Parker Waichman Alonso LLP News

Parker Waichman LLP Representing Virginia Woman in DePuy ASR Hip Implant Lawsuit

Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Parker Waichman LLP continues to file metal-on-metal hip replacement lawsuits on behalf of alleged victims of DePuy Orthopaedics' recalled ASR hip implant devices. On May 7, the firm filed a new complaint on behalf of a 51-year-old woman from Virginia who had to have ASR hip implants removed and replaced just three years after she underwent a bi-lateral hip replacement with the devices.

According to her lawsuit, the plaintiff received Bi-Lateral ASR hip implants on February 13, 2007. In October 2010, she suffered pain, as well as elevated chromium and cobalt levels, allegedly due to her implants. The devices were removed on June 6, 2011.

This latest lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Ohio, where more than 4,200 DePuy ASR Hip Implant lawsuits are pending in a consolidated litigation. The litigation’s first bellwether trials, which will help gauge how juries might rule in similar cases, are expected to begin by early next year.

In addition to the federal litigation, DePuy faces another 2,000 or so claims filed in state courts around the country. Las Vegas, Nevada will be the site of the first state court trial, scheduled to begin in December. A Maryland lawsuit will go to trial in January.

All of the DePuy ASR hip implant lawsuits share similar allegations that the devices can shed dangerous amount of metal debris in patients, leading to early implant failure, tissue and possible long-term health problems. DePuy issued a worldwide recall of the implants in August 2012, after they were found to be failing prematurely in a high number of patients.

Parker Waichman LLP Files Nine Plavix Bleeding Side Effect Lawsuits

Fri, 04 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Parker Waichman LLP continues to file Plavix lawsuits on behalf of people who allegedly suffered serious internal bleeding and other Plavix side effects. In the past week alone, Parker Waichman LLP filed nine Plavix side effect claims in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County.

Six lawsuits filed by the firm on April 30 allege Plavix caused plaintiffs to suffer several side effects, including hemorrhage, cerebral hemorrhage and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), a blood condition which is marked by small clots through the entire circulatory system. Three additional lawsuits filed on May 3 claim plaintiffs suffered gastrointestinal bleeds from Plavix.

Among other things, the complaints allege that Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis, the makers of Plavix, negligently and/or fraudulently represented that Plavix had been tested and was found to be safe and/or effective for its indicated use. The lawsuits further charge that the Defendants concealed their knowledge of Plavix defects from the Plaintiffs, the FDA, the public in general and/or the medical community specifically.

Plavix is often prescribed with a low dose of aspirin. Its makers claim it is more effective than regular aspirin alone preventing heart attack and stroke caused by blood clots. Since its 1997 approval, Plavix has ranked among the best selling drugs in the U.S.

Parker Waichman LLP Files Additional DePuy ASR Hip Implant Lawsuits

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Parker Waichman LLP continues to file lawsuits on behalf of people injured by recalled metal-on-metal DePuy ASR hip implants. The firm recently filed several new complaints, including one that claims a DePuy ASR hip implant caused a Virginia woman to suffer from elevated chromium and cobalt levels.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old woman from Ferrum, Virginia, is seeking medical monitoring, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. According to her complaint, she received a DePuy ASR Hip Implant on October 10, 2007. By February 2011, the Plaintiff was suffering from pain, as well as elevated chromium and cobalt levels due to her metal-on-metal DePuy ASR Hip Implant.

Parker Waichman filed that lawsuit, and several others, on April 12, 2012, in the DePuy ASR hip implant multidistrict litigation currently underway in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio.

More than 93,000 people worldwide had received a recalled DePuy ASR hip implant, according to a statement from Parker Waichman LLP. DePuy Orthopaedics, a division of Johnson & Johnson, issued a worldwide recall of the ASR Hip Resurfacing System and ASR Acetabular System in August 2012, after data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales showed that 1 out of every 8 patients (12%-13%) who had received the devices had to undergo revision surgery within five years of receiving it.

