Monday, December 6, 2010
Depuy Hip Replacement Cases Consolidated
In what was probably what was the worst kept secret in legal circles, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation assigned all Depuy ASR hip cases to United States District Judge Katz. The judge will supervise evidence gathering efforts regarding the hip implants which were recalled by Johnson and Johnson's Depuy Orthopedics unit on August 26th. According to Depuy, the implants were recalled after researchers found many patients needed revision surgery because of design defects. Recently, receipents have tested positive for toxic level of chromium and cobalt as a result of the implant failure.
Friday, October 29, 2010
DePuy Hips--Kickbacks, Deferred Prosecution and the role of Surgeons
In 2007, DePuy avoided criminal prosecution over financial inducements paid to surgeons to use their hip and knee products by signing a Deferred Prosecution Agreement and paying civil settlements to the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services of $84.7 million.
The Department of Justice alleged that Depuy routinely violated the anti-kickback statute by paying physicians to exclusively use their products. In announcing the settlement, United States Attorney Christopher J. Christie stated "prior to our investigation, many orthopedic surgeons in this country made decisions predicated on how much money they could make--choosing which device to implant by going to the highest bidder."
The government alleged that these agreements were in place between 2002-2006, which happens to be when many of the now recalled DePuy ASR hips were implanted. Government officials also stated that surgeons failed to disclose the payments to the hospitals where the surgeries were performed, and more importantly, to the patients the devices were installed.
As the DePuy litigation proceeds, both DePuy and some surgeons are going to have some difficult questions to answer.
Patients who return to the physicians who installed the recalled devices need to be aware these relationships exist, inquire of their physician as to whether or not they engaged in such kickback agreements and never let their physician influence them to sign releases allowing DePuy to obtain their medical records.
The Department of Justice alleged that Depuy routinely violated the anti-kickback statute by paying physicians to exclusively use their products. In announcing the settlement, United States Attorney Christopher J. Christie stated "prior to our investigation, many orthopedic surgeons in this country made decisions predicated on how much money they could make--choosing which device to implant by going to the highest bidder."
The government alleged that these agreements were in place between 2002-2006, which happens to be when many of the now recalled DePuy ASR hips were implanted. Government officials also stated that surgeons failed to disclose the payments to the hospitals where the surgeries were performed, and more importantly, to the patients the devices were installed.
As the DePuy litigation proceeds, both DePuy and some surgeons are going to have some difficult questions to answer.
Patients who return to the physicians who installed the recalled devices need to be aware these relationships exist, inquire of their physician as to whether or not they engaged in such kickback agreements and never let their physician influence them to sign releases allowing DePuy to obtain their medical records.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
DEPUY: COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS
I have reviewed perhaps 100 potential claims for individuals who received recall letters from their physicians indicating they had received a Depuy recalled hip.
Typical questions include:
QUESTION: SHOULD I RETURN TO MY PHYSICIAN WHO CONTACTED ME?
ANSWER: PERHAPS. IN MY EXPERIENCE, MOST DOCTORS HAVE BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THEIR PATIENTS. THEY ARE ORDERING XRAYS, MRIs, BLOOD TESTS, AND BONE DENSITY TESTS. THESE TESTS ARE IMPORTANT.
I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL REPORTS OF A PHYSICIAN IN NORTHWEST ALABAMA HAS ONLY ORDERED XRAYS, TOLD ALL OF THE PATIENTS THAT THEY WERE FINE, AND OPENLY STATED THAT THEIR PAIN ONSET OCCURRED WHEN THEY RECEIVED THE RECALL LETTER. THE WIFE OF ONE OF MY CLIENT'S REPORTEDLY QUIPPED TO THE DOCTOR THAT HE OBVIOUSLY HAD NOT LOOKED AT HER HUSBAND'S CHART IN IN THE TWO YEARS SINCE HIS SURGERY AND CERTAINLY HAD NOT LIVED WITH HIM OR HE WOULD KNOW OTHERWISE.
IF THIS IS YOUR PHYSICIAN, YOU PROBABLY KNOW IT. I WOULD NOT RETURN AND WOULD FIND A SURGEON WHO DOES HIP REVISION SURGERY TO EVALUATE YOUR HIP.
