Parker Waichman LLP

Deposition sheds light on Guidant defibrillator case

  Guidant Defibrillator Failed to Jolt a Heart. After a Guidant Corp. defibrillator failed to jolt a Minnesota student’s heart back to life during cardiac arrest last year, the victim’s doctors demanded an explanation from the Indianapolis medical device maker. It offered one, saying its implantable defibrillator suffered from a short-circuiting glitch that the company fixed […]

Guidant Defibrillator

 

Guidant Defibrillator Failed to Jolt a Heart. After a Guidant Corp. defibrillator failed to jolt a Minnesota student’s heart back to life during cardiac arrest last year, the victim’s doctors demanded an explanation from the Indianapolis medical device maker.

It offered one, saying its implantable defibrillator suffered from a short-circuiting glitch that the company fixed in 2002 by “rerouting” a wire in the tiny, battery-powered device. A top Guidant executive now tells what that repair entailed: applying some medical glue to the electrical wire.

“Sounds like rerouting to me,” said Fred McCoy, the president of Guidant’s cardiac rhythm management division in St. Paul, Minn., in a recent court deposition, according to legal documents provided to The Indianapolis Star.

McCoy’s deposition, conducted by an attorney who is suing Guidant on behalf of defibrillator patients

McCoy’s deposition, conducted by an attorney who is suing Guidant on behalf of defibrillator patients, contains the first lengthy comments to become publicly available from any Guidant executive about the series of quality problems that hit its defibrillator and pacemaker lines last year.

The problems prompted federal investigations of Guidant’s handling of the incidents and nearly derailed the company’s attempt to sell itself, although it now has lined up a new buyer.

The product recalls also gave rise to dozens of lawsuits against Guidant by patients, including the first case scheduled for trial, on April 10 in Neuces County, Texas.

McCoy, a former Eli Lilly and Co. executive who has headed Guidant’s defibrillator and pacemaker business since 2000, defended Guidant’s actions under questioning from Robert Hilliard, the Corpus Christi attorney who is representing two defibrillator users in the upcoming jury trial.

Hilliard released the deposition this week. Some of the questions and answers were blacked out by Guidant in court-allowed editing. Some of McCoy’s comments are likely to become points of contention in the trial, at which Guidant will face charges it failed to tell patients about potentially fatal flaws in defibrillators they relied on to help shock their weakened hearts into regular rhythm.

Plaintiffs are expected to ask for a large damage award, possibly running into the millions of dollars.

Guidant documents suggest the company didn’t actually do a formal rerouting of the wire

The rerouting issue is significant because Guidant documents suggest the company didn’t actually do a formal rerouting of the wire found to have short- circuited in its Prizm 2 defibrillators, a once-popular defibrillator that no longer is sold. Guidant told two Minnesota doctors last spring it did a rerouting of the wire, Hilliard said, citing a company presentation to the doctors.

Despite the claim, “Changes to route the feedthrough wire away were determined to be not cost-effective,” an April 2005 Guidant memo obtained by Hilliard said.

McCoy, however, argued in his deposition that some glue the company applied to the wire amounted to rerouting it. “Patient safety is more important than cost considerations” at Guidant, McCoy said, downplaying the memo that referred to the fix not being cost-effective.

Guidant spokesman Steven Tragash said the company does not comment on litigation in which it is involved, so it had no comments on the deposition.

In other comments made in the deposition, taken Jan. 4, McCoy:

Denied any personal knowledge of the short-circuiting problem until May 2005, when the company finally revealed it to doctors and patients.

Couldn’t say what was meant by “random event,” a term Guidant used in an internal document to describe the short- circuiting problem and partially justify its decision to not issue a public alert.

“It’s a troublesome term,” McCoy said. He said the company also opted not to issue a public alert because the Prizm 2’s reliability was still better than expected, despite at least two deaths from the short-circuiting problem.

