The Injury Board Commentary - Medical Devices & Implants - Most Popular

Darvon, Darvocet Recalls Lead to Voluntary Withdrawals of Generic Versions

Brett Emison — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:31:05 GMT

Cornerstone Therapeutics announced this week that it would voluntarily withdraw Balacet® 325 and additional propoxyphene medications from the marketplace. The Cornerstone Therapeutics recall follows the FDA’s agreement with Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to withdraw name brand versions of propoxyphene: namely, Darvon®, Darvon-N®, and Darvocet-N®.

Last Friday, these painkillers were pulled from the market by Xanodyne because the drugs can cause fatal heart rhythms. The FDA said that 10 million patients took Darvon or a generic version in 2009 and 18 million prescriptions were dispensed.

"These new heart data significantly alter propoxyphene's risk-benefit profile. The drug's effectiveness in reducing pain is no longer enough to outweigh the drug's serious potential heart risks," Dr. John Jenkins of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in a statement about the drug.

As part of FDA action, generic manufacturers of propoxyphene-containing products (such as Balacet ®)were requested to voluntarily remove their products as well. Propoxyphene is a mild opiate used in the treatment of mild to moderate pain, either when pain is present alone or when it is accompanied by a fever.

Two additional products affected by this decision include Cornerstone’s Propoxyphene Napsylate and Acetaminophen Tablets CIV (100 mg), and Propoxyphene Napsylate and Acetaminophen Tablets CIV (100 mg).

According to the company, net product sales of the affected Cornerstone products for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 were $8.0 million.

More information on the Darvon / Darvocet Recall.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison

Pelvic Mesh Implant Lawsuits Move Forward in Courts

Joe Saunders — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:28:37 GMT

Products liability lawsuits against three different manufacturers of transvaginal surgical mesh devices were assigned to a single federal judge in a multidistrict litigation proceeding this week. The February 7, 2012 Order by the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned lawsuits from all over the United States to the federal Court in Charleston West Virginia. A prior multidistrict litigation proceeding involving the C.R. Bard Avaulta vaginal surgical mesh has been pending in the Charleston Court for several years.

The panel of judges making this assignment reasoned that the reported defects in all of these mesh products were similar and that Judge Godwin in Charleston who has been handling the C.R. Bard Avaulta pelvic mesh litigation could use his experience to expedite the litigation involving the other manufacturers.

A multidistrict litigation is not a class action. Each woman will continue to have her own individual case and if the case does not get settled the case will be remanded to her home town for an individual trial. Each woman will have the right to make her own individual decision on whether to settle or take her case to trial.

Multidistrict litigation is frequently used in mass disasters such as an aircraft crash or a major hotel fire or collapse. It is expected that there will be thousands of women who will eventually file lawsuits. The widespread marketing of transvaginal surgical mesh to women in the United States is, in my opinion, a mass health disaster.

The lawsuits allege that the manufacturers of these products recklessly and negligently marketed these mesh products for surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence and put the companies’ interest in making profits ahead of the safety of women. Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) can be treated surgically in most cases using a women’s native tissue without implantation of surgical mesh. The risks of complications are much lower if the mesh is not used.

In many cases with mesh implantation the mesh causes inflammation and infection. The implanted mesh also can shrink and cause chronic pain. Frequently, the mesh will start to extrude through the vaginal wall causing bleeding and pain. Many women have had multiple surgeries to try to trim the extruding mesh or cut deeper to try to remove parts of the mesh. It is practically impossible to remove the mesh because it is implanted deeply through the pelvis with strips or arms extending deep into the pelvis and towards the abdomen. Consequently, there may be no cure for some of these women. I have one client that has had 8 surgeries and is still in pain every day.

It appears that the manufacturers mislead the womens’ doctors by promoting the mesh kits and being safe and effective for treating POP and SUI. The medical studies that the manufacturers used to promote these products describe the anatomical benefits of using the mesh to restore the vaginal vault but the studies did not look at the outcomes on the women who had the implants in the months and years after implant. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently become concerned about the high rate of adverse outcomes after these implants and is conducting data collection to decide whether to order a recall to prevent future implant surgeries on such a broad scale. Many medical specialists believe that is a few limited cases a mesh implant might be warranted if the woman is fully and properly advised of the risks of bad side effects but that the wholesale promotion of these mesh products to all women with POP or SUI is dangerous and wrong.

