Lawsuit Update Center

This page is about the Bair Hugger lawsuits that were filed claiming the product caused infections. But these suits did not go very far and I don’t know of any lawyers filing warning blanket lawsuits in 2021. Not all mass tort lawsuits work out and these Bair Hugger lawsuits certainly did not.

Let’s back up first to the start of this litigation.  I’m backfilling this first the original post…

As of September 2018, there are over 1,500 Bair Hugger warming blanket lawsuits pending in the MDL in Minnesota.

In one typical case, a New York couple claims that a surgical warming blanket used after the husband’s hip replacement operation caused severe infections, resulting in four additional surgeries. A man and his wife filed a lawsuit in New York on Nov. 25, 2015, against 3M, the manufacturer of the Bair Hugger forced-air warming system. Medical facilities commonly use this blanket during knee and hip replacement operations. In addition to 3M, the lawsuit lists Arizant Healthcare, Inc. and its subsidiaries as Defendants.

The value of surgical blanket lawsuits is still being determined, but many of these infection cases involve serious injury and death.

During the surgery on Oct. 24, 2012, medical personnel used a Bair Hugger on the man’s left hip, supposedly to help regulate body temperature. However, the warming blanket might have introduced bacteria into the surgical site, resulting in infection. Plaintiff received five surgeries within 16 months, including the original surgery, and he now struggles with mobility and needs crutches to walk.

Per the lawsuit: “Due to the infection, Plaintiff needed four additional surgical procedures to remove the implant and clean the infected area within sixteen months from the original implant surgery, and he continues to suffer limited mobility, requiring crutches to ambulate.”

According to diverse news reports, this Plaintiff is far from alone; many consumers across the nation have taken legal action after illnesses they’ve acquired after using the Bair Hugger, following hip and knee surgeries.

The Plaintiffs noted that 3M sent a letter to the FDA way back in June 1997, which warned of possible contamination issues with this product.

Continue Reading

Donald Trump’s hair reportedly turned orange by a Just for Men hair product.  This is probably a serious thing to Trump, but less so to the rest of us.

But there is a real concern about these Just for Men products.  An increasing number of men are reporting severe allergic reactions to “Just For Men” hair and beard products. The reactions include burning, difficulty breathing, dizziness, faintness, hives, rash, redness, scarring, and swelling.

The reactions are being reported not just by new users, but also by long-time users who had previously never experienced any problems. The hair product reactions are so severe that some users had to go to the emergency room, or even be hospitalized. Many users needed antibiotics and steroids to treat the reactions.

Xarelto is a new-generation blood thinner that was initially approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration in October 2011.  Xarelto is intended to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, to treat deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). The drug is also to reduce the risk of recurrence of DVT or PE, and for prophylaxis of DVT for patients undergoing hip and knee replacement surgery.

This drug has made Bayer and Johnson & Johnson a fortune.  It has also left them as the defendants in 21,400 Xarelto bleeding lawsuits from patients or surviving families allege they have suffered gastrointestinal and cerebral hemorrhages, hemorrhagic strokes, and other types of bleeding issues that have caused injury or death.   Xarelto carries a significant risk of severe, and sometimes even fatal, internal bleeding – and there is no reversal agent available if serious bleeding occurs with Xarelto use.

• Eliquis side effect and litigation

The FDA has recently expressed concern about a certain group of medications called SGLT2 Inhibitors. This category of drugs includes popular prescription medications such as Invokana and Farxiga. Although these drugs have been, by all accounts, fairly successful when treating Type 2 diabetes. But they have produced their fair share of side-effects. Specifically, users of drugs such as Invokana are now reporting high levels of blood acid, the effects of which have landed some users in the ER.  While no deaths have been reported, there is no question that if these reports are accurate, these levels of blood acid could cause serious injury and death.  Accordingly, plaintiffs’ lawyers are investigating whether there is a connection between these drugs and these high acid levels and, if so, whether these drug makers knew about these risks and simply failed to inform patients and doctors.   If these dots are connected – and there is reason to think they might be – there are likely to be both serious injuries and lawsuits seeking compensation for those injuries.

The preceding paragraph was written some time ago.  In May 2017, there are 230 lawsuits pending in a federal MDL in New Jersey.

SGLT2 Inhibitors

New data suggests an association between melanoma skin cancer and Viagra. This has led many patients suffering from erectile dysfunction to question whether the benefits of this drug justify the risk of death that may accompany it.

