Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

NuvaRing Contraceptive Product Lawsuit Update

January 22, 2014 | John Suthers

At present, more than 1,700 women have sued the manufacturers of NuvaRing, a prescription contraceptive device. NuvaRing was manufactured originally by Organon USA, Inc., a company which was subsequently acquired by Merck & Co., and was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in October of 2001. The product consists of a vaginal ring that contains the hormones estrogen and progestin. NuvaRing was designed to be used monthly. It was marketed as being more convenient than daily birth control pills, but equally effective. A study that was commissioned by the FDA and published in 2011 reported a 56% increase in blood clot risks for NuvaRing users, including an increased risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), when compared to birth control pill users. In 2012, studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine and The British Medical Journal stated that the side effects of NuvaRing included an increased risk of blood clots, strokes and heart attacks.

One case that is pending against the manufacturers involves a then 20 year old college student, who began using NuvaRing in 2008. After using NuvaRing for more than a year, she suddenly became ill and began spitting up blood. She was rushed to the hospital, where she spent 10 days receiving anticoagulants in an effort to thin her blood. Her doctors had a hard time believing she had a blood clot in her lung because she was only 22 years old at the time, she did not smoke, and she had no family history of blood clots. Her doctors eventually concluded that she had developed a blood clot in her lung, a condition known as pulmonary embolus, which can be fatal. Because she was a healthy 22 year old at the time and did not have other risk factors for blood clots, her doctors concluded that NuvaRing caused the blood clot.

A 24 year old woman who had used NuvaRing was not so fortunate. She suffered what was described as a massive pulmonary embolism that, in turn, triggered four heart attacks, resulting in her untimely death. Her doctors also believed that NuvaRing was the cause of her pulmonary embolism. In 2011, her parents filed a lawsuit against the product manufacturers.

Dram Shop Liability

January 17, 2014 | Adam Harper

Dram shop liability is a legal theory that establishes that bars, taverns, liquor stores, and other businesses that sell alcoholic beverages can be held liable for damages caused by their patrons. These laws are aimed to prevent bars, taverns, and retail stores from selling alcohol to minors and to individuals who are visibly intoxicated. The term “dram shop” comes from the shops serving “drams,” which is a term for a small measure of alcohol, usually gin.

Recently in Colorado, the parents of a 16 year old girl filed suit against the Bayou Cajun Restaurant and Bar and one of its bartenders under a theory of dram shop liability. According to the Colorado State Patrol, the girl and two of her friends were served alcohol at the restaurant and subsequently got into an accident with a tractor-trailer that resulted in all three girls losing their lives. At the time of the accident, the driver had a blood alcohol level of 0.241, more than three times the legal limit. Unfortunately, these types of accidents are all too common, and many times could have been prevented if not for the negligence of the “dram shop” involved.

Under Georgia law, bars, restaurants, liquor stores and other establishments that sell alcohol to patrons have a responsibility not to sell alcohol to noticeably intoxicated patrons who they know will soon be driving, as well as minors. If they do so, they may be held liable for causing the personal injuries sustained by innocent motorists at the hands of drunk drivers served at their establishments.

Drunk Drivers Face Ignition Interlock Programs

December 20, 2013 | John Suthers

Deaths caused by drunk drivers rose 4.6% last year. A total of 10,322 people were killed in drunken driving automobile crashes. During the holiday season alone, 830 people died as a result of drunken driving collisions. Because the number of deaths caused by drunk drivers increased for the first time after six straight years of declining, the U.S. Transportation Secretary is pushing states to pass laws, requiring first-time offenders of drunk driving to install and use alcohol breath monitors whenever they get behind the wheel. These so-called ignition interlock programs or ignition interlock devices force the driver to blow into a breath analyzer before the driver is able to start the car. If the driver has been drinking, the car will not start.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released guidelines this week for states to use ignition interlock programs. At present, only 20 states require the devices for first-time drunk driving offenses. While almost every state has an ignition interlock program, the programs are unique and are mandated at different stages. DUI laws in Georgia require the courts to order the installation and maintenance of ignition interlock devices for repeat DUI offenders. DUI in Georgia is defined as operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher. The offenders are also responsible for the cost associated with installing, leasing, maintaining and removing the ignition interlock devices. In other states, such as Texas, an ignition interlock program is mandated for anyone with two or more intoxication-related convictions, such as DUI, assault while intoxicated, and intoxication manslaughter. There is strong evidence showing that ignition interlock programs and devices are effective tools for reducing drunk driving among first offenders and repeat offenders. Thus, these programs are essential components of highway safety programs.

