Archive for the ‘ Defective Medical Device ’ Category

0
9
Feb

Pennsylvania State House Ready To Vote On Unconstitutional Corporate Venue Law

Contact Your Pennsylvania State House Representative Immediately!

Ask He or She to “Vote NO on House Bill 1976– The Corporation Venue Protection Act”

February 9, 2012 — The Pennsylvania state house may soon vote on what will be known as the the Corporation Venue Protection Act, HB 1976, which gives corporations special rights and protections in all civil cases.  The bill’s supporters spin there argument and call it a “venue shopping” bill, but the bill is really designed to protect corporations that are responsbile for injuring or killing people through reckless, intentional or reckless conduct because it applies only to venue in “actions against corporations and similar entities.”

If passed, this bill will usurp the Supreme Court’s exclusive rulemaking power on venue and all but abolish the ‘minimum contacts’ jurisdiction test.   Emboldened by their win on joint and several liability, the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business & Industry admits it wants to “continue the momentum.”   The Chamber is actively pushing HB 1976.  

For the sake of the preserving your rights and the rights of a loved one who may be injured or killed by such conduct, it is time to push back now.

Contact your state representative to vote “no” on the HB 1976. HB 1976 is unconstitutional, departs radically from longstanding legal doctrine, and unfairly singles out corporations for protection against accountability for harms they cause to Pennsylvania families.

If this legislation becomes law it will have a dramatic impact on those injured or killed as a result of corporate misconduct  in a car wreck or accident, impacted by a defective product, or any other personal injury claim (excluding medical malpractice) in not only Harrisburg, Central Pennsylvania but the entire Commonwealth.

Scott B. Cooper
Schmidt Kramer PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300 – Telephone
(717) 232-6467 – Facsimile
scooper@schmidtkramer.com
Facebook.com/SchmidtKramer
Twitter.com/TalkToALawyer

0
12
Jan

Johnson & Johnson Warned About Defective Insulin Pumps

January 12, 2012

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned drug maker, Johnson & Johnson, that they could face penalties for selling faulty insulin pumps and withholding warnings regarding the dangers they pose to users. According to WHTM 27 News, the company failed to report three incident cases within an allotted 30-day window where the device may have caused or contributed to a death or injury.

The agency says that a warning letter was sent to Johnson & Johnson December 27 regarding the reporting discrepancies that inspectors uncovered during an audit of the company. They say that the company failed to report one incident of “serious patient injury” and delayed releasing the reports on two other patients who were hospitalized with high blood sugar, respiratory failure, and coma.

The problem with the devices seems to stem from issues with keypads on the pumps. Reports show that several of the incidents occurred because of faulty keypads that deteriorated overtime or patient error with the buttons.

While the letter did not ask for the products to be pulled from shelves, it did specify that the company could face seizures of assets, injunctions, fines, and loss of contracts from federal agencies if the problems are not resolved promptly.

The Pennsylvania defective product attorneys with Schmidt Kramer Injury Lawyers specialize in helping victims who have been injured by faulty products at no fault of their own. If you have been the victim of negligent product design, get in touch with us today for a free initial consultation of your case.

0
28
Nov

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decides Negligent Spoliation Of Evidence Issue

Attached is a copy of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion announced on November 23, 2011 in Pyeritz v. Pa. State Police, — A.3d — (Pa. Nov. 23, 2011). The Court holds that Pennsylvania does not recognize a claim for negligent spoliation of evidence. The Estate of Pyeritz claimed that the State Police were liable for destroying evidence, per procedure, after a criminal investigation was completed. The crime victim’s counsel requested the State Police to store the evidence while a product liability suit was being pursued. The evidence was then destroyed, thus eliminating the products case since their was no product. The Estate then pursued a claim for negligent spoliation of evidence and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that the cause of action does not exist in Pennsylvania.

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-73-2009mo.pdf

Scott B. Cooper, Esquire
Schmidt Kramer PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300 – Telephone
(717) 232-6467 – Facsimile
scooper@schmidtkramer.com
Facebook.com/SchmidtKramer
Twitter.com/TalkToALawyer

0
3
Jan

Large royalties ignite discussion of appropriateness of spinal fusion surgeries

The Wall Street Journal recently (December 20, 2010) reported on the millions of dollars paid by the manufacturer of spinal fusion hardware to a group of orthopedic surgeons in Louisville, Kentucky.

The article states the five doctors named in the article were paid more than $7 million through the first three quarters of 2010. The article raised the question of what medical conditions require spinal fusion as the appropriate treatment.

In fact, a lawsuit was brought by a whistleblower from within the manufacturer of the spinal fusion equipment who was an attorney in the company, alleging the “royalties” paid were kickbacks to encourage more surgeries. The Wall Street Journal reported the whistleblower case was settled for some $40 million dollars after the U.S. Justice Department got involved.

Schmidt Kramer’s clients who have been hurt in car accidents or when they have slipped and fallen, often suffer injuries to their backs. The lawyers at Schmidt Kramer in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania regularly represent individuals with back injuries caused by others.

