Articles Posted in Products Liability

A New York Times article yesterday on the Zimmer Durom Cup’s problems underscores the post-market surveillance problem with drugs and medical devices, pointing to the Zimmer Durom Cup problems that have led to Zimmer recalling their hip replacement component. This is a Zimmer fault; they should have a system of tracking and honestly responding to reports of problems with their hip replacement components. But we cannot expect drug and medical device companies to police themselves. Here, the Zimmer Durom Cup recall was precipitated by Larry Dorr, an orthopedic surgeon who is the medical director of the Dorr Institute for Arthritis Research and Education in California, who outed Zimmer, who previously paid him as a consultant, by speaking up in public about the problems and Zimmer’s blind eye to them.

Safety and speed are the yin and yang of regulating drugs and medical devices. Americans want both; we want safe and well-tested medical devices, but we also want instant access to breakthrough products. But not we should not treat all new drugs and devices equally. We needed to rush new AIDS drugs onto the market with little testing 10 years ago because the risk-benefit analysis demanded it. But some of this other stuff? Sure, the marketing department of the drug and device companies would prefer it that way, but is that the best thing for the consumer or even the pharmaceutical company in the long run?

Adding to the problem is the Prescription Drug User Fee Act in 1992, which was a deal between the FDA and the drug industry. Drug and medical device companies agreed to pay millions of dollars in fees, and the FDA promised that they would complete drug and medical device reviews within a year for those products on the fast track.

Since the Supreme Court’s disaster in Riegel v. Medtronic, I have been hoping and expecting Congress would step in to fix the Supreme Court’s ruling, because it was clear from the amicus briefs submitted in Riegel, from history, and from common sense, that Congress did not intend to prevent medical device tort claims. Yesterday, California Congressmen Henry Waxman and New Jersey Congressman Frank Pallone, along with 62 bipartisan supporters, introduced HR 6381, the Medical Device Safety Act. This bill would undo the wrong the Riegel does to medical device victims. We expect the Senate to offer a similar bill next month.

As the Wolf said in Pulp Fiction, we can’t start congratulating ourselves yet (I’m paraphrasing). This bill has not even made it out of a committee yet. But at least something is happening.

The New York Times ran an article yesterday aptly titled, “It Must Be Bob. I Hear His Hip Squeaking,” discussing people with hip implants, largely Stryker hip implants, who were told to try new ceramic hip implants. Its manufacturers promoted it and its sister implants as being more durable than the previous generation of hip implants. But their hips soon squeaked, raising concerns that the noises were not just embarrassing and uncomfortable, but forebode more serious problems with these hip implants. One patient has turned to YouTube to vent her frustrations with her Stryker hip implant.

The previous generation of hip implants, before 2003, had few problems with squeaking. The Times cited a Journal of Arthroplasty study which found that 10 patients out of 143 who received ceramic hips from 2003 to 2005, amounting to 7 percent, developed squeaking. Meanwhile, no squeaks occurred among a control group of 48 patients who received hips made of metal and plastic.

Last fall the FDA warned Stryker that it failed to take the steps needed to prevent squeaking and other problems. Many patients have had surgery to replace the squeaky hip implants. Many have hired lawyers to sue Stryker, arguing that these hips never should have introduced to the market without proper testing because, as it often happens, Stryker rushed to introduce its ceramic-on-ceramic titanium hip replacement onto the market to create a competitive advantage with its competitors.

Today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Riegel v. Medtronic. The issue is whether the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act forecloses state law personal injury lawsuits for injuries from the design, manufacture, and labeling of a Medtronic medical device that the Food and Drug Administration initially granted a pre-market approval. This case is a product defect case involving a Medtronic balloon catheter that killed the patient but, this case could have ramifications for the Medtronic lead recall lawsuits that are being filed all over the country. [Update: “Could” is the understatement of the decade.] While technically this case focuses on a specific statutory provision, it would surprise no one if the Supreme Court’s holding provides a comprehensive framework for preemption that would apply to all drug and medical device cases.

Naturally, the Bush administration has lined up squarely behind the pharmaceutical companies. This is ironic because there is a strong presumption against preemption, particularly where the issue involves the individual states’ power to protect public safety and health.

The Supreme Court has consistently found that preemption of state law does not apply unless “the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion” or “the Congress has unmistakably so ordained.” Chicago & N.W.Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311, 317(1981) (quoting Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142 (1963)).

The Insurance Journal reported today on an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study that found that General Motors’ vehicles had both the highest and lowest death rates in the period between 2002 and 2005. Chevrolet Blazers built from 2001 to 2004 had 232 driver deaths per million registered vehicles during the four-year span, the highest of any vehicle. The Acura RSX had the second-highest rate with 202 driver deaths followed by the Nissan 350Z, which registered 193 deaths. The rate represents the reported number of driver deaths divided by the model’s number of registered years.

