Greenville Defective Medical Device Attorney
There are certainly good results from innovative medical devices, giving people a better quality of life — but then there are some which are hurting more than helping. Having to choose between some relief with new severe side effects, and doing without but knowing the expectations is a personal decision. When you do decide to go forward with a procedure, you should at least be able to trust the product isn’t going to harm you.
Auger & Auger stands up to companies on behalf of clients who have suffered during the normal and instructed use of all types of defective medical devices.
Whether it is a Bair Hugger warmer blanket or transvaginal mesh, hernia mesh, power morcellators, metal or Stryker hip replacements — no person should be forced to deal with a lifetime of discomfort because of a defective medical device. Our Greenville defective medical device attorney is here to fight for the patient’s legal right to compensation.
Current Litigation for Medical Devices in Greenville, SC
Auger & Auger Personal Injury Lawyers are presently in litigation on two particularly prominent issues; hernia mesh, and IVC blood clot filters. When hernia mesh is implanted post-surgery, the purpose is to support the tissue while it’s healing; unfortunately, many types may decompose and migrate throughout the body. The intention of IVC blood clot filters was to keep clots from migrating into our most significant body parts (brain, lungs, heart), but again, the filter’s fibers are inclined to disintegrate.
Our Greenville defective medical devices attorney is also accepting cases for patients who have been injured by the following hip replacement devices in common use: Stryker hip replacements and metal hip replacements.
The Risks of Hip Replacement Devices
Stryker hip replacements were designed to fit a variety of body types. The neck of the replacement is not permanent but is meant to be interchangeable. This has ultimately led to a design where components of the device rub against one another, causing metal shavings and toxins to be released into the body of the patient. The ensuing condition (metallosis) leads to potentially debilitating health conditions, including swelling, hip joint failure, and bone fractures.
In 2012, Stryker voluntarily recalled their Rejuvenate Modular and ABG II modular-neck hip stems. Patients were advised to see their doctors to evaluate potential issues with their implants, and ultimately many people needed ‘revision surgery.’ Unfortunately, for some this was problematic.
Patients who require ‘revision surgery’ due to a failed Stryker hip replacement may not have adequate bone regrowth to support a new implant. This means that a metal-on-metal hip replacement procedure is necessary which can lead to its own set of complications. Side effects from this type of revision include persistent pain and immobility. Another issue is that some patients who are older or suffering from declining health may be at higher risk of complications from any further surgery.
Stryker Hip Replacement Lawsuits
In 2014, Stryker settled numerous lawsuits for Rejuvenate and ABG II, but more problems were reported with their LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 femoral heads and Tritanium Acetabular Shell hip implants. In 2018, multiple LFIT lawsuits related to high levels of complications were settled for a confidential amount.
The Tritanium Acetabular Shell implants are still the focus of current litigation in 2022. These devices are meant to replace a person’s hip socket, which may have been damaged by injury or illness. The Tritanium Shell is supposed to adhere to the patient’s bones and promote bone growth, but in some cases, this doesn’t work as intended. If the implant becomes loose following the surgery, the patient could find themselves dealing with constant pain and discomfort. In certain situations, the only solution is for the patient to undergo another painful surgery with a lengthy recovery time. If you suffered similar complications after a Tritanium Shell surgery, please contact us for a free case evaluation to learn your options for pursuing compensation.
Hernia Mesh Litigation
Hernia surgeries are performed to correct a hole or weak area in the patient’s body that allows organs or tissues to protrude. It’s common for surgeons to reinforce the hole or weakened area with a mesh device to prevent future hernias. Unfortunately, sometimes the mesh causes complications on its own. Here are some potential complications that may occur with hernia surgeries using mesh:
● The mesh implant adheres to local organs or tissues, causing pain and inflammation.
● Bowel obstruction can happen if the mesh migrates to the bowel or causes a blockage.
● Many patients report chronic pain that may last for years after receiving a hernia mesh implant. Sometimes people report struggling to receive a diagnosis, as doctors may dismiss a patient’s symptoms if they can’t easily identify the problem.
● If the mesh fails, the hernia may recur, requiring another surgery for the patient – a complication hernia mesh is supposed to prevent.
● A disintegrating mesh implant can cause inflammation, which may lead to infections.
● If part of the mesh has disintegrated, it may migrate to different areas of the body, causing pain and problems in its new location. In some cases, a piece of mesh may even break off and puncture organs and tissues in the area, causing internal bleeding. Often the bladder or intestines are affected if the mesh was placed for an abdominal hernia.
● In other situations, there may be fluid buildup around the surgery site, which your doctor might call a seroma.
● Groin or testicle pain could occur if the mesh was implanted for an inguinal hernia in the groin.
