Boston Personal Injury Attorney Blog

August 18, 2013

Understanding Multi-District and Multi-County Litigation in the Stryker Rejuvenate Cases

Stryker Rejuvenate was a metal hip replacement product manufactured and sold by Stryker Orthopaedics from 2008 through 2012. Unfortunately, the Stryker Rejuvenate was recalled in 2012 because of a myriad of health problems and complications caused by the hip replacement device. The device not only had a high failure rate, necessitating revision surgery, but also caused health problems including metallosis, pseudo-tumors and necrosis.

Our Boston defective medical device lawyers know that following the recall, thousands of injured victims began to take action against Stryker Orthopaedics, making claims for compensation to cover their losses. If there is a clear proven link between Stryker’s Rejuvenate and the health problems patients are suffering (as the recall suggests there is), then injured patients can be compensated for pain and suffering as well as for all financial losses they endured because of the defects in the hip replacement product.

Today, many of the cases against Stryker have been consolidated into multi-district litigations or multi-county litigations. This is done in order to make it simpler for claims to be processed in an expedient manner.

Understanding Multi-District and Multi-County Litigations in the Stryker Cases

According to Harris Martin Publishing, a multi-district litigation against Stryker is moving forward in Minnesota. The case arose out of problems with the Stryker Rejuvenate and an initial pre-trial order was issued in July, appointing interim lead counsel for the plaintiffs. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation also issued conditional transfer orders in an additional 61 cases arising from problems caused by the Stryker Rejuvenate.

As this case moves forward, more legal actions are also going on nationwide. For example, at least 273 Stryker lawsuits have reportedly been filled in Bergen County Superior Court following the establishment of multi-county litigation in New Jersey. In this multi-county litigation, a Case Management Conference was scheduled for the 13th of August.

These are just a few examples of many different cases moving forward against Stryker Orthopaedics. Cases are consolidated into multi-district and multi-county litigations so that certain issues of fact can be decided more quickly by a judge who is familiar with the case.

Rather than having every issue, every request of the court and every legal matter litigated over and over again for the thousands of patients who were hurt by the defective medical devices, multi-district and multi-county litigations allow for a consolidation of cases with one judge. The judge can then process claims much more quickly, ensuring that patients get justice in a more timely manner and that the courts time is not taken up with hearing and deciding thousands of cases from start to end.

Multi-district litigations are different from class actions, which also allow for many plaintiffs’ claims to be heard at once. In a class action, unlike a multi-district litigation, every plaintiff’s case is consolidated into one big case. The judge issues a ruling that applies to the whole class of people involved. Class actions are appropriate when plaintiffs are all injured in a similar way by a similar harm. Multi-district litigations, on the other hand, work best when plaintiffs were harmed by a similar cause but all suffered different types of hurt or complications.

In the Stryker cases, individual plaintiffs have their own unique complaints against the medical device manufacturer based on the dangerous Rejuvenate hip replacement devices. The multi-district litigations will allow them to get the compensation that they deserve for their individual losses while still making sure that justice is done in a timely and efficient manner.
Continue reading

August 13, 2013

Lawsuits Move Forward Against Stryker Prosthetics for Stryker Rejuvenate

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

In 2012, Stryker Orthopaedics recalled its Stryker Rejuvenate hip replacement system. Since that time, thousands of cases have been filed against Stryker Orthopaedics as a result of complications caused by the metal hip replacement product. Cases are currently moving forward in Connecticut, New Jersey and nationwide to hold the medical device manufacturer accountable.

Our Boston injury lawyers know that patients who had the Stryker Rejuvenate hip replacement device implanted during their hip replacement procedure are facing a high failure rate, as well as the risk of many other health problems. Stryker Orthopaedics must be held responsible for the design, marketing and sale of this defective medical device.

Why the Stryker Rejuvenate is Dangerous

The Stryker Rejuvenate suffers from many of the same problems that are affecting metal-on-metal hip replacement devices from many different manufacturers. The different components of the hip replacement device rub against each other as you move around, causing little bits of metal can begin to come loose and float and lodge surrounding tissue. This can cause discomfort, swelling, pain, the formation of pseudo-tumors, tissue death and metallosis.