These mesh kits probably cost less than $100 to manufacture but they are sold to hospitals for over $2,000. This high profit margin provides an inventive for the manufacturers to sell as many of these kits as they can. It will be interesting to see what juries think of this motive to oversell these devices. Many of the lawsuits ask for punitive damages against the manufacturers on this basis.

The three new manufacturers added to the multidistrict proceeding procedure are American Medical Systems, Inc., (AMS); Boston Scientific Corp.; and Ethicon, Inc. which is a Johnson & Johnson company. Each of these manufacturers makes a number of different transvaginal surgical mesh products in different sizes and designs but it appears that they all have unacceptably high rate of side effects and complications.

The coordination of these cases for pretrial management will help to define the scope of this national health disaster and provide a forum for the women and their lawyers to find out the truth about what these companies knew and why they chose to expose women to these horrible health complications.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Joe Saunders

DePuy Defective Hip Problems Biting into Johnson & Johnson

Shezad Malik MD JD — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:14:40 GMT

Defective design problems with recalled DePuy hip ASR replacements are beginning to bite into Johnson and Johnson quarterly profits.

Recently, the medical product company reported only $218 million in net earnings for the last quarter of 2011.

The reduced earnings was attributed to a $2.9 billion charge, which included expenses from DePuy ASR hip lawsuits, among other charges.

J&J set aside $1B

This charge follows a nearly $1 billion set aside in the fourth-quarter 2010 for costs associated with DePuy hip problems, including funds for potential DePuy ASR settlements and costs associated with the recall program.

Litigation and Settlement charges could exceed $5B

According to experts, DePuy and other manufacturers of similar metal on metal implants could ultimately face $5 billion in legal costs and settlement fees associated with problems from metal-on-metal hip replacements.

In August 2010, a DePuy ASR recall was issued after the system was linked to a higher-than-expected failure rate. By the time the DePuy hip implant was removed from the market, about 37,000 of the devices had already been used in the United States.

At the time of the recall, Johnson & Johnson indicated that the DePuy ASR failure rate was about 12%.

According to some experts the actual percentage of people who are likely to experience problems with their implant, including loosening, metal poisoning and possible revision surgery, is going to be higher with time.

Federal MDL Consolidation in Ohio

Since the recall, a growing tsunami of lawsuits over the DePuy ASR hip have been filed against Johnson & Johnson in courts throughout the United States.

The federal DePuy ASR litigation has been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio as part of an MDL, or multidistrict litigation. About 3,500 DePuy ASR metal hip recipients have sued the company so far.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shezad Malik MD JD

Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits Move Forward

Joe Saunders — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:55:43 GMT

Thousands of women who have had surgical mesh implanted to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence are suffering from serious complications that are very difficult or impossible to cure. Many women have had multiple surgeries to try to have the mesh removed or trimmed after suffering continued pain, bleeding, pain with intercourse and other symptoms. Hundreds of lawsuits are being filed around the country against the manufacturers of these mesh products.

Manufacturers such as Bard, Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific, and AMS have made huge profits selling surgical kits to doctors and hospitals and aggressively promoting the use of vaginally implanted surgical mesh to reinforce the vaginal vault and hold organs in place. Previously, surgeons primarily stitched a women’s natural tissue to remedy pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. It appears that in most cases use of this prior procedure using the natural tissue was substantially effective without the risks of complications inherent in implanting a polypropylene mesh through the vaginal canal. It appears that the manufacturers of the mesh have mislead the obstetricians and gynecologists about the relative safety of the use of the transvaginal mesh procedures in order to increase the manufacturer’s profits from the sales of these kits. The pelvic organ prolapse surgical kits that are being promoted by the manufacturers probably cost less than $100 to manufacture but they are sold to the hospitals for over $2,000.