Metal-on-metal hip implants have sparked concerns that they could be leaching dangerous amounts of metal ions into this tissue and blood streams of recipients. This can lead to early failure of the implant, as well as damage to tissue and organs. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) had already directed 21 companies that market all-metal hip replacement to conduct post-market studies of their products to determine if they were shedding dangerous amounts of metallic debris in patients. It has also scheduled an advisory panel meeting for June to discuss the problems with metal-on-metal hip implants. The recommendations that come out of that meeting could lead to new testing standards and review requirements to be met before an all-metal hip implant device can be approved by the FDA.

Parker Waichman LLP Calls on FDA to Compel Actos Bladder Cancer Warning from Takeda

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Parker Waichman LLP has called on the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to compel Takeda Pharmaceuticals to issue its own notification to doctors regarding the association between long-term use of Actos and bladder cancer. The firm was prompted by Takeda Canada's issuance of a "Dear Healthcare Professional" letter in Canada detailing Actos' link to bladder cancer, and informing recipients of changes being made to the Actos label in that country.

The Actos letter was issued by Takeda Canada in collaboration with Health Canada, the country's drug regulator. The document, dated April 16, states that: "Health Canada has recently completed a safety assessment of the available data and the Product Monograph (PM) was updated to reflect the potential risk of bladder cancer in treated patients." Among other things, the modified label will acknowledge that findings from new studies reveal that there is a potential increased risk of bladder cancer in patients treated with pioglitazone-containing products. In addition to being sent to Canadian healthcare professionals, a copy of the letter was posted to Health Canada's website.

When the FDA issued a warning regarding long-term use of Actos and bladder cancer last June, no such statement directed at U.S. healthcare providers was forthcoming from Takeda. Parker Waichman LLP believes the FDA should have required such a statement from the drug maker, and is pressing it to compel Takeda to release one now.

“We are hopeful that the FDA will take the strongest action possible to protect patients by requiring Takeda to directly notify the physicians of serious adverse events associated with taking Actos,” Daniel Burke, an attorney at Parker Waichman LLP, said in statement issued by the firm.

Panel Grants Parker Waichman LLP Motion to Consolidate MI Windows and Doors Lawsuits in South Carolina

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Parker Waichman LLP's motion to have lawsuits over allegedly defective windows manufactured by MI Windows and Doors, Inc. consolidated in a multidistrict litigation and transferred to federal court has been granted. In a Transfer Order dated April 23, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered that the cases be transferred to the U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina. The Honorable Chief Judge David C. Norton will be presiding over the MI Windows and Doors litigation.

"We are pleased with the JPML’s decision to consolidate and transfer the case to the District of South Carolina before the Honorable Chief Judge David C. Norton,” states Jordan Chaikan, Partner at Parker Waichman LLP. “The skill and experience Judge David C. Norton brings to this case will steer this litigation on a prudent course.”

Parker Waichman LLP had moved to have the lawsuits transferred to South Carolina on behalf of their client, Craig Hildebrand. Currently, five lawsuits are pending against MI Windows and Doors in five federal jurisdictions. In ordering the transfer, the Panel found that all five actions pending so far involve common questions of facts. Plaintiffs allege that various windows manufactured by the company contain one or more defects that result in the loss of seal at the bead along the bottom of the glass, allowing water to enter the inside of the window and leak into structures owned by plaintiffs and putative class members.

MI Windows and Doors had opposed the consolidation, asserting it would be inappropriate. But the Panel found that the District of South Carolina “will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.” The Order also points out that “one of the earliest filed and most advanced actions is pending in that district, and Judge David C. Norton, an experienced transferee judge, is familiar with the litigation.”

Parker Waichman LLP Files 13 Zimmer NexGen Knee Implant Lawsuits

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Parker Waichman LLP is representing 13 plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits involving various components in Zimmer Orthopaedic's NexGen Knee Implant line. The lawsuits were all filed on March 5, 2012 in the multidistrict litigation currently pending U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (RE: Zimmer NexGen Knee Implant -Products Liability Litigation - MDL No. 2272).

The Zimmer NexGen Knee Implant lawsuits name a number of components, including the Zimmer NexGen CR-Flex Component and the Zimmer NexGen LPS-Flex Component. The 13 plaintiffs have allegedly suffered injuries as a result of the named Zimmer NexGen Knee device(s) manufactured by the Defendants. In some cases, they have had to undergo revision surgery due to their failed knee replacement. All of the plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress and for economic loss as well as punitive damages.