Like other metal-on-metal hip replacement devices, the Stryker Rejuvenate also has a higher failure rate than other hip replacement products that are not made of all metal components. Unfortunately, the failure rate is significantly higher within the first five years, and when the device fails, the patient may need to undergo multiple surgeries to correct the problem and put a new hip joint into the body.

These consequences are bad enough, especially in light of the fact that Stryker marketed the Rejuvenate as a better alternative to existing hip implant products — claiming it was longer lasting and better for younger and more active people.

However, unfortunately, the Stryker may be even more prone to problems than other metal-on-metal devices. This is because the Rejuvenate has a different design than most products. While most hip replacement devices were standard products and the same components were used for all patients, the Rejuvenate offered greater customization. This has proven problematic.

Design Features of the Rejuvenate Cause Problems for Patients

The basic components of a hip replacement joint include:

An acetabular cup that fits inside of a concave indentation in the pelvis, which is called the acetabulum.
A stem that fits inside of the femur bone.
A replacement hip joint that fits atop the femur (femoral head) and slides into the acetabular cup.

The Stryker Rejuvenate is unique because it offered a choice of 16 different necks that fit on top of the femur and because it offered a choice of six different stems that fit inside of the femur. This customization allowed doctors to better fit the hip joint to patients… or at least that was the plan.

Unfortunately, the increased customization has resulted in an increased chance of swelling, pain and problems with the hip replacement system.

Patients coping with discomfort, a failed hip joint or other complications have to cope with the discomfort they feel, and also are forced to undergo corrective surgical procedures. Stryker needs to be held responsible for this and the lawsuits against the company are aimed at making sure that patients aren’t going to be forced to pay out-of-pocket for the harm the defective product caused.
Continue reading

August 9, 2013

Bicyclists Asked to Walk throughout Boston

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Officials with the Boston Parks and Recreation Department recently announced that the prohibition on bike riding will remain in effect for Boston Common, Commonwealth Avenue Mall and the Public Garden because of the all the events held at the sites and because of the volume of foot traffic. Bicyclists are still able to travel on the properties — if they’re walking their bikes through, according to the City of Boston.

This announcement comes after a number of discussions between property abutters, bicycling advocates, Walk Boston, the Friends of the Public Garden and various other groups.

Our Boston bicycling accident lawyers understand that, although these meetings were very productive, there are still some disagreement that lingers regarding these areas and the nature of bicycling. The problem that officials see is that bicyclists come up quietly and swiftly behind pedestrians and are likely to catch them off guard. And that’s no good when you consider that these areas are some of the busiest for pedestrian traffic in the city.

These properties host some of the city’s most popular events, which makes sharing this space tough.

With today’s announcements, residents and visitors should note:

-There are signs that state where bicyclists are allowed to travel. These signs are located at these entrances.

-If you’ve got a bicycle, you’re still welcome. You’re just asked to walk your bike through instead of riding.

-Officials will continue the discussion on cycling in the area and will continue to push for safe routes for everyone.

-Bicycling is allowed in City of Boston parks only on those paths that are designated for bike riding.

But don’t think that bicyclists are getting shut out. There are still many bicycling events throughout the area. Coming up in the near future are the Hub on Wheels ride, September 22nd, and the TD Bank Mayor’s Cup Pro Race, September 21st.

Since Mayor Menino launched Boston Bikes in 2007, ridership in the City has more than doubled. Many other important strides have been made in safety, education, and facilities.

Both Commonwealth Avenue and Massachusetts were ranked as the most dangerous roads in the entire city. Close to 10 percent of the bicycling accidents in the city involved a pedestrian. About 35 percent reportedly involved a motor vehicle. Unfortunately, both men and women cyclists perceive cycling on off-road paths as significantly safer than biking on Boston streets. But we see here that that’s not oftentimes the truth.

When you’re riding out there, make sure you’re riding in a safe and designated area. Some roads have marked bike lanes to the right side of the road. In ideal circumstances, cyclists should stay to the left side of the bike lane in order to avoid potential road debris and to stay outside the radius of the doors of parked cars.
Continue reading

August 5, 2013

Transvaginal Mesh Pain Excruciating, Women Say

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Transvaginal mesh implants were supposed to provide relief to women suffering from pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.

These are conditions that often plague women after they have undergone a hysterectomy, menopause or child birth. SUI is a leakage of urine during certain moments of physical activity, while POP is when the pelvic muscles weaken to the point that the bladder, rectum and uterus drop into the vagina.

