On April 5, 2013, Judge Cynthia Rufe, the judge presiding over the pretrial motions and discovery of the cases consolidated in the Zoloft multidistrict litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL No. 2324), established May 31, 2013, as the date of a leadership status conference in the MDL, and July 18, 2013, as the date of a general status conference in the MDL, according to Pretrial Order No. 25. Both status conferences will begin at 10 a.m., according to the order, with the leadership status conference taking place in Judge Rufe’s chambers with defendants’ lead and liaison counsel, plaintiffs’ liaison counsel, the plaintiffs’ steering committee’s executive committee, the multi-district coordinator, and the special discovery master in attendance.

The general status conference taking place in Courtroom 12-A, United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and will be attended by all members of the plaintiffs’ steering committee as well as defense counsel, Pretrial Order No. 25 states.

The Rottenstein Law Group LLP urges anyone who believes they or their child might have been harmed by Zoloft to download a free brochure about Zoloft and Zoloft lawsuits.

This case (Estate of Fred E. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical Inc.; 09-2-03136-5, Superior Court, Port Orchard, Wash.) focused on the claims by the plaintiff that Intuitive Surgical did not adequately train the surgeon who performed the prostate removal on the decedent, Fred Taylor, according to a May 22 Bloomberg story, which indicated that the Taylor family seeks $8.45 million in damages. The Taylor family alleges that complications from Fred Taylor’s 2008 prostate removal led to his eventual death in 2012. Intuitive asserts that Taylor’s urologist performed the surgery on the obese Taylor, violating the company’s surgical guidelines, and so it is not at fault, the story said.

“Given that this is the first da Vinci trial, the jury’s verdict will be an important one,” said Rochelle Rottenstein, principal of the Rottenstein Law Group LLP. “There is the potential, though certainly not the guarantee, that the verdict could help provide insight into the verdicts of future trials.”

Intuitive Surgical asserts that it is fully committed to superior training opportunities for surgeons and surgical teams in the use of its products, but notes that it does not participate in determining when a surgeon is adequately prepared to operate using the da Vinci Surgical System. According to an April 9 USA Today article, the da Vinci surgical robot was used in about 400,000 surgeries in 2012.**

The Rottenstein Law Group LLP encourages people to visit this page to download a free brochure to help them determine if they are eligible to file a da Vinci lawsuit.

As of May 2013 there were approximately 190 plaintiffs suing the New Jersey-based McNeil PPC, Tylenol’s manufacturer, and McNeil’s parent company, Johnson & Johnson, in state and federal courts. The suits allege that Tylenol caused the plaintiffs or their loved ones to suffer severe liver damage.

Tylenol Liver Damage Victim Awarded $8.8 Million

A federal court jury in Virginia in 1994 awarded $7.855 million in compensatory damages and an additional $1 million in punitive damages to a 39-year-old man who claimed that the loss of his liver was the result of his taking Tylenol in combination with his regular consumption of wine at dinner.

That plaintiff, former White House aide Antonio Benedi, slipped into a coma after taking Tylenol Extra Strength in the recommended doses to treat the flu. Doctors found he was suffering from liver failure and Benedi had a liver transplant several days later.

Since Benedi’s case, dozes of patients who claim they suffered liver damage from Tylenol have filed suit in federal and state courts. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized 21 of the federal actions into MDL No. 2436 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 1, 2013, and—as of May 2103—there were at least 14 cases against McNeil and its parent company Johnson & Johnson in New Jersey state court alone.

The FDA Required Acetaminophen Label Changes in 2009

In the Spring of 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required that Tylenol and generic acetaminophen product labels contain new warnings that highlight the potential for liver toxicity and warn consumers against using more than the recommended dose of acetaminophen, using more than one product (over-the-counter or prescription) containing acetaminophen, and taking acetaminophen with even moderate amounts of alcohol.

RLG Lawyers Will Make Things Easier

If you believe that you or someone you love has developed liver failure or suffered some other serious adverse side effect as a result of taking Tylenol, submit this simple secure form for a free and confidential evaluation to learn more about your eligibility to file a Tylenol lawsuit.

Legal action is the best way to recover the most compensation for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages. The Tylenol lawyers at the Rottenstein Law Group do everything possible to streamline the process of helping liver damage sufferers get the compensation they deserve.

Judge Cathy Seibel called for the addition of some female lawyers to the committee. This followed requests from at least one plaintiff’s attorney that women be represented on the committee because, according to Reuters, “female attorneys could relate to [plaintiffs’] challenges and promote that empathy to a judge or jury.”

More than 50 lawsuits are pending in the federal consolidation, called a “multidistrict litigation” (In re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation; MDL No. 2434, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York). The plaintiffs allege that their Mirena hormonal IUD implants have caused them many side effects, including uterine perforation, device migration and pelvic pain, according to court documents.

“Given that the plaintiffs are all women, it seems that an addition of women to the leadership ranks would be in the best interests of the plaintiffs and their counsel,” said Rochelle Rottenstein, principal of RLG.