QUESTION: SHOULD I SIGN THE DOCUMENTS MY DOCTOR GAVE ME?
ANSWER: ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!! THERE ARE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT, BUT THEY ALLOW DEPUY TO OBTAIN YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS AND IN SOME CASES, OBTAIN YOUR DEFECTIVE DEVICE IF IT IS REMOVED. YOUR INFORMATION WILL ALSO BE PROVIDED TO DEPUY'S ADJUSTERS HANDLING THE CLAIMS.
QUESTION: DO I HAVE TO GO BACK TO MY DOCTOR FOR THIS TO BE COVERED?
ANSWER: NO: IN FACT, A CLASS ACTION HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST DEPUY CLAIMING THEY ARE MISLEADING CONSUMERS. IN THAT COMPLAINT, THEY ALLEGE:
"In our opinion, DePuy's 'offer' may deceive potential claimants into believing that the company has actually agreed to advance or reimburse their costs for medical monitoring or revision surgery. In fact, no specific offer to pay medical costs has been made and no specific plan for reimbursement has been announced. Moreover, DePuy has stated that before reimbursement of expenses will be provided, it will review the patient's medical records to determine if the patient meets DePuy's criteria for payment. According to DePuy, the medical records must confirm that the revision is related to the ASR recall and 'not some other type of cause, such as a traumatic fall.' Blaming the device failure on a fall, or another cause, such as physician error, patient misuse, pre-existing condition or underlying diseases is a standard litigation defense in these types of cases. Thus a patient who releases medical records to DePuy may do nothing but provide DePuy with a jump start on litigation defenses."
OPTING FOR FREE CARE FROM DEPUY MAY COST YOU IN THE FUTURE---IN PREVIOUS MEDICAL IMPLANT LITIGATION I HANDLED, PATIENTS WERE OFFERED FREE MEDICAL CARE. WHAT THEY WERE NOT TOLD WAS THAT THE MANUFACTURER PAID THE DOCTORS THE BILL RATE AS OPPOSED TO THE INSURANCE, MEDICARE OR MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT RATE ,WHICH IS MUCH LOWER. WHEN IT CAME TIME TO SETTLE THEIR CLAIMS, THE MANUFACTURER DEMANDED CREDIT FROM THE SETTLEMENT FOR WHAT THEY PAID, WHICH WAS 3 OR 4 TIMES WHAT THE INSURANCE CARRIER WOULD HAVE PAID. THIS IS A NICE CARROT USED TO KEEP THE PHYSICIANS HAPPY AND IN THE BOAT.
QUESTION: WHAT ELSE DO I NEED TO KNOW?
ANSWER: FIRST, THERE IS OFTEN A VERY CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MAKERS OF DEVICES AND THE PHYSICIAN WHO INSTALL THEM. TRIPS, SEMINARS, CATERED LUNCHES ARE NOT UNCOMMON. OFTEN THE PHYSICIAN AND THEIR ORTHOPEDIC REPS, AS THEY ARE CALLED, HAVE CLOSE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS. THERE IS NO DOUBT DEPUY WILL SEEK TO EXPLOIT THIS RELATIONSHIP, IF IT CAN BE EXPLOITED, TO OBTAIN RELEASES AND MEDICAL RECORDS (TO PREPARE THEIR DEFENSE THAT THE FAILURE IS UNRELATED).
ON THE OTHER HAND, MANY PHYSICIAN ARE PATIENT ADVOCATES AND SOME HAVE EVEN ADVISED CLIENTS TO SEEK LEGAL REPRESENTATION.
CHRIS HELLUMS recently served as lead counsel in the Total Body Formula Multi District Litigation and is representing clients from across the country with Depuy claims.
For a free case evaluation, he can be reached at Chrish@PittmanDutton.com or toll free at 1-866.515-8880
Typical questions include:
QUESTION: SHOULD I RETURN TO MY PHYSICIAN WHO CONTACTED ME?
ANSWER: PERHAPS. IN MY EXPERIENCE, MOST DOCTORS HAVE BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THEIR PATIENTS. THEY ARE ORDERING XRAYS, MRIs, BLOOD TESTS, AND BONE DENSITY TESTS. THESE TESTS ARE IMPORTANT.