If you or someone you love has developed melanoma while taking Viagra, you may have an injury or wrongful death lawsuit against Pfizer, who has never adequately warned patients and their doctors of this risk. If you believe you have a claim, call our lawyers for free at 888-322-3010 or get a free Internet consultation. We can discuss your options with you.

The Association Between Viagra and Melanoma

The understanding of the potential risks of melanoma with Viagra took flight in 2014 for the general public when Harvard Medical School released a new study showing that Viagra users were 84% more likely to develop melanoma skin cancer.

The study analyzed data from nearly 26,000 men and found that those who used sildenafil had an 84% higher risk of developing melanoma compared to non-users. However, it’s essential to note that this study showed an association, not a causal relationship. The researchers themselves emphasized that more research is needed to establish a direct causal link.

Since the publication of that study, further research has been conducted, and the results have been mixed. Some studies have supported the potential association, while others have not found a significant link between sildenafil use and melanoma risk.

It is important to note that correlation does not equal causation, and the increased risk observed in some studies may be due to other factors, such as lifestyle or sun exposure, rather than the medication itself. More research is needed to determine whether there is a direct causal relationship between Viagra use and melanoma risk.  Is it something that deserves a lawsuit?  No.  Should people continue to look into it.

Continue Reading

Testosterone supplements have found themselves in the news quite a bit lately. Unfortunately, for manufacturers, this is not good news. Because these lawsuits are on the fast track to being a very big deal.

There is a lot of research coming out with a sudden fury that suggests that testosterone treatments for men can cause an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes that can lead to serious injury and death.  A study published this week in the medical journal Plos One indicated that researchers found a two-fold increase in the risk of a heart attack in the three months after an initial prescription among men aged 65 years and older and a two to three-fold increase among younger men with a history of heart disease.  This is huge, especially considering millions of men are taking these hormonal treatments, and many are learning for the first time of the extent of the risk.

Products in this category are:

A Georgia federal jury ruled for the Defendant this week, determining that Mentor Worldwide LLC was not negligent in its design, manufacture, and sale of the ObTape pelvic mesh.

Also known as a vaginal sling, the Plaintiff was implanted with the ObTape in December 2004 to treat bladder prolapse and urinary incontinence.  Six months later, she was diagnosed with vaginitis and a doctor found that the mesh had extruded into her vagina.

She filed suit, claiming that the ObTape caused vaginal erosion and required surgical removal.  She further claimed that the pore size of the ObTape was insufficient to allow for the tissue to become integrated into the device.  She said the mesh created a propensity for infection and/or abscess, resulting in an unreasonably high rate of infection, abscesses, tissue erosion, and mesh extrusion.

Much to the objection of Bayer Healthcare, Mirena IUD lawsuits at the federal level have been centralized into multidistrict litigation or MDL. The cases will be transferred to a U.S. District Court Judge in the Southern District of New York.  This makes the claim a mini-class action.  What does this mean?  The Mirena lawsuits are consolidated for discovery purposes.  They become one class case for a while.  If a global settlement of these Mirena lawsuits cannot be achieved, they will be sent back to their individual states for trial.

Last week, we told you that similar consolidation was being reconsidered at the state level, where more than 60 Mirena IUD lawsuits are currently pending.  Currently, there are only about 40 lawsuits in federal court, however, it is anticipated by some plaintiffs’ attorneys that several thousand cases will be filed by women who have experienced complications from Mirena IUD.

If you used Mirena and experienced complications, including surgical removal, infection, or Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) and want to inquire as to whether you have a lawsuit, contact our Mirena defect lawyers at 1.800.553.8082, or online here.

Should all transvaginal mesh products be recalled?

Should we get rid of the vaginal mesh product completely?

It is a fair question. These products – and we see juries starting to prove this point – are a train wreck.  These companies – all of them, it seems – were chasing profits and ignoring the harm they were causing women.  It really is as simple as that.

Pfizer’s lawyers took their best shot at winning these cases with the only strategy that will work: keep the cases away from a jury that will weigh the evidence.

This strategy took a hit on Tuesday when the MDL judge overseeing the 2,500 Chantix lawsuits in federal court shot down Pfizer’s motion to exclude the general causation and liability opinions of five plaintiff experts.

Judge Inge Prytz Johnson ruled that while Pfizer has interesting arguments, they are jury arguments, not “the expert should be excluded” arguments. I’m not sure a jury will be too impressed with hypertechnical attacks on these experts’ methodology as long as they swallow the big picture: these drugs put users at risk for homicidal and suicidal behavior that they would not have committed if there were not on the drugs. It is that simple.