Submitted by Joe Chapman, attorney at Schmidt Kramer.

Joe Chapman
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300

Facebook.com/SchmidtKramer

Twitter.com/TalkToALawyer

0
26
Oct

Hip Replacement Recall

RECALL #1

Manufacturer:
DePuy Orthopaedics

Products:
ASR XL Acetabular Hip System
ASR Hip Resurfacing System

Data shows that more people than expected who received the ASR Hip System experienced pain and other symptoms that led to a second hip replacement surgery, called a revision surgery. In fact, five years after implantation, approximately 12% of patients – 1 in 8 – who had received the ASR resurfacing device and 13% of patients – 1 in 8 – who had received the ASR total hip replacement needed to have a revision surgery.

Additional testing and monitoring may be necessary to ensure your hip implant is functioning well. In some cases, patients may need additional surgery.

The typical symptoms for those having hip replacement problems are:

  • pain
  • swelling
  • problems walking

While these symptoms may be normal if you just had hip replacement surgery, the symptoms may persist or come back. This is a sign that there may be a problem.

RECALL #2

Manufacturer:
Zimmer, Inc.

Products:
Durom Hip Cup

The FDA has received hundreds of complaints from patients with the implants, including reports of device failure and serious symptoms leading to additional surgeries. Zimmer recalled the medical device and has instructed surgeons to stop using it.

REASON FOR RECALL: Instructions for use/surgical technique instructions are inadequate.

If you or someone you know has a recalled hip device, contact the hip recall lawyers at SchmidtKramer today.

Comments Off
24
Apr

Third Circuit (Not Precedential) Holds That Sections 1720 And 1722 Of MVFRL Do Not Prohibit Subrogation Or Recovery Of Heart And Lung Benefits

Below is a copy of the link from the Third Circuit decision of April 23, 2009 (Not Precedential) in City of Wilkes-Barre v. Sheils. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals holds that Heart and Lung Benefits can be plead, proven and recovered under Section 1722 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) and also are subrogable under Section 1720 of the MVFRL. The Court relies mainly upon 2 Commonwealth Court decisions in Hannigan v. WCAB, 860 A.2d 632 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004) and Brown v. Rosenberger, 723 A.2d 745 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999).

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/081412np.pdf

Scott B. Cooper

scooper@schmidtkramer.com

717-232-6300

Comments Off
5
Mar

NEW U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION HOLDS STATE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAW IS NOT PREEMPTED WHEN DRUG WARNING WAS INSUFFICIENT; A WIN FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION.

Below is a link to the opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court issued on March 4, 2009, in Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. _____ (2009). One of the products liability or medical malpractice attorneys at Schmidt Kramer PC, in Harrisburg, PA, can explain the application of the decision to your case.

Wyeth is a company that manufactures a drug called Phenergan. The drug is corrosive and causes irreversible gangrene if it enters a patient’s arteries. On April 7, 2000, the drug was introduced into Diane Levine’s body through the IV-push injection method. This is where the drug is injected directly into her vein, rather than being dripped in through a saline solution. During the injection, the drug somehow encountered an artery, causing gangrene and eventual amputation of her right forearm. This ended her career as a professional musician.

After settling her medical malpractice case, Ms. Levine’s product liability case against the manufacturer went to a jury in Vermont. She won, and was awarded compensation for medical bills, loss of income and future earning capacity, and pain and suffering in excess of six million dollars.

The case was appealed through Vermont’s high court, and was before the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the following issue: When the manufacturer’s label failed to provide adequate warning of the risks of using a particular method of introducing the drug into the body, should the judgment be overturned because the label was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, preempting a jury award based on state tort law? The court considered this narrow question, because the record in the lower courts was conclusive that had a stronger warning been present, the drug would not have been administered as it was, and that the warning for IV-Push administration was insufficient. The Supreme Court viewed these facts with the understanding that Congressional purpose determines preemption and federal law will only preempt the traditional police powers retained by the state when its purpose was clear and manifest.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided, the FDA’s approval of the label is not a complete defense to a state law tort claim. Wyeth was found to be able to comply with both duties imposed on it by the state tort law jury verdict and the federal labeling approvals. The court also found that subjecting Wyeth to a state tort law duty would not obstruct the purposes and objectives of federal drug labeling regulations. Ms. Levine’s claim was not preempted by federal law. The judgment from the jury in Vermont was allowed to stand.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/06-1249.pdf

Joe Chapman

Attorney at Law

Comments Off
27
Feb

NEW PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT DECISION HOLDS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE PRESENTS QUESTION FOR JURY ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

Below is a link to the opinion from Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court decided on February 19, 2009, in Wilson v. El-Daief, ____ A.2d ____ (Pa. 2009). Please contact the medical malpractice attorneys at Schmidt Kramer PC, in Harrisburg, PA, for an explanation. A lawyer will explain the application of the decision to your case.