I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL REPORTS OF A PHYSICIAN IN NORTHWEST ALABAMA HAS ONLY ORDERED XRAYS, TOLD ALL OF THE PATIENTS THAT THEY WERE FINE, AND OPENLY STATED THAT THEIR PAIN ONSET OCCURRED WHEN THEY RECEIVED THE RECALL LETTER. THE WIFE OF ONE OF MY CLIENT'S REPORTEDLY QUIPPED TO THE DOCTOR THAT HE OBVIOUSLY HAD NOT LOOKED AT HER HUSBAND'S CHART IN IN THE TWO YEARS SINCE HIS SURGERY AND CERTAINLY HAD NOT LIVED WITH HIM OR HE WOULD KNOW OTHERWISE.
IF THIS IS YOUR PHYSICIAN, YOU PROBABLY KNOW IT. I WOULD NOT RETURN AND WOULD FIND A SURGEON WHO DOES HIP REVISION SURGERY TO EVALUATE YOUR HIP.
QUESTION: SHOULD I SIGN THE DOCUMENTS MY DOCTOR GAVE ME?
ANSWER: ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!! THERE ARE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT, BUT THEY ALLOW DEPUY TO OBTAIN YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS AND IN SOME CASES, OBTAIN YOUR DEFECTIVE DEVICE IF IT IS REMOVED. YOUR INFORMATION WILL ALSO BE PROVIDED TO DEPUY'S ADJUSTERS HANDLING THE CLAIMS.
QUESTION: DO I HAVE TO GO BACK TO MY DOCTOR FOR THIS TO BE COVERED?
ANSWER: NO: IN FACT, A CLASS ACTION HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST DEPUY CLAIMING THEY ARE MISLEADING CONSUMERS. IN THAT COMPLAINT, THEY ALLEGE:
"In our opinion, DePuy's 'offer' may deceive potential claimants into believing that the company has actually agreed to advance or reimburse their costs for medical monitoring or revision surgery. In fact, no specific offer to pay medical costs has been made and no specific plan for reimbursement has been announced. Moreover, DePuy has stated that before reimbursement of expenses will be provided, it will review the patient's medical records to determine if the patient meets DePuy's criteria for payment. According to DePuy, the medical records must confirm that the revision is related to the ASR recall and 'not some other type of cause, such as a traumatic fall.' Blaming the device failure on a fall, or another cause, such as physician error, patient misuse, pre-existing condition or underlying diseases is a standard litigation defense in these types of cases. Thus a patient who releases medical records to DePuy may do nothing but provide DePuy with a jump start on litigation defenses."
OPTING FOR FREE CARE FROM DEPUY MAY COST YOU IN THE FUTURE---IN PREVIOUS MEDICAL IMPLANT LITIGATION I HANDLED, PATIENTS WERE OFFERED FREE MEDICAL CARE. WHAT THEY WERE NOT TOLD WAS THAT THE MANUFACTURER PAID THE DOCTORS THE BILL RATE AS OPPOSED TO THE INSURANCE, MEDICARE OR MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT RATE ,WHICH IS MUCH LOWER. WHEN IT CAME TIME TO SETTLE THEIR CLAIMS, THE MANUFACTURER DEMANDED CREDIT FROM THE SETTLEMENT FOR WHAT THEY PAID, WHICH WAS 3 OR 4 TIMES WHAT THE INSURANCE CARRIER WOULD HAVE PAID. THIS IS A NICE CARROT USED TO KEEP THE PHYSICIANS HAPPY AND IN THE BOAT.
QUESTION: WHAT ELSE DO I NEED TO KNOW?
ANSWER: FIRST, THERE IS OFTEN A VERY CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MAKERS OF DEVICES AND THE PHYSICIAN WHO INSTALL THEM. TRIPS, SEMINARS, CATERED LUNCHES ARE NOT UNCOMMON. OFTEN THE PHYSICIAN AND THEIR ORTHOPEDIC REPS, AS THEY ARE CALLED, HAVE CLOSE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS. THERE IS NO DOUBT DEPUY WILL SEEK TO EXPLOIT THIS RELATIONSHIP, IF IT CAN BE EXPLOITED, TO OBTAIN RELEASES AND MEDICAL RECORDS (TO PREPARE THEIR DEFENSE THAT THE FAILURE IS UNRELATED).
