state of Louisiana.
Furthermore, Louisiana in 2008 had the 11th highest drunken driving fatalities in the nation, with over 912 people killed due to drinking and driving. It was this type of statistic that motivated Representative Monica to propose the repeat offender bill in order to initiate change. Specifically, the new bill will not allow the repeat offender to obtain a restricted license for at least 45 days. This time period will be known as a “hard suspension” that cannot be waived or shortened for any repeat DWI offender. But that is not the only significant change with House Bill 1274, if an offender has three or more convictions there will be a three year suspension upon the persons license. Moreover, unlike a second time offender who has to wait 45 days to petition for a restricted license, a three or more time offender has to wait 12 months before they can petition for such license and have the ignition interlock device installed. The new bill will institute stronger oversight and rigid time requirements in order to crack down on repeat offenders ability to get back on the road so soon after multiple convictions.
Boating and Personal Watercraft provide thrills and excitement for Louisiana residents and visitors every summer. As much fun as it can be, there is danger involved as well. For that reason, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries has provided rules for personal watercraft (PWC) operators that can help people stay safe.
PWC Rules
1. Each person riding a PWC must wear a U.S. Coast Guard approved Tyep I, II, III, or V life jacket (this includes anyone towed behind a PWC).
If you are a Gulf Coast resident looking for more information on how to make an oil spill claim against BP, please visit our blog dedicated to this topic.
http://www.bpoilspilllawyersblog.com
This blog contains a wealth of information on how to make a damages claim, whether you own a business or have simply been financially harmed by this ecological disaster.
The Associated Press is now reporting President Obama and British Petroleum have come to an agreement regarding the establishment of a fund to help pay off claims. This fund is expected to be over $20 billion and will be tied to the claims process that has already begun in the Gulf Coast area. Meeting for some four hours, BP officials set aside an additional $100 million for the families of the 11 sailors who died in the explosion.
The news comes as welcome to an area that has been besought by financial difficulties as a result of the various closures caused by the BP oil spill. The Press reports
The claims system sets up a formal process to be run by a specialist with a proven record. Instead of vague promises by BP, there will be a White House-blessed structure with substantial money and the pledge that more will be provided if needed. The news was applauded in the Gulf — a rare positive development in a terrible two-month period since the April 20 explosion that killed 11 workers and unleashed a flood of oil that has yet to be stemmed.
Dozens of class action lawsuits have already been filed in the Gulf Coast region (including Louisiana, Florida and Texas) against the companies who may hold some responsibility for the oil spill disaster-BP first, followed by Transocean, Cameron, and Halliburton, among others.
BP and Transocean are dealing with wrongful death lawsuits from families of the 11 victims who died in the explosion as well as lawsuits from those injured. Survivors of individuals who have died due to the negligence of someone else can recover a multitude of damages in a wrongful death suit, such as medical expenses, burial expenses, compensation for pain and suffering and loss of consortium, and even punitive damages in some cases.
Those who have lost revenue in the aftermath of the blast such as fisherman, restaurants, charter boat companies, even homeowners could also bring class action suits. Even municipalities may sue for lost tax revenue. In addition, shipping companies could sue if traffic along the Mississippi river gets disrupted. The trail of liability these companies will most likely face is long and complex because the effects of the disaster are far reaching and anyone adversely affected may be entitled to compensation from those deemed responsible.
Having taught Continuing Legal Education (CLE) seminars on a variety of topics including Chinese drywall and, soon, oil leak litigation, lead attorney Jeffrey Berniard has been a relied upon expert on matters relating to claims and the wide variety of problems and delays claimants, and their attorneys, often face in such processes. Interviewed for his expertise relating to the recent Deepwater Horizon oil leak, Berniard highlighted a little considered problem that commercial workman like fisherman and others who make a living in the Gulf might face. Given that the nature of their job involves extensive self-reporting and tax analysis, the flexibilities or evasions of tax income that those who work off the coast might have carried out might significantly limit their ability to collect damages. If that is the case, careful legal analysis and work by an experienced attorney may be the difference between thousands of dollars in compensation.
While talking to New Orleans City Business (articles available to subscribers only), Berniard was asked about the difficulties some might face in collecting damages caused by the oil spill
“It’s the same issues we dealt with after Katrina in terms of (Small Business Administration) loans,” he said.
Insurance Dispute Lawyer Blog