Category: Legal News

Legislation Introduced To Allow Medical Device Lawsuits

U.S. Reps. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, and Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, recently introduced legislation in the House that will reverse a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this year involving medical devices. A companion bill will soon be introduced in the Senate by U.S. Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court immunized medical device companies from state lawsuits brought by patients who are injured by certain medical devices. In Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. the Court found that the product liability claims are barred by a preemption clause included in the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA). This decision was wrong.  It ignored both congressional intent and 30 years of experience in which FDA regulation and tort liability played complementary roles in protecting consumers from device risks.

Because of the Court’s decision, seriously injured people are without any ability to seek compensation for their injuries, medical expenses and lost wages resulting from injuries caused by defective premarket approval (PMA) devices or inadequate safety warnings. It also removes one of the industry’s most important incentives to maintain product safety after approval and disclose newly-discovered risks to patients and physicians.

The Medical Device Safety Act of 2008 protects patients from dangerous and defective devices by correcting the Court’s flawed interpretation of the MDA. The legislation explicitly clarifies that state product liability lawsuits are preserved.  People should contact thier elected Congressmen and Senator to voice support of this legislation to ensure that injured people have a right to compensation for injuries caused by dangerous and defective medical devices.

Share
Read More

CountryWide’s Deceptive Mortgage Practices According To California AG

California Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a complaint today in Los Angeles state court claiming that Countrywide Chief Executive Officer Angelo Mozilo and a unit specializing in loans to consumers with poor credit used deceptive marketing tactics to entice thousands of borrowers into ARM loans without disclosing that their payments would balloon after 30 days. Jerry Brown is one of the first two AGs to file suit against lenders like Countrywide that glutted the mortgage market with misleading subprime loans.

According to Bloomberg News, Mr. Brown seeks restitution for borrowers, civil penalties of as much as $2,500 per violation and a court order halting the practices.

Share
Read More

U-Haul Ordered To Pay $87 Million To Injured Customer

A Dallas County jury recently awarded a man who was partially paralyzed in a moving-truck accident with $87 million.  Talmadge Waldrip rented a U-Haul truck in September 2006 to help his daughter move. The 6-ton truck rolled over him, crushing his bladder and pelvis.  “When I stopped the truck and got out of it, the truck started rolling backwards, and it knocked me down,” Waldrip said.  The gravely injured man has gone through 14 surgeries and can still not properly walk.  He requires around the clock medical care. 

U-Haul’s response to the jury’s verdict: “While the plaintiff’s injuries are extremely regrettable, the final verdict is another example of abuse of the legal system against corporate citizens in America.”  No, U-Haul, the jury’s verdict is not an example of the abuse of the legal system.  The jury’s verdict is a message to your company that allowing your trucks to be rented by consumers with faulty emergency brakes will not be tolerated by the community.  And when your gross negligence causes serious injury, you will compensate the injured.

Share
Read More

Merck Caught Ghost Writing Medical Articles

Based on internal company documents revealed in Vioxx litigation, JAMA authors uncover how the company, without disclosing it, compensated ghostwriters who aren’t even doctors, to create articles for professional journals that have the potential to influence doctors and popularize drugs prescribed to the public. In the 250 documents reviewed by the authors, Merck employees either working by themselves or in collaboration with a medical publishing company helped create the study on Vioxx. They would then recruit academics or leaders in the medical field to lend their name as the lead author. For scientific review papers, Merck would outline the plan for the manuscript then ghostwriters were hired from medical publishing companies, which typically pay about $20,000 per submission to the ghostwriter.

The scientist then recruited to be the named author would be offered honoraria for their participation.

This review in JAMA finds that among 96 published articles, 92 percent of clinical trials disclosed Merck,s financial support. But only half disclosed Merck’s involvement in the creation of the publication or whether the author had received compensation. In another JAMA article in the same issue, the documents suggest the company’s control of the data allowed it to downplay the risk of death from Vioxx in patients with Alzheimers disease.

Vioxx was taken off the market in 2004 but not before it was linked to an increase in heart attack and strokes. The FDA says the drug lead to up to 139,000 heart attacks, 30-40 percent of them fatal.

Litigation followed and ultimately resulted in a $4.85 billion settlement against Merck to settle U.S. cases. The internal company documents were released as part of?the settlement.

Share
Read More

Pilots Complaining Of Low Fuel On Flights

Less fuel means a lighter plane; a lighter plane means better gas mileage, saving the airline money. Under FAA regulations, pilots have the final say on how much fuel they take on board, but they say that when they question the fuel levels suggested in their flight plans, their judgment is frequently challenged. Apparently, it is not uncommon for the flight dispatcher to question the captain if he feels it necessary to add fuel, one pilot reported. Pressure from airlines and dispatchers to conserve fuel made another pilot no longer certain whether I, as captain, have final authority on what I deem is a minimum safe fuel load for the flight or do I not. Read more about the pilots’ complaints and the responses they are receiving from their employers – the airline companies.

Share
Read More