Picture of Dr. Shezad Malik

Dr Shezad Malik Law Firm has offices based in Fort Worth and Dallas and represents people who have suffered catastrophic and serious personal injuries including wrongful death, caused by the negligence or recklessness of others. We specialize in Personal Injury trial litigation and focus our energy and efforts on those we represent.

I have written extensively about the current trial underway in Los Angeles state court involving the DePuy ASR hip and now I am providing this trial update. According to the plaintiff at the first of 10,750 lawsuits over the recalled hip implant to go to trial, it was Johnson & Johnson’s relentless pursuit of profit that led the multibillion dollar company to sell a defective DePuy ASR metal-on-metal hip that failed faster than any similar device.

DePuy-ASR-and-Pinnacle-Metallosis-Recall-Attorney.jpg

Jurors in Los Angeles heard closing arguments that J&J’s DePuy unit defectively designed its ASR hip and failed to warn of the risks. Plaintiff Kransky’s attorney Brian Panish asked for compensatory damages of $5.3 million and punitive damages of as much as $179 million.

Broken Promises and Broken Hearts

As a Dallas Bladder Cancer Attorney and Texas product liability lawyer, I am providing this trial update for folks injured by the use of Actos. The first Actos bladder cancer trial began this week in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County. Thousands of Actos product liability lawsuits have been filed by Actos diabetes drug users who developed bladder cancer after using the medication.

Actos_Bladder_Cancer_Attorney.jpg

What’s the Problem with Actos?

Takeda Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Actos, is named in more than 3,000 Actos cancer lawsuits. The plaintiffs allege that the drug maker failed to adequately warn consumers and the doctors about the potential increased risk of bladder cancer associated with long-term use of the diabetic drug.

Our law firm on behalf of Judy Kay Alexander from Dallas, Texas have filed a defective product liability lawsuit against C.R. Bard over its G2 IVC Filter. Alexander’s lawsuit alleges that C.R. Bard was negligent, failed to warn, produced a defective design and manufacturing, breach of warranty, and negligent misrepresentation.

fort_worth_personal_injury_attorney-2.jpg

The complaint was filed on December 19 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. Alexander was implanted with a G2 filter on February 20, 2009, the IVC filter device failed and punctured her inferior vena cava vein and she also suffered damage to her right ureter.

The Bard G2 Filter is an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter used in patients for whom an anticoagulant has been ineffective or is contraindicated. The IVC filter medical device is designed to prevent blood clots from travelling to the lungs from deep vein thrombosis or blood clots usually in the lower legs and causing a pulmonary embolism.

Texas Transvaginal Surgical Mesh Attorney Dr Shezad Malik provides this timely update for women would have suffered injuries and complications as a result of Surgical Mesh. Transvaginal mesh is an invasive surgical option for patients suffering from pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

Ethicon_Gynecare_Transvaginal_Mesh_Lawsuits.jpg

What is Transvaginal Mesh Failure?

Many women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP), usually the uterus or bladder and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) undergo vaginally-placed surgical mesh. The mesh is inserted through small incisions made in the vaginal wall to support a prolapsing uterus or to support the urethra during SUI. Each mesh is surgically tailored, making it custom fit to each patient. Transvaginal mesh is made from natural material or from non-absorbable synthetic, polypropylene or polyester.

As a Texas Biomet M2A-Magnum hip metallosis injury and replacement attorney I am providing this timely update for folks who have been injured by defective metal-on-metal hip replacement implants.

Biomet-M2a-hip-failure-attorney.jpg

What is the Problem with Biomet M2A Magnum Hip?

The Biomet M2A-Magnum Hip is a metal-on-metal hip replacement system that has been implanted in many patients throughout the United States. It was advertized heavily for being the hip of choice for active and younger patients, and according to experts, the new hip problems after implantation suggest that the metal hip implant may be susceptible to early failure within a few years of surgery.

As a Texas Mirena IUD Perforation and Injury Attorney, Dr Shezad Malik is reviewing potential Mirena lawsuits involving patients who were implanted with the intrauterine device (IUD) Mirena® but had to have the device surgically removed after it perforated the uterine lining.

Mirena-IUD-Perforation-attorney.jpg

Recently an Arkansas woman filed a product liability lawsuit that claims her Mirena intrauterine device perforated her uterus and was found free in her pelvis, causing severe injury.

Susan Harp, 29, filed the Mirena lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Harp alleges that Bayer Healthcare failed to adequately warn women or their doctors about the risk of the contraceptive implant puncturing vital organs and failing to protect against pregnancy.

As most readers of this blog knows, I have been following the first DePuy ASR trial that is underway in Los Angeles California closely and providing important information regarding the progress. Thomas Schmalzried MD, the lead surgeon-designer for Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy metal-on-metal hip implants testified that he wouldn’t have sold the device if he knew it would have a failure rate of 20 percent or more.

fort_worth_personal_injury_attorney-2.jpg

The orthopedic surgeon testified in state court in Los Angeles at the first of 10,000 lawsuits to go to trial over ASR hips. J&J recalled the DePuy ASR model of metal on metal hips world wide in August 2010, and stated that 12 percent failed within five years, requiring replacement, or revision surgery. J7J has sold 33,000 hips in the United States prior to the recall.

Schmalzried, was asked about an internal DePuy study in 2011 showing 35.8 percent failed within 4.57 years, requiring revisions. “I would not have put the product on the market” Schmalzried said. That rate of revision was “higher than some products that were in the marketplace at the time” the ASR was introduced in the U.S. in 2005.

As a Dallas DePuy ASR Metal Hip attorney and Texas medical doctor I have been reporting from the DePuy ASR trial that is currently underway in Los Angeles, California.

dallas_depuy_hip_recall_attorney.jpg

Over the past week of trial, the jury has heard from plaintiff’s engineering and metallurgic experts. and the videotaped testimony of Andrew Ekdahl, the president of Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)’s DePuy unit. Ekdahl, told jurors the company recalled 93,000 all-metal hip implants because they “did not meet the clinical needs for the product,” not because they were unsafe.

First of Over 10,000 DePuy Lawsuits in Trial

As a Dallas Nuvaring Pulmonary Embolism attorney, I have written extensively over the past several years about the alleged injuries from oral contraceptive pills and the Nuvaring birth control device. Recently it was announced that the first NuvaRing personal injury and defective product liability case in the United States has been scheduled for trial on May 6 in New Jersey state court. The lawsuit filed by Erika Medina in 2009, is the first of nine claims that will go to trial on May 6.

nuvaring-pulmonary-embolism-attorney.jpg

What is Nuvaring?

NuvaRing is a birth control device manufactured by Merck’s and its subsidiaries. Nuvaring releases a combination of female hormones through a plastic ring that is inserted into the vagina once a month.

Many defective product liability and personal injury lawsuits have been filed over the Mirena intra uterine birth control device, in various State and Federal courts nationwide. Recently, a motion has been filed to consolidate all federal cases before one federal court for coordinated pretrial proceedings as part of an MDL, or multidistrict litigation.

Mirena-IUD-Perforation-attorney.jpg

Mirena IUD Perforation Allegations

All of the lawsuits involve similar complaints that the intra-uterine device (IUD), caused severe complications including perforating or puncturing the uterus, and migrating to other parts of the body. The motion to consolidate requested that all Mirena lawsuits be consolidated in the Northern District of Ohio.

Contact Information