ON THE OTHER HAND, MANY PHYSICIAN ARE PATIENT ADVOCATES AND SOME HAVE EVEN ADVISED CLIENTS TO SEEK LEGAL REPRESENTATION.
CHRIS HELLUMS recently served as lead counsel in the Total Body Formula Multi District Litigation and is representing clients from across the country with Depuy claims.
For a free case evaluation, he can be reached at Chrish@PittmanDutton.com or toll free at 1-866.515-8880
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
GMAC and the Foreclosure Problem: Has the Dam Finally Broken on Fraudulent Foreclosures
Initial reports were that GMAC had stopped foreclosures in 23 states. GMAC then issued the following response
"Recent reports have stated that GMAC Mortgage instituted a moratorium on all residential foreclosures in 23 states," the statement said in response to media reports saying that the lender had imposed the moratorium. "This is not true. In fact, all new residential foreclosures are continuing in the ordinary course of business with no interruption in our usual practice."
WHAT GIVES AND WHAT IS WHERE IS THIS GOING?
Various accounts have described how one officer of GMAC Mortgage’s servicing unit has admitted during testimony that, while he signs thousands of affidavits each month in order to affect steps in the foreclosure process, he does not have personal knowledge of certain critical facts in the affidavit which he asserts to be true.
Why is this a problem? A supporting or opposing affidavit must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify on the matters stated.
What are the implications of the GMAC Mortgage actions and how serious are the problems? GMAC Mortgage and similarly situated parties contend that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with their foreclosure process and this is simply a procedural issue which is readily curable. In contrast, advocates for borrowers in foreclosure have indicated that the questionable affidavits are only the “tip of the iceberg” and represent the beginning of the end for the foreclosure mills and the banks, servicers and trustees who have been seeking to exercise foreclosure under false pretenses. The heightened scrutiny and increasing interest by state attorneys general means we may finally get to the bottom of a long-running “he said-she said” dispute.
NOT SO FAST
Consumer protection attorneys have for years claimed that finance companies and their servicers have been playing fast and loose with the rules. Specifically, there are have been allegations that almost all foreclosures were tainted by assignments and alonges (the documents that transfer ownership) that were fraudulently signed, not at the time of assignment, but to effectuate the foreclosure.
SECURITIZATION MAKES MATTERS WORSE
Think of it like this. During the boom, mortgages are being pumped out faster than oil in the gulf coast. Those mortgages were being assigned faster than Bernie Madoff could steal money and being cut into pieces faster than an onion on a Ginsu knife commercial. Those pieces were being securitized and resold on Wall Street. No one thought that loans for 120% of the value of the property would ever go down and anyone would ever default. They were making money so fast they never thought they might have to comply with the law and actually LEGALLY assign the paper.
So, the paper ends up in securitized trusts (a legal entity) governed by New York trust law, i.e. legal requirements must be met before it goes into the trust--like actual assignments.
HERE COMES TROUBLE
Then one day someone has to foreclose. In order to foreclose you must prove that you actually own the paper.
MAKE IT UP AS YOU GO
In order to get paid, servicers must actually foreclose on the property. Many lawyers have argued that these entities literally had people sit in rooms all day and sign affidavits and assignments so that the properties could be foreclosed.
IS THIS THE END OR JUST THE BEGINNING
GMAC Mortgage and other banks may hope to sell the story line that its problem is limited to a lone “rogue servicing officer.” Unfortunately, the servicing officer in question indicated in his testimony that he prepared 10,000 or more affidavits per month.
IF YOU BELIEVE THIS WAS NOT AND INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM, I HAVE A PYRAMID SCHEME I WOULD LIKE TO SELL YOU.
Chris Hellums is the managing shareholder of Pittman Dutton &Hellums. He is currently litigating wrongful foreclosure cases. He can be reached toll free at 866-515-8880 or by e-mail at Chrish@pittmandutton.com
Related articles by Zemanta
GMAC Mortgage Statement on Speculation Related to Foreclosure Moratorium (prnewswire.com)
"Recent reports have stated that GMAC Mortgage instituted a moratorium on all residential foreclosures in 23 states," the statement said in response to media reports saying that the lender had imposed the moratorium. "This is not true. In fact, all new residential foreclosures are continuing in the ordinary course of business with no interruption in our usual practice."