The attorneys at Suthers & Harper support the implementation of ignition interlock programs for first offenders throughout the United States. Having represented victims and families of victims of drunken driving crashes, we have seen firsthand the damage caused to victims and families who have lost loved ones as a result of collisions caused by drunk drivers. Often, the at-fault drunk drivers are repeat offenders, which makes it more important to implement ignition interlock programs for first offenders.

Georgia Supreme Court Overturns Appeals Court Ruling Allowing Wrongful Death Claim to Proceed to Jury Trial

December 12, 2013 | Adam Harper

Last month, the Georgia Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reversed a decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals in favor of Thelma and Sheldon Johnson, the parents of a teenage boy who died two weeks after he was treated by a physician in an Albany, GA emergency room. The reversal by the court now allows the case to proceed to a jury trial.

At issue in the case was whether the emergency room doctor, Dr. Price Paul Omondi, acted with “gross negligence,” and if the case should be tried by a jury. By statute in Georgia an ER doctor can only be held liable when it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that his or her actions showed “gross negligence.” Thus, there is a higher evidentiary burden to bringing a successful medical malpractice claim again a doctor in an emergency room setting.

The facts of this case involve a 15 year old patient who came to the emergency room complaining of chest pain. Eight days prior to his visit to the ER, the boy had undergone an arthroscopic knee surgery to repair an injury sustained playing high school football. Upon admission to the ER, the doctor noted the prior surgery, ordered that he be administered pain medication, an electrocardiogram (“EKG”), and a chest X-ray; he interpreted the results of the EKG and X-ray himself. The ER doctor diagnosed the teen with pleurisy and discharged him from the hospital with a prescription for an anti-inflammatory pain reliever, and instructions to return to the emergency department if his symptoms continued. Tragically, when the teen returned to the hospital a week later complaining of chest pain and difficulty breathing he died from a bilateral pulmonary embolism.

Experts Say Drowsy Driving Is Similar To Drunk Driving

November 8, 2013 | Adam Harper

Drowsy Driving.jpg A new study by the Triple A (AAA) Foundation for Traffic Safety shows that one in four motorists report having recently had a drowsy episode while driving, meaning they were either too fatigued to drive, or fell asleep. According to AAA, motorists ages 19 to 24 were the most likely to report driving dangerously drowsy at 33 percent, while the oldest drivers (ages 75+) and the youngest (ages 16 to 18) were the least likely to report having done so.

Experts say that drowsy driving can be just as a dangerous as driving while under the influence of alcohol. Studies show that an estimated 17 percent of fatal crashes, 13 percent of crashes resulting in hospitalization, and 7 percent of all crashes requiring a tow involve a drowsy driver. Even more concerning is the fact that while 95 percent of drivers agree that driving while drowsy is dangerous, yet 41 percent decide to do it anyway. According to Ragina C. Averella, Manager of Public and Government Affairs at AAA, “Drowsy driving continues to remain a significant threat to all road users. Many drivers underestimate the risk of driving while extremely tired, and overestimate their ability to deal with it, and no matter how good a driver you are, fatigue and lack of sleep will impair your driving abilities.”

Warnings signs that may signify drowsiness while driving include:

False Claims Act Cases Result in $Billions Recovered

October 25, 2013 | John Suthers

The United States Department of Justice announced that it recovered $4.9 billion in settlements and judgments in civil cases that involved fraud against the Government during fiscal year 2012. It was also reported that since January 2009, total recoveries under the False Claims Act totaled $13.3 billion, the largest four year total in the Justice Department’s history. Why should private citizens care about cases involving fraud against the Government? The answer is money.