Currently, well over 100 lawsuits are pending in the Zimmer NexGen Knee Implant MDL. Lawsuits pending in the litigation involve allegations that various Zimmer NexGen Knee Implant components, including the Zimmer NexGen LPS-Flex, Zimmer NexGen CR-Flex, Zimmer NexGen GSF LPS-Flex, Zimmer NexGen GSF CR-Flex, and Zimmer NexGen MIS Tibial components.

Zimmer obtained approval for the NexGen knee replacement components through the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) controversial 510(k) approval process. As we’ve reported in the past, this approval protocol allows devices to be cleared without human testing if they are shown to be “substantially equivalent” to one already on the market. Over the past year, the 510(k) process has attracted quite a bit of scrutiny. Over the summer, the Institute of Medicine called on the FDA to scrap the 510(k) process, saying it offered patients no assurance of safety. In June, , the Archives of Internal Medicine published a review that found that of 113 medical devices recalled between 2005 and 2009 because they could cause serious health problems or death, 80 had undergone 510(k) approvals. Many of those devices were recalled because of concerns the product could kill or seriously harm a patient.

Parker Waichman LLP Representing Mother of Bartholomew Ryan, Vet who Committed Suicide at Nassau County Jail

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:00:00 -0700

A woman whose son committed suicide at the Nassau County Correctional Center has filed a lawsuit against the jail as well we Nassau County. Bartholomew Ryan, 32, was a former Marine and Iraq veteran from East Meadow, NY. Ryan hung himself with a noose he made from a sheet the day after he was incarcerated.

Ryan had been arrested for speeding and driving under the influence of drugs. The following day, a corrections officer found Ryan hanging in his cell. He was pronounced dead that afternoon at Nassau University Medical Center. His family blames Ryan’s drug problem on post-traumatic stress syndrome which he developed as a result of serving in Iraq.

Ryan’s mother, Lilyann Ryan, is being represented by Parker Waichman LLP. The complaint accuses the defendants of failing to monitor, supervise, and care for Ryan, despite being aware that he suffered from drug addiction and psychological trauma. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges the defendants failed to properly intake Ryan into the Correctional system and failed to place him in a proper custodial setting given Ryan's tendencies and inappropriate behavior.

Lilyann Ryan says the correctional facility, which is under increased public scrutiny because of the ever-increasing number of deaths occurring at the jail, did not transport her son in a timely manner to obtain medical treatment and failed to administer accepted life-sustaining treatment in an emergent time frame after Ryan hung himself.

"The family is ultimately doing this because Bart served his country and was let down by the system as a whole, and by a county that was supposed to keep him safe,” said Raymond Silverman, an attorney with Parker Waichman. “What happened at the Nassau County Correctional Facility has been a civil rights crisis that is taking place right in our backyard,” Silverman added.

Parker Waichman LLP Tapped for Ohio Fracking Lawsuits

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Parker Waichman LLP and the Ohio law firm of Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli Co., LPA are representing two Medina County, Ohio couples who allege drilling and fracking activities being performed by Landmark 4 LLC near their property polluted their drinking water wells. Among other things, the couples' are seeking to have Landmark 4 pay for a court-established and supervised medical monitoring program because they allege the pollution from the company’s fracking activities has put them at risk for future health problems.

According to a report from The Cleveland Plain Dealer, Landmark 4 is drilling just 2,500 feet from homes owned by Mark and Sandra Mangan, and William and Stephanie Boggs. In addition to fouling the wells they depend on for drinking water, the couples allege that Landmark 4's drilling and fracking activities have contaminated their houses and land with hazardous gases, chemicals and industrial waste, according to the Plain Dealer.

Both lawsuits allege that Landmark didn't have sufficient cement casing on its wells and was negligent in training staff. Among other things, they claim that they must now pay to bring in drinking water from outside sources, that their homes have lost value, and that they "live in constant fear of future physical illness."

According to a report from the Akron Beacon Journal, the Mangans say they discovered their water well had gone dry on September 29, 2008. At the same time, Landmark 4 was drilling for natural gas at nearby Allardale Park. The couple says they were able to ignite the gas bubbles in the water from their kitchen sink. The Boggs reported similar problems, according to the Beacon.