WHAT GIVES AND WHAT IS WHERE IS THIS GOING?
Various accounts have described how one officer of GMAC Mortgage’s servicing unit has admitted during testimony that, while he signs thousands of affidavits each month in order to affect steps in the foreclosure process, he does not have personal knowledge of certain critical facts in the affidavit which he asserts to be true.
Why is this a problem? A supporting or opposing affidavit must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify on the matters stated.
What are the implications of the GMAC Mortgage actions and how serious are the problems? GMAC Mortgage and similarly situated parties contend that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with their foreclosure process and this is simply a procedural issue which is readily curable. In contrast, advocates for borrowers in foreclosure have indicated that the questionable affidavits are only the “tip of the iceberg” and represent the beginning of the end for the foreclosure mills and the banks, servicers and trustees who have been seeking to exercise foreclosure under false pretenses. The heightened scrutiny and increasing interest by state attorneys general means we may finally get to the bottom of a long-running “he said-she said” dispute.
NOT SO FAST
Consumer protection attorneys have for years claimed that finance companies and their servicers have been playing fast and loose with the rules. Specifically, there are have been allegations that almost all foreclosures were tainted by assignments and alonges (the documents that transfer ownership) that were fraudulently signed, not at the time of assignment, but to effectuate the foreclosure.
SECURITIZATION MAKES MATTERS WORSE
Think of it like this. During the boom, mortgages are being pumped out faster than oil in the gulf coast. Those mortgages were being assigned faster than Bernie Madoff could steal money and being cut into pieces faster than an onion on a Ginsu knife commercial. Those pieces were being securitized and resold on Wall Street. No one thought that loans for 120% of the value of the property would ever go down and anyone would ever default. They were making money so fast they never thought they might have to comply with the law and actually LEGALLY assign the paper.
So, the paper ends up in securitized trusts (a legal entity) governed by New York trust law, i.e. legal requirements must be met before it goes into the trust--like actual assignments.
HERE COMES TROUBLE
Then one day someone has to foreclose. In order to foreclose you must prove that you actually own the paper.
MAKE IT UP AS YOU GO
In order to get paid, servicers must actually foreclose on the property. Many lawyers have argued that these entities literally had people sit in rooms all day and sign affidavits and assignments so that the properties could be foreclosed.
IS THIS THE END OR JUST THE BEGINNING
GMAC Mortgage and other banks may hope to sell the story line that its problem is limited to a lone “rogue servicing officer.” Unfortunately, the servicing officer in question indicated in his testimony that he prepared 10,000 or more affidavits per month.
IF YOU BELIEVE THIS WAS NOT AND INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM, I HAVE A PYRAMID SCHEME I WOULD LIKE TO SELL YOU.
Chris Hellums is the managing shareholder of Pittman Dutton &Hellums. He is currently litigating wrongful foreclosure cases. He can be reached toll free at 866-515-8880 or by e-mail at Chrish@pittmandutton.com
Related articles by Zemanta
GMAC Mortgage Statement on Speculation Related to Foreclosure Moratorium (prnewswire.com)
Thursday, September 16, 2010
CHINESE DRYWALL CLAIMS STILL BEING ACCEPTED IN MDL
Lead Counsel, Arnold Levin, has decided that the Plaintiff Steering Committee may file additional interventions or complaints against Knauf, Taishan, and any other identifiable Chinese manufacturer. Knauf, one of the largest manufacturers of defective Chinese Drywall, has accepted service for home owners in the MDL litigation out of New Orleans.
The toxic Chinese drywall plaguing most of the Gulf Coast was used in the construction of homes in the Birmingham area. The drywall was imported into the U.S between 2005 and 2008 and used particularly in 2006, when there was a shortage of building supplies after several hurricanes and during the building boom. The toxic material is known to emit a sulfuric compound that corrodes metals and may cause upper respiratory problems. While a sulfur odor in a home may indicate the product was used, the main indicator would be if the homeowner has had to replace air conditioning coils more than once over the past few years. Also, home owners can look on the back of the drywall, possibly in the attic, to see if it has any Chinese markings such as “Knauf-Tianjin” or is stamped “Made in China.”