As awful as these conditions are, our Boston transvaginal mesh injury lawyers have heard patients describe the one-time remedy as even worse.

Transvaginal mesh, also known as bladder slings, have been shown to result in major, long-lasting complications for patients. It’s believed the number of transvaginal surgery patients is somewhere in the neighborhood of 550,000 to 600,000.

A number of doctors with patients who have undergone the transvaginal mesh surgery have reported that their patients have suffered pain so severe that they have contemplated taking their own lives. Sadly, in a few cases, they have done so.

The implants, ineffective for their intended purpose, have also caused a long list of complications on their own. Those complications, urinary problems and infection. In some cases, blood vessels, bowels and the bladder were perforated during the actual insertion. The erosion of the materials, which we now know in many cases were never suitable for human implantation in the first place, has led to severe vaginal scarring and further injuries. This has led to excruciating pain for many patients.

Some of the descriptions given by sufferers:

A feeling as if one is sitting on razor blades;
An intense burning and tearing sensation anytime one attempts to engage in sexual activities;
A sharp scratching feeling as the mesh protrudes through the vaginal walls;
An intense pain so severe it feels like a migraine that stretches from the knees to the navel;
Dagger-like, stabbing pain anytime one attempts to urinate.

Even powerful pain medications often do little to alleviate these symptoms long-term. Some women report being unable to sit, drive and in some cases even work.

Some mesh patients report being told for years that despite their pain, nothing was wrong. This only served to further deepen their depression.

While there is revision surgery available to have the mesh removed, it’s rare that eroded mesh can be removed completely. In addition to surgery, patients may require IV therapy, blood transfusions and drainage of hematomas or abscesses.

Endo Health, one of the primary makers of the mesh products used on patients, recently settled a small portion of their lawsuits for about $54.5 million, following an $11.1 million verdict in favor of a South Dakota woman. The plaintiff had alleged the product was defective and the company failed to warn, leaving her to cope with permanent scarring and ongoing bouts of extreme pain.

While the jury did not find the product to have been defective, they did find that the defendant failed to offer an adequate warning about the potential dangers of the product and also made fraudulent representations regarding the product to both the doctor and the patient.
Continue reading

August 1, 2013

TransVaginal Mesh Lawsuits Spike as Statute of Limitation Nears

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Those who have been negatively affected by the insertion of vaginal mesh to treat urinary incontinence and pelvic discomfort may have only a short time left to file a claim for compensation.

Our transvaginal mesh attorneys understand that victims in these cases may have a two-year window from the time they learned of widespread problems in which to file suit. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration had issued a warning on July 13, 2011, indicating that the mesh was often ineffective, but exposed patients to greater health risks and that surgery complications were widespread.

An earlier warning from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration in 2008 had downplayed the issues patients suffered and indicated that problems with the mesh material were rare. The agency may have been reluctant because the product has been so widely used since the 1990s, and had been touted as an advancement in medical treatment.

Today, we know that is clearly not the case. The FDA discovered that in about 1 out of every 10 women who had the transvaginal mesh inserted for purposes of pelvic repair had some degree of erosion within just one year of the implant. Other common complications noted from the devices were intense pain, bleeding, infection, organ perforation, urinary problems and painful sexual intercourse. Additionally, some patients reported experiencing vaginal scarring and shrinking, neuro-muscular problems and recurrent prolapse. Many of these woman also suffered deep emotional effects as well.

Several of the medical device companies targeted by this litigation are based in Boston, including Boston Scientific Corp. Since that 2011 warning from the FDA, Boston Scientific has been named as a defendant in some 6,300 lawsuits pertaining to transvaginal mesh.

More than half of those cases were filed this year. Some 1,600 of those were filed just in May and June of this year.

In all, it’s believed about 16,000 lawsuits have been filed on behalf of transvaginal mesh patients and their surviving family members. That’s quite a bit more than anyone initially expected, though it just goes to show how widespread the troubles have been.

Boston Scientific has held firm in its stance that transvaginal mesh products continue to be an “important treatment option” for women troubled by pelvic organ prolapse.

Many of the cases filed in federal court have been lumped into a multidistrict litigation action that is being handled in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of West Virginia. The first of those cases is expected to proceed to trial by the end of this year. The next is on the docket for next spring.

These lawsuits allege that manufacturers failed in their duty to provide an adequate warning regarding the risks associated with these medical products.

Attorneys across the country will be closely watching how these cases unfold. They have been coined “bellweather cases,” in that they will give both plaintiffs and defendants a clearer sense of how juries are going to weigh these issues.
Continue reading

July 31, 2013

NHTSA Warns Consumers Of Tire Dangers in Hot Weather

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), tire failures cause around 11,000 car accidents every year in the United States.

These car accidents occur for many different reasons, including separation of the treads of tires; tire blowouts; bald tires; and tires that are underinflated.

Our Boston defective tire attorneys know that poorly designed and badly manufactured tires are one of the primary reasons for tire-related accidents. However, there are also other causes as well, such as a failure on the part of drivers to maintain their tires properly. Now, the NHTSA is reminding car owners that the risk of tire-related accidents is higher in the summer months if tires are not properly maintained.

NHTSA Tire Warning for Summer Weather

The NHTSA advisory warns that the summer is a bad time for tire-related accidents. Unfortunately, the heat can exacerbate tire problems and the warmth of the pavement can contribute to the breakdown of tires. This is especially a problem when cars travel along highways at high speeds, with the hot roadways and the friction from the car travel making it more likely that a tire tread separation or blowout will happen.

If the tire fails as a result of a problem with the manufacturing or design of the tire, there is little that a driver can do to stay safe and the tire manufacturer should be held responsible for losses and damage that occur. However, if the tire fails as a result of a driver failing to maintain his vehicles, then the accident can be the fault of the driver.

Drivers who cause accidents through failure to maintain tires can put their lives at risk and can endanger passengers and other drivers. These motorists can also become legally liable for damage that they cause. To avoid this, drivers should follow some key safety recommendations put forth by the NHTSA. The NHTSA reminds drivers to:

Check their vehicle manuals in order to determine the appropriate tire pressure in pounds per square inch and ensure that the tires are at the appropriate pressure.
Keep a tire pressure gauge in their vehicles and check the PSI to ensure that the tires have not become underinflated. Tires can lose as much as one PSI each month, so checking the PSI regularly is important.
Using the cars tire pressure monitoring system and taking action if the system issues a warning.
Monitoring the tread of the tires on all vehicles and ensuring that the tires do not have treads worn down to 2/32 of an inch or less. A penny test can be used to make sure the tread is not too worn. If you put a penny in the tread of the tires with Lincoln’s head upside down, you shouldn’t be able to see the top of Lincoln’s head.

By following these tire maintenance and safety tips, you can reduce the chances of a serious accident occurring as a result of defective tires. You should also regularly check to ensure that your tires have not been recalled due to defects or problems.
Continue reading

July 29, 2013

Meningitis Victims Sue Sister Company of New England Compounding Pharmacy

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The New England Compounding Center caused widespread illness throughout the United States when the pharmacy released steroid medications that were contaminated with fungus. More than 749 people throughout the United States were made ill as a result of NECC’s contaminated drugs, according to the government’s accusations. The illnesses ranged from infections at the injection site to fungal meningitis.

Our Boston injury attorneys know that the victims sustained significant financial loss due to NECC’s medication. Unfortunately, the New England Compounding Center has limited funds available to compensate the victims who were harmed by the dangerous drugs. Now, however, the Tennessean reported that some victims have begun pursuing claims against sister companies related to NECC.

NECC Sister Companies Sued
The New England Compounding Center has filed for bankruptcy protection. Because the company is bankrupt, there are limited or even no funds available to provide compensation to the 749 people the compounding center injured. Whether the pharmacy had liability insurance will also be determined by the courts. There were a reported 61 deaths as a result of the fungal meningitis outbreak, and the family members of those who were left behind will need significant sums of money to compensate them for a lifetime of lost wages and lost companionship.

Those who were harmed by NECC still have bills to pay and need to get those costs covered. One woman, for example, spent more than a month in the hospital with fungal meningitis. She has now filed a lawsuit in federal court to try to obtain compensation for the medical bills and costs that she was forced to pay. The lawsuit has been filed not against NECC but against other companies with a common ownership link.

There are a number of different companies with common ownership links including Ameridose LLC, Medical Sales Management Inc., Medical Sales Management SW Inc., GDC Properties Management LLC and ARL Bio Pharma Inc. These companies could potentially be better financial targets for a lawsuit than NECC because they have more money available to cover losses.

The injured plaintiff is also pursuing a claim against a local clinic that used spinal injections as a method of treating chronic pain. The plaintiff alleges that the clinic switched to using medication from NECC because the prior supplier increased the price of a steroid that they used by $2.45 per vial.

The complaints have only been filed recently so it is unclear whether the clinic or NECC’s sister companies will be held responsible for the losses and damaged caused by the contaminated injections from the compounding center. However, the hundreds of patients throughout the country who were injured now have new options to explore as potential sources of compensation.

The patients who were harmed by NECC deserve to be compensated or “made whole,” for losses and since the compounding center does not have the money to pay for the damage it caused, it is natural and expected for plaintiffs to seek monetary damages from others who could be held responsible. An experienced attorney can help injured victims to determine all potential sources of compensation for their particular claims.
Continue reading

July 26, 2013

New Study Sheds Light on Most Common Medical Malpractice Claims for Primary Care Physician

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Our Boston medical malpractice lawyers know that malpractice is far too common and that these claims arise as a result of many different types of medical mistakes.

Recently, a comprehensive study by Irish researchers took a close look at the medical errors that primary care physicians make which lead to medical malpractice cases.

Common Causes of Medical Malpractice Claims

According to CBS News, Irish researchers reviewed more than 7,150 journal papers on medical malpractice claims in order to determine the top causes of malpractice cases. The goal was specifically to find the causes of malpractice claims for primary care physicians, since these physicians are often the ones responsible for identifying when symptoms present medical problems that require referral to a specialist.

The researchers reviewed 34 different journal articles and analyzed the underlying causes of primary care malpractice cases as described by the journals. These journal articles included fifteen articles that were based in the United States, nine studies that were based in Britain, seven studies by Australian researchers, two papers by French researchers and one paper by Canadian researches.

Based on the comprehensive review of different journals, the Irish research study determine that the top causes of medical malpractice claims included:

Missed diagnosis cases, which accounted for between 26 percent and 63 percent of the total medical malpractice claims, depending upon the study that was reviewed. Death resulted in between 15 and 48 percent of misdiagnosis cases and common conditions that were misdiagnosed included cancer, heart attacks, appendicitis, ectopic pregnancy and bone fractures. For kids, the most common misdiagnoses included both cancers and meningitis.
Drug errors accounted for between six percent and 20 percent of claims that the researchers identified, depending upon the study. Drug errors included problems with steroid preparations, anticoagulants, antibiotics and antipsychotics.

The study also revealed that around one-third of the cases in the United States resulted in compensation for the patients. In the United Kingdom, the study results showed that closer to half of all claims resulted in compensation for patients.

The outcome of the study caused researchers to point out that doctors can sometimes practice defensive medicine, which means increasing diagnostic testing and prescribing unnecessary medication. While this is a problem with some physicians, the fact is that it should not be an issue if doctors do their jobs.

Physicians are expected to perform their duties with reasonable care. A doctor can be liable for medical malpractice for drug errors or for misdiagnosis only if a reasonably competent physician wouldn’t have made the mistakes that the doctor made. As such, a doctor could avoid a claim for malpractice by simply listening to the symptoms that a patient exhibits and making sure to order the proper testing and treatment.

When a doctor makes a drug error or fails to diagnose a medical condition, this error can have serious consequences. The patient should be able to make a malpractice claim and, with the help of an experienced attorney, should be able to recover compensation for losses.
Continue reading

July 25, 2013

Mistrial Declared in Surgical Mesh Case

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Transvaginal mesh has caused significant harm throughout the United States and there are thousands of patients currently taking legal action against medical device manufacturers due to dangerous mesh. Several of these cases are going forward as representative cases designed to enable the judge to determine how the bulk of the litigation will proceed.

Our Boston transvaginal mesh attorneys know that the outcome of these cases is very important as the outcomes may have a significant impact on how future cases are resolved. Recently, however, a mistrial was declared in one of the surgical mesh cases that was going on in Charleston.

Mistrial Declared in Surgical Mesh Case

According to the Charleston Daily Mail, United States District Judge Joseph Goodwin declared a mistrial in the first of the four transvaginal mesh trials going on in the area.

The cases were consolidated in the Southern District of the federal courts of West Virginia. During the trial, the plaintiff asked a question of a physician from the University of Southern Florida College of Medicine. The witness answered the question by reporting that he took a lot of the mesh out, and that no one sells or implants the product anymore.

The defense attorney immediately objected to the statements, which were described by the judge as both spontaneous and untrue. After the jury was dismissed for lunch, an attorney for the defendant moved for a mistrial and the judge agreed after conferring with the lawyers for several hours.

The judge believed the mistrial was appropriate because it would be too difficult for the jury not to consider the statement made by the physician, even with instructions to do so. In fact, instructing the jury to disregard the statement would, in the opinion of the judge, simply draw more attention to the words of the witness.

Because the jury might be unduly influenced by the statements in favor of the plaintiff, the judge felt as though he had no choice but to declare a mistrial. It was, according to the Daily Mail, the first time in almost 20 years that he had been forced to declare a mistrial in a civil lawsuit.

Because the mistrial was declared, the case will need to begin from scratch again. The new trial will begin on the 29th of July with the selection of a new jury and the judge has cautioned that the witnesses must be cautioned stronger about what they may and may not say in future trials so there are no further problems.

Unfortunately, this delay and the need for a new trial will result in the claim taking longer and thus will result in many plaintiffs harmed by transvaginal mesh being forced to wait an even longer period of time to get the compensation they are counting on.

Many of those patients who have sustained harm as a result of transvaginal mesh have undergone painful surgeries and spent significant sums of money on medical care to treat their complications. The longer the cases take, the longer it will take for these plaintiffs to be repaid for the losses they’ve endured. For those who have been harmed, it is important to speak with an attorney as quickly as possible to get your claim moving forward.
Continue reading

July 23, 2013

Canadian Institute for Health Looks at Hip Implant Failure Rates

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

According to CBC News Health, metal-on-metal hip implants are more likely than traditional hip implants to fail quickly and need to be replaced. In fact, a new report from the Canadian Institute for Health indicated that patients with certain types of metal-on-metal hips had a 5.9 percent chance of needing a second implant within five years as compared with only 2.7 percent of those who have a metal-on-plastic implant.

Our Boston hip implant attorneys know that this only adds to the growing body of research indicating that metal-on-metal products have a high failure rate. Unfortunately, those patients who have a metal-on-metal hip implant may have significant expenses associated with revision surgeries and treating complications. The manufacturers of the metal-on-metal devices should be responsible for covering the costs of this essential treatment.

Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants Likely to Fail

Recently, the Canadian Institute for Health Information released a report on 56,942 surgeries performed throughout Canada from 2003 to 2011. The report looked at all different factors that influenced how long artificial hip implants would last in the body.

The most common types of hip implant products that were included in the study included:

Metal on plastic implants, which accounted for 23 percent of all implants included.
Metal-on-metal implants, which accounted for nine percent of implants included.
Ceramic-on-ceramic implants, which accounted for eight percent of implants included.
Ceramic-on-plastic, which accounted for five percent of the implants that were included.

The research revealed that those whose hips were replaced by metal-on-metal joints were more likely to be men and were more likely to be under the age of 55. This data makes sense because metal-on-metal hip implants were specifically marketed towards those who were younger and more active since manufacturers said they would last longer and be less prone to breakage than traditional ceramic-on-metal hip replacement devices.

The typical hip replacement devices lasted around ten to fifteen years, and metal-on-metal products promised to change that. The metal-on-metal products were widely embraced and their use peaked from 2007 to 2008 until news of complications began occurring.

As reports of problems trickled in, eventually regulators from the United States, United Kingdom and Canada all issued warnings that the metal parts were wearing off and entering the blood stream, causing potentially devastating complications.

Now, this widespread report related to hip implants has confirmed that not only can these hip implants cause serious side effects but they are also no more likely to last a long time than the traditional medical devices. In fact, there is a significantly greater chance of the metal-on-metal hip implants failing in a short period of time and necessitating a replacement. Those with large-diameter modular metal-on-metal artificial hip implants are at the greatest risk, as are individuals with pre-existing long term medical conditions.

Thousands of patients who have experienced these failures and who have undergone replacements have begun to take legal action against the medical device manufacturers of the artificial hips in order to hold them accountable. If the metal-on-metal hip fails, the manufacturer should be required to pay.
Continue reading