In 2011, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered all manufacturers to report adverse events of all of these products and study the increasing reports of these serious complications. In 2008, the FDA had believed that these complications from the transvaginal mesh implants were rare. However, now the FDA has seen so many adverse events that they have revised their statement to now conclude that complications are not uncommon.

Federal lawsuits involving the Bard Avaulta mesh product have been coordinated before a United States District Judge in West Virginia. A panel of federal judges sitting in Miami last week considered a petition to have theWest Virginia judge assigned to preside over the pretrial management of federal lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific, and AMS as well. There are an increasing number of lawsuits pending in state courts primarily in New Jersey, California, Minnesota, and Massachusetts.

I expect that the lawsuits involving the transvaginal mesh products will number in the thousands because so many women are suffering serious and long term complications without any cure and they are only starting to realize that they have been victim to the over marketing of a dangerous product that had not been properly tested.

One Ob/Gyn physician that I have spoken to believes that the use of the transvaginal mesh may be appropriate in a very few difficult cases when implanted by a specialist but that the wholesale implantation of these mesh products on a regular basis as a routine treatment for pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence is not safe. Certainly, clients of our firm with whom I have spoken would never have agreed to the implant if they had any idea of the suffering that they would endure.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Joe Saunders

Surgeons Urge Recall Of Zimmer NexGen Knee Replacements

Brett Emison — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:04:39 GMT

The NY Times reported earlier this year that a prominent orthopedic surgeon in Chicago has called for a recall of Zimmer NexGen artificial knees and knee replacement components - specifically, the Zimmer NexGen CR-Flex replacement knee.

For more than a decade, Dr. Richard A Berger not only installed Zimmer replacement knees into patients, he designed surgical tools and artificial joints for Zimmer Holdings, trained doctors across the country to use Zimmer products and promoted Zimmer where he went. Zimmer was pleased with Dr. Berger, having paid the master surgeon more than $8 million over the last 10 years.

Then Dr. Berger notified Zimmer that its NexGen artificial knee was defective and failing prematurely. Dr. Berger even published a study proving the defect in the Zimmer knee replacement.

Dr. Berger is not the only orthopedic surgeon concerned about defective Zimmer artificial joints. Dr. Lawrence Dorr in Los Angeles alerted Zimmer years ago that its artificial hip was failing after only a few years.

Zimmer blamed the defects and failures of its hip and knee replacements on the surgeons' technique, rather than the artificial joints. However, Zimmer's chief scientific officer previously praised Dr. Berger, saying "Rich has a very clever set of hands, and because of that he is enabled with the ability to innovate surgical techniques." Zimmer even hired Dr. Berger to train hundreds of orthopedic surgeons to use Zimmer medical devices and his technique was profiled on ABC's World News Tonight.

Amid the booming use of artificial joints in the United States, the breakup between Dr. Berger and Zimmer highlights what experts say is a troubling situation for patients and doctors: when disputes arise about orthopedic implant safety, there are no independent referees or sources of information because no one tracks the performance of the devices.

"There is no way of knowing who is right because we don't have the data," said Dr. Kevin J. Bozic, a professor of orthopedic surgery at the University of California, San Francisco.

Disturbingly, many artificial joints -- including artificial knees and replacement hips -- are cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) without testing in patients.

What's Wrong With the Zimmer NexGen CR-Flex?

Many artificial knees rely on a cement-like adhesive to bond the thigh bone to the portion of the knee replacement that bends. However, many surgeons try to avoid adhesives because the adhesive can break down, leading to device failure. Because of the preference, Zimmer sells an uncemented version of the CR-Flex that relies on the bone to naturally fuse with the knee implant.

According to the Times report, Dr. Berger implanted the device into 125 patients in 2005. By early 2006, X-rays revealed lines where the implant met the thighbone, meaning the knee implant was loose and not completely fused. Patients were experiencing pain due to the loose artificial joint. Dr. Berger reported the problem to Zimmer, but the company did not have adequate data because Zimmer did not test the device in patients before selling it.

Dr. Berger and a colleague from Rush University, Dr. Craig Della Valle, performed a study finding that the uncemented Zimmer knee failed in 9% [update: 8.3% (9 out of 108)] of patients studied.