Mary Elizabeth Wilson had an operation on her wrist. After the operation, her hand clinched into a fist, her elbow turned inward, and her shoulder drew upward. For these problems, she continued to see the physician who performed the operation. For more than one year, he told Ms. Wilson, she would be fine. She was referred to an orthopedic surgeon who, for more than a year, was unable to tell what was wrong or how it had happened. Finally, after bouncing back and forth between the two doctors Ms. Wilson said she knew something was wrong and that she had not been treated appropriately by her surgeon. She said this in September 2001.

The question before the court was only whether Ms. Wilson’s claim was barred by time limitations. She had two years from when her claim accrued to file a lawsuit. Ms. Wilson’s Writ of Summons and subsequent Complaint, alleging the doctor who performed her surgery had lacerated the radial nerve in her wrist, were not filed within two years of the surgery, nor within two years of the date she stated she knew something was wrong. Without more, her claim would not have been allowed to proceed. But here, whether the claim was time-barred, hinged on the court’s application of the discovery rule.

The court ruled there was potential for Ms. Wilson to be confused about whether she was injured and its cause, because her surgeon told her she would be fine, and the orthopedic surgeon did not explain all the possible diagnoses he was considering. The court stated that a person with a high school education, cannot be held to a higher standard of knowledge than two medical doctors – if the physicians were unable or unwilling to tell her what was wrong, then she may not have known. Her efforts to find out what was wrong were considered to present a genuine issue of material fact, when she continued to meet with her surgeon and the orthopedic surgeon, as well as seeking out the opinion of a third doctor. A definitive medical diagnosis was not needed to begin the running of the statute of limitations, but a mere loss of confidence in her doctor was not sufficient to begin the running of the time in which she had to file her lawsuit.

The posture of the case was on appeal from a grant of summary judgment to the defendant-doctor based on the claim being time-barred by the statute of limitations. The Pa. Supreme Court reversed, but did not state as a matter of law that the discovery rule allowed the claim to proceed. Against strong protests of the concurring/dissenting justices, the Supreme Court said a jury needed to decide whether Ms. Wilson had used reasonable diligence in discovering her injury and its cause.

http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-148-2008mo.pdf

Joe Chapman

Attorney at Law

Comments Off
17
Feb

Eastern District Court Declines Discretionary Jurisdiction Over Insurance Coverage Question When Underlying Tort Action Is Expected to Raise the Same Issue.

Below is a link to the opinion from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Broaddus, et al., 08-3241 (E.D. Pa. J. Diamond February 11, 2009), the court declined to exercise jurisdiction for an insurance coverage question when an action in negligence was already before a Pennsylvania state court in Philadelphia.

The federal court highlights the important distinction between a declaratory judgment action [allowing discretion] and parallel federal and state actions, which would allow abstention. In a declaratory judgment action concerning an insurance coverage question, discretion remains with the court. When the court retains discretion, it considers whether the question before the court is a settled area of state law for which an outcome is predictable, and finds the use of an ambulance in question when a patient is dropped when being brought out of her home is not a settled area of Pennsylvania law. Further the settlement of the declaratory judgment action would be seemingly duplicative of the negligence action. Facts in question in the underlying tort action were also necessary for deciding whether coverage applies.

Even when the coverage issues are not raised in the state negligence action, the court may use its discretion not to take jurisdiction over the matter. The court invokes its need to use “a general policy of restraint,” when it expects the question of the coverage to be raised as a declaratory judgment action in state court or as part of the garnishment process after the negligence action is resolved.

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/09D0152P.pdf

D. Joseph Chapman
Attorney at Law

Comments Off
9
Feb

SURGICAL ERRORS AND MEDICATION ADMINISTRATION ERRORS ARE TOP REASONS PATIENTS NEED TO TAKE CONTROL OF THEIR OWN CARE.

Below is a link to an article, written by a medical doctor, which explains how dangerous it is to go to the hospital. In the February 8, 2009, article, the doctor highlights surgical errors and medication administration errors as areas of concern.

“Surgical Errors

The Risk: About 1300 times a year, surgeons operate on the wrong person or remove the wrong limb or organ. Also, doctors leave surgical instruments inside the body once in every 5000 surgeries. This is the stuff of headlines, but such incidents are rare, considering that more than 20 million surgeries occur every year. Far more common preventable problems are stitches coming loose, blood clots forming during or after surgery, and infections. These can lead to very serious outcomes.”

“Medication Errors

The Risk: Giving the wrong drug, administering the wrong dose, mixing drugs that interact badly, or giving a medication to which a patient is allergic—all can be deadly. Unfortunately, such mistakes are not rare. Adverse drug events cause one out of five injuries or deaths to hospital patients in the U.S.”

Pennsylvania injury lawyers at Schmidt Kramer PC have successfully prosecuted such obvious medical malpractice cases in the Harrisburg area. The attorneys at Schmidt Kramer PC have also benefitted their medical malpractice clients with very good results in more difficult medical negligence cases.

Click on the link below for the full article.
 
Attorney at Law