Articles Posted in Medical Device Manufacturers

Published on:

By

History tells us that it is not the crime but the cover-up that often causes the most damage. In drug and medical device cases, there is usually a Nixonian leitmotif: what did you know and when did you know it with respect to the potential harm caused by the drug.

Last month, another DePuy class action lawsuit was filed. The claim is an interesting cover-up allegation. The class action claims that after the DePuy ASR recall, the company deceived patients by agreeing to make things right and in exchange, getting access to hip recall victims’ medical records. Making things right is relative. DePuy has essentially promised victims nothing in exchange for something, which is the essence of this class action lawsuit.

This byproduct DePuy hip recall lawsuit is probably a sideshow to the core of these hip implant lawsuits. Rummaging through plaintiffs’ medical records while pretending to promise them something in exchange is awful. It is a clear end-run artifice designed to fool plaintiffs into believing they don’t need a lawyer. But the compensation for this inappropriate conduct pales in comparison to the real injuries that stem from the DePuy ASR hip recall. But this class action lawsuit underscores that people are mad and DePuy is not making things any better by not playing it straight with victims.

Continue Reading
Published on:

By

We’re just hearing about a May 7, 2010, FDA warning letter to Medtronic over Medtronic’s failure to establish protocols to review customer complaints and to validate device designs. The letter relates to image-guided surgical systems for spinal, cranial, and ENT applications.

This probably isn’t a huge deal and doesn’t imply any particular defects. On the other hand, it’s hard to know about defects if Medtronic isn’t actively looking for them…

Published on:

By

St%20Jude%20Logo-06-22-10%29.gifThe California Watch wrote about questionable ties between a cardiologist, Dr. Michael Burnam, and a medical device company, St. Jude Medical, Inc.

The allegations are that Dr. Burnam convinced St. Jude to give his son a $200,000 a year job in exchange for a lot of new business. St. Jude manufactures defibrillators, and one patient is accusing Burnam of arranging for a completely unnecessary defibrillator implant surgery. That surgery almost cost a patient his life, when the implanting surgeon accidentally stabbed the patient’s heart with the implant.

This kind of quid pro quo is intolerable, particularly to the extent that patients have no idea of the relationship between their physicians and medical device manufacturers. Part of the problem, in this case, is that, as alleged by the patient, the cardiologist deliberately misinformed the implanting surgeon about the patient’s medical history. Had he been properly informed, the surgeon would have realized that the surgery was unnecessary.

Continue Reading
Published on:

By

Here are this week’s stories:

  • Blood Products: The FDA hit the Red Cross with $16.2 million in fines for blood safety violations. Maybe I should take my donations to the local hospital, instead…
  • Hormone Therapy: Pfizer needs to get ready to try its hormone therapy cases all over the country, now that cases have been sent from Arkansas to their home states (with more awaiting transfer). Some think the upcoming cost will be an incentive for settlement. (HT: Bloomberg).
Continue Reading
Published on:

By

Ethics-Definition-05-25-10.jpgSean Wajert of the MassTortDefense Blog has a post on a court’s denial of a plaintiff’s ethics expert in an OBTape MDL pending in Georgia. We routinely disagree with Sean’s blog (we’re on different sides of the aisle, of course), but there isn’t much disagreement with this post.

Disclaimer: I haven’t been following the OBTape litigation too closely, so all my information is secondhand.

The plaintiffs hired a business ethicist, Professor Ann Buchholtz, to testify that the product manufacturer should have provided certain information about the product to physicians and consumers. This is essentially a failure to warn claim. The problem with hiring a business ethicist (who, apparently has no particular expertise in medical devices or medical ethics, which arguably could alter the analysis) is that she is unnecessary. A jury is tasked with determining whether a company failed to warn about specific dangers. Having an expert say what is “ethically” required is merely an attempt to substitute an expert’s opinion for that of the jury. And the danger is that the opinion comes cloaked in the guise of expert testimony, so a jury might be more willing to accept the expert’s viewpoint.

Continue Reading
Published on:

By

The FDA Law Blog has a great post on the recent Baxter Colleague Infusion Pump Recall. They outline the authority the FDA is using to demand the recall (it is based on a consent agreement entered some years back between Baxter and the FDA after continued pump problems). The FDA Law Blog questions whether Baxter is required to refund purchase prices or reimburse for current pump values. There’s an interesting calculation of Baxter’s expected loss (though, Baxter is hoping to replace the Colleague pumps with other Baxter pumps).

See our prior post on the Baxter pump recall here.

Published on:

By

Baxter-Pump.jpgThe FDA has analyzed safety information and ordered Baxter to recall approximately 200,000 Colleague Volumetric brand infusion pumps. There are serious potential defects that have gone unaddressed, and under a 2006 agreement with the FDA, if Baxter did not adequately address the concerns, the FDA could require a recall at any time. The recall was prompted because Baxter informed the FDA that they would make the next round of corrections in May 2012 (not fast enough for the FDA, and not fast enough for customer comfort, I’m sure). Now, these devices must be recalled and destroyed.

The pump is a device that delivers various fluids in a hospital, nursing home, or even home setting. According to the FDA, the Colleague-brand pump has had problems going back as far as 1999, including “battery swelling, inadvertent power off, service data errors, and other issues.” Baxter’s attempted solutions have not been successful. Baxter has been ordered to provide replacement or refund to all customers.

All told, the FDA has received 56,000 adverse event reports in the past five years and has found that the pump may be linked to over 500 deaths.

Continue Reading
Published on:

By

We’ve been getting a lot of questions over the past few days about Seroquel. That usually means I need to put up a new post, especially considering recent events.

Earlier this week, AstraZeneca (the manufacturer of Seroquel) agreed to pay $520 million to settle a federal inquiry into Seroquel marketing practices. As we have stated before, Seroquel is approved to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. However, investigators and plaintiffs believe that AstraZeneca marketed the drug for myriad other unapproved uses, including depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, dementia, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

whistle.jpgThere are no criminal charges associated with the deal. Giving credence to plaintiffs’ claims (aside from the credibility arising from the mere fact of a whopping large settlement), is that federal investigators got much of their information from AstraZeneca whistleblowers, drug sales rep, James Wetta (who had some involvement in the whistleblowing at Eli Lilly around 2003).

Continue Reading
Published on:

By

In a bold move, Judge Donovan Frank rejected a $296 million plea deal, offered by Boston Scientific and prosecutors. The proposed agreement was offered for Guidant’s failure to timely report problems with some of its defibrillators, which have caused at least seven deaths and numerous injuries. Boston Scientific purchased Guidant back in 2006. The federal Minnesota judge considered the arrangement, but ultimately rejected deal (which included a guilty plea by Guidant for two misdemeanors: submitting a false and misleading report to the FDA, and failing to notify the FDA about a device safety correction).

Judge Frank stated that “[a]t a minimum, the public’s interest in accountability would be served by Guidant and Boston Scientific being placed on probation, regardless of the fact that Boston Scientific acquired Guidant after the events in question. And, the court believes that a period of probation would likely benefit, rather than harm, Guidant’s and Boston Scientific’s public image.” The judge indicated that some measure of community service would be appropriate.

More Guidant/Boston Scientific Information

Continue Reading