Potential complications include:

Knee Replacement Failure
Revision or Replacement of Artificial Knee Device
Loosening of Replacement Knee Implants
Knee and Joint Pain
Difficulty Standing or Walking

Senate Investigation

After the NY Times report on Zimmer knee problems, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley wrote to Zimmer, asking the company to disclose how the company tracked long-term performance of its orthopedic devices.

[Read Sen. Grassley's letter to Zimmer here]

Medical Device Defects

There have been a number of defective medical devices in news lately -- including the DePuy artificial hip recall and breast implants that may cause cancer.

While Dr. Berger has so far focused on the Zimmer NexGen CR-Flex knee, he is expanding his investigation to other Zimmer knee replacement devices as well -- including those that use adhesive to bond the device to the femur. It is possible that other Zimmer artificial knees exhibit similar failure problems.

It is appalling that giant medical device companies would let surgeons put these medical devices in patients without any patient testing trials whatsoever. When medical device companies won't act responsibility and regulators won't hold them accountable, it is up to patients and the public to demand justice and make sure these defective products don't hurt any more people.

More on the Zimmer Artificial Knee Problems:

Surgeon vs. Knee Maker: Who's Rejecting Whom? [Barry Meier at New York Times]
Senator Seeks Data on Artificial Hips and Knees [Barry Meier at New York Times]
Surgeons Challenge Zimmer to Pull High Flex NexGen Knees Off Market Because of High Loosening Rates [at OrthoStreams]
Senator Asks Zimmer for Hip, Knee Data [at Medical Product Outsourcing]
Sen. Grassley questions Zimmer on product complaints, performance tracking [at ORTHOSuperSite]
Senator questions Zimmer about "safety concerns" [via BNET.com, the CBS Interactive Business Network]

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison

Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacements Cancer Risk

Shezad Malik MD JD — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:51:48 GMT

A medical study underway is expected to reveal that side effects of metal-on-metal hip replacements can cause genetic damage, which could lead to an increased risk of cancer.

According to the U.K.’s Telegraph newspaper, a study to be presented next month at the British Hip Society conference will include findings that suggest the metal particles released by the grinding of metal-on-metal hip replacements could cause chromosomal changes, which may lead to kidney cancer and bladder cancer.

The findings are the latest nails in the coffin over the safety of the once-popular hip implant designs. These hips have been the subject of massive recalls and product liability lawsuits filed by individuals who allege that they are subject to failure within a few years after surgery.

The most likely cause of the genetic damage is metal debris made up of cobalt and chromium, which is released into the body when metal hip implant parts grind against each other. The particles have been linked to tissue damage, tumors, high metal ion blood counts and metal blood poisoning, known as metallosis.

DePuy Orthopaedics, a division of Johnson & Johnson, already faces a massive number of metal hip implant lawsuits. In August 2010, a DePuy ASR metal hip implant recall affected 93,000 implants worldwide and about 40,000 sold in the United States.

Approximately 3,500, of those victims who received the implant in the U.S. have already filed a DePuy ASR hip lawsuit. As more hip implants fail over time, the number of people filing product liability claims against manufacturers is bound to increase.

Recent data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales indicates that nearly a third of patients will experience problems within six years and other estimates suggest that as many as half of all individuals who received the recalled hip system may eventually experience loosening or failure of their implant.

In May 2011, the FDA asked device manufacturers to obtain more information about the level at which the metal particles released by hip replacements becomes dangerous, how much metal they actually release and what the potential side effects of metallosis are.

Read more here and visit my website for further information.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shezad Malik MD JD

How do I know if I have a hernia mesh lawsuit?

Adrianne Walvoord — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:00:00 GMT

Hernia repair surgeries are one of the most common surgeries performed in the United States, in fact every year approximately a half million surgical repairs are performed. If you had a product implanted to repair the hernia, it is important to understand certain fundamentals about your hernia repair surgery to determine whether you may have a lawsuit.