In contrast, the Chevrolet Astro minivan had the lowest rate with only seven deaths per million registered vehicles. It was followed by the Infiniti G35, BMW 7 Series and the Toyota 4Runner. Ironically, Chevy no longer makes the Blazer or the Astro.

My guess is that the Chevy Astro is not 33 times safer than a Chevy Blazer. The demographics in terms of risk-taking behaviors are different for the purchaser of a minivan than a sporty SUV because the study did not consider driver behavior or how the vehicles are used. Still, there are still meaningful conclusions that can be drawn from this study about which vehicles are the safest and least safe to drive. The profile on the driver of a Chevy Blazers cannot be that different from the drivers of Toyota 4-Runners.

The New York Times reported on Saturday that Genentech posted a letter on its website warning eye specialists of its new eye drug Lucentis, which may increase the risk of stroke for those on Lucentis. Genentech found that patients taking their marketed dose of Lucentis were much more likely to suffer a stroke than patients taking a lower dose.

What Is Lucentis?

Lucentis is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody.   What it does is that binds to and inactivates vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF-A) which is considered the dominant inducer to the growth of blood vessels.  Lucentis is a fragment derived from the same antibody.

Lucentis treats age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, macular edema, and other serious eye conditions.

A Philadelphia jury found that Wyeth’s hormone replacement therapy Prempro caused an Arkansas woman’s breast cancer and awarded the victim’s family $1.5 million. The jury found that Wyeth was negligent in failing to provide adequate warnings about the risk of breast cancer associated with the use of Prempro.

We expect the jury to return this week with a decision on punitive damages. In Maryland, under Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420 (1992), a landmark Maryland Court of Appeals’ opinion, punitive damages in this case against Wyeth for failing to warn about the risks of Prempro would have to be supported by a showing that the conduct of Wyeth was malicious, or the result of evil motive, or ill will. There are no such allegations in the Prempro litigation.

Background on Prempro

Last week, I wrote about the Consumer Reports article on failed infant car seats. As I wrote the post, my wife was spending a few hundred dollars on new car seats for our 3-month-old twins. Sure enough, Consumer Reports retracted the article this week after receiving data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration who reported the car seats did well at the correct impact speed.

In their tests, Consumer Reports simulated impacts at over 70 miles an hour instead of simulating impacts at 38 miles an hour. I thought it was probably silly to buy new car seats, particularly given the data offered on the side impact risk to infants. But how can you argue against taking the safest course for your kids? You can’t. Now, if you are a lawyer out there considering a class action against Consumer Reports, you have your first client. I’m kidding, that would be a frivolous lawsuit. But do not be surprised to see one.

Speaking of frivolous lawsuits, a personal injury attorney announced in a news conference in California that he was filing a wrongful death case on behalf of the family of a 28-year-old woman who died in a water-drinking contest on a radio show. The attorney said the wrongful death suit would name the radio station as the defendant, presumably for holding the contest. I do not think this is a meritorious case nor do I think it helps the cause of personal injury lawyers and their clients. I will offer more thoughts on this case this weekend.

Consumer Reports announced today that car seats for infants often cannot withstand the impact of vehicle accidents when a vehicle strikes its side. Of the models tested in simulations of such impacts, ten failed, some of them “disastrously,” according to the magazine’s February issue.

The car seats are rear-facing models that are required in Maryland for infants up to 1-year-old or about 22 pounds. The law requires car seat manufacturers to test the seats for head-on accidents, but not for broadside crashes, which kill about 30 infants a year in the United States.

As I write this post, my wife is out purchasing new car seats for our almost three month-twins as I expect are a lot of other people in Maryland and around the country today. The irony of all of this is that I love Consumer Reports, to where I rarely buy anything other than their top-rated product. The car seats we have now been made by Britax, a product that Consumer Reports had previously rated, you guessed it, number #1. Britax also failed the test.

Over 60,000 Chrysler vehicles are being recalled to reprogram a brake system computer whose defects may lead to an inability to control the car. Chrysler says the failure occurs when the instrument panel warning lamps illuminate, followed by the loss of various controls in some cars. They report no accidents or injuries yet. Moral of the story: if you are driving a Chrysler and the panel warning lamps illuminate, don’t keep driving your car.

I do not have a lot of information to go off of, but it sounds like Chrysler is doing the right thing here by catching this wave before it really breaks. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have an obligation to point out not only what enormous companies are doing wrong but what they are doing right. The knock on personal injury lawyers has always been the “for a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” I hope this blog fights hard to avoid the assumption that every big business and insurance companies are the nails to our hammer in every case. Chrysler appears to have done the right thing.

  • 2010 Chrysler Recall (another apparently responsible recall of 2009-2010 Dodge Ram trucks and 2010 Chrysler Sebring, Jeep Liberty, Dodge Avenger, Dodge Nitro, and Commander and Grand Cherokee SUVs).
Contact Information