Johnson & Johnson said its decision to stop selling the metal liners in the Ultamet Metal-on-Metal Articulation and Complete Ceramic-on-Metal Acetabular Hip System was because of decreased demand and not because of the safety concerns cited by the FDA regarding metal-on-metal hips or the more than 10,000 lawsuits pending against DePuy over the ASR hip implant system (In re: DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL-2197 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio)), according to a May 16 Bloomberg report. The company will continue to sell its DePuy Pinnacle system, though.

“Although the company has said that it did not make this marketing decision because of lawsuits or regulations, the fact remains that there is a recent marked increase of scrutiny of metal-on-metal hips,” said Rochelle Rottenstein, principal of the Rottenstein Law Group LLP.

For those who believe their metal-on-metal hip implant has injured them, the Rottenstein Law Group LLP offers an in-depth look at hip replacement settlements for metal-on-metal hip implants manufactured by DePuy, Stryker, Smith & Nephew, Biomet and Wright Medical. Common alleged side effects the firm hears about include metallosis (metal poisoning) and the need for revision surgery. The first trial in the country in Los Angeles resulted in the plaintiff winning an $8.3 million damages award (Kransky v. DePuy; BC456086, Los Angeles Superior Court).

DePuy, citing recent state court hip trials, filed the motion stating that the recalls are not relevant to the trials, according to court documents for Dorney-Madgitz, et ux. v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., et al., No. 11-dp-20112 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio); In re: DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL-2197 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio). Plaintiff Faye Dorney-Madgitz is suing DePuy alleging ASR side effects, including metallosis (metal poisoning), the documents said. The ASR was recalled in 2010.

“DePuy recalled the ASR because the device was deemed defective. That information is relevant and the juries at these trials should be privy to it,” said Rochelle Rottenstein, principal of RLG.

This trial is scheduled to begin in September, according to court documents. Judge David A. Katz is presiding over the federal consolidation of DePuy ASR lawsuits. There are an additional 11,000 lawsuits pending against DePuy over the ASR hip implant in state and federal courts, according to Bloomberg. The first trial in the country in Los Angeles resulted in the plaintiff winning an $8.3 million damages award (Kransky v. DePuy; BC456086, Los Angeles Superior Court).

RLG represents clients in ASR hip lawsuits and notes that DePuy, according to a January 2012 Reuters story, has set aside at least $3 billion for DePuy ASR hip settlements. The firm encourages those who believe they have suffered from the ASR’s alleged side effects to visit the firm’s website for more information on how to file a lawsuit.

The results of a prospective randomized trial, which were reported by Dr. Robert E. Gutman at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, showed that cure rates and patient satisfaction following pelvic prolapse repair were similar at three-year follow-up regardless of whether vaginal mesh or native tissue was used for the repair, according to the May 9, 2013, article in Ob.Gyn.News that reported on the study. That article further reports that, “subjects treated with mesh had more complications without experiencing benefit beyond that observed in the native tissue repair patients.”

There currently are transvaginal mesh cases pending in state courts and as part of federal multidistrict litigation actions (MDLs) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (MDL No. 2187; MDL No. 2387; MDL No. 2326; MDL No. 2327).

Unlike transvaginal mesh class actions, in which similar claims against one or more common defendants are grouped together and the claimants are required to split a single award, transvaginal mesh MDLs consolidate cases for the purpose of streamlining pretrial proceedings such as discovery. That is, the vaginal mesh lawsuits that are part of the MDLs will be tried separately and the plaintiffs in those cases will not be required to share an award.

The Rottenstein Law Group LLP urges all women who believe they have been hurt by vaginal mesh to contact the firm for a free evaluation of their chances of recovering monetary compensation for their injuries via a vaginal mesh lawsuit.

A cohort of Palm Beach County, Florida, surgeons reviewed data from procedures on adults over 18 years old who suffered different types of closed head injuries and then determined if the patients were using warfarin, Pradaxa (dabigatran), or were not using any anticoagulation drugs, according to the study published in the May 1, 2013, edition of the Journal of Neurosurgery.

“Alleged excessive bleeding incidents are at the center of Pradaxa lawsuits in federal court,” said Rochelle Rottenstein, principal of RLG, referring to a multidistrict litigation formed in federal court in Illinois (In re Pradaxa Products Liability Litigation, MDL-2385, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (East St. Louis)).

RLG LLP encourages those who were allegedly harmed by Pradaxa to visit the firm’s website to download a free brochure to help them determine if they have a case.

A 2011 study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that those at risk of getting diabetes were more likely to be diagnosed with the disease when they were using Lipitor, a statin prescribed to reduce high cholesterol in patients, according to Reuters. Another study, published in the January 2012 edition of JAMA: Internal Medicine, indicated that there is a potential link between statins and a type 2 diabetes risk in women.**

“There has been a sizable amount of news coverage centered on the link between Lipitor and an increased diabetes risk,” said Rochelle Rottenstein, principal of RLG. “As more people become aware of the connection, more of them are considering their legal options. We receive calls daily from women who believe Lipitor has put them at risk.”