Under the federal law known as the False Claims Act, private citizens can sue individuals or businesses that are committing fraud against the Government and recover money on behalf of the Government. Most states have similar laws, allowing private citizens to bring cases involving fraud against state agencies. These lawsuits are known as whistleblower, or qui tam, lawsuits. They allow the whistleblowers, known as the relators, to be rewarded for the risk they take in pursuing the case and exposing the fraud against the Government. If the Government prevails and recovers money, the whistleblower can receive anywhere from 15% to 30% of the amount recovered. Consider this fact in the context of the $4.9 billion in recoveries that the U.S. Government secured for fiscal year 2012. The private citizens, who obtained evidence of fraud against the Government and took the risk of pursuing qui tam lawsuits, were rewarded amounts totaling between $735 million and $1.47 billion.

Qui tam lawsuits have become a very powerful tool for private citizens to aid the Government in stopping various types of fraud, such as Medicare or Medicaid fraud perpetrated by healthcare providers, defense contractor fraud perpetrated by military suppliers, and other types of fraud that have a significant financial impact on the Government. The following list of qui tam lawsuits were brought by the whistleblower employees of companies who were defrauding the Government:

New Study Shows that Twice as Many Patients May be Dying As a Result of Medical Malpractice than Previously Thought

October 1, 2013 | Adam Harper

A recent study published in Journal of Patient Safety suggests that current estimates of the number of fatal mistakes made by physicians in the United States are far too low. The study found that twice as many patients, between 210,000 and 440,000 patients per year, suffer from preventable medical harm that contributes to their deaths. Previous studies done in this area had suggested there were far less fatal injuries as a result of medical errors. A study done in 1999 by the Institute of Medicine suggested that 98,000 people a year died from mistakes made in hospitals. Another study, performed in 2010 by the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services suggested that the number was around 180,000 deaths per year.

The American Hospital Association has disputed these findings, and has indicated that the AHA has more confidence in the Institute of Medicine’s 98,000 number found in the 1999 study. However, if the new estimates are accurate, medical malpractice would be considered the third leading cause of death in America, with only heart disease and cancer killing more Americans. Irrespective of which study is more accurate, there are far too many deaths in the U.S. caused by the negligence of medical providers.

Medical malpractice cases take many forms, but the common thread is that people trusted to care for a patient are responsible for serious harm that could have been avoided. When a medical provider is determined to be legally responsible for your injuries during medical care or treatment, they may be liable for the harms they caused. The attorneys at Suthers & Harper have been very successful at holding doctors, nurses, hospitals, nursing homes, pharmacists, and other health care providers accountable for medical mistakes or negligent care throughout Georgia and South Carolina. If you feel that you or a loved one has been harmed as a result of medical malpractice, call Suthers & Harper at 1-800-320-2384 or go to www.sutherslaw.com for more information.

Stryker Spine Plate Recall Lawsuit

September 16, 2013 | Adam Harper

A Class I recall was recently issued for Stryker Spine’s OASYS Midline Occiput Plate warning patients and physicians that the device is at risk for fracture. According to the FDA, the recall affects products that were distributed from April 23, 2010 through February 12, 2013. The OASYS Midline Occiput Plate is part of the OASYS Occipito-Cervico-Thoracic System and was used in fusions of the cervical spine and occipito-cervico-thoracic junction (Occiput – T3). The OASYS Midline Occiput Plate was originally designed to provide stabilization at the junction between the occipital bone and the vertebrae in the cervical spine.

Over the last several months Stryker has received numerous reports indicating post-operative fracture of the pin that connects the tulip head to the plate body. In May of this year the company first issued a recall, warning of serious health consequences including blood loss and nerve damage. Then, in June, Stryker notified spinal implant surgeons that it is recommending routine clinical and radiographic post-operative evaluation for patients with an implanted OASYS Midline Plates, and that those experiencing pain, weakness, or numbness may require revision surgery to replace the fractured implant.