If you had a hernia surgery with mesh and developed any of the issues above, requiring additional surgery, you may be able to file a claim against the hernia mesh manufacturer on one or more of the following grounds:
● Product liability for selling a defective product that caused harm. Under South Carolina’s strict liability laws, it is not necessary to prove that the manufacturer knew about the problem. You will need to demonstrate that the product caused you harm due to the condition in which it was sold (it was defective when it was implanted), that this defect made the product unreasonably dangerous and caused your injuries, and that your injuries occurred during normal and expected use of the product.
● Failure to warn or labeling issues, if the mesh did not come with sufficient warnings about the risks of side effects and complications.
● Malpractice in some cases where the doctor made an error when implanting the mesh.
IVC Blood Clot Filters
IVC blood clot filters are tiny, cage-like devices placed in the inferior vena cava, a major vessel that transports blood from the lower part of the body into the right atrium of the heart. The earliest versions of these filters were FDA-approved between 2002 and 2004, and they quickly became a common treatment for patients who had experienced blood clots but couldn’t use blood thinners for various reasons.
The IVC filter is meant to “catch” small blood clots that begin in the lower extremities – most frequently the legs – and break off, traveling through the bloodstream. If these clots reach the heart, lungs, or brain, they could cause severe or even fatal complications like a heart attack or stroke. For this reason, the IVC filter is key to preventing many severe health problems.
Unfortunately, some IVC filters don’t do this job correctly or cause serious issues on their own. As with defective hernia mesh, some IVC filters are prone to break down or fail. Filters produced by C. R. Bard and Cook Medical are associated with adverse events like fracturing, migrating, tilting, or even puncturing the inferior vena cava, leading to internal bleeding. In some cases, pieces of the filter break off and travel to the heart, lungs, and other organs, causing damage, not unlike the blood clots they’re meant to prevent. Some filters produced by ALN, Argon, Boston Scientific, and Cordis may also cause health difficulties for patients.
IVC Filter Lawsuits
In 2015, an NBC investigation linked two C. R. Bard IVC filters, the Recovery, and the G2, to 39 patient deaths. Internal documents showed that executives with the company had concerns about the filter’s risks, and its own internal studies revealed that the Recovery had a higher rate of complications than all other IVC filters on the market. Replacing it with the G2 series did little to reduce the risks as this filter was also prone to fracturing and causing complications.
Since then, many patients have filed lawsuits against C. R. Bard, and some were gathered into multi-district litigation cases or MDLs.
By January 2022, more than 8,000 lawsuits had been filed against C. R. Bard, and over 6,000 against Cook Medical regarding defective IVC filters. Both companies lost and won some of the “bellwether” cases in the MDLs. (In an MDL, pre-trial motions are combined for many similar cases against one defendant, then the judge hears a handful of bellwether cases, after which the individual lawsuits are sent back to local courts.) The majority of these cases against C. R. Bard and Cook Medical are still pending.
Depending on when your IVC filter injury occurred, it may still be possible for you to file a lawsuit against the manufacturer. To learn more about your options, please contact Auger & Auger for a free consultation.
Potential Injuries from Defective IVC Filters
If you received a defective IVC filter, you may have been fine for months or even years afterward. However, there is always a possibility that the device will fracture or migrate. Possible complications of these devices include:
● Filter migration.
● Organ perforation and internal bleeding.
● Pieces of the filter become lodged in organs or blood vessels, often leading to serious complications.
● Filter failure leads to blood clots.
In many cases, affected patients require surgery to remove the defective filter and any pieces that have broken off. However, for some patients, even this surgery is too risky due to where the filter or piece of the filter is lodged. Even if the filter and its components can be safely retrieved, sometimes it has already caused permanent damage to affected organs and tissues.
What If You Aren’t Sure Which Filter You Had Implanted?
This is a common question. Many people don’t know the brand name or model of the IVC filter they received. If you are unsure, we recommend checking with your doctor. If you received a model that was later recalled or associated with adverse events, ask your physician to run tests to determine if it is still in the correct location and in one piece. If so, talk with them about the risks and benefits of having surgery to remove it. The FDA now recommends removing IVC filters as soon as the patient no longer needs them, but if you’re still at risk for blood clots, you may be able to get a different filter with a lower risk of complications.
Auger & Auger Defective Medical Devices Lawyers Can Be Your Legal Voice
A failed surgical device can result in physical complications. At the same time that you’re trying to recover from this difficult physical challenge, you may also experience emotional and financial devastation. A medical procedure should enhance your life, not ruin it. Auger & Auger does not believe that any patient should be left in a worse condition post-surgery, and if this happened to you, we want to help. The devices mentioned above are only a few of the many medical devices that could potentially be dangerous for patients.
If you or a loved one has been injured by a medical device, despite its appropriate use, reach out to our team. We will be your legal voice, fighting for the compensation you deserve. Your first consultation with our Greenville defective medical device attorney will be held at no cost to you; we do not want to add to your burden. Additionally, you will not pay for our services unless the claim is successfully settled.
There is no obligation, so please call (864) 991-3532 today for your free consultation, with no fees due until recovery if we take your case!