There are many reasons to choose to litigate through the MDL against Knauf. U.S. District Court Judge Eldon Fallon ordered Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd., a committee of attorneys representing plaintiffs and certain drywall installers, suppliers and insurers to participate in mediation in New Orleans in August. Fallon wanted the parties to discuss the "global resolution of claims," according to an entry in the court record. Fallon "encouraged all parties to consider global settlement rather than individual resolution of claims." Fallon has ordered the same parties to participate in mediation again in September. This is very promising for homeowners affected by Chinese drywall.
If you believe you have defective Chinese drywall in your home and experienced repeated AC coil failures, electrical issues, appliance failures, tarnished fixtures, sulfur odors in your home and/or suffer with respiratory issues, nose bleeds, headaches and or unexplained rashes, please contact me.
FOR A FREE CASE EVALUATION, CONTACT BOOTH SAMUELS AT BOOTHS@PITTMANDUTTON.COM OR CALL TOLL FREE 1-866-515.8880.
The toxic Chinese drywall plaguing most of the Gulf Coast was used in the construction of homes in the Birmingham area. The drywall was imported into the U.S between 2005 and 2008 and used particularly in 2006, when there was a shortage of building supplies after several hurricanes and during the building boom. The toxic material is known to emit a sulfuric compound that corrodes metals and may cause upper respiratory problems. While a sulfur odor in a home may indicate the product was used, the main indicator would be if the homeowner has had to replace air conditioning coils more than once over the past few years. Also, home owners can look on the back of the drywall, possibly in the attic, to see if it has any Chinese markings such as “Knauf-Tianjin” or is stamped “Made in China.”
There are many reasons to choose to litigate through the MDL against Knauf. U.S. District Court Judge Eldon Fallon ordered Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd., a committee of attorneys representing plaintiffs and certain drywall installers, suppliers and insurers to participate in mediation in New Orleans in August. Fallon wanted the parties to discuss the "global resolution of claims," according to an entry in the court record. Fallon "encouraged all parties to consider global settlement rather than individual resolution of claims." Fallon has ordered the same parties to participate in mediation again in September. This is very promising for homeowners affected by Chinese drywall.
If you believe you have defective Chinese drywall in your home and experienced repeated AC coil failures, electrical issues, appliance failures, tarnished fixtures, sulfur odors in your home and/or suffer with respiratory issues, nose bleeds, headaches and or unexplained rashes, please contact me.
FOR A FREE CASE EVALUATION, CONTACT BOOTH SAMUELS AT BOOTHS@PITTMANDUTTON.COM OR CALL TOLL FREE 1-866-515.8880.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Depuy Recalls Total Hip Systems
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., announced it is voluntarily recalling the ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System used in hip replacement surgery. According to some reports, 1 in 8 patients with these hips required a replacement surgery, also known as revision surgery, to replace the implants. The risk for revision was higher with ASR head sizes below 50 mm in diameter and among female patients. Many observers expect this already high failure rate to increase dramatically as problems with the DePuy ASR hip systems become more widely publicized.
Depuy issued the following statement: "We regret that this recall will be concerning for patients, their family members and surgeons," said David Floyd, president, DePuy Orthopaedics. "We are committed to assisting patients and health care providers by providing information through multiple channels and paying for the cost of doctor visits, tests and procedures associated with the recall."
Denying that its decision to do so was related to reports of failures of the ASR systems, late last year DePuy ceased sales of the products. By that time, almost 100,000 of the systems had been implanted in patients worldwide. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. is the orthopedic subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.
Unfortunately, DePuy's recall of the ASR systems comes too late for patients that were sold these devices. Unlike most product recalls, this recall is for a product that has been implanted in a person's hip. As a result, the recalled product can only be replaced with the patient going through a painful and debilitating surgery and rehabilitation.
Attorney Chris Hellums and the firm of Pittman Dutton & Hellums has previously represented individuals numerous medical product failure claims. For a free case evaluation, contact Chris Hellums at Chrish@PittmanDutton.com or toll free at 866-515-8880.
Depuy issued the following statement: "We regret that this recall will be concerning for patients, their family members and surgeons," said David Floyd, president, DePuy Orthopaedics. "We are committed to assisting patients and health care providers by providing information through multiple channels and paying for the cost of doctor visits, tests and procedures associated with the recall."