It is important to remember that a Class I Recalls are the most serious type of recall and involve situations in which there is a reasonable probability that use of these recalled products will cause serious adverse health consequences or death. If you or a loved one has been implanted with and injured by the Stryker OASYS Midline Occiput Plate it is important you contact your physician as soon as possible. Additionally, you should take action to secure the compensation you need and ensure that the responsible parties are held accountable for any harm done to you or a loved one. The lawyers at Suthers & Harper have years of experience litigating defective medical device cases. Suthers & Harper is currently investigating cases on behalf of individuals who were injured after being surgically implanted with Stryker’s Spine OASYS Midline Occiput Plate. To discuss a potential lawsuit for yourself, a family member or friend, call 1-800-320-2384 or go to www.sutherslaw.com for a free Stryker lawsuit consultation.

Recalled Stryker Knee Surgery Product Linked to Serious Injuries

September 6, 2013 | John Suthers

Stryker Corporation has issued a voluntary recall of yet another product used in orthopedic surgeries. In July of 2012, Stryker recalled its Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck hip stems used in conjunction with hip replacement surgeries. More recently, Stryker Corporation has acknowledged defects with its ShapeMatch Cutting Guides used to assist in the positioning of total knee replacement components. On April 10, 2013, Stryker issued an urgent medical device recall of the ShapeMatch Cutting Guides. This was classified as a Class I recall by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which means that there is a reasonable probability the product can cause serious adverse health consequences or death.

The ShapeMatch Cutting Guides were used with the Triathlon Knee System. The recalled products are single use, disposable cutting guides used as surgical instruments to assist the surgeon in positioning the total knee replacement components and guiding the marking of bone before the surgeon begins cutting. The product was recalled due to a software defect that resulted in wider cutting ranges. Additionally, Stryker determined that a separate software defect resulted in displayed parameters for the depth of resection or the angle of cut not matching the cutting guides produced. It was determined that these defects could result in injuries, including joint instability, fracture, chronic pain, limited mobility of the knee and the need for revision surgery.

Patients who have had knee replacement surgery during which the ShapeMatch Cutting Guides were used and who feel their knee is not functioning properly should contact their orthopedic surgeon. If it is determined that the patient is experiencing joint instability, fracture, chronic pain, or limited mobility in the knee, any of which could necessitate revision surgery, he or she should contact the experienced defective medical device attorneys at Suthers & Harper on our toll free number, 1-800-320-2384, for a free consultation. Suthers & Harper is presently representing numerous individuals in pending lawsuits against the manufacturers of defective hip replacement and knee replacement products, and has the experience and resources necessary to hold the product manufacturers accountable for their defective products.

DePuy LPS Lower Extremity Dovetail Intercalary Component Recall

August 16, 2013 | Adam Harper

DePuy Orthopedics has issued a Class I recall of the DePuy LPS Lower Extremity Dovetail Intercalary Component due to the potential for fracture of the female component when exposed to normal physiologic loads while walking. The DePuy LPS Lower Extremity Dovetail Intercalary Component was manufactured and distributed from February 2007 through May 2013 and was used to replace the mid-shaft portion of the femur, top, bottom or total femur, and top tibia. The component was frequently used in cases that required extensive resection, such as those involving tumors, severe trauma and serious infection. DePuy has advised surgeons, hospitals, and medical distributors to immediately discontinue use of the device as a result of the severe risks associated with its use.

Class I recalls are the most critical as they involve products deemed to be dangerous enough to cause serious adverse health consequences or death. Known injuries involving the DePuy LPS component recall include serious infection, loss of limb function, loss of limb, need for additional surgery, and in some cases death. Further, according to the Food and Drug Administration, those patients weighing more than 200lbs who were implanted with the DePuy LPS are at an increased risk for fracture and injury.

The recalled DePuy components include lot numbers: 130896, A2AGS1, 132131, A2AGT1, 132133, A2AGV1, 209461, B2VAL1, 209466, B43G11, 219843, B43G1A, 232972, B43G1B, 295965, B43G1C, 310189, B43G1D, 336843, B69HV1,349283, B69HVA, 352878, BK1BB1, 374125, BW7DX1, 379089, BW7DX1A, A1TAR1, E3SJD1, A2AGN1, and EN4KJ1.