Contact Us

Guidant Defibrillators
*    Denotes required field.

   * First Name 

   * Last Name 

   * Email 


Cell Phone 

Street Address 

Zip Code 



Which Guidant cardiac defibrillator was implanted?

If other, what is the name of the defibrillator that was implanted?

Date the device was implanted:

Is the device still implanted?

What medical condition prompted the use of the device?

Please describe any problems or injuries caused by the product:

For verification purposes, please answer the below question:

No Yes, I agree to the Parker Waichman LLP disclaimers. Click here to review.

Yes, I would like to receive the Parker Waichman LLP monthly newsletter, InjuryAlert.

please do not fill out the field below.

Doctors Who Brought Guidant Defibrillator Problems to Light Ask Judge to Reject Plea Agreement

Apr 22, 2010 | Parker Waichman LLP

 Drs. Robert Hauser and Barry Maron, both prominent cardiologists, have asked a federal judge to reject the plea agreement the government struck with  Boston Scientific’s Guidant unit for withholding information about faulty defibrillators from federal regulators. According to New York Times, both doctors were instrumental in bringing the Guidant defibrillator problems to light in 2005. They had cared for a 21-year-old college student who died when his implantable defibrillator made by Guidant failed to deliver a life-saving shock.

In an interview with The Times, Dr. Hauser said the plea agreement should not be allowed because it does not hold anyone accountable. In their letter to Judge Donovan Frank of the U.S. District Court of Minnesota,, both he and Dr. Maron wrote that a financial penalty alone would not be deterrent enough to prevent other company officials from making bad decisions.

“On behalf of the patients who died or suffered pain and mental anguish as the direct result of Guidant’s illegal and unethical behavior, we urge you not to accept the plea agreement,” the doctors wrote.

Boston Scientific agreed in November to plead to the charges and pay $296 million – - the largest criminal penalty against a medical device company – to resolve the Guidant charges with the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice investigation that resulted in the proposed settlement centered on three Guidant devices that had the potential to short-circuit — the Ventak Prizm 2 DR (Model 1861) and the Contak Renewal (Models H135 and H155) models of implantable defibrillators. According to the charges filed in federal court, Guidant violated the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by concealing information from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) about catastrophic short-circuiting failures in the three models. The company discovered problems with one of the products in 2002 and became aware of problems with two others in 2004, the department said.

Three safety alerts were issued about these defibrillators in June 2005. The FDA later determined these were Class I recalls, which are the most serious type of device recall because there is a reasonable change the devices could cause serious health problems or death. Malfunctions in the products were linked to multiple deaths.

Related articles Other articles
Parker Waichman Accolades And Reviews Best Lawyers Find Us On Avvo