What is a hernia? A hernia occurs when inner layers of a muscle become weakened and the underlying lining bulges through the weakened forming a sac. There are several types of hernias:

- Abdominal or ventral hernia: occur in the abdominal wall
- Incisional hernia: occur at an incision site from a previous surgery or injury
- Inguinal hernia: occur in the groin area
- Umbilical hernia: occur in or around the navel
- Hiatal hernia: generally occur where the esophagus meets the stomach.

What products are used to surgically repair hernias? Hernias are repaired using various methods such as sutures, synthetic mesh, and biologic grafts. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of different products used to repair hernias. Companies such as Ethicon, Davol, Gore Medical, and others each have a variety of products used for hernia repair surgery.

Hernia repair products can generally be divided into two categories: synthetic and biologic. Synthetic meshes are made of man-made materials, such as polyprolylene, ePTFE, composite mesh, or polyester fibers. Biologic implants are derived from donated human or animal dermis. Biologics are also referred to as human tissue implants, cadaver skin, pig skin, or porcine.

How do I know if I have a claim against the manufactures of my hernia implant? In other words, how do you know if the manufacturer of your mesh is responsible for your injury? Like with any medical operation, hernia repair surgeries are not guaranteed fixes, however, if a product is defective and caused you an injury, you may have a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer.

The Product. As with any surgery, it is important that you find out what product you have implanted during your surgery. It is especially critical to know what kind of product was implanted to repair your hernia in assessing a potential hernia repair lawsuit. Contact your doctor or surgeon’s office, or the medical records department of your hospital to obtain a copy of your operative report or any other medical document that provides product identification of your hernia mesh or patch. The Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, is a governmental agency that can issue warnings or recalls when a product is defective. In order for you to know whether a warning or recall affects you, you must know what type of product you have implanted.

The Injury. After you’ve establish what kind of product you have implanted, it is important that a doctor or surgeon has diagnosed an injury. I will discuss the types of injuries in another posting.

Whether a defect in the product caused the link. Lastly, after you establish the product and an injury, you must be able to show that a defect in the product caused your injury. For instance, let’s say you have MESH XX implanted to repair an incisional hernia right next to your belly button. You’re on vacation sun-tanning and as you try to move your heavy wooden beach chair, you feel a pop in your groin. The doctor reports the bad news that you have an inguinal hernia. Here, the mere fact that you suffered an injury in totally unrelated to the fact that you had a mesh implanted to repair your incisional hernia. This of course is an extreme example but the formula remains simple: Product + Defect = (must CAUSE) the Injury.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Adrianne Walvoord

Bard Avaulta Mesh Insert Leads to Serious Internal Complications

Darren Tobin — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:39:40 GMT

Each year, more than 200,000 women undergo surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

Pelvic organ prolapse is a medical condition that occurs when the normal support of the vagina is lost, resulting in sagging or dropping of the bladder, urethra, cervix and rectum. As the prolapse of the vagina and uterus progresses, women can feel bulging tissue protruding through the opening of the vagina.

Treatment for POP includes the following: (1) use of a pessary (a small plastic or silicone medical device inserted into the vagina or rectum and held in place by the pelvic floor musculature); (2) surgery, or (3) waiting it out.

Many women who elect surgery have received transvaginal mesh implants in their pelvic areas to correct POP. However, FDA recently issued a warning for women who have had surgical mesh placement through the vagina to repair pelvic organ prolapse. FDA is warning that women who have had the surgical placement of mesh may be exposed to greater risks than other surgical options.

The Bard Avaulta Anterior and Posterior Biosynthetic Support System, also commonly referred to as the "Bard Avaulta System", or the "Bard Avaulta Mesh Insert" is a vaginal mesh created by C.R. Bard to correct and restore normal vaginal structure after a pelvic organ prolapse. However, despite its intended use, the Bard Avaulta System has caused serious complications. Many women treated with the Bard Avaulta system have indicated that defects in the design of the vaginal mesh caused them to suffer severe injuries and complications after surgery.

Women who have experienced problems with the Bard Avaulta Mesh Insert have experienced the following symptoms:

-Difficulty during sex after vaginal surgery;

-Vaginal Pain;

-Urinary problems;

-Pelvic Pain;

-Infection;

-Erosion of the mesh into the vagina;

-Injury to nearby organs; and

-Hardening of the vaginal mesh.

The Bard Avaulta system design mesh implant is designed to allow tissue infiltration. Notwithstanding its intended purpose, the Bard Avaulta design is in fact dangerous and is complicated to remove. As a result, a woman who has had the Bard Avaulta mesh implant can have life changing problems and irreversible effects. Women who experience complications with the Bard Avaulta mesh placement often require several surgeries with results in scarring and continuous pain.

For these and many others reasons, the law firm of Childers, Schlueter and Smith, LLC based in Atlanta, Georgia continues to review and investigate potential Bard Avaulta mesh cases across the country. Initial Bard Avaulta case consultations are free of charge. All inquiries are completely confidential and will be discretely discussed with a trained attorney.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Darren Tobin

Vaginal Mesh Implants get Updated Warning from the FDA

Jacob Plattenberger — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:48:35 GMT

Surgical mesh is a medical device that is generally used to repair weakened or damaged tissue (specifically in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI)). It is made from either porous synthetic material or biologic material.

In 2008, the FDA issued a Public Health Notification stating that the issues with the use of synthetic vaginal mesh was a growing concern. However, on July 13^th, the FDA updated the previous Notice with an Alert stating that serious complications associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal POP repair are not rare. In fact there are now reports of thousands of complications from the mesh, with at least 10 deaths being reported.

The mesh product is implanted during surgery to repair POP and SUI. The synthetic mesh has edges that are in some cases piercing the surrounding tissue and puncturing the bladder, uterus, or bowel. The “patches” can also migrate doing irreparable damage as they move around. Women are also suffering horrible infections because of the mesh.

These types of mesh underwent virtually no safety review by the FDA or any other regulatory agency before being put on the market by manufacturers. Once the mesh is implanted it is very difficult to remove. Even after multiple surgeries doctors are sometimes unable to remove all of the mesh which by that point has become infused to the surrounding tissue.

The injuries that women are suffering from this mesh implant are severe and debilitating and could have been avoided had people had the proper information. There are other safer alternatives to synthetic mesh (biological mesh for example) that should be considered before the decision is made to use synthetic materials.

Sometimes these injuries can take years to develop after the initial surgery. In 2010 there were at least 100,000 of these mesh implants performed

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jacob Plattenberger

Wall Street Journal Draws Attention to Further Troubles in DePuy Hip Litigation

Brett Emison — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:45:00 GMT

This month there has been yet more attention brought to the DePuy hip recall. Under the headline,"Hip Joints Set Off New Rush To Court," the Wall Street Journal (7/8, Rockoff, Searcey, Subscription Publication) says attorneys are lining up to sue Johnson & Johnson over its DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. metal-on-metal hip joints.

As you may have read here before, Johnson & Johnson's DePuy Orthopedics division has recently recalled its ASR XL Acetabular Head System and ASR Hip Resurfacing System. The relevant risk period for these products runs from 2005 through 2010, as the metal-on-metal construction of those ASR artificial hip permits grinding and allows metal particles to enter the surrounding tissue. If you have these symptoms, it could indicate a serious problem with your artificial hip:

Serious/Chronic Pain
Inflammation
Loosening of the Implant, with Possible Detachment
Dislocation of the Hip Implant
Fracture of the Bone Around the Hip Implant

DePuy stopped manufacturing the defective hips in 2009, and later recalled them, but it is fighting the lawsuits and the artificial hip patients who received the defective DePuy hips. Some 1,000 lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts. Some of the cases have been consolidated in federal court in Ohio, and some attorneys are pushing for class-status for the suits.

It’s been a tough couple of years for Johnson & Johnson, which has been hit by a disturbingly high number of recalls. In addition to the DePuy ASR hip implant, various Johnson & Johnson units have issued recalls for a number of medical products, including more than 200 million bottles of over-the-counter medications for musty orders and other problems. According to a different article from The Wall Street Journal, the recalls cost the company around $900 million last year.

[Frequently Asked Questions about the DePuy Hip Recall]

[Additional posts about the DePuy Hip Recall]

[More information about Johnson & Johnson Recalls]

[More information about the DePuy Hip Recall]

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison