Articles Posted in Medical Devices

Published on:

The surgical implant manufacturer Exactech recently announced a recall of all its Optetrak® implant systems used in total knee replacement surgeries since 2004. The recall came after the company discovered that a problem with the product packaging was causing the polyethylene insert component in the Optetrak implants to degrade not function properly. This defect is causing the Optetrak knee implant systems to prematurely fail which ultimately requires patients to undergo additional revision surgery.

Individuals who had the Optetrak system implanted and suffered premature failure due to this defect can file a product liability lawsuit against Exactech and potentially recover financial compensation for their pain and medical bills. Our firm is currently accepting Optetrak implant failure cases from patients who suffered a premature failure to their knee replacement implant and had to undergo revision surgery.

Opterak Exactech Recall Lawsuit –  April 2023 Update

Published on:

Thousands of CPAP machine lawsuits have been filed since medical device company Philips recalled millions of sleep apnea machines after discovering that they were causing users to inhale toxic foam particles.  Our CPAP lawyers are handling these lawsuits in all 50 states.

Thousands of CPAP Lawsuits

Thousands of additional CPAP recall lawsuits have been filed on registered against Philips in the class-action MDL lawsuit.

Published on:

The Bair Hugger warming device has been a popular medical device used in hospitals for years. It is used to keep patients warm during surgeries, which helps prevent hypothermia and other complications. However, studies have suggested that the use of Bair Hugger warming devices during joint replacement surgery may increase the risk of infection.  These studies spawned thousands of lawsuits that evolved into the Bair Hugger class action lawsuit.

What Is the Bair Hugger Warming Device?

The Bair Hugger warming device is a forced-air warming system that was first introduced in 1987. It is a portable device that blows warm air through a disposable blanket, which covers the patient during surgery. The device is designed to maintain the patient’s body temperature, which helps reduce the risk of hypothermia and other complications.

The Bair Hugger was created in the 1980s by Augustine Medical, Inc., which was later acquired by Defendant Arizant Healthcare, Inc. In 2010, Defendant 3M Company purchased Arizant, including the Bair Hugger product line. The Bair Hugger is designed to keep patients warm during surgical procedures by blowing warm, forced air over the patient. It consists of a portable forced-air temperature management unit and a disposable Bair Hugger forced-air blanket, with 25 different styles available that vary in size and coverage, including partial or full coverage of the patient’s body, and some are used underneath the patient. The manufacturer markets Bair Huggers as a warming solution that can be used for various patients, from pediatric to geriatric, and for both short and long procedures. The marketing slogan for Bair Huggers is “Everyone Deserves a Hugg™,” emphasizing its suitability for everyone.

Published on:

Within the past year, many lawsuits have been filed against Teva Pharmaceuticals. These Paragard IUD lawsuits allege that suits allege that Teva’s IUD fractures upon removal, resulting in fragments being left in the uterus. The plaintiffs claimed this caused them to undergo additional removal procedures, which would have been unnecessary had this defect not occurred.  The purpose of this page is to provide a status update on the current state of the Paragard lawsuits as of late February 2023.  Other Paragard law firms and websites are providing updates on this litigation, and I would encourage you to follow them here, here, and here.

Indeed, the biggest news in the short history of this litigation was last month when these lawsuits were centralized into an MDL in Georgia federal court.  This means there will be a class action in which all federal court cases will be consolidated in Georgia under one judge.  So if you have a federal case in California, Texas, Florida, or anywhere, it will end up.

Let’s start out by talking about some of the science behind these cases.  Usually, what fuels litigation is that studies come out, and lawyers jump on these studies to bring lawsuits.  In this litigation, it might be a little bit backward.  It took a while for plaintiffs’ lawyers to pick up on the problems with Paragard.  Now a new study this year further supports the contention Paragard lawyers are making.

Published on:

3M Company, a multinational conglomerate based in Minnesota, faces over 200,000 lawsuits in federal court in Florida in February 2023.

The lawsuit alleges that 3M knowingly sold defective earplugs to the U.S. military from 2003 to 2015 without disclosing the defect, which caused the earplugs to loosen and not adequately protect the user’s hearing. The lawsuit further claims that the company was aware of the problem for years but continued to sell the earplugs and even falsified test results to maintain its lucrative contract with the U.S. government.

As a result of this defect, thousands of military service members and veterans have suffered from permanent hearing damage, which has led to significant hearing loss, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), and other related conditions. The lawsuit seeks compensation for the affected individuals and damages for the company’s alleged fraud and negligence.

Published on:

Super Poligrip, an adhesive denture cream produced by GSK Consumer Healthcare, has been the subject of multiple lawsuits in the past. These lawsuits were brought by individuals who claimed that prolonged use of the product resulted in adverse health effects, including nerve damage and iron deficiency anemia.  This post will look back no these very successful lawsuits.  To be clear, we are not taking these lawsuits in 2023. But there is a strong interest in how previous successful MDLs have played out so we are providing this information here.  Some of this – most of this – is fresh content but some was pulled for 15 years ago.

Denture Cream Lawsuits

The history of denture cream lawsuits dates back to the late 2000s, when individuals who had used denture creams, including Super Poligrip, for an extended period of time began to experience adverse health effects, including nerve damage and iron-deficiency anemia. This prompted a number of class action lawsuits to be filed against the manufacturers of denture creams, including GSK Consumer Healthcare, the maker of Super Poligrip.