Plaintiffs across the country are filing Lipitor lawsuits, many of which are under consideration for consolidation into a federal multidistrict litigation for efficient pretrial proceedings (In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin) Litigation, MDL No. 2459 (JPML)).

The device notification, according to CNBC, says that “micro-cracks” in some monopolar curved scissors can cause leaks that “may create a pathway for electrosurgical energy to leak to tissue during use and potentially cause thermal injury.” In the notification statement, according to CNBC, Intuitive Surgical said that it had no evidence of any injuries actually caused by the micro-cracks.

“This is potential evidence that can be used in court to prove the serious alleged dangers associated with the da Vinci Surgical System,” said Rochelle Rottenstein, principal of RLG. “Medical technology can be a valuable part of a patient’s treatment, but a device must not do more harm than good.”

In other da Vinci robot news, Intuitive Surgical is currently a defendant in a trial in Washington State in which it is accused of improperly training surgeons in the use of the surgical robot (Estate of Fred E. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical Inc.; 09-2-03136-5, Superior Court, Port Orchard, Wash.). It is the first of about a dozen da Vinci lawsuits in the United States to go to trial, according to Bloomberg. Intuitive Surgical asserts that it is fully committed to superior training opportunities for surgeons and surgical teams in the use of its products, but notes that it does not participate in determining when a surgeon is adequately prepared to operate using the da Vinci Surgical System. According to USA Today, the da Vinci surgical robot was used in about 400,000 surgeries in 2012.

Pfizer lost patent protection for Lipitor in 2011, which led to other manufacturers’ selling cheaper generic versions of the drug. Given the great number of Lipitor users, that switch to generic plays a large role in reduced spending, according to a May 9 Reuters report.

But despite the availability of inexpensive Lipitor, RLG principal Rochelle Rottenstein notes that studies have been released that indicate there could be some serious risks that go along with using Lipitor. She cites a January 2012 study in JAMA: Internal Medicine that indicated there is a potential link between statins and a Type 2 diabetes risk in women.

“Even though generics present a cheaper alternative, there are still some people buying name-brand Lipitor,” Rottenstein said. “Those people are at risk of suffering the alleged side effects that could make them eligible to file a lawsuit.”

Plaintiffs across the United States have filed lawsuits, many of which are under consideration for consolidation into a multidistrict litigation for efficient pretrial proceedings (In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin) Litigation, MDL No. 2459 (JPML)).

The most common side effects reported to the FDA include the expulsion of the device and the device dislocation (migration), according to a recent AdverseEvents report. This is supported by a 2008 FDA report that mentions those alleged side effects, in addition to perforation of the uterine wall and pelvic inflammatory disease as primary potential issues.

“We file Mirena lawsuits daily for those who believe their intrauterine devices have harmed them,” said Rochelle Rottenstein, principal of the Rottenstein Law Group. “These reports could be valuable evidence for Mirena plaintiffs during trials.”

Women across the United States have filed lawsuits that have been consolidated at the federal level (In re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2434, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) and in at least one state (In re: Application for Centralized Management of Certain Cases Involving Mirena, Morris County (N.J.) Superior Court) there has also been a consolidation.

The Mirena IUD is a plastic contraceptive device that slowly releases a type of the hormone progestogen over the course of five years. It was first introduced in 2000 and is manufactured by Bayer.

A New England Journal of Medicine article dated May 2, 2013, states that physicians deciding whether to prescribe azithromycin—which is often sold under the brand names Zithromax and Z-Pak—should consider “data point[ing] to lethal arrhythmias as a potential consequence of QT-interval prolongation with use of azithromycin” and other medication. The possibility of azithromycin increasing a patient’s risk of lethal arrhythmias is especially important for physicians to consider when weighing the pros and cons of antibacterial drug therapy “for patients with preexisting cardiovascular risk factors or clinical conditions in which antibacterial drug therapy has limited benefits,” the article states.

As a law firm that represents thousands of clients in lawsuits seeking compensation for injuries allegedly caused by dangerous drugs and medical devices, RLG urges anyone who has suffered the alleged adverse side effects from Zithromax or any other prescription medication to speak to a qualified personal injury lawyer as soon as possible. The firm maintains a Zithromax Lawsuit Information Page that has features that allow for easy sharing, including links for automatic posting on Facebook and Twitter, specifically to enable visitors to spread the word about the dangers of Zithromax.

The new drug, Liptruzet, is found to lower cholesterol but does not lower the risk for cardiovascular disease, according to a May 3 New York Times article. Despite Lipitor’s popularity there is at least one study that shows it has its own share of risks. According to a study in JAMA: Internal Medicine, there is a potential link between statins and a Type 2 diabetes risk in women.***

“The FDA makes regulatory choices every day, but this one is troubling,” said Rochelle Rottenstein, principal of RLG. “This is especially true when considering the side effects we hear about daily from clients, in addition to the impact these choices can have on Lipitor lawsuits.”

Prompted by the drug’s potentially serious side effects, plaintiffs across the nation are filing Lipitor lawsuits, many under consideration for consolidation into a multidistrict litigation (In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin) Litigation, MDL No. 2459 (JPML)).