The couples' lawyers, Cleveland attorney John Climaco, and William Dubanevich of Parker Waichman LLP, told the Plain Dealer that in the next couple of weeks they will meet with a number of other Ohio groups who believe they are suffering from the same type of contamination.

The Mangans and Boggs first contacted Climaco, who tapped Dubanevich to assist with the cases, according to the Plain-Dealer. The Parker Waichman lawyer specializes in water contamination lawsuits.

Parker Waichman Files 3 Dozen Fosamax Lawsuits on Single Day

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Parker Waichman LLP has filed three dozen lawsuits on behalf of women who allegedly suffered Fosamax femur fractures after using the bisphosphonate for several years. All 36 of the Fosamax femur fracture lawsuits were filed by Parker Waichman LLP on March 5, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, where lawsuits involving alleged Fosamax side effects have been designated a mass tort (In re: Fosamax Litigation (No. 282 NJ. Super. Ct.)

All of the complaints name Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. f/k/a Merck & Co., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. as Defendants. The lawsuits allege that as a direct and proximate result of their long-term use of Fosamax, the Plaintiffs suffered severe mental and physical pain and suffering, and have and will continue to sustain permanent injuries and emotional distress, along with economic losses resulting from medical expenses and living-related expenses related to their new lifestyle. All of the claims seek compensatory, punitive and treble damages, as well as ascertainable economic losses, reimbursement of the cost of Fosamax, reimbursement for all past, present and future health and medical costs related to Fosamax per quod, and derivative damages on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Fosamax and other bisphosphonates are used to treat osteoporosis in post-menopausal women and other bone disorders, including Paget's disease. In October 2010, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration asked the manufacturers of bisphosphonates used to treat osteoporosis, including Fosamax, to add information to the "Warnings and Precautions" section of the drugs’ labels describing the risk of atypical thigh fractures after a study linked long-term use of such drugs to this side effect.

According to Parker Waichman attorney Matthew McCauley, these three dozen Fosamax lawsuits are unlikely to be the last filed by the firm.

"Parker Waichman LLP is hearing from women on an almost daily basis who sustained life-changing injuries similar to those suffered by our plaintiffs after using Fosamax for years,” he said.

As the leading attorney in the Bisphosphonate Litigation Group at Parker Waichman LLP, McCauley is currently investigating bisphosphonate related femur fracture.

Parker Waichman Managing Partner Appointed to Actos Bladder Cancer Lawsuit Committee

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Jerrold Parker, Managing Partner with Parker Waichman LLP, has been appointed to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the growing Actos bladder cancer lawsuit multidistrict litigation, Re: Actos Products Liability Litigation, 11-2299, U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana (Lafayette). U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty, who is overseeing the Actos litigation, also appointed plaintiffs’ co-lead counsels, liaison counsel, and named members of the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, according to a notice published on the Court's website.

The first hearing on the cases is set for March 22. According to the Court's notice, Judge Doherty decided to name plaintiff leadership roles ahead of that hearing so the committees could have their initial planning sessions with the Court on March 23rd, while the attorneys are still in Lafayette.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals and other defendants involved in the litigation are accused of concealing knowledge of Actos' bladder cancer risks and failing to adequately warn consumer and health care providers about its association with bladder cancer. According to a report from Bloomberg News, some legal experts believe Takeda could eventually face as many as 10,000 Actos bladder cancer lawsuits.

In June 2011, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety communication stating that use of Actos for more than one year may be associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer. Regulators in France and Germany also suspended sales of the drug their after a separate study commissioned by French regulators demonstrated an increased risk of bladder cancer associated with Actos in people who took it the longest and at the highest cumulative dose.

In December, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all Actos side effect lawsuits be consolidated in a multidistrict litigation before Judge Doherty. A multidistrict litigation allows lawsuits associated with a particular product to be coordinated under one judge for pretrial litigation to avoid duplicative discovery, inconsistent rulings and to conserve the resources of the parties, witnesses and the court. When lawsuits are consolidated as a multidistrict litigation, each retains its own identity. If the multidistrict litigation process does not resolve the cases, they are transferred back to the court where they originated for trial.