In these lawsuits, plaintiffs claimed that the zinc in the creams caused nerve damage and anemia due to excessive zinc absorption. The lawsuits further alleged that the manufacturers failed to adequately warn consumers about the potential risks associated with long-term use of the creams.

So GSK has faced a number of class action lawsuits elated to the safety and effectiveness of Super Poligrip and other denture creams. In some cases, plaintiffs claimed that the zinc in the creams caused nerve damage, while in others they claimed that the creams caused anemia due to excessive zinc absorption.

In response to these lawsuits, GSK has issued warnings and changes to the labeling of its denture creams, including Super Poligrip, to advise consumers of the potential risks associated with long-term use and to provide information on proper usage. In addition, GSK has agreed to settle certain lawsuits, including class action lawsuits, brought against the company for a lot of money.

Denture Cream Class Action MDL

The history of the denture cream multidistrict litigation (MDL) refers to a legal proceeding that consolidated multiple individual lawsuits related to the safety and effectiveness of denture creams, including Super Poligrip, into a single case for pre-trial proceedings.

MDLs are often used when there are a large number of lawsuits that involve similar factual and legal issues, such as those related to denture creams. The purpose of an MDL is to streamline the litigation process and avoid duplicative discovery and other pre-trial proceedings.

In the denture cream MDL, the lawsuits were consolidated before a single judge in the Southern District of Florida. The proceedings included evidence and expert testimony related to the potential health risks associated with long-term use of denture creams, including Super Poligrip, and the manufacturers’ warnings and labeling practices.

It’s important to note that the MDL proceedings did not result in a final resolution of the individual lawsuits. Rather, the MDL was used to efficiently manage the pre-trial proceedings, with the individual lawsuits being returned to their original venues for trial or settlement.

Warning Change

The manufacturers of Super Poligrip, the zinc-containing denture adhesive that can cause numbness, decrease in strength, tingling, balance problems, and other issues, have updated its product with a new warning.

Now, consumers are warned that the denture adhesive contains zinc and that they should talk with their doctor if they are taking zinc supplements because of the potential for zinc-toxicity. It also warns that excessive amounts of Poligrip can cause serious health effects.

Finally, diagrams are included detailing proper use, and the labeling informs consumers about how long a tube should last. This is a good step forward. The problem with the adhesive up to now has been that many consumers with ill-fitting dentures use prodigious amounts of adhesive, causing extensive neurological injuries. These warnings may go a long way to prevent further problems.

Continue Reading

Published on:

Yesterday, October 5, 2021, Bayer notched its very first courtroom victory in the Roundup litigation saga when a jury in Los Angeles County ruled that Roundup was “not a substantial factor” in causing a 10-year-old boy to develop Burkitt’s lymphoma. This is only the 4th Roundup case to be decided by a jury. The first 3 resulted in massive losses for Bayer.


San Bernardino Justice Center

Aside from giving Bayer a much-needed moral victory, this verdict probably won’t have any impact on the future course of the Roundup lawsuits or settlement payouts. This case presented a highly unique fact pattern because it involved very limited and indirect exposure to Roundup for only a short period during the plaintiff’s childhood.

Published on:

Hundreds of CPAP users have filed suit against Philips after the company announced a sweeping safety recall covering over 10 million of its CPAP and BiPAP devices. These lawsuits allege that the first-generation DreamStation CPAP machines contained a sound abatement foam that degraded over time and exposed users to toxic chemicals. This post will provide a brief overview of the Philips CPAP recall and look at the specific allegation in some recent CPAP recall lawsuits.

Philips Recalls CPAP Machines

On June 14, 2021, Philips announced a massive safety recall of almost all of the company’s CPAP and BiPAP devices, including the popular DreamStation line of products. The recall impacted an estimated 10 million devices that are primarily used for the treatment of sleep apnea and similar conditions.

Published on:

This week the MDL Judge in the Paragard IUD lawsuits will consider a motion to dismiss filed by the manufacturers of the defective birth control device. The Paragard MDL has grown to include over 500 individual cases by plaintiffs alleging that their Paragard IUD fractured during removal resulting in severe pain and sometimes emergency surgery to remove the broken pieces inside their uterus.

About the Paragard Lawsuits

The Paragard is an intrauterine device (IUD) used for birth control. It is a small plastic device shaped like a Y with a copper coil around the center. The device is inserted at the base of the uterus where is provides continuous protection against pregnancy for up to 10 years. The Paragard was designed to be easily removed at the doctor’s office.

Published on:

Our DreamStation CPAP recall lawyers are currently seeking new cases from individuals who used one of the recalled DreamStation devices and suffered health consequences related to the inhalation of chemicals from the device.

If you used a Philips DreamStation, DreamStation Go, or another recalled CPAP machine for 6 months or longer and have suffered cancer or other negative health consequences, you may be entitled to compensation.

What led to this recall and DreamStation lawsuits? A few weeks ago, Philips Respironics announced it was recalling all of its popular DreamStation sleep apnea machines because they may cause users to unknowingly inhale toxic, potentially carcinogenic chemicals