Denying that its decision to do so was related to reports of failures of the ASR systems, late last year DePuy ceased sales of the products. By that time, almost 100,000 of the systems had been implanted in patients worldwide. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. is the orthopedic subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.
Unfortunately, DePuy's recall of the ASR systems comes too late for patients that were sold these devices. Unlike most product recalls, this recall is for a product that has been implanted in a person's hip. As a result, the recalled product can only be replaced with the patient going through a painful and debilitating surgery and rehabilitation.
Attorney Chris Hellums and the firm of Pittman Dutton & Hellums has previously represented individuals numerous medical product failure claims. For a free case evaluation, contact Chris Hellums at Chrish@PittmanDutton.com or toll free at 866-515-8880.
Monday, August 30, 2010
DEADLINE LOOMING FOR FILING CHINESE DRYWALL CLAIMS
SEPTEMBER 3RD DEADLINE FOR KNAUF INTERVENTIONS IN MDL
The Plaintiffs Steering Committee has extended the deadline for accepting additional claims against Knauf to be included on interventions until Friday, September 3, 2010 at 5 ET. It is doubtful that this deadline will be extended. Knauf, one of the largest manufacturers of defective Chinese Drywall, has accepted service for home owners in the MDL litigation out of New Orleans. A majority of the defective drywall was imported into the United States between 2005 and 2007.
Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Eldon Fallon ordered Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd., a committee of attorneys representing plaintiffs and certain drywall installers, suppliers and insurers to participate in mediation in New Orleans. Fallon wanted the parties to discuss the "global resolution of claims," according to an entry in the court record. Fallon "encouraged all parties to consider global settlement rather than individual resolution of claims."
Knauf Gips, a family-owned German company with operations throughout the world, has argued for almost two years that it is not legally responsible for the millions of pounds of defective drywall that one of its subsidiaries in China has admitted exporting to the United States. But documents filed in Germany and in U.S. courts show that Knauf’s German umbrella company is closely involved in the management of its subsidiaries, including overseeing quality control, finding raw materials and dealing with rising concerns over the defective drywall.
If you believe you have defective Chinese drywall in your home and experienced repeated AC coil failures, electrical issues, appliance failures, tarnished fixtures, sulfur odors in your home and/or suffer with respiratory issues, nose bleeds, headaches and or unexplained rashes, please contact me.
FOR A FREE CASE EVALUATION, CONTACT BOOTH SAMUELS AT BOOTHS@PITTMANDUTTON.COM OR CALL TOLL FREE 1-866-515.8880.
The Plaintiffs Steering Committee has extended the deadline for accepting additional claims against Knauf to be included on interventions until Friday, September 3, 2010 at 5 ET. It is doubtful that this deadline will be extended. Knauf, one of the largest manufacturers of defective Chinese Drywall, has accepted service for home owners in the MDL litigation out of New Orleans. A majority of the defective drywall was imported into the United States between 2005 and 2007.
Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Eldon Fallon ordered Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd., a committee of attorneys representing plaintiffs and certain drywall installers, suppliers and insurers to participate in mediation in New Orleans. Fallon wanted the parties to discuss the "global resolution of claims," according to an entry in the court record. Fallon "encouraged all parties to consider global settlement rather than individual resolution of claims."
Knauf Gips, a family-owned German company with operations throughout the world, has argued for almost two years that it is not legally responsible for the millions of pounds of defective drywall that one of its subsidiaries in China has admitted exporting to the United States. But documents filed in Germany and in U.S. courts show that Knauf’s German umbrella company is closely involved in the management of its subsidiaries, including overseeing quality control, finding raw materials and dealing with rising concerns over the defective drywall.
If you believe you have defective Chinese drywall in your home and experienced repeated AC coil failures, electrical issues, appliance failures, tarnished fixtures, sulfur odors in your home and/or suffer with respiratory issues, nose bleeds, headaches and or unexplained rashes, please contact me.
FOR A FREE CASE EVALUATION, CONTACT BOOTH SAMUELS AT BOOTHS@PITTMANDUTTON.COM OR CALL TOLL FREE 1-866-515.8880.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