Insisted he wouldn’t want to be told about a rare but potentially fatal flaw in a defibrillator

Insisted he wouldn’t want to be told about a rare but potentially fatal flaw in a defibrillator if it were implanted in his own chest. “The answer would be no,” McCoy said. “But I appreciate that some (people) would (want to be told).”

Couldn’t explain why Guidant claimed in a medical device report filed with the Food and Drug Administration in 2004 that it had gotten FDA approval for fixing the short-circuiting problem. “That seems to be in error,” McCoy said of the claim.

Guidant fixed the problem in 2002 without obtaining FDA approval, he said.

Hilliard said he believes the law required Guidant to get FDA approval for making design changes in its Prizm 2 defibrillator, and he aims to make that argument in the trial. If Guidant didn’t get FDA approval for the redesigned Prizm 2s, that means it was illegally selling an unapproved medical device, he said.

Hilliard said he also intends to highlight McCoy’s comment that he wouldn’t want to know about a rare fatal flaw in a defibrillator he himself was using.

“I lost my respect for him when he said that. Even the president of Ford would want to know if his Pinto would explode if hit from behind,” Hilliard said.

He said Guidant has shown “no serious indications” it wants to settle the case before trial.

Need Legal Help Regarding Guidant Defibrillator?

The personal injury attorneys at Parker Waichman LLP offer free, no-obligation case evaluations. For more information, fill out our online contact form or call 1-800-YOURLAWYER (1-800-968-7529).

[sc name=”post-footers”]

What Our Clients Say About Us
We have worked with thousands of clients and we appreciate them and their positive reviews. Here are just a few recent client reviews...
5 Star Reviews 150
Positive: Professionalism , Quality , Responsiveness , Value Tina Morace is extremely reliable, responsive, knowledgeable, accessible and has excellent customer service skills! She is true professional and an asset to Parker Waichman LLP. I highly recommend Tina!
Laura Kelley
3 years ago
5 Star Reviews 150
Always there for you
oskeeno 45
2 years ago
5 Star Reviews 150
Positive: Professionalism , Quality , Responsiveness , Value I am Very Satisfied with my experience that I have had with the Firm.The Paralegal assigned to my case is Christina Morace, she is excellent.She was very responsive to all of my inquires and always made me feel like I was her only client. In my opinion she should be a Valued Employee at the Firm, she represents PW very well.
Frank V. DeGarcia
2 years ago

Why Choose Us to Help You?

We Take Care of Everything
Your situation is stressful enough: Let us take on the deadlines, paperwork, investigation, and litigation. We'll handle every detail so you don't have to worry.
No Recovery = No Legal Fees
We work on a contingency-fee basis, meaning that we only get paid from a portion of your settlement or jury award. If you don't get compensation, you owe us nothing.
Decades of Experience
Your situation is stressful enough: Let us take on the deadlines, paperwork, investigation, and litigation. We'll handle every detail so you don't have to worry.
Respected by Our Peers
Judges, insurance adjusters, and fellow attorneys all speak highly of our skills, and we've earned numerous accolades, including a flawless rating from AVVO.
We Have Many Locations To Serve You
We have the experience and the skilled litigators to win your case. Contact us and speak with a real attorney who can help you.
Long Island – Nassau
Parker Waichman LLP
6 Harbor Park Drive
Port Washington, NY 11050
Long Island – Suffolk
Parker Waichman LLP
201 Old Country Road – Suite 145
Melville, NY 11747
New York
Parker Waichman LLP
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Queens
Parker Waichman LLP
118-35 Queens Boulevard, Suite 400
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Brooklyn
Parker Waichman LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West
One Pierrepont Plaza, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
New Jersey
Parker Waichman LLP
80 Main Street, Suite 265
West Orange, NJ 07052
Florida
Parker Waichman LLP
27299 Riverview Center Boulevard
Suite 108
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Nationwide Service
Parker Waichman LLP
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038