Product Liability

February 1, 2011

Dallas Avandia Heart Attack Death Update 817-717-1772

As a Fort Worth Avandia Product Recall Attorney, I am providing this latest Avandia lawsuit information.

GlaxoSmithKline Plc has settled a lawsuit alleging its Avandia diabetes drug caused a North Carolina man to die of a heart attack, thus avoiding a jury determination over risks associated with the medicine.

The U.K.’s biggest drugmaker resolved the suit by the family of James Burford, an Avandia user who died in 2006.

The lawsuit, scheduled for trial this week in Philadelphia federal court, was the first of 2,000 heading to court alleging Glaxo hid Avandia’s health risks.

Glaxo announced Jan. 17 that it is taking a $3.5 billion charge to cover expenses linked to investigations and suits over Avandia. The reserve brings to $6.4 billion the amount the drugmaker has set aside in the past 12 months for legal costs tied to Avandia.

The latest settlement resulted from Glaxo’s move to resolve all Avandia cases brought by plaintiffs’ attorneys in Philadelphia of more than 1,600 cases consolidated there.

The company still faces at least 1,600 cases filed in Philadelphia and another 400 in state courts across the U.S., lawyers for Avandia users and the company said last week.

Lawyers for Burford’s family alleged that Glaxo refused to take Avandia off the market, even though studies concluded it increased risks of heart attacks and strokes. They also claimed Glaxo officials withheld studies by regulators showing the increased risk tied to the drug.

The case is Deborah A. Burford v. SmithklineBeecham Corp., 07-CV-05360, U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)

January 25, 2011

Fosamax Side Effect Lawsuit Update

by Dr. Shezad Malik

As a Fosamax Product Liability Osteonecrosis attorney I am providing this update of the current status of Fosamax MDL Litigation.

A Fosamax jury trial began last week in the Superior Court for Atlantic County, New Jersey. Merck states that the evidence will show that FOSAMAX did not cause the plaintiff to develop dental and jaw related problems and that Merck provided appropriate and timely information about FOSAMAX to the medical, scientific and regulatory communities.

In Rosenberg v. Merck, the plaintiff alleges she used FOSAMAX from 1999 to 2006. The plaintiff further claimed she suffered various jaw problems and complications following a tooth extraction in December 2005.

FOSAMAX was approved as a safe and effective medication by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in September 1995 and is still on the market today and approved for multiple indications, including the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

This is the fourth FOSAMAX case to go to trial. The first three trials were conducted as part of the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceedings before Judge John F. Keenan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The first case to be tried to a verdict, Maley v. Merck, resulted in a defense verdict for Merck in May 2010. The second case to be tried to a verdict, Boles v. Merck, initially resulted in a mistrial in September 2009 after the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. A retrial of that case in June 2010 resulted in a plaintiff verdict, which has since been reduced by Judge Keenan and which Merck is appealing. The third case to be tried to a verdict, Graves v. Merck, resulted in a defense verdict for Merck in November 2010. As of September 30, 2010, approximately 1,180 cases, which include approximately 1,560 plaintiff groups, had been filed and were pending against Merck in either federal or state court.

January 23, 2011

Darvocet Wrongful Death Product Liabilty Lawsuits

by Dr. Shezad Malik

As a Fort Worth DARVON Product Liability Attorney I am providing this Darvon, Darvocet Update.

Since Dec. 3, seven lawsuits have been filed in federal court alleging that Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals Inc., the manufacturer of Darvocet and Darvon, knew of the risks but failed to warn doctors and the general public that the medications could contribute to heart disease.

The recalled pain pills Darvocet, Darvon, or the generic propoxyphene are some of the most dangerous drugs ever sold in the United States, and we are urging folks to stop taking Darvocet, Darvon, or the generic version propoxyphene pain pills immediately.

Many people we have talked with, who took Darvocet, or Darvon, developed severe heart rhythm issues including sudden death, and now are either medicated to control their heart beat, or they have a pacemaker or an implantable defibrillator.

The suits, some them class actions, were filed on behalf of people who suffered from heart problems or died after taking the drugs. Plaintiffs’ lawyers already have moved to consolidate the cases into multidistrict litigation.

January 14, 2011

FDA Multaq Dronedarone: Risk of Severe Liver Injury

by Dr. Shezad Malik

As a Fort Worth Product Liability and Defective drug attorney I am reporting this latest warning from the FDA involving the drug, Multaq.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said that it has received several reports of liver damage with Multaq tablets, including two cases in which patients had to have their livers removed.

Both female patients were 70 years old, and they had been taking the drug for 4.5 months and six months, respectively.

The FDA said it would add a new warning about the risk for liver damage to the label of Multaq. Multaq already carries a black box warning, the most severe type, stating the drug can cause severe complications, including death, in people with recent severe heart failure and should not be used in those patients.

Sanofi-Aventis SA, the manufacturer of the medication, will send a letter to US doctors telling them that two patients taking the Multaq (dronedarone) medication have suffered liver failure.

Multaq, cleared for sale in 2009, treats atrial fibrillation, a rapid and irregular beating in the heart’s upper chambers affecting an estimated two million people in the US, according to the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

According to the FDA, patients taking the drug should call their doctor if they experience symptoms such as itching, yellow eyes or skin, dark urine, loss of appetite, or light-colored stools,

January 8, 2011

DePuy Hip Recall Lawyers and MDL Court Meeting in January

by Dr. Shezad Malik

As a Fort Worth DePuy Hip Recall and Injury Attorney I am providing this DePuy Litigation update.

The DePuy Product Liability Attorneys involved with the DePuy Recall and class action lawsuits are scheduled to meet with the federal judge that is presiding over the multi-district litigation (MDL) on January 20th.

In December, a U.S. Judicial Panel ruled to consolidate all federal DePuy hip recall lawsuits in the Northern District of Ohio. The meeting scheduled for January will allow the Judge to select which attorneys will serve in leadership roles for the plaintiffs and the defendants.

Over 100 DePuy hip recall lawsuits have already been transferred to the MDL Court, and thousands more are expected to be filed or transferred in the coming months.

The claims are being consolidated in an effort to reduce the burden on the court system. All of the cases that have been and will be filed under the MDL will have similar allegations against a common defendant, DePuy Orthopedics and its parent company Johnson & Johnson. Many claims will be seeking similar damages resulting from similar injuries and much of the same discovery will be applicable to a majority of the claims.

DePuy ASR hip implants were recalled by DePuy last year after it was discovered that the metal on metal implants had an extremely high rate of failure, but most of damage had already been done. Over 90,000 people world wide were implanted with the defective devices between the 2005 launch and the recall some five years later. It is estimated that about 35,000 defective DePuy hips were implanted in the United States alone.

Patients implanted with a recalled DePuy hip implant may still be at risk for problems related to the release of small particles from the metal-on-metal devices, even if they have not experienced pain or other symptoms. Therefore, if you have received an implant involved in the DePuy hip replacement recall, do not wait until you experience symptoms of DePuy hip problems to learn your legal rights.

January 1, 2011

Dallas Bard Recovery and G2 IVC Filter Lawsuits

by Dr. Shezad Malik

As a Dallas Product Liability attorney and Bard Recovery and G2 IVC Filter lawyer, I am writing an update about this latest FDA warning regarding the Inferior Vena Cava filters.As I wrote previously in my blog, there are serious and fatal complications of the widely used Bard inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.

G2TM IVC Filter Lawsuits

G2™ Filter System Lawsuits allege that the G2TM Filter System possesses manufacturing and design defects which resulted in device failure. The injured plaintiffs experienced fracture and migration of the G2TM Filter.

In 2005, Bard Peripheral Vascular began selling its G2TM IVC filter. This replaced the RecoveryTM IVC filter. Despite the “enhanced fracture resistance” and “enhanced migration resistance” advertisements by Bard Peripheral Vascular, the device has still been shown to fracture, fail and migrate.

RecoveryTM IVC Filter Lawsuits

The RecoveryTM IVC filter was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2002. It was placed on the market for use in 2003. Its manufacturer, Bard Peripheral Vascular withdrew the RecoveryTM IVC filter from the market in 2005 and replaced it with the G2TM IVC filter. The G2TM IVC filter is the “second generation” of the RecoveryTM IVC filter.

A recent medical report has found that 25% of all Bard Recovery IVC filters and 12% of Bard G2 IVC filters fractured. These fractured filters have the potential become dislodged and cause serious and fatal injury. 71% of the broken pieces migrated through the veins of the patient to the heart. The FDA has received more than 900 reports of adverse events, including:

* Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)
* Filter Fracture, Migration or Embolization, leading to Injury to the Heart, Lung or Vena Cava
* Cardiac or Pericardial Tamponade
* Severe Persistent Chest Pain
* Shortness of Breath
* Death

December 31, 2010

FDA Warns Against Inferior Vena Cava Filters

by Dr. Shezad Malik

As a Fort Worth Product Liability attorney and Bard IVC Filter lawyer, I am writing about this latest FDA warning regarding the Inferior Vena Cava filters.

Patients who suffer from the threat of pulmonary embolism and are contraindicated for anticoagulation therapy may find themselves receiving an Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filter to prevent pulmonary embolism.

Inferior vena cava filters are an alternative treatment for patients at risk for a pulmonary embolism. They are often used when an anticoagulant is contraindicated or if such medications have not been effective. They contain a number of legs or struts that extend out like a spider to catch blood clots that may break free elsewhere in the body, such as the deep veins of the legs. But, if there is an IVC filter strut fracture, small pieces of the filter may travel to other parts of the body, such as the heart or lungs.

Since 2005, the FDA has received 921 device adverse event reports involving IVC filters, of which 328 involved device migration, 146 involved embolizations (detachment of device components), 70 involved perforation of the IVC, and 56 involved filter fracture.

These types of events may be related to a retrievable filter remaining in the body for long periods of time, beyond the time when the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) has subsided.

RECOMMENDATION: FDA recommends that implanting physicians and clinicians responsible for the ongoing care of patients with retrievable IVC filters consider removing the filter as soon as protection from PE is no longer needed.

Healthcare professionals and patients are encouraged to report adverse events or side effects related to the use of these products to the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program:

* Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm

* Download form or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
Read more here about the IVC Filters.

These IVC Filter devices have recently come under investigation due to a high number of Bard IVC filter fractures which can cause pieces of the devices to travel through the body and damage the heart, lungs and other organs, causing embolisms and possibly death.

In a study published in November in the Archives of Internal Medicine, two Bard IVC filters were found to have a particularly high rate of problems. According to Dr. Rita Redberg in an editorial published by the Archives of Internal Medicine, both of those filters, the Bard G2 and Bard Recovery, were approved with virtually no real clinical data showing they were safe or effective.

Redberg said that researchers suggest that the number of Bard G2 filter fractures is likely to increase as they stay on the market and have been in patients’ bodies longer. She said that data indicates about 62,000 people have received the implants, and as many as 7,000 can expect to experience a Bard IVC filter fracture.

A number of Bard IVC filter lawsuits have been filed against C.R. Bard over the last year alleging that serious injuries or deaths were caused by design defects associated with these filters.

December 21, 2010

Prempro Premarin Settlement Over Cancer-Causing Claims.

by Dr. Shezad Malik

As a Fort Worth Product Liability and Defective Drug attorney I am providing this update.

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and Upjohn Co have agreed to a settlement with two Nevada women who claimed hormone replacement drugs caused their breast cancer.

Court documents report that Nadine Bender, who died while awaiting trial began taking the drugs when she was 30 to help regulate her menstrual cycle. She continued once her menopausal symptoms started and stopped using the drugs when diagnosed with breast cancer in 1995.

December 18, 2010

DePuy Hip Replacement Failure Demonstrates a Broken Medical Implant System

by Dr. Shezad Malik

As a Fort Worth DePuy ASR Hip Recall attorney I am providing this latest update information involving the recent DePuy Class Action lawsuits.

The DePuy Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) hip, is failing at high rates, even though the device was designed to last for at least 15 years.

According to medical critics the failure of the ASR hip demonstrates a broken piecemeal medical implant system.

December 17, 2010

Jury Verdict $81 M in Tobacco Wrongful Death Lawsuit

by Dr. Shezad Malik

As a Fort Worth Personal Injury Attorney I am very proud of the recent verdict announced this week against a major tobacco company.

Cigarettes in my humble opinion should be banned; they serve no purpose and are extremely dangerous substances in its present manufactured form. As medical studies have demonstrated, they are nicotine delivery systems, surely there are less dangerous ways to deliver nicotine. People get addicted and the immense cost to human life is clearly palpable and with the resultant medical care and untold pain and suffering.

A Massachusetts jury has ordered cigarette maker Lorillard Inc. to pay $81 million in punitive damages to the estate of Marie Evans, who suffered a deadly addiction